Coping with a Parent in Prison:
An Agenda for Policy Reform
Conference Outcome Report
A presentation of research findings and
policy recommendations at the EU level

For me, COPING has meant
getting through
a tough time in life...from
the moment my father
was sentenced,as I have
continually adapted to
changes in my life”
-Young Man from the
COPING Research

Featuring recommendations from
the young people who presented.
With Keynote Speech highlights from MEP Jean Lambert and
an introduction by the Right Hon the Baroness Hale of Richmond
6 November 2012 / Brussels / Musée du Cinquantenaire

The COPING (Children of Prisoners: Interventions and Mitigations to Strengthen Mental Health)Project
was funded by the EU Seventh Framework Programme Contract # 241988

Introduction
Contributed by the Right Hon the Baroness Hale of Richmond
It was a great pleasure to have been invited to open the COPING end-of-project conference in
Brussels on 6 November 2012, and to draft the introduction to this ensuing outcome report. The
COPING project has brought together ten partners to study the characteristics, vulnerabilities
and resilience of children with a parent in prison in four very different European countries. I
am very happy that this project is being led by Professor Adele Jones of the University of Huddersfield, in my own county of Yorkshire in the north of England. I am much less proud that my
country of England has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the European Union. We are
seventh out of the twenty-seven countries; we imprison one hundred fifty-four people per one
hundred thousand of our population. Among those imprisoned, there are many parents, both
mothers and fathers. For far too long our criminal justice system has operated without giving
much, if any, thought to the impact on the children of those who are arrested, remanded, tried,
convicted, and sentenced to imprisonment. Children can be seriously affected at each stage in
that process, and each of the agencies involved needs to be alive to this to see what they can do
to mitigate the harm done to the children.
The COPING study shows, for example, that being there when a parent is arrested can be deeply
traumatic for a child. My own experience as a judge in the family division of the High Court has
shown that the trauma is much worse when the parent arrested is a sole carer. When the parent is remanded in custody, the COPING study shows that children need to be able to visit their
imprisoned parent very soon so that they can be reassured that the parent is safe and well. This
also helps dispel some of the scary stories about prison which are put around by our media. The
more people we lock up, the harder it is to find the money to provide facilities for families, which
some may see as inessential luxuries. But we should never forget that children are not to be
blamed or punished for what their parents have done; they are not the guilty ones.
In the long term, children need two things: good parenting while the other parent is away; and,
in most cases, regular contact with the imprisoned parent. This study points to the importance
of schools in providing support for these children, helping to head off the stigma which they
might feel. Another important finding in COPING is that children miss their fathers as much as
their mothers, and it is therefore just as important to remain in contact, either direct or indirect,
with whichever parent is in prison. Unless proper attention is paid to each of those needs, these
children are vulnerable in a variety of ways, as this study shows.
Until quite recently, the issue of children affected by parental incarceration has not been regarded as a children’s rights issue—but it surely is a children’s rights issue. Article 8 of the European
Convention of Human Rights guarantees to “everyone” the right to respect for their private and
family lives. “Everyone” includes children as well as grown-ups. The prevention of a disorder
or crime is of course the legitimate aim of the interference, but the question remains whether
the seriousness of the crime is such as to justify the seriousness of the interference of the child’s
rights. The European Court of Justice is clear that the European Convention must be interpreted
in the light of other international instruments; Article 8, in particular, has to be interpreted in
light of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Article 3 of the UN Convention
states that in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary
consideration, not the paramount, not even the primary consideration, but still a primary consideration, which has always to be taken into account. Article 24(2) of the European Union
1

Introduction

Drawing from a child in
France - expressing his
emotions and perspective of the police in the
waiting area of a prison
before visiting his father.

Children’s drawing provided by the European Network for
Children of Imprisoned Parents (Eurochips)

Charter of Fundamental Rights is to exactly the same effect. Article 9(3) of the UNCRC requires
that States Parties ‘respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to
maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it
is contrary to the child’s best interests’. Article 24(3) of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights says exactly the same. Article 9(4) CRC states that if a parent is imprisoned, ‘States
Parties shall provide essential information concerning the whereabouts of the parent unless the
provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child’— not the wellbeing of the system.
The legal systems of our countries should therefore also be recognizing and respecting the rights
of these children. I am proud that the UK has gone some way towards doing this. Sentencing
judges are required to give thought to the impact upon family life of his or her children if a
parent is to be imprisoned. The English Court of Appeal decided that in two important cases.
Recently the Supreme Court of the UK held that extraditing judges, including those executing
European Arrest Warrants, are required to treat the welfare of any child involved as a primary
consideration. I have a feeling that the UK is somewhat in the forefront of recognizing the family
rights of children and the welfare rights of children in these particular contexts. I hope that this
is a trend that will spread throughout Europe.
Sometimes there is no realistic alternative to imprisonment, however great the detriment to
a child. The important lesson to emerge with the COPING research is that everyone who plays
a part—either in the criminal justice system or in the parenting and education of the children
involved — needs to recognize the needs of these children and make proper provision for them.
This research is vital to introducing these matters to the wider policy agenda, but it is of course
only the beginning of what I hope will be a great movement to recognize the interests of these
very important and vulnerable children in our criminal justice systems.
-The Right Hon the Baroness Hale of Richmond

2

The COPING Project
On any given day, an estimated

800,000 children
have a parent in prison in the European Union*
Although the rights of children of prisoners to family life and welfare are enshrined in international conventions, policies and support initiatives are not
keeping pace.

The COPING (Children of Prisoners, Interventions and Mitigations to Strengthen
Mental Health) Project is a landmark FP7 Framework-funded study providing
scientific data on children of prisoners. The child-centred research spanned
three years, during which time over seven hundred children affected by parental incarceration in Sweden, Germany, Romania and the UK were interviewed
to better understand their resilience and vulnerability to mental health issues.

From the early stages of the project, emerging findings suggested similar themes
and consistancies regarding children of prisoners throughout the four nations
involved. As the years progressed and the findings continued to be examined,
the consortium members of the COPING Project began to plan for the international and Pan-European implications of their research. It was the similarities
amongst the children throughout the study which provoked the end of project
conference in Brussels, in an effort to have maximum policy-impact at the EU
level by presenting COPING to an international audience of experts.
Coping with a Parent in Prison: An Agenda for Policy Reform brought together
over one hundred professionals, practitioners and policymakers from across
Europe to participate in the launch of findings and policy recommendations
from the project.
The following report summarizes the events of the day, including presentations
from the researchers, children of prisoners from Sweden and individual pledges from the afternoon expert panel session.
* Source: Eurochips. Extrapolation based on a demographic ‘parenting rate’ established by rance’s national
statistics institute (INSEE) in 1999 as part of a national census, which included 1,700 male offenders.
3

Chair & Opening Speech
Conference Chair Maja Gabelica Šupljika is the
Deputy Ombudsman for Children in Croatia and
is a psychologist by profession. Her main activities in the Office of Children’s Ombudsman are
coordination and supervision of substantial activities in the Expert Service Department. She
has worked as a psychologist in a kindergarten,
has conducted diagnostic procedures in the
psychiatric department of a health institution
and provided courses on children’s rights and
on developmental psychology to students and
to those who come into contact with children’s
rights such as police officers and journalists.
Gabelica Supljika was instrumental in getting
the issue of children of prisoners off the ground
in Croatia, demonstrating the key role that the
Children’s Ombudsperson Offices throughout
Europe can play in garnering support for these
children. Gabelica Supljika announced the programme for the day. She welcomed Baroness
Hale, who introduced the subject and opened
the conference.

Maja Gabelica Supljika

“All in the criminal justice,
social welfare and education
fields should recognise the
needs of this group of children
and make proper provision
for them.”

-The Right Hon the Baroness
Hale of Richmond

Lady Hale is a Justice of the Supreme Court of
the United Kingdom, which was set up in October 2009 to take over the jurisdiction of the
“Law Lords” in the House of Lords. She was the
first woman “Law Lord” and is the first and
so far the only woman Justice of the Supreme
Court. Unlike most UK judges, she has had a
varied career - as an academic lawyer, a member of the Law Commission (a statutory body
set up to promote the reform of the law), and
then a judge of the High Court, Court of Appeal
and now the Supreme Court. She is President of
both the United Kingdom Association of Women Judges and the International Association.

RT HON LADY HALE OF RICHMOND,
DBE, PC, LL.D, FBA- Justice of the Supreme Court

In her opening speech, Hale stressed the importance of the United Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child (CRC) in relation to children affected by parental incarceration.

4

Keynote Speech
“I don’t think that the children
whose parents are in prison
are taken into consideration in
terms of resources, attitudes
and awareness at the EU level.”
-MEP Lambert

MEP Jean Lambert

Jean Lambert, MEP London, gave the keynote speech of the conference. Lambert has
campaigned specifically for refugee children throughout her career. Outlined the difficulties relating to children of prisoners, she acknowledged challenges in defining what
constitutes the best interest of the child. In particular, Lambert focused on child poverty
rates throughout the EU.
One-fifth of children in the European Union live in poverty. Lambert suggested utilizing
the existing EU 2020 Strategy and National Action Plans aimed at child poverty to better
focus on children of prisoners. She emphasized her shock that the number of children
affected by parental incarceration exceeds those affected by divorce, those in state care,
and on the child protection register. (UK statistics)

Given the mental health difficulties Coping found, Lambert also drew attention to the
Council of the European Union conclusions on ‘The European Pact for Mental Health and
Well-being: results and future action (3095th EMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL POLICY, HEALTH
and CONSUMER AFFAIRS Council meeting - Health issues - Luxembourg, 6 June 2011).
The Mental Health in Youth and Education (preventing abuse, bullying, violence and social exclusion) strand involves:
•	
•	
•	

Programs for parenting skills
Programs for training of professionals
Programs for early intervention

In addition, Lambert also:

•	
Outlined various channels to raise the profile of this vulnerable group of children
such as the European Parliament – in particular through the Alliance for Children.
•	
Offered her personal support to work on behalf of these children.

Lambert reminded the conference that the EU works within the framework of the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child and urged that the EU should further link in with
recommendations on its implementation issued by the Council of Europe. Since the
5

Keynote Speech
Lisbon revisions (2006) Article 3 of
Treaty of the European Union states that
the Union “shall combat social exclusion
and discrimination, and shall promote
social justice and protection, equality
between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the
rights of the child.” In addition Article
24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights
guides the Commission in drafting all
relevant EU legislation to ensure it provides children the same protection, care
and requirement to have their best interest considered, their voices heard and
a right to personal direct contact with
their parents, such as the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child. Since 2006,
the Strategy on the Rights of the Child
and the Charter of Fundamental Rights
have introduced indicators looking at
the impact of EU law and policy on children including the family environment,
education and access to health care. The
Commissioner reports annually with the
Charter of Fundamental Rights and this
provides an opportunity to raise the issue of children of prisoners. She mentioned the need to develop processes to
ensure children are properly consulted.
Lambert also drew delegates’ attention
to the possibility of funding, particularly
for training through the Daphne Programme strand on Fundamental Rights
and Citizenship.
She also emphasized the need for proper training of professionals to ensure
that policies are put into practice and
would also offer a way of taking Coping
conclusions to the Member States.

“ I look forward to working with
you for children of prisoners in the
Parliament.”
-MEP Jean Lambert

In 2008, MEP Roberta Angelilli produced
a report aimed at mainstreaming child
rights, and since then she has created
the Alliance for Children, which works
across all political groups and countries.
Another consideration for the Alliance is
the child’s voice and how children can be
supported to be able to be active participants and can access support and information.
Lambert mentioned that later in November, the Forum would be discussing child
poverty and health. Looking at any legislation or policy, MEPs should consider
the impact on children of prisoners.

6

Presentation of Project Findings
Adele Jones, Director of the COPING study, presented an overview of the landmark project.

Jones focused on the primary objective of the
project - mainly to identify the characteristics of
children of prisoners, their resilience and their
vulnerability to mental health problems. The
research reflects a spectrum of various levels
of incarceration, welfare policies and interventions to support children of prisoners across the
four EU countries studied.

25% of children

with a parent in prison are
at risk of mental health problems
Adele Jones
Director of COPING
University of
Huddersfield

COPING identified broadly comparative data
about children’s needs, resilience and self-esteem, across the four countries.

The project is one of the most in-depth qualitative studies of children of prisoners, involving a
substantial number of participants, producing
a high volume of transcript data, and employing advanced analytical techniques. COPING is
unique in having a child-centred and child-focussed approach. The quality of data has been
enhanced by including both children’s, parent/
carers and imprisoned parents perspectives; as
well as through stakeholder consultations.
Project findings take the research of this hardto-reach and under-supported group to a largescale pan-European level and will provide the
basis for much work by researchers and NGOs
for years to come in taking forward the understanding of, and development of support for the
needs of children of prisoners.

Jones concluded by thanking all those who took
part in the study, particularly the children.
COPING findings about existing services for children of prisoners were presented at the conference by Matthias Schuetzwohl from Technische
Universitat Dresden.
The existing targeted and general services and
interventions for children of prisoners in the

Matthias Schuetzwohl
Universitat Dresden

community and in prisons across
the four countries have been identified, mapped and documented
and these are the summary findings.
· In the UK, Germany and Sweden,
a significant number of prisons
do not offer any intervention that
explicitly aims to meet the special
needs of children of prisoners.

· Across all countries assessed,
the number of community-based
specialised services and interventions for families of prisoners was
rather low and non-existent in Romania.
7

Presentation of Project Findings
COPING Project Sample

SWE
9,415 m
UK
62,436 m

1 prisoner
per 1000

59
91

1.3 per
1000
DE
81, 751 m
0.8 per
1000

60
RO
21,413 m
1.3 per
1000

88% of imprisoned parents were fathers

Martin Manby
University of Huddersfield

139

Anne H Berman
Karolinska Institutet

The presentation of the COPING research findings was given by Anne H. Berman of the
Karolinska Institutet and Martin Manby of the University of Huddersfield.

Berman began by presenting background information regarding the prison populations in the four countries researched in the study.

The study concluded that there are about 81 million prisoners in Germany with 0.8
prisoners per thousand inhabitants, 9 million prisoners in Sweden, with 1 prisoner
per thousand, 62 million prisoners in the UK and 21 million prisoners in Romania,
both with 1.3 prisoners per thousand. A total of 0.4% of the estimated total population of children of prisoners in the four COPING countries were surveyed with a total
of 737 children, 479 families and 1,347 individual surveys. COPING researchers also
conducted face-to face interviews, a total of 349 divided between the children, their
parent/carers, and their imprisoned parent.
The two presenters underpinned several important theoretical concepts to provide a
background of information for the audience.
These concepts are as follows:

1. Risk for intergenerational crime
One background aspect to the COPING project is the risk for intergenerational crime,
8

Presentation of Project Findings
which is whether parental imprisonment
increases the risk for children to grow up
to commit crimes. There have been various
studies in this (Murray, Janson & Farrington,
2007) and Murray, Farrington, Sekol & Olsson (2009). The latter, comparing 16 studies from several European countries and the
US, showed that children with imprisoned
parents ran twice the risk of antisocial behaviour and poor mental health outcomes
compared to children without imprisoned
parents. Also, processes of stigma, attachment disruption, financial and social strain
on the family, and poor quality childcare
are also associated with later mental health
problems for these children.
2. Stigma

The situation of having a parent in prison
can easily lead to stigma. Parental imprisonment can lead to children being labelled
as different, as having an undesirable characteristic and being in a category of ”them”
as opposed to ”us”. The main emotion
connected to stigma is shame. Being stigmatized can have negative mental health
effects, related to loss of status and discrimination. COPING hypothesized that children
of prisoners would experience stigma and
its effects.
3. Attachment issues

The concept of attachment refers to the
quality of the bond between parent and
child. A child can have different styles of attachment to different adult caregivers. John
Bowlby’s theory and research by Mary Ainsworth and others have shown four basic
attachment types: secure, where the child
trusts that the parent will be available in
any frightening situation; or three types of
insecure attachment: ambivalent, where
the trust has been interrupted and the child

is not sure of whether she will be comforted
or rejected; avoidant, where the child has
learned from experience that he will be rejected by the parent in times of need; and
disorganized, where the pattern of attachment is unpredictable. Earlier secure attachments can be disrupted when a parent
who was trusted is suddenly taken away to
prison. And insecure attachments—existing or new—can lead to deficient social and
moral functioning in adults.
4. Ambiguous loss

The theoretical concept of ambiguous loss
can contribute to disruption of more secure
attachment patterns. Ambiguous loss, a
term minted by Pauline Boss, refers to loss
where a loved person is physically absent
but psychologically present, like divorce,
immigration or imprisonment. Boss says
that ambiguous loss is the most stressful
kind of loss, because the normal funeral
rites are absent and so is and mourning that
allow normal grief leading to acceptance
and closure. But with ambiguous loss, it can
be very confusing over a long time whether
the imprisoned parent is in or out of the
family. It is not possible to grieve over the
absent parent, and with uncertainty and
stigma, children of prisoners tend to suffer
from post-traumatic stress and internalizing behaviour leading to depression, or externalizing, antisocial behaviour (Bocknek
et al., 2009).
5. Resilience

The concept of resilience, positive adaptation to life after adverse events, is helpful to
understand how children deal with stigma,
attachment issues and ambiguous loss. Resilience can be seen as a process affected by
personality factors, biological factors, environmental systematic factors or an interac9

Presentation of Project Findings
interaction between all three. Particularly important are environmental aspects
termed protective and vulnerability factors.
Pauline Boss suggests that resiliency when
faced with ambiguous loss involves finding
meaning, reconstructing identity, normalizing ambivalence, revising attachment and
discovering hope.

Berman and Manby continued by presenting the COPING findings on children’s perception of parental incarceration and wellbeing effects of having a parent in prison.

Generally, about 50% of all the COPING children (90% of whom had contact with their
parent) felt there were bad effects of having their parent in prison, slightly higher in
Sweden and slightly lower in Romania. Over
10% of the children overall experienced

good effects, about 20% in Germany, 25%
in Sweden and under 10% in the UK. (The
question was not asked in Romania).
However children did not avoid the negative consequences of the imprisoned parent’s behavior. One Swedish child said: “He
never calls. Because mum says like when he
gets out the only thing he has on his mind
are drugs and alcohol, or theft. And when
he is in prison then he thinks only of me
or mum and calls.” UK children saw good
effects because the imprisoned parent’s
health had improved in prison after better
diet, and not using drugs. Children were
also glad their imprisoned parents gained
access to education courses in prison.

Overall, 91% of children had contact with their imprisoned parent
10

Presentation of Project Findings
Continuing with their presentation, Berman and Manby also discussed the overall
children’s well-being by parents and children.

The pan-European norm, or mean, for the
KidScreen questionnaire, based on 22,000
European children, the parent assessment
and the children’s own reports all suggest
the level of their overall well-being . All are
generally below the mean, although quite
near it. The lowest dimensions are the psychological and the autonomy/parent relation dimension. There were country differences but Romanian children have generally
lower well-being than the other countries.
Children 11+ risk higher mental health
difficulties (see figure on next page).

The Strengths and Difficulties questionnaire reveals how many difficulties the children generally are experiencing, here children 11 and older, rated by their parents.
The higher the score, the more difficulties
they have. Generally the Romanian children
have more difficulties than the children in
the other countries. Children from all countries are significantly higher than the norm.
Only the Romanian children are clearly
in the risky range (risk for higher mental
health difficulties) and none of the children
in the COPING sample are in the high-risk
range. So perhaps despite difficulties, the
COPING children have quite a lot of resilience.

11

Presentation of Project Findings

The presentation continued
with a focus on children’s
self-esteem.

The COPING children’s selfesteem is surprisingly high,
particularly in Germany,
where the COPING children
are slightly higher than
the norm. They are slightly
lower than the norm in Romania and the UK and there
are no usable norms in
Sweden for the Rosenberg
Self-esteem questionnaire
used.

DE Norm - 31.7, RO Norm - 29.5 & UK Norm - 30.6
12

Presentation of Project Findings
COPING data from interviews
Manby introduced some general themes
emerging from the interview findings:
One theme is about children and families adjusting to parental imprisonment,
emphasising being ‘normal’ as far as possible. Another theme is about children
being traumatised and confused.
A main challenge for children is coping
with mixed, ambivalent and contradictory feelings. One of the main findings is
that how parents talk to children about
imprisonment is crucial. Friends and
schools matter to children, as does having an adult to talk to. Mainly from UK
evidence, children appear to miss imprisoned fathers as much as imprisoned
mothers.

Family conflict, family violence and
substance use impair children’s resilience. Family violence was found to be
particularly prevalent in the Romanian
study. One Romanian parent commented:
“In terms of family life it is hard because
my husband is violent, to me and the children.”
Country differences:

A key coping strategy for children in Sweden was their ability to acknowledge
and share distress. They seemed articulate at describing their feelings and were
able to talk to their care-giving parent,
their school, friends and NGOs.

Resiliency Factors:

Two young people from Sweden talked
about information sharing:

Care-givers’ and extended families’
support was found to be crucial for children’s resilience in all four countries. The
Romanian report described “… close emotional relationship/secure attachment to
(the) care giver (as the) main resilience
factor for children”. The report also found
evidence of “increased child empathy,
acting as a cohesive factor that reflects on
relationships with others, especially with
(the) mother left alone”.

“Well it feels like if one is going to tell that
the parent is in prison for murder … (then)
one wants to like explain that he had been
submitted to abuse 8 years before as an explanation, so it becomes a rather long story. Because otherwise I think it gets very
uncomprehending.” (Young woman aged
17)

The child’s relationship with the imprisoned parent is crucial. Children
need help with coping with the imprisoned parent’s moral failure and sense of
shame, and their own embarrassment.
Children also need to understand the nature of the offence. They may tend to idealise the imprisoned parent.

“We children are good at imagining when
we are not told the truth. The grown-ups
always say that they don’t know, but …
they know more than what we do and that
is what we want to know.” (13-year-old
girl)

Strong evidence about support from
schools for children in the UK, Sweden
and Germany. One child, aged 9 with a
mother in prison, in the UK, spoke about
her school:

“Say if I wanted my mum, they (teachers)
would probably say: ‘Calm down and go
and wash your face because you have been
13

Presentation of Project Findings
crying, wipe it with a paper towel and
sit down and calm down and carry on
with your work, there is nothing to worry
about.’ The teachers, they aren’t nasty,
they are nice.”
Two children in the UK aged 9 and 10 described their ambivalent feelings about
their father being in prison:
“I did try not to let out my tears and tried
to move on, but it didn’t really work.”
(10-year-old girl)

“I don’t really want to say what’s happened. I don’t like keeping it in, but I don’t
really want to say it out loud.” (9-year-old
girl)
In Germany, children’s coping strategies included: dissociation from the guilt
of the imprisoned parent; talking to other
children of prisoners; and whitewashing,
avoiding negative feelings. The latter has
been described as “cognitive dissonance
reduction” (reducing the discomfort
of holding contrary emotions). This is
against the key role of strong family and
school support in Germany.
A 14-year-old girl in Germany said:

“My sister and me – we are real masters at
suppressing things.”
A German parent commented:

“There is stigma, and we women and children suddenly have a flaw, for which we
are not responsible. We can’t go into public
with this flaw. And that’s bad. Really bad.”
In Romania children showed strong
signs of resilience by maintaining social relationships and valuing ties with
there extended families. Poverty is

widespread in Romania and this impacts
on prison visits and schooling.

More evidence was found in Romania
of stigmatisation and moral disapprobation, possibly linked to parents in the
Romanian sample having been convicted
of more serious crimes; and there was
more evidence of bullying by peers at
school.

In the Romanian sample there were seven
examples of children becoming “an adult
in miniature” taking on parental roles.
One Romanian mother commented:

“It helped that I told the truth, as we started talking more.”
A Romanian imprisoned father didn’t
want his children to know about his
crime…
“but everything came out in time … my
middle son told me once: ‘Dad, you killed
someone and you didn’t say anything
about this’; and I could not respond anything. I was speechless.”
Further General Resiliency Factors
Schools are able to enhance children’s
resilience. They emerge from the research as children’s most important resource after the family. Schools can help
with academic performance and homework. They are also able to provide emotional support, and signposts for counselling. However, it is also important to note
that some schools are less helpful, or even
punitive.
Early, continuous and open contact
with the imprisoned parent, and a
child-friendly environment within the
14

Presentation of Project Findings
prison, contribute to children’s resilience.
Support from the care-giving parent and
extended family are important in facilitating children’s contact with the imprisoned parent, providing transport and
support. Telephone contact emerged as
important for day to day communications
and support.
Support from Agencies

NGOs play a key role in supporting children of prisoners. Examples include Treffpunkt father-child groups in Germany;
Bryggan’s therapeutic support for children of prisoners in Sweden; and POPS
expertly facilitating access to prisons in
the UK. There were mixed views about
statutory services in Germany, Sweden
and the UK. Support services for children
of prisoners are under-developed in Romania.
Gender

A key area for further research is to explore whether parental imprisonment
impacts differentially on boys and girls.
COPING evidence indicates that girls
seem to handle their feelings better, and
that boys seem more likely to be disruptive. As noted already, there are indications that having a mother or father in
prison impacts equally on children.
Psychological well-being of parent/
carer

Additionally non-imprisoned parents
were surveyed. Their well-being may affect their ability to provide the crucial
support children need.

Non-imprisoned caregiving parents
suffer from significantly reduced quality of life in comparison to the general

population in their respective countries.
In Romania the non-imprisoned parent
experienced extremely low physical quality of life(possibly because in the Romanian COPING sample prisoner parents
there were high levels of substance users and violence ), and in Germany their
psychological quality of life was markedly
lower than elsewhere.
COPING analysis and correlation between children’s needs and services:

With significant variations between the
countries, just under 50% of the children
said they needed more help and 70% said
they had received help with coping with a
parent in prison.
The top three needs for children of prisoners identified in all four COPING country studies from a questionnaire including questions on health, school, holidays
and other aspects of children’s daily lives
were:
1.	
Help visiting a parent in prison
2.	
Being with family after school
(interpreted as a need for strengthening
family relationships)
3.	
Help with homework:

	
A. There is a clear statistical correlation between the children’s lower
self-esteem, well-being physically and
satisfaction with school, as well as greater difficulties, identified in all four countries by all the measures used (Kidscreen,
Strengths and Difficulties and Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale), and the children identifying their “need to be with family after
school” the second most prevalent need
among children.
	
B. On the basis of the numerical
mapping, there is a further association
between the children’s “need to be with
15

Presentation of Project Findings
family after school” increasing as the provision of community and prison-based
interventions designed specifically for
children of prisoners declines across the
four countries.
Manby concluded by highlighting the following points:

•	
Romanian children have greater
difficulties (SDQ) and more need for help
than children in the other countries
•	
High difficulties (SDQ) and low
self-esteem (R) correlate highly with
need for help in all countries
•	
Less physical well-being (KidScreen), less school satisfaction (KidScreen), lower self-esteem (R) and greater difficulties (SDQ) predict the need for
help with strengthening family relationships.
•	
Higher level of country intervention seems to be associated with less
need.
However:

COPING is exploratory and the sample selective. COPING had many more children
who already had contact with supportive
services, and those who don’t, were missing except in Romania. Further research
is needed.

Main conclusions about children’s resilience are:
•	
The type of offence and the length
of sentence are important variables.
•	
25% of children of prisoners were
found to be at high risk of mental health
problems, rising to nearly 50% of children in Romania.
•	
Having a mother or father in prison impacts differently on boys and girls.
•	
The evidence has highlighted the

important roles of the care-giving parent
and the extended family (particularly in
Romania).
•	
Schools have a key support role,
particularly in Sweden, Germany and the
UK.
•	
Most agency support is provided
via NGOs in Sweden, Germany and the
UK. There is an absence of support services in Romania.
•	
While many children are initially
traumatised at the point of parental arrest and imprisonment, it seems that a
majority adjust, eg., to prison visits and
security.
•	
Good quality contact with the
imprisoned parent is important for children’s resilience.
•	
Most children’s self esteem survives parental imprisonment.
Theoretical conclusions:

Resilience Theory: COPING found much
evidence of children ‘bouncing back’ after
the shock of parental imprisonment.
Attachment Theory: the damaging impact of separation is mitigated by the role
of care-giving parents. Impacts vary for
different ages of children of prisoners.

Intergenerational Crime: evidence from
the interviews was that positive support from social services and NGOs can
mitigate the impact of parental imprisonment, particularly in Sweden.

Causality Debate: COPING confirms the
significance of parental imprisonment
as a key risk for children of prisoners (in
Sweden, UK and Germany, which are comparatively wealthy, as well as in Romania,
which is much poorer).
16

Presentation of Project Findings
Gender Differences: evidence from the
UK is that children miss their father in
prison equally as much as their mother;
and also that girls are more able to talk
about their feelings, and that boys are
more likely to display disruptive behaviour at home and at school.
Ambiguous Loss: the relevance of this
concept is strongly confirmed for children of prisoners.
Stigma: evidence found of wide country
variations. Self-stigmatisation was highlighted in Germany. Societal stigma may
be harsher in Romania.

Children’s drawings provided by Eurochips

17

Project Recommendations
COPING research recommendations paralleled by young
people’s solutions
Alex Hirschfield from Huddersfield University introduced
the COPING study recommendations.
On the basis of the findings, COPING has developed recommendations, which seek to promote the rights, needs
and wellbeing of children of prisoners at pan-European,
international and national levels. Hirschfield outlined the
method used to write the recommendations by establishing:			
(1) Context
What is the reason for the recommendation
Why is it necessary?
(2) Recommendation 	
What needs to happen?
(3) Action Plan 	
	
How might it be implemented & by whom?
(4) Preconditions
	
What does the recommendation depend on? 	
What needs to be in place for it to work?

Alex Hirschfield
University of Huddersfield

He identified and gave some outline to the following five
areas where improvements in policy and practice are
needed across the EU:
1.	
Child-friendly Criminal Justice Systems
2.	
Maintaining Contact with the Parent in Prison
3.	
Advice and Support to Parents and Care Givers
4.	
The Role of the School
Public Awareness and Policy Recognition
5.	

Later in the day, young people from Sweden who had been working with the NGO Bryggan on their recommendations, presented their solutions to the difficulties they faced;
perhaps not surprisingly and validating the research findings, the young people’s solutions considered almost all the topics raised by the COPING research study in areas 1-5.
For this reason the recommendations raised by COPING and presented by the young
people are displayed in the following pages alongside the official COPING recommendations, according to the different issues the young people raised.

18

Recommendation 1
Children have the right to get information that is
important to their health and well-being
Issue for children of prisoners
(presented by young people):

Solutions by young people:

•	
Often adults lie for different reasons, such as to protect children from
harm or to avoid disappointing them.

•	
Guidelines and advice should be
available for parents on how to tell their
children about parental imprisonment.

•	
The children may often have questions long after the parent is released
which are ignored.

•	
Children are not getting enough information about what is going on with the
parent, where they are going to be or when
their coming back.

•	
All children should be given the
truth however the information should be
adjusted according to the child’s age.

•	
Parents ought to tell the children
right away, which will make it easier for
the children to understand the situation.
  
•	
If the parent is not willing to tell
their children after receiving support, a
trusted adult or social services should tell
the child. The one telling it should know
about children’s needs.

•	
Children should always have the
opportunity to ask questions to their parents, either at the time being or afterwards,
without fearing the parents’ reactions.

COPING Recommendations:
•	
NGOs should advertise support services to families and criminal justice agencies
.
•	
EU Member States should
•	
Mental health and social welfare profession- recognise support of care-giving
als should give advice and support to parents and parents, grandparents and siblings.
caregivers about telling children about the imprison•	
Imprisoned parents should
ment of their parent.
be offered opportunities to contrib•	
Parents/caregivers and imprisoned parents ute to their children’s daily lives,
should carefully consider sharing information about including involvement in schooling,
when feasible.
parental imprisonment with their child’s school
•	
Care-giving parents and imprisoned parents
should consider the crucial importance of sharing
information with children about parental imprisonment.

19

Recommendation 2
Child’s right to privacy /police raids
Issue for children of prisoners
(presented by young people):
Police raids on family homes are often an
uncomfortable and frightening process for
young people and little regard is given to
the children’s needs.

Solutions by young people:
•	
A more sensitive approach to arrest
when dealing with families.

•	
Providing a safe place for children
to go when houses are being searched.
•	
Provide families with information
leaflets (designed by young people).

•	
Training of police to be more childfocused.

•	
If police arrest parents when children are present they should have some
kind of special training in child’s needs.
Possibly one member of the police stays
behind/or comes back to give information
to the children and parent.

COPING Recommendations:
All governments and/or state bodies should review their arrest and search policies and
procedures in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), giving
due consideration to manner of an arrest, the delivery of a timely, age-appropriate explanation to the child at the point of arrest and the means by which the child and their family
access support during and subsequent to an arrest.

20

Recommendation 3
Children have the right to not be discriminated against
Issue for children of prisoners
(presented by young people):
•	
People hear rumours and make up
their own stories and make it worse than it
already is.

•	
People talk badly about both the children and parents and that the child is as
dumb as their parents were.

•	
Often people get the picture that all
the people in prison are evil and dangerous.

•	
Sometimes the parent hasn’t done
anything evil but all people from the outside
make a picture that all people in prison are
bad people, just bad and evil people, period.

Solutions by young people:
•	
Schools should take more responsibility because children who have a parent
in prison can feel lonely and different like
they stick out.

•	
Schools should have theme days to
clear out rumours and give a better picture
of how it is for a child to have a parent in
prison. To make it normal to have a parent
in prison, and to not make it awkward.

•	
Schools should talk about the legal
system in civics class, to give the pupils a
better picture of the criminals and prisons.

•	
Children can feel not welcomed to
school because they feel different from everyone else.

COPING Recommendations:
•	
Media should be sensitised on the relationship between reports on parental incarceration.

•	
Across the EU, education authorities should include the children of
prisoners as a vulnerable group in their
strategic planning.

•	
Decision-makers should ensure that
Training materials for teachers,
anyone whose work impacts children of prison- •	
school
counsellors
and others should be
ers considers their best interests, needs and
produced and used to raise their awarerights.
ness of the emotional and educational
•	
Schools should identify children of pris- support needs of children of prisoners.
oners who are pupils in ways that are discreet
and non-stigmatising, develop greater awareness of their needs and offer them appropriate
support.
21

Recommendation 4
Children have the right to information and support and
the right for their parents to receive support
Issue for children of prisoners
(presented by young people):
•	
It’s not always easy for young people
to speak to parents about issues arising from
parental imprisonment. Fear of overburdening parent/carers in an already stressful
time.

•	
There could be conflicts and sometimes violence between parents, and they
could be because of drinking or taking drugs.
•	
The children might not tell anyone
because they want to protect their parents.

Solutions by young people:
•	

Provisions of counsellors.

•	
Support groups with other young
children of imprisoned parents.

•	
Formation of closed groups is significant to feel safe in disclosing.
•	
Police and social services should
act when someone worries about a child.

•	
Helpers have to build trust with the
child so that the child can be honest about
what the problems in the family can be.

•	
The parent on the outside has to get
support, themself and to understand what
it is like for the child.

COPING Recommendations:
•	
NGOs and support agencies should be encouraged to include support for families    
of prisoners and run activities specifically for children of prisoners.
•	

NGOs should advertise support services to families and criminal justice agencies.

22

Recommendation 5
Children have the right to maintain contact with the imprisoned parent and right to leisure activities
Issue for children of prisoners
(presented by young people):
•	
A problem for children when visiting
a parent in prison is that they are placed in
prisons far away. The child cannot visit as often as the child would like.
•	
Visits process may interfere with
children’s social life, especially as they get
older.

•	
It is hard to keep contact that one
would like with the imprisoned parent.

When a parent is in remand prison in
•	
Sweden, it takes a long time to get into contact with them.

Solutions by young people (advice to social services, parents
and others):
•	
Possibility of an adult to support
children in visiting at times when parents
are unable or unwilling.  
•	
Young people should have financial
support to go visit a parent in prison.

•	
Social Services should be more engaged in helping the child to visit.
•	
Contact between child and parent should always be out of the needs and
will of the child. Sometimes it may not be
something that the child wants or needs.

Solutions by young people (advice to
COPING Recommendations:
Prison Probation Service):
Provide visit groups or visi•	
Prison Staff to be properly trained & flex- •	
tor
centres
at or near the prison. This
ible visiting hours within the prison
•	
Children and parents allowed to use the should involve easy booking procedures,
information to families prior to the visit
gym facilities.
•	
More use of Family Days & creative means and support before and after the visit.
of contact (i.e. video links, telephoning into
Prisoners should be able to make
prison etc..) - children suggestion boxes provided.•	
and receive affordable telephone calls
•	
Use electronic tags more instead of imfrom their family.
prisonment.
•	
Parents on remand in Sweden should be
•	
Prison authorities in all EU Memallowed to have contact with their children.
ber
States
should ensure that all prison
•	
Consideration of the distance from the
staff behave in a respectful, child-friendchild when choosing a prison for a parent.
ly manner when dealing with families.
23

Recommendations Conclusion
The overlap between the young people’s solutions and
COPING recommendations arising from the findings is
striking and persuasive. Recommendations not covered
by the young people’s solutions included the court aspect
of child-friendly criminal justice systems as well as policy awareness and consideration of children of prisoners
throughout the judicial process.
Hirschfield questioned how far the best interests of the
child were considered at the sentencing stage, especially
when the imprisoned parent is the only carer. The UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child makes it clear that
children should have the right to be heard in matters that
affect them, including what takes place in judicial proceedings.
In conclusion, Hirschfield stated that the precondition of all
other recommendations being implemented is raising society’s awareness of the existence of children of prisoners
and gaining the commitment of governments and agencies
across the EU to make meeting their needs a policy priority. He concluded by stating: “We believe that raising their
profile higher up the policy agenda at both the EU and national level would be a fitting legacy of the COPING study.”

Alex Hirschfield
University of Huddersfield

The Impact of COPING on NGOs
Once the COPING recommendations were presented, members of the consortium representing the NGP partners presented the impact of COPING on NGOs. This was presented by Liliana Foca - Asociata Alternative Sociale, Diane Curry OBE- Partners of
Prisoners, Kate Philbrick OBE - European Network for Children of Imprisoned Parents.
•	
COPING partner NGOs include the European Network for Children of Imprisoned Parents (Eurochips), Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO), Partners of Prisoners
Families Support Group (POPS, UK), Bryggan (Sweden), Asociata Alternative Sociale
(Romania) and Treffpunkt e.V. (Germany). Contact details provided at end of report.

•	
COPING partner NGOs welcomed COPING findings as a bedrock of solid research to complement their fieldwork and as a springboard for change to meet the
needs of children of prisoners.

24

Young People’s Presentation
The conference were honoured that young people from the UK (mostly via DVD) and
from Sweden were prepared to share both their experiences and their learning with the
conference. The solutions presented by the young people are included in the general
recommendations in the previous section. The following are drawings from children of
prisoners and a quote and poem presented at the conference.

“It was really hard. Me and my
mum and my brother doing all the
work while he was away. You can’t
ring him when he’s in prison, because sometimes the phones are
broken and he can’t phone me and
sometimes his credit goes.”
-Swedish Child at Conference

Drawings provided by Eurochips

The teacher that didn’t understand
I got the thing that I loved taken right out my hands.
I snapped. I’m not taking this crap.
I tried to get to you through this rap.
You see you never see the truth beneath the lies.
I got to pick up my remains.
Why is it always me that gets blamed.
You can’t see through the fog you’re just making it harder.
You think you know the real truth about my father.

-Provided via DVD presentation by a child from the UK
25

Expert Panel Session
Using Findings to Develop Policy Change
A panel session of experts concluded the afternoon session by responding to questions and generating new ideas to address the various needs of children of prisoners
within their own fields. They all agreed to place children of prisoners higher up on
their agendas.
The panelists were as follows:

Verena Knaus
UNICEF Brussels Senior Policy Advisor
Margaret Tuite
Children’s Commissioner Coordinator
for Child’s Rights

Rachel Brett
QUNO Representative for
Human Rights & Refugees
Stefan Enggist
World Health Organization
Prison & Policy Officer
Throughout the panel session each panelist was given the opportunity to present their
reactions and reflections on the presentations of the COPING findings and recommendations. In addition, the floor was opened to questions from the children as well as
other delegates - to which the panelists responded. This process facilitated conversation and generated new ideas and insights into the topic of children of prisoners
throughout Europe.
The following pages highlight the contributions from each panelist during their opening remarks as well as the Q & A period.

26

Expert Panel Session - Rachel Brett
The Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) serves as a Quaker presence at the United Nations (UN). Brett chaired the panel session by guiding conversation through highlighting
various project findings and recommendations.
Brett promised to lobby for clauses on health relating to prisons and children when the UN
Standard Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners are revised.
In addition, Brett noted:

•	
The European Network of Ombudspersons for Children (ENOC) is an important
channel for raising the issues of children with parents in prison.

•	
Professionals may welcome changes, and working with them may be more effective
than lobbying politicians.

Expert Panel Session - Stefan Enggist
“The current edition of the WHO Prison Health Guide chapter on women
has a paragraph on children; but in the second edition, I will ensure that
there is a focus on fathers and more consideration of children.”
-Enggist

WHO Europe spans fifty-three countries, and the spheres of justice and public health, recognizing and respecting the issue of mental health in prisons.
Enggist addressed:

•	
Interest in looking at how the well-being of children would impact on prisoners’
well-being.
•	

The importance that the COPING findings be disseminated everywhere.

•	
There is very little in the European Prison Rules about prisons and children; when
the EPR are revised, they should consider children more.
•	
The fact that children are important to both mothers and fathers and the judicial
process needs to reflect and acknowledge this fact.
•	

Men represent 95 per cent of prisoners.

•	
In terms of prison health, a father would be affected by the loss of contact with the
child when he is in solitary confinement.

•	
In raising awareness concerning children of prisoners, he suggested using videos
and testimonies of children, because this affects people’s emotions.
•	
The fact that incarceration costs a lot can also be an influential argument and tool in
raising awareness about the topic of children of prisoners.
27

Expert Panel Session - Margaret Tuite
Tuite’s role focuses on mainstreaming child’s rights, particularly as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 24) and the UNCRC (Article 8) – specifically her involvement
in data collection, particularly on children in judicial proceedings (children as suspects, witnesses, etc.).
“My remit includes the rights of the
Tuite pointed out that whether the issue is protected
child with a special focus on vulby law or policy doesn’t matter. Contact between chilnerable children and, as of today’s
dren and their imprisoned parents should not be reconference, vulnerable children
duced to a disciplinary measure and she suggested we
will include children of prisoners.”
lobby that this should be for all parents and not just for
-Tuite
mothers.
She highlighted three relevant framework decisions, all of which have broad objectives that
could provide a focus for lobbying:
1.	
The transfer of prison sentences (implemented by 12 Member States + Croatia)
Probation (implemented by 7 Member States and Croatia)
2.	
European Supervision Order (implemented by Latvia)
3.	
In addition, Tuite addressed:

• Implementing the EU Agenda on the Rights of the Child-in Member States, strengthening
the rights of children of prisoners; Eurochips is involved in the child-friendly justice issue
and the child’s rights forum. DG Justice is mapping rights with a particular focus on child
participation and vulnerable children.
• Importance of data collection, to complement EU work.

• Current DG Justice finding through the Daphne Programme has prioritised training on the
rights of the child, communicating with children and child-friendly justice.

• The recent deinstitutionalization campaign (to take children out of institutional care, that
is orphans or other children in state care, should not be in institutions but in foster care). In
that case, NGOs, civil society and Member State officials all worked together and developed
tool kits and guidelines on deinstitutionalisation. She recommended using Member States
in the advocacy strategy: “We don’t necessarily need new laws to do things.”

• The importance of mapping issues relevant to children of prisoners. It is of great value to
governments to know what’s happening. They are setting up a Member State expert group
on the rights of the child. This could be an opportunity to start developing legislation and a
European platform.
• The EU can encourage consultation with children with imprisoned parents and can develop practical approaches to issues such as arrest procedures.

• For a social inclusion angle, consideration should be given to the Recommendations on
child poverty. There is currently no discussion of care in child’s rights, whose funding programs and priorities are for training and child rights clinics.
28

Expert Panel Session - Verena Knaus
One of UNICEF’s roles is to develop best practice and guidelines relating to different groups of
children. Knaus’ role at UNICEF is as senior policy advisor relating to EU institutions.
Knaus advocated the need for prisons to develop normality of contact for these vulnerable young people using technology such as Skype and email (response to
question from young person).
“I hadn’t appreciated until now what a large group children of prisoners are, and that they have common vulnerable specificities.”

“This research has made invisible
children visible and I will add children of prisoners to the group of
vulnerable children who should be
considered and recognised.”
-Knaus

In addition, Knaus addressed:

• The issue of fathers, particularly with respect to the idea of attachment of children. It is
very important in terms of rehabilitation that parents and children know how to interact
with one another. UNICEF and the Committee on the Rights of the Child focus on attachment
for children up to seven years old. Input in the early years is much more cost effective.
• Prison layouts-how should they be constructed to accommodate the needs of children?

• The need for prisons to develop normality of contact for these vulnerable young people
using new technology, and developing practical guidance for low-cost support based on
good practice.

• The schools finding confirms what most people already knew and that there should be
training and information for everyone in schools, as well as funding for that process. This
could be raised at the UNICEF National Committees.

• Everyone who interacts with children of prisoners should receive training. It must be
cross-cutting and holistic as an approach, consideration needs to be taken in how to best
accomplish this goal.
• The silent harm of uncertainty as expressed in her own research on the impact of forced
returns through migration on the psychosocial health of children. The research found that
children need certainty of when and how things are happening to them and their parents.
Knaus noted that the findings revealed that children of prisoners frequently experience the
silent harm of uncertainty from arrest through to imprisonment.
• The fact that while there is some research on the child’s right to health, there is less developed work on their right to mental health.

• All arguments must be used to raise this issue. The cost issue of imprisonment should be
considered and the costs to children and society. Consideration is needed in how to extend
the rule of law to include the softer aspects-for example into facilities for those who are affected.
29

Conclusion

Drawing provided by Eurochips
(full gallery available on the
Eurochips website)
In her concluding remarks, Eurochips’ Director Liz Ayre spoke about COPING’s legacy for
change, highlighting how, as a process, COPING demonstrated through its child-centred
methodology that the opinions of children and young people matter.

In addition, COPING was not only an extraordinary vehicle for awareness-raising but also
served as an instrument for change. Since 2011, for example, the Romanian Justice Ministry has been requesting that all prisons in Romania record the parental status of prisoners,
a decision based on emerging findings indicating the need to record information on prisoners’ children. This is a major step forward, given that the vast majority of EU countries
do not record parental status of prisoners, and the actual number of affected children is
unknown. The inability to establish this and other baseline measures, such as the number
experiencing scholastic difficulties or housing problems, hinders efforts by NGOs to “report
back” to decision-makers on the success of support initiatives for children.
COPING now provides scientific, robust data on a scale not seen before in the field, allowing practioners to draw on this data instead of advocacy research data or “soft” data that
resonates less with decision-makers. It demonstrates the need for future research, not only
longitudinal but also research that reaches children who are not in contact with their parents in prison.

Another legacy of the COPING project is a special issue devoted to children of prisoners in
the journal Sociologie si Asistenta Sociala, guest edited by Professor Adele Jones with the
Department of Sociology and Social Work at Alexandru Ioan Cuza University in Romania
and published to coincide with the COPING conference.
To obtain copies, contact: an-soc-as@uaic.ro<mailto:an-soc-as@uaic.ro> (Daniela Soitu).
For more information on the COPING project please see http://www.coping-project.eu/

30

Further Information
For a more in-depth understanding of what is available in the different partner countries for
children of prisoners please look at the websites of these participating non-governmental
organisations.
Alternative Sociale - Romania
www.alternativesociale.ro
•	
Work with probation, integration of former prisoners, and strong networks with the judiciary.
•	
Support for different groups of disadvantaged people.
•	
Team of trainers for professionals across Romania working with children and with prisoners.
•	
Authors of working methodologies addressed to professionals in the area of child protection and
also for judges, prosecutors, and police workers.
Bryggan - Sweden
www.riksbryggan.se

•	
NGO for children that have or had a parent in prison, on remand, or other sentences in court, including running youth groups.
•	
Support to families and teens including offering activities.
Partners of Prisoners & Families Support Group (POPS) - UK
www.partnersofprisoners.co.uk
•	
POPS is an organisation that not only helps young people but also their families from the point of
arrest, throughout the sentence and after release. Prisoners’ families founded POPS and they remain at the
heart of everything POPS does.

European Network for Children of Imprisoned Parents (Eurochips) – pan European
www.eurochips.org
•	
•	
•	
•	

only pan-European network for children of imprisoned parents.
active within prison-related, child’s rights and child-welfare fields.
seeking to boost awareness and achieve new ways of thinking.
acting and interacting on issues concerning prisoners’ children.

Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) – international
www.quno.org

•	
Facilitates dialogue and works on specific issues, including children of prisoners in a manner that is
unique in the UN community. QUNO advocacy is carried out in a number of ways, particularly by facilitating
informal, open negotiating processes in which all participate on an equal footing.
Treffpunkt –Germany
www.treffpunkt-nbg.de
•	

Over the past twenty years has been running a counselling centre for family members of prisoners.

Report created by Eurochips - 2013
A downloadable version is available at www.eurochips.org
31