Amicus Curiae Brief — Overton v. Bazzetta

Supreme Court brief2003

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 02-94 |

In the

Supreme Court of the Anited States

WILLIAM OvERTON, DIRECTOR OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Petitioners,

Vv.

MICHELLE BAZETTA, ET AL.,

Respondents.

On Writ Or CERTIORARI 10 THe UNITED STATES

Court oF APPEALS For THe S1xtH Circuit

BRIEF OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME AND

DELINQUENCY; JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMITTEE OF THE

CRIMINAL LAW SECTION OF THE AMERICAN BAR

ASSOCIATION; CENTER FOR CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED

PARENTS; THE CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA;

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS;

MICHIGAN CHAPTER OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL

WORKERS; CENTERS FOR YOUTH AND FAMILIES; CENTER

FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL POLICY; ARKANSAS VOICES FOR THE

CHILDREN LEFT BEHIND; FAMILY AND CORRECTIONS NETWORK;

(Amici Curiae continued on inside cover)

Jitt M. WHEATON

Counsel of Record

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC

400 RENAISSANCE CENTER

Detroit, MI 48243-1668

(313) 568-6551

Attorney for Amici Curiae

BECKER GALLAGHER LEGAL PUBLISHING, INC.,

CINCINNATI, OHIO 809-890-5001

———— eA =

IBEST AVAILABLE C

CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE; MICHIGAN COUNCIL ON CRIME

AND DELINQUENCY; MICHIGAN FEDERATION FOR CHILDREN AND

FAMILIES; CHILDREN AND FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER; MICHIGAN

PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICE; NATIONAL NETWORK

FOR WOMEN IN PRISON; LEGAL SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH

CHILDREN; UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL

OF SOCIAL WORK; CHICAGO LEGAL ADVOCACY TO

INCARCERATED MOTHERS; MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION FOR

CHILDREN WITH EMOTIONAL DISORDERS; PRISON REFORM

ADVOCACY CENTER; PORTIA PROJECT/PROJECT LINK-UP; PRISON

ACTIVIST RESOURCE CENTER; YOUTH LAW CENTER; ROSEMARY

SARRI, Ph.D.;AARON MCNEECE Ph.D.; HAROLD S. GAZAN, M.S.W.;

JAMES E. ROLLIN, Ph.D.;PATRICIA RIDEOUT; ROSARIO CEBALO, Ph.D.;

TOM CROXTON, M.S.W.;BARBARA BADEAR ALDAVE AND MICHIGAN

STATE SENATORS ELIZABETH BRATER; GILDA JACOBS: AND

MARTHA G. SCOTT AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

AND SEEKING AFFIRMANCE

Page

TE, « «204 0660900000085 iv

INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE .......... l

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................ 4

ARGUMENT 20... cece cece rece cesccceens 5

I. CHILDREN ARE _ SIGNIFICANTLY

HARMED WHEN THEY CANNOT VISIT

THEIR PARENTS OR OTHER CLOSE

RELATIVES IN PRISON ........-02000:. 5

A. The Number Of Children Who May Be

DT cess Gneeeeeedencnadecc< 6

B. The MDOC Regulations Restrict

Children From Visiting Incarcerated

Parents And Other Close Relatives 7

1. Minor nieces and nephews of

prisoners may not visit ....... 7

2. Children for whom parental

rights have been terminated

may not visit their parents ..... 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3. Prohibition of visits by former A. Familial Relationships Are Protected

prisoners who are _ not By The First And Fourteenth

immediate family members can Amendments ..... 19

excludethe only adultavailable

to accompany a visiting child. .. . 10 Ill. THE MDOC REGULATIONS ARE NOT

. an REASONABLY RELATED TO A

4. The requirement that visiting LEGITIMATE PENOLOGICAL INTEREST .. 21

children be accompanied by an

adult immediate family member A. There Is No Valid Connection Between

or legal guardian denies The Regulations Restricting Visitation

visitation to children ......... 10 By Children And A _ Legitimate

DE 66 évenndnenes

5. Permanent bans on visitation ee =

completely exclude children B. There Are No Adequate Alternative

PG coscannseeseeeeen 12 Means Available To Exercise The

Right To Familial Association Other

.. Failure To Visit Imprisoned Parents Than Visitation ....... 24

Or Other Close Family Members SERPS hs Mn 8 = finns nioieniany meget a vine yok Gwin

Causes Significant Emotional, | Di ckcccctseceuesaaes 26

Psychological And Developmental i.) A. Si rier ON Rice OT nice

i i . in ok owe bbe 6 OKs 12 EE trite Saad eet on ob Raa la

D. State And Federal Policies And |

Practices Encourage And Facilitate

Visitation Between Parents And

Children, And Presume That Such

Visitation Is Beneficial ............ 17 |

THE RESPONDENTS, INCLUDING THE

CHILDREN, HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT TO FAMILY INTEGRITY,

INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO

NON-CONTACT VISITATION ........... 19

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases

M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996) ........... 20

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) ........-. 20

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) . 20

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) ..... 20

Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) ....... 20

Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246 (1978) .........- 20

Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) . 20

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982) .......-.. 20

Smith v. OFFER, 431 U.S. 816 (1977) ............ 21

Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) .......---. 20

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) ....... 8, 19, 23

Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987)... .....0655. 21

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) suweneceeos 20

Statutes and Rules

2B C.PR. 6 S4D4O 2. ccc cece sccccccsccveces 18

—_—_—— ——

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, Title II of

Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-220 . 24

Even Start Family Literacy Act, Pub. L. 106-554 .... 24

Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997,

Pub. L. No. 105-89, § 103(a(E) .............. 9

Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.6609 et seq. ....... passim

Mich. Comp. Laws § 712A.2 nee 11

Mich. Comp. Laws § 712A.13a ................ 17

Mich. Comp. Laws §712A.18f ................ 17

Mich. Comp. Laws §712A.19b ................ 11

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27a ................. 18

Treatises, Articles, and Other Publications

American Correctional Assoc. Standard 34440 ...... 18

Barnhill, Presentation at Woman Offender Symposium:

Through the Eyes of a Child (Sept. 2000) .......... 14

Bernert & Ikle, Evacuation and the Cohesion of Urban

Groups, 58 Amer. J. Sociology 133 (1952) ......... 13

Dowden & Andrews, What Works For Female Offenders:

138 ee ee 15

Gauch, When Mothers Go To Prison: When You're Behind

Bars, Does Your Family Life Have To Crumble?

16 Human Relations 33 (1959) ..... 2... 6. eee eee 14

Florida Corrections Commission 2001 Annual Report . . 15

Hairston, Family Ties During Imprisonment: Do They

Influence Future Criminal Activity? 52 Federal Probation

4B (1988) wee eee ee ewes eneeee 15

Hairston, Prisoners and Families: Parenting Issues During

Incarceration, prepared for U.S. Dept. of Health and

Human Svcs. "From Prisons to Home" Conference

(Jam. 2002) 0... ce ee eee renee eeeees 15, 25

Krisberg & Temin, The Plight of Children Whose Parents Are

in Prison, for the Federal Sentencing Report

1 ites) ) ee 14

Mumola, Incarcerated Parents and Their Children,

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Statistics Special Report (Aug. 2000) ..... 6, 9, 11, 24

On Prisoners and Parenting: Preserving the Tie That Binds,

87 Yale L.J. 1408 (1978) ......-- eee cere eens 16

Odlum, Psychological Effects of the War on British

Children, 2 American Medical Women’s Ass’n

ATE CIBET) ow ccc ccccecccccerssvesevccens 13

Parke & Clarke-Stewart, Effects of Parental Incarceration on

Young Children, prepared for U.S. Dep't of Health &

Human Svcs."From Prison to Home"Conference

(Jam. BOOZ) 0. ccc cccceccccsnvcccsvess 14

Rallying the Armies of Compassion, White House News

Ph dekudhed eeu kduenbsiee> 7

Sack & Seidler, Should Children Visit Their Parents in

Prison? 23 Law & Human Behavior 261 (1978) ..... 15

Sarri, Children of Incarcerated Mothers, in What About Me?

Children of Incarcerated Parents (Trzeninski,

Satyanathan & Ferro, ed.) (March 2002) ......... 15

Satyanathan, Overview, in What about Me?

Children with Incarcerated Parents (Trzeinski,

Satyanathan & Ferro, ed.) (March 2002) ..... 7,9, 24

Skinner & Swartz, The Consequences for Preschool Children

of a Parent's Detention: a Preliminary South African

Clinical Study of Caregiver's Reports, 30 Child

Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines 243

DEE. £64 G4 Ghe nee Obe eee eebhaseess 13

Slaight, Family And Offender Treatment; Focusing On The

Family In The Treatment Of Substance Abusing

Criminal Offenders, 19 J. Drug Education 53 (1999) . 15

Travis, Waul, & Solomon, The Impact of Incarceration and

Re-entry on Children, Families and Communities, for

the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Svcs. "From Prisons

to Home" Conference (Jan. 2002) .............. 6

Understanding and Supporting Foster Children With

Incarcerated Parents, Jordan Institute for Families

PC Se6 Ce beet ceases oe aseeenesés oe 14

United Nations Minimum Rules for the Treatment

i de 18

INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE’

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.3, the parties have

consented to the filing of this brief. Letters confirming such

consent have been filed with the Court.

The National Council on Crime and Delinquency is

a nonprofit organization dedicated to preventing and reducing

crime. It, and the Michigan Council on Crime and

Delinquency, are interested in this case because there is

strong evidence that contact between children and their

incarcerated parents ameliorates the children’s problems and

helps the parents upon release.

The Juvenile Justice Committee of the Criminal

Law Section of the American Bar Association is interested

in this case because the ABA Legal Status of Prisoners

Standard 23-6.2(d) states, “prisoners should be able to receive

any visitor not excluded by correctional authorities for good

cause.” The Children and Family Justice Center is a

children’s law center serving the children of Chicago. The

Youth Law Center is a non-profit public interest law office

serving abused and at-risk children.

The Child Welfare League of America is a national

association of public and private child and family-service

organizations, and is interested in this case because it supports

all efforts to facilitate visitation between children and

incarcerated family members as visitation reassures children

of their parents’ love, and motivates parents in their

' Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, counsel for amici

curiae has authored this brief in whole. Dykema Gossett PLLC,

amici’s counsel, has paid entirely for the preparation and

submission of the brief as part of its pro bono program.

rehabilitation efforts.

The National Association of Social Workers

(“NASW”) is a professional organization with 150,000

members. The NASW and the Michigan Chapter of the

NASW are interested in this case because the NASW

Statement on Correctional Social Work states that social

workers should develop and advocate necessary family

programs for incarcerated individuals. The School of Social

Work at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock is

interested in this case because the denial of visitation is

detrimental to children already traumatized by parental

incarceration. The Center for the Study of Social Policy is

interested in this case because it believes that children have

the right, and need, to see their incarcerated family members.

The Centers for Youth and Families and the

Arkansas Voices of the Children Left Behind consist of

professionals and volunteers serving incarcerated parents and

their children in Arkansas. Family and Corrections

Network is a nonprofit organization of agencies and

individuals concerned with issues facing families of prisoners.

The Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents is a non-

profit organization which provides programs for children of

incarcerated parents. The above are interested in this case

because they believe that visitation with incarcerated family

members is fundamertal to the well-being of children and

families.

The National Network for Women in Prison

advocates on behalf of female inmates nationwide and The

Portia Project/Project Link-Up provides services to women

in Oregon prisons. Legal Services for Prisoners with

Children and Chicago Legal Advocacy to Incarcerated

Mothers provide legal services to incarcerated parents and

their children.

The Michigan Federation for Children and Families

is a Statewide association of child and family service agencies,

interested in this case because they believe visitation with

imprisoned parents is critical to children’s development and

adjustment. The Michigan Protection and Advocacy Service

is a non-profit organization designed to protect and advocate

the rights of individuals with disabilities, including prisoners.

The Michigan Association for Children With Emotional

Problems is a nonprofit organization that wants to ensure that

children with emotional disorders are not deprived of

visitation with incarcerated family members, which is

essential to the children’s development.

The Prison Activist Resource Center in Oakland,

California and the Prison Reform Advocacy Center in

Cincinnati, Ohio are interested in this case because they

provide advocacy and resources to prisoners and their family

and friends.

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota is

a federally recognized tribe of 13,270 Native Americans,

interested in this case because Native Americans are

significantly over-represented in state prisons, therefore, such

children are disproportionately impacted by family visitation

restrictions.

Prof. Emeritus Rosemary Sarri, Ph.D., Univ. of

Mich. social worker, has found that women prisoners often

encounter problems in parental legal matters due to the fact

that courts expect there will be some face-to-face contact

between mother and child. Prof. Aaron McNeece, Ph.D..,

Florida State Univ. social worker, has found that inmates who

have regular visits from their families adjust better within the

prison and have a reduced likelihood of recidivism. Harold

Gazan, M.S.W. served as Director of the Mich. Dep’t. of

Social Services, Bureau of Child and Family Services, and

believes that visitation by children with their incarcerated

parents is necessary to maintain the child’s emotional bonds

with the parent. Prof. James Rollin, Jane Addams College

of Social Work, believes that children who fail to bond with

their parents by lack of contact are at increased risk of social

problems.

Patricia Rideout, J.D. has twenty-two years

experience as a guardian ad litem, Juvenile Court referee, and

child welfare agency administrator, and believes the

regulations at issue are detrimental to most children of

prisoners, especially those in foster care. Prof. Emeritus

Tom Croxton, J.D., M.S.W., Univ. of Mich., is a former

juvenile court director who believes that the regulations at

issue unfairly punish children and are counterproductive.

Prof. Rosario Ceballo, Ph.D., Univ. of Mich. Dep’t. of

Psychology, believes visitation between children and

incarcerated parents is in the best interest of the child.

Barbara Bader Aldave is a Professor at the Univ. of Oregon

School of Law. Elizabeth S. Brater, Gilda Jacobs, and

Martha G. Scott are Michigan State Senators from the 18",

14", and 2™ Districts, respectively.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Over one and a half million children in the United

States have a parent in prison. Social science data

demonstrates that visitation with imprisoned parents or other

close family members benefits, rather than harms, children.

Moreover, such visitation is a necessary and indispensable

component of the right of familial association, long recognized

by this Court as one of the most fundamental of Constitutional

rights. The visitation restrictions at issue are not reasonably

related to a legitimate penological interest, and there are no

adequate alternative means to exercise the right of familial

association other than visitation. It must be borne in mind that

the Petitioners are applying the restrictions at issue to non-

contact visits, the very nature of which eliminates many of the

concerns expressed by the MDOC. Amici curiae urge the

Court to affirm the decision of the United States Court of

Appeals of the Sixth Circuit, and strike down the regulations

as unconstitutional.

ARGUMENT

I. CHILDREN ARE’ SIGNIFICANTLY

HARMED WHEN THEY CANNOT VISIT

THEIR PARENTS OR OTHER CLOSE

RELATIVES IN PRISON.

. The challenged regulations have the effect of denying

children, who are not responsible for the incarceration, the

opportunity to visit their imprisoned parents and other close

relatives. Studies show that the children will be emotionally,

psychologically, and developmentally harmed by this

additional forced separation from their loved ones. In

addition, the regulations are directly contrary to well-settled

policies, which hold that children have a right to visitation

with parents and other relatives when it is in their best

interest, even if their parents may have been found to be

neglectful or abusive in the past.

A. The Number Of Children Who May

Be Affected.

Although the regulations at issue are currently in place

only in Michigan, Petitioners have asked this Court to rule

that there is no constitutional right whatsoever to visitation.

Such a ruling would, of course, apply to all states and the

federal system. It is therefore important to point out the

number of children who will be affected by this Court's

decision.

As of 2000, almost 1.5 million children in the United

States had a parent in prison. Christopher Mumola,

Incarcerated Parents and Their Children, U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (Aug.

2000). (Attached as Appendix A.) Fifty-six percent of all

state and federal prisoners have minor children. (/d.) Fifty-

eight percent of the children with incarcerated parents are

under ten years old, with a mean age of eight. (/d.) Twenty-

two percent of these children are under age five. There are

racial and ethnic disparities as well: almost seven percent of

all African-American children, three percent of all Hispanic

children, and one percent of all white children in the total

population have a parent in prison. (/d.)

These children are already considered to be at high

risk by social workers and child welfare agencies. They

typically live in poverty, suffer feelings of fear, anxiety,

abandonment, embarrassment and guilt, and are at increased

risk for poor academic performance, gang participation,

substance abuse, teen pregnancy and juvenile delinquency.

See, e.g., Jeremy Travis, Michelle Waul & Amy Solomon,

The Impact of Incarceration and Re-entry on Children,

Families and Communities, a Background Paper for the U.S.

Dept. of Health & Human Svcs. “From Prisons to Home”

Conference (Jan. 2002); Deborah Satyanathan, Overview

contained in What about Me? Children with Incarcerated

Parents (E. Trzeinski, D. Satyanathan & L. Ferro, ed.)

(March 2002). (Attached as Appendix B.) President Bush

has recognized the special needs of these children, initiating

a federal program providing grants to organizations providing

services to the children of prisoners, and calling for volunteers

to serve as mentors to these children. See, e.g., Rallying the

Armies of Compassion, White House News Report (Jan.

2001). As then Governor George Bush said

NAACP Convention: . mime ane

More than a million children have one or both

parents in prison. These are forgotten children

~ almost six times more likely to go to prison

themselves. And they should not be punished

for the sins of their fathers. . . . Let us bring

help and hope to these innocent victims of

crime.

B. The MDOC Regulations Restrict

Children From Visiting Incarcerated

Parents And Other Close Relatives.

. Each of the MDOC visitation policies at issue results

in the denial of visitation to children, as specified below.

1. Minor nieces and nephews of

prisoners may not visit.

Under Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.6609(2)(b) only

minors who are children, stepchildren, grandchildren or

siblings of the prisoner may visit. By excluding minor

nieces, nephews or cousins, the regulation terminates the

ability of these children to visit family members who often

play a significant role in their lives. Should the regulation

again be changed to exclude siblings, it would be all the more

harsh. Minor nieces and nephews are unable to visit, even if

the prisoner served as the child's surrogate parent prior to

incarceration.’ This restriction also ignores the structure of

modern families, where aunts and uncles can be as close to a

child as a parep’ = . As this Court noted in

Troxel v. Graréile, 530 U.S. 57, 63 (2000), “the

: demographic changes of the past century make it difficult to

speak of an average American family.” The important role of

extended family members is especially true in African-

American and Hispanic families, which make up the majority

of children of prisoners.

2. Children for whom parental

rights have been terminated

may not visit their parents.

The regulations at issue also prohibit children from

visiting their parents if the parental rights have been legally

terminated. Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.6609(6)(a). In the

2 After the district court entered its opinion, MDOC

changed its regulations to allow visits from minor siblings, which

it had previously prohibited. However, because the MDOC

appears to assert its right to impose this restriction again if it so

fesires, amici address this restriction herein.

’ Illogically, the regulations define aunts and uncles who

served as the prisoner’s surrogate parent as immediate family

members (Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.6609(9)(k)), but fail to

recognize that the prisoner him or herself may have played the

same role for nieces and nephews.

» : PS ed wey om er

prison setting, the legal termination of parental ri

does not signal the intended end a pene

relationship. Prisoners often voluntarily terminate parental

rights in order to enhance their child’s stability by allowing

relatives and friends to adopt them. The adoptive parents

however, have every intention of allowing the child to

continue his or her relationship with the prisoner parent. (See

testimony of Dr. Terry Kupers at TR Vol. 6, pp. 147-148;

Suellyn Scarnecchia at TR Vol. 1, pp. 195-197.) Therefore.

the regulations cut off a parent-child relationship even where

all involved intend the relationship to continue.

| Or, in a Catch-22 situation, parental rights ma

terminated due to the incarceration itself. phe

of mothers in prison report that their children are in foster

care during their incarceration. Mumola, Appendix A at la.

Under the Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997

Pub. L. No. 105-89, § 103(a)(E), if a child is in foster care

for fifteen of the last twenty-two months, the state can begin

proceedings to terminate parental rights. Moreover,

imprisonment itself may be considered neglect or

abandonment, resulting in the termination of parental rights.

Satyanathan, What About Me?, Appendix B at 19a. Thus. the

fact of the parent’s imprisonment, or the child’s placement in

foster care during the incarceration, may result in the

termination of parental rights, which then results in the loss of

visitation under the regulations.

3. Prohibition of visits by former

prisoners who are not

immediate family members

can exclude the only adult

available to accompany @

visiting child.

If a child’s unrelated legal custodian happens to be a

former prisoner, regardless of the offense or the date of the

offense, he or she cannot, because of the regulations,

accompany the child to visit in prison, thus excluding the

child from visits altogether. Mich. Admin. Code R.

791.6609(7). For example, a child’s unmarried father could

not accompany the child to visit because he is not the mother's

immediate family member and had a conviction twenty-three

years ago. (See testimony of Dr. Terry Kupers, TR Vol. 6,

p. 146.) This also prevents former prisoners who have turned

their lives around from assisting current prisoners on a

professional or volunteer basis. (See testimony of Joyce

Dixson, TR Vol. 7, pp. 130-32, former prisoner who is now

a social worker working with children of the incarcerated, but

who may not take these children to visit their parents.)

4. The requirement that visiting

children be accompanied by

an adult immediate family

member or legal guardian

denies visitation to children.

This rule, Mich. Admin. Code R. coma

excludes two different groups of children from visiting. irst,

the requirement that a child be accompanied by an adult

accompanying children due to the regulation’s definition of

_—

“immediate family” ,* which excludes relatives who may be

the child’s caretaker, such as the prisoner’s sister- or brother-

in-law, cousin, niece or nephew, and excludes friends or

neighbors serving as caretaker. Significantly, the Dep’t. of

Justice statistics show that over ten percent of prisoners report

that during their incarceration, their children were placed with

friends or other persons to whom the prisoner was not related.

Mumola, Appendix A at 3a. The restriction also excludes

foster parents or foster care workers, and ten percent of

children of prisoners are in foster care. Id.

Second, a legal guardianship in Michigan requires the

filing of papers with the court, the payment of a fee, and

regular reports to the court, and can require one or more court

appearance. (See testimony of Prof. Scarnecchia, TR Vol. 1,

pp. 190-91.) In addition, a legal guardianship places the

parent's right to regain custody after incarceration at risk. See

Mich. Comp. Laws § 712A.2(b)(3-5) (guardianship is a basis

for taking abuse/neglect jurisdiction over child); Mich. Comp.

Laws §712A.19b(3)(d-f) (guardianship is a basis for

termination of parental rights). There is an alternative legal

means available to provide custody to a non-parent. A parent

may provide a power of attorney to the caretaker by filling out

a single form and having his or her signature witnessed and

notarized. Typically, there is no cost or court involvement

and, most significantly, the parent does not place his or her

parental rights at risk. (See testimony of Prof. Scarnecchia,

TR Vol. 1, p. 189.) Under the regulations, however, children

’ Immediate family is defined as a “grandparent, parent

stepparent, spouse, mother-in-law, father-in-law, child, step-child

— der thet

served as a surrogate parent.” Mich. Admin. Code

who are in the custody of an unrelated adult with a legal

power of attorney cannot be accompanied by that adult to

visit, thus denying the child visitation.°

5. Permanent bans on visitation

completely exclude children

from visits.

When a prisoner is banned permanently from all

visitation under Mich. Admin. Code R. 791.6609(11), the

prisoner’s children and minor relatives are also completely

barred — even from non-contact visits. The next section

outlines the severe impact on children of this permanent ban,

as well as the other denials of visitation described above.

Cc. Failure To Visit Imprisoned Parents

Or Other Close Family Members

Causes Significant Emotional,

Psychological And Developmental

Harm To Children.

Dr. Terry Kupers testified in the district court

as follows:

[L]iterature in the mental health field stresses

the importance of visitation [between parents

and children] to somehow counteract

those...negative tendencies of separation.

’ Prior to the regulations at issue, a power of attorney was

sufficient. Although the MDOC’s purported reason for changing

the regulation was that powers of attorney were too easy to forge

(see testimony of Marjorie Van Ochten, TR Vol 1, p. 85, Kenneth

McGinnis, TR Vol. 8, p. 36), the MDOC provided no evidence of

any instance of forgery of a power of attorney.

Separation is an extremely traumatic event for

children. If separation is relatively benign, it

is relatively benign to have a divorce in the

family and to have both parents remain in close

contact with the child, still, children

experience this as a massive trauma depending

on their age and situation. Well, having a

parent in prison is a much more massive

trauma, and then being cut off from that parent

is just often insurmountable in terms of the

child’s psychological development.

(TR Vol. 6, pp. 148-149.)

When parents and children are separated, regardless of

the reason, the child typically focuses more on what may

happen to the parent than on what may happen to them.

Donald Skinner & Leslie Swartz, The Consequences for

Preschool Children of a Parent’s Detention: a Preliminary

South African Clinical Study of Caregiver’s Reports, Child

Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines 243 (March

1989). Studies indicate that children are more stressed by

being separated from parents than by being with them in

unsafe places. Children also fear the unknown, and suffer

anxiety if they cannot picture where their parent is and see for

* Doris Odlum, Psychological Effects of the War on

British Children, 2 American Medical Women’s Ass’n 172 (1947)

(children evacuated from London to other areas during World War

II without their parents had far more behavioral problems related

to separation from their parents than children who remained in

London with their families); Eleanor Bernert & Fred Ikle,

Evacuation <nd the Cohesion of Urban Groups, 58 Amer. J.

Sociology .33 (1952) (children prefer to remain with parents in the

city despite the risk of air attacks, even when the family home has

been lost).

themselves that Mom or Dad is all right. “Children need to

know where their mothers are, what it is like there, and that

their mothers are safe.” Sandra Barnhill, Executive Director,

Aid for Children of Imprisoned Mothers, Presentation at

Woman Offender Symposium: Through the Eyes of a Child

(Sept. 2000).

Social workers emphasize the need in most cases for

children to maintain close ties with their imprisoned parent.

See, e.g., Understanding and Supporting Foster Children With

Incarcerated Parents, Jordan Institute for Families (Jan.

2002); Barry Krisberg & Hon. Carolyn Engel Temin, The

Plight of Children Whose Parents Are in Prison, prepared for

the Federal Sentencing Report (Jan. 2001) (attached as

Appendix C) at 32a-33a. In fact, the two major determinants

of a child’s emotional stability during a parent’s incarceration

are the quality of care provided by the alternate caregiver and

the opportunities to maintain contact with the incarcerated

parent. Ross D. Parke & K. Allison Clarke-Stewart, Effects

of Parental Incarceration on Young Children, prepared for

U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Svcs. “From Prison to

Home” Conference (Jan. 2002) (attached as Appendix D) at

58a. Parke and Clarke-Stewart report that studies show no

evidence of long-term negative consequences of prison visits

on children and state that, to the contrary, “visiting can calm

children’s fears about their parent’s welfare as well as their

concerns about the parent’s feelings for them.” Jd. at 61a.

One study found that the children’s chances for

delinquency increase dramatically when they are denied visits.

Sarah Gauch, When Mothers Go To Prison: When You're

Behind Bars, Does Your Family Life Have To Crumble? 16

Human Relations 33 (1959). Another study of children of

male prisoners showed that visitation served as an important

link to continuity in the parental relationship and counteracted

the children’s fears regarding their father’s incarceration.

W.H. Sack & J. Seidler, Should Children Visit Their Parents

in Prison? 23 Law & Human Behavior 261 (1978).”

It must also be borne in mind that, upon release, many

of the prisoners will return to live with their children.

Rosemary Sarri, Children of Incarcerated Mothers, in What

About Me? Children of Incarcerated Parents, supra, p. 18

(March 2002). (Attached as Appendix F.) It cannot be

denied that maintaining contact between parents and children

during incarceration will help the family make this later

transition.*

See also, Florida Corrections Commission 2001 A

Report, Section 3(A)(1)(C) (“child welfare literature pence =

importance of frequent, regular parent-child visitation following

Separation to diminish risk factors”); Creasie Finney Hairston

Prisoners and Families: Parenting Issues During Incarceration,

prepared for U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs. “From Prison

to Home Conference (Jan., 2002) (attached as Appendix E) at 92a

(“the maintenance of family ties for incarcerated individuals has

been found to be important for juveniles as well as adults. ”)

—_

___ Visitation benefits the prisoners as well as the chil

Studies have shown that male prisoners who maintain strong rear

ties during imprisonment have higher rates of post release success

than those who do not. Creasey Finney Hairston, Family Ties

During Imprisonment: Do They Influence Future Criminal Activity ?

52 Federal Probation 48 (1988). Likewise, family relationships

during incarceration were the strongest predictor of female

offenders’ post-release success. C. Dowden & D.A. Andrews

What Works For Female Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Review, 45

Crime & Delinquency 438 (1999). See also E. Slaight, Family And

Offender Treatment: Focusing On The Family In The Treatment Of

Substance Abusing Criminal Offenders, 19 J. Drug Education 53

(1999) (finding family relationships have significant influence on

relapse prevention among parolees).

The MDOC has ——- seca See

hatsoever to s rt its suggestion visi

a children. MDOC Deputy Director Dan Bolden admitted at

trial that he had read no studies or literature that support the

view that children may become too comfortable with the

prison environment when visiting. (TR Vol 3, pp. 23-24.)

The MDOC also admitted in discovery requests that a survey

of all state correctional facilities revealed no records reflecting

any incidents of sexual abuse or misconduct of minors

occurring during a non-contact visit since January ® 1984.

(Dist. Ct. Opinion, p. 28.) The MDOC also admitted that it

knew of no instances of children being injured in the visitation

waiting rooms. (Testimony of Mr. Bolden, TR Vol 3, pp. 39-

40.)

In sum,

It is clear...that separation from a parent

jeopardizes the psychological and emotional

development of a child; any state practice,

therefore, that invariably separates a child

from her parent while the parent is

incarcerated and that does not provide for

maintenance of the parent-child relationship

during the period of separation undermines the

state goal of protecting the best interests of the

child.

Note, On Prisoners and Parenting: Preserving the Tie That

Binds, 87 Yale L.J. 1408, 1419 (1978).

D. State And Federal Policies And

Practices Encourage And Facilitate

Visitation Between Parents And

Children, And Presume That Such

Visitation Is Beneficial.

Michigan law presumes that children have the right to

regular access to their parents.” Even when a child has been

removed from the home because of parental abuse or neglect,

the Michigan Juvenile Code requires “regular and frequent

parenting time between the child and his or her parent,”

comprising at least once weekly visits. Mich. Comp. Laws

§ 712A.18f (3)(e). “[I]f parenting time, even if supervised,

may be harmful to the juvenile, the court shall order the child

to have a psychological evaluation or counseling, or both, to

determine the appropriateness and the conditions of parenting

time.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 712A.13a(11). The court may

not deny visitation based on its own assessment; an expert

evaluation is required.

The Preamble to the Michigan Child Custody Act

States that it is an act “to declare the inherent rights of minor

children” and states:

It is presumed to be in the best interests of a

child for the child to have a strong relationship

with both of his or her parents. Except as

otherwise provided in this section, parenting

time shall be granted to a parent in a

frequency, duration, and type reasonably

*Visitation is referred to as “parenting time” in the

Michigan Code.

calculated to promote a strong relationship

between the child and the parent....

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.27a(1) (emphasis added).

The Federal Bureau of Prisons also presumes the

importance of visitation:

The Bureau of Prisons encourages visiting by

family, friends, and community groups to

maintain the morale of the inmate and to

develop closer relationships between the

inmate and family members or others in the

community.

28 C.F.R. § 540.40. Similarly, the American Correctional

Association standards provide that “inmates should not be

denied access to visits with persons of their choice except

when the warden/superintendent...can present clear and

convincing evidence that such visitation jeopardizes the safety

and security of the institution or. the visitors.” A.C.A.

Standard 3-4440. Even the United Nations Minimum Rules

for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rule 37, provides that

“prisoners shall be allowed...to communicate with their

family...at regular intervals, both by correspondence and by

receiving visits.”

Children who are prohibited from seeing their parents

and other close relatives in prison are denied the right of

regular visits which are otherwise guaranteed under Michigan

law, and which the state and federal government have deemed

to be in everyone’s best interest.

II. | THE RESPONDENTS, INCLUDING THE

CHILDREN, HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHT TO FAMILY INTEGRITY,

INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO NON-

CONTACT VISITATION.

It must be borne in mind that the plaintiff class in this

matter Consists not only of prisoners, but also of their family

members, including their children. The plaintiffs, including

the non-prisoner plaintiffs, have a constitutionally protected

right to relationships with their parents and other family

members. The denial of visitation resulting from the MDOC

regulations violates the Constitutional right to family integrity.

A. Familial Relationships Are Protected

By The First And Fourteenth

Amendments.

- The severance of family ties through th i

visitation to the children implicates anane amaeies

rights. This Court has repeatedly recognized a family

member Ss fundamental right to familial association under the

First and Fourteenth Amendments. As the Court stated in

Troxel, “the liberty interest at issue in this case - the interest

of parents in the care, custody and control of their

children—is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty

interests recognized by the Court.” 530 U.S. at 65. The

Court went on to state:

The child is not the mere creature of the State,

those who nurture him and direct his destiny

have the right, coupled with the highest duty,

to recognize and prepare him for additional

obligations....[W]e have recognized the

fundamental right of parents to make decisions

concerning the care, custody and control of

their children.

530 U.S. at 66. This Court has also stated that “the history

and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition of

parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their

children. This primary role of the parents in the upbringing

of their children is now established beyond debate as an

enduring American tradition.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S.

205 (1972)."°

In fact, the right to family integrity is one of the most

fundamental of all human rights. This Court has had “the

unanimous view that ‘[f]ew consequences of judicial action are

so grave as the severance of natural family ties."” M.L.B. v.

S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 109 (1996), quoting Santosky v.

Kramer, 455 U.S. 745. Nor is the fundamental right of

familial association limited solely to parents and children. In

Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 505 (1977),

this Court recognized the constitutionally protected nature of

the extended family relationship:

10 See also, Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 USS.

609, 617 (1984) (the First Amendment provides certain highly

personal relationships a substantial measure of sanctuary from

unjustified interference by the State” and “family relationships, by

their nature, involve deep attachments and commitments to the

necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not only a

special community of thoughts, experiences, and beliefs but also

distinctively personal aspects of one’s life”); Quilloin v. Walcott,

434 U.S. 246 (1978) (“we have recognized on numerous occasions

that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally

protected”); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923); Pierce v.

Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Prince v. Massachusetts,

321 U.S. 158 (1944); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972);

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).

SL —— — <->

Ours is by no means a tradition limited to

respect for the bonds uniting the members of

the nuclear family. The tradition of uncles,

aunts, cousins and especially grandparents

sharing a household along with parents and

children has roots equally venerable and

equally deserving of constitutional recognition.

Similarly, in Smith v. OFFER, 431 U.S. 816, 843 n. 49

(1977), the Court noted “the scope of these rights extends

beyond natural parents.”

Ill. THE MDOC REGULATIONS ARE NOT

REASONABLY RELATED TO A

LEGITIMATE PENOLOGICAL

INTEREST.

It is well settled that prisoners retain most of their

Constitutional rights. “Prison walls do not form a barrier

separating prison inmates from the protections of the

Constitution.” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987).

Hence, unless and until the MDOC can show otherwise, it is

presumed that Respondents retain their constitutional right to

familial association. In Turner, this Court noted the difficulty

when determining the constitutionality of prison regulations

between balancing a prisoner’s constitutional rights and

acknowledging the expertise of corrections officials. Thus,

the rule set forth in Turner is that “when a prison regulation

impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is

valid if it is reasonably related to a legitimate penological

interest.” 482 U.S. at 89. It is important to note that this test

does not give carte blanche to corrections departments, and

prison regulations are not immune from meaningful scrutiny.

Rather, a number of factors are looked at in determining the

reasonableness of the subject restriction, including, inter alia,

whether there is a rational connection between the regulation

and the legitimate government interest assciced, and whether

there are alternative means available for exercising the right.

A. There Is No Valid Connection

Between The Regulations Restricting

Visitation By Children And A

Legitimate Penological Interest.

The penological interests the MDOC asserts for the

restrictions on visitation by children are to better supervise the

children; to prevent the children from being subject to

physical or emotional abuse; and to prevent them from being

used to smuggle contraband into the prison. (Petitioner’s

Brief, p. 29.) As for the first goal, the MDOC is presumably

referring to its argument at trial that small children who are

not properly supervised during a visit may be physically

injured. However, as shown above, the MDOC has offered

no evidence that any child has ever been injured during a

visit. In addition, MDOC officials testified at trial that their

visiting rooms are safe and secure. (Testimony of Dan

Bolden, TR Vol. 3, p. 66; Pamela Withrow, MDOC Warden,

TR Vol. 8, p. 146; Joan Yukins, MDOC Warden, TR Vol. 6,

p. 52.)

As for the goal of preventing abuse, the state makes

much of two incidents where a child reportedly witnessed

sexual activity by a prisoner. While it is certainly regrettable

if this occurred, these are only two out of hundreds of

thousands of visits. To drastically restrict children’s visitation

as a result of these very few incidents is using the proverbial

cannon to kill a fly. Nor did the MDOC provide any evidence

that visitation is emotionally harmful for children. Indeed, the

social science data summarized earlier makes clear that the far

greater danger to children comes from being prevented from

seeing their loved ones. Most importantly, the regulations run

directly contrary to Troxel, which holds that it is the province

of the parent, not the state, to make decisions regarding the

care of their children. For example, if a prisoner determines

that his or her child would benefit from visitation, the child

should be able to visit, even if he or she is, for example, in

the care of a friend or non-immediate family member.

Similarly, if a non-prisoner parent determines that it is in his

or her child’s best interest to visit an incarcerated family

member, such as an aunt or uncle, the child should be allowed

to visit. Under the regulations, neither such visit is possible.

The third goal, the prevention of smuggling of

contraband, is, unlike the prior two, clearly a ar in

penological objective. However, the restrictions on visitation

by children are not reasonably related to this goal. The

MDOC has provided no evidence that children are more likely

to smuggle contraband into a prison than adult visitors; even

the suggestion defies common sense. Moreover, this case

concerns non-contact visitation, in which, according to the

MDOC’s own witnesses, the possibility for smuggling is

extremely remote. (See testimony of Barry Mintzes, former

MDOC Warden, TR Vol 5, p. 133; Mr. Bolden, TR Vol 4,

pp. 65-66 (admitting he has no proof of smuggling in non-

contact visits); Marjorie VanOchten, MDOC administrator,

TR 1, p. 77 (non-contact visitation eliminates the opportunity

to smuggle)). The regulations directed at eliminating or

reducing visits by children specifically are not reasonably

related to a legitimate penological objective.

B. There Are No Adequate Alternative

Means Available To Exercise The

Right To Familial Association Other

Than Visitation.

The MDOC argues that phone calls and letters are

adequate alternative means available to Petitioners to exercise

their right to familial association. The MDOC is wrong.

Regardless of the specific number of prisoners who are

functionally illiterate, it cannot be debated that a significant

number of them are.'' Nor can it be debated that infants,

toddlers, and pre-schoolers are not capable of writing letters

to, or reading letters from, incarcerated family members.

(Recall that the average age of a child in the United States

with an incarcerated parent is eight, with almost one quarter

of the children of prisoners under age five. (Mumola,

Appendix A at 2a.)) In addition, twenty-five percent of

women are pregnant or have recently given birth when they

enter prison. Satyanathan, Overview, Appendix B at 15a.

For these children, it will be many years before they are able

to make phone calls or write letters and, if restricted to these

methods of communication, there will be many years of

missed contact with their parent.

As for the alleged alternative of phone calls, the calls

must be initiated by the prisoner, and must be made collect.

Such calls are extremely expensive - three to five times more

expensive than calls made from the outside, and are frequently

11 Indeed, the federal government has specifically included

prisoners and their families in recent federal legislation aimed at

combating illiteracy. See Even Start Family Literacy Act, Pub. L.

106-554 and the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, Title Il

of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-220, §

225(c).

Xe ERIE Rey

disconnected or interrupted. (Testimony of Dr. Kupers, TR

Vol. 6, p. 144.) According to one author, a thirty minute

phone call from a prison once a week can cost $125 or more.

Hairston, Prisoners and Families, p. 7. The cost alone is

prohibitive for many families of prisoners, most of whom live

in poverty, and foster parents may not accept collect phone

calls from the parents of their foster children due to their

substantial cost.

Finally, when it comes to maintaining famil

relationships, phone calls and letters are simply not 4

adequate substitute for face-to-face contact. As discussed

above, children need to physically see their parent in order to

assure themselves that the parent is okay. The same is true

for incarcerated parents, who want to see the children for

themselves to ensure that their children are being adequately

cared for. As any parent or child can testify, although the

sound of your loved one’s voice, or a letter from your loved

one, are wonderful, they are simply no substitute for seeing

your child’s face, or your mother or father’s face.

CONCLUSION

The combination of the severe, almost unthinkable,

harm suffered by emotionally vulnerable children who are

denied visitation with their parents and other loved ones, the

clear legal presumption favoring visitation reflected in the

law, and the extraordinarily weak and factually unsupported

justifications offered by MDOC for the unprecedented

violations of the constitutional rights of the Respondents,

requires affirmance of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’

decision.

Jill M. Wheaton, Counsel of Record

Laura Sagolla

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC

400 Renaissance Center

Detroit Michigan 48243-1668

wee

ca tO

——t <P

me eew—erg ~~

APPENDIX A

[fold-out exhibit]

Bureau of Justice Statistics

SPECIAL REPORT

Incarcerated Parents

and Their Children

pp. la-12a

‘QdUEPISA JO ded Se} JOY) WO

SOW OO} 40A0 Pjoy Buleq payode:

8'€z O1zZ SUSIA

uosud a]e}S ul sjuaed JO %09 J8AO « 9S9 6'6P new

‘yorssiwpe aours uaspy soy ym = 9 5 *OcP _—

ySIA yeuosued e Burney serou poyodes %P Bl %~Z9 Auy

uosud 92}S ul (%p~G) SuEYyOW ajewo 4 aIew eo. jo odA]

pue (%/¢) sueujey yOG jo Awofew ye ~~ 1661

‘UOsPHYD 3 IM yOEWUOD

“USIPHYS HEY) YM pony wh ot ee

joe,U0D Ajyoom poyodes uOsud a}e4S Ul

SJOYJOW JO %OQ Pue SIBYjJE} jO %OV ¢

SHSIA jeUOSJEd JO ‘ew ‘auoyd Aq Uaspyt4yd

+04} YM JOR!}UOD AjyUOW yse9j Je Poyodes ssouostid a}e35 ¢ Ul Z Aeon

GJEWU! BES JO JUBDIEG

‘Kouebe Jo awoy J9}S0; e Ui Buray “S®WO , jueVEWIP UI VOIPHUP PeY ss9U0SUd BWOS,

mou pyiyo e peyodes uosud ae}S Ul OL 6» seyjo/spuai4

SIBYJe} JO %Z pue sieyjowjo%O, e« 96 et AnueGe/awoy 39480 4

: Lz 6 BANe}as JOYIO

‘senjGesed UeUND =—_ ‘ZS EL —_-wesedpues6 s,pHUD

S,PYyo OU) SEM JOUVE) OY) Pres SueYOW %08Z %9'68 yuaed JOyjO S,PHUD

JO %Q9Z ‘JOUJOW JY) YM PSAl] MOU JeaiGesed jUeUND

USIPHIYO JOY} JO QUO JSEO] JL EY) PIES gop %E'EP uorssmwpe 0} soud

UOSUd BIEIS Ut SIOYIE} JO %OG INOW « UOIPHLD YIM POAT

“UOISSIWpe 0} oud UaIp]IYO JEU) yy __SeWSS ‘areW

peay uosud ul syuesed JO %Op INOGy « 166\ ‘Sjuesed

BJEWU! BJEIS JO JUGDIOd

SIDYJOW JO % PQ ‘SIBYIEJ JO % Py — USIPIIYS 4104) YIM Burnt

poyiodes uosid aj3e3g ul Sjused oY} JO Wey UBL) SSO} ‘uoissjwipe 0} JOUd

“pro

sueek ¢ sepun esem uosud ul juesed =: 006 ELF 006'¥ZE't an ae

(%1S) L664 ours om peBueYyD(%9S) x%oOzE %9' vd UON

UsspHYo JOU YIM SsQUOSUd BIEP24 = c-yz gsi e10us 40 £

pue 9235 jo eBeyuedsed oy) « Set gsi z

‘6661 UI 0OB'86r'L OH 00S'9e6 Woy OPE te -

‘900'00S 2@A0 Aq esos uosud jesxopoy __*0€9 %9'SS ~~

JO 9721S ul UoZed e YM UeupyYyD __&49P83 S181S VOsPHYD JOLIN

JOUIW JO JOQWNU 94} LGGL SOUS 166| ‘SseuU0SUC jO JU9II0d

9} e6e sepun usspyy? 008'86r't 9

syuosed 10M Ssi90UO0std jesOpe4 PUL 9}E}S 00S‘LZZ PeyeuNse Ue GEGE UI

‘aovues Aseyw sayewul pue

‘suapusyo ajUeAN{ pue USWOM ‘YWeoY

je}uSW ‘JUEUReSy pue esnge soue}s

-qns pessouppe eAey SeUaS SI) UI

syodey jepeds srg JeyjO “senyioe4

JEUONIBLIOD |BJOPS4 PUL BjE}S Ul

sejyewu jo Aesins /661 eu) UO peseq

Saas e Ul }Sa}e] OY) SI WOdeJ SIy)

‘ewojdip jooyos yBiy e eaey you

PIP %OZ pue ‘ssouy jeyuewW e peyodes

sjuaed jO %pL NOgy ‘“esoUepuedep

joyooye jo Asoysiy & peyodes %SZ

pue ‘@SUEYO HEY) BJOJ9q YJUOW 8)

ut s6rup Bursn peyodes uosud 3}e}S

ul sjuased jo % 09 AyeeN “UONSIAUOS

soud @ pey %// pue ‘(%EL) s1eHWeH

Brup 10 (% py) SI@PUBYO JUB{OIA BOM

uosud a}e}S ul sjueed jo Awofew vy

‘6661 Ul UOSUd jeJEPe 4 10 BIEIS

ul yugsed e pey %1°Z “UeupyYyS JOU

UONHW ZZ S,UONEN O84) JO “L661 Souls

000'00S J@A0 jo esees0U! UP 6661

ul UBIPHYS sOUIW OOS" S6h'l PeyewNse

ue pey suosud S'f) ul Pjey SjusIed

‘yuqued juepIs as e JO UOWUOSUGUWI

eu Aq peyeye Ussp}IYyS JOUIL UM

spjoyesnoy "SN O0E'9EE PeyewRSeE ve

8JOM BOY} ‘WNSO e Sy “UOISSIWwpe O}

soud UaspHyd seu) YM Burry peyodes

sjuased ayy jo yueoed xis-Ao4

‘91 jo oBe eu sepun pyyo e Burwey

peyodas sseuosud (%¢9) jesepes4

pue (% SS) a1e1S jo Auofew y “usup}Iyo

sourw jo syuased 00S‘'LZZ Peyewgse ue

piey suosud jesepey pue 8}2}S 6661 UI

ysAjeuy Aon0d Sfa

ejowny ‘f seydojsuyd Ag

UdIpTYD Woy, L pue

SEEZBL FON ‘000Z IsNiny

SJUIIVY Pd}¥.190.1VIU]

yOddyY [BIIIdS

SINSHRIS DSNL JO NvIIng

swieiZoi1g 2ousNe JO D14jO

aonsne jo puampsedeg “$7

‘poued siyj Buunp % gg Aq mas6 uosud

Ul JOE) & YM USJIP}IYS JO JequuNnuU

OY) SUM ‘LEE Bours (%86 dN) peiqnop

Ayeou uosud ul soyjow e YM UsIpyIYyo

jo sequinu ey ‘ynsese sy (%S/)

ssouosud eyew jo yey UY (%901)

soysej umMol6h sey ssouOsud ejeWws

We 10 JOQuINU BY) OGG e0UIS “uOsUd UI

soyjOW eB pey UBIPIIYD OOL'9ZL JeyJoue

B}IYM ‘VOSA |BJBPO+4 JO 8}E}S UI

souje) & pey VOIpYS sOUIW OO/'ZZE'L

peyewnse ue GEG, Puede jy

"SO0BJ JOYJO JO UOIPHYO SEPNUI,

‘yuazed peyesooseouy ory se Ayoyuyje/eoes

QWeS OY) BABY 0} POWNSSE 810M UBIPIIYD :9JON

92 009° L0€ jquedsiyj

OZ 002'292 yoeig

%8'0 00S' ree OvUM

%1'Z 008'86>'l 201 'S'N

yu90I8d JOQWINN

6661 uoSsud ul uae

SN Oy Ul UEspHyS JOU

‘yuesed oyewul ue eAeY 0} USIP}IYO

ayy se Ajoxy Se Sewn € B19M (%9'Z)

uespyyo sJuedsIH “(%8'0) UespIIYS

9}!1yM UeY) UOSU UI JUQed e BABY 0}

Ajo e10L!8 sown 6 Apeeu esem (%0'Z)

UsIPHYyS Yo e1g “UOSUd /eJBPE4 10 9}E}S

ul yugued © pey %1°Z ‘6661 Ul UeUpyIYyo

sOUIW UONIIW E72 SOREN 84) JO

“USIPIIYD JOUI OOR'S6r' | PeyewNse

ue 0} uOHW-yeYy e UeU es0W Aq

uesu pey sequinu si ‘6661 PuaseeA

Ag ‘uosud jesepe, JO 9)8)¢ ul juoued e

YM UBIP}IYO JOUIWW OOS'9EG PeyewNse

ue 818M 8104) ‘L661 Ul “S066

oy) Buunp Ayjeonewesp esol osje uosud

ul yuased & YIM USIP}IYD JO JOquINU OY]

L66L 22UIs 000'00S UY) ss0W

Aq dn — 6661 Ul uosud uw yusJed

e pey "SN Oy) Uy UaIp}YyS UONW GL

“L661 ul UOSUd jeJOpe4 PUe Be)

ul PIeY OOS'ZSp EY WO4 — 000'0SZ

seao Aq — Adseys mos6 osje uosud

ul syugsed jo Joquunu ey ‘yNse e sy

°%ZQ jO eSeasU! Ue ‘SOJEWU! O00'O6r

seao Aq mas6 suosud jesepe4 pue 9}8)S

jo uonejndod Apoysno eu) L661 eoUuUIS

‘uesp}Yyd sou

jO SJOYJOW YNO'ES Pue ssEyje} 006" 299

UOIPIIYD OY, Pue sjuased payesaosequy Z

‘wes6osd SORSHEIS SJEUOSL, JEUONEN ey) WO SyUNCD ApoysNo pue

‘Sono 4 JEUONIEUIOD jEsOPe4 PU aeI1S UI SeyeWwU) JO SABAUNS 1661

PUe 166) ey) 0} SesUOdse UO peseg SayeWNSe ae SIOQWNN :2)ON

006 'S ooc'e/ 007 ¥8 0084S 00S %62 O0€ 2SB +661

009'0t OOf'E9t OOG'ELE O0S'SLE O0P'60Z'! 006'HZE'l 6661

006°Z oos'9€ O00%'6E 009'9Z O0S'98E O0l'Elr L661

001'S OOt'b. 002762 00s'8e O08 E6S O0E'7r9 6661

syuqved jo JsequNN

qewes, sew 1€)0) qewe, §=— SJE 18}0 |

‘uasp]Yyo JOUFW YM SueUOSLd jeJPe4 PUR 9}; JO JoquINU peyewNsy “Z OG)

SJOUOSUC |eJOPO4 SJOUOSUC B}E)S

666} ‘sepueb Aq

Lo zz 1z 91 at a @s0W 30 g

Lz zz ez € 91 “i S

iy Ss o's el He i? pr

16 eu bbe rer 8 z8 €

wa Le se re 9S g'St z

%S PZ %0' PZ %O'PZ %S0Z %O0PZ %BEZ t

UsIP}TY? JOUJW 4O JEqQUINN

88S veg o'e9 £'s9 Lvs Ss SOA

%ZIp %99E %OLE %L vo %ESP %O PP ON

(9) e6e

PuN) Ussp}Yy> soUu;W eAeH

jewej 6«=—COeWWOC*«SVOOL’ qeues, SjeW = RNOL

jesopeg aS

166) ‘sieuo0sud 40 jUeQed

166} ‘sepueb Aq

‘USIPIIYD JOUIW YM SIBUOSLG [e1BPO4 PUL B}EIS JO JUDO “| BGC]

peyewnse ue pjey suosud jesopey pue

8121S 6661 Ul “(%68) SUOSUd B}e}¢ UI

UsIPHY sou YYW Syuaed OOS'LZZ

peyewyse ue Buipnjou ‘suosud jesepe4

pue 9e)S jo Apoysno euyy uy suouosud

p68'P8Z'| G10M G04) GEG) PuDeeA iy

"UW JO %LE 0} Pesedwoo UEsp}IYo,

ejdninu pey UeWOM JO %Gp ‘sseuosud

9181S Buowny ‘uespyyo ajdAinw pode,

0} (%ZE) SeyewU! B7e}S Ue) AjoHH]

G10W 818M (%GE) SOewU! |eIEpe4

3Nq ‘plryo soulW eUo peyode, sseuosud

jesepe4 Pue a}e}S YIOG jO %pZ ogy

‘ueup}yo sourw ejdajnw pey Aey) yeu)

prey pue (%¢6) eyew Agueuiwoped

aJem syuesed peuosudwy “(Z 9/qe})

O} ueY) Sse} a10M SeyeWU! jesJOpe4 pue

aje}S Aq peyodes uaspyiyd souIW 84) JO

(%gS) Awolew ey) “plo sseeA g sepuN

918M UOSUd UI JUaIed B YIM USIPTIYyO

pies ssouosud je jo yUedIEd OMy-AYY

6661) Ul Uesp}Yys JOUJW 4O

sjussed 00S‘LZZ peyewpse ue ‘prus

pley suosud jesepey pue ayeyg = JOU B pey (% GG) UEWOM pue (%E9)

ante _— uew jo sebeyueqed seywis ‘suosud

jespe4 Uj “UespyyOsoUNN eAeyY

Sb sek 14-Si 0} (%GS) Uew UeY) Ajax} GsOW BI8M

082 sueeh HL-0L (% Gg) UeWOM ‘sueUOsUd a)e)}5 BuowY

= ace “pliyo souNw e Burney peyodes sue

%1'Z yeok | uewsse, = -UOSUd jesepe4 JO %EQ pue ssoUOSUd

[RS WOR ETT Shy «(NPIS JO jusoued eny-Ayi4 “(L 919%) Bt

ayeIg UI Syuesed Jo a6e spun pyiyd @UO ysee} ye JO uosed

UBIPHYD JOUIL JO JUIDIId eu) em Au) yeuy pres suouosud jo Ay

"pio suead g sem UsIpIYyO esau -s0feW e ‘SEnYIOe4 [EU0HIEIIOD jesOpe4

jo o6e oBesene ou pue ‘pjo sveeA pue 9j}e}S ul seyewuj jo SAesuNS

1661 uy Guunp pemeiuejul VEYA

81 e6e sepun

pyyo e Buyaey peyode: ssouospyd

sOUIW [Je JO JUGDIEd OM)-AjUeM, = JEAOPO4 PUL 8}LIS Y}O JO pjeY 4OAO

€ UaIP[IYD HEY, PUB S}UBJE PAJEsJBIIEIU|

6b v9 89 vol 6% es qvoujo ‘Spueu4

ze tb et 96 et vz AoueGe 10 ewoY Jo}S04

6ce Ze z9 “st «6 v9 SBANEISs JOO

6er 86 zz 6zs e€ect e9t pyyo yo yuvedpuess,

%L0E %LI6 %928 %082 %968 %OSB pyup yo yuaued JEyIO

JeajGese> yueUN S_pHYyD

%O'PE %ZSS %ZLS WED BE BWE'SH VOIss}wpe so OuNH je uasPIIYD YM Peary

jews, oeW 20, ewe, ojeW Ol

jesapo4 EIS a

7661 ‘sjwesed eyewul jo jUeDI8d

166} ‘20pueb Aq ‘uorssjwipe jo ewiy Je UEIPI}YS JOUPLU POL YIM

Peat OYM UOSUd jeIOPS4 JO 87E}g U! SJUdIEd BJeUUUY JO JUGIIOg “Y FIGEL

g'0Z 861 6 rh VoL ayenpes6 jooyps yBiH

S92 Oz 97ze 9 0€ aa9

ro ror 9'€Z lz jooyos yBry ewos

%6 Lt %S' Lt %S'SI %LZ ssoj 30 epes6 ing

payesdwos uopesnp3

ger 92¢ z'69 “lv PoweW JOAON

es 09 6e ZL peyesedas

62 O61 tol $'0z PeQs0Aig

gt 91 zz 91 Pemopim

%Z LZ %8'SE %18 %0'€Z powey

snjeys een

ak Ov ak GE ak €€ sk ZE UeIPEW

gst Sz 9¢ 90 JOPIO JO GS

zz A’ eel 99 vS-Sb

o'€z ise 0°92 ze ve-Se

612 ele Loe 6 ¢P ve-SZ

%E Lt %8'L %0°SZ %9'St seBunok 30 9Z

r9 Ov ee gz s2N10

67 oe St 6st onuedsip,

01z Orr CRA y'6r owuedsi}{-u0U 4oe1g

%Y ed %6 LZ %6 BE %6 8Z 1Uedsi}H-UOU BUM

upBys0 Queds}}4/e98Y

e 9 er vl ayewe 4

%6 16 %Z 6 %ZS6 %9°Z6 ojew

sepues

166) ‘Uesp}Yyd sOUJW yo Syueed a19Mm sayeUU! OY) JOLVe4M Aq

‘ssQUOStd jesPO4 10 BJEIS JO SONSLIO}DEIEYD PO}I9jES “Ef GEL

‘syugsed

aJeWU! SE UONEINPS jO S/SAG| JEWS

peyode, uosud jesepe4 Pue 9}e}S

yjoq ul sjueseduou ‘yWeseAQ “epes6

unybie ey) sed peyeonpe Useq jou pey

Aouy yey pres uosud jesepe4 Pue 9}e}S

yjog ul sjuaed jo %Z4 jNoGy “(suosud

QIEIS Ul %E} 0} pesedwioo %GZ) uosud “syuueduou ay) JO %6P

jesope, ul syuosed Buowe yBiy se em) (O} pesedwioo ‘pewew used JeAoU pey

Apeeu sem aouepuaye e600 yng = Aoyy yey Pies uosud jesepey ur syuqed

ooyos YyBiy peyenpes6 uosud (%0Z)

jesope4 pue (%9}) ee3S Ul Sjueed jo

sebeyuedsed sews “BWOjdip jOOYdS

y6iy e eney jou pip Aouy yety peyodes

uosud (%G¢) jesepe4 pue (%02)

ayeys yo ul sjuased jo Awofew vy

jo yuooued yyBre-Ayiy | “peyesedes

JO PSDJOAIP JOYE B18M (%GZ) abe

-jusdJed sejwis e ‘pewwew eq 0) uosud

ae} ul esouy UeY) Ajax! GIO B198M

(%9€) UOSUd jesOpey UI SjUgIed BUM

‘pewew serou pey Ao) yeu) ples %69

pue ‘(%6) pewew Aqueuns aq 0} Ajay!

se Jey UL) SSO] GJ9M LOS 8)2}S

ul syueseduou ‘uosuedwoo uj “‘pewew

useq seAeu pey Aoy) yeu) PIES %Bv

pue ‘peyesedes 10 PSQOAIP 818M %BZ

‘peuew Aqueuno esem Aouy yeu) pres

%EZ ‘UOSUd @}e)S UI SjUsIed OLN JO

PoUeW JOAGU 810M

uosyd 93e)¢ Uy; SyudIed OU} 40 J1EH

“U@IPHYO JOUIL YIM

ssouosud jo yeu) UeY) Ja}e016 sue0A

g sem (sueeh Oy) syuqseduou jo o6e

ueipew ey ‘uosud jesepe uj “sjueled

jO yeu) 0} (SueeA EE) JeyUIS SEM

syueseduou jo e6e ueipew ey ‘uosud

aye}S uj “uosud jesepe, UI Sjuued

Buowe pjo sued GE 0) pesedwod *pjo

sueek ZE Sem UOSUd 8}}¢ U! SjuqUed

jo ee uejpow ouy ‘yWeserQ “eBUNOA

10 pz a6e 0q 0} (%g) UOSUd jesOpe4

ul esouy se Ajoxy Se 81M) NOge

@J9M (% 91) UOSU BB} U} SJUGIEd

‘uosud jesepe4 ul esouy UeYy JeBUNOA

AnyBys e1em uosud 984 Ul SjUeIed

(% EZ) owuedsi} Oq 0} Ajoxy SSO}

osje asem uosud jesepe4 ul SjuqseduON

“syugseduou jO %/Z JO} payuNosoe

SyOe|q a}1YyM ‘Seyewu! yueseduoU

jO %Ep dn epew seywyM “USspYO

sOUIW ;NOYWM SueUOSUd /eJePe4

Buowe pesieAes jsowje SEM UCR

-nquisip yeroes ey, “(%ZZ) SEHYM pue

(%0¢) soruedsiH Aq pomoyjoy ‘uosud

yesepe ul syuesed Buowe dnos6 yume

jeres ysoGue ayy a0M (%py) SPeIG

(%6E) se4BIYy Sem SezYyM JO

ebe}ue2sed ayy yng ‘semo) AnyBys esem

(%G1L) somedsip pue (% Ey) SHBG

jo eBeyueded oy) ‘ssouosud 8)2}S

yuaseduou Buowy ‘HuedsiH %61

pue ‘ayYyM %6Z ‘Y!IQ GEM Suge jO

%Ep ‘SUOSUd a}e)S UI “(€ 21423) dnosb

ouujesrepes ysebue; ou) pesudwos

SyOeiq ‘UaIPIIYO JOUIW YM SIO

-uosud jesepe4 pue a7€} yOg Buowy

a}14YM 019M soyeNb e ynoge

‘yoejq es0m syusled

peuospduy qe yo yey Aeon

220 (=== = = 0 Oo

OOO eee

UBIPHYD HAY] PUB SjUBJEg PajJBsa9qsOQuj] Y

“SIOUJL} JO %Y

0} PasedwOd UsIP}YS JY) YM eUO!e

Buiay Ueeq pey uosud U} SJOYJOW BU) JO

yusosed euo0-Ayiy| “jSeue Way) Bs0jEq

YUOW au) UI UeupyYO eu YM BuIAy

yuased Aju0 ey} UeEq BAeY 0} (AJOAR

-0edsei ‘%p, Pue %SG1) suepe; ueEy

Ajyoy Gs0W OS]e 810M (JEIBPI4 JO %LS

‘BRIS JO %Qp) SIBOW Seue oj JOUd

USIpPYS wey YW Burry yoda 0} (AjeAn

-0edsei '%/p pue %E) SuEYVE; Ue)

Ayoyy as0wW asm SuOSUd (%E/) /esepe4

pue (%8S) a}83S YO UI SISIOW

“sppoyesnoy juesed-om)

woy Bwed (%ZE) e6eyueded

seybiy e pue ‘seve siojeq WOW

Oy) UI VEIPHYS WEY) YM BuiAy peyodes

(%6p) syuesed yo eBeyueded seybry

e ‘uosud jesepey ui syuqsed Buowy

(%BL) PHYS eL YM BuIAy uased AjUO

ay} 218M OYM BSOY) pue (%0Z) PHYS

ey) pue esnods e YyjOG YIM PeAl| pey

OYUM 8SOU) UsEMJEq JIGS 818M USIPTIYO

JOU YM Perl Pey OYM sjused

SUL “‘JSeUe JEU) BIOJEq YJUOW oy}

Ul UBJPPIYO sOUIW JEL JO AUB YM PeAl|

Aouy yeu) pres uosud 9e}¢ u! sjuesed

jo yueosed ueres-Ayiys “(S 9/92})

UaIP}IYS 4184) @pNjou! yOU Pip UOSUd UI

sjuased ysow jo Spjoyesnoy ay ‘yseue

JU@IIN J18U) 0} JOUd YJUOW Buy Uy}

jSouue BJOJOq YUOW 9} U!

UasIPIIYD 4194) YW auUOdje Buy Useq

pey uosid uj Ss J94yjOW JO P4jy}-8UO

“"uoRMyAsuUl 30 ‘AoueGe

suaysisdays pue ‘ssayjosgdeys ‘uaspyyodeys ‘syussed-days ssaUOsUd ayy SEPNPUL, ‘@WOY JB}SO} & Ul PyryO e pey %Z pue

asnods e pue (uas)pHyD neUy ‘suaniBesed Se SOARE}aJ JOJO Pue SUS

992 vs %Sir %PPS %LZ9 VespPHYd 404; YM OAH JOU PIG "quesed JeyjO S.pyYyo ou YM BuIAy Mou

o1 866 gor 6 $0 Ayv0 SOARE}OUOU UMA SEM PHYO OUR JEL ples Syuased oyeusU

6+ 0 er ot @SOANE}A2 JOO YM JO %0G JBAO “USIPHIYS JOUIW HOU)

8 ve . 6 0€ 6€ Ajuo UssppyD pue jue 30) Buses Agueuno si OyM peyse VEYA,

€4s vt %09r %PS proyesnoy yuesed-ej6urs uj

et ro 10 z0 Aquo S@ARE}O-UOU UBM S@AHe}Os J9UVO ‘syuesedpuesB s_pyYys

ra Lz ro a I a pn at ay2 sueyjow ‘10A)Hesed yueLIND

96 Loe 62 l re UespPYLp pue sje se JOyJOW S.pyHYyD ssouyye

zz 4 %67ZE ze %S %Z OZ eProyesnoy juesed-omy uj — - a

%ZLr =—%O %S8S %9'SE UasPHYS 494) YIM POA! oot'y SOMION

000° sveupe 4

qewe aew je)0 qewe, sew eyo ySOue a10j0Q YUOW oy) 00t'Sr uosud jesepe 4

— — — “ on 0041's SUONOW

1661 ‘Swwased ayewsU jO jUBDIOg cos‘ent amen

‘uosud jesapey 10 a7&)S Uy} SyUsIed aJEWU! jo SPOYeSsSNOH “¢ e1qe) oor'9ee 101

eS amenta

‘(%p 0) pesedwios %pE) Sonnejas =| rs ai

J@UJO JO (%H} 0} Pasedwos %SGp) a a

sjuesedpues6 jo eased Oy) Ul SEM PyIYyO

yey) pres uosud jesepey ul sueyje; VEY

ssejow JO eueys Jsaje0/6 e ‘seyewu!

QS YM Sy JeaiGased yUeUIND

Oy) SE JOUjL} S,PjIYyO oy) Peyode

OYM SIOYJOW JO % LE 0} Pesedwod

@JOM UBJP}IYO JOUIW WM SPJOYyesNoY

"S’'N 006'00E JO 1230) y “UOSud jesepe,

“JOYJOW S PHYO BUY jO BJED BU) Ul JO 8}2}S ul jUssed yUEpIse/ e pey

pyyo sounw e pey Aouy yeuy pres (%76) UsIPPIYS sOUIW YM SPyOYyesnoy “S'N

uosud jesepey ul sueyjey ye Aeon 00E' 9EE PeyeWNSE Ue GEG) PUGIESA py

“‘uosud ul syuesed jo Jequunu /2)0) ou)

UBY) Jomo} SI} JUGIEd JUBPISE B JO yUEW

-uosudu ayy Aq peyeye UespHYyS WM

*SuGAIHOsED JUNI S,UEIPIIYO HOYy

yjnoge spodei Buveyip pepiroid osje

uosud jesepe, ul SsEWje) pue SIOIOW

spjoyesnoy jo Jequunu ey) ‘UOHeI89

-JeDU! 0} JOUG USIPHYO WOU) YM OAI

JOU pip syugsed eyewu! jsow esneseg

“uognAsul Jo ‘Aouebe ‘ewoy

48}SO} © JO BJED OU) Ul BJOM UBIPIIYD

nop yeu YOde 0) (%Z) SuEUjE; UE

Ajoxy @20w Osje asem (%0}) UOSUd

BIEIS UI SIOIPOW “JOEWS yONU sem ‘SIOUIE) JO %GG pue % Pp 0} peeEdWOS

(%G) S@ARees sEIO JO (%E}) SjUsIed ‘UOISSIW Pe 0} JOUd WeIPHYyS JOUIW

-pues6 Joye JO eed OYy UI PyYD sOUIW 4184) YW Burlay popodes uosud jesepe4

e pey Aauy yeu) pres OM UOSUd 9}e}¢ UI

sueujes jo eBeyusdsed ey, “sJeAiHesed

JUGLIND ayy SB (%9Z) SEANEIOs JOYJO JO

(%€S) uesedpuesB spy ey Peynuep!

UsYyO SOW UOSU B}e}S Ul SIBWJOWY

Ul @SOY) JO %/g pue UOSUC Be}

Ul SIBYJOW JO %pg jnogy “UoIssjwpe O}

soud Uasp}Yyd s184) YM Burlay Yode: O}

suoujyey Ue) Ajox!] GJOWW BEM SIBLOW

‘uosud jesepey ut syuesed :

JO %/ 0} pesedwoo uaspyYyo JOU

OY) JO BUO {SEO} JE Am Pony Ao}

ey) ples %Gp ‘uOSUd ae} U! Sjuued

Buowy “(py 81qGe}) UaspyYO JOLIW NOUR

jo Aue yim pany sjuqsed pouosudut

WE JO %Op ‘UOISSIWPe NOY O} JOU

S,PIIYO Oty JO BJEd BY UI SEM UBIPIIYD

NOY) JO UO JEU) PePOdes OYM sueyOW

JO % BZ 0} Pesedwiod ‘sauROW s,pyIyo

OU} JO BILD OY) Ul SEM UBIPHIYD 414) JO

Quo seg} Je Jey Peyode UOSU a}e}S

ul SJOYIE} OY JO UBIO AjoUIN “Sue

uojeseD129u) 0} JOU UsIpITYyD

JOU! W JOY) YIM POAl UOSLd 3723S

uy Syuased 94} jo ey UY) JOMe4

-AiG@se9 JUSLIND S,UBIPIY 4184) Noge

suoyjsenb 0) sesuodse: sey) ul Ajdueys

poseyip uosud ul SBUVey pue SIBYOW

oz Zep Lop ¥S g'9S 996 JOAON

Set oe ree zz zzz zz ywuow e aoU0 UeY) S$}

oz est St gel 6 UOW B BDU0 }SB9} Ty

99 vs vs $9 9 yOOmM & BOUO SBA Hy

%6 0 %E 0 %v 0 £0 g Awep ysoue 20 Apeg

SUSIA jEUDSIeg

ez ool oO ote @ 0€ JOON

7 z6t 68 , 98 yuow B BoU0 UeY) SSO)

eZ S 0€ voc 902 ‘ez 4 YUOW & BdU0 )SeB9} Ty

6st 00 voc 9SE 44 : 490M & BOU0 |SBO} Ty

%S'6 %6 € %E” 96 ce Awep ysoune 10 Apeg

6 €Ot sepso-onqng wen

L94 6 €z 6rug ;

$2 912 Ayedoig £6 io z9 92€ Ss 8 JOAON

%LLS %6 CP yUs}OI,, z6 vt et eet ss 's quow & soul Ue SSO)

——"sjuereduon Susie osuayO 6» ve ze est 99 $9 YUOW & BOUO }SBO} Ty

[661 "Sieu0Sud Sje)5 JO juedIeg yueuns zt 6 SE €9€ 012 76 86 YOOM B BOUO }SEO} Hy

%OSt “EZ %OE “ELL %Z9 99 Awep ysouse 10 Ageg

‘(% 11) syueseduou ue (% pz) euoydeye,

sesueyo Grup 10) sousjues e Buyues ; ,

ee eZ GZ aA Viz v0z JOAON

2q 0) Ajoyt Gs0W e18M OSU 8]2}S os £01 001 L6 991 OL \uow e Boul UeYy $$8]

Ul SJUBIE “SIBPUBYO JUBIOIA OQ O} o7z § 6€Z gez oe 92 zz \UOW ® BOU0 }Se9} Ny

(%1LS) syueseduou ue Ajex1) SSe] a10m Ser ver Ler vz ee ze YOOM B BOUO }SEO Jy

. : a

(% pp) sjuesed ‘ssouosud e215 Buowy %LtZ ORL %ESE %8 Lt 6 %1 OL pase, T

“ssepueyo Grup esem uosud jesepey ul ajeuej; = EW CPRHOL aes EW CHOL USIPHYD UWA JDEWUOS 40

sjuased OY) JO %Z9 e11yM ‘UOsUd B)e1S = =e eet vas

ul ew Buiues esem syusied Yorum

10} WUD JO dA} UOWWOS SOW eu

819M (%pp) SeSUEYO JUR/OIA “(1 9/qe})

166} ‘UOSstd jes0pe4 10 93g Uy SyueIed Aq

USIPHIYD YYW $}De}U09 jeUOosJed pue ‘yew ‘eucydeje; yo Aouenbe

4 “9 1981

seniagoe Bunjoyyen Brup 40 ‘Aveqqoi

pue ‘ynesse jenxes ‘eproiwoy se yons

‘S@SUBYO JUBIOIA JOU}IO JO) PEQUBJUES

@JeM SyuaIed ey) JO Awofew e ‘uosud

(% 19) tesepe4 pue (%/S) BIS YO Uy

‘UOISSIUPE BOUIS POYSIA

seq JOABU PY YIOG jO % Op JOAO

ysnf pue ‘sysia Apyyuow payodes (%€Z)

sua ey pue (%0Z) sueyow jo sebe

-juedied seyWwIg “Ajeanoedse, ‘sueujey

JO %vE pue % Gp 0} Pesedwod ‘yoe}U0

yew Ajyeom popodes %Gp pue syed

auoydaja) Ayeem peyodes %9g ‘UOSUd

jesepe, uy Seow Buowy ‘ueupyyo

NOY) YM JORUOD Apyeem yO EdA) EWOS

pey ssayjey JO %OQ pue sYEoW jo

$1949144j243 Bnup 10 SiapUayo JUdJOJA

210M uOosyd Uj Sjuded jo Ayofew vy

%O0L NOGY “USIP}YS JEU) YIM PeUCS

jesopey = BIS SOUSpISE, JO ede/d )Se} JO SJOAS] JEjWHIS esOW PeY suEeWe;

661 ‘Sjered = wou Uosud jo SOUEISIN = pue syejOW ‘seyewu jesepe4 Buoy

“‘proyesnoy jsej 118) ‘uosud Buuejue sours

WO SOP OOS JBAO Poy eq 01 (%EH) UeIPIYD EU) Aq PeY!SIA USE JeAeU

uosud jesepe 4 ul esoy) Ue) Ajo, = pey (% 7G) sueE} pue (% PG) sJeyow

SSO] OS]E BOM (% 11) SONMIOE) QEYS Ut

SJUBIEY “BOUSPISO) }SB] JEU) JO SOWW

OS UIWIM pesnoy aq 0} (%/) UOsUd

jesepey ul esou) se Ajay!) Se BOIMy

848M (%/ |) UOSUd a}e}¢ UI SjuIed

‘JQAOMOH, “BOUEPISE! JO BoR;d }se}

Wog jo Awofew wy “uaspyyo EU)

WoO SYSIA AjyUOW ysee} Je payodes

uosud 9835 UI (%1Z) sseujey pue

(%pzZ) sseyJow WYO jo seBeyuedIed

sepurs sepueb Aq (yea jou pip sysiA

yeuosied jo Aouenbey ey) ‘JeAeMOH

NOY) WO SOW OO} UY) es0W Pjoy

as0m uosud (% pg) fesepe4 pue (%79) “S@yes SOMO} JE (%{Z) [EW 30 (%SZ)

SEIS YIOQ ul sjueved yo Awolew y — suoydese) Aq joRyUOo Apyoom popodes

SJOUJL) ‘UOSUEGWOD Ul “UaIPHYD HOY

SDUOPISAs 4O Bde]d ySe] 494} = ~— YIM JORWUOD pew Ajyoom PeOdes %Gp

WO4j SOW OO} UEY) G41OW Pjeyy 19M pue ‘yeem e BouU0 }Se9j Je GUOYda}e}

uosud 93k3g Ul SjudIeEd 40 %09 49AQ = Aq VID sEUY 0} ayYOdS AaUy JEU) pres

UOSUd B)E}S U! SIBYJOW JO %Opy Apeon

“SIOUJE} JO % Op 0} POsedwod jOeWU0O

Apyoom yseej ye peyode, sseyjow

JO %09 PUe ‘UeIPPYS EU) YIM JORWUOD

Ayyyuow jo eddy ewos pode: 0} (%Z9)

suoyjey UY) Ajax!) G10W 810M (%8/)

SIOYOW “SISYVe} UEY) VEIPHYO sEUy

UM OeR2}UOS yUENbe’y BsOW Peyode

Anueysisuoo syeyjow ‘suosud 87e)S U|

“‘syugsed

JO %9S Aq peyode sysia jeuosued

pue syuesed jo % pg Aq peyodes yoee

SJ9YO| PUB S}}EO BUDYdE/9) YIM *OR}UCD

jo sodA) ye peyode, uosud jesepe4

ut syuesed jo seBeyuecsed soy6yy “vols WS

-SIWPE BOUIS YSIA |eUOSIEd B PeAleoe!

pey % Ep pue ‘euoydeja} eu 8A

USIPIYD 484) YM UEeYOds PeY %BG

‘U@IPHYS WEY) YW Suep_e; BuiBbueyoxe

peyode % 69 ‘seyewu! e}e}5 Buowy

‘(9 81Q@}) S¥SiA jeUOSIEd JO ‘ew

‘auoydeje) Aq soupe ‘uoIssiwpe 1104)

SOUIS USIPIIYS JOU] YIM JORJUCD BWOS

Burwey peyode, uosud (%¢6) fesepe4

pue (%0g) 8181S WOW UI Sjuged jsOyy

UasPITYD 4194) YW JEU

Ajqoom jSe9j Je pey UOstd 97835 UY

S4BYIOU JO %NQ PUL SIOUIL JO %OV

"sueek G ueY) Sse} jo

SedusUes Pods! 0} (%GZ) sueyjej se

Ajo Se Bommy ynoge osje asem (%Qy) | -

uosud jesepe, ul SJeyoyy “(SyUOW

€g) sssyjow Ue (SyUOW 71)

eaousjues ebesene soHu0; e peyode:

Osje Sanoes jesope, uy SBE

“SIOUJEY JO %G} 0} Posedwood sueed

UeY) SS8j jO SBOUBjUeS Peyode UOSUd

BJEIS U! SIBYJOW OY) JO yUBDIEd WYBIe

-Ayo4 “(Syjuow 6) sueyjow jo esouy

ue) seGuc; sueeA cs ysowje pebesone

yey) SeoUSUeS Peyode (SyjUOW

OSL) uosud a}e}S ul sueYjRs ‘sIepUeyo | .

jUaOIA JO eBBeyuedsed JeyBiy wey UEAIS

‘(jesepe, jo

%E PUB B}E}S JO %Q) yeep JO UOSU UI

Oj!| 0} peduejues sou) Bulpnpui ‘sueeA

OL See} Je JO SeoUe;UeS Pepode

uosud (% pp) jesape4 pue (% gy) aeIS

YIOg ul SjusIed aL) JO %OP EAC (8

9/4e}) uosud jesepey UI (SYUOW 171)

sueek | pue uosud a}e}¢ u! (syjuOW

Op) sueeA Z| OAC — seousjUeS

eGesene AujGue; peyode: syuesed

‘Buppyen Brup pue sesueyo jUa}OjA yo

Pe}DAU0d eGeyusdJed a6se; ayy 0) oNG

uosud jesepey uy SyyuOW EO) pue

uosud 93235 u} SYJUOW Og eAUeS

0} pe}sedxe sjusied ‘aBesaae uD %S

‘suepueyo Aedoid esem sueyjow

JO WOL Pue Siaujej jO YG ayn

‘uosud 8}8)S Ul UBY) EMO} YONW Sem

(%9) ssueyjow pue (%71) SuELe; YOG 0

Buowe siepuayo juajoIA jo ebeyUedIed

ey) “sesueyo Brup jo payoiAuod a18m

uosyd jesepey4 Ul S@YJOW JO SJapeNb £0

~88JY) PUL SIBLE} JO SP4NY-OM | 9

“SOJEWU! BE}S JO eSOUy VEL JEWS =

@JOW 818M UOSUC jBJEPEeY UI SJEUIe) £0

PuUe SJEeYJOW JO SeSUEYO JUEUIND oY,

(%Z pue %1L 1) pney pue (ssoyjey

JO %EZ 0} pasedwios %GE) sesueyo ce

Brup 10) peouayues eq 0} Ajoxy as0W A

818M SIOWJOW “AJOQQOs JO Pe}DIAUOD 8q

0) (%9) siopow ueY) Ajoy ex0w erom | geo

(%1) UOSUd a}e}S UI SSIVeY “SJOyJOW

jO %9Z 0} Pesedwod ‘suepuayo

JUSJOIA 818M OSU 8)2}S U! SIBUV) JO

yueosed aay-Apo4 “Sesueyo jeu

jO SedA) yUaJEyIP 10) UOSU 8)e)S UI

ewn Buvues a8m suoyje) pue sueOW

ow9gg j§‘owscolL ow ow ow7g ow og ,UROW

et ee os MOU JOU OG

so et zz peedxe eseajes ON

z el as SYUOW +Op

z vl zy syuow §£7-08

ee vst 6 SyuOW 6§/14-0Z1

v 9S2 SZ Zlt SyUOW 614-72

et 6S1t SyUOW | /-BP

62Z Sri 67Z €z SyUOW /P-HZ

%Z 9Z %Z 1 %6 LL sSyjuOW pZ vey) Sse)

q22U8} UES yUGBUND UO pesues

@q 0} ew 1/270) peewnsy

owEeg OWPz, Ow ‘owPrg Ow Os, Ow oP queoyW

£0 ee ‘ e 9 yreep/ey)

es zt v6 661 SYUOW +OpZ

zs z6 06 e9 6 SyUOW §£7-081

et 261 96 i ev Squow §/14-0Z1

vz 90€ oOo€ aA zz (aA SyyUuOW 614-09

ray oct ze 66 Lz SyUOW §S-9F

€9z $6 90 €0z A | syjuow Cf-,

“I'S tz %E Z %EL ez Syjuow Z|, vey) Sse)

yyBue eouejues wnuyxey

a Mh Mo)

jesape4 aeS

766) ‘Sjueled syewWUI jo juedIeg

166} ‘2epue6 Aq ‘uespyyy> sou;w YY Su8UOSLd jesepey puke

BJEIS JO BS} INUN PesueES 9q 0} aw pue YZHUe soUe}UeS WNUNXeEW “g e1Ge)

seyy6neysuew pue sepunw sepnpul,

%6 %O'1 %E0 %Z0 %Z payjoedsunjeno

6 GL $6 Gl JOPsO-ONQNd 2840

: 69 60 ez SUOdEd AA

%6 ’ %9'bi %v0 cor %E SO@SUBYO 10P10-INGNg

9 vs € 90 Brup seo

Oey 6 OP 06 eA’ Buppyyes 1

re 6zt e L6 UOISSESSOg

%6 %299 %ZZ9 “IS %0EZ %E sesueyo Brug

£0 £0 9 60 Ayedosd soo

v0 vo c Zt Ayedosd ues

ec ze € tz pnei4

£0 zo Zz 91 YOU) BPIYeA JOVOW

v0 v0 $e € Aueoue)

£0 co ys 9 Asey6ng

%E %6 %ES %E8Z " sesueyo Apedoig

60 60 1z eg WUEIONA JOLIO

a et ZL 66 wnessy

‘8 eZ v9 e Aseqqoy

80 £0 Lt e aiNesse jenxes

zt zt 98 e2PORUOH

%CZL %E LL %0°9Z ae) SOSUSYO JUBIOIA

owe oew 1290 1 eure, = SEW yey0 @SUaYO JUELING

jesepes anes

7661 ‘Swwased SyeWUI JO [085104

1661 ‘s2epue6 Aq

‘uosud jes0pe4 10 9)e}S Uy SyUeIeEd ayeEUIUY JO BSUEO JUeUIND *{ BGe)

“@SUEYyO JUBIOIA }Sed 40 JUALIN BUC JSeO} Je YM sISWIpOSy, | _UOHPAUOD JOUd e pey %HZ pue SMEs

—_— ter sonsni jeurwuo e pey sjueseduou

' o8 oL SL ott 9Zh 4 OY) JO %Sp INOge ‘asuayo jUEUIND HOLY

ze gz 602 L6i zsz g'bz st 40} ySeue yy “Ajqetedde sayip you pip

es Ort oe z7St Olt 691 Zz syuaseduou pue sjyuased jo savoj;siy jeu

iv re et z7eL Zo 891 L ewut uosud 21S Buowy

%E 99 %¥ SE %S LE %l ve %6 LZ %8 ZZ 0 eeu 7 :

SeusjUuesS VONHeIBIIE UI ,

puoneqosd soud jo sequinyn “Sedus}UaS JOUd ajdajnw pesues

' ; pey (%09) uosud a}e}¢ u! syuqzed

€1z ¥ 6Z 8 8z o9e 992 €lz gSISUIPHSJ JOWIO .

99 rat vis ‘9 of € hwo sysvuppes Brug | ISOW (@SUaYyO yUE/OIA }Sed JO yUeUND e

9S vez zzz Zz oer Lop eSISIAIPIDGY JUSIOLA JEUNE YM SJEPUBYO yeada) S}sIAIpIOeL

Lee 99 $29 €s9 a wll Su0Udg JUSIOIA BJM UOSU 3}e}S UI SjusJed

%€°99 rst Sle %LVE %EIZ %BZZ @UON JO (%9p) yeY JsoMNY “ssepUEyo

ow)-3suy asem Ao yeu) pres sepurewes

80 Oo zo Ss Apoysno wos pedeos3 ey) SYM ‘UOHe QO JO UOHRIEOse0UI

ev Ze 0 zz €z uoneqosd uD

ve Lt 9 Sz ajoued UO 0} eousues oud e peyode, uosud

19 wl OLz 09s ey smeis | SIE}S Ul SjuaIed JO sJapeNb-sasQ EAC

“%6ES %“ZZL %OEL %0' bP %6 0S @UON

yseue jueuND

oe “‘ySOue JO GW OL)

—- ye uoIsi/uedns UORe god 0} sous}UeS

ayewa aIeW jo, jew arew OL Buues 88M % PZ pue sjoJed UO aJemM

je19 p24 , ons %SZ ‘uOosud ae} Ul Sjused ety JO

ee (6 219@)) Ayunuiwoo ey ul! UoIsuedns

166} ‘sepueb Aq @j01ed 40 uOneQoid se Yons ‘Apoysno

“‘USIPIYD JOUIW YM SOUOSUd JeJEPE4 PUR 9}e}S JO SOO}S}Y FEUIWD “6 B1qGe) WOdy @SBSjOJ J|EUONIPUOD JO BdA} BwWOS

UO 818M UOSU 8}2}S Ul SjUeIed OY) jO

P Oo

— a Kueme od ‘(% pe) sue now %Ey JSOue JUSUND Noy } aw 94) ly

sueBournijey UBY) S}SIAIPINGs 8q 0} Ajax) es0W payeseose2u) ueeq

Swuessesdep *(%6) SIUEINUINS (%O1) — asam (% G9) senmoE) jeIepe UI SIOYE} magne aptogeanaet

Seye1d0 JoYJO Pue UJOIEY Aq PEMOIIOY ‘yosud aYEIS UI SY (% ZZ 0} PereEdWIOD uosud e835 Ul Syussed 4O %S/ 40AD

pm me %ZQ) UORDIAUOD JOUd B Woda 0}

Suypnjout “(%2Z) S6rup peseq-eules0o {yay ssaj pue “Seue JO OWN Je SMEIS

pue (%6¢) euenfuew Busn peyodes sonsn{ jeuswus e yodes 01 (%Gp) Uosud ___ |") SIEP SEEIO2 HOY MoUy JOU PIP

JUOWWOS }SOW UOSUd 8}2}S UI SJUeIeY se Ajony Se yey JO (%|) Peseajes aq 0} pa}Dedxe senou

CONS LH COONS — JOYE UOSU /eJEPe4 U! SyUeJed jo

—-— oe 0) peypedxe uosud jesepe4 ur sjuesed

Sueseduon swoleg 36n Brup Jud SHOUJO —-__- 40 BOE Nogy “(syjuoW gg) ssoyjous

TT Eee %ZE 0} Pasedwod suORWIAUCD seed

uey) se6u0; € Noge e/uesS 0}

BIEIS JO WeOK8d 20ud G@s4) ISCO JE POUCA SIOUIE) Ho, ,0cx9 (sujuow S01) UOSUd jesepe

“asn Brup soud jo sjene} somo} AnyBys wt 4 mtn pan mong ea ssewe4 ‘(Gua eousjues ueew eu)

peyodes uosud e815 ul sjueseduoy —~ oo a SON J© % GB) SOW EO} Jo 1210) eGeseAe

(OL 219e}) esuayo yueuIND Hoy e10ojoq STE HOM (HBP) SiOUIE) Pull (SIEYOW Le axjas 0} payedxe SoNmoe) jEIEpS

@IEIS UI (%SB) SjuEIed s UI p UW asoyy © YO} ESBEIOL GJOUed UO oIYM PajsauE SEP eSeEIOI JOY} MOUY JOU PIP %

Useq BAeY 0} (%G) SISyow Ue Ajoyy | '

. ‘PeSesajes 8q 0} pe;pedxe Jenou syuqued

@SUdyO 494} S10W 818M (%SZ) SIEYIEJ “SIOYJOU

810j0q YjuOW ay) U SBNUup pesn ptr tage ectiate sueak (| }Se9} Je e/UeS 0} pa}edxe

uosud 93235 ul Sjussed yo Ayuofew y P&HVOde/ UOSUd a}eIS UI SIOUIES HEIEAD ——kauy rein pres syuesed jo %g) UOSUd

%0 %Z'LL voRese0seDu! 40 UOReqoud BIEIS uy (SyUOW Gy) Sseyow UeY)

(%LL) Ssoyjow 0} eouswes Joud PE = Quo suead ¢ Aye eu ales 0} peyedxe

jO yeu) adi) Ayeeu sem seouejues %ISh %1'6r Pn en ae (syjuow 7g) sueyjey ho tea

soud sas jsea ye Bunuodes (%7¢) usm jeu € PPH = UB BLL BLY JO % GG) esSeajeu J19yy O}

supe; jo aBeyusdsed oy, “(sseyjow oar ee KOOVEN euRIAIS SUJUOW Og JO /2}0} @sueS 0} Pe;edxe

JO %Q ‘SIOJL} JO %EZ) S|SIAIPIOSs BIEIS JO UBIO uosud aje)S ul syuesed eGeseAe UD

UBIPIIYD WAY] PUB SjuaIeY payeseqsEDU] g

'SIE}O) OLY UY PEPNpU! ase sBrup peyredsun J9WIO,

‘ddd pue Gs sepnpu, ‘pepodas jon —

oulmejeydweyjow pue sulwejeydwe sapnpuj, ‘Brup jo edAy auo vey esow pesn

apnjeend pue ‘ssazZNbuen ‘seyesnyqueq sepnpul, eaney Aew ssauosud asneseq j2}0) UeY) a:0W 0} SPpe He}EQ :SION

- - - 00 i) $0 oF 69 r9 syueyequ|

v0 80 0 60 zt “th ott vl was psueGournnye}

os ee ve 18 99 zg 681 ze £81 2SJUBINWIAS

so or 60 ze 6z 6Z Z Eh 6 rt er aswuessesdeg

ve 92 Lz Ly oF lev ra A 6b Lo sayerdosuncsey}

gS oOL 16 wal 01Z £02 6 9¢ €9P Lsr yORs0/@UIEDOD

09 ru eb L'0z 97¢e re zus $29 999 ysryseyevenivey

%6 LL %0°EZ %9°ZZ %P LE %9 9b %0 9b %v 99 %8SL %ZSL e5rup Auy

266} ‘Ssoucsyd jesepe4

- - a £0 zo el ra’ Zh syueyeyyy

it 91 91 Zz se ve 9°92 9°8z ¢8z psuaBournye}{

es oP oF SOL 6 z76 Loe ¥'8z 9°8z 2SJURINWINS

ez et et vl 6Y Ss 6 SZ Lez 6 eZ asuessesdeg

Zo zs 9S oo z76 L6 ee 8 bz €Sz SeyedonOs0}4

£82 ost o9o1 obr LSz lz 719 zzs ees yORs0/eUeD0D

98 rs zSt Giz €0r €6€ 69 6 062 ysiyseyeueniveyy

%S 7b %6'ZE %9'CE %E°S9 %S' LS %1 8S %E 98 %y SB %b'Se -5rup Auy

166} ‘Sseu0syd ee)5

ayewe 4 arew jE, ewe 4 a1ew 7290 | qewe4 en «ROL

BSUYO OU) JO OWI BSUBYO OY) B10)8q UOW ~ SBrup Bursn JAR

ey) ye s6rup Burs) oy ur S6rup Busy)

— peyode, oym sjuesed SjeWUi jO jUe0I0g

166} ‘sepueb Aq ‘uosyid jesepey 10 838)5 Uy Syudsed ayeWUY yo esn Brug “o4 e1qGe)

“syyBy jeo1sAyd peyejas-joyooje

pey %6E pue ‘Burjuup ey1yM spuaLy

pue suoquwow Ajwey yim syuewnbe

peyodes %Zp ‘sed ayy ul yUTUp UeAUID

pey Aow yey) pres syuaued jo % gp

inogy “esnge joyooje Joud Ym peje

-0sse suoiAeyeq peyqnoy ul BuibeGue

peyodes osje uosud 9}e)¢ u! sjueed

ELE WL GE BSUEYO jo ouIQ Je jOYORIe

JO souenyul Jopur)

%LEZ %IlSZ juapuadep joyoory

swaseduon Sjualeg OSNGE jOYOoje JOUd

~~ [661 “Sieuosnd —

SIEIS JO UBIO

“asnge joyooje Joud jo syodes seu) ul

J8YIP JOU PIP UOSUd 8}e}S UI SyUeJedUOU

pue sjuased ‘yesenQ “(ABojopoyjayy

89S ‘JUBLUNSUI IOWD Oy} UO S}rEJep

40) eQuapUadep joyooje yo Auoysiy

peyodes uosud 9}e}¢ ul sued oy

JO %GZ ‘juewngsu onsOUBeIp DW

a4) 0} Buipsoooy “(11 91qQe}) esueyo

WUOUNS +94) BunWOS B14M (% pe)

sBrup ueyy (%/¢) joyooje jo aoue

“nyu! ey) Jepun Bureg pode: 0} Ajayy

@JOW 848M UOSUC 9}}S Ul SjJUdIeY

JOYOd|/e jO BQUaN Ul 8Yy) JOpUN a1yM

@SUdjO 1984) Pey;WWOD UOSUd

9323S Ul SjusIed jo psy} e 482AG

“seuoj}siy esn Grup seyuurs

peyode, uosud jesepe u! sioyjes pue

sueyjow ‘(ssoujey Buowe seyBiy) esn

Bueniuew Woy epIsy “esueyo EU)

Bumywwoo ueym sBrup jo souenyur ey)

JOPUN 849M UOSUG jeJEpe, UF SyUeJed

jO eoueNyu! ayy JepUN B}1yM Se

HOU) POY!IWWOS Brey 0} AjeH!| SE BOIM)

NOGe 8J8M SJIBYJOW “eSUEYO UENO

104) Ul SNIP JO BoUENyU! EY) Yode:

0} (%EE) ssopey ueY) Ajoxy esOW Osye

840M (%Evy) Siow “(SsEYPE) JO %9Z

0} pesedwoo syeyow JO %Gp) 4ORIO 40

@UIeD09 JO ESN ey) Ayenowed ‘esueyo

84) B1OJEq YWUOW ety UY Bsn Brup

yodes 0} (% gs) sueyjey UeY) Ajoxy es0W

848M (%GQ) UOSUd a}2}S UY SIEOYY

jO jusdsed Besyy-AjUeM, “esUayo

104) 810j8q YJUOW ey) UI S6rup pesn

yey Ayeeu pue s6rup pesn pey p ul ¢

‘uosud jesepey ul syuesed Buowe somo;

839M @sN Grup soud jo syodes aupj,

%Z'6Z %0'61 s6rup snouerenuy “SOUR; UeYY SeUO}siy esn Brup snoves

Bursn 40n3 = OW PayOdal UOSUd eNRIS UI SIEYOYY

_ — oie s6rup 105 Aeuow 40 s6rup

386 0} eujs> 43043 PeyywWOD

— SST OPA a uOsyd e72Ig UI SIByJOUW ¢ UL |

SEIS Ul Syuased

@JEwWUI JO jUBDIEg “sueGouronyey

(%6L) ssomey uew (%GZ) 40 syuessesdep pesn %Z aj1yM ‘esuUeyo

sueyjow Aq Ajuowwoo esow peyode: say) JO ew EU) ye (%G) syUe;NWAS pue

osje sem esn Brup snouenenuy (%9) seyerdo yo esn ey) peyodes uosud

JOUd “SJOUJE} JO %G OJ pasedwood 48je}S ul syusUed jo seHeyUedJed jenbe

‘s6rup 10) Aeuow 40 sBrup 306 0} ogy “EWS sey) BunWWOS eyM

SWS seu) BuNywWwOS peyodes uosud (%SL) eueniuew pue (%91) s6rup

HNLIS Ul SISyJOW JO %ZE ‘uoHIPpe ul =peseg-eU!ed09 JO eoueNyu! ey) YOdes

0} Ajo JSOW 30m SpusIeY ‘sHrup

jO BQUBNYU! OU) JOpUN BIYM BSUsyO

}UEUND seu) BuNWWOS peyodes

‘(Ajaanoedses

"%G pue %G1L) suoypey se (%1 1)

sajeido 40 (% gz) s6rup peseq-eules09 uosud 9}2}S ul syuesed oY JO puly)

6 UaIPIIYD WEYL Pue sjUaIe Pe}esBIJIEIU|

“Sonor; jesope4

ul (% 9) sueuVey pue (% 1) Sseyow

Buowe sews BsOW 818M SJOPEDIPU!

SSOUH! |EJUBW JO SYOdeY “SJOUjE}

‘E9PPLb FON oon oe deanna a i aiineen JO %E|L 0} Pesedwoo ssouj}! jeyuow

Keys \yBHWEAO UE 19 VONIPUOD /EUOROWE JO jEWUEW e JOYE PeHodey, jo uonesipul ue peyodes sueyjow

rm DO TeVTETY | 1° EZ “‘UOSUA B1EIS U1 Siuored PuoUlY

jeyow & 07 jYByWEAS PeyNWpY

%18t %bFL mm Ayequeyy

6L ze 9€ res ee 68 UOHIPUOS /EUONOWS JO pees ae

emt tetas @yeIs Jo jUEDed

%e'OL “9S %6S %S ZZ %PEL %b' PL win Aye que -(9% 61) UespHYD ;noUWM S10

ewe, oeN = feVOL ewe, SEN OL -uosud ee) Buowe seyBiy yeymowos

jexepes HIS 8J8M SSOUI! |eyUEW e JO SPOdey

166} ‘SjUssed SYEUNU} JO JUSIIEg ‘wes6o1d yuewjeey JO jeydsoy jeyueW

1664 ‘sepueb Aq e ut Aeys yyBiWeAo Ue JO UORIPUOD

‘uosyd jesepey 40 97835 Ul} SJUEd syeUNUY JO SNYEIS YOY [EIUEW “ZEFIGEL | —jeUOPOWE JO /EJUOLW JUGLIND B -BYOWUO

Buimoyo) ayy jo seyye peyodes Aey

[bojopoureyy 098 esnawou 2R80UBeH JOVD OW Jo uoRd OSE @ 104 | 1 It Asjeweus Paropfsuco Shem SeVels

‘sesuodse: 3D) eAmsod esow 40 ¢ Aq peunseow, (ZL 91q2}) SSouH! je}UEW e JO SUCH

eo) o0e 6c Foe ey IY AIO UM Jo SaMOG & 10 3809 JO “eojpuy wodes 0} (%9) uosud jesepe4

syped-xis ¢ ‘syuUp OZ) Aep | ut ul eSou) Se Ajoxy] SE GOIN) G10M (% HL)

somby JO yy © Se YON Se Pe} uosud ae)S ul sjuged ‘yyeey jeyUEW

cr Off vez ele eee Z6C LiUGy jeo1shyd e oyu} UEHOD GurpseBes suogsenbd 0) sesuodse: uy

est FOE 862 a ESpusyy 40 ‘Aywey ‘osnods Ssouj }eyUeW B JO

snk vaya epumuenes DOH suonesipul peyodes uosud

Luz 69th) ee ree $8r Lh LioYooje jo soueNyuy o1p sepun a}e}S Ul Spusled / Ul | jNOGYy

OIIYM @FOYOA JO}OW & UOAUG

— s9n@ Nok eney BupfuUP ONY ‘(Ajoanoedse: ‘%p, pue %EZ) suBy

991 O12 Loz geez we OE @SUEYO JUBLIND JO BUH Je feoreAud peysjaxsouooye pus (%2

ounce pheouenega mig sepun | CN PELBGUIC S699) BUIAUP NUTUp WOdes

0} sseujowW UY) Ajey!] Gs0W OS]/e GJEM

%1ZL %99t %E9! %SEZ %ESZ %bSZ .20uepuedap joyooje jo Aso}S!H uosud jesepey ul suey ‘UOSUd 8}2}S

qeueg ON ey0l ojewes SW eIOL ul Sy “(%0€) Se;Ndsip SRSeWOP pue

je20pe3 HES (%zz) GunyBy peyejes-joyooje pepode

266) ‘Sjuesed SyeuU jo \UEDI04 osje Senyioes jesepey u} syuesed

166) ‘sepueb Aq ‘uosyd jesepe, 10 ey jo soBeyuedsed JOMO7 “(%1Z)

overg uj syuzed eewuy yo seoueyedxe pue eouepueder joyoory “14 eiqea | — UMUUP olluM osuEyO ON Gugyusuoco

yoda 0} 10 (% 91) uepuedep joyooye

@q 0} Ajaxy SS@} es8M UOSUd }BIEPe UI

QJ0j9q YUOW OY} U! OONO'LS 1SE9) 12 ‘sseussejowoy sjuased ‘ssauosud aeIg O}paredWwoD Sf

jo awoou! jeuosued e peyode: uosyd jo spoued pepodes (%p) sueyjey pue

jesepe4 UI Sjuased Jo BES pue aeIS — (%G) SIEyJow jo SeHeyuedIEd JEyUUIsS ‘(Ajeanoedses '% L¢ pue %Ov) Bur

ul syuesed ayy jo yueoed xIs-AyoO4 ‘Senoe) jeEsOpe Uj “UO!SS}WPe B10jEq =~ JUP Of1UM syyBy jeorsAyd oyu Bume6

seek sy ul ssejewoy Bureq odes 0} pue (%9¢ 0} pesedwoo %6y) yUTUP

-(%9Z) sueUes JO JE PEpeedxe (%p) UOSUd jesepe U! ESOL VEL) A}OrH] Buraup pode 0} sseyjow uey) Ajo>1)

WS INQ (% gE) emo] SEM UOSUd jEJepe4 e10W BOM (%G) UOSLUC B}EIS UI sjuesed 90 OS|e 10M UOSU B)EIS UI} SILC 4

ui sseyjow Buowe juowAojdweun —‘WeJAO “(E1 81Ge)) UOISsHpe OF JOUd =—“BuPJULIP BHM OU NOU) Bunyww0s

JO Jone] OYJ “SEYIeSjO(%ZZ) seNeNb —-seaA OY UI SSEUSSEj@WOY JO poued e peyodes (%6Z) sueyjow ue (%/€)

e 0} pazedwod ‘seve seu es0jeq ~pOdes 0} (%g) SEYPE} Se Ajo!) SE BIN) sue yjes jo eueys seyeos6 y “esnge

yuow ey) UI peAojdweun eseM UOsUd @19M (%QL) UOSUd a}eIS UI SIOOW joyooje jo SUOHeDPUul JoyJO WOded O}

@jJEIS Ul SIOYJOW JO ye} “peAojdweun Ajay Gs0W a1eM SuEye) ‘eoUepUedep

asem Aayy yey) pres uosud |esepe UI uojssjwipe 0} sod 4eeK oy) Uy jOYOoe JOj EE ey yow UOSUd

| Syuesed JO %/Z Puke B}e}S UI SjueJed jo ssojewoy useq pey uosyd BIEIS Ul (%EZ) SIeyJow pue (%SZ)

% EZ ‘JSOUE s9Yy O} JOUd YUOW OLY UI ayeIS Ul SIEYJoW jo %OZ AueeN = SER} JO SEHEJUBDIED JEWS SUM

——————————————... eee

—————————

UBIPIIYD HOY] PUB SJUBIE Pajes9IJEIuU] Oh

“@wooul jo sedAy poy S,UBUDOM ‘eoueINsSU! jUeWAC|GWeUN Se YONS

“uogesuedwod “@woout! jo SeQUNOS adnINW pey erey Aew ssouosud

S,UBJa}8A pue UORESUSdWOD esneseg %001 UeY) e20w Oo} ppe Aew 1€}9G,

%OS %LE “%BE %rst %SS %76 Lis OUS © Uj 10 JoaNs OY UO

Buyay ‘se04 ysed ou) uy SsojowoH

a 7 9 o9 ez ve re AeEO

Lez bee 90€ 18z lz zlz saounos je6o4)

e9 z0 90 $9 mz) 90 syuewAed Auowyespoddns pryud

zzz Lz ee 19z elt vel spusuyApwe 4

eee vl we Gir Ct vst eSwuowAed seysuel |

%LZS %P89 %9Z9 “DEP %KESD %P99 Aueyes 10 sabe

-Saue jUGUND 810j9q

YjUuOU Uy BWODU] JO BDINOS

99 Ls St 9S 8 78 @s0w 40 000'S$

z8 er br LL 6h vel 666'b-000'7$

v6L bez g'€z ro Sz v'bz 666'+-000'1$

912 vst gst Le ro 691 666-009$

9ez BE vr y'ez 661 $02 66S-007$

%9'0Z %Z91 %S9L %672 %O9t %S9I 00Z$ veW sse7

SOLE JUSLIND 810j0q

yUOW ay} Ul BWOdUY /EUOSIOg

Vz zz zz et ez Lz JEUOISEIDO

zl re se 68 z6 76 ewn-Yed

vrér 486s €9 A:) z'6€ ¢o9 48=s-« 6S ewn-Hin4 %EZL —%ZE —_-2eOA JSEd OM UI SSEFOWOH

g19 «6b | =6SEL 66p 92L 60 pehojdui3 ;,

%ZBE %O'SZ %S9Z WOS %HLZ %bEZ pekoydweun wes We Pen

See JUGLIND 810j9q

ywuow Buynp juewAojdwg %8'79 %6 0 JSO.UE JUELIND 810j9q

qjewe, sew e701 qewe4 dsjeW i ed SUSIedUON Susie

jes0pey 81S 7661 “Suouospd

1664 ‘Sjussed ayewU! jO JUGDIOd @IEIS JO JUGDIEY

166} ‘sepueb Aq ‘uosyd jesepe, 40 938) U} (%Z1) uorssjwipe 0} JOud seeA

sjuased ayewiuy jo SSeussajaWwoY pue ‘eWOdU} uewAojdwe ysaue-dig “C} 919281 ysed oy) ul SSoUSSe/EWOY jO BOUeP PU!

soyBiy & peyode: osje uosud 972)S

‘yseue 0}

joud yuow jeuy seuy UI Seounos jebey}!

wos eWIOdU! Pode! 0} Ajay Ajenbe

QJM UOSUd 8}E}S Ul (%/Z) SIEVE} pue

(%8Z) SIOYJOWY “SIBYIE) JC %G'O vey}

$S9j 0) pesedwod ‘syuewAed Auowmje

30 yoddns pyiyo Buiaiedes peyode

SIBYJOW JO %Q NoGy (%8l

pue %9Z) SpueLy JO Ajwey Wd. BWOdUI

pue (sueyjyej JO %EL 0} pesxedwoo

‘%Zp) SueWwAed JajsUeN @AIGI0I

0} Ajoyty Qu0W ase Ng ‘jseUe JEU)

as0jeq yYUOwW au ul sebem eAIe001

0} (% gg) SuEpE; ULL, Ajay) SSO] 10M

(% pp) sueyjow ‘sseuosud aye)G Buowy

(% QQ) jeEs9pe4 pue (%99) BES YO U!

seve a10jeq OW ey UI! SJUaIedUON “(%GE) EWOOU} jeUOSIEd

ur syuewAed Auouye 10 poddns pyyd —- JO. 000" L$ 3SBe} Je WOdeL 0} 40 *(%S9)

penieces sjuged jje jo %} Ue) SSO

“syuawAed uonesuedwod 10 ‘ANDES

jeID90S ‘eseyjem Se yons syuowAed

pehojdwe eq 0} syueued ueLy Ajo

$S9| eJ8M UOSUd a}}S Ul SyUeJedUOU

‘JSO.UE JUBUND NEU) GIOJOG YJUOW OL) Uj

seysuen Buyareoes Pode 0} (%6) uosud

jesepe4 ul esouy Ue) joy Gs0W B10M

(% GL) uOSUd B]e}S Ul SJUGIed “SPUSL),

pue Ajiwey woy ewoou! peyodei

uosud jesope4 U! YE} Pue SEIS UI

syuaued jo yuaqued uea}y6iQ “(jesepe4

JO % LE 'aVeIS JO %1Z) SEMANTE

yeBoyy! wos aU0dU! Aq Pamoyio; ‘uosUd

"JSOUIE G10j0q

yuoW eyy UI OOO'L$ MO}eq SewOoU}

pode: 0} (jesepe4 JO %Sp “SIEIS

JO %ES) sueyjpey UY) Ajo»! G10W BIOM

uosud (% 99) 1esepe4 pue (%0Z) SIS

WIOG u} SIEYJOW-W ‘JSeve esojeq yUOW

eu ul (000'S$ ISB9) Je) SewooU! ysoyBIY

ayy Wodes 0) (%g) UOSUd ee} UI BSOU

se Ajoyy Se Bo1My Apeou a10M (%S1)

uosud jesepey Ul SJUBIe, SOU 194}

syuesed 10) BWOdU! JO BOINOS UOWLWOS

ysow ou) eiem Aueyes 10 seen,

10a

il sol 860 yuapuadap joyoory 61 t 890 v90 qwepuedap joyoory

%8SZ %IPL %ZEL eSUeyOo es0j0q yuOW UI sHrup pesf) %ECL %lL0 %ZL0 eSUeyO a10j0q yUOW uy sBrup pesf

asnge aouesqns 40d asnge s2uej}SQns 10d

%ISZT %SEL %8Z! ssoud Auy “PCL %S90 %Z90 suoud Auy

Asoysiy pend Asoy Sty peur)

86 L 120 89°0 s@Ps0-ONQNg seo ev 0 sv0 JOPIO-ONQN

zo's ort Ov't 6rug vel 990 €90 6rug

zz evo evo Apedoid zt v9 0 190 Ayedoig

“It %“%S90 %zZ90 WwaO1,, “EZt 86©%BLO 60HELO WaOI,,

asuayo jueund asueyo jueUND

oz et be SUSIA 6b 090 09°0 SUSIA

sez set 9b new ect e270 £10 ven

802 iz eit @U0Ud eet 110 €z0 au0uUd

%irt %601 %00% Auy “Sit %920 %IZ0 Au

uaspHYy? UW JOe}U0. AjUOW UaspHYy? YM ,2eVU02 ApQUOCNY

£60 oc'0 oc'0 AoueBesewoy 1940 4 £80 iz0 €z0 Aouebe/ewoy 39480 4

v9Z ve0 Lv°0 wesedpues6 spud Ort Ss 0 sso qasedpues6 s.prud

“SrZ %8L0 8 6%LE yuaved seujO S.PHYD “971 8%ePO 8 6©%ESO yuased 294y)0 S,PHUD

s0aj6ese2 yUsUIND S_pITYyD s0a)6es82 yUeLIND S_pHUD

“P61 “ORL “IE uolsspwpe 0} 20d “PCL %LL0 %ELO vorsspwpe 04 20d

UesPITY? YIM Peary UasPITY? WW Peary

%00Z %B8OL %t .UOsPIIYyD sOUIL BACH %101 %8S50 %SO .UesPHYy? JOUT BAH

CL a a DNSUSPEIEY PS}DI}9S see ONN~C~SOLSS”S*~S*«CS STI PON'S

1661 ‘Syuased 1661 ‘Swesed

ayewUl jeIOPS4 JO JUSDIGY @yEwWUI BIE}S JO JUS

166) ‘Uesp}YyS sOUTW YYW SueUOSLd JeJEPe4 JO SON} L664 ‘UesP}YyS sOU]W YM SudUDSUd 87875 JO SONSPOPEIEYD

-SUS}IEIEYD P9}D9jEsS JO $10.9 PsepUeYS “7 91Ge} xIpPueddy payoejes jo Ss01ue PuepueyS “| 91qGe) Ipueddy

se-1 ez dd ‘196 304 “SeyewNse ajdwes OM) OY) JO ue Aq peunseew se ‘soue Guydwes

Aseruqe4 ‘78 aunipeyy jo jewNnor $30.8 psepues ayy 'Guyood Aq sonsne}s ey, “UeupPWYyo YOde: O} We} pue PooY

uequeUly ayy ‘SseyO pue ysng “‘g Aq sjdwes OM) UEEMJEq GOUBIEWIP OL) JO juased eyndsip 10 Auep Aew seyewut

eNeUUORSEND ZOVWD oun Guisp esnqy soueoyuBrs jeEoRSsHEeYS Oy) }S8} 0} PesN ajdwexe 104 ‘ss0ue Bursseooid

joyooty 10) Buruees0S, ejome ouj eq osje Aew sioue psepueys esey, = PUe ‘SONINOYIP eIeI seyewu! Buowe

89S ‘JUBWNYSUI IOWD Sy} JO SENjeA SUOHSEND JO UOREesdE}UI OU) Ul SBOUS

SAnoIpesd ey} UO VOHBWWOUI JEYpNY (%P'BZ % %O'9Z 40) %Z79'0 -JeyIp ‘sesuodsesuoU se YONs ‘seouNos

JO4 ‘edUepUedep JO eSNge jOYOo/e 40} sewy 96°} SNumu Jo snd %Z"2/ Ajeyew Auew 0) peynquye oq UeD JOSE

enjea eagoipesd GG e Peed suoRseNb 4xoudde si UoMoIAU0 JOud eB peyode: BuydwesuonN ‘peyonpuco sem UOR

39 VD sno} ay 0) sesuodses eAnisod OyM uosud 8784S ul syuesed jo e6e -eindod euj jo uOResewNUeS eje;dWOD

@JOW JO BOIL *}S9} JEDIUNO B Uj “BOUeP -jUEDIEd EY PUNOJE je/UE}U! BDUEPYUCS e seujes ojdwes e esneseq soueRYyo

-uedep Jo esnge joyooye jo Auo;siy S6 eu) ‘ejdwexe 304 ‘sobeyueqed Aq snco0 Aew yeu) UOQEUEA ely Si JOE

uosied e Bugoejep Jo) JUOWNSUI 9H = PUNOJE S}e/Ua}U! BOUBPYUOD JONUSUCD Buydwes ‘Bbuydwesuou pue Guydwes

soube esueuUoOnsENb 4FOVWD SUL pesn eq Aew mojeq sejqe} xipuedde -sOU@ JO SOdAy OMY UO Spuedep ode: o

8Y) Ul PEPNjoU! SIOMS PJEPUEYS OY) Siu) Ul SeyeWIASEe ey JO ADesNDVe Oy

eouepuedep

joyooje soy puausnysu! 9nsouBeIp JOWD (‘2661 ‘sseuosug /BsEpe sajeunse ay} Jo ADesndov

pue ajejg jueujees, pue asngy

ueoyiuBis Ayeonsneys pose =» BDUBJSGNG jo Sage} xipuedde oy ( CON) 266

-PISUOD 8G PINOM BDUdJOYIP OU) *%9B" peyueseid sayewjse JOS PsepuUeys SJOUOSU, /EJOPA4 PUB BJe}S ou

ueyy 107206 $1 (%0'9Z SNUIW %P'Sr) pezijesoueb ey) esn aseeid ‘son = —JBaU, PUB aSNqy eoUE}SqNS ‘yodeY

%p'EL JO EOUGIEYIP BY BOUIS (%9B'Z -SUE}eJeYO eyeUNUI JeUjO 404) “AeAuNS yeroeds Sg ey) UI puNd) eq UeD

30) 9p | SOWA 96° 8G PINOM eoUBIEyIP yore 10) payeynojeo asem yeu) SjugIed shesuns ey) jo uBisep ejdwes pue A6o

au) PuNaue jeAJEyU! BOUBPYUOSD %GG BJEWU! JO SONSUSPEIEYO PS9jes -Opoyjew ey) jO SUOHdUOSEP Pe}!2}9G

ey, ‘(dnos6 yore 40} ss01u8 Psepueys JO} SJO.UB PJEPULYS OY) JO SBJEWIRSS “Sonioe4 JEUOHIGLIOD jesepe4 pue

pasenbs ay) jo wins ety jo JOO! euenbs uleyuoo Z pue | Seige) xipueddy —«-@}e}S Ul SeVEUUU JO SABAING 2661 ON

ay) JO) %9p"L q PInom ssepUuEyo yBnouy payonpuos smai/uaju! jeuossed

JUBIOIA 818M OYM UOSU 8)]2}S U} SIOUIC} ‘uogejndod aseq uo peseq ae pode: siqj Ul BeQ

PUB SIOYJOW UBEMJEG GOUSIEYIP 844} JO OZIS BY) PUL SJEWIHSE OU) JO 8ZIS

ay} JO JOE Puepueys oy) ‘ejdwexe ey) Aq save ‘JOUS Psepue}s Po}eUNsSe | ABojopowjew

UBIP/IYD HOYL PUB SJUBIE POjJesaqsEDuUj Z\

“Os “uogesyqnd

eeu) STG ey YBnosy) pesses0e 10) Wodes eu) pesedeid uosUIqoY

eq osje Aew enryoue ey, 0960-666 auter ode: ey) peype Bseqpjop

-008-1 ‘ueBiyoIy jo Aysueniur) Ue3 Pue J9)SE}{ WO, “eoUe)sISSe

ey) Je YOIBESEY JBID0G pue /ed JEONSHEIS Pepirosd UOJUIW “GQ PPOL

“WO JO} WNYOSUOD AySJeAIUN-30)U} pue yeyosruey "W eune) “yoeg °

eu Aq peure; jew ‘eyeQ eonsne jeu very jo uorsvuedns ey) sepun pode

AWD JO BAIYDJY JEUOHEN OY) WO) Si) 8}0M ejowNy ‘ff JeYydo}sUYD

Jes9PO4 PUE B}EIS UI SeyewU| “sordoy

SABAINS L661 Su) WOY Byep oy) Auew J@a00 yey) Sjeseyep sow

JO @UO WO WdEP UF 91d0) Byeds

/s{q/ao6-fopsn dfo-mmm:dyy e sseuppe syodey jereds srg

— jeweyu| JOOP SI" O'Ud ‘UeHIeEYD "W Uer

eu yBnosy e6seyo jo aey ajqeyere ‘eonsnr jo wowpedeg ‘Sh

QJE SONSHEIS BoNSNT jo Neeing ayy jo Aquabe jeogsneys ou SI

12a

APPENDIX B

What about Me?

Children with

Incarcerated Parents

Michigan Family Impact Seminars

Briefing Report No. 2002-1

Edited by

Eileen Trzcinski, Associate Professor ;

Deborah Satyanathan, M.S.W.

Lynda Ferro, M.S.W.

School of Social Work

Wayne State University

March 2002

Michigan Family Impact Seminars are jointly sponsored by

The Skillman Foundation

Detroit, Michigan

School of Social Work

Wayne State University

Michigan State University

Institute for Children, Youth, and Families

Families and Communities Together Coalition

l3a

Deborah Satyanathan, Overview

Copies of this report are available from Eileen Trzcinski,

Ph.D. School of Social Work Wayne State

University 340 Thompson Home Detroit, Michigan

48202 Phone: (313) 577-4422

Audiotape available on request

An electronic version is also available at

www.icyf.msu.edu_

www.socialwork. wayne.edu

OVERVIEW

Deborah Satyanathan

Scope of the Problem

The U.S. Department of Justice has estimated that nationally

approximately 1.5 million children under the age of 18 had an

incarcerated parent in 1999 [10]. These children, their parents

and their caregivers have special needs that are currently not

being met by child welfare agencies or the criminal justice

system. As the incarcerated population grows by an average

of 6.5% every year [13], the number of children with

incarcerated parents will also increase.

Little data exists regarding the number of children affected.

However, nationally, we do know:

bd Approximately two-thirds of incarcerated women and

55% of incarcerated men have children below 18

years old [4].

® Most (72%) of the incarcerated mothers lived with

their children before entering prison [4].

14a

Deborah Satyanathan, Overview

Ld Approximately 25% of women are pregnant or have

recently delivered when they enter prison [9].

Approximately two-thirds of incarcerated

women and 55% of incarcerated men have

children below 18 years old

Approximately 25% of women are pregnant or

have recently delivered when they enter prison

Children of incarcerated parents are often uprooted from their

homes and placed with relatives or in foster care. The living

arrangements for children with incarcerated fathers and

imprisoned mothers differ in the following ways:

® Most (90%) children with incarcerated fathers live

with their mother [9].

ad Only approximately 25% of children with incarcerated

mothers live with their fathers [9].

. One half of children with incarcerated mothers live

with their grandparents [4].

e An additional 2% of children with fathers in prison

and 10% of children with mothers in prison live in a

foster care home or an institution [4].

Children of incarcerated parents are often

uprooted from their homes and placed with

relatives or in foster care

15a

Deborah Satyanathan, Overview

It is not known how many Michigan children are affected by

parental incarceration. According to the Michigan Department

of Corrections, the total prisoner population in 1999 was

46,617, with women prisoners totaling 2,018 [8]. From this

data, we can estimate:

bd Approximately 1,345 incarcerated women and 24,975

incarcerated men in Michigan have children under the

age of 18.

sd Because studies have shown that mothers average 2.4

children and fathers average 2.0 children [13], then

3,229 Michigan children below 18 years old have an

incarcerated mother, and 49,951 children have an

imprisoned father.

How are children affected when parents are incarcerated?

Children are deeply affected when their parents are

incarcerated, beginning at the time of the parent’s arrest and

continuing after the parent is released. Common harmful

results include:

. Emotional problems, including feelings of fear,

anxiety, abandonment, embarrassment, shame and

guilt [1,5,13].

° Behavioral symptoms, with increased risk for poor

academic performance, truancy, gang participation,

substance abuse and early pregnancy [1,5,13].

Ld Increased risk for delinquency: It is estimated that one

half of juveniles in detention have an incarcerated

parent [6] and that children with an incarcerated

parent are five to six times more likely than those

without imprisoned parents to enter the criminal

l6a

Deborah Satyanathan, Overview

justice system [1].

bd Permanent separation from parents.

Children are deeply affected when their

parents are incarcerated

Which prison conditions contribute to the negative affects

of incarcerated parents and their children?

Conditions in women’s prisons have a large effect on mothers

and children post-release. When these women are released

from prison, they may have difficulty finding housing and

jobs; they still have many of the same emotional and physical

problems (or more) with which they entered the criminal

justice system. Because of these muliiple problems, many

mothers have difficulty regaining custody of their children

upon release. Some of these difficult prison conditions

include:

e Physical abuse and/or rape by other inmates or guards

[11].

bd A lack of educational services and job training [ 11).

° A lack of mental health services for mental illness and

other common problems such as substance abuse,

childhood physical and/or sexual abuse, and domestic

violence [ 11].

hd Inadequate health care [3,11].

When women are released from prison, they

may have difficulty finding housing and jobs;

17a

Deborah Satyanathan, Overview

they still have many of the same emotional and

physical problems (or more) with which they

entered the criminal justice system.

Prison visitation policies hinder contact between incarcerated

parents and their children. Only 10% of mothers receive

regular visits from their children, and approximately half do

not receive any visits from their children at all [3]. Reasons

for this lack of visitation between children and their

imprisoned parents include:

e Geographical distance and transportation costs [5].

e Intimidating and non-child-friendly visiting areas [5].

hd Lack of information about visiting hours and

procedures [13].

bd Non-contact visitation (i.e. no hugs or sitting on a

parent’s lap) in jails [7].

bd Reluctance on the part of parents or caregivers to have

children visit their parents in a prison setting [13].

Only 10% of mothers receive regular visits

from their children, and approximately half do

not receive any visits from their children at all

Phone calls are also difficult. Parents are only allowed to

_ make collect calls out of the prison, and the charges for these

calls are much higher than a collect call made from a pay

phone [5]. Due to the financial burdens of the children’s

caregivers, they may not be able to accept many collect calls

18a

Deborah Satyanathan, Overview

from the children’s parents.

Which state and federal policies negatively affect

incarcerated parents and their children?

The Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. For

those children who entered the child welfare system due to

their parents’ incarceration, permanency planning must begin

within 12 months of their original placement [13]. Because a

woman’s average prison sentence is 24-36 months [1] and

imprisonment may be considered neglect or abandonment of

her children [2], her parental rights may be terminated while

she is incarcerated. Many of these women are not notified of

the court hearings related to their children, and legal

assistance for these women is limited [1].

Many incarcerated women with children are

not notified of the court hearings related to

their children, and legal assistance for these

women is limited

Foster Care Polices. Licensed foster care parents receive

financial support for caring for children. However, many

children of incarcerated parents are cared for by grandparents

or other relatives. These helpful kin do not receive financial

support from the state [1], and many caregivers report that

they do not have the financial resources to properly care for

the children [11]. Therefore, many children live in poverty

while their parents are in prison.

— 19a

Deborah Satyanathan, Overview

Many caregivers report that they do not have

the financial resources to properly care for the

children . Therefore, many children live in

poverty while their parents are in prison.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. One provision of

PRWORA provides that any person convicted of a drug crime

is no longer eligible to receive I «porary Aid for Need

Families (TANF) [13]. In 1998, 72% of women in federal

prisons were incarcerated for a drug offense [13]. Therefore

many mothers may have financial difficulties once they are

released from prison. This difficulty may hinder them from

regaining custody of their children or may place their children

in poverty post-release.

Mandatory Sentencing Laws. Throughout the nation,

approximately 70% of imprisoned women commiited a drug

or other non-violent crime [3]. Many of these crimes now

have mandatory sentences, reducing a judge’s flexibility in

determining the best interests for convicted parents and their

children [13}.

How does the lack of collaboration between the child

welfare system and the criminal justice system contribute

to the xnmet needs of families?

bd Families may receive duplicate or unnecessary

services from both systems, such as parenting classes

or drug counseling, and not obtain other needed

services [7].

20a

i ee id

Deborah Satyanathan, Overview

od Prison inmates usually are not allowed to receive

incoming phone calls [2]. Child welfare workers also

struggle with the same visitation rules as do children

and caregivers. They may not know visitation policies

and procedures, or the prison may simply be too far to

travel. Therefore it is difficult for child welfare

workers to contact imprisoned parents.

bd Some correctional agencies prohibit contact between

prisoners and child welfare workers [13].

bd Incarcerated women may have no idea where their

children are placed, or they may not know the name of

their children’s child welfare worker [2].

Incarcerated women may have no idea where

their children are placed, or they may not

know the name of their children’s child

welfare worker.

Why should we care?

According to Pimlott and Sarri (2002), “Studies of prisoners

consistently show that those who maintain strong family and

friendship ties during imprisonment and assume responsible

marital and parental roles upon release have lower recidivism

rates than those who function without family ties, expectation

and obligations” {13, p. 27]. In addition, if women receive

proper educational and job training and mental health services

(especially for substance abuse), they are less likely to re-

enter the criminal justice system. If recidivism rates decrease,

then state and federal costs for building prisons and

maintaining prisoners also decrease.

2la

Deborah Satyanathan, Overview

What policy and program decisions can be made to ensure

that Michigan is meeting the needs of incarcerated parents

_ and their children?

As the number of parents who are incarcerated increases, and

therefore the number of children affected increases, Michigan

policymakers, child welfare agencies and correctional systems

can make policy and program decisions to assist incarcerated

parents, their children and their children’s caregivers,

including:

1. Increased Research

e Data collection on the number of children

affected by their parents’ incarceration and

how they are affected

bd Longitudinal studies on the long-term effects

of parental incarceration.

ad Evaluation and replication of existing

programs

2. Changes in Public Policy

e Exceptions to the 12-month termination of

parental rights statute for imprisoned parents

d Increased financial support for relatives caring

for children of incarcerated parents

e Financial support for those convicted of drug

crimes post-release

e Community-based alternatives to imprisonment

for non-violent offenders.

22a

Deborah Satyanathan, Overview

Changes in Prison and Jail Policies and Services

Supportive visitation and increased flexibility

with phone calls

Improved mental health services, including

substance abuse counseling, and physical

health care

Educational services and employment training

In:nate safety from abuse or rape

Collaboration between the Criminal Justice and Child

Welfare Systems

Cross-training of criminal justice and child

welfare personnel

A central database holding information

regarding children, parents and incarceration

Implementation of Programs and Services for Children

and their Caregivers

bd Counseling and support groups for parents,

children and caregivers

° Transportation services

bd Legal assistance for parents in prison who risk

having their children removed from their

custody.

bd Parental involvement in the permanency

planning of their children

e Parenting education.

23a

Deborah Satyanathan, Overview

Studies of prisoners consistently show that

those who maintain strong family and

friendship ties during imprisonment and

assume responsible marital and parental roles

upon release have lower recidivism rates than

those who function without family ties,

expectation and obligations.

Overview

Ascione, W. & Dixson, J. (2002). Children and their

incarcerated mothers. In J. Figueira-~McDonough and

R. Sarri (Eds.) Women at the Margins: Neglect,

Punishment and Resistance. Binghampton, NY:

Hayworth Press (forthcoming).

Beckerman, A. (1998). Charting a course: Meeting

the challenge of permanency planning for children

with incarcerated mothers. Child Welfare 77 (5), 513-

529.

Bortner, M. A. (2002). Controlled and excluded:

Reproduction and motherhood among poor and

imprisoned women. In J. Figueira-~McDonough and R.

Sarri (Eds.) Women at the Margins: Neglect,

Punishment and Resistance. Binghampton, NY:

Hayworth Press (forthcoming).

Child Welfare League of America. (1998). An

overview aieruyen [Fact Sheet].

24a

10.

11.

12.

13.

Deborah Satyanathan, Overview

Child Welfare League of America. (1998). What

happens to the children? [Report].

(http://www.cwla.org/programs/incarcerated/whatha

ppens. htm)

Dressel, P., Porterfield, J. & Barnhill, S. K. (1998).

Mothers behind bars. Corrections Today 60 (7), 90-

94.

Katz, P. C. (1998). Supporting families and children

of mothers in jail: An integrated child welfare and

criminal justice strategy. Child Welfare 77 (5),

495511.

Michigan Department of Corrections. (1999). 1999

Statistical Report.

Morton, J. B. & Williams, D. M. (1998).

Mother/child bonding. Corrections Today 60 (7), 98-

104.

Mumola, C. (August, 2000). Incarcerated Parents and

their Children. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Justice.

Phillips, S. & Bloom, B. (1998). In whose best

interest? The impact of changing public policy on

relatives caring for children with incarcerated parents.

Child Welfare 77 (5), 531-541.

Pimlott, S. & Sarri, R. (2002). The forgotten group:

Women in prisons and jails. In J. Figueira-

McDonough and R. Sarri (Eds.) Women at the

Margins: Neglect, Punishment and resistance.

Binghampton, NY: Hayworth Press (forthcoming).

Seymour, C. (1998). Children with parents in prison:

Child welfare policy, program and practice issues.

Child Welfare 77 (5), 469-493.

25a

Deborah Satyanathan, Overview

State and Federal Policy Response

Child Welfare League of America. (1998). State

agency survey on children with incarcerated parents.

[Report]

(http://www .cwla.org/programs/incarcerated/98state

agencysurvey .htm)

Genty, P. M. (1998). Permanency planning in the

context of parental incarceration: Legal issues and

recommendations. Child Welfare 77 (5), 543-559.

Johnson, T., Selber, K. & Lauderdale, M. (1998).

Developing quality services for offenders and families:

An innovative partnership. Child Welfare 77 (5), 595-

615.

26a

APPENDIX C

THE PLIGHT OF CHILDREN

WHOSE PARENTS ARE IN PRISON

Prepared by

Barry A. Krisberg, Ph.D.

and

Hon. Carolyn Engel Temin

for an upcoming issue of

The Federal Sentencing Report

January 8, 2001

National Council On Crime And Delinquency

Headquarters Office 1970 Broadway, Suite 500

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 208-0500

(510) 208-0511 fax

Midwest Office 4236 South Yellowstone Drive

Suite 250, Madison, WI 53719

(608) 831-8882, (608) 831-6446 fax

27a

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

THE PLIGHT OF CHILDREN

WHOSE PARENTS ARE IN PRISON

Barry A. Krisberg, Ph.D.

Hon. Carolyn Engel Temin

Incarcerated Parents: A Growing National Problem

Traditional discussions about sentencing policy pay

scant attention to the effects of imprisonment on parents and

their children. However, the enormous rise in the numbers of

people behind bars, especially women, has brought this issue

to prominence. In 1999, more than half of all state and federal

prisoners reported having a child under the age of 18. Over

721,500 parents of an estimated 1,324,900 minor children are

confined in prisons. Since 45 percent of these incarcerated

parents reported that they resided with their children prior to

entering prison, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that

336,300 U.S. households with minor children are impacted by

the imprisonment of a parent (Mumola, 2000). African

American children are nine times more likely to have an

incarcerated parent than white children. Latino children are

three times more likely to have an imprisoned parent than

white children. These numbers increased steadily during the

1990s -- the number of minor children whose parents were

locked up increased by over 500,000 during this period.

The alarming rise in the number of women inmates has

exerted a profound impact on this issue. Children are far more

likely to live with their mother rather than their father prior

to parental incarceration (64 percent versus 44 percent,

28a

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

Mumola, ibid). After parental incarceration, a child whose

father is imprisoned usually lives with the mother, while the

child of an incarcerated mother is much more likely to live

with grandparents, other relatives, or to be placed with foster

care agencies. The children of incarcerated women are more

than five times more likely to enter the foster care system than

children whose male parents were in prison. Thus, the

decision to incarcerate a woman with minor children often

creates immediate problems for the child welfare system

(Bloom and Steinhart, 1993; Acoca and Raeder, 1999). There

are several other important concerns unique to incarcerated

mothers that we will discuss later in this paper.

The Bureau of Justice reports that the majority of

children have never had a personal visit with their

incarcerated parent after prison admission, although the vast

majority of inmates say that they stay in touch with their

children on a weekly basis via letters and telephone calls

(Mumola, 2000). Sheer distance seems to be a major

impediment to children visiting their imprisoned parents.

Most parents are confined in facilities that are more than 100

miles from their last place of residence. Because there are

fewer women’s prisons, their children often must travel

greater distances to visit with their mothers. The barriers to

visits are especially difficult for federal prisoners whose place

of incarceration is typically very remote from their place of

last residence.

Children Adrift

Nearly a quarter century ago, the National Council on

Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) and the Children’s Defense

29a

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

Fund (CDF) chronicled the plight of children with

incarcerated parents (McGowan and Blumenthal, 1978).

Fifteen years later, the NCCD replicated this national study

and found that the number of incarcerated women and men

had grown tremendously, but there was little or no

improvement in the response to their children (Bloom and

Steinhart, 1993). Both studies used the title “Why Punish The

Children?”. The simple, but crucial point was that the

children of offenders had committed no offenses, yet they

were made to suffer from the “not so benign neglect” of

governmental agencies. Both studies documented how neither

courts, corrections departments, nor social welfare agencies

took any meaningful actions to care for the children of

incarcerated parents. These children were often adrift amid a

range of official policies and procedures that seemed illogical,

at best, and often anti-child at worst.

For example, children who visited their incarcerated

parents had to participate in the mass visiting process of state

prisons, with no provisions for their childhood needs. NCCD

found that it was not unusual for infants and small children to

be subjected to strip searches and body cavity intrusions. The

children were often left to fend for themselves as the adult

visitors discussed a range of complex legal and financial

issues.

Social workers were rarely encouraged to facilitate

prison visits between children and their parents. There were

few provisions for transportation of children to remote prison

locations. Those social welfare staff who did try to keep

families connected were also subjected to humiliating

treatment by corrections officials who claimed to be guarding

30a

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

against smuggling of illicit goods into the prisons. Children

were often quickly moved into foster care settings with little

planning for permanent living arrangements. A frequent social

welfare response was to place the children with relatives

(often grandparents) - this permitted the social welfare agency

to provide minimal (or, in some cases, no) financial aid to the

“kinship caretakers.” Laws in some states prohibited foster

care payments to the relatives of incarcerated parents (Bloom

and Steinhart, 1993). Kinship care givers are often faced with

immediate financial hardships, and they usually !ack the legal

advocacy resources to navigate through the complex web of

welfare regulations. Further, there was little or no screening

to determine the fitness of kinship care givers to take custody

of a minor child.

Sometimes the children were told that their parent had ~

died, later the story would change (McGowan and

Blumenthal, 1978). Few, if any, counseling resources

specifically designed to address the needs of those with

incarcerated parents were available to the children themselves,

or their care givers. Both NCCD studies found that the

children of incarcerated parents did not thrive. Parents

reported that the children experienced severe problems in

school and showed signs of serious mental health and

behavioral problems. There is growing research evidence that

the children of incarcerated parents (especially those whose

mothers are in prison) show much higher rates of subsequent

criminal behavior and incarceration (Acoca, 2000; Acoca and

Dedel, 1998; Gabel and Johnston, 1995; American

Correctional Association, 1990). Thus, the problems of

children whose parents are in prison, if not attended to,

produce inter-generational patterns o£ crime and violence.

3la

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

It is not difficult to imagine how the experience of

having a parent locked away in a distant prison would create

such adverse impacts on children. For example, the Center for

Children of Incarcerated Parents studied the effects of

incarceration on 56 children from South Central Los Angeles.

The study noted that these children had been subject to a

broad range of adverse experiences including extreme

poverty, exposure to violence, pre-natal drug exposure, and

violent deaths of family members. Added to these extreme

stress factors was the forced removal of the parent from the

household. The Center found that these children were even

more vulnerable to the impact of separation from parents,

leading to severe traumatic stress. The traditional role of the

parent in helping children deal with difficult life situations is

greatly diminished in these families. Stable, nurturing home

environments that are key to building resiliency among young

children are often absent (Center for Children of Incarcerated

Parents, 1992).

The overwhelming evidence from research on early

childhood development demonstrates the critical importance

of establishing a “strong and enduring attachment bond to at

least one care giver during infancy” (Yale Law Journal,

1978:1411-1412). Many scholars have underscored the role

of parental attachment in the formulation of healthy emotional

and cognitive competencies (Bowlby, 1953; Ainsworth, 1973;

Goldstein, Freud, and Solnit, 1973). Moreover, there is

strong evidence that the removal of a child from a family may

cause additional psychological damage (Wald, 1975). In

particular, children who are shifted among multiple care

givers often experience great difficulties in establishing close

interpersonal relationships. Research has indicated that the

32a

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

first two years after a child’s birth are particularly critical for

forming parent-child attachments, although the long-term

impact of early separation can he reduced if the child and

parent are reunited within a brief time frame (Yale Law

Journal, 1978). Little is known about whether the long-term

negative consequences of lengthy early childhood separation

from parents can be reversed later in life.

Decisions to sever parent-child ties must be grounded

in a very careful analysis of potential harms to the child.

Families awash in mental illness, drug abuse, violence, and

other personal forms of dysfunction can be very hurtful to

children. Child welfare professionals must make “life or

death” decisions regarding the removal or maintenance of a

child in an abusive or neglectful home environment. Social

work professionals must also assess whether the provision of

appropriate treatment services can greatly reduce the threats

to the child while averting the problems created by separation

(Wald, 1975). When the case involves incarcerated parents,

careful assessment of “best interests of the child” is rare.

Parental incarceration often is viewed, per se, as evidence of

extreme neglect. The virtual absence of programs that could

maintain infant and parent bonds during the criminal sentence

makes such considerations moot (Morash et al., 1995). Since

it is rare that criminal courts and family courts coordinate

their planning, the question of what will become of the child

is often an afterthought for the justice system.

Special Burdens of Incarcerated Mothers

No analysis of the problems of children whose parents

are incarcerated can ignore the special plight of women in

33a

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

prison. As noted earlier, women are most likely to be the

prime and sole caretakers of their children, and they are more

likely to be living in extreme poverty or homelessness Prior

to their imprisonment (Mumola, 2000). The incarceration of

women has grown rapidly in recent years, particularly as

states and the federal government have instituted tough new

mandatory sentencing policies as part of the “War on Drugs”

(Acoca and Raeder, 1999). Incarceration has displaced

probation as the prime sentencing option for many women

offenders. Sentencing guidelines have “bootstrapped”

sentences for women to more closely resemble the statistical

average for men (Acoca and Raeder, 1999). While these

changes have been justified in terms of greater equity in the

sentencing process, many believe that grave injustices are

being perpetrated in the name of gender fairness (Chesney-

Lind, 1991; Amnesty International, 1999).

Research has consistently demonstrated that women

are most likely to be imprisoned for non-violent crime --

almost 74 percent of women in state prisons were admitted for

non-violent offenses, while the majority of men behind bars

were convicted of violent crimes (Mumola, 2000). Women

are more likely to be low level couriers in drug transactions,

and to commit their offenses to satisfy their addictions( Acoca

and Austin, 1996). Women are less likely to be disruptive

inmates, and have lower rates of recidivism (Acoca and

Raeder, 1999). Despite these findings, the reduced danger to

public safety posed by women offenders seems is not given

any weight as jurisdictions move to more rigid sentencing

schemes. Parenting considerations are almost never

considered by judges as they set penalties within statutory

guidelines systems. This is particularly ironic since an

34a

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

offender’s value to his/her employer can be considered to

ameliorate some sentencing guidelines, but their value as a

sole care giver is not deemed relevant. Since men are more

likely to be employed, and women more likely to be primary

care givers, the superficial pursuit of “gender neutrality”

produces greater gender discrimination (Raeder, 1993).

Women, unlike men, sometimes are pregnant and give

birth while behind bars. Amnesty International (1999) and the

United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against

Women (1999) have documented the virtual absence of pre-

natal care for incarcerated women (Barry, 1991). They have

reported several incidences of women forced to give birth in

prison cells or corridors, often while they are shackled.

Morever, it is customary that babies born to prison inmates

are immediately separated from their mothers and placed in

emergency foster care or with any relative willing to assume

the burden.

This extreme cruelty towards women inmates fits a

historical pattern in which women inmates have endured harsh

conditions of confinement and been subject sexual abuse by

guards (Immarigeon and Chesney-Lind, 1992). Abusive

experiences in prison are tragic continuations of physical and

psychological abuse that many inmates have endured

throughout their lives (Owen and Bloom, 1995; Acoca and

Dedel, 1998).

Other social policies have exerted an adverse impact

on inmate mothers. National and state reforms in welfare and

adoption laws have made it easier to eliminate welfare benefits

for women offenders, and have created nearly insurmountable

35a

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

barriers for inmate mothers who want to be eventually

reunited with their children. For example, new federal laws

had very negative impacts on inmate mothers. The Personal

Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996 made it

far easier to drop families from the welfare rolls if the parents

had criminal convictions for a drug offense. The Adoption

and Safe Families Act of 1997 imposed tighter time frames for

family courts and the provision of child welfare services to

preserve families. Incarcerated women are now much more

likely to lose their children to adoption, and less likely to

qualify for family preservation services of any sort (Acoca

and Raeder, 1999).

Policy and Program Alternatives

The problems of children whose parents are in prison

must be addressed, not only for humanitarian reasons, but to

attempt to interrupt the intergenerational cycle of crime and

violence. The nation can no longer tolerate having over 1.5

million minor children in limbo. The policy and program

options are clear, and many sensible solutions have been

advocated by many professional groups such as the National

Association of Women Judges, the American Bar Association,

the American Correctional Association, the Child Welfare

League of America, and the National Council on Crime and

Delinquency. It is now time for elected officials, courts, and

public agencies to begin to implement the necessary reforms.

First and foremost, sentencing options must be

expanded to be responsive to the needs of the children of

incarcerated parents. This could mean changing sentencing

provisions to allow for qualified, low-risk offenders to serve

36a

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

their sentences in non-institutional settings. Sentencing

guidelines must be re-examined to determine if they are

overly rigid, and if they create defacto discrimination against

parents, especially the primary care givers. Whenever

possible these reforms should create alternative sentencing

options that permit children to continue to reside with their

parents. Where current laws permit, judges should take the

offender’s care giver role into consideration as part of the pre-

sentence investigation. Judges should consider a range of

sentencing options that tend to preserve family attachments.

These steps presuppose adequate funding of community

corrections programs to give the courts appropriate sentencing

alternatives that keep families together whenever this is

feasible. Legislation enacted in California, and at the federal

level, has attempted to dedicate funding for community-based

- correctional alternatives that keep children and their parents

together, but funding for these programs has been woefully

inadequate or virtually non-existent.

The child welfare system must accept increased

responsibility for the grave challenges faced by children of

incarcerated parents. Mechanisms must be established or

strengthened to coordinate family reunification services with

the courts and corrections agencies. Child welfare agencies

should make reasonable efforts to keep siblings together, to

place children with responsible relatives, and to facilitate

visits between children and their incarcerated parents.

Imprisonment, and the barriers faced by incarcerated parents

in maintaining frequent contacts with their children, should

not be the sole basis for recommendations to terminate

parental rights. Policies denying full foster care benefits to

legitimate kinship care givers should be eliminated.

37a

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

Government agencies should develop and fund community

agencies who can provide a wide range of support services for

incarcerated parents, and the children’s care givers. These

services should include legal advocacy, training and support

for kinship care givers, and additional medical and mental

health services for the children, as needed. Existing state and

federal child welfare laws should be reviewed to eliminate any

unnecessary obstacles or disadvantages created for the

children of incarcerated parents

Corrections agencies should implement policies and

procedures that promote positive contacts between

incarcerated parents and their children. These steps might

include placing parents in institutions closest to their

children’s residence, expanded visiting programs, including

special visiting areas for minor children, and increased

transportation and visitor support services. Such programs

will not only reduce the negative effects of imprisonment on

children, but have been shown to reduce recidivism rates

(Acoca and Raeder, 1999).

Health care practices must be reformed to provide an

appropriate level of care for pregnant inmates. Whenever

possible, correctional officials should create nOn-institutional

settings for pregnant inmates, and for an appropriate period

after the child’s birth. In-prison nurseries are a possible

option but non-institutional placements are the preferred

program option. Corrections agencies should contract with

community agencies which have extensive experience working

with low-income families.

38a

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

Pre-release programs for inmates should include training

for inmate parents returning to their families, assisting them

to regain custody of their children when appropriate, to help

secure decent housing, and to find employment. Similar

services for inmate parents should be included in parole

planning.

Concluding Thoughts

We are still punishing the children. Yet, in punishing

the children of inmates, we are ultimately punishing

ourselves. The ongoing pattern of societal neglect, and

ofttimes hostility, comes back to haunt us in terms of creating

more social problems such as violence, drug abuse, and

mental illness. Ignoring the problem solves nothing. The

number of innocent children who are impacted has grown

geometrically, and they will be living in our communities for

many years to come. In our collective zeal to condemn

lawbreakers, we have inadvertently condemned their children.

Basic humanitarian values and considerations of fairness

demand that we change existing laws, policies, and practices.

Alleviating the plight of the children of incarcerated

parents does not excuse the misdeeds of the parents, nor

should it be viewed as ignoring the serious social and

psychological problems faced by those inmate parents (many

of whom were themselves the children of prison inmates).

But, this growing social time bomb must be defused with

sound and rational public policies. Greater public awareness

Of crises faced by these families is a good start. Frank re-

examinations of criminal justice and child welfare policies that

have worsened this problem should proceed immediately .

39a

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

Judges can play a crucial leadership role in publicizing

the inflexibility and dysfunctional aspects of existing

sentencing codes. The judiciary can exercise their discretion.

to promote sentencing alternatives that attempt to preserve the

bonds of parents and children. Advocacy and community-

based social service agencies can play a key role in proposing

meaningful alternative programs. Corrections and welfare

officials need to yrovide greater training to their staff on the

plight of these children and their parents. Budgets for

remedial programs must be created and sustained.

It is sometimes fashionable in professional or political

conversations to speak cynically about “writing off” this

generation of incarcerated Americans. These spokespersons

tell us to invest in the next generation -- to provide better

health care, more Headstart programs, more after school

centers. The plight of the children of America’s prisoners

shows the obvious vacuousness of these views. Generations

are connected. You cannot eliminate the parents without

profoundly harming their children. Rescuing these children

will require far more rational and enlightened legal policies

toward their parents. In the end, saving the innocents is one

sure way to save our communities and our own families from

the cycle of violence that cannot be safely contained by prison

walls.

References

1978 “On Prisoners and Parenting: Preserving the Tie That

Binds,” Yale Law Journal, 87, (7), 1408-1429

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

Acoca, Leslie

2000 Educate or Incarcerate: Girls in the Florida and

Duval County Juvenile Justice Systems, Oakland,

California: National Council on Crime and

Delinquency

Acoca, Leslie and James Austin

1996 The Crisis -- The Women Offender Sentencing Study

and Alternative Sentencing Recommendations Project:

Women in Prison. Washington, DC: National Council

on Crime & Delinquency

Acoca, Leslie and Kelly Dedel

1998 No Place to Hide. Understanding and Meeting the

Needs of Girls in the California Juvenile Justice

System. San Francisco, California: National Council

on Crime and Delinquency

Acoca, Leslie and Myma S. Raeder

1999 “Severing Family Ties: The Plight of Nonviolent

Female Offenders and Their Children,” Stanford Law

Policy Review, 11 (1):133-151

Ainsworth, Peter B.

1973 “The Development of Infant-Mother Attachment,”

Review of Child Development Research I, 33

American Correctional Association Task Force on the

Female Offender

1990 The Female Offender: What Does the Future Hold?

Laurel, Maryland: American Correctional Association

4la

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

Amnesty International

1999 Not Part of My Sentence: Violations of the Human

Rights of Women in Custody. New York, New York:

Amnesty International

Bloom, Barbara, David Steinhart

1993 Why Punish the Children? A Reappraisal of the

Children of Incarcerated Mothers in America, San

Francisco, California: National Council on Crime and

Delinquency

Bowlby, J.

1969 Attachment and Loss, New York: Basic Books

Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents

1992 Report No. 6. Children of Ojfencers, Pasadena,

California; Pacific Oaks College

Gabel Katherine and Denise Johnston (eds.)

1995 Children of Incarcerated Parents, New York, New

York: Lexington Books

Goldstein, Joseph; Anna Freud; Albert J. Solnit

1973 Beyond the Best Interests of the Child, New York,

New York: Free Press.

Harris, M. Kay, Marvin Zalman, Allen Breed, et. al.

1991 “Judicial Intervention in Local Jails, Il,” Prison

Journal, 71, (1) 1-92.

42a

PUBLISHER'S NOTE:

Page(s) Ado. missing in original.

Krisberg and Temin, The Plight of Children

Whose Parents are in Prison

Wald, Michael

1975 “State Intervention on Behalf of ‘Neglected’ Children:

a Search for Realistic Standards,” Stanford Law

Review, 27, (4)

Barry Krisberg is president of the National Council on Crime

and Delinquency. Carolyn Engel Temin is a judge of the

Court of Common Pleas, First Judicial District, Pennsylvania.

APPENDIX D

NATIONAL POLICY CONFERENCE

From Prison to Home:

The Effect of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families

and Communities

January 30-31, 2002

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

The Urban Institute

Effects of Parental Incarceration

on Young Children

Ross D. Parke

University California, Riverside

K. Alison Clarke-Stewart

University California, Irvine

December 2001

Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children

For imprisoned mothers, one of the greatest

punishments incarceration carries with it is separation from

their children. As one mother put it, “I can do time alone OK.

But its not knowing what’s happening to my son that hurts

45a

Parke and Clarke-Stewart, The Effects of Parental

Incarceration on Young Children

most” (Baunach, 1988, p. 121, cited in Garcia Coil et al.,

1998). As this quote suggests, when parents are incarcerated,

“what’s happening” to their children is a great concern. It is

a concern for us as well. Our goal in this paper is to examine

the impact of parental incarceration on children’s well-being

and development, to determine just what is happening to these

children. .

Several assumptions guided our examination of this

problem. First, we assumed that the child is located in a

family system and to understand the impact of incarceration

on the child, the network of relationships within the family

system needed to be considered (Belsky, 1984; Sameroff,

1994). Second, we assumed that the developmental level of

the child at the time of parental incarceration and the quality

of the relationship the child had developed with the

incarcerated parent needed to be considered (Bowlby, 1973).

Third, the gender of the incarcerated parent was examined,

because separation from mother may affect children

differently from separation from father (Parke, 2001) Fourth,

characteristics of the extended kin network in which the

family of the incarcerated parent is located were considered

(Cochran & Brassard, 1979). Finally, the nature and

availability of formal institutional supports for the family of

the incarcerated parent were given attention (Bronfenbrenner

& Morris, 1998).

Scope of the Problem

Who is incarcerated and how many of those

incarcerated are parents? According to recent estimates

(Mumola, 2000), nearly 3.6 million parents are under some

46a

Parke and Clarke-Stewart, The Effects of Parental

Incarceration on Young Children

form of correctional supervision, including parole. Of these

parents, almost 1.1 million are incarcerated in federal, state,

or local jails. These parents have an estimated 2.3 million

children. Alarmingly, the rate of parental incarceration has

gone up sharply in the last decade. In 1991, there were

452,500 parents in state and federal prisons, with 936,500

minor children. By 2000, the number of parents in prisons

had nearly doubled to 737,400, and the number of children

affected rose by over a third to 1,531,500 (Mumola, 2001).

Although the absolute numbers have increased, however, the

percentage of state and federal prisoners with minor children

has not changed over this time period. In 1991, 57% of

prisoners had minor children; in 2000, 56% were in the same

situation. Moreover, the increase in parents who became

prisoners (63%) was similar to the rate of growth for non-

parental prisoners (69%) -- a finding that suggests that being

a parent is not necessarily a protective factor in reducing the

chances of incarceration.

Gender of parent is a major factor in patterns of

incarceration; fathers account for 90% of incarcerated

parents. However, the number of mothers in prison grew at

a faster rate than the number of incarcerated fathers across the

decade 1991-2000. There was an 87% increase for mothers,

but only a 61% increase for fathers. Not surprisingly, in view

of their unequal rates of incarceration, the parents’ ethnicity

matters, too. As expected, in both state and federal prisons,

there are more African American parents (47% and 49% in

state and federal prisons respectively) than either Hispanic

parents (19% and 30%) or white non-Hispanic parents (29%

and 22%). Stating this racial disparity in terms of minor-age

children, nearly 7% of African American children, 3% of

47a

Parke and Clarke-Stewart, The Effects of Parental

Incarceration on Young Children

Hispanic children, and 1% of white children of the total

population of children in the United States had an incarcerated

parent (Mumola, 2000).

In terms of age, 58% of children with incarcerated

parents are under 10 years of age, with 8 years being the

mean age. Nearly half (48%) of the parents in state facilities

and over a third in federal prisons (38%) were never married;

25-28% were divorced or separated. Only 23% of state

inmate parents and 36% of federal inmate parents were

married. In terms of education, most did not have a high

school diploma (7% in state prison; 6% in federal prison), but

nearly 30% had obtained a GED. Only 13% of state inmate

parents reported any college education, but 25% of federal

inmate parents reported some college education.

To understand the impact of parental incarceration, it

is important to determine the nature of the family living

arrangements prior to incarceration. Many of these children

were living with non-parental caregivers prior to the

incarceration of their mother or father. In fact, only half of

the inmate parents in either state (43%) or federal prison

(57%) lived with their children at the time of admission to

prison. Gender differences are again evident. Specifically,

mothers in either state (64%) or federal (84%) prisons were

living with their children at the time of admission to prison,

in contrast, only half of the fathers were living with their

children at the time of their incarceration (44% for state and

55% for federal prison). Unfortunately the nature of the prior

living arrangements is not generally considered in assessments

of the impact of incarceration or children, but it would be

expected that incarceration would carry different meanings

48a

Parke and Clarke-Stewart, The Effects of Parental

Incarceration on Young Children

and have different consequences for children who do or do not

reside with their parents before incarceration. As we know

from other research literatures, meaningful social

relationships may or may not exist between children and their

non-resident parent (Furstenberg, Morgan, & Allison, 1987;

Garfinkel, McLanahan, Meyer, & Seltzer, 1998). The extent

to which incarceration disrupts the contact patterns between

these non-residential parents and their children, as well as the

effects of incarceration on children who were living with their

parent at the time of imprisonment, are both issues that merits

examination.

Another important issue is who looks after the children

when parents are incarcerated. Again the answer varies with

the gender of the parent. For incarcerated fathers, the child’s

mother is the usual caregiver before the father is arrested, and

in the case of both state and federal incarceration, 90% of the

time, mothers assume the caregiving responsibility after the

father goes to prison. On the other hand, when mothers are

put in prison, fathers assume responsibility only 28% - 31%

of the time. Instead, most commonly, the grandparent

becomes the caregiver (53% of the time for state

incarcerations and 45% of federal). Other relatives in the kin

network pick up the parenting role for between 26% and 34%

of the cases. Friends do so about 10% - 12% of the time.

Fewer than 10% of the children of mothers in state prisons

and fewer than 4% of the children of mothers in federal

prisons are in foster care. These disparities in parenting

responsibilities mirror the larger picture in our society

whereby mothers assume the largest share of parenting in

intact families (Coltrane, 1996; Parke, 1996; 2002) and post-

divorce families (Hetherington & Kelley, 2001).

49a

Parke and Clarke-Stewart, The Effects of Parental

Incarceration on Young Children

On average, mothers and fathers also spend different

lengths of time away from their children. Fathers serve 80

months in state prison and 103 months in federal prison, on

average, whereas mothers serve 49 months and 66 months in

state and federal prison respectively. The lengths of

incarceration reflect the nature of the different offenses

committed by males and females. Fathers are more likely than

mothers to be in prison for violent crimes (45% vs. 26% in

state prison; 12% vs. 6% in federal prison). Mothers, on the

other hand, are more likely to be in prison for drug-related

offenses (35% vs. 23%) and fraud (11% vs. 2%). Therefore,

in answering the question of the impact of incarceration on the

mother-child versus father-child relationship it is important to

consider these gender-related patterns of incarceration. As we

note below, although the short-term impact on children may

be greater when mothers are imprisoned, the long-term impact

of the lengthier period of separation of fathers may bode

poorly for maintenance of father-child ties (Gadsden &

Rethemeyer, 2001).

The I 7 , Child

Incarceration is not a single or discrete event but a

dynamic process that unfolds over time. To understand the

impact of the incarceration process on children it is necessary

to consider separately the short-term effects of the arrest and

separation of the child from the parent, the impact of the

unavailability of the parent to the child during the period of

incarceration, and the effects -- both positive and negative --of

50a

Parke and Clarke-Stewart, The Effects of Parental

Incarceration on Young Children

It is also critical to consider whether the chiid is living

with the parent at the time of incarceration, whether a single

or two-parent household is involved, and, in the case of a

two-pareut household, which parent is incarcerated. As we

have noted, only a small percentage of children live with their

father as the sole caregiver; it is more usual for children to be

living with a single mother prior to incarceration. The most

recent figures (Mumola, 2000) indicate that 36% of state and

16% of federal inmate mothers were not living with their

children at the time of admission. In contrast, 56% of state

and 45% of federal inmate fathers were not living with their

children at the time of their incarceration. Thus, when a

parent is incarcerated, it is more likely that children will

experience separation from mother than separation from

father.

Short-term Effects

The arrest phase. Unfortunately, only an incomplete

picture of the impact of the initial arrest on children is

available. According to Johnson (1991), one in five children

is present at the time of the arrest and witnesses the mother

being taken away by authorities. More than half of the

children who witness this traumatic event are under 7 years of

age and in the sole care of their mother. Jose-Kampfner

(1995) interviewed 30 children who witnessed their mother’s

arrest and reported that these children suffered nightmares and

flashbacks to the arrest incident. Children in middle childhood

who are in school at the time of the arrest may return to an

empty residence and be unaware of the arrest of their mother

(Fishman, 1983). The impact of father’s versus mother's

arrest is unknown and needs to be assessed in future research.

Sla

”

Parke and Clarke-Stewart, The Effects of Parental

Incarceration on Young Children

The management of the explanation. There is

controversy surrounding the wisdom of providing children

with information concerning the arrest and the reasons for

their parent’s incarceration. Some argue that children ought

to be protected from the knowledge that their parents are

incarcerated as a way of minimizing the trauma associated

with the separation (Becker & Margolin, 1967). Others argue

that the emotional distress of children is exacerbated by the

unwillingness of family, friends or caregivers to discuss their

parent’s incarceration (Snyder-Joy & Carlo, 1998). This

failure to disclose has been variously termed the “conspiracy

of silence” (Jose-Kampfner, 1995) or “forced silence”

(Johnson, 1995). Mothers are usually the ones who take

responsibility for explaining the situation to the children -

regardless of whether or not they are the incarcerated parent.

For example, Sack, Seidler and Thomas (1976) found that in

only 7 of 31 cases did the father or both parents together offer

the child an explanation. Moreover, when explanations were

provided, they were often vague and general; one typical

mother told her children that their father “did wrong and had

to be punished.” Other explanations were distorted or

deceitful. Deception took a variety of forms, from total lies to

strong shading of the truth, in which prison was referred to as

an army camp, a hospital or a school. Total deception

occurred in 4 of the 31 families in the study, and partial

deception occurred in another 6 families. In other words,

nearly a third of the families engaged in some form of

deception. Similarly in a much larger study carried out in

England, Morris (1965) reported that 38% of the families

used partial or total deception in explaining a parent’s

incarceration to the children.

52a

Parke and Clarke-Stewart, The Effects of Parental

Incarceration on Young Children

What is the impact of this “conspiracy of silence” or

deception on children? In light of the literature on children’s

coping (Ayers, Sandier, West, & Roosa. 1996; Compas,

1987), which suggests that uncertainty and lack of information

undermines children’s ability to cope, it is not surprising that

children who are uninformed about their parent's

incarceration are more anxious and fearful (Johnson, 1995).

Although the situation of a parent lost through death is more

extreme, some of the insights gained from this literature

concerning ways of helping children cope with loss is

instructive. As Nolen-Hoeksema and Larson (1999) argue,

children need honest, factual information, and they need to

have their experience validated. Providing children with

reliable, dependable information allows them to begin to make

sense of their situation and begin the dual processes of

grieving the loss of their parent and coping with their new life

circumstances. On the other hand, silence about the parental

incarceration often results not from a deliberate attempt to

deceive the children but from an effort to avoid other

complications. As Johnson (1995, p. 74) notes “There may be

a very good reason for such a forced silence; family jobs,

welfare payments, child custody, and even housing may be

jeopardized when others become aware of the parents’

whereabouts. However, children of prisoners are more likely

to have negative reactions to the experience when they cannot

talk about it.”

Long-term Effects

A variety of long-term effects of parental incarceration

on children have been identified. The long-term impact varies

with a variety of factors, including the developmental level of

53a

Parke and Ciarke-Stewart, The Effects of Parental

Incarceration on Young Children

the child.

Incarceration and infants. A small number of women

(6%, U.S. Department of Justice, 1994) are pregnant at the

time of their incarceration, but few prisons in the United

States permit mother to keep their infants with them during

incarceration (Gabel & Girard, 1995). In most cases, mothers

of newborn infants are permitted only a few days of contact

before they must relinquish their infant and return to prison.

As a result, there is little opportunity for the mother to

develop a bond to the baby or for the baby to become familiar

with the mother and form an attachment to her -- a critical

developmental task for both mothers and infants. As Myers et

al. (1999) note, after the mother’s is released, she comes

home to an infant or young child with whom she has not

developed an emotional bond and who is not attached to her,

with the likely result that the children will have emotional and

behavioral problems.

Incarceration and young children. Even if a child-

parent attachment bond has already developed, as in the case

of infants who have been in their mother’s or father’s care for

the first 9 to 12 months of life, the disruption associated with

parental incarceration will likely adversely affect the quality

of the child’s attachment to their parent (see Thompson, 1998,

for a general discussion of the effects of separation on

attachment in non-incarcerated samples). Even less drastic

changes such as job loss, divorce, or residential re-location

have been found to adversely affect the quality of the infant or

toddler child-parent attachment quality (Thompson, Lamb, &

Estes, 1982; Vaughn et al., 1979). Insecure attachments -- a

consequence of adverse shifts in life circumstances -- in turn,

S4a

Parke and Clarke-Stewart, The Effects of Parental

Incarceration on Young Children

have been linked to a variety of child outcomes, including

poorer peer relationships and diminished cognitive abilities

(Sroufe, 1988). In light of the results of this research on

separation and attachment, it is not surprising that when their

parents are incarcerated, young children (ages 2 - 6 years)

have been observed to suffer a variety of adverse outcomes

that are consistent with the research on the effects of insecure

attachments (Johnson, 1995). In fact, according to one

estimate (Baunach, 1985), 70% of young children with

incarcerated mothers had emotional or psychological

problems. Children exhibit internalizing problems, such as

anxiety, withdrawal, hypervigilance, depression, shame and

guilt (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Dressier et al., 1992). They

exhibit somatic p.vblems such as eating disorde:s. And,

perhaps most clearly, young children exhibit externalizing

behaviors such as anger, aggression, and hostility toward

caregivers and siblings (Fishman, 1983; Gaudin, 1984;

Johnston, 1995; Jose-Kampfner, 1995; Sack et al., 1976).

Incarceration and school-age children. School-age

children of incarcerated parents exhibit school-related

problems and problems with peer relationships. Sack et al.

(1976) reported that over 50% of the children of incarcerated

parents had school problems, such as poor grades or instances

of aggression, albeit many of these problems were temporary.

Among the younger children (6-8 years old) in the Sac - et al.

(1987) study, 16% exhibited transient school phobias and

were unwilling to go to school for a 4-6week period after their

parent’s incarceration. In another report, Stanton (1980) found

even higher rates of school problems: 70% of 166 children of

incarcerated mothers showed poor academic performance and

5% exhibited classroom behavior problems. Another school-

55a

_—_—-

= ——

Parke and Clarke-Stewart, The Effects of Parental

Incarceration on Young Children

based problem is that children are sometimes teased or

ostracized by other children as a result of their parent’s

incarceration (Jose-Kampfner, 1991). As Reid and Eddy (this

volume) note, as children reach adolescence, suspension and

dropout rates are higher for these children (Trice, 1997).

Effects of incarceration on boys verus girls. Although

it would be expected that boys would be more adversely

affected by this stressful separation -- in light of evidence that

boys are more vulnerable to stressful changes than girls are,

in general (e.g., Hetherington et al., 1998), the evidence on

this issue is unclear. Instead, the most likely scenario is that

both boys and girls are adversely affected by parental

incarceration, but their modes of expressing their reactions

differ. Boys are more likely to exhibit externalizing behavior

problems, while girls are more likely to display internalizing

problems (Cowan et al., 1994; Cummings, Davies, &

Campbell, 2000).

What leads to these problems? The answer to this

question is not simple. There are a number of interpretative

problems that merit elaboration. First, incarceration is often

preceded by a period of familial instability, poverty, child

abuse or neglect, marital discord and conflict, or father

absence. A combination of these conditions may have already

wicreased the base rates of children’s problem behaviors.

Consequently, without measures of the child’s environment

and behavior prior to incarceration, it is difficult to attribute

the problem behaviors to incarceration per se. Other events

also transpire at the time of incarceration that could account

for some of the negative effects on children. Re-location and

placement with alternative caregivers are both major

56a

Parke and Clarke-Stewart, The Effects of Parental

Incarceration on Young Children

disruptions in the children’s lives, which past research has

shown to be detrimental to children (Rutter, 1987). A similar

set of interpretative problems has plagued the literature on the

effects of other kinds of stress, such as divorce on children’s

functioning (Hetherington & Kelley, 2002; Hetherington et

al., 1998).

Modifiers of Children’s Reacti I :

Before the incarceration, during incarceration, and

during the reunion phase after incarceration, different factors

modify children’s reactions.

Pre-incarceration conditions. The most important

predictor of how well the child will adjust to the immediate

separation is the quality of the parent-child relationship.

Theoretically, a high quality parent-child relationship should

serve as a protective or buffering factor in helping the child

cope with the temporary loss of a parent (Myers et al., 1999;

Thompson, 1998). Unfortunately, however, many parents

who end up in prison are limited in their parenting abilities,

and thus this potential protective factor is unavailable to their

children (Johnston, 1991). Unfortunately, research is not

available to determine empirically whether children with a

closer relationship with their parent transcend the separation

with greater ease.

Another predictor or how well the child adjusts to

parental incarceration is likely to be the quality of

relationships with the extended family and non-family

informal social networks This support is especially relevant

when the father is incarcerated and leaves the mother to cope

57a

Parke and Clarke-Stewart, The Effects of Parental

Incarceration on Young Children

as a single parent. There is an extensive literature that

suggests that the quality of family ties within the extended

family network is related to mothers’ more positive parenting

attitudes and behavior (Cochran & Brassard, 1979; Cochran,

1995). In addition, Crnic, Greenberg, Ragozin, Robinson,

and Basham (1983) reported that mothers with higher levels

of informal social support were more responsive and

affectionate with their infants. More recently Goldstein,

Diener, and Mangelsdorf (1995), similarly, found that women

with larger social networks were found to be more sensitive

in interactions with their infants. In turn, the children of

parents who receive more social, emotional, and physical

support are better adjusted than children of parents with

limited kin or network support (Thompson, 1995). Moreover,

when it is the mother rather than the father who is

incarcerated, extended family members such as grandmothers

often assume the role of primary caregiver (Mumola, 2000).

To the extent that the child has already established close

emotional relationships with the extended family, the trauma

of transition to grandmother care will be lessened (Bloom &

Steinhart, 1993).

Factors during incarceration. The major determinants

of child adjustment during the period of parental incarceration

are (1) the nature and quality of the alternative caregiving

arrangements and (2) the opp

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.