Research Proposal
Parental Incarceration During Childhood, Family Context, and Youth Problem Behavior
Across Adolescence
JEAN M. KJELLSTRAND and J. MARK EDDY Oregon Social Learning Center, Eugene, Oregon, USA
Over the past several decades, the number of youth with parents in prison in the United States has increased substantially. Findings thus far indicate that they are a vulnerable group of children. Using prospective longitudinal data gathered as part of the population-based Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT) randomized controlled trial, adolescents who had an incar- cerated parent during childhood are compared to those who did not across four key domains: family social advantage, parent health, the parenting strategies of families, and youth externaliz- ing behavior and serious delinquency. Past parental incarceration was associated with lower family income, parental education, par- ental socioeconomic status, and parental health, and with higher levels of parental depression, inappropriate and inconsistent disci- pline, youth problem behaviors and serious delinquency. The effect sizes for significant associations were small to moderate.
Support for this project was provided by Grant R01 MH 65553 from the Prevention and Behavioral Medicine Research Branch, Division of Epidemiology and Services Research, NIMH, NIH, U.S. PHS and Grant R01 MH 054248 from Prevention Research Branch, NIDA, NIH, U.S. PHS. This article includes work done as part of the dissertation of Dr. Jean M. Kjellstrand within the School of Social Work at Portland State University (Oregon). We would like to express our deep appreciation and thanks to the Bethel, 4 J, and Springfield school dis- trict personnel, principals, and teachers; and to the participating LIFT youth and their families for sharing their lives with us. We are also especially thankful to Dr. John B. Reid, Becky Fetrow, Kathy Jordan, Theresa Maynes, Alice Holmes, Diana Strand, and all the other LIFT scientists and staff members who have worked on this project over the years. Dr. Kjellstrand is extremely grateful to her dissertation chair, Dr. Eileen Brennan, and the rest of her disser- tation committee, for their helpful feedback, guidance, and comments on her dissertation.
Address correspondence to Jean M. Kjellstrand, Oregon Social Learning Center, 10 Shelton McMurphey Blvd., Eugene, OR 97401, USA. E-mail: jeank@oslc.org
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50:18–36, 2011 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1050-9674 print=1540-8558 online DOI: 10.1080/10509674.2011.536720
18
KEYWORDS children, delinquency, discipline, externalizing beha- vior, incarcerated parents
Since 1980, the number of imprisoned adults has quadrupled in the United States, increasing from 320,000 to nearly 1,420,000 (U.S. Department of Jus- tice, 2004), a rate which far surpassed the estimated 23% general population growth in the United States (Perry & Mackun, 2001). Since a majority of incar- cerated adults are parents (Glaze & Maruschak, 2009), the population of chil- dren with incarcerated parents has also grown (Travis & Waul, 2003). Between 1991 and 2007, the number of minor children with a parent in a state or federal prison increased from about 1 million to over 1.7 million chil- dren (Glaze & Maruschak, 2009), or 2.3% of all the children in the United States. A similar number of children have parents who were released from prison or jails within the last few years (Mumola, 2002). Absent from either count are the over 5 million children whose parents have been involved in the corrections system in the more distant past but are not currently under supervision (Reed & Reed, 1997). Taken together, over 8 million minor chil- dren (roughly 11% of all children in the United States) may be affected by parental incarceration.
Findings to date indicate a vulnerable group of children at risk for men- tal health problems, substance abuse, delinquency, school difficulties, and future criminal behavior (Johnston, 1995; Murray & Farrington, 2005; Myers, Smarsh, Amlund-Hagen, & Kennon, 1999). A recent meta-analysis of research on children with incarcerated parents found that children of inmates are twice as likely to exhibit antisocial behaviors as children without incarcerated parents, and that this increased risk is present even when controlling for other established risk factors for these problems (Murray, Farrington, Sekol, & Olsen, 2009). In light of the link between antisocial behaviors in childhood to delinquency and criminality later in a child’s life, understanding the etiology of these behaviors for children of incarcerated parents is crucial to breaking intergenerational cycles of problem behaviors.
Using prospective, longitudinal, population-based data, this study com- pares adolescents who experienced parental incarceration during childhood with those who did not. Specifically, it focuses on differences in three general areas of family risk (family social advantage, parent health, and parenting strategies) and two related areas of adolescent adjustment (externalizing behavior and serious delinquency). While many studies have documented the important role of family and parenting factors in child adjustment, few studies have used population-based data to investigate these relationships in the context of children of incarcerated parents. Population-based data not only contains built-in comparison groups, it also provides an estimate of the incidence of parental incarceration for children. While there have been several point-in-time prevalence estimates of children with incarcerated
Children of Incarcerated Parents 19
parents (Glaze & Maruschak, 2009; Mumola, 2000), there are few estimates within the United States of the overall number of children who have experi- enced parental incarceration across their childhood.
The incarceration of a family member is unlikely to mark the beginning of problems for a child and family. Rather, it is often a continuation or exacerbation of an already challenging situation in lives marked by little education, poverty, unstable home life, substance abuse difficulties, mental health problems, abuse, trauma, and community violence (Johnston, 1995; Travis & Waul, 2003). Not surprisingly, a recent study of children of incarcer- ated parents (Poehlmann, 2005) found that a majority were exposed to four or more risk factors in the areas of child and family risk. A growing body of research indicates that the presence of multiple risk factors increases a child’s likelihood of developing problems including substance abuse, delinquency, violence, and other antisocial behavior (Dallaire, 2007; Farrington, Jolliffe, Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Kalb, 2001; Poehlmann, 2005). In research on the general population, low socioeconomic status (SES), parent antisocial behavior, poor parent mental health, poor parent-child relationships, and poor parenting are all predictors of higher externalizing behaviors, and ser- ious delinquency (Ackerman, Brown, & Izard, 2004; Connell & Goodman, 2002; Lipsey & Derzon, 1998).
While facing the numerous risks associated with parental incarceration may increase the chance that a child will have poor outcomes, such a situ- ation does not mean that child maladjustment is inevitable. Findings from a variety of studies suggest that a stimulating, safe, and responsive family environment, including the use of effective parenting strategies, not only cul- tivates children’s cognitive and language development, but also can be a key protective factor for a child’s emotional and behavioral health during a stress- ful period (Eddy & Chamberlain, 2000; Knutson, DeGarmo, & Reid, 2004). In their meta-analysis focusing on the effect of parenting, specifically on child externalizing behaviors, Rothbaum and Weisz (1994) found that praise, posi- tive motivational strategies, synchrony, and the absence of coercive control were associated with fewer child externalizing behaviors. Several studies on the children of incarcerated parents have found similar protective roles of the family environment and parenting (Poehlmann, 2005; Mackintosh, Myers, & Kennon, 2006).
Social interaction learning theory (Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989) is helpful in conceptualizing how parental incarceration, family func- tioning, parenting strategies, and child adjustment might be related. The theory suggests that children and their families are in continual interaction with one another, mutually influencing one another over time. It is through this interaction that behavior (both prosocial and antisocial) is learned, strengthened, and maintained. In the early stages of child development, risk factors influence child behavior to the degree that they affect family functioning and parenting practices. In later years, additional proximal
20 J. M. Kjellstrand and J. M. Eddy
groups such as peers, mentors, and teachers influence a child’s behavior, yet parents remain influential through their monitoring, guidance, supervision, and support of the youth.
The current study is a first step in exploring these potentially critical associations between parental incarceration, family functioning, parental health, parenting, and youth problem behavior. We hypothesize that adoles- cents who experienced parental incarceration during their childhood are more likely to experience family risk in the areas of social advantage, parent health, and parenting, as well as have higher levels of problem behavior across adolescence than those adolescents who did not experience childhood parental incarceration.
METHODS
Participants
Participating families (N ¼ 655) for these analyses include all of the original families from the longitudinal Linking Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT) study (Reid, Eddy, Fetrow, & Stoolmiller, 1999) who were involved in the study in the fifth grade. LIFT is an ongoing, population-based, rando- mized controlled school-based preventive intervention trial, which began in 1991. The trial recruited first and fifth graders and their families from 12 pub- lic elementary schools within the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area (population 200,000) of Oregon. These schools were located in the top 50% of local neighborhoods in terms of police contacts with juveniles. Approximately half of the target youth were females (n ¼ 334) and half were males (n ¼ 321). Similar to the local population, youth and their families were primarily Caucasian and from the lower to middle socioeconomic classes (for complete details see Reid et al., 1999).
Measures
All the measures, excluding serious youth delinquency, were assessed when the target youth were in the fifth grade—the average age of the children being approximately 10 years (M ¼ 10.21, SD ¼ .61). In addition to being assessed in fifth grade, adolescent problem behavior was measured when the youth were in eighth and 10th grades. Serious youth delinquency was measured at 10th grade. In eighth grade, the youth were slightly less than 14 years (M ¼ 13.87, SD ¼ .54) and, in 10th grade, the youth were slightly less than 16 years (M ¼ 15.74, SD ¼ .53). Multiple sources were used to measure many of the constructs to reduce the possibility of a reporting bias that can occur when only one reporting agent is used. The specific sources are listed under each measure.
Children of Incarcerated Parents 21
PARENTAL INCARCERATION
The current study focused on the effect of parental incarceration during the first 10 years of the child’s life. Information on parental incarceration was gathered from two main sources: (a) official records from city, county and state correction departments, and (b) the most recent wave (Wave 15) of data collection in the LIFT investigation where the target youth (who ranged in age from 20 to 25 years old at this wave) were asked several questions about the arrest and incarceration history of their parents. From these two sources of data, a dichotomous variable was developed that indicated if a parent was incarcerated for at least 1 day at any time during the children’s first 10 years of life. This particular child developmental period and definition of the par- ental incarceration were chosen to directly map on to the work of Murray (2006), a study which used a similar population-based sample (from the U.K.) to examine the effects of parental incarceration.
SOCIAL ADVANTAGE
Five aspects of a family’s social advantage were examined: the family house- hold income, the number of hours worked by parents in the household, parents’ education level, parents’ occupational level, and parents’ socioeco- nomic status (SES). All of these measures were based on each parent’s report. These components were all measured through self-reported data obtained from the parents in the Parent Major Interview (Oregon Social Learning Center, 1990), when the children were in fifth grade. Family household income was broken down into 10 categories ranging from 1 (less than $5,000) to 10 ($60,000 or more). The number of hours worked was calculated for each parent. Parents’ educational level had seven categories ranging from 1 (less than seventh grade) to 7 (graduate with professional training). Parents’ occupation level was broken down into nine categories (1 ¼ farm=menial work to 9 ¼ executive=major professional). The parents’ SES was measured by Hollingshead’s Four Factor Index of Social Status (Hollingshead, 1975).
PARENT HEALTH
Two dimensions of parental health were examined: parental depression and parental physical health. Both of these measures were based on each parent’s report. The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D Scale) was used to assess each parent’s level of depression (Radloff, 1977). The 20-item questionnaire focuses on feelings and symptoms of depression (e.g., respondents were bothered by things, felt like life was a failure). Cronbach’s alphas for this sample ranged from .80 to .91 across cohorts. The parents’ physical health was assessed through the Physical Health Inven- tory (Oregon Social Learning Center, 1990), in which parents were asked to
22 J. M. Kjellstrand and J. M. Eddy
rate their current state of health (1 ¼ excellent to 4 ¼ poor). The measure was reverse coded so that a higher score reflected better physical health.
EFFECTIVE PARENTING
Six dimensions of parenting were examined: monitoring, parent involve- ment, quality of parent=child relationship, praise, inappropriate discipline, and inconsistent discipline. Data on these different dimensions of parenting were obtained from the Parent Major Interview (Oregon Social Learning Center, 1990), the House Rules Questionnaire (French & Weih, 1990) and the Family Activity List (Oregon Social Learning Center, 1990). With each instrument, mothers and fathers were interviewed separately on different parenting strategies. The separate scores were averaged to arrive at the final score for each dimension. What follows are explanations of each of these aspects of effective parenting.
Monitoring was assessed with the House Rules Questionnaire (French & Weih, 1990) and consisted of a summative score based on parents’ responses to six 5-point Likert-scaled items (1 ¼ always true to 5 ¼ always false), reflect- ing different aspects of monitoring (e.g., ‘‘Child is allowed to have friends over when a parent is not home,’’ ‘‘Parent knows most of the child’s neigh- borhood friends’’). The scores ranged from 6 to 30 and were reverse coded so that higher scores reflected higher monitoring. Cronbach’s alphas were not calculated for this variable as the score was a sum of items that are not necessarily correlated with one another.
Involvement was measured through two instruments: the Parent Major Interview (Oregon Social Learning Center, 1990) and the Family Activity List (Oregon Social Learning Center, 1990). In the Parent Major Interview, parents were asked four questions that assessed how often the parents talked or spent time with their child. Two of the questions used 5-point Likert-scaled items (1 ¼ never, to 5 ¼ every day) and the other two involved parents esti- mating the number of hours per week the parent and child interacted (e.g., ‘‘Talked with one another,’’ ‘‘Did things with one another’’). In these latter questions, the number of hours was capped at 40 and then divided by 10 to scale down the item to the 1–4 range to be more in line with the 1–5 scale of the other items. The score from the Parent Major Interview was the mean response of all items. The measure demonstrated adequate reliability with alpha scores ranging from .60 to .71 across cohorts. The Fam- ily Activity List consisted of 22 questions that reflected whether a parent had participated (e.g., ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No’’) in different positive activities with the child (e.g., ‘‘Read a book,’’ ‘‘Played a game,’’ ‘‘Watched a movie’’). The Family Activity List index consisted of a sum of items, which were then divided by 10 to scale down items. Cronbach’s alphas were not calculated for family activities as the score was a sum of items that are not necessarily correlated with one another. However, the Family activity score correlated strongly
Children of Incarcerated Parents 23
(r ¼ .40–.44 across waves) with the involvement score obtained from the Parent Major Interview. The mean of scores from the Parent Major Interview and the Family Activity List was calculated to arrive at the final ‘‘involvement’’ score for each parent.
The quality of the parent=child relationship was measured through the Parent Major Interview (Oregon Social Learning Center, 1990) and was based on two 5-point Likert-scaled questions. Each parent rated how well they got along with the child (from 1 ¼ not well, to 5 ¼ very well) as well as how enjoyable the activities were with the child (1 ¼ not enjoyable, to 5 ¼ very enjoyable). The final score was a mean response from the two ques- tions. Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .58 to .64 across cohorts.
Praise was measured through the Parent Major Interview (Oregon Social Learning Center, 1990), in which parents were asked to rate how often they praised their child for doing a good job (1 ¼ never, almost never to 4 ¼ often).
Inappropriate discipline was measured through the Parent Major Inter- view (Oregon Social Learning Center, 1990) and consisted of a sum of inap- propriate discipline techniques (e.g., ‘‘raise voice,’’ ‘‘yell,’’ ‘‘slap,’’ ‘‘spank’’) used in different scenarios (e.g., ‘‘The child argued or talked back,’’ ‘‘The child hit another child,’’ ‘‘The child lied about breaking a household object’’). Parents were able to specify two discipline techniques for each question. A lower score indicated that more appropriate discipline was used. Cronbach’s alphas were not calculated for this variable as the score was a sum of items that are not necessarily correlated with one another.
Inconsistent discipline was measured through the Parent Major Inter- view (Oregon Social Learning Center, 1990) and was a Likert-scaled score of 11 items that reflected inconsistent discipline. The items included ques- tions such as: ‘‘How often does child get away with things you feel the child should have been punished for?’’; ‘‘If you have asked the child to do some- thing, how often do you give up trying to get him=her to do it?’’ Parents rated each item as 1 (never) to 5 (always). The final score was a mean response from the 11 questions. Higher numbers reflected more inconsistent disci- pline. The measure demonstrated adequate reliability with alphas ranging from .71 to .79 across cohorts.
CHILD OUTCOMES
Two child outcomes were examined for this study: child problem behavior (which was assessed at three time points, fifth, eighth, and 10th grades) and serious youth delinquency (which was assessed at 10th grade). Child problem behavior was measured via the externalizing behavior scale on the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991). This scale includes two sub- scales, aggressive behavior and delinquent behavior, in which parents and teachers are asked to rate the child on 30 antisocial behaviors (e.g., child ‘‘argues a lot,’’ ‘‘destroys things,’’ ‘‘physically attacks people’’). Parents and
24 J. M. Kjellstrand and J. M. Eddy
teachers rated each item as 0 (not true) to 2 (very true). Cronbach’s alphas for this study ranged from .89 to .96 across the different ages. Both mother and father reports (r ¼ .46 to .61) as well as parent and teacher reports (r ¼ .33 to .46) were highly correlated across waves. At each grade level, the child’s problem behavior score consisted of the mean response from the child’s mother, father, and teacher at that specific grade. Serious youth delinquency was assessed when the youth were in the 10th grade through ratings on the subscale of major offenses in the Elliot Delinquency Scale (Elliott, 1983). With this instrument, the youth indicated their involvement in 11 serious antisocial behaviors over the past year (e.g., ‘‘used force to rob a person, store, bank, or business,’’ ‘‘sold hard drugs,’’ ‘‘raped someone’’). This amount was recoded into categories from 0 (not at all) to 5 (over 15 times). The final score was the sum of responses to the 11 questions. Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .67 to .68 across cohorts.
Analytic Strategy
All data were cleaned and, when appropriate, checked for univariate nor- mality. Descriptive summary statistics were calculated for all variables of interest. Bivariate analyses were then completed that examined differences between youth who had experienced parental incarceration during child- hood with those who had not. The differences between the groups were evaluated using chi-square (v2) test of independence (for the categorical items), Mann-Whitney U test (for the categorical, ordered items), or an inde- pendent t test (for the continuous items). The Levene’s test was used to evaluate the variance of each group in the independent t test to determine the appropriate t values to use in assessing the results. For all significant results, a corresponding effect size statistic was calculated. Depending on the specific test, Cramer’s V, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), or Cohen’s d were used to evaluate the size of the effect. Qualitative descriptions of the relative size of the effects were noted using Gravetter and Wallnau’s (2004) criteria for Cramer’s V (small ¼ .10, medium ¼ .30, and large ¼ .50), and Cohen’s (1992) criteria for r (small ¼ .10, medium ¼ .30 and large ¼ .50) and d (small ¼ .20, medium ¼ .50, and large ¼ .80).
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
In this study, 21 adolescents had a mother who had been incarcerated, and 53 had a father who had been incarcerated. Because seven of the adolescents had both a mother and a father who had been incarcerated, 67 out of 655 (10.2%) youth had at least one parent incarcerated during their childhood. The majority of the mothers and fathers in families who had an incarcerated
Children of Incarcerated Parents 25
parent were Caucasian (84% of fathers, 92% of mothers), reflecting the general demographics of the region at the beginning of the study.
The ages of the children when a parent was incarcerated ranged from 0 to 10.5 years with a mean of 4.78 (SD ¼ 3.07). The length of the parents’ incarceration ranged from 1 day to 22.5 years with a mean of 1.65 years (SD ¼ 4.45). While all the incarcerations began during the child’s first 10 years, the sample includes parents who were incarcerated for shorter as well as longer durations (see Figure 1). Most (82.5%) of the incarcerations were a year or less. The average incarceration length for mothers (M ¼ .84 years, SD ¼ 2.79) was roughly half of the average incarceration length for fathers’ (M ¼ 1.76 years, SD ¼ 4.67).
The majority of parents of the youth with a history of parental incarcer- ation had a high school education or less (67.4% of fathers, 59.7% of mothers). Very few of the parents had a college degree (4.3% of fathers, 6.5% of mothers), although roughly a third of mothers and fathers had some college. The majority of parents were employed in occupations that required less formal education (85.4% of fathers, 81.0% of mothers). While the majority of mothers and fathers worked at least part-time (91.3% of fathers, 69.3% of mothers), many families were also in or near poverty. Three quar- ters of the families with a history of parental incarceration had household incomes less than $30,000=year, a third of the families with an incarcerated parent had incomes less than $15,000=year (roughly the poverty line for a family of four during this period), and half of the families received financial assistance of some sort. The type of family in which children with incarcer- ated parents lived was evenly split across categories with 37.3% living in a
FIGURE 1 Length of time parent was incarcerated.
26 J. M. Kjellstrand and J. M. Eddy
two parent biological or adopted family, 34.3% living in a two parent step family, and 28.4% living in a single parent household (a majority with a single mother).
Bivariate Analyses
Bivariate analyses revealed several significant differences between youth who had experienced parental incarceration during childhood versus those who had not (see Tables 1 and 2). In terms of family social advantage, the parents in families with a history of parental incarceration had less education, worked fewer hours, had less household income, received more financial assistance and had a lower overall socioeconomic status (SES) than parents in families without such a history. The magnitude of these differences ranged from small to large; however, the majority of effect sizes fell within the moderate range.
There were no significant differences between families with and without a history of parental incarceration in regards to the number of children in a family and the overall family size. However, a greater percentage of youth with a history of parental incarceration lived in either single parent or step- family households than youth who had not experienced parental incarcer- ation (v2(2, n ¼ 639) ¼ 9.28, p ¼ .010, Cramer’s V ¼ .12). The magnitude of this difference was small. While there was limited racial and ethnic diversity in the sample, a disproportionate number of African American, Hispanic, and Native American children experienced parental incarceration during their
TABLE 1 Demographic Characteristics of Parents in Families with an Incarcerated Parent When Children Are In the 5th Grade
Variable
% in families with inmate parents (n ¼ 67)
% in families without inmate
parents (n ¼ 588)
Test statistic p
Effect size
Father’s education <High school 30.4 10.7 U ¼ 6326,
z ¼ �4.29 <.001 r ¼ �.19
High school 37.0 30.9 Some college 28.3 35.7 College graduate=Post 4.3 22.7
Mother’s education <High school 25.8 13.4 U ¼ 13895,
z ¼ �2.73 .006 r ¼ �.11
High school 33.9 33.5 Some college 33.9 36.7 College graduate=Post 6.5 16.4
Family income <$15,000 32.2 18.2 U ¼ 12204,
z ¼ �4.63 <.001 r ¼ �.18
$15,000–$29,999 43.1 30.8 $30,000–$50,000 21.6 35.3 >$50,000 3.1 15.6
Children of Incarcerated Parents 27
T A B L E
2 In d e p e n d e n t T -T e st
R e su lt s C o m p a ri n g
F a m il ie s W it h
a H is to ry
o f P a re n ta l In c a rc e ra ti o n
D u ri n g
C h il d h o o d
a n d
F a m il ie s W it h o u t
a H is to ry
o f P a re n ta l In c a rc e ra ti o n
P a re n ta l in c a rc e ra ti o n
N o p a re n ta l in c a rc e ra ti o n
M S D
M S D
D F
t P
C o h e n ’s d
P a re n t S E S
H o u rs
fa th e r w o rk e d
3 2 .5 1
2 6 .0 9
4 1 .5 7
1 6 .2 3
4 6 2
– 3 .2 6
.0 3 0
– .4 2 (m
= s)
H o u rs
m o th e r w o rk e d
2 3 .4 7
2 3 .4 8
2 2 .3 5
1 8 .2 5
5 9 7
.4 3
.7 1 4
F a th e r S E S
2 8 .6 8
1 0 .0 3
3 6 .8 8
1 1 .8 2
4 6 2
– 4 .2 9
< .0 0 1
– .7 5 (m
= l)
M o th e r S E S
2 9 .7 9
1 0 .4 0
3 3 .7 1
1 2 .7 2
5 6 5
– 2 .2 6
.0 5 0
– .3 4 (s )
S o u rc e s o f fi n a n c ia l a id
1 .0 7
1 .2 8
0 .4 7
0 .9 4
6 4 9
4 .7 8
< .0 0 1
.5 4 (m
) P a re n t h e a lt h
P a re n t a lc o h o l p ro b le m s
0 .2 0
0 .7 8
0 .1 1
0 .5 3
6 0 1
1 .1 6
.3 9 7
P a re n t d e p re ss io n
1 3 .1 4
9 .3 4
1 0 .2 1
7 .5 6
5 9 7
2 .8 0
.0 2 1
.3 4 (m
= s)
P a re n t h e a lt h
3 .0 2
0 .6 2
3 .2 3
0 .6 2
6 0 1
– 2 .4 7
.0 1 4
– .3 4 (m
= s)
P a re n ti n g st ra te g ie s
H o u se
ru le s
2 7 .9 1
2 .1 7
2 8 .0 1
2 .1 6
6 0 5
– .3 5
.7 2 6
In c o n si st e n t d is c ip li n e
2 .3 0
0 .5 8
2 .1 2
0 .5 1
6 0 7
2 .6 9
.0 0 7
.3 3 (m
= s)
In a p p ro p ri a te
d is c ip li n e
3 .1 3
0 .9 5
2 .7 9
1 .0 2
6 0 7
2 .4 4
.0 1 5
.3 4 (m
= s)
P ra is e
3 .0 7
0 .6 1
3 .0 5
0 .6 8
6 0 7
.2 6
.7 9 5
P a re n t- c h il d re la ti o n sh ip
4 .3 3
0 .6 4
4 .4 0
0 .5 7
6 0 7
– .9 8
.3 2 6
P a re n t in v o lv e m e n t
1 .6 2
0 .3 3
1 .6 0
0 .3 3
6 0 7
.3 9
.7 0 0
Y o u th
o u tc o m e s
5 th
g ra d e e x te rn a li z in g
8 .7 1
5 .5 3
7 .0 5
6 .4 2
6 3 7
1 .9 9
.0 4 7
.2 8 (m
= s)
8 th
g ra d e e x te rn a li z in g
9 .9 8
8 .2 4
7 .4 3
8 .2 6
5 6 8
2 .2 1
.0 2 8
.3 1 (m
= s)
1 0 th
g ra d e e x te rn a li z in g
9 .5 1
8 .6 4
5 .7 0
6 .7 2
5 1 2
3 .1 3
.0 0 3
.4 9 (m
= s)
S e ri o u s y o u th
d e li n q u e n c y
0 .7 4
1 .1 7
0 .4 0
0 .9 0
5 3 8
2 .5 6
.0 4 2
.3 2 (m
= s)
N o te . S E S ¼ so c io e c o n o m ic st a tu s. T h e fo ll o w in g q u a li ta ti v e d e sc ri p ti o n s o f th e re la ti v e si z e o f th e e ff e c ts u se d C o h e n ’s (1 9 9 2 ) c ri te ri a fo r d (s m a ll ¼ .2 0 , m e d iu m
¼ .5 0 ,
a n d la rg e ¼ .8 0 ).
28
first 10 years. Within this sample, 9.1% of Caucasian, 25% of African Ameri- can, 30% of Native American, and 18.2% of Hispanic children had parents who had been incarcerated.
Several significant differences were found in the parents’ health as well. On average, parents in families with a history of parental incarceration experienced more depression and rated their physical health as worse than parents without a history of parental incarceration. The magnitude of the dif- ferences in both depression and health between these two types of families was moderate to small. The study found no significant differences in the number of alcohol problems reported by either group of families.
Parenting strategies were similar between the two types of families with the exception of disciplinary practices. On average, parents from families with an incarcerated parent used inappropriate discipline and inconsistent practices more frequently than parents from families without incarcerated parents. The magnitude of this difference was moderate to small for both practices. In all other aspects of parenting the differences between the two groups were not significant.
The final area examined was youth adjustment, where, once again, sig- nificant differences were found. Adolescents with a history of parental incar- ceration consistently had higher levels of problem behaviors between the fifth and 10th grades. The magnitude of this difference of means was moder- ate to small across all three grades, however, the strength of this association increased slightly over time. Serious delinquency in the 10th grade was also higher for adolescents with a history of parental incarceration than for ado- lescents without this history. The magnitude of this difference was also in the small to moderate range.
DISCUSSION
Similar to findings from earlier studies (Glaze & Maruschak, 2009; Murray et al., 2009; Poehlmann, 2005), youth in this sample with a history of parental incarceration were not only more likely than other youth to be exposed to many parenting and family risk factors but were also at higher risk for poor adjustment across adolescence. Because the study used population-based data, the study also provides an estimate of overall incidence of parental incarceration within Oregon as well as within specific racial and cultural groups. While the processes through which parental incarceration and its associated risks affect youth are unclear, the mounting evidence of both the vulnerability and high incidence of youth with a history of parental incar- ceration underscores the urgency for an intensified and coordinated research effort to address the current knowledge gaps that still exist about this popu- lation. Without this information, our ability to effectively meet the needs of these youth and their families is limited.
Children of Incarcerated Parents 29
Social interaction theory highlights the importance of family function- ing and parenting in both mediating and moderating the effect of risks on child adjustment. The study calls attention to several difficulties within these two broad areas that youth in families with a history of parental incarceration are more likely to experience than youth without a history of parental incarceration. In terms of family context and functioning, the parents in families with a history of incarceration tended to have less edu- cation, to work fewer hours, and to be employed in lower level occupa- tions than parents in families without a history of parental incarceration. Not surprisingly, families with an incarceration history also struggled finan- cially, with a majority of the families in or near poverty. Because of the links between low SES and poor child and family well-being (Knutson et al., 2004; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, Yeung, & Smith, 1998), these chal- lenges are likely to render families with a history of parental incarceration at a marked disadvantage. What is not known from this study is if an existing socioeconomic disadvantage increased the likelihood of parental incarceration, or if the socioeconomic disadvantage was a result of the parent’s incarceration. The research to date would argue that it is a little of both. Numerous studies have identified considerable socioeconomic risk in the lives of parents prior to their imprisonment as well as dispari- ties in the numbers of arrested and incarcerated adults based on class and race (Glaze & Maruschak, 2009; Mauer, 2007; Wildeman, 2009). On the other hand, studies have found that incarceration can worsen the financial situation of a family during the incarceration through the loss of family income and increased costs associated with the incarceration such as attorney fees, collect calls, and cash for inmates (Arditti, Lambert-Shute, & Joest, 2003). These financial difficulties can continue after the inmate parent is released when the returning parent may have fewer employment possibilities due to a criminal record and a gap in employment (Bushway, 1998; Petersilia, 2003).
Not only were there differences in terms of social disadvantage, but par- ents in families with a history of parental incarceration reported being more depressed and having worse physical health than parents in families without an incarceration history. These findings are consistent with other studies, which have found similar health risks in the lives of inmate parents and their partners (Mumola, 2000; Murray & Farrington, 2005; Myers et al., 1999; Poehlmann, 2005). While this study found no significant difference in reports of the number of alcohol-related problems, the measure used in the current study was limited. Parental arrest records for this sample indicate a high rate of involvement in drugs and alcohol, as has been found in other studies focusing on adults involved with the criminal justice system (Dallaire, 2007; Glaze & Maruschak, 2009; Mumola, 2000). Substance use needs to be examined more fully to understand its association with incarceration, family functioning, parenting, and youth adjustment.
30 J. M. Kjellstrand and J. M. Eddy
In addition to these differences in family context and functioning, differ- ences were found in parenting where parents in families with a history of incarceration were less likely to use effective parenting strategies. While there were no significant differences between the two types of families in the areas of monitoring, praising, involvement, and the overall quality of the parent-child relationship, the two types of families differed in the use of inconsistent and inappropriate discipline. In families with a history of par- ental incarceration, the use of inconsistent and inappropriate discipline was, on average, greater than in families who had not experienced parental incar- ceration. To date, there have been few studies that have looked at parenting differences between families with and without a history of parental incarcer- ation. Murray and Farrington’s study (2005), one of the few to examine this issue, found that youth in families with a history of parental incarceration were more likely to be poorly supervised by their parents and to have a father who used ‘‘harsh or erratic’’ discipline. Because of the link between ineffective discipline techniques and child behavior problems (e.g., Reid, Patterson, & Snyder, 2002), this finding is of particular concern. What might be causing these differences in parenting is unclear from this study. The higher incidence of inconsistent discipline in families with an incarcerated parent may in part be explained by the parents’ involvement in criminality, and the subsequent attention to and consequences of that criminality. Inap- propriate discipline may reflect parental strain where normal irritations may more often lead to an escalation of anger, frustration, and overreaction to a child’s behavior. These two aspects of parenting and their relationship to par- ental incarceration need to be examined as they might be crucial pieces to address in any program working to improve parenting skills among families with an incarcerated parent.
While causal relationships cannot be determined from this study due to the nature of the analyses, the study highlights associations between family functioning and parenting with youth problem behavior in fifth, eighth, and 10th grades. The higher rates of problem behaviors and serious delinquency for the children of incarcerated parents which were revealed in this study are consistent with other earlier studies (Kinner, Alati, Najman, & Williams, 2007; Murray et al., 2009). The current study found not only higher levels of problem behaviors and serious delinquency for the youth across adolescence, but that the association between parental incarceration and problem beha- viors strengthened slightly over time. This slight increase in the risk of anti- social behavior across adolescence was seen in Murray and Farrington’s study (2005) as well. Again, however, what is unclear from either study is how parental incarceration is specifically linked to these higher levels of prob- lem behaviors and serious delinquency, which appear to increase over ado- lescence. Because the parental incarceration preceded the assessment of the family and parenting variables, which in turn preceded the assessment of the later adolescent outcomes, there is reason to believe parental incarceration
Children of Incarcerated Parents 31
may be influencing the subsequent family and parenting which may be influ- encing later youth outcomes. Such an increase in problem behaviors across time could indicate a decreasing influence of childhood protective factors (i.e., parenting as suggested in the social interaction learning theory) or a maturational process whereby stresses are asymptomatic earlier in child devel- opment but give rise to more problems in later adolescent development. Further studies need to examine this more vigorously, particularly the specific processes prior to, during, and=or after parental incarceration that may account for these ongoing and intensifying relationships across development.
While our knowledge is growing about children who have parents who have been incarcerated, we still do not have many estimates of the number of children in the United States who experience parental incarceration across their childhood. Within the LIFT study area, 10.3% of the children had experi- enced parental incarceration during the first 10 years of their lives. Not sur- prising, this rate is substantially higher than cross-sectional estimates of 2.3% of children with an incarcerated parent (Glaze & Maruschak, 2009). This incidence of parental incarceration in the current study was also substantially higher than the 5.6% rate that Murray and Farrington’s (2005) found in their U.K. study, although Murray’s study, in addition to occurring in a different country, followed a cohort from a much earlier period (men born in the 1950s). However, this rate is remarkably close to our rough estimate of the incidence of children who have experienced parental incarceration (11%) mentioned in the opening of the paper; an estimate based partially on less precise statistics.
When broken down by racial and ethnic background, the current study revealed a disproportionate amount of children from African American, Native American, and Hispanic backgrounds had experienced parental incar- ceration during their first 10 years. In this study, 9.1% for Caucasian, 25% of African American, 30% for Native American, and 18.2% for Hispanic children experienced parental incarceration during their childhood. This overrepre- sentation of minority parents who have been imprisoned is similar to John- son’s findings (2009) who found 10.1% of Caucasian and 18.7% of African American children experienced parental incarceration by the time the chil- dren were 18 years old. This overrepresentation is also found in the general population at large, where African American, Hispanic, and Native American parents are at elevated risk for incarceration compared to their representation in the population at large (Bonczar & U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003; Mumola, 2000). While the disparities in incarceration in part reflect different crime rates, they may also be indicative of disparities in criminal justice processing and decision making which has been known to discriminate against racial minorities through such practices as racial profiling, harsher sentencing, inaccessibility to legal counsel, and inaccessibility to quality representation (Mauer, 2007). If parental incarceration increases the likeli- hood for negative outcomes for children, then the disproportionate amounts
32 J. M. Kjellstrand and J. M. Eddy
of parental incarceration within African American, Native American, and Hispanic communities may become a mechanism that further exacerbates racial disparities experienced by these communities.
While this study has many strengths, there are two major limitations. The first centers on characteristics of the sample and possible limitations in gen- eralizability. The data were collected from mostly Caucasian children and families who lived in a moderately sized urban area in the Pacific Northwest. It is unclear whether and to what degree the findings here are relevant to other populations in other geographic areas at different historical times. The second limitation has to do with the lack of measurement complexity surrounding the variable of parental incarceration. The variable did not cap- ture the many differences within an incarceration experience including such elements as the frequency and length of the incarceration, the specific age of the child at the time of incarceration, nor the level of disruption the incarcer- ation caused. Additional research needs to focus on these specific aspects of parental incarceration, and examine what impact each has on youth.
Despite these limitations, these findings provide valuable information for service providers and policy makers alike. First, this study provides a more accurate estimate of the number of youth, both overall and by race and ethnicity, who have experienced parental incarceration during child- hood. While this number is from a specific region, it is a start in estimating the actual incidence of parental incarceration within the United States. Second, the study highlights the many challenges that adolescents in families with a history of parental incarceration face in the areas of family social advantage, parent health, and effective parenting. The connections between depleted financial resources, depression, ineffective parenting, and poor out- comes for children have been well documented in research on the general population (e.g., Grant et al., 2003). The findings here suggest that the con- nections between family, parenting, and youth adjustment are noteworthy for adolescents with a history of parental incarceration. The mounting evi- dence suggests that not only are many children affected by parental incarcer- ation, but they and their families have multiple needs. The breadth and depth of problems suggest a need for comprehensive, multilevel policy and prac- tice approaches to address the multiple family challenges that the children of incarcerated parents face (e.g., Eddy, Kjellstrand, Martinez, & Newton, 2010). These strategies should focus not only on the youth, but also on the financial hardship, educational and occupational disadvantage, poor health, and parenting issues that their families’ experience.
In light of the growing number of incarcerated parents and the detri- mental effects that their incarceration and its associated risks are likely to have on youth and families, we must continue to build a broad empirical foundation so we can learn how to better help these children and families. With an overrepresentation in the correctional system of people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and minority communities, and the possible
Children of Incarcerated Parents 33
role that parental incarceration may play in exacerbating racial and social disparities, the situation becomes even more urgent. Incarceration has a role in addressing criminality, but if we do not clearly understand its broader implications, we may inadvertently create a system that increases disadvan- tage for millions of youth whose only crime is to have been born into a family with an incarcerated parent.
REFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist=4–18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Ackerman, B. P., Brown, E. D., & Izard, C. E. (2004). The relations between contex- tual risk, earned income, and the school adjustment of children from economi- cally disadvantaged families. Developmental Psychology, 40, 204–216.
Arditti, J. A., Lambert-Shute, J., & Joest, K. (2003). Saturday morning at the jail: Impli- cations of incarceration for families and children. Family Relations, 52, 195–204.
Bonczar, T. P., & U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003). Prevalence of imprisonment in the U.S. population, 1974–2001. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/ index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=836
Bushway, S. D. (1998). The impact of an arrest on the job stability of young White American men. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 454–479.
Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychologi- cal Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
Connell, A. M., & Goodman, S. H. (2002). The association between psychopathology in fathers versus mothers and children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior problems: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 746–773.
Dallaire, D. H. (2007). Incarcerated mothers and fathers: A comparison of risks for children and families. Family Relations, 56, 440–453.
Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Yeung, W. J., & Smith, J. R. (1998). How much does childhood poverty affect the life chances of children? American Sociological Review, 63, 406–423.
Eddy, J. M., & Chamberlain, P. (2000). Family management and deviant peer associ- ation as mediators of the impact of treatment condition on youth antisocial behavior. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 68, 857–863.
Eddy, J. M., Kjellstrand, J., Martinez, C. R., Jr., & Newton, R. (2010). Theory-based multimodal parenting intervention for incarcerated parents and their families. In J. M. Eddy & J. Poehlmann (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents: A handbook for researchers and practitioners (pp. 237–261). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Elliott, D. S. (1983). Interview schedule, National Youth Survey. Boulder, CO: Behavioral Research Institute.
Farrington, D. P., Jolliffe, D., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Kalb, L. M. (2001). The concentration of offenders in families, and family criminality in the predic- tion of boys’ delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 579–596.
French, D. C., & Weih, S. (1990). House rules: A measure of parental monitoring. Unpublished manuscript.
34 J. M. Kjellstrand and J. M. Eddy
Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2009). Parents in prison and their minor children. (Special Report No. NCJ 222984). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Grant, K. E., Compas, B. E., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Thurm, A. E., McMahon, S. D., & Halpert, J. A. (2003). Stressors and child and adolescent psychopathology: Mov- ing from markers to mechanisms of risk. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 447–466.
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2004) Statistics for the behavioral sciences (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished manu- script, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Johnson, R. (2009). Ever-increasing levels of parental incarceration and the conse- quences for children. In S. Raphael, & M. Stoll (Eds.), Do prisons make us safer? The benefits and costs of the prison boom (pp. 177–206). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Johnston, D. (1995). Effects of parental incarceration. In K. Gabel, & D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 59–88). New York, NY: Lexington Books.
Kinner, S., Alati, R., Najman, J. M., & Williams, G. M. (2007). Do paternal arrest and imprisonment lead to child behavior problems and substance use? A longitudi- nal analysis. Journal of Child Psychology, 48, 1148–1156.
Knutson, J. F., Degarmo, D. S., & Reid, J. B. (2004). Social disadvantage and neglectful parenting as precursors to the development of antisocial and aggressive child behavior: Testing a theoretical model. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 187–205.
Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (1998). Predictors of violent or serious delin- quency in adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In R. Loeber, & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious & violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 86–105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mackintosh, V. H., Myers, B. J., & Kennon, S. S. (2006). Children of incarcerated mothers and their caregivers: Factors affecting the quality of their relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 581–596.
Mauer, M. (2007). Racial impact statements as a means of reducing unwarranted sentencing disparities. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 5(19), 19–46.
Mumola, C. J. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children (Special Report No. NCJ 182335). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Mumola, C. J. (2002, October). Incarcerated parents and their children. Paper pre- sented at the National Center for Children and Families colloquium, Overcom- ing the Hidden Costs of Incarceration on Urban Children, Washington, DC.
Murray, J. (2006) Parental imprisonment: Effects on children’s antisocial behaviour and mental health through the life-course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge.
Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Parental imprisonment: Effects on boys’ antisocial behavior and delinquency through the life-course. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 46, 1269–1278.
Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., Sekol, I., & Olsen, R. F. (2009). Effects of parental imprisonment on child antisocial behaviour and mental health: A systematic review. Retrieved from http://campbellcollaboration.org/lib/
Children of Incarcerated Parents 35
Myers, B. J., Smarsh, T. M., Amlund-Hagen, K., & Kennon, S. (1999). Children of incarcerated mothers. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 8(1), 11–25.
Oregon Social Learning Center. (1990). Linking the interests of families and teachers investigation. Unpublished instruments.
Patterson, G., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329–335.
Perry, M. J., & Mackun, P. J. (2001). Population change and distribution: Census 2000 brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Poehlmann, J. (2005). Children’s family environments and intellectual outcomes during maternal incarceration. Journal of Marriage & Family, 67, 1275–1285.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Reed, D. F., & Reed, E. L. (1997). Children of incarcerated parents. Social Justice, 24(3), 152–169.
Reid, J. B., Eddy, J. M., Fetrow, R. A., & Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Description and immediate impacts of a preventive intervention for conduct problems. Ameri- can Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 483–517.
Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. (2002). Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rothbaum, F., & Weisz, J. R. (1994). Parental caregiving and child externalizing behavior in nonclinical samples: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 55–74.
Travis, J., & Waul, M. (2003). Prisoners once removed: The children and families of prisoners. In J. Travis, & M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities, (pp. 1–29). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). Correctional populations. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Wildeman, C. (2009). Parental imprisonment, the prison boom, and the concen- tration of childhood disadvantage. Demography, 46, 265–280.
36 J. M. Kjellstrand and J. M. Eddy
Copyright of Journal of Offender Rehabilitation is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.