Research Proposal

kamishamew

bib6.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Research Proposal

E M P I R I C A L R E S E A R C H

Parental Incarceration and Multiple Risk Experiences: Effects on Family Dynamics and Children’s Delinquency

Lauren Aaron • Danielle H. Dallaire

Received: 2 September 2009 / Accepted: 26 September 2009 / Published online: 16 October 2009

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract Children of incarcerated parents are exposed to

factors that place them at risk for delinquency. Few studies

have examined the effects of having an incarcerated parent

after controlling for other experiences such as contextual

risk factors and family processes. Past studies have also not

examined effects of recent, but not current, parental

incarceration on children. The present study examines an

archival dataset, in which children aged 10–14 years and

their parents/guardians reported children’s risk experiences

(e.g., exposure to poverty, parental substance use), family

processes (e.g., level of family victimization, family con-

flict), and children’s delinquent behaviors at two time

points. Parents also reported their recent and past incar-

ceration history. Hierarchical linear regression analyses

show that a history of parental incarceration predicted

family victimization, delinquent behaviors of children’s

older siblings, and delinquent behaviors of the child par-

ticipants, over and above children’s demographic charac-

teristics and other risk experiences. Recent parental

incarceration predicted family conflict, family victimiza-

tion, and parent-reports of children’s delinquency after also

controlling for previous parental incarceration. The role of

family processes in research and intervention directions

involving children of incarcerated parents is discussed.

Keywords Delinquency � Family processes � Parental incarceration � Cumulative risk experience

Exposure to parental incarceration is associated with higher

rates of maladjustment in children. Children of incarcer-

ated parents are more likely than their peers to drop out of

school (Trice and Brewster 2004) and to be arrested

(Murray and Farrington 2005). In fact, Murray and Far-

rington (2005) found that boys whose parents had been

incarcerated were almost five times as likely to be incar-

cerated themselves when compared to boys separated from

their parents for other reasons. In another study, having a

convicted parent was one of the strongest childhood pre-

dictors of adult incarceration (Farrington 2000). Though

the literature concerning children of incarcerated parents

and their social and academic adjustment has grown

recently, much of the available empirical research is based

on small, nonrepresentative samples, uses only reports

from currently-incarcerated parents, and does not take into

account high-risk environments that children of incarcera-

tion parents often encounter. Often, important aspects of

the family lives of children of incarcerated parents are not

examined, even though poor family dynamics, such as

conflict at home and experience of crime by the family,

affect children’s functioning. The present study attempts to

add to the literature by further examining experiences of

children and families who have experienced a past as well

as a recent parental incarceration and how parental incar-

ceration may predict children’s delinquency beyond the

effects of other factors.

Risk Factors Experienced by Children of Incarcerated

Parents

When parents are incarcerated, they leave behind children

and families who must cope with not only the separation

from the parent, but also social stigma and loss of financial

L. Aaron (&) � D. H. Dallaire Department of Psychology, The College of William & Mary,

Williamsburg, VA, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1471–1484

DOI 10.1007/s10964-009-9458-0

support associated with the incarceration of a parent (see

Arditti 2005). These children are more likely than those

without an incarcerated parent to be a member of an ethnic

minority group (Glaze and Maruschak 2008), to be exposed

to parents’ illegal drug use (Mumola 2000), and live in

extreme poverty (Phillips et al. 2002). These risk factors

are associated with children’s maladjustment, including

depressive symptoms (Wight et al. 2005) and poor aca-

demic functioning (Egeland and Abery 1991). Studies

examining the effects of parental incarceration on children

without also accounting for the effects of other such

experiences may actually be observing the effects of mul-

tiple risk factors, one of which is parental incarceration.

Interactions within the family unit may also place chil-

dren at risk for poor social and academic functioning.

These interactions are especially relevant when considering

the stress the incarceration of a parent is likely to place on a

family. With a parent removed, the family must reorganize

and restructure their dynamics, and children may be

unsupervised more often as the remaining parent may work

two jobs or longer hours. Parents remaining in the home

exhibit more stress after the incarceration of their spouse

(Nesmith and Ruhland 2008), and report higher levels of

financial problems and poorer health (Arditti et al. 2003).

When an incarcerated parent returns home, dynamics must

shift once again, and stress levels at home may continue to

be elevated for some period of time. Children whose

families are characterized by high levels of conflict and

control and low levels of cohesion are more likely than

their peers to be diagnosed with externalizing disorders

(Haddad et al. 1991), to show depressive symptoms (Gar-

ber and Horowitz 2002), and to exhibit higher levels of

delinquency (Matherne and Thomas 2001). Though Phil-

lips et al. (2006) found that children of incarcerated

mothers experienced more familial risk factors, such as

parental drug use, and harsher parental punishment than

their peers, it is also necessary to examine how these

and other familial experiences may influence children’s

adjustment. This includes examining the influence of other

family processes (e.g., conflict, structure) on children, and

how family members besides parents, such as siblings, may

influence children’s functioning.

Family conflict in particular is an important process to

examine in relation to children’s behavior. Children

exposed to high levels of conflict at home may model

interactions with peers and non-family members after the

interactions of family members. In fact, families of chil-

dren diagnosed with conduct disorder or oppositional

defiant disorder experience higher levels of conflict in their

families than peers (George et al. 2006). If coupled with

exposure to an incarcerated parent, regular exposure to

high levels of conflict in the family may influence chil-

dren’s delinquent behaviors.

Children are also influenced by their siblings’ delin-

quency. Self-reported delinquent behavior levels are highly

correlated between same-sex sibling dyads in adolescence

(Slomkowski et al. 2001), and the negative effects of

having a delinquent sibling continue over time (Farrington

and West 1993). In 2007, a survey of inmates found that

parents who were incarcerated had, on average, two minor

children (Glaze and Maruschak 2008). The effects of

parental incarceration are likely to be felt by all children in

the home. Murray and Farrington (2005) found that ado-

lescents exposed to parental incarceration are more likely

to exhibit delinquent behaviors, and these delinquent ado-

lescents may serve as role models for their younger sib-

lings. These children may be more likely to exhibit

delinquent behaviors, as they have both a delinquent parent

and older sibling after whom to model their behavior.

Analysis of Cumulative Risk in Children

with Incarcerated Parents

Past studies examining the effect of parental incarceration

on children have focused on the incarceration as the sole

independent variable (e.g., Dannerbeck 2005), though these

children have been called ‘‘a highly vulnerable group with

multiple risk factors for adverse outcomes’’ (Murray and

Farrington 2005, p. 1269). To better understand the expe-

riences of these children, it is necessary to examine

parental incarceration in light of other risk factors that may

influence development. The manner in which to examine

these risk factors, however, is debated.

In their study of social risk factors in African-American

children, Burchinal et al. (2000) discussed issues with

methods of risk analysis, and employed multiple data

analytic methods to their sample to see which best pre-

dicted developmental outcomes, pathways, and patterns.

By examining children’s risk experiences via multiple

regression analyses, one can examine how risk factors

individually and jointly affect a dependent variable. In

contrast, researchers have also examined multiple risk

factors by using risk index scores as the predictor variable.

Risk index scores are created by tallying the presence of

risk factors, then summing them to generate a score indi-

cating the total risk. Burchinal et al. (2000) compared these

methods and found that multiple regressions of individual

factors better predicted outcomes over time, but that this

method could not predict children’s adjustment within time

periods as well as the risk index score. As we were inter-

ested in non-longitudinal predictors of children’s delin-

quent behavior, a risk index score modeled after the one

used by Sameroff et al. (1993) was chosen for the current

study. While Sameroff and colleagues originally designed

the risk index score to examine relations between exposure

1472 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1471–1484

123

to risk and children’s cognitive outcomes, studies have

adapted it to examine the effect of exposure to risk on

children’s externalizing (Burchinal et al. 2008; Flouri and

Tzavidis 2008) and internalizing (Dallaire et al. 2008)

behaviors. Thus, a risk score based on Sameroff and

colleagues’ work is appropriate for the current examina-

tion of externalizing behaviors of children of incarcerated

parents.

Hypotheses

Based on a review of the literature, the following hypoth-

eses were developed. Children exposed to a past parental

incarceration were expected to report exposure to more risk

experiences than their peers whose parents have not been

incarcerated (as suggested by Phillips et al. 2006). We

expected that families with an incarcerated parent would

experience more negative family processes (as suggested

by Phillips et al. 2006, Nesmith and Ruhland 2008), spe-

cifically more family victimization, older sibling delin-

quency, and family conflict, as well as less family

organization and cohesion. We also expected that children

who had experienced parental incarceration would exhibit

more delinquency than their peers (as in Murray and Far-

rington 2005). These effects were expected to prevail

beyond the effects of child and family characteristics and

children’s risk experience. Finally, family process vari-

ables were expected to impact children’s delinquency

beyond the effects of parental incarceration. At follow-up,

we also expected children who have been exposed to recent

parental incarceration would be exposed to more negative

family processes and exhibit more delinquent behavior

than children who had not experienced recent parental

incarceration. We expected to see these influences over and

above the effects of demographic characteristics, children’s

risk experience, and previous parental incarceration.

Finally, it was expected that family processes would pre-

dict children’s delinquency over and above recent parental

incarceration.

Method

Participants

In five cities (Austin, TX; Bridgeport, CT; Memphis, TN;

Seattle, WA; Savannah, GA), schools in distressed neigh-

borhoods participated in the Children-at-risk program

(CAR), a neighborhood-based intervention aimed at pre-

venting drug use, delinquency, and other problem behav-

iors in high-risk youth. CAR staff contacted schools in

these neighborhoods, and eligible youth were identified

from school and court records. Eligibility for the CAR

program required school reports of (a) at least three school

problems (e.g., grade retention, truancy, tardiness); (b) at

least one family risk indicator (e.g., family violence his-

tory, family criminal activity); or (c) at least one personal

risk indicator (e.g., suspected drug involvement, teen

pregnancy, gang membership). Participants (N = 857)

were randomly assigned to treatment or control groups.

The treatment group (n = 332) participated in the CAR

program, which included case management and family,

court, and neighborhood services, whereas members of the

control group (n = 322) received no services. Because

control group members were exposed to neighborhood

interventions (i.e., increases in police patrolling), addi-

tional participants that met participation requirements were

selected from other distressed neighborhoods not partici-

pating in the CAR program to be in a quasi-experimental

group (n = 203).

Data collection occurred at two time points, once before

the CAR program began (baseline), then at the conclusion

of the program 2 years after the baseline assessment

(follow-up). Participants’ (48% female) mean age was

12.36 years (range 10–14) at baseline and 14.36 years

(range 12–16) at follow-up. Most (57%) were African-

American, one-third (34%) were of Hispanic descent, 6%

were Caucasian, and 2% were Asian. At follow-up, 670 of

the 857 original participants continued in data collection,

thus the attrition rate for children’s data was 23%. An

independent samples t-test to examine whether attrition

was related to children’s delinquency showed that children

who did not participate at follow-up were no more delin-

quent than other children, t (824) = -0.26, ns.

Almost all (97%) of the youths’ parents or guardians

participated in baseline data collection, and 670 parents

participated at follow-up (an attrition rate of 22%). An

attrition rate of less than one-quarter of original partici-

pants over 2 years is acceptable with a high-risk sample.

Paschall et al. (2003) were unable to collect data from 17%

of their participants after 1 year, whereas Sameroff et al.

(1993) collected data on only 56% of their original par-

ticipants after 9 years.

Participating parents were predominately female (89%),

and almost half (44%) were unemployed at baseline. Most

(82%) were children’s mothers, 8% were fathers, 7% were

grandmothers, 2% were children’s aunts, and the remaining

parents were other relatives, step-parents, or other legal

guardians. Additional demographic information (e.g.,

education) is presented by history of parental incarceration

in Tables 1 and 2.

The number of participants in each analysis varied, as

complete data was not available for all cases and all scales.

Sample sizes varied from 244 to 846 participants, with

smaller sample sizes the result of including data on

J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1471–1484 1473

123

children’s older siblings in the analyses, as only 50% of

children had older siblings.

Measures

Ethnic Minority Status

Ethnic minority status was collected by CAR program staff

as part of screening criteria, and was dichotomized as 0 if a

child was identified as White and as 1 if they were iden-

tified as non-White. Ethnic minority status (that is, expe-

rience of being non-White) has been included as a risk

factor for psychosocial maladaptation in several studies

(e.g., Gutman et al. 2003; Sameroff et al. 1993; Dallaire

et al. 2008), and represents a relative social disadvantage

placed on these individuals. Though the relation between

delinquency and race is complex and may be explained by

other contextual risk variables (see, for example, Holmes

et al. 2009), the total arrest rate for black juveniles aged

10–17 is more than twice that as of white juveniles

(National Center for Juvenile Justice 2008).

Parental Absence

Parental absence was also collected by CAR program staff

as part of screening criteria and refers to if the child’s

mother or father was absent at the beginning of the CAR

program. Parental absence was dichotomized as 0 if the

child had both parents present, and as 1 if they experienced

the absence of either parent.

Children in Home

The number of minor children living in the home was

collected as part of screening criteria, and was dichoto-

mized as 0 for a home with three or less children and as 1

for a home with four or more children.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics at baseline of children with and

children without a history of

parental incarceration

Note: Risk index is comprised of the sum of seven risk

experiences (unemployed

parent, parental drug use, parent

did not complete high school,

single-parent family, child’s

ethnic minority status, 4 or more

kids at home, family financial

problems), with higher values

indicating greater experience

of risks

FES Family Environment Scale

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Variable No parental

incarceration

(n = 724)

History of parental

incarceration

(n = 150)

t-Value (df)

M (SD) M (SD)

Control variables

Gender (% male) 53% (n = 371) 50% (n = 75) 0.51 (846)

Age 12.34 (0.71) 12.50 (0.59) -2.53 (846)

Parent gender (% male) 23% (n = 161) 19% (n = 29) 0.48 (846)

Incarceration variables

Parent ever arrested (%) 5% (n = 35) 100% (n = 150) -34.12*** (846)

Parent ever appeared in court (%) 10% (n = 70) 54% (n = 81) -13.99*** (846)

Parent ever on probation (%) 4% (n = 28) 47% (n = 71) -18.03*** (846)

Risk variables

Child an ethnic minority (%) 93% (n = 651) 99% (n = 149) -2.58** (846)

Mother absent (%) 13% (n = 91) 7% (n = 11) -2.23* (846)

Father absent (%) 72% (n = 504) 54% (n = 81) -4.46*** (846)

Number of children in the home 3.08 (1.53) 3.14 (1.47) -0.46 (846)

Parent drug use (%) 3% (n = 21) 6% (n = 9) -1.46 (842)

Financial problems (%) 73% (n = 511) 79% (n = 119) 1.47 (844)

Parent employed (%) 44% (n = 308) 43% (n = 65) 0.32 (844)

Parent completed high school (%) 51% (n = 357) 37% (n = 56) -3.14** (844)

Risk index score 3.84 (1.16) 3.96 (1.11) -1.16 (840)

Family process variables

FES Organization 6.33 (1.89) 6.44 (1.84) -0.64 (812)

FES Cohesion 6.88 (1.77) 6.85 (1.82) 0.19 (821)

FES Conflict 4.62 (1.76) 4.48 (1.82) 0.89 (818)

Crimes against family 0.94 (1.24) 1.20 (1.26) -2.35* (841)

Sibling delinquency 1.99 (2.02) 2.82 (2.35) -2.98** (398)

Delinquency

Parent report of youth delinquency 2.02 (1.75) 2.38 (2.05) -2.18* (822)

Youth self-report of delinquency 15.36 (3.54) 15.13 (3.21) 0.71 (821)

1474 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1471–1484

123

Parental Unemployment

Parental unemployment was reported by parents and was

dichotomized as 0 for being currently employed and as 1

for being currently unemployed. Parents reported their

educational attainment, and this was dichotomized as 0 if

the parent had completed high school, and as 1 if the parent

had not.

Parental Drug Use

Parental drug use refers to parent self-report of use of any

substance to ‘‘get high in the last year,’’ and was dichoto-

mized as 0 if the parent reported not using drugs to get

high, and as 1 if they reported using any drug to get high.

Family Financial Problems

Family financial problems were reported by parents

answering if ‘‘having enough money is a problem’’ for their

family, and was dichotomized as 0 if the parent reported

that having enough money was not a problem, and as 1 if

the parent reported that having enough money was a minor

or major problem for the family.

Risk Index Score

Guided by the environmental risk score created by

Sameroff et al. (1993), these seven variables were used to

create a risk index score in the present study. We summed

across these seven dichotomous variables to create an

overall risk index score, which could range from 0 (indi-

cating a lack of risk experience) to 7 (indicating a full

range of risk experience). A risk index score was calculated

for children at baseline and follow-up. Children’s risk

index scores at baseline and follow-up were significantly,

positively correlated, (r = .59, p \ .001). At baseline, complete risk index scores were available for 843 children

(98% of the sample), and 660 children had complete risk

index scores at follow-up (78% of the sample).

Parental Incarceration

Parent participants reported their history of incarceration.

At baseline, parents reported whether they had ever been

Table 2 Descriptive statistics at follow-up of children with

and children without recent

experience of parental

incarceration

Note: Risk Index is comprised of the sum of seven risk

experiences (unemployed

parent, parental drug use, parent

did not complete high school,

single-parent family, child’s

ethnic minority status, 4 or more

kids at home, family financial

problems), with higher values

indicating greater experience

of risks

FES Family Environment Scale t p \ .10; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Variable No recent parental

incarceration

(n = 640)

Recent parental

incarceration

(n = 30)

t-Value (df)

M (SD) M (SD)

Control variables

Gender (% male) 53% (n = 339) 63% (n = 19) -1.00 (679)

Age 12.35 (0.69) 12.33 (0.61) 0.12 (679)

Parent gender (%) 21% (n = 134) 30% (n = 9) -0.46 (679)

Risk variables

Child an ethnic minority (%) 94% (n = 602) 97% (n = 29) -0.55 (679)

Mother absent (%) 13% (n = 83) 7% (n = 2) -1.04 (679)

Father absent (%) 69% (n = 442) 57% (n = 17) -1.46 (679)

# Children in home 3.07 (1.56) 3.03 (1.27) 0.11 (679)

Parent drug use (%) 5% (n = 32) 24% (n = 7) -4.50*** (678)

Financial problems (%) 70% (n = 448) 87% (n = 26) -1.95* (677)

Parent employed (%) 52% (n = 333) 57% (n = 17) 0.45 (678)

Parent completed high school (%) 84% (n = 538) 97% (n = 29) 1.18 (679)

Risk index score 3.39 (1.21) 3.52 (1.06) -0.56 (675)

Family process variables

FES Organization 6.02 (2.37) 6.40 (3.09) -1.49 (518)

FES Cohesion 5.64 (2.41) 5.44 (2.01) 0.78 (517)

FES Conflict 7.44 (2.34) 7.92 (3.99) -1.88 t

(514)

Crimes against family 1.00 (1.29) 1.63 (2.01) -2.56* (671)

Sibling delinquency 2.20 (2.04) 2.88 (3.94) -0.88 (251)

Delinquency

Parent report of youth’s delinquency 2.50 (2.06) 3.54 (2.38) -2.59** (659)

Youth self-report of delinquency 16.01 (4.07) 17.33 (5.78) -1.21 (386)

J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1471–1484 1475

123

incarcerated and how many times. At follow-up, parents

reported if they had been incarcerated in the past 2 years.

At baseline, 150 parents had been incarcerated at least once

(17.5%); on average, they had been incarcerated 1.72

times, though responses ranged from once to 15 times.

Eighty-one percent (n = 122) of incarcerated parents were

mothers—which as the parent sample consisted of 91%

mothers, this was not surprising. At follow-up, 30 parents

(3.5%) reported being incarcerated in the last 2 years. Six

of these parents were repeat offenders, reporting incarcer-

ation both at baseline and follow-up.

Family Environment

Familial interactions were examined with four subscales of

the Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos and Moos

1994) completed by the youth. The FES consists of 90

items divided across three dimensions (Real, Ideal, and

Expected) and ten subscales. We examined child-reports of

the following four subscales on the Real dimension:

Organization, Cohesion, Control, and Conflict. The Real

dimension of these subscales asks respondents about their

current family environment. Each item is administered in

true/false format. The Organization subscale (FES Orga-

nization) measures the level of organization in the family,

with items such as ‘‘Activities in our family are carefully

planned,’’ and ‘‘It’s often hard to find things when you need

them in our home.’’ The Cohesion subscale (FES Cohe-

sion) measures the level of structure in the family. Items on

the Cohesion subscale include ‘‘There is a feeling of

togetherness in our family,’’ and ‘‘There is little group

spirit in our family.’’ The Control subscale (FES Control)

measures the level of control held by family members over

others. Items include ‘‘One family member makes most

decisions,’’ and ‘‘Family members are rarely ordered

around.’’ The Conflict subscale (FES Conflict) measures

the amount of conflict within in the family, with items such

as ‘‘We fight a lot in our family,’’ and ‘‘Family members

hardly ever lose their tempers.’’ The FES subscales have

high internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s

alphas ranging from .61 to .78, and test–retest reliability for

the subscales range from .52 to .91 for 2-, 3-, and 12-month

intervals (Moos and Moos 1994). The Cronbach’s alphas

for the subscales at baseline were: Cohesion, .60; Conflict,

.61; Organization, .61; and Control, .08. Reliability coef-

ficients at follow-up were similar: Cohesion, .66; Conflict,

.72; Organization, .55; and Control, .32. Because of its low

alpha level, FES Control was not retained for analysis. Of

the 857 child participants in baseline data collection, 833

had complete FES Organization scores (97%), 842 had

complete FES Cohesion scores (98%), and 839 had com-

plete FES Conflict scores (98%). At follow-up, 664 of the

670 child participants had complete FES Organization

scores (99%), 661 had complete FES Cohesion scores

(99%), and 660 had complete FES Conflict scores (99%).

Older Sibling Delinquency

Parents of the 432 children with older siblings (50% of the

sample) were asked about delinquent behaviors of these

siblings at baseline and follow-up. If parents reported the

target children having more than one older sibling, they

were instructed to answer about any of the older siblings. A

typical set of questions read, ‘‘Does the youth’s older sib-

ling get into fights?’’ Eleven delinquent behaviors were

described and parents were asked to indicate the absence

(0) or presence (1) of each behavior for the child’s older

sibling(s). Internal consistency reliability of this measure of

sibling delinquency was .74 at baseline, and .73 at follow-

up. Complete data was available for all child participants

with older siblings at baseline, while complete parent

reports of older sibling delinquency was available for 268

of these 432 children (62%) at follow-up. Analyses in

which sibling delinquency was either the dependent or a

predictor variable had relatively small sample sizes (in

comparison to the other analyses) due to only half of par-

ticipating children having older siblings.

Family Victimization

Parents reported the extent to which the family had expe-

rienced criminal victimization over the past 12 months at

baseline. At follow-up, they reported the extent of criminal

victimization experienced in the past 2 years. Nine items

asked if a member of the family had experienced different

forms of victimization. Typical items asked, ‘‘Have you or

anyone in your family been beaten up?’’ and, ‘‘Did anyone

try to rob you or anyone in your family?’’ Parents

responded either ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ to each item. Internal

consistency reliability coefficients for reported crimes

against the family were .54 at baseline and .60 at follow-

up; however, scale reliability for these variables were not

expected to be high, as experience of one crime (e.g., being

attacked) does not necessarily make one more likely to also

experience another (e.g., being a victim of arson). Com-

plete parent reports of family victimization were available

for 845 of 857 children (99%) at baseline, and for 666 of

670 children (99%) at follow-up.

Youth Delinquency

Parents reported the number of delinquent behaviors of

their children at baseline and follow-up. A typical question

asked, ‘‘Does the youth get into fights?’’ Eleven delinquent

behaviors were described and parents indicated the absence

(0) or presence (1) of each for their child. Internal

1476 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1471–1484

123

consistency reliability for parent-reports of youth delin-

quency was .67 at baseline, and .72 at follow-up. Complete

data for parent reports of youth delinquency were available

for 826 of 857 children (96%) at baseline, and 664 of 670

children (99%) at follow-up.

Children reported their delinquent behaviors using a

similar measure. Youths reported at baseline and follow-up

if they had ever participated in 13 delinquent behaviors,

such as robbing someone, stealing a car, or arson. Youths’

responses were coded for the frequency of the behavior:

never (1), once or twice (2), three or four times (3), and

four or more times (4). Internal consistency reliability

coefficients for children’s report of delinquency were .80 at

baseline, and .84 at follow-up. Complete data of children’s

self reports of delinquency were available for 842 of 857

participants (98%) at baseline, and for 484 of 670 partici-

pants (72%) at follow-up.

Parent-reports and child self-reports of delinquency

were not significantly correlated at either baseline or fol-

low-up. Reports also did not correlate longitudinally (e.g.,

child reports of delinquency at baseline were not associated

with parents’ reports of children’s delinquency at follow-up

or vice versa). Significant positive relations were found

within reporters, however, with both child, r (468) = .44,

p \ .001, and parent, r (628) = .43, p \ .001, reports significantly correlated at baseline and follow-up.

Procedure

CAR program staff interviewed participants in their homes.

Data collection occurred between 1993 and 1996.

Information on children’s and parents’ demographics,

family characteristics, children’s risk experiences, and

parent-reports of children’s problems at school was col-

lected at baseline and follow-up (for information on the

CAR program and the administration of measures, see

Harrell et al. 1999). Data was collected and compiled by

members of the CAR program staff, and was made avail-

able to the authors through an agreement with The College

of William & Mary as a part of the Inter-university Con-

sortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR).

Results

Preliminary and Descriptive Data Analyses

We conducted t-tests and correlation analyses comparing

children with a history of parental incarceration and their

peers on contextual and risk experiences and delinquency

at baseline and follow-up (see Tables 1, 2, and 3). At

baseline, children who had been exposed to parental

incarceration were more likely to be an ethnic minority,

t (846) = -2.58, p \ .01, d = .31, to have their mother, t (846) = -2.23, p \ .05, d = .20, and father, t (846) = -4.46, p \ .05, d = .38, present in at home, to experience crimes against the families, t (841) = -2.35, p \ .05, d = .21, to have delinquent older siblings, t (398) =

-2.98, p \ .01, d = .38, and exhibit more delinquent behaviors according to their parents, t (822) = -2.18,

p \ .05, d = .19. Children exposed to parental incarcera- tion were less likely to have parents who completed high

Table 3 Linear correlations between variables of interest at baseline (below the diagonal) and follow-up (above the diagonal)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Youth’s age – -.01 -.06 -.02 -.01 .00 .03 -.01 .02 .04

2. Parental incarceration .09* – .02 .07 -.03 .08 .10* .06 .10** .06

3. Risk index .02 .04 – .06 .03 -.05 .05 .01 .08* .03

Family process

4. FES organization .02 .02 -.01 – .58*** -.45*** .02 .01 -.04 .11*

5. FES cohesion .04 -.01 -.07* .55*** – -.60*** -.02 -.02 -.05 .26***

6. FES conflict -.05 -.03 .05 -.43*** -.48*** – .03 .06 -.01 -.32***

7. Family victimization .02 .08* .01 -.04 .03 -.01 – .27*** .16*** .00

8. Sibling delinquency .05 .15** .09 .01 -.01 .04 .16*** – -.10* .02

Delinquency

9. Parent report .00 .08* .04 .01 .03 -.01 .17*** .23** – .06

10. Child report -.03 -.03 .07* -.24*** -.27*** .23*** -.07 .00 .03 –

Note: Risk index is comprised of the sum of seven risk experiences (unemployed parent, parental drug use, parent did not complete high school, single-parent family, child’s ethnic minority status, 4 or more kids at home, family financial problems), with higher values indicating greater

experience of risks

FES Family Environment Scale

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1471–1484 1477

123

school, t (844) = -3.14, p \ .01, d = .29. Similar differ- ences were found when we compared children who

recently experienced parental incarceration and their peers

at follow-up. At follow-up, children exposed to recent

parental incarceration were also more likely to be exposed

to parental substance use, t (678) = -4.50, p \ .001, d = .55, and to live in a family experiencing financial

problems, t (677) = -1.95, p \ .05, d = .41. Parents who had recently been incarcerated were more likely than other

parents to report family victimization (t (671) = -2.56,

p \ .05, d = .37) and reported their children as more delinquent than did other parents (t (659) = -2.59,

p \ .01, d = .47). Children of recently incarcerated par- ents were also more likely than their peers to report high

levels of family conflict; this trend approached signifi-

cance, t (514) = 1.88, p = .06.

Baseline Regression Analyses

To test the hypothesis that history of parental incarceration

predicts poor family processes over and above children’s

risk experiences, we conducted a set of hierarchical

regression analyses in which family victimization, sibling

delinquency, and children’s report of family organization,

conflict, and cohesion, and in which we controlled for

children’s age and gender, parent participant gender, and

children’s risk index score (see Table 4). History of

parental incarceration predicted more family victimization,

b = .08, p \ .05, DR2 = .006, and more sibling delin- quency, b = .14, p \ .01, DR2 = .019.

Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted with

history of parental incarceration as the predicting variable

and parent- and child-reports of children’s delinquency as

the dependent variables (see Table 5). We again controlled

for children’s age and gender, parent participant gender,

and children’s risk index score. Experience of parental

incarceration was not predictive of children’s self-reported

delinquency; however, children who were exposed to

parental incarceration were reported by their parents to

exhibit more delinquent behaviors than their peers

(b = .07, p \ .05, DR2 = .005), over and above demo- graphic variables and risk experiences.

We conducted a final hierarchical regression analysis at

baseline. In addition to controlling for children’s age and

gender, parent participant gender, and children’s risk

experience, we also controlled for family processes related

to parental incarceration (family victimization, sibling

delinquency; see Table 6). After controlling for these

experiences, having a history of parental incarceration no

longer predicted parents’ reports of children’s delinquency.

Follow-Up Regression Analyses

At follow-up, we examined whether recent parental

incarceration (parental incarceration occurring in the

2 years between baseline and follow-up data collection)

predicted family environment, family victimization, older

sibling delinquency, and children’s delinquency with a

series of hierarchical linear regression analyses. In addition

to controlling for children’s age and gender, parent par-

ticipant gender, and children’s risk experiences (as in

baseline analyses), we also controlled for parental incar-

ceration prior to beginning the CAR program. Addition-

ally, we included an experimental group dummy coded

variable (i.e., treatment group = 3, control group = 2,

quasi-experimental group = 1) as a predictor variable in

all analyses conducted using follow-up data.

In this set of analyses, after the control variables were

entered, the level of conflict in the family (b = .09, p \ .05, DR2 = .008) and experience of family victimization

Table 4 Hierarchical regression analyses predicting family process variables by history of parental incarceration at baseline

Family victimization (n = 837) Sibling delinquency (n = 398)

B (SE B) b DR2 B (SE B) b DR2

Step 1 .003 .006

Child gender .119 (.077) .054 .192 (.168) .057

Child age .017 (.063) .010 .089 (.151) .030

Caregiver gender .023 (.041) .020 .034 (.094) .018

Step 2 .000 .007

Risk index .003 (.037) .003 .146 (.093) .078

Step 3 .006* .019**

Parental incarceration .259 (.113) .080* .787 (.282) .140**

experience of risks

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

1478 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1471–1484

123

(b = .08, p \ .05, DR2 = .006) were both predicted by the recent experience of parental incarceration (see Table 7).

Children of recently incarcerated parents were also more

likely than their peers to be reported by their parents as

delinquent, b = .09, p \ .05, DR2 = .008 (Table 8). As at baseline, children’s report of their own delinquent behavior

was not predicted by recent parental incarceration. A final

set of regression analyses was conducted to examine whe-

ther recent parental incarceration affected children’s delin-

quency beyond the effects of demographic characteristics,

risk experience, previous parental incarceration, and family

conflict and victimization levels. These analyses showed

that recent parental incarceration no longer predicted

children’s delinquency after also considering the effects of

family process variables (Table 9).

Discussion

The current study examined the effects of having a family

history of parental incarceration on family processes and

children’s delinquency, over and above the effects of other

factors, and the effects of recent parental incarceration

on family processes and children’s delinquency after

accounting for previous parental incarceration. Children’s

delinquent behavior, according to parent reports, was

Table 5 Hierarchical regression analyses predicting children’s delinquency by history of parental incarceration at baseline

Parent report of children’s delinquency (n = 819) Child self-report of delinquency (n = 817)

B (SE B) b DR2 B (SE B) b DR2

Step 1 .000 .005

Child gender -.029 (.113) -.009 .341 (.217) .055

Child age -.019 (.092) -.007 -.190 (.176) -.038

Caregiver gender -.020 (.059) -.012 -.052 (.114) -.016

Step 2 .001 .005*

Risk index .054 (.055) .034 .215 (.106) .071*

Step 3 .005* .001

Parental incarceration .350 (.166) .074* -.231 (.322) -.025

experience of risks

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Table 6 Hierarchical regression analyses predicting children’s delinquency by history of parental incarceration at baseline

Parent report of children’s delinquency (n = 397) Child self-report of delinquency (n = 388)

B (SE B) b DR2 B (SE B) b DR2

Step 1 .002 .005

Child gender -.003 (.142) -.001 -.007 (.272) -.001

Child age .009 (.127) .003 -.176 (.245) -.037

Caregiver gender -.058 (.079) -.036 -.146 (.151) -.050

Step 2 .004 .005

Risk index .075 (.079) .047 .208 (.151) .071

Step 3 .064*** .001

Family victimization .178 (.070) .126* -.094 (.136) -.036

Sibling delinquency .164 (.043) .192*** .007 (.082) .004

Step 4 .004 .000

Parental incarceration .303 (.239) .063 .007 (.459) .001

experience of risks

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1471–1484 1479

123

predicted by a history of parental incarceration. Family

victimization and sibling delinquency was also predicted

by a history of parental incarceration. However, once

family victimization and sibling delinquency were added to

the prediction equation, a history of parental incarceration

no longer predicted children’s delinquent behaviors. Chil-

dren who had experienced the incarceration of a parent in

the last 2 years were more likely than their peers to report

family conflict, and their parents were more likely to report

experiences of family victimization. This association con-

tinued to be predicted by exposure to recent parental

incarceration after taking into account the effects of

demographic characteristics, children’s cumulative risk

experience, and previous parental incarceration. Recently

incarcerated parents reported their children as more

delinquent, even after accounting for effects of exposure to

risk and previous parental incarceration; however, once

family conflict and victimization were added to the pre-

diction equation, recent parental incarceration no longer

predicted children’s delinquency. These results support

available literature on family processes and parental

incarceration.

Table 7 Hierarchical regression analyses predicting family processes by recent parental incarceration at follow-up

Family conflict (n = 498) Family victimization (n = 653) Sibling delinquency (n = 244)

B (SE B) b DR2 B (SE B) b DR2 B (SE B) b DR2

Step 1 .004 .006 .009

Child gender .166 (.184) .041 -.131 (.090) -.057 .083 (.201) .027

Child age -.101 (.162) -.028 .030 (.076) .015 -.072 (.207) -.023

Caregiver gender .092 (.126) .033 .036 (.055) .025 .104 (.099) .068

Treatment group .000 (.143) .000 -.071 (.067) -.041 .171 (.179) .063

Step 2 .003 .003 .000

Risk index -.113 (.088) -.057 .064 (.043) .058 -.019 (.130) -.010

Step 3 .000 .019*** .005

Past parental incarceration -.072 (.297) -.011 .412 (.140) .119** .385 (.401) .064

Step 4 .008* .006* .002

Recent parental incarceration 1.076 (.541) .092* .499 (.259) .077* .500 (.795) .042

experience of risks

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Table 8 Hierarchical regression analyses predicting children’s delinquency by recent parental incarceration at follow-up

Parent report of children’s delinquency (n = 641) Child self-report of delinquency (n = 379)

B (SE B) b DR2 B (SE B) b DR2

Step 1 .007 .006

Child gender .178 (.141) .050 .017 (.343) .003

Child age .077 (.119) .026 .471 (.312) .079

Caregiver gender -.003 (.086) -.001 .010 (.298) .002

Treatment group .158 (.105) .059 -.131 (.267) -.026

Step 2 .007* .001

Risk index .140 (.067) .082* .129 (.169) .039

Step 3 .004 .000

Prior parental incarceration .222 (.220) .041 -.180 (.567) -.017

Step 4 .010* .004

Recent parental incarceration 1.045 (.419) .101* 1.462 (1.139) .068

experience of risks

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

1480 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1471–1484

123

Our results also support the literature on socialization

effects of siblings, some of which argue that the effects of

siblings’ behavior on children are independent of parental

effects (Farrington and West 1993). Slomkowski and col-

leagues suggest that homes in which there is a great deal of

conflict may foster aggressive sibling behavior, which may

move beyond the dyad interactions and develop into anti-

social behavior outside of the family (Slomkowski et al.

2001, 1997). The suggested influence of a conflicted home

environment is important to note, as our study found that

recent parental incarceration influenced family conflict,

which, along with family victimization, predicted chil-

dren’s delinquency better than parental incarceration. Past

research on how the family affects children’s maladjust-

ment lend support to our finding of higher levels of conflict

in families exposed to recent parental incarceration.

George et al. (2006) found that parents in high-conflict

families were more likely than other parents to report that

their children were delinquent and had conduct problems.

That the experience of delinquent, conflicted families is

associated with children’s own delinquent behaviors is

unsurprising; however, that these family processes predict

children’s maladjustment over and above the effects of

parental incarceration is important to note.

Past studies examining children and families of incar-

cerated parents have found that aspects of family life are

influenced by the incarceration. For instance, caregivers

report more stress after the incarceration of their spouse

(Nesmith and Ruhland 2008), and families of incarcerated

parents have more financial problems and poorer health

than before the incarceration (Arditti et al. 2003). The

present study also supports work by Murray and Farrington

(2005) by showing that negative effects of having an

incarcerated parent continue to be seen in the adjustment of

children even years after the parent returns home; in

addition, our findings suggest that family processes are

affected years after the parental incarceration as well.

While our sample did not experience the increased level of

exposure to risk as Phillips et al. (2006) had found, we did

find that children of incarcerated parents are more likely to

be delinquent and experience poor family processes after

accounting for the effects of children’s risk experience, a

conclusion that no study to date has been able to make.

Especially interesting is the finding that family processes

account for more of the increase in children’s delinquent

behaviors as reported by parents than the experience of

parental incarceration at both time points, as it suggests

that the differences in family processes may be the root of

the behavioral problems.

Research Implications

Recent studies of parental incarceration have found that

children’s adjustment is associated with the gender of the

incarcerated parent. For example, Dallaire (2007) found

that adult children of incarcerated mothers were more

likely to be incarcerated themselves than adult children of

incarcerated fathers. In the current study, we were unable

to examine differences in children’s experience of maternal

or paternal incarceration. Parents were not asked whether

their spouse had ever been incarcerated. The effect of

having two parents or multiple family members who have

been in jail or prison was not able to be examined with this

dataset, and are likely to have a negative effect on both

Table 9 Hierarchical regression analyses predicting

children’s delinquency by

recent parental incarceration

at follow-up

Note: Risk index is comprised of the sum of seven risk

experiences (unemployed

parent, parental drug use, parent

did not complete high school,

single-parent family, child’s

ethnic minority status, 4 or more

kids at home, family financial

problems), with higher values

indicating greater experience

of risks

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Parent report of children’s

delinquency (n = 476) Child self-report of

delinquency (n = 370)

B (SE B) b DR2 B (SE B) b DR2

Step 1 .011 .006

Child gender .244 (.154) .072 .131 (.333) .020

Child age .130 (.136) .044 .333 (.306) .055

Caregiver gender -.043 (.105) -.019 .079 (.288) .014

Treatment group .178 (.121) .067 -.164 (.260) -.032

Step 2 .006 .001

Risk index .120 (.075) .073 .084 (.164) .026

Step 3 .004 .000

Prior parental incarceration .117 (.254) .022 -.205 (.566) -.019

Step 4 .027*** .093***

Family conflict .005 (.038) .006 -.536 (.086) -.314***

Family victimization .237 (.069) .157*** .033 (.164) .010

Step 5 .007 .008

Recent parental incarceration .852 (.473) .085 2.043 (1.114) .096

J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1471–1484 1481

123

family relations and children’s functioning. Dallaire (2007)

found that 6% of incarcerated mothers of had a spouse who

had also been incarcerated, which is particularly relevant to

the current study, in which the majority of incarcerated

parents were mothers. The effects of having an incarcerated

mother or father may also differ by the child’s gender; that

is, boys and girls may react differently to a parent’s

incarceration.

The current study found differences in the adjustment of

children and the dynamics of families who have experi-

enced parental incarceration in the past and those who have

experienced parental incarceration in the past 2 years.

Differences may also exist in children who experienced

parental incarceration at different ages and in families for

whom various amounts of time has passed since the

incarceration of a parent. Experiencing the incarceration of

a parent during adolescence may be particularly disruptive

to already tenuous family dynamics. Our results show that

adolescents (our child participants at follow-up were 12–16

years old) whose parents have been recently incarcerated

experience even more conflict within the family than

adolescents whose parents have not been recently incar-

cerated. Further examination of how parental incarceration

experienced at different developmental periods is neces-

sary, as the particular maladjustment exhibited or the effect

parental incarceration has may differ.

Intervention Implications

The study’s implications for interventions are 2-fold. Pro-

grams aimed at preventing or lessening the delinquency of

children affected by parental incarceration should attempt

to involve other members of the family. This may be most

easily accomplished by including older and younger sib-

lings of targeted children; however, including both the

remaining parent and the previously-incarcerated parent is

ideal. Several programs have called for intervention pro-

grams for families of incarcerated parents which take a

family approach. Engstrom (2008) argued for the inclusion

of caregiver grandparents in interventions aimed at

strengthening families of incarcerated mothers. As the

current study found that family processes influenced chil-

dren’s delinquency beyond the effects of parental incar-

ceration, a program which aims to strengthen families and

promote resiliency would also be appropriate. Families and

Schools Together (FAST; McDonald et al. 1997) is a

program in which families attend weekly support groups,

participate in structured activities, and meet regularly with

their children’s teachers. School- and family-based early

interventions such as these help foster communication

between children’s families and their teachers, and give

families the opportunity to practice positive family

dynamics.

Programs aimed either at reducing children’s or fami-

lies’ maladjustment in families of incarcerated parents

should be ongoing. Such programs should be aimed

towards families with an arrested or criminally-involved

parent, either current or in the past, as we have shown that

the effects of having an incarcerated parent do not cease

when they are released. Though the current study examined

the ongoing effects of parental incarceration on adoles-

cents’ maladjustment, the key to preventing this malad-

justment in adolescence may lie earlier in childhood.

Limitations and Conclusions

Several limitations of the current study suggest avenues for

future research. In the present study, there was little con-

cordance between child and parent report of delinquency.

This may be due to how measures were administered.

Children may have been wary to report behaviors such as

arson to CAR program staff administering interviews in

children’s homes when their parent may be present.

Though both child- and parent-reports were included in our

study, teachers’ reports of children’s behaviors at school

may provide an additional valid viewpoint. Additionally, as

the current study found a relationship between what could

be considered parental delinquency (incarceration for

crime) and children’s delinquency (both of the participat-

ing child and older siblings), genetic effects may play roles

we were unable to address.

Another limitation of the current study is that children’s

report of their delinquency was not predicted by any of our

process or independent variables. Only parent-reported

delinquency was predicted in this study, and while we

believe that our results are valid, ideally one would see both

parent- and child self-reports of children’s delinquency

predicted by our independent variables. In an unfortunate

side effect of analyzing archival, longitudinal data with

multiple reporters, some data was missing and participants

were excluded from analyses. Sample sizes were reduced

from a potential 857 cases; however, all analyses presented

were still quite large, there was ample power to detect even

small effects (see Cortina and Landis 2009).

In conclusion, the current study shows that the effects of

parental incarceration continues after the parent returns,

and that children’s adjustment and family processes are

influenced by the parent’s incarceration beyond the effects

of other risk factors, such as parental unemployment or

drug use. However, family victimization and sibling

delinquency influence children’s adjustment beyond the

effects of parental incarceration, suggesting that aspects of

family life contribute more to children’s maladjustment

than the single factor of having a history of parental

incarceration. The current study points to the need

to broaden how we examine the effect of parental

1482 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1471–1484

123

incarceration. The effects of parental incarceration on

children may be best examined from a family systems

perspective, in which the impact of all family members and

the family as a whole is thought to influence children’s

delinquency. Interventions aimed at these children should

also focus on the influence of the family, instead of solely

that of the incarcerated parent.

References

Arditti, J. A. (2005). Families and incarceration: An ecological

approach. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86, 251–260.

Arditti, J. A., Lambert-Shute, J., & Joest, K. (2003). Saturday

morning at the jail: Implications of incarceration for families and

children. Family Relations, 52, 195–204. Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Hooper, S., & Zeisel, S. A. (2000).

Cumulative risk and early cognitive development: A comparison

of statistical risk models. Developmental Psychology, 36, 793–807.

Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Zeisel, S. A., & Rowley, S. J. (2008).

Social risk and protective factors for African American chil-

dren’s academic achievement and adjustment during the transi-

tion to middle school. Developmental Psychology, 44, 286–292. Cortina, J. M., & Landis, R. S. (2009). When small effect sizes tell a

big story, and when large effect sizes don’t. In C. E. Lance &

R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organiza- tional and social sciences. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Dallaire, D. H. (2007). Incarcerated mothers and fathers: A compar-

ison of risks for children and families. Family Relations, 56, 440–453.

Dallaire, D. H., Cole, D. A., Smith, T., Ciesla, J. A., LaGrange, B.,

Jacquez, F. M., et al. (2008). Predicting children’s depressive

symptoms from community and individual-level risk factors.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 830–846. Dannerbeck, A. M. (2005). Differences in parenting attributes,

experiences and behaviors of youth with and without a history

of parental incarceration. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3, 199–213.

Egeland, B., & Abery, B. (1991). A longitudinal study of high-risk

children: Educational outcomes. International Journal of Dis- ability, Development, and Education, 38, 271–287.

Engstrom, M. (2008). Involving caregiving grandmothers in family

interventions when mothers with substance use problems are

incarcerated. Family Process, 47, 357–371. Farrington, D. P. (2000). Psychosocial predictors of adult antisocial

personality and adult convictions. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 605–622.

Farrington, D. P., & West, D. J. (1993). Criminal, penal and life

histories of chronic offenders: Risk and protective factors and

early identification. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 3, 492–523.

Flouri, E., & Tzavidis, N. (2008). Psychopathology and prosocial

behavior in adolescents from socio-economically disadvantaged

families: the role of proximal and distal adverse life events.

European Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 17, 498– 506.

Garber, J., & Horowitz, J. L. (2002). Depression in children. In I. H.

Gotlib & C. L. Hammen (Eds.), Handbook of depression (pp. 510–540). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

George, C., Herman, K. C., & Ostrander, R. (2006). The family

environment and developmental psychopathology: The unique

and interactive effects of depression, attention, and conduct

problems. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 37, 163– 177.

Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Parents in prison and their

minor children. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Gutman, L. M., Sameroff, A. J., & Cole, R. (2003). Academic growth

curve trajectories from 1st grade to 12th grade: Effects of

multiple social risk factors and preschool child factors. Devel- opmental Psychology, 39, 777–790.

Haddad, J. D., Barocas, R., & Hollenbeck, A. R. (1991). Family

organization and parent attitudes of children with conduct

disorder. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 20, 152–161. Harrell, A., Cavanagh, S., & Sridharan, S. (1999). Evaluation of the

children-at-risk program: Results one year after the end of the

program. National Institute of Justice: Research in Brief. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.

Holmes, E., Jones-Sanpei, H., & Day, R. D. (2009). Adolescent

outcome measures in the NLSY97 Family Process Dataset:

Variation by race and socioeconomic conditions. Marriage and Family Review, 45.

Matherne, M. M., & Thomas, A. (2001). Family environment as a

predictor of adolescent delinquency. Adolescence, 36, 655–664. McDonald, L., Billingham, S., Conrad, T., Morgan, A. O. N., &

Payton, E. (1997). Families and schools together (FAST):

Integrating community development with clinical strategies.

Families in Society, 78, 140–155. Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1994). Family environment scale manual

(3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Mumola, C. J. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Parental imprisonment:

Effects on boys’ antisocial behaviour and delinquency through

the life-course. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1269–1278.

National Center for Juvenile Justice. (2008). Juvenile arrest rates by

offense, sex, and race. Obtained on September 23, 2009 from

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2006.xls.

Nesmith, A., & Ruhland, E. (2008). Children of incarcerated parents:

Challenges and resiliency, in their own words. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1119–1130.

Paschall, M. J., Ringwalt, C. L., & Flewelling, R. L. (2003). Effects of

parenting, father, absence, and affiliation with delinquent

behavior among African-American male adolescents. Adoles- cence, 38, 15–34.

Phillips, S. D., Burns, B. J., Wagner, H. R., Kramer, T. L., & Robbins,

J. M. (2002). Parental incarceration among adolescents receiving

mental health services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 385–399.

Phillips, S. D., Erkanli, A., Keeler, G., Costello, E. J., & Angold, A.

(2006). Disentangling the risks: Parental criminal justice

involvement and children’s exposure to family risks. Criminol- ogy and Public Policy, 5, 677–702.

Sameroff, A. J., Seifer, R., Baldwin, A., & Baldwin, C. (1993).

Stability of intelligence from preschool to adolescence: The

influence of social and family risk factors. Child Development, 64, 80–97.

Slomkowski, C., Rende, R., Conger, K. J., Simons, R. L., & Conger,

R. D. (2001). Sisters, brothers, and delinquency: Evaluating

social influence during early and middle adolescence. Child Development, 72, 271–283.

Slomkowski, C., Wasserman, G., Shaffer, D., Rende, R., & Davies,

M. (1997). Research note: A new instrument to assess sibling

J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1471–1484 1483

123

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/crime/excel/JAR_2006.xls

relationships in anti-social youth: The social interaction between

siblings (SIBS) interview. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 253–256.

Trice, A. D., & Brewster, J. (2004). The effects of maternal

incarceration on adolescent children. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 19, 27–35.

Wight, R. G., Aneshensel, C. S., Botticello, A. L., & Sepulveda, J. E.

(2005). A multilevel analysis of ethnic variation in depressive

symptoms among adolescents in the United States. Social Science & Medicine, 60, 2073–2084.

Author Biographies

Lauren Aaron is a second-year graduate student in the Experimental Psychology program at the College of William & Mary, and expects

to receive her M.A. in 2010. She received her B.A. in Psychology

from North Carolina State University, and expects to pursue a Ph.D.

in Developmental Psychology. Her research interests include chil-

dren’s experience of risk factors, the effects of parental military

deployment on children, prosocial behavior development and the

effects of parental separation on children’s peer relations.

Danielle H. Dallaire is an Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department at The College of William and Mary. She received her

Ph.D. from Temple University in 2003. Her major research interests

include children’s social and emotional development and promoting

resiliency in children and families in high risk environments,

particularly children and families dealing with parental incarceration.

1484 J Youth Adolescence (2010) 39:1471–1484

123

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.