Exploring Traumatic Influences

The Unmet Need for Mental Health Services Among Probationers’ Children

SUSAN D. PHILLIPS and RACHEL VENEMA Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois at Chicago,

Chicago, Illinois, USA

LORENA ROQUE Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities, Chicago, Illinois, USA

This study explores the unmet need for mental health services among children with parents on probation. A group of 77 proba- tioners provided information on 170 children. Information about children’s need for mental health services was based on the Child Behavior Checklist and information about children’s receipt of mental health services was based on the Child and Adolescent Service Assessment. Approximately 1 in 4 participants had at least one child with an indicated need for mental health services, but 9 out of 10 participants with children needing services had a child who was not receiving services. This study suggests that probation departments could play an important role in linking probationers’ children to mental health services.

KEYWORDS probation, parental incarceration, mental health, children, services

A considerable amount has been written about children with parents in jails and prisons in recent years, but little is known about probationers’ children. The current study helps fill this gap in knowledge by exploring the preva- lence of emotional and behavioral problems and the unmet need for mental health services among a group of probationers’ children.

Children with parents in jails or prisons have taken the spotlight in recent years due to the tremendous growth in correctional populations in

Address correspondence to Susan D. Phillips, PhD, Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1040 W. Harrison St., MC 309, Chicago, IL 60607, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49:110–125, 2010 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1050-9674 print=1540-8558 online DOI: 10.1080/10509670903534845

110

the 1980s and 1990s (Blumstein & Beck, 1999). Probation populations also grew dramatically during that same period. In the 1990s alone, the probation population in the U.S. increased by more than a million people (Glaze & Palla, 2004). Moreover, on any given day six times more people are on pro- bation than in jails, and there are three times more people on probation than in prison (Glaze & Palla, 2004).

Because data are not routinely collected on the number of probationers who are parents, there is no definitive estimate of the number of children whose parents are on probation. We know, however, that about 52% of people in state prisons are parents and that they have an average of 2.2 children. If we assume that the same is roughly true of people on probation, it would lead us to expect that there are about 2.2 million parents on probation who are the parents of approximately 4.8 million children. This compares to .8 million parents in prisons who have approximately 1.3 million children (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008).

Nothing in this article should be construed as suggesting that the attention children of incarcerated parents are receiving is unwarranted. Incarceration can have consequences for children and families that are not inherent in community-based criminal justice sanctions. For instance, approximately 48% of the parents in prison on any given day were living with their children when they entered prison; 77% of imprisoned mothers and 26% of fathers provided most of their children’s care; and 69% of these parents contributed to their children’s financial support (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Incarcerating parents, therefore, has potential emotional and economic consequences for children that sentencing parents to probation or other community-based punishments do not (Phillips, Erkanli, Keeler, Costello, & Angold, 2006).

Although parental incarceration can adversely affect children, both chil- dren of incarcerated parents and children of probationers’ are at-risk popula- tions. A number of problems occur at above average rates among people on probation as well as people in jails and prisons that are well-established risk factors for children developing serious problems. These include parental substance abuse, mental health problems, histories of childhood abuse, inad- equate education, and domestic violence (Adams, Olson, & Adkins, 2002; Glaze & Bonczar, 2007; Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Children whose parents experience these problems have a greater than average risk of developing emotional and behavioral problems, abusing drugs or alcohol, and becoming involved in delinquency (Chatterji & Markowitz, 2001; Frick et al., 1992; Johnson & Leff, 1999; Keller, Catalono, Haggerty, & Fleming, 2002). Accord- ingly, a parent’s sentence to probation provides an important window of opportunity to address problems they may have that might adversely affect their children.

Ultimately, however, whether a specific child has a parent on probation or in jail or prison may depend upon the point in time at which the child is observed. About one in four parents in prison were on probation when they

Mental Health Services and Probationers’ Children 111

were sent to prison (Mumola, 2000). Based on this, a proportion of proba- tioners’ children can be expected to eventually become part of the popu- lation of children with incarcerated parents. Therefore, a parent’s sentence to probation could also provide an important opportunity to prevent the par- ent’s criminal recidivism and, in so doing, reduce the chances of his or her children experiencing the adverse consequences associated with parental imprisonment.

Information about children with incarcerated parents has been pub- lished in many different fields in recent years, including psychology (e.g., Poehlmann, 2005), delinquency (e.g., Murray & Farrington, 2005), social work (e.g., Abram & Linhorst, 2008), child welfare (e.g., Beckerman, 1994), and criminology (e.g., Phillips et al., 2006). A number of studies report elevated rates of emotional and behavioral problems such as sadness, grief, withdrawal, aggression, and delinquency (e.g., Fishman, 1990; Fritsch & Burkhead, 1982; Hungerford, 1993; LaPointe, Picker, & Harris, 1985; Lowenstein, 1986; Morris, 1965; Sack, 1977; Sack, Seidler, & Thomas, 1976); however, many of these are based on convenience samples and used ad hoc measures of child problems. A few more recent studies have used standardized measures (e.g., Child Behavior Checklist, Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Youth) and more rigorous designs. These studies, however, involved youth who may not be typical of the overall population of children whose parents are involved in the criminal justice system (i.e., adolescents receiving mental health services and children who were subjects of reports of maltreatment). These studies found that children in these populations whose parents had been involved with criminal authorities had higher rates of emotional and behavioral problems than children in the general popu- lation, but did not differ significantly from other children in the same settings.

Information specific to probationers’ children is even more limited. Per- haps the best-known study of probationers’ children is a 25-year old study of disruptions in children’s living arrangements, which compared 21 mothers who were sentenced to probation to 54 mothers who were convicted of simi- lar offenses, but sentenced to jail (Stanton, 1980). More recent (and relevant) information comes from a nationally representative study of 5,501 children who were subjects of reports of alleged maltreatment made to child protec- tive services agencies. Population parameter estimates based on these data indicate that at least 1 in 10 children who do not enter foster care live with parents (typically mothers) who were on probation in the year prior to the index allegation of maltreatment. Compared to their counterparts whose par- ents had never been arrested, probationers’ children were more likely to have primary caregivers who had substance abuse (45% of children of probationers vs. 10% of children with never-arrested parents) or mental health problems (30% vs. 24%), and who were current victims of domestic violence (39% vs. 26%). They were also more likely to be living in extreme poverty (36% vs. 24%) (Phillips & Dettlaff, 2009). Children’s exposure to

112 S. D. Phillips et al.

these risk factors decreased in the three years following the index report of maltreatment at the same time that the proportion of children living with their probationer-parents declined for reasons that could not be determined. Dur- ing this period, however, the proportion of children with emotional and behavioral problems increased (particularly among 6 to 10 year olds) (Phillips, Leathers, & Erkanli, 2009).

THE CURRENT STUDY

The current study adds to the scant knowledge about probationers’ children by exploring the prevalence of emotional and behavioral problems among a group of children whose parents were sentenced to probation. In addition, this study also examines the use of mental health services by children with clinically significant problems. Data from several large-scale studies have found that a substantial proportion of children who need mental health ser- vices do not receive them (Costello & Janiszewski, 2007; Flisher et al., 1997; Kataoka, Zhang, & Wells, 2002). Some of the factors associated with children’s unmet need for services include poverty and parent psychopath- ology and substance abuse—conditions that are found at above average levels among probation populations.

METHODS

Participants

Participants in the current study were recruited through a not-for-profit agency in a major urban area of a Midwestern state. Among other things, the agency provides behavioral health recovery management services to individuals with substance abuse and mental health disorders who are on probation and court-ordered to services. This particular agency was chosen as the setting for this exploratory study because of the organization’s history of providing innovative intervention services to court-involved individuals and the potential for the organization to use findings from this study to develop programming.

Between May and August 2008, 77 participants were recruited from among individuals whom judges consecutively ordered to the agency for an assessment of their appropriateness for services. These individuals pro- vided information on 170 children. Individuals were eligible to participate in the study if they had children ages 1 to 18 and if they lived with those chil- dren at least 50% of the time in the three months preceding the arrest leading to their current court-ordered referral to the agency. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Each participant received $25 for taking part in the study.

Mental Health Services and Probationers’ Children 113

Measures

CHILDREN’S CURRENT LIVING SITUATION

Study-specific questions were asked to determine children’s relationship to the members of their current households, the extent to which children chan- ged residences in the past year, and children’s current household incomes.

CHILDREN’S EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL PROBLEMS

Respondents completed age-specific versions of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach, 1991; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000). One version is spe- cific to children ages 1 through five and the other to children ages 6 to 18. The version for children 1 to 5 contains 99 items and the version for 6 to 18 year olds contains 118. Items ask about children’s behaviors in the past six months. Respondents rate items as not true, somewhat or sometimes true, or very true=often true. Responses are then summed across sets of items in such as way as to produce information about whether different types of syn- dromes are present at a level one would expect to find among children in clinical settings (i.e., a clinically significant score). Examples of syndromes include anxious and depressed, withdrawn and depressed, attention pro- blems, rule-breaking behavior, and so forth. Scores from the various syn- drome scales can then be combined to categorize children as having internalizing problems or externalizing problems (again, at a level one would expect to find among children in clinical settings).

Several studies support the construct validity of the CBCL. Also, tests of criterion-related validity using clinical status as the criterion (referred or nonreferred) also support the validity of the instrument. Pearson’s r in studies of the test-retest reliability of the CBCL range from 0.80 to 0.94 with an average of 0.88 and Cronbach’s alpha in studies of the instrument’s internal consistency range from 0.63 to 0.97 with an average of 0.88 (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000).

UNMET NEED FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Children’s use of mental health services was assessed using the Child and Adolescent Service Assessment (CASA, Ascher, Farmer, Burns, & Angold, 1996). The CASA is an interviewer-based instrument that asks about chil- dren’s use of services for emotional, behavioral, attention, or substance abuse problems in 31 settings. A study of the reliability of the CASA found that the most intensive services (e.g., inpatient, out-of-home, juvenile justice) are reported with very high reliability. Cohn’s Kappa ranges from .75 to 1.00. Ser- vices with moderate intensity or intrusiveness (e.g., outpatient, crisis) are reported with moderate reliability (parent K ¼ .81 to .47). Concurrent validity of the CASA was assessed by comparing CASA data with data from a mental

114 S. D. Phillips et al.

health center’s management information system (MIS). As with the reliability, concurrent validity improves as the intensity or intrusiveness of services increases.

For purposes of this study, children were classified as having an unmet need for mental health services if (a) their scores on the CBCL internalizing, externalizing, or total problem scale fell in the clinical range (t-score � 64) and (b) they had not received services from a specialty mental health provider. These include services in the following settings: (a) psychiatric hos- pital; (b) psychiatric unit in a general hospital; (c) drug or alcohol detoxifica- tion unit; (d) residential treatment center; (e) partial hospitalization or day program; (f) mental health center or clinic; (g) crisis center; (h) in-home counseling or crises services; (i) services from a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or psychiatric nurse for emotional, behavioral, attention, or substance abuse problems; or (j) case management or care coordination for one of these problems.

Analyses

Three different units of analyses are used in this study. First, the study exam- ines the proportion of parents (N ¼ 77) who identified at least one child with an emotional or behavioral problem. Second, information is provided on the proportion of children (N ¼ 170) experiencing various different behavioral syndromes (e.g., internalizing, externalizing, emotional reactivity, and so forth) and specific problems (i.e., item-level responses) most often occurring at the highest level of severity. Third, the study identifies the proportion of children with clinically significant emotional and behavioral problems (n ¼ 43) who did and did not receive mental health services.

RESULTS

Respondents

A majority of participants in the current study were male (70%), Black (79%), and older than 30 (78%). Based on information provided by participants, half had been arrested more than 5 times and half had been to prison (Table 1).

Table 1 provides data on (a) the participants in the current study (Column A), (b) all individuals who exited probation in 2001 in the county in which the recruitment agency was located (including parents and nonpar- ents) (Column B), and (c) all parents in the recruitment agency’s program caseloads (includes both court-referred and nonreferred parents) (Column C). Neither of these comparison groups are an exact match to the population of interest (i.e., parents on probation who recently lived with their children), nonetheless they are the best available points of reference for placing the characteristics of study participants in context.

Mental Health Services and Probationers’ Children 115

Study participants differed from all adults exiting probation in the county in which the study took place in several ways. More specifically: (a) a greater proportion of participants were over age 30 (77% vs. 49%), (b) Black (79% vs. 47%), (c) female (30% vs. 20%), and (d) had previously been to prison (58% vs. 41%). These differences also existed in comparison to all parents who received services from the recruitment agency, however, the differences were generally less pronounced. The one exception was that there was a more dramatic difference between study participants and parents served by the agency in their histories of imprisonment (58% vs. 25%) than there was between participants and people exiting probation in the index county (58% vs. 41%).

Respondents’ Relationship to Children

Not all respondents who identified themselves as parenting minor children prior to being arrested were children’s biological parents (Table 2). About 8% were children’s step- or adoptive fathers and about 12% were children’s relatives (i.e., grandparents, aunts, and uncles).

The 77 respondents were parenting between one and eight children (M ¼ 2.2) prior to their arrest (not shown). Collectively, they provided data on 170 children ages 1 to 18.

TABLE 1 Comparison of Study Participants, All Adults Exiting Probation in County, and All Parents in Recruitment Agency Caseloads

A B C

Participants N ¼ 77

Adults exiting probation in county

a N ¼ 1,749

All parents in agency caseloads

b N ¼ 1,204

Participant demographic characteristics Age (%) 18–20 0.0 19.7 5.6 21–30 Years Old 23.4 31.6 26.2 31–40 Years Old 28.6 25.6 39.1 Over 40 Years Old 48.1 23.1 29.0

Race (%) Black 79.2 46.9 72.4 White 7.8 29.6 10.4 Hispanic 9.1 20.8 11.2 Other 3.9 2.6 6.0

Gender (%) Male 70.1 80.0 75.9 Female 29.9 20.0 24.1

Criminal History (%) Median no. prior arrests 5 NA 12 Prior prison sentence (%) 58.4 40.6 25.2

aBased on data from the 2000 Adult Probation Outcome Study (Adams et al., 2002). b Based on agency administrative records.

116 S. D. Phillips et al.

Child Characteristics and Current Living Arrangements

Table 3 provides data describing respondents’ children (N ¼ 170) and their liv- ing arrangements at the time of the study. About one-quarter (24% or 48 out of 170 children) were pre-school age (<6). A majority (89% or 151 out of 170) were living with at least one parent (including step- or adoptive parents) and about 1 in 3 (37%, 67 of 170) were living with two parents. Relatives (e.g., grandparents, aunts, and uncles) were part of the households of 77 children (45%) and 4 chil- dren (2.4%) were in foster care. Approximately half (69 out of 170) of the chil- dren had changed residences at least once in the previous year with 1 in 4 (42 out of 170) experiencing multiple changes in residence. About 1 in 3 children (38%, 66 children) were living in households facing extreme economic hardship (annual household incomes below $10,000). The parents of about 1 in 5 chil- dren (33 children) did not know the total annual income of the households in which their children were currently living.

Emotional and Behavioral Problems

Based on their responses to the Child Behavior Checklist, 22 of the 77 partici- pating probationers (29%) had one or more child with a clinically significant emotional or behavioral problem (i.e., a score in the clinical range on the inter- nalizing, externalizing, or total problem scale of the CBCL). This amounts to approximately 25% or 43 of the 170 children about whom the respondents provided data (Table 4). Emotional and behavioral problems were less preva- lent among younger children (16.7%) than among 6 to 18 year olds (28.7%).

No one specific problem or type of emotional or behavioral syndrome was particularly prominent. About 20% of the 170 children (34 children) were reportedly experiencing externalizing problems compared to 17% (29 children) with internalizing problems. Emotional reactivity was the most fre- quently identified syndrome among young children, but was only present among 4 children (8.3% of younger children) (Table 4). Rule-breaking was the most commonly identified syndrome among older children, but was only identified among 13 children (10.7% of children age 6 and up).

TABLE 2 Respondents’ Relationships to Children

1 thru 5 N ¼ 48 %(n)

6 to 18 N ¼ 122 %(n)

All children N ¼ 170 %(n)

Relationship Biological mother 16.7 (8) 25.2 (31) 22.8 (39) Biological father 56.3 (27) 56.9 (70) 56.7 (97) Stepfather 6.3 (3) 8.1 (10) 7.6 (13) Adoptive father 0.0 (0) 0.8 (1) 0.6 (1) Othera 20.8 (10) 8.1 (10) 11.8 (20)

aOther includes grandfathers (n¼9), grandmothers (n ¼ 6), aunts (n ¼ 3), and uncles (n ¼ 2).

Mental Health Services and Probationers’ Children 117

We also examined the prevalence of individual problems which res- pondents reported to be ‘‘very true or often true’’ (not shown). The top five problems most commonly reported at this level of severity for the 48 children ages 1 through 5 were: (a) wanting and=or demanding attention (13 chil- dren), (b) not wanting to sleep alone (12 children), (c) not being able to wait (12 children), (d) not being able to sit still (11 children), and (e) being upset by separation (11 children). Items endorsed at the highest level of severity for the 122 children ages 6 through 18 were equally diverse. The most frequently reported problems were: (a) wanting and=or demanding attention (16 children), (b) being confused (16 children), (c) preferring

TABLE 3 Child Characteristics and Living Arrangements

1 thru 5 n ¼ 48 % (n)

6 to 18 n ¼ 122 % (n)

All children N ¼ 170 % (n)

Child characteristics Gender Male 58.3 (28) 43.4 (53) 47.6 (81) Female 41.7 (20) 56.6 (69) 52.4 (89)

Race Black=African American 87.5 (42) 81.1 (99) 82.9 (141) Hispanic 6.3 (3) 9.8 (12) 8.8 (15) White 6.3 (3) 5.7 (7) 5.9 (10) Other 0.0 (0) 3.3 (4) 2.4 (4)

Child living arrangements Times child changed residence in the past year None 50.0 (24) 63.1 (77) 59.4 (101) 1 time 12.5 (6) 17.2 (21) 15.9 (27) 2 times 22.9 (11) 8.2 (10) 12.5 (21) 3 times 8.3 (4) 8.2 (10) 8.2 (14) 4 or more times 6.3 (3) 3.2 (4) 4.1 (7)

Household composition Any parenta 81.3 (39) 91.8 (112) 88.8 (151) Mother 31.3 (15) 42.6 (52) 39.4 (67) Father 16.7 (8) 11.5 (14) 12.9 (22) Both 33.3 (16) 37.7 (46) 36.5 (62)

Any relative 43.8 (21) 45.9 (56) 45.3 (77) Grandparent 33.3 (16) 32.8 (40) 32.9 (56) Other Relativeb 20.8 (10) 26.2 (32) 24.7 (42)

Foster Parent 4.2 (2) 1.6 (2) 2.4 (4) Annual household income Less than 10,000 41.7 (20) 37.7 (46) 38.8 (66) 10,000–20,000 18.8 (9) 20.5 (25) 20.0 (34) 20,000–39,000 4.2 (2) 10.7 (13) 8.8 (15) 40,000–59,999 14.6 (7) 4.1 (5) 7.0 (12) 80,000 or more 2.1 (1) 2.5 (3) 2.4 (4) Don’t know 14.6 (7) 21.3 (26) 19.4 (33) Prefer not to answer 4.2 (2) 3.3 (4) 3.5 (6)

a Includes biological, step, and adoptive parents.

bOther relatives include aunts and uncles.

118 S. D. Phillips et al.

older children (15 children), (d) dependency (14 children), (e) showing off (13 children), and (f) being secretive (12 children).

Unmet Need for Services

Table 5 reports the use of mental health services by the 43 children with clini- cally significant problems. Only 9 children were receiving any of the services

TABLE 4 Prevalence of Clinically Significant Emotional and Behavioral Problems

Ages 1 thru 5 (n ¼ 48) % (n)

Ages 6 to 18 (n ¼ 122) % (n)

All children (N ¼ 170) % (n)

Internalizing, externalizing, and total problem scales � 64 Any 16.7 (8) 28.7 (35) 25.4 (43) Internalizing 10.4 (5) 19.0 (23) 16.5 (28) Externalizing 14.6 (7) 22.1 (27) 20.0 (34) Total 12.5 (6) 23.8 (29) 20.0 (34)

Syndrome scales � 64 Ages 1 thru 5 Syndrome scales � 64 Ages 6 to 18

Emotional reactivity 8.3 (4) Rule-breaking 10.7 (13) Withdrawal 8.3 (4) Social problems 9.1 (11) Sleep problems 6.3 (3) Somatic complaints 9.1 (11) Somatic complaints 6.3 (3) Withdrawn=depressed 6.6 (8) Aggressive behavior 6.3 (3) Anxious=depressed 5.8 (7) Anxious=depressed 4.2 (2) Attention problems 5.0 (6) Attention problems 0.0 (0) Aggressive behavior 4.2 (5)

Thought problems 4.1 (5)

TABLE 5 Services Received by Children with Clinically Significant Emotional or Behavioral Problems

Service

Ages 1 thru 5 (n ¼ 8) % (n)

Ages 6 to18 (n ¼ 35) % (n)

All children (n ¼ 43) % (n)

Any service 12.5 (1) 22.3 (8) 20.9 (9) Overnight=Inpatient Residential treatment 2.9 (1) 2.3 (1) Psychiatric=Drug treatment unit in hospital 2.9 (1) 2.3 (1)

Outpatient services Day treatment=Therapeutic nursery 12.5 (1) 8.9 (3) 9.3 (4) Services from psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or psychiatric nurse

8.9 (3) 7.0 (3)

Case management or care coordination 8.9 (3) 7.0 (3) Mental health center=Clinic 8.9 (3) 7.0 (3) In-home counseling=Crisis services 12.5 (1) 5.7 (2) 7.0 (3) Drug=Alcohol clinic 5.7 (2) 4.7 (2) Social services or any other counseling for behavioral, emotional, or attention problems

14.3 (5) 11.6 (5)

Mental Health Services and Probationers’ Children 119

listed in the table. In other words, 4 out of 5 children (79%) who were ident- ified by their parents as having an emotional or behavioral problem had an unmet need for mental health services. The unmet need for services was sub- stantial among both 1 to 5 year olds and 6 to 18 year olds. Only 1 of the 8 preschoolers (13%) who had clinically significant emotional and behavioral problems and 8 of the 35 (22%) older children with problems were receiving services. In terms of probationers, this equates to roughly 9 out of 10 (86.4%) of the 22 parents with children who were experiencing problems who had a child with an unmet need for services (not shown).

DISCUSSION

This exploratory study of emotional and behavioral problems among probationers’ children and children’s unmet need for mental health services found that the children of participating probationers had a greater than average likelihood of experiencing problems and a lower than expected likelihood of receiving services. Approximately 1 in 4 participants identified a child with a clinically significant emotional or behavioral problem. This equates to approximately 25% of the 170 children on whom data were collected and contrasts with approximately 10% of children in the general population who have similar problems (Achenbach, 1991). The finding that emotional and behavioral problems were less prevalent among younger children than among 6 to 18 year olds is consistent with research showing a general increase in emotional and behavioral problems as children age.

The unmet need for mental health services among participants’ children was greater than expected. Data from the Methods for the Epidemiology of Child and Adolescent Mental Disorders Study found that about 17% of children with an indicated need for services had not received care (Flisher et al., 2007). Similarly, a study of children with substance-abusing parents conducted by the Center for Education and Drug Abuse Research found that 18% of children had an unmet need for services (Cornelius, Pringle, Jernigan, Kirisci, & Clark, 2001). In the current study, more than three-fourths of children experiencing problems had not received services.

There are two additional findings worth note. First, about half of the respondents in the current study had served time in prison, thus affirming that probationers’ children and children of incarcerated parents are overlapping populations. Moreover, this study indicates that parents not only ‘‘graduate’’ from probation to prison, but also sometimes loop back through the probation system. Second, 12% of respondents who were parenting chil- dren were actually not the children’s parents, but their relatives. This suggests that programs for children whose parents are involved in the criminal justice system need to employ a broad definition of parent.

120 S. D. Phillips et al.

Implications

The generalizability of the current findings beyond the individuals who par- ticipated in the study remains to be ascertained through more sophisticated research. The individuals who took part in this study were court-ordered to a treatment program and, therefore, may be more likely than probationers in general to have mental health or substance abuse problems, factors which are well-established correlates of child mental health problems. Accordingly, the prevalence of emotional and behavior problems found among the children in this study may not be typical of the broader population of proba- tioners’ children. Second, the accuracy of parents’ reports of their children’s current emotional and behavioral status and use of mental health services warrants further exploration as parents had varying degrees of involvement with their children prior to their most recent arrest. The fact that participating parents did not know the current household incomes of approximately 20% of their children gives us reason to wonder if they may also have been equally unaware of their children’s emotional and behavioral problems or use of services. Taking these limitations into consideration, this study pro- vides sufficient evidence to believe that the emotional and behavioral well-being of probationers’ children and factors which facilitate or hinder their access to mental health services warrant further investigation.

A growing number of organizations are recognizing that children whose parents are arrested and incarcerated are a vulnerable population and new programs and policy reforms are being instituted to address the needs of this population. In 2006, for example, the Open Society Institute of the Soros Foundation funded a technical assistance project that resulted in the forma- tion of partnerships between not-for-profit and governmental agencies in 14 states (Phillips, 2008). Similar groups exist in other states (e.g., California, New York, and Arkansas). Given the proportion of probationers in the cur- rent study who had been to prison as well as prior research showing that 1 in 4 parents in prison were on probation prior to entering prison, it may be beneficial to include officials from adult probation in these efforts.

An increasing number of criminal justice programs address parenting concerns of mothers and fathers who become involved with criminal authorities. These include corrections-based parent education and visitation programs as well as community-based substance abuse treatment programs that allow mothers to continue parenting their children while receiving treatment. The number of these programs has been increasing as criminal justice entities have become more alert to the need for gender-sensitive pro- gramming. One of the ‘‘selling points’’ of these programs is their purported benefits to children. Evaluation of such programs, however, typically focuses only on changes in parents’ behaviors (e.g., changes in knowledge of parent- ing skills, substance use, and so forth) (Harm & Thompson, 1997; Palm, 2003; Spring, 1998) and, in some cases, on improvements in family conditions (e.g.,

Mental Health Services and Probationers’ Children 121

reduced family conflict), some of which may have spill-over benefits for children (Phillips, Gleeson, & Waites-Garret, 2009). Notably missing from the evaluation of these programs are indicators of their effect on children’s existing emotional and behavioral problems. For instance, studies of residen- tial substance abuse treatment programs that allow women to remain with their children while in treatment have examined the birth outcomes of chil- dren born to mothers who are in treatment. Otherwise, very few studies have examined the emotional and behavioral problems of children whose parents enter treatment and even fewer have examined whether treating parents’ addictions leads to changes in problems children are already experiencing (c.f., Catalano, 1999; Killeen & Brady, 2000; Metsch et al., 2001). The current study suggests that it could be important for court-based treatment programs to include a child component that involves screening for child mental health problems and linkages to appropriate services.

Finally, a substantial proportion of the children in this study were living in extreme poverty. In addition to poverty being correlated with involvement in the criminal justice system, poverty—particularly chronic poverty—is also associated with the risk for children developing emotional and behavioral problems (McLeod & Shanahan, 1996) as well as with children’s need for mental health services going unmet (Cornelius et al., 2001). No conclusions can be drawn from the current study about the role parents’ current or past involvement with the criminal justice system might have played in their chil- dren’s current economic circumstances, the onset or course of their children’s current emotional and behavioral problems, or their children’s unmet need for services. However, a number of prior studies show that involvement with criminal authorities has long-term negative consequences for individuals’ employability and earnings (Grogger, 1995; Needels, 1996; O’Brien, 2002). Other studies show that parental incarceration predicts household economic strain over and above the effect of parental substance abuse, parental mental illness, and inadequate parent education (Phillips, Erkanli, Keeler, Costello, & Angold, 2006). Accordingly, we would conclude by underscoring the point made at the beginning of this article; namely, that a parent’s sentence to pro- bation is an important opportunity to address problems that could result in their eventual incarceration.

REFERENCES

Abram, F. Y., & Linhorst, D. (2008). A process evaluation of collaborative planning for children of prisoners. Administration in Social Work, 32(1), 39–54.

Achenbach, T. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist 14–18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University Associates in Psychiatry.

Achenbach, T., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms and profiles: An integrated system of multi-informant assessment. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont.

122 S. D. Phillips et al.

Adams, S. B., Olson, D. E., & Adkins, R. (2002). Results from the 2000 Illinois adult probation outcome study. Chicago, IL: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

Ascher, B. H., Farmer, E. M. Z., Burns, B. J., & Angold, A. (1996). The Child and Adolescent Services Assessment (CASA): Description and psychometrics. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorder, 4, 12–20.

Beckerman, A. (1994). Mothers in prison: Meeting the prerequisite conditions for permanency planning. Social Work, 39, 9–14.

Blumstein, A., & Beck, A. J. (1999). Population growth in U.S. prisons, 1980–1996. In M. Tonry & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Prisons (pp. 17–61). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Catalano, R. (1999). An experimental intervention with families of substance abusers: One-year follow-up of the Focus on Families project. Society for the Study of Addiction to Alcohol and Other Drugs, 94, 241–254.

Chatterji, P., & Markowitz, S. (2001). The impact of maternal alcohol and illicit drug use on children’s behavior problems: Evidence from the children of the national longitudinal survey of youth. Journal of Health Economics, 20, 703–731.

Cornelius, J. R., Pringle, J., Jernigan, J., Kirisci, L., Clark, D. B. (2001). Correlates of mental health service utilization and unmet need among a sample of male adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 26, 11–19.

Costello, E. J., & Janiszewski, S. (2007). Who gets treated? Factors associated with referral in children with psychiatric disorders. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 81, 523–529.

Fishman, L. (1990). Women at the wall: A study of prisoners’ wives doing time on the outside. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Flisher, A. J., Kramer, R. A., Grosser, R. C., Alegria, M., Bird, H. R., Bourdon, K. H. et al. (1997). Correlates of unmet need for mental health services by children and adolescents. Psychological Medicine, 27, 1145–1154.

Frick, P. J., Lahey, B. B., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Christ, M. A. G., & Hanson, K. (1992). Familial risk factors for oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder: Parental psychopathology and maternal parenting. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 49–55.

Fritsch, T. A., & Burkhead, J. D. (1982). Behavioral reactions of children to parental absence due to imprisonment. Family Relations, 30, 83–88.

Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2007). Probation and parole in the United States, 2007 statistical tables (NCJ No. 224707). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Parents in prison and their minor children (NCJ No. 222984). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Glaze, L. E., & Palla, S. (2004). Probation and parole in the United States, 2003 (NCJ No. 205336). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Grogger, J. (1995). The effects of arrest on the employment and earnings of young men. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 51–72.

Harm, N. J., & Thompson, P. (1997). Evaluating the effectiveness of parent education for incarcerated mothers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 24, 135–152.

Hungerford, G. (1993). The children of inmate mothers in Ohio: Executive summary. West Virginia University of Social Work.

Mental Health Services and Probationers’ Children 123

Johnson, J. L., & Leff, M. (1999). Children of substance abusers: Overview of research findings. Pediatrics, 103, 1085–1089.

Kataoka, S. H., Zhang, L., & Wells, K. B. (2002). Unmet need for mental health care among U.S. children by ethnicity and insurance status. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159, 1548–1555.

Keller, T. E., Catalono, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., & Fleming, C. G. (2002). Parent figure transition and delinquency and drug use among early adolescent children of substance abusers. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 28, 399–427.

Killeen, T., & Brady, K. T. (2000). Parental stress and child behavioral outcomes following substance abuse residential treatment. Journal of substance abuse treatment, 19(1), 23–29.

LaPointe, V., Picker, M. O., & Harris, B. F. (1985). Enforced family separation: A descriptive analyses of some of the experiences of children of Black imprisoned mothers. In A. Spencer (Ed.), Beginnings: The social and affective development of Black children (pp. 239–255). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lowenstein, A. (1986). Temporary single parenthood: The case of prisoners’ families. Family Relations, 36, 79–85.

McLeod, J. D., & Shanahan, M. J. (1996). Trajectories of poverty and children’s mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37, 207–220.

Metsch, L. P., Wolfe, J. P., Fewell, R., McCoy, C. B., Elwood, W. N., Wohler-Torres et al. (2001). Treating substance-using women and their children in public housing: Preliminary evaluation findings. Child Welfare, 80, 199–220.

Morris, P. (1965). Prisoners and their families. London, England: Allen & Unwin. Mumola, C. J. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children (NCJ No. 182335).

Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, 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.

Needels, K. E. (1996). Go directly to jail and do not collect? A long-term study of recidivism, employment, and earnings patterns among prison releasees. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 471–496.

O’Brien, P. (2002). Reducing barriers to employment for women ex-offenders: Mapping the road to reintegration. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago, Jane Addams College of Social Work.

Palm, G. F. (2003). Parent education for incarcerated fathers. In J. Fagan & A. J. Hawkins (Eds.), Clinical and educational interventions with fathers (pp. 117– 141). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice Press.

Phillips, S. D. (2008). The Bill of Rights for Children of Incarcerated Parents Techni- cal Assistance Project: Evaluation report. Chicago, IL: Jane Addams College of Social Work.

Phillips, S. D., & Dettlaff, A. J. (2009). More than parents in prison: The broader overlap between the criminal justice and child welfare systems. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 3, 3–22.

Phillips, S. D., Erkanli, A., Keeler, G. P., Costello, E. J., & Angold, A. (2006). Disen- tangling the risks: Parent criminal justice involvement and children’s exposure to family risks. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 677–702.

124 S. D. Phillips et al.

Phillips, S. D., Leathers, S. J., & Erkanli, A. (2009). Children of probationers in the child welfare system. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 18, 183–191.

Phillips, S. D., Gleeson, J. P., & Waites-Garret, M. (2009). Substance-abusing parents in the criminal justice system: Does substance abuse treatment improve their children’s outcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 120–138.

Poehlmann, J. (2005). Representation of attachment relationships in children of incarcerated mothers. Child Development, 76, 679–696.

Sack, W. H. (1977). Children of imprisoned fathers. Psychiatry, 40, 163–174. Sack, W. H., Seidler, J., & Thomas, S. (1976). The children of imprisoned parents: A

psychosocial exploration. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 618–628. Spring, J. B. (1998). The effect of parent education on knowledge of parenting skills

and attitude change of incarcerated mothers. Unpublished Dissertation, Indiana State, Terre Haute.

Stanton, A. M. (1980). When mothers go to jail. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Mental Health Services and Probationers’ Children 125

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.