410627-Effects-of-Parental-Incarceration-on-Young-Children.PDF

Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children Ross Parke, University of California-Riverside K. Alison Clarke-Stewart, University of California-Irvine This paper was produced for a conference funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on January 30-31, 2002. The views expresse...

Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children Ross Parke, University of California-Riverside K. Alison Clarke-Stewart, University of California-Irvine This paper was produced for a conference funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on January 30-31, 2002. The views expressed herein are those of the authors, and should not be attributed to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children For imprisoned mothers, one of the greatest Scope of the Problem punishments incarceration carries with it is sepa- Who is incarcerated and how many of those ration from their children. As one mother put it, incarcerated are parents? According to recent “I can do time alone OK. But its not knowing estimates (Mumola, 2000), nearly 3.6 million what’s happening to my son that hurts most” parents are under some form of correctional (Baunach, 1988, p. 121, cited in Garcia Coll et supervision, including parole. Of these parents, al., 1998). As this quote suggests, when parents almost 1.1 million are incarcerated in federal, are incarcerated, “what’s happening” to their state, or local jails. These parents have an esti- children is a great concern. It is a concern for us mated 2.3 million children. Alarmingly, the rate as well. Our goal in this paper is to examine the of parental incarceration has gone up sharply in impact of parental incarceration on children’s the last decade. In 1991, there were 452,500 par- well-being and development, to determine just ents in state and federal prisons, with 936,500 what is happening to these children. minor children. By 2000, the number of parents Several assumptions guided our examina- in prisons had nearly doubled to 737,400, and tion of this problem. First, we assumed that the the number of children affected rose by over a child is located in a family system and to under- third to 1,531,500 (Mumola, 2001). Although stand the impact of incarceration on the child, the absolute numbers have increased, however, the network of relationships within the family the percentage of state and federal prisoners with system needed to be considered (Belsky, 1984; minor children has not changed over this time Sameroff, 1994). Second, we assumed that the period. In 1991, 57% of prisoners had minor developmental level of the child at the time of children; in 2000, 56% were in the same situa- parental incarceration and the quality of the rela- tion. Moreover, the increase in parents who be- tionship the child had developed with the incar- came prisoners (63%) was similar to the rate of cerated parent needed to be considered (Bowlby, growth for non-parental prisoners (69%) -- a 1973). Third, the gender of the incarcerated par- finding that suggests that being a parent is not ent was examined, because separation from necessarily a protective factor in reducing the mother may affect children differently from chances of incarceration. separation from father (Parke, 2001) Fourth, Gender of parent is a major factor in pat- characteristics of the extended kin network in terns of incarceration; fathers account for 90% which the family of the incarcerated parent is of incarcerated parents. However, the number of located were considered (Cochran & Brassard, mothers in prison grew at a faster rate than the 1979). Finally, the nature and availability of number of incarcerated fathers across the decade formal institutional supports for the family of the 1991-2000. There was an 87% increase for incarcerated parent were given attention (Bron- mothers, but only a 61% increase for fathers. fenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Not surprisingly, in view of their unequal rates of incarceration, the parents’ ethnicity matters, too. As expected, in both state and federal pris- ons, there are more African American parents (47% and 49% in state and federal prisons re- spectively) than either Hispanic parents (19% Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 1 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart and 30%) or white non-Hispanic parents (29% or may not exist between children and their non- and 22%). Stating this racial disparity in terms resident parent (Furstenberg, Morgan, & Allison, of minor-age children, nearly 7% of African 1987; Garfinkel, McLanahan, Meyer, & Seltzer, American children, 3% of Hispanic children, 1998). The extent to which incarceration disrupts and 1% of white children of the total population the contact patterns between these non-residential of children in the United States had an incarcer- parents and their children, as well as the effects ated parent (Mumola, 2000). of incarceration on children who were living with their parent at the time of imprisonment, are both In terms of age, 58% of children with in- issues that merits examination. carcerated parents are under 10 years of age, with 8 years being the mean age. Nearly half Another important issue is who looks after (48%) of the parents in state facilities and over a the children when parents are incarcerated. Again third in federal prisons (38%) were never mar- the answer varies with the gender of the parent. ried; 25-28% were divorced or separated. Only For incarcerated fathers, the child’s mother is the 23% of state inmate parents and 36% of federal usual caregiver before the father is arrested, and inmate parents were married. In terms of educa- in the case of both state and federal incarceration, tion, most did not have a high school diploma 90% of the time, mothers assume the caregiving (7% in state prison; 6% in federal prison), but responsibility after the father goes to prison. On nearly 30% had obtained a GED. Only 13% of the other hand, when mothers are put in prison, state inmate parents reported any college educa- fathers assume responsibility only 28% - 31% of tion, but 25% of federal inmate parents reported the time. Instead, most commonly, the grandpar- some college education. ent becomes the caregiver (53% of the time for state incarcerations and 45% of federal). Other To understand the impact of parental incar- relatives in the kin network pick up the parenting ceration, it is important to determine the nature role for between 26% and 34% of the cases. of the family living arrangements prior to incar- Friends do so about 10% - 12% of the time. ceration. Many of these children were living Fewer than 10% of the children of mothers in with non-parental caregivers prior to the incar- state prisons and fewer than 4% of the children of ceration of their mother or father. In fact, only mothers in federal prisons are in foster care. half of the inmate parents in either state (43%) These disparities in parenting responsibilities mir- or federal prison (57%) lived with their children ror the larger picture in our society whereby at the time of admission to prison. Gender dif- mothers assume the largest share of parenting in ferences are again evident. Specifically, mothers intact families (Coltrane, 1996; Parke, 1996; in either state (64%) or federal (84%) prisons 2002) and post-divorce families (Hetherington & were living with their children at the time of Kelley, 2001). admission to prison. In contrast, only half of the fathers were living with their children at the time On average, mothers and fathers also spend of their incarceration (44% for state and 55% for different lengths of time away from their chil- federal prison). Unfortunately the nature of the dren. Fathers serve 80 months in state prison and prior living arrangements is not generally consid- 103 months in federal prison, on average, ered in assessments of the impact of incarcera- whereas mothers serve 49 months and 66 tion or children, but it would be expected that months in state and federal prison respectively. incarceration would carry different meanings The lengths of incarceration reflect the nature of and have different consequences for children the different offenses committed by males and who do or do not reside with their parents before females. Fathers are more likely than mothers to incarceration. As we know from other research be in prison for violent crimes (45% vs. 26% in literatures, meaningful social relationships may state prison; 12% vs. 6% in federal prison). Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 2 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart Mothers, on the other hand, are more likely to be Short-term Effects in prison for drug-related offenses (35% vs. The arrest phase. Unfortunately, only an in- 23%) and fraud (11% vs. 2%). Therefore, in an- complete picture of the impact of the initial ar- swering the question of the impact of incarcera- rest on children is available. According to John- tion on the mother-child versus father-child rela- son (1991), one in five children is present at the tionship it is important to consider these gender- time of the arrest and witnesses the mother being related patterns of incarceration. As we note be- taken away by authorities. More than half of the low, although the short-term impact on children children who witness this traumatic event are may be greater when mothers are imprisoned, under 7 years of age and in the sole care of their the long-term impact of the lengthier period of mother. Jose-Kampfner (1995) interviewed 30 separation of fathers may bode poorly for main- children who witnessed their mother’s arrest and tenance of father-child ties (Gadsden & Rethe- reported that these children suffered nightmares meyer, 2001). and flashbacks to the arrest incident. Children in middle childhood who are in school at the time of the arrest may return to an empty residence The Impact of Incarceration and be unaware of the arrest of their mother on Children (Fishman, 1983). The impact of father’s versus Incarceration is not a single or discrete mother’s arrest is unknown and needs to be as- event but a dynamic process that unfolds over sessed in future research. time. To understand the impact of the incarcera- The management of the explanation. There is tion process on children it is necessary to con- controversy surrounding the wisdom of provid- sider separately the short-term effects of the ar- ing children with information concerning the ar- rest and separation of the child from the parent, rest and the reasons for their parent’s incarcera- the impact of the unavailability of the parent to tion. Some argue that children ought to be the child during the period of incarceration, and protected from the knowledge that their parents the effects -- both positive and negative -- of re- are incarcerated as a way of minimizing the union after the incarceration period. trauma associated with the separation (Becker & It is also critical to consider whether the Margolin, 1967). Others argue that the emo- child is living with the parent at the time of in- tional distress of children is exacerbated by the carceration, whether a single or two-parent unwillingness of family, friends or caregivers to household is involved, and, in the case of a two- discuss their parent’s incarceration (Snyder-Joy parent household, which parent is incarcerated. & Carlo, 1998). This failure to disclose has been As we have noted, only a small percentage of variously termed the “conspiracy of silence” children live with their father as the sole care- (Jose-Kampfner, 1995) or “forced silence” giver; it is more usual for children to be living (Johnson, 1995). Mothers are usually the ones with a single mother prior to incarceration. The who take responsibility for explaining the situa- most recent figures (Mumola, 2000) indicate that tion to the children -- regardless of whether or 36% of state and 16% of federal inmate mothers not they are the incarcerated parent. For exam- were not living with their children at the time of ple, Sack, Seidler and Thomas (1976) found that admission. In contrast, 56% of state and 45% of in only 7 of 31 cases did the father or both par- federal inmate fathers were not living with their ents together offer the child an explanation. children at the time of their incarceration. Thus, Moreover, when explanations were provided, when a parent is incarcerated, it is more likely they were often vague and general; one typical that children will experience separation from mother told her children that their father “did mother than separation from father. wrong and had to be punished.” Other explana- Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 3 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart tions were distorted or deceitful. Deception took Long-term Effects a variety of forms, from total lies to strong shad- A variety of long-term effects of parental ing of the truth, in which prison was referred to incarceration on children have been identified. as an army camp, a hospital or a school. Total The long-term impact varies with a variety of deception occurred in 4 of the 31 families in the factors, including the developmental level of the study, and partial deception occurred in another child. 6 families. In other words, nearly a third of the families engaged in some form of deception. Incarceration and infants. A small number of Similarly in a much larger study carried out in women (6%, U.S. Department of Justice, 1994) England, Morris (1965) reported that 38% of the are pregnant at the time of their incarceration, families used partial or total deception in ex- but few prisons in the United States permit plaining a parent’s incarceration to the children. mother to keep their infants with them during incarceration (Gabel & Girard, 1995). In most What is the impact of this “conspiracy of si- cases, mothers of newborn infants are permitted lence” or deception on children? In light of the only a few days of contact before they must re- literature on children’s coping (Ayers, Sandler, linquish their infant and return to prison. As a West, & Roosa, 1996; Compas, 1987), which result, there is little opportunity for the mother to suggests that uncertainty and lack of information develop a bond to the baby or for the baby to be- undermines children’s ability to cope, it is not come familiar with the mother and form an at- surprising that children who are uninformed tachment to her -- a critical developmental task about their parent’s incarceration are more anx- for both mothers and infants. As Myers et al. ious and fearful (Johnson, 1995). Although the (1999) note, after the mother’s is released, she situation of a parent lost through death is more comes home to an infant or young child with extreme, some of the insights gained from this whom she has not developed an emotional bond literature concerning ways of helping children and who is not attached to her, with the likely cope with loss is instructive. As Nolen- result that the children will have emotional and Hoeksema and Larson (1999) argue, children behavioral problems. need honest, factual information, and they need to have their experience validated. Providing Incarceration and young children. Even if a children with reliable, dependable information child-parent attachment bond has already devel- allows them to begin to make sense of their oped, as in the case of infants who have been in situation and begin the dual processes of griev- their mother’s or father’s care for the first 9 to ing the loss of their parent and coping with their 12 months of life, the disruption associated with new life circumstances. On the other hand, si- parental incarceration will likely adversely affect lence about the parental incarceration often re- the quality of the child’s attachment to their par- sults not from a deliberate attempt to deceive the ent (see Thompson, 1998, for a general discus- children but from an effort to avoid other com- sion of the effects of separation on attachment in plications. As Johnson (1995, p. 74) notes non-incarcerated samples). Even less drastic “There may be a very good reason for such a changes such as job loss, divorce, or residential forced silence; family jobs, welfare payments, re-location have been found to adversely affect child custody, and even housing may be jeopard- the quality of the infant or toddler child-parent ized when others become aware of the parents’ attachment quality (Thompson, Lamb, & Estes, whereabouts. However, children of prisoners are 1982; Vaughn et al., 1979). Insecure attachments more likely to have negative reactions to the ex- -- a consequence of adverse shifts in life circum- perience when they cannot talk about it.” stances -- in turn, have been linked to a variety of child outcomes, including poorer peer rela- tionships and diminished cognitive abilities Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 4 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart (Sroufe, 1988). In light of the results of this re- be more adversely affected by this stressful search on separation and attachment, it is not separation -- in light of evidence that boys are surprising that when their parents are incarcer- more vulnerable to stressful changes than girls ated, young children (ages 2 - 6 years) have been are, in general (e.g., Hetherington et al., 1998), observed to suffer a variety of adverse outcomes the evidence on this issue is unclear. Instead, the that are consistent with the research on the ef- most likely scenario is that both boys and girls fects of insecure attachments (Johnson, 1995). In are adversely affected by parental incarceration, fact, according to one estimate (Baunach, 1985), but their modes of expressing their reactions dif- 70% of young children with incarcerated moth- fer. Boys are more likely to exhibit externalizing ers had emotional or psychological problems. behavior problems, while girls are more likely to Children exhibit internalizing problems, such as display internalizing problems (Cowan et al., anxiety, withdrawal, hypervigilance, depression, 1994; Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000). shame and guilt (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; What leads to these problems? The answer to Dressler et al., 1992). They exhibit somatic this question is not simple. There are a number problems such as eating disorders. And, perhaps of interpretative problems that merit elaboration. most clearly, young children exhibit externaliz- First, incarceration is often preceded by a period ing behaviors such as anger, aggression, and of familial instability, poverty, child abuse or hostility toward caregivers and siblings neglect, marital discord and conflict, or father (Fishman, 1983; Gaudin, 1984; Johnston, 1995; absence. A combination of these conditions may Jose-Kampfner, 1995; Sack et al. , 1976). have already increased the base rates of chil- Incarceration and school-age children. dren’s problem behaviors. Consequently, with- School-age children of incarcerated parents ex- out measures of the child’s environment and be- hibit school-related problems and problems with havior prior to incarceration, it is difficult to peer relationships. Sack et al. (1976) reported attribute the problem behaviors to incarceration that over 50% of the children of incarcerated per se. Other events also transpire at the time of parents had school problems, such as poor incarceration that could account for some of the grades or instances of aggression, albeit many of negative effects on children. Re-location and these problems were temporary. Among the placement with alternative caregivers are both younger children (6-8 years old) in the Sack et major disruptions in the children’s lives, which al. (1987) study, 16% exhibited transient school past research has shown to be detrimental to phobias and were unwilling to go to school for a children (Rutter, 1987). A similar set of interpre- 4-6week period after their parent’s incarceration. tative problems has plagued the literature on the In another report, Stanton (1980) found even effects of other kinds of stress, such as divorce higher rates of school problems: 70% of 166 on children’s functioning (Hetherington & Kel- children of incarcerated mothers showed poor ley, 2002; Hetherington et al., 1998). academic performance and 5% exhibited class- room behavior problems. Another school-based problem is that children are sometimes teased or Modifiers of Children’s Reactions ostracized by other children as a result of their to Incarceration parent’s incarceration (Jose-Kampfner, 1991). Before the incarceration, during incarcera- As Reid and Eddy (this volume) note, as chil- tion, and during the reunion phase after incar- dren reach adolescence, suspension and dropout ceration, different factors modify children’s re- rates are higher for these children (Trice, 1997). actions. Effects of incarceration on boys versus girls. Pre-incarceration conditions. The most impor- Although it would be expected that boys would tant predictor of how well the child will adjust to Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 5 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart the immediate separation is the quality of the Factors during incarceration. The major de- parent-child relationship. Theoretically, a high terminants of child adjustment during the period quality parent-child relationship should serve as of parental incarceration are (1) the nature and a protective or buffering factor in helping the quality of the alternative caregiving arrange- child cope with the temporary loss of a parent ments and (2) the opportunities to maintain con- (Myers et al., 1999; Thompson, 1998). Unfortu- tact with the absent parent. nately, however, many parents who end up in As we have noted, the gender of the incar- prison are limited in their parenting abilities, and cerated parent is a major determinant of the type thus this potential protective factor is unavail- of alternative care arrangement. When fathers able to their children (Johnston, 1991). Unfortu- are incarcerated, the mother is generally the nately, research is not available to determine caregiver who continues to be responsible for empirically whether children with a closer rela- child care; when mothers are incarcerated, tionship with their parent transcend the separa- grandmothers assume their responsibility tion with greater ease. (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Mumalo, 2000). The Another predictor or how well the child ad- latter arrangement provides greater continuity justs to parental incarceration is likely to be the for the child relative to foster care because the quality of relationships with the extended family child is with a familiar caregiver. Moreover, kin- and non-family informal social networks This ship placements tend to be more stable and support is especially relevant when the father is avoid transethnic discontinuities that are likely incarcerated and leaves the mother to cope as a to occur in the foster care system. It is assumed single parent. There is an extensive literature that children make better adjustments in kinship that suggests that the quality of family ties homes, but comparative studies of kinship ver- within the extended family network is related to sus foster care placements are not available. mothers’ more positive parenting attitudes and Moreover, there are problems with kinship ar- behavior (Cochran & Brassard, 1979; Cochran, rangements as well. Young and Smith (2000) 1995). In addition, Crnic, Greenberg, Ragozin, cite a range of challenges faced by grandparents Robinson, and Basham (1983) reported that raising grandchildren, including emotional, mothers with higher levels of informal social physical, and financial difficulties, which, in support were more responsive and affectionate turn, may undermine their effectiveness as sub- with their infants. More recently Goldstein, Die- stitute caregivers. As in the case of grandmoth- ner, and Mangelsdorf (1995), similarly, found ers raising infants for their teenage daughters that women with larger social networks were (Brooks-Gunn & Chase-Lansdale, 1995), the re- found to be more sensitive in interactions with lationship between the grandmother and the in- their infants. In turn, the children of parents who carcerated mother is often strained and charac- receive more social, emotional, and physical terized by a range of negative feelings such as support are better adjusted than children of par- resentment, anger, guilt, or disappointment ents with limited kin or network support (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Young & Smith, (Thompson, 1995). Moreover, when it is the 2000). In turn, this complicates decision-making mother rather than the father who is incarcer- on behalf of the child, which requires coopera- ated, extended family members such as grand- tion across generations if the child’s best inter- mothers often assume the role of primary care- ests are to be served. Parallel problems are evi- giver (Mumola, 2000). To the extent that the dent in joint custody arrangements after divorce child has already established close emotional re- (Hetherington & Kelley, 2001; Maccoby & lationships with the extended family, the trauma Mnookin, 1993). Grandmothers serve as gate- of transition to grandmother care will be less- keepers in terms of their children’s access to the ened (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993). parents just as divorced mothers regulate fa- Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 6 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart thers’ access to their children (Braver, 2000). In and hyperactivity associated with children’s visi- spite of this potential barrier to maintaining con- tation were relatively short-lived and there was tact, 94% of caregivers surveyed by the National no evidence of long-term negative responses. Counsel on Crime and Delinquency endorsed Visiting can calm children’s fears about their the idea that contact between mother and child is parent’s welfare as well as their concerns about important and 97% helped promote contact dur- the parent’s feelings for them (Sack, 1977). In- ing incarceration (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993). vestigations of the patterns of visitation reveal that approximately half of incarcerated parents The second important determinant of chil- do not receive any visits from their children dren’s adjustment to their parent being in prison (Snell, 1994). Children are most likely to visit is regular contact with the incarcerated parent. their mother in the first year and less likely to do Institutional, attitudinal, and practical barriers so after this initial period. Moreover, even when make this contact difficult to maintain, however. children do visit, they do not visit often. Accord- As Young and Smith (2000) note, correctional ing to one large-scale survey of state prison in- policies regarding visitation and phone use make mates, only 8% of the incarcerated mothers saw it difficult for mothers to stay in touch with their their children as often as once a week; 18% saw children. Facilities are typically located in re- them once a month; 20%, less than once a month mote areas, often long distances from where (U.S. Department of Justice, 1993). children and caregivers live, making visitation extremely difficult for families with limited re- sources, and visitation hours are scheduled for Programs for Incarcerated Parents set times each week rather than depending on would-be visitors’ schedules (Kaplan & Sasser, Programs to aid incarcerated parents and 1996). In addition, rules about who is eligible to their children take a variety of forms and are tar- visit, the number of visitors allowed at one time, geted at several different audiences -- impris- appropriate behavior during the visit, lack of oned parents, alternative caregivers, and the privacy, harsh treatment of visitors by correc- children themselves. Moreover, these programs tional staff, and the physical layout of the visit- are delivered by a range of agents and agencies, ing room often deter family members and care- including prison social work agencies, schools, givers from coming. Other problems include and clinics. In addition, goals and timing of in- child-unfriendly visiting rooms, lack of privacy, terventions vary. Some aim to increase contact and increased anxiety on the part of the visiting between incarcerated parents and their children; child (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Simon & Lan- some attempt to improve the structure of visits des, 1991). These conditions, in part, flow from and facilitate family interactions; others seek to cultural and institutional beliefs that incarcerated improve parenting skills of incarcerated parents; individuals, including parents, do not deserve still others have the goal of easing the inmate privileges such as family visitation. As Clark parents’ reentry into society and the parental role (1995) notes, the children become the “unseen by offering post-incarceration training, job victims” of a mother’s incarceration. Parents’, placement services, and housing assistance. Un- caregivers’, and social workers’ attitudes also fortunately, although such programs exist, in- play a role in visitation patterns. Some resist the formation about which approaches – if any -- are idea of visitation by children either because of most effective is limited. A variety of problems the unpleasant and inhospitable visiting condi- characterize research in this area. The major tions (Hairston, 1991) or because of their belief problems include the lack of comparison groups, that visitation will produce negative reactions in failure to carry out systematic evaluations of the the children (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993). How- impact of the interventions, use of non- ever, Johnston (1995) found that the excitability standardized measurement instruments, and lim- Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 7 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart ited follow-up to assess the long-term effects of fore are difficult to interpret. Harm and Thomp- the intervention. son (1997) provided weekly parent education classes over a 15-week period and reported im- Interventions for parents. In light of the well- provements in self-esteem, increases in positive documented finding that many incarcerated attitudes about parenting, and self-reported im- mothers are limited in their parenting skills provements in the quality of the mother’s rela- (Johnston, 1991), several programs have been tionships with their children. Finally, Brorone developed to provide parent education for incar- (1989) reported improved self-esteem after 96 cerated mothers. Improvements in parenting hours of instruction over a 24-week course. practices, we expect, will result in improvements However, this investigator also reported more in children’s adjustment to their parents’ incar- endorsement of physical punishment and an in- ceration and reentry. Educational programs vary crease in inappropriate expectations -- findings in their samples, their assessment methods, and that are inconsistent with the investigator’s hy- their training strategies. In one model program, potheses and with other work in the area. Showers (1993) compared 203 women who completed a parent education curriculum based These studies alone do not make a compel- on the Systematic Training for Effective Parent- ling case for this approach to intervention, al- ing program (STEP; Dinkmeyer & McKay, though the overall picture is positive. However, 1982) with 275 women who were being released the success of parent training programs with without taking the classes. The intervention in- non-incarcerated parents in modifying parent- volved 15 hours of instruction over a 10-week child interaction patterns and parental behavior period. Women in both groups completed a 36- and, in turn, improving children’s adjustment, item Child Management Behavior Survey, suggests that it is worthwhile to continue to de- which assessed knowledge about child develop- velop parent educational intervention for incar- ment and child behavior management techniques cerated samples as well. Examples of recent before and after either the educational interven- well-designed and carefully evaluated parent tion or, in the case of the comparison group, on education interventions include programs for two occasions without an intervening educa- single mothers (Forgatch & DeGarmo, 1999), tional program. There were significant im- for parents of children making the transition to provements for women in the intervention group school (Cowan & Cowan, 2001), and for parents in comparison with the control group. Moreover, of high-risk children (Ramey et al., 2001). It is the effect held for both Caucasian and African- unfortunate that, in the studies of incarcerated American women. Recidivism rates were altered mothers, more attention has not been given to too: for those in the intervention group, the rate the impact of intervention on the parents’ behav- was 1%, versus 19% for the participants in the ior and parent-child interaction patterns instead comparison condition. In a smaller scale effort, of merely the well-being and attitudes of the in- Moore and Clement (1998) provided twenty carcerated parents. Our assumption that these mothers with 18 hours of parenting instruction programs will, in fact, benefit children of incar- over 9 weeks and compared these mothers to cerated parents as well as parents themselves twenty waiting-list control mothers. Mothers in remains an untested assumption. the treatment group, compared with those in the Another assumption is that fathers as well control group, showed a significant increase in as mothers could benefit from parent-education knowledge about positive management tech- intervention. There is a growing research litera- niques from pre- to post-test periods. Two other ture that suggests that non-incarcerated fathers studies reported significant improvements in of various types -- single, married, non-custodial parenting as a result of educational interven- -- improve their parenting skills and their rela- tions, but lacked comparison groups and there- Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 8 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart tionships with their offspring as a consequence stress and on perceptions of problem behavior in of parent education programs (see Fagan & their children. Of particular relevance to this re- Hawkins, 2001). Support for the effectiveness of view was the finding that the children of the fa- parent education for inmate fathers comes from thers in the play therapy program showed a sig- one recent study by Wilezck and Markstrom nificant increase in their self-concept relative to (1999). After an eight-session STEP parenting children of control fathers. The relative success class, the fathers scored higher on parental of this approach in promoting positive change in knowledge and parental efficacy and decreased the children stems, in part, from the fact that their belief that fate or chance played a role in both fathers and their children were participants their parenting. They also experienced higher in the program, not just fathers alone. As Cowan overall satisfaction with their parenting. Inmate et al. (1998) argue, programs that focus on both fathers in the control group did not show any partners in a relationship are often more effec- significant changes. As in the studies of inter- tive than focusing on only one member of the ventions with incarcerated mothers, measures of dyad. A word of caution about the generalizabil- the impact of the parental intervention on the ity of these findings is necessary, however. The children were not collected. In a related project, success of this program was due, in part, to the Harrison (1997) found that male inmates who availability of the children to participate in participated in a 6-week program including par- weekly sessions with their fathers. In many ent education and behavior management train- families, practical constraints, such as conflict- ing, compared with fathers in a control group, ing schedules and long distances between home improved their attitudes toward appropriate par- and prison, limit children’s participation in such enting. Harrison did measure children’s percep- programs. tions of their own self-worth in this study and found no differences between children of fathers in the experimental and control groups. How- Beyond the Incarcerated Parent: ever, there was little visitation between fathers The Family Unit as a Target of and their children in either condition, and, there- Intervention fore, limited opportunity for the changes in fa- Most programs have focused on the incar- thers’ attitudes to be expressed and changes in cerated parent and given less attention to the children’s attitudes to follow. needs of either the non-incarcerated partner or More evidence of the effect of a father- the couple. The importance of focusing on the oriented intervention on children comes from a family unit stems from claims that post-release study of the effects of “filial therapy” training on success is higher among inmates who have the father-child relationship (Landreth & Lo- maintained family ties during incarceration baugh, 1998). According to Landreth and Lo- (Clements, 1986; Hairston, 1987). Interventions baugh, filial therapy training teaches parents ba- can be directed to the marital unit, which is often sic child-centered play therapy skills and helps strained by the incarceration. A variety of them learn how to create an accepting environ- mechanisms, including conjugal visits, fur- ment in which their children feel safe enough to loughs, and family and marital counseling, have express and explore their thoughts and feelings. all been suggested as ways of strengthening the In comparison to fathers in a control group, the marital relationship. The United States lags other fathers in the 10-week training program scored countries (e.g., Mexico, Sweden, Denmark, and significantly higher on both their acceptance of Canada) in providing those conjoint family ser- their children and their empathic behavior to- vices when one parent is incarcerated. In view of ward their children. These fathers scored signifi- the clear links between the quality of the marital cantly lower than control fathers on parenting relationship and child outcomes -- either directly Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 9 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart or indirectly through parenting -- it is critical games, reading, etc.) were encouraged in a room that more effort be devoted to this form of inter- set aside for these programs, and transportation vention (Grych & Fincham, 2000). was provided as well. Based on interviews with 31 mothers and 27 waiting-list control mothers, Another form of conjoint family interven- Snyder-Joy and Carlo found that program moth- tion when one parent is incarcerated involves the ers had more frequent contact with their children provision of services to all family members. In a and spent more time discussing issues of impor- promising but extremely small-scale demonstra- tance to them, such as their behavior and feel- tion, Marsh (1983) provided parent education ings. The mothers’ fears about their parenting aimed at improving communication and child abilities decreased, and they viewed their chil- management skills to couples in which the father dren as doing better than control mothers did. was incarcerated. Both the inmate father and his The mother’s perceptions of the quality of their wife attended eight weekly classes. Communica- relationships with their children, however, were tion skills increased in all parents, and child not different in the two groups. management skills increased in two of the three families in the program, as evidenced by obser- A second visitation program is the Sesame vations of parent-child interactions in the home. Street program (Fishman, 1983). In an effort to By providing services to help the non- alleviate congestion in the visiting room, let par- incarcerated parent deal with the problems of ents communicate without interruption by young temporary single parenthood, the children’s ad- children, and provide children with an accepting justment could be enhanced and the marital rela- environment in which to express their feelings tionship could be stabilized as well. about the prison, a number of prisons have opened special playrooms adjacent to the visit- ing room. Children can visit with their incarcer- Visitation Programs ated parent and then go to the playroom when they get restless. There they participate in educa- In spite of the problems associated with tional and entertaining activities. Parents indi- child visitation of incarcerated parents noted ear- cate that children are eager to visit the prison; lier, many parents feel that, on balance, visits are inmates and their families find visiting more re- worthwhile. As one incarcerated mother put it, warding; and correctional administrators have “The main advantage of the visits are tightening accepted the project as an important service to up the relationship, watching your children the institution. grow, how you’ve changed, being able to love one another” (Datesman & Cales, 1983, p. 147, Another example of a parent-child visita- cited by Bloch & Potthast, 1998). In light of sen- tion program is “The Girl Scouts Beyond Bars timents like these, several women’s institutions Program” (GSBB; Bloch & Potthast, 1998). Ob- have developed visiting programs for inmates. jectives of the Girl Scouts program were to pro- Features of these programs include special play vide enhanced visiting between mothers and areas for parents and children, extended visits, daughters so as to preserve or enhance the more flexible scheduling, and special housing of mother-daughter relationship, to reduce the children in the institution (Clement, 1993). stress of separation, to enhance the daughter’s Evaluations of visitation programs underscore sense of self, to reduce reuninification problems, the benefits of these efforts. For example, Sny- and ultimately to help decrease the likelihood of der-Joy and Carlo (1998) initiated a mother- the mother’s failure in the community. To child visitation program for 40 mothers and their achieve these goals, the program provided trans- children, which provided special monthly visits portation and regular Scout troop meetings for in addition to regular visits. Activities (crafts, mother and daughters at the prison. Outside the Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 10 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart prison setting, the girls participated in other to 18 months of age. Only mothers who are eli- regular Girl Scout activities (field trips, meet- gible for release within 18 months can partici- ings), without their mothers, as well. Some pate in the program, which also provides parent- GSBB programs offered both parenting pro- ing and child development classes. In a grams for mothers and counseling for their preliminary evaluation of 11 women, Carlson daughters, in addition. Evaluations indicate that (1998) found that 8 of them felt that the program the GSBB program increases the frequency of increased mother-child bonding and all of them daughter-mother visitation and improves the felt that the parenting classes improved their quality of the visits and the mother-daughter re- parenting skills. Moreover, misconduct reports lationship. Moreover, daughters’ self-esteem for these women while they were in prison de- was enhanced, new friendships with peers were creased, relative to rates observed prior to entry formed, and problems associated with separation into the program, and recidivism rates after they were lessened. Daughters were less sad, angry, were released were lower. The latter finding, if it and worried about their mothers, and, in most is confirmed by further investigation, is of great cases, grades improved as well. Further work is importance for children’s adjustment. If recidi- needed to disentangle which of the multiple pro- vism can be reduced, children will be spared the gram components, such as increased visitation, trauma of repeated separation, which, in turn, involvement in organized activities, new friend- will improve their psychological adjustment. A ships, or exposure to non-parental adult mentors, further argument in favor of co-detention is that were responsible for these positive outcomes. this arrangement provides an opportunity for the mother and child to develop a close emotional attachment or to maintain the relationship that Co-detention: Raising Children they have already formed. However, there are in Prison several negative aspects to prison-based co- detention. These include restrictions on the A central assumption underlying our review child’s freedom and the impoverished environ- is that separation of parent and child during in- ment of the prison institution, which may lead to carceration is detrimental to the parent-child re- some impairment of young children’s cognitive lationship and to the child’s adjustment. Several development. European countries offer a variety innovative programs in the USA and Europe of approaches to co-detention that avoid these have been designed to allow the mother and problems. In Hungary, for example, pregnant child to remain together during some portion of women’s sentences are often delayed up to a the incarceration period. Prison nurseries, in year to permit the woman the opportunity to which the mother gives birth in prison and raises give birth and care for her child at home (Jaffe, the infant in the institution have a long history in Pans, & Wicky, 1997). In France and Switzer- the United States. Since 1901, the nursery pro- land, co-detention programs have been organ- gram in the Bedford Hills Correctional facility in ized to permit mother and child to be together New York, the oldest such program in the coun- for a 2-3 year period in a special prison section try, has housed female inmates who have given adapted to children’s needs and providing an en- birth during their prison stay. Mothers and in- riched prison milieu and opportunities to experi- fants are permitted to stay together until the ence life outside prison (Jaffe et al., 1997). child’s first birthday and a parenting program is provided as part of the program. Unfortunately, there has been no formal evaluation of this ef- fort. A program developed in the Nebraska Cen- Alternatives to Incarceration ter for Women was modeled after the Bedford Many of the problems associated with ei- facility to provide a live-in nursery for infants up ther separation from the parent or co-detention Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 11 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart can be avoided by provision of some form of vide a structured setting for expression of moth- community-based sentencing, instead of prison- ers’ concerns (Springer et al., 2000). Groups can based incarceration (Meyers et al., 1999). These diffuse the sense of shame that often accompa- alternatives include house arrest, half-way nies parental incarceration, as children learn that houses where mother and children reside, and other group members have similar experiences day programs in which mothers attend programs (Kahn, 1994). In their study, Springer et al. in a correctional institution during the day but compared shifts in self-esteem for children in the are permitted to return home at night. Devine intervention group with children in a waiting-list (1997) surveyed 24 community-based programs control group. Children in the intervention group for mothers and children in 14 states. Commu- increased in self-esteem, while control children nity sentencing programs yielded reduced re- showed a slight decrease in self-esteem over the cidivism and increased family preservation -- 6-week period (effect size =.57). These results outcomes that have positive implications for were similar to those in studies of group treat- children’s adjustment. In view of the cost effec- ment for children and adolescents of non- tiveness achieved by reducing the number of in- incarcerated parents, according to a meta- carcerated women, it is surprising that these analysis by Hoag and Burlingame (1997; effect types of programs are available to only a small size for differences between group treatment and percentage of women violators. Because the vast wait-list and placebo control groups =.61). The majority of offenses committed by women are Springer study does suggest that sons and relatively minor and non-violent (e.g., drugs, daughters of incarcerated parents can benefit prostitution), alternatives to regular incarceration from a time-limited group intervention; how- merit more consideration (Jaffe et al., 1997). ever, the small sample size (N = 10 across both experimental and control groups) and the restric- tion of the sample to Hispanic children limits the Programs for Children of generality of their results. Incarcerated Parents Another promising approach to intervening Although most intervention programs are directly with the children of incarcerated parents designed for the incarcerated adults rather than can be found in the Youth Advisory Program. their offspring, there have been some attempts to This is an intervention aimed at adolescents. It intervene directly with the children. These in- addresses issues of the adolescents’ feelings of terventions can take a variety of forms, includ- isolation, self-esteem, and shame, helps them ing individual counseling or therapy, family deal with their peers regarding their absent par- therapy, or group therapy, located in schools, ent, directs them in making positive choices, set- clinics, or prisons. We have already reviewed ting goals, and developing support systems, and “Girl Scouts Beyond Bars,” a program that in- promotes an understanding of the corrections cludes not only visitation opportunities but non- system (Weissman & La Rue, 1998). This ap- prison group activities as well. Another small- proach could be modified for use with younger scale intervention program for children with in- children and pre-adolescents. In light of the evi- carcerated parents was conducted by Springer, dence that children who begin a deviant career Lynch, and Rubin (2000). A group of five His- path early in childhood are more likely to de- panic 4th and 5th grade children met for a 6-week velop stable, serious criminal patterns (Moffitt, period under the guidance of two adult leaders. 1993; Patterson et al., 1989), it is particularly It has long been believed that a group approach important that intervention begin in childhood to is most effective for children of incarcerated try to avoid a deviant trajectory. parents (e.g., Konopka, 1949). Group treatment can address the need for social support and pro- Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 12 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart Parental Re-entry: The Implication management of the transition back to the origi- for Children nal parent-child caregiving arrangement. In ad- dition, the option to maintain ties with multiple As detailed by Jeffries (this volume), the caregivers -- the parent and the substitute care- impact of parental incarceration on children does giver -- after the reentry of the incarcerated par- not end with the release of the parent. Children, ent is probably a further determinant of child ad- as well as their parents face a range of problems justment. Finally, the implications of non- challenges and opportunities when the parent reunion for the child’s adjustment merit exami- and child are reunited after the incarceration is nation. The 1997 Adoption and Safe Families over. In addition to the problems faced by the Act mandates termination of parental rights if a parent, such as finding a job and housing and re- child has been in foster care for more than 15 of integrating into the community, the child and the last 22 months (Genty, 1998). This often has parent face the formidable task of re-establishing consequences for children of incarcerated moth- their relationship. This task of reuniting is a ers, because women typically serve 18 months in complex one, because new relationships have prison. Thus, many children are deprived of their been formed during the period of the incarcer- right to reunite with their mother. Although the ated parent’s absence. The parent is reentering a reunion process is a complex one, it is unclear revised family system, one that was formed or whether being in permanent foster care is prefer- stabilized without clear roles or responsibilities able, especially in light of the relative instability for the returning parent. As Sullivan (1993) ob- of foster-home placements (Beckerman, 1998; served in his ethnographic studies of both incar- Genty, 1998). On the other hand, some recent cerated and non-incarcerated young unwed Afri- evidence (Horowitz et al., 2001) suggests that can-American fathers, family members may children’s functioning in foster care improves limit a returning father’s access to his children. over time. The debate over permanent place- Or a mother may have begun a new relationship ments for children of incarcerated parents is far during the incarcerated father’s absence, and that from settled (Beckerman, 1998). may discourage the involvement of the reenter- ing father with her or the child (Furstenberg, 1995; Nurse, 2001). Perhaps most critical, the child may have developed close ties with a sub- Problems Associated with stitute parent, such as a grandmother or foster- Intervention and Evaluation Efforts care parent. The process of shifting the focus of In formulating an agenda for future efforts intimate relationships from this caregiver to a in this area, it is important to recognize the diffi- long-absent, returning parent may be disruptive culties of conducting theory-based intervention for the child and present another stressful transi- with this population (Eddy, Powell, Szubka, tion that further undermines the child’s adjust- McClool, & Kuntz, 2001) According to Eddy et ment. To date, little is known about either the al., several problems limit the scope and type of short-term consequences of this process of rees- interventions that can be implemented. One tablishment of ties with an absent parent or the problem is the high prevalence of mental im- long-term effect on the child’s well-being. A va- pairment among incarcerated parents and the riety of factors will likely affect the transition, concomitant difficulty these parents have with including the quality and duration of the parent- reading. It is critical that intervention materials child relationship prior to incarceration, the na- be written and administered at an appropriate ture and extent of contact between parent and level. Second, barriers to acceptance by prison child during incarceration, the quality, stability, staff have to be overcome. As Hairston (1991) and duration of the new caregiver-child relation- found in a survey of prison policies and prac- ship developed during incarceration, and the tices, correctional institutions are not generally Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 13 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart supportive of inmate-family relationships or contact between an infant and parent will pre- family-oriented services. A third set of prob- vent the development of the infant’s attachment lems relates to the dynamic nature of inmates’ to the parent. After an attachment has devel- families. As Eddy et al. found, families of in- oped, separation from the parent can generate a mates exhibit frequent changes in roles and rela- set of adverse emotional reactions from sadness tionships. Some male inmates may be involved to anger, which, in turn, will interfere with the with multiple families as a result of having chil- optimal development of the child (Sroufe, 1988). dren with several women. The nature of these At the same time, children can form multiple at- family ties, including the amount and frequency tachments, including attachments to fathers and of contact, the quality and quantity of parenting, other non-maternal caregivers, as well as to and even the parent’s knowledge of children’s mothers. The fact that infants can develop strong living arrangements varies across inmates. This attachments to their fathers (Parke, 2002) under- family instability both during and after incar- scores the importance of assessing the reactions ceration presents serious problems for any longi- of children to separation from their incarcerated tudinal research design. Transience of inmates fathers as well as reactions to the loss of their after release and of partners and children during incarcerated mothers. It also suggests that chil- incarceration pose additional problem for fol- dren who “lose” their relationship with an incar- low-up research. Whereas 16% of Americans cerated parent can be helped by forming or move in a given year, Eddy et al. report that maintaining a secure attachment relationship 62% of inmate participants in their study moved with another caregiver. For example, Howes and at least once in the previous year. At a 6-month Hamilton (1993) found that children with an in- follow up, only 5% of subjects were still resid- secure attachment with mother but a secure at- ing at their pre-arrest residence. tachment to a day-care provider tended to be more socially competent than insecurely at- tached children who had not formed a strong Theoretical Perspectives to Guide compensatory relationship outside the family. Research and Policy This work underscores the need to assess the quality of children’s attachment relationships A variety of theoretical perspectives are with alternative caregivers such as grandparents relevant to this topic and can usefully provide when the parent is unavailable due to incarcera- guidelines for the design of future research, in- tion. Finally, Bowlby’s theory alerts us to the tervention, and policy. These theoretical per- fact that mothers experience anxiety just as chil- spectives include developmental and ecological dren do when the two are separated. contexts and cross-level analyses of the individ- ual child and parent, the parent-child dyad, the Life-span theory. According to the life-span family network, the community, the institution, theory of development (Elder, 1998), develop- and the culture. ment is a process that continues throughout the life cycle into adulthood. Childhood is impor- Developmental theory. From a developmental tant, but other ages are also important in shaping perspective, several theories are relevant to un- later stages of development. The importance of derstanding the consequences of parental incar- examining developmental change in adults is ceration. One important theory is Bowlby’s gaining recognition, and it is now appreciated (1973) attachment theory. This theory serves as that parents continue to change and develop dur- a framework to aid in understanding the impor- ing their adult years. For example, age at the tance of the development of the parent-infant or time of onset of parenthood can have important parent-child relationship. According to Bowlby, implications for how women and men manage the lack of opportunity for regular and sustained their maternal and paternal roles. In the current Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 14 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart context, how parents and their children adjust to Risk and resilience theories. Another set of the parent’s incarceration will vary greatly de- theorists (e.g., Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, pending on the age of the parent as well as the 2000; Rutter & Sroufe, 2001) have recognized developmental level of the child. According to that children’s successful adaptation in the face life-span theory, change over time can be traced of stressful life events like the incarceration of a to three sets of causes. First, there are normative parent varies as a function of two things: the events and experiences that most children and form and frequency of the risks and the protec- adults undergo at roughly the same ages. Sec- tive or resilience factors that buffer the child ond, there are unexpected events that push de- from the adverse events. Individual children re- velopment in a new direction. Incarceration, like spond to risks in a variety of ways. Some suffer job loss, divorce, or death of a family member, permanent developmental disruptions and de- is one of these events. Third, historical time pe- lays. Others show sleeper effects; they appear to riods can influence development. Historical pe- cope well initially, but exhibit problems later in riods provide the social conditions for individual development. Still others exhibit resilience un- and family transitions, and across these periods, der the most difficult circumstances and may incarceration, its consequences, and policies even be strengthened by it. Moreover, when they may vary. Over the last several decades, there confront new risks later in life, these children are a number of secular changes that could affect seem better able to adapt to challenges than families’ reactions to incarceration. These in- children who have experienced little or no risk, a clude declines in fertility and family size, the in- kind of inoculation effect (Hetherington, 1991; creased participation of women in the work- Rutter & Rutter, 1993). Three sets of protective force, the rise of divorce and the increase in the factors have been identified that appear to buffer number of single-parent families. These societal the child from risk and stress and promote cop- trends and the historical era in which the incar- ing and good adjustment in the face of adversity. ceration takes place can profoundly shape the The first set of factors consists of positive indi- management of the child and their subsequent vidual attributes. Children who have easy tem- developmental outcomes. peraments and high self-esteem and who are in- telligent and independent are more adaptable in Developmental analyses need not be re- the face of stressful life experience (Rutter, stricted to the level of the individual, either par- 1987; Werner, 1993). Girls and women have a ent or child, but refer to dyadic and family levels slight edge on resiliency in comparison with as well. At the dyadic level, relationships (be- boys or men. The second set of protective fac- tween husband and wife, mother and child, fa- tors is found in a supportive family environment. ther and child) may follow separate and partially The presence of a supportive parent can help independent developmental courses over child- buffer the adverse effects of poverty, divorce or hood (Belsky et al., 1989; Parke, 1988). At the incarceration (Luthar et al., 2000). The final set family level, changes in structure (e.g., through of factors involves people outside the family, in the loss of the incarcerated member or the addi- the school system, peer groups, or churches, tion of the child to a foster family or a grandpar- who support children’s and parents’ coping ef- ent-headed household) also occur over time, forts. with implications for both children and caregiv- ers. The mutual impact of different sets of rela- Cumulative risk models. Cumulative risk mod- tionships on each other varies as a function of els A closely related theoretical perspective the nature of all these developmental trajecto- with clear relevance to the issue of the effects of ries. incarceration on children is the cumulative risk perspective (Rutter, 1987; Sameroff et al., 1998). According to this perspective, risks often Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 15 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart co-occur and are best understood not as single tunity to maintain contact with the parent during events, but as sets or combinations of events. the period of separation will modify the nature Children are most likely to be adversely affected of the parent-child relationship, which, in turn, when multiple risks co-occur. Moreover, the na- will affect children’s adjustment. Different vari- ture of the particular risk may be less critical ables may play different roles at various points than the number of risks that the child encoun- across time. For example, whereas child charac- ters. In the case of incarceration, it should be teristics may play a similar role during separa- recognized that any attempt to attribute effects tion and reunion, the quality of caregiving proc- on children to parental incarceration alone may esses (e.g., the child’s relationship with the be doomed to failure, because many events be- alternative caregiver) may play a protective role fore, during, and after the incarceration co-occur during parental incarceration but present a risk and contribute to child outcomes. For example, to successful reunion with the incarcerated par- children who suffer the loss of a parent through ent after the separation is over. Finally, as the imprisonment may also be at risk because of risk and resilience perspective suggests, it may poverty, changes in residence, shift in caregiv- be the balance between risks and resources that ers, and stigmatization by peers and community. determines the impact of stresses of parental in- Recognition of the multiple risks experienced by carceration and reentry on children. Our argu- children of incarcerated parents is a critical step ment is that static and cross-sectional slices out in gaining a better understanding of the multiple of the lives of parent and children yield a mis- factors that contribute to children’s adjustment leading portrait of how risk and protective fac- and merit consideration for designing interven- tors operate across time to affect children’s ad- tions and crafting social policy. justment to parental incarceration. As our figure suggests, only by examining this issue in a dy- Putting the pieces together. No single theoreti- namic and transactional framework will we fully cal perspective is sufficient to encompass the appreciate the complexities of the interacting complexity of the problem of parental incarcera- trajectories followed by parents, alternative tion. Instead, a framework that integrates these caregivers, and children across time and the perspectives into a unified theoretical whole is roles of risks and protective factors in account- necessary. A transactional model of risks and ing for variations in children’s outcomes. supports associated with parental incarceration is presented in figure 1. Incarceration and reentry increases the probability of parents’ and chil- Research and Policy Issues: dren’s encountering a set of interrelated risks. A Look Ahead These risks interact and are mediated in a variety of complex ways, just as in the case of other In the closing section we outline a series of transitions such as divorce and remarriage or job issues, both research and policy issues, that need loss (Conger & Elder, 1994; Hetherington, to be addressed if we are able to make serious Bridges, & Insabella, 1998). According to our progress in understanding the issue of parental model, incarceration leads to changes in family incarceration. composition and shifts in caregiving arrange- Research issues. In view of our conceptualiza- ments. The ability of alternative caregivers to tion of this issue as a dynamic set of processes cope adequately and to avoid depression will af- that unfold over time, the most important need is fect the child indirectly through caregiving proc- to design and execute prospective, longitudinal esses. Other variables serve as moderators. Chil- studies of the effects of parental incarceration on dren’s coping strategies, for example, serve as a children. Only by doing so will we be able to moderator of the effects of caregiving processes trace the various pathways followed by different on children’s adjustment. Similarly, the oppor- Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 16 Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young Children R. Parke and K.A. Clarke-Stewart children and begin to describe the nature of the Therefore, the role of incarcerated parents’ cul- changes that affect the child’s functioning. This tural and ethnic backgrounds needs to be given type of design requires the identification of par- more attention in future research. Sixth, research ents at risk for incarceration before the period of needs to move beyond simple descriptions of incarceration occurs, so that pre-existing condi- differences in children to explanations of proc- tions and relationships can be described. This esses in the individual, family, context, or cul- design would be a step toward disentangling the ture that account for children’s adjustment. Only impact of incarceration per se from the impact of when we have begun to identify these processes preexisting family conditions on children’s sub- will we be positioned to design meaningful the- sequent adjustment. These children and their in- ory and data-based interventions. Seventh, our carcerated parents would then be followed dur- interventions need to be theoretically guided and ing the period of incarceration through the post- should be viewed not simply as a plan to help prison period of reunion. In recognition of the children and/or their families but as an opportu- difficulty of this type of prospective approach, nity to evaluate the adequacy of our theories as careful retrospective interviews with the incar- well. Eight, progress is likely to flow from rec- cerated parent, the child, and informed kin could ognition of the need for interdisciplinary re- begin to provide a profile of life in these families search teams. A variety of disciplinary special- before incarceration. Second, designs should in- ists including child developmentalists, family clude developmentally sensitive measures that psychologists, social workers, criminologists, have been well-standardized and demonstrate and organizational and community social scien- adequate psychometric properties. Third, multi- tists each have important and distinctive per- measure and multi-informant designs are spectives to offer and need to work coopera- needed. Direct assessment of children is needed, tively in the design and evaluation of research as much of the literature relies on potentially- and intervention efforts. biased parental reports (Meyers et al., 1999). Policy needs. The major policy issue that needs Observation of children in a variety of contexts to be addressed in this area is “connecting the (home, school, playground) with a variety of in- systems” (Adalist-Estrin, 1994). In many states, teractive partners (parents, substitute caregivers, fragmented services and agencies result in ser- siblings, peers) would begin to provide a solid vice gaps, unmet needs, and overlapping or con- descriptive data base. Careful evaluations of flicting service delivery agendas (Phillips & children’s psychological functioning and pat- Bloom, 1998). The systems that provide services terns of coping are also needed (Johnson, 1998). for children and families affected by incarcera- Fourth, more attention needs to be given to the tion need to coordinate their efforts across time unique effects of the incarceration of fathers ver- to permit continuity of services. For example, sus mothers. Less attention has been paid to pa- decisions and services on behalf of family mem- ternal incarceration than to maternal imprison- bers during incarceration need to be recognized ment, but the father-child relationship is an in the planning of post-incarceration services to important focus for future research and policy ensure continuity across the transition from efforts (see Gadsden & Rethemeyer, 2001, for a prison to home. The criminal justice system, in- recent report on this issue). Fifth, it is increas- cluding correctional officers and prison adminis- ingly recognized that cultural background plays trators, needs to be involved in decision-making a major role in shaping children’s reactions to about family contacts and family support. The various types of family transitions and stressors social welfare system needs to be involved with and in developing the coping strategies children the family members of incarcerated parents to and families use in the face of adversity (Demo, provide coordination between their services and Allen, & Fine, 2000; Parke & Buriel, 1998). the needs of the imprisoned parent (visitation, Papers prepared for the "From Prison to Home" Conference (January 30-31, 2002) 17 Effects of Parental Inca