Comments on CSG Recommendations for Research Describing Children of Incarcerated Parents
Susan D. Phillips, PhD
Assistant Professor, Jane Addams College of Social Work
Several of the research recommendations in the Council’s report focus on collecting national data (see examples in the side bar). For instance, the report calls for the collection of data on the lifetime prevalence of parental incarceration, needs of children of incarcerated parents, risk exposure, and use of public programs and services. It also calls for research to understand differences among various subgroups of children (e.g., those with incarcerated mothers versus fathers versus both, those whose parents serve short sentences versus long sentences, boys versus girls, and so forth). The Council’s various recommendations differ with respect to how quickly they would yield data and the nature and quality of that data, with the more rigorous and informative research taking longer and costing more. The common limiting factor is that knowledge from these studies would have to be subsequently translated into policy and practices that actually do something to change the circumstances of children of incarcerated parents.
An applied research network could also produce data on children of incarcerated parents in different locales throughout the country leading to a refined understanding of the different needs among this group of children. The difference is that it would be combined with an infrastructure for developing or modifying services in response to new knowledge, evaluating the effectiveness of those services, and for providing training and technical assistance to help others outside of the network adopt and implement new practices.
Other recommendations in the Council’s report pertain to ways of using administrative data from State agencies and from existing service programs to create a multi-site dataset that could be used for research. There are a number of methodological challenges to this, but data of this nature could provide new knowledge about the effectiveness of existing services in different contexts as well as the costs of parental incarceration. An applied research network could produce the same data, but with the involvement of people who are working in concert with service providers and interventionists to make certain the data are relevant to policy and practice.
The Council also notes the need to evaluate programs and practices. This is the area in which there is currently the biggest gap in knowledge. Many new programs have emerged to address needs of children with incarcerated parents in the last two decades, but there is virtually no information about if, or how, these programs benefit children. An applied research network could provide much needed information about “what works” and for which children.
In addition, the Council’s report includes a recommendation to identify an institution or organization to archive, synthesize, and disseminates findings from research on children of incarcerated parents as well as research from other fields that points to potentially efficacious interventions to address the needs children’s need and promote the adoption and implementation of effective interventions. A national applied research network would provide a ready-made vehicle for this.
Lastly, the Council’s report also includes a recommendation for Federally-funded demonstration projects. An applied research network would not only include demonstration projects, but also evaluate their effects on child outcomes and connect service providers with service system administrators to deal with practical issues of sustainability.
The Council of State Governments’ Justice Center report is a monumental and important opportunity to gain Federal support to help children with incarcerated parents. However, in order to capitalize on this opportunity, we need to be able to respond clearly and concisely when Federal policymakers ask, “What do you want me to do”? In terms of the Council’s research recommendations, the straightforward answer is fund the development and operation of a national applied research network.
Comments on CSG Recommendations for Research Describing Children of Incarcerated Parents and Testing Hypotheses about the Long-term Adverse Consequences of Parental Incarceration
Collect data from parents in prison as part of the National Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities.
Data from this survey is used in the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Report Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children. It provides data on the number of incarcerated persons who have children, the amount and contact parents have with their children before and during their current prison sentences, and children’s current living arrangements. The survey is an important source of basic information on parents in prison that should continue to be published. However, it is of limited value when it comes to understanding the consequences of parental incarceration for children because it only provides a snap shot of an isolated moment in children’s lives and does not provide data about children’s outcomes or factors influencing their outcomes.
Incorporate questions about parental incarceration into other existing national data collection activities.
Examples of ongoing national data collection efforts include the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) and the U.S. Department of Education’s National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Adding items to these and other ongoing data collection effects that have been developed with input from individuals who have been affected by parental incarceration would provide new information about child outcomes Collecting this information however, is unlikely to provide answers to questions about the causal relationship between parental incarceration and child outcomes. That limitation notwithstanding, this strategy would generate new information in a relatively short amount of time at no cost additional cost.
Conduct a prospective longitudinal study.
A study of this nature could potentially answer questions about whether parental incarceration “causes” adverse child outcomes and, if so, the nature of risk pathways for different subgroups of children. This would be a costly endeavor and it would take several years to begin generating results.
Susan D. Phillips, PhD
Assistant Professor, Jane Addams College of Social Work
In a nutshell, available research suggests that, collectively, children of incarcerated parents are rightly considered an at-risk population, but (1) not all of these children are at risk, nor (2) are those who are at risk all at-risk for the same reasons.[2, 3] The differences among children with incarcerated parents matter greatly when it comes to selecting the services that are most likely to effectively address a given child’s needs. At the same time, all children whose parents are sent to prison deserve to be treated with the same compassion we show children whose parents are absent from their lives for other reasons such as death, divorce, illness, or military service.
Researchers have been studying children with parents in prison for decades.[4, 5] They believed initially that boys whose fathers were sent to prison became involved in delinquency because they learned antisocial attitudes and behaviors from their fathers. Researchers now recognize that sundry child (e.g., being male), parent (e.g., substance abuse), family (e.g., poverty), and community characteristics (e.g., access to drug markets) play a role in the development of delinquency. They also recognize that positive factors can operate in the lives of even the most at-risk children to protect them from or help them overcome the risks they are confronting.[6,7,8,9,10]
Researchers also once believed that parental incarceration was simply a phenomenon that just happened to co-occur with other problems (e.g., poverty, family disruption, child maltreatment, and so forth) and that it was these other problems rather than parental incarceration that placed children at risk for adverse outcomes. More recent research shows that, in fact, parental incarceration contributes to children experiencing some of these risks.[1, 11,12,13,14,15,16]
Because it is not feasible for researchers to follow parents around to observe them committing criminal acts, early research on parent criminality relied on reports of parental arrest as an indicator of parents’ criminal behavior. Some researchers differentiated between arrests for misdemeanors (less serious offenses) and arrests for felonies (more serious offenses). The latter often carry prison sentences. This means that much of the research on parent criminality is actually research on parental arrest and/or incarceration. This research, however, did not differentiate between risk factors that contributed to parents’ involvement in the criminal justice system involvement and those that were a consequence of their criminal justice system involvement.
Nonetheless, this body of research suggests that if you divide all children into only two groups – those whose parents have been arrested and those whose parents have not – there is a better chance of finding a child who will become involved in delinquency or develop other problems in the group whose parents were arrested.[17-31] Findings from this research are sometimes referred to by people seeking funding or making the case for services or policy reforms. It is not uncommon for these findings to be sensationalized and for important nuances to be glossed over. As a result, there is a persistent misperception that children of incarcerated parents are all destined to become “the next generation of inmates.” Because of the harm this belief does to children, it is important to understand what research on children of incarcerated parents does and does not tell us about this population of children.
First, children whose parents are sent to prison are NOT doomed to become “the next generation of inmates”. When researchers say that children whose parents become involved in the criminal justice system have a greater likelihood of getting in trouble with the law, it does not mean that the majority, many, or most will grow up to commit criminal acts. Suggesting that this is the case in order to win support for policy reforms and services harms children of incarcerated parents by perpetuating the negative stereotype that “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”.
Second, race matters. Although children from all economic strata and all ethnicities experience parental incarceration, parental incarceration is 7 times more prevalent among African American children compared to White children and 2.4 times more prevalent among Hispanic children. The differential risk for parental incarceration among African American and Hispanic children is intricately linked with the institutional and structural racism and the concomitant discrimination these groups have historically faced in the criminal justice system, housing, education, health care, and employment. Because of these and other systemic disparities, a disproportionate number of people of color live in communities with concentrated social problems that are associated with high levels of incarceration. Paradoxically, high levels of incarceration help to perpetuate these problems.
Discussions about children of incarcerated parents often raise the specter of intergenerational incarceration, but fail to acknowledge the intergenerational failure of our social institutions to address the underlying social problems that are associated with high incarceration rates. Nor, for that matter, do they acknowledge the intergenerational inadequacy of funding for services for children and families. The phenomenon of parental incarceration and its consequences for children, families, and communities cannot be fully appreciated, nor can it be adequately addressed in isolation from these considerations.
Third, it is not clear whether incarcerating parents causes delinquency, but there is evidence that it increases children’s exposure to risk factors that are associated with delinquency. Researchers once thought of parental incarceration as simply a proxy for other problems that tend to be associated with crime and incarceration. Research clearly shows, however, that for some children the incarceration of a parent means loss of contact with a parent who was involved in their care and who contributed to their support. While this research provides evidence that parental incarceration contributes to children experiencing risk factors that are associated with delinquency, researchers have not yet been able to determine if parental incarceration causes delinquency.[29, 35]
Fourth, children of incarcerated parents are not all the same. Over a decade ago, Denise Johnston, MD, the Director of the Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents, called attention to the fact that there is no risk factor that is universal among children of incarcerated parents. In fact, parental incarceration is not even the same experience for all children if we consider variations in the reasons parents are incarcerated, the length of their sentences, their prior criminal histories, their degree of involvement with their children prior to their current prison sentence, and the different stages of development children may be in while their parents are serving time.
Some children of incarcerated parents are at particularly high risk for adverse outcomes because of the high number of risk factors operating in their lives. The single most consistent finding in research on children whose parents experience incarceration is that as a group they are exposed to more risk factors than other children (some of which may be a consequence of their parents’ incarceration).[29, 34, 36,37,38,39] This is important because even among children who do not have an incarcerated parent, the likelihood of becoming involved with criminal authorities grows exponentially as the number of risks they experience increases.[40, 41] To be clear, this does not mean that most, the majority, or many children whose parents go to prison live in multi-problem households. But, research suggests that those who do are a particularly high risk group. These families often need a variety of services and obtaining these services is often made difficult by the fragmented nature of service delivery systems.
While some children are at high risk because of the many problems their families face, other subgroups are at risk for various different reasons. For instance, a study of teens whose mothers had arrest histories (not all of whom served time in jail or prison), found that there were four identifiable subgroups of children with very different risk exposures. One group (about 50 percent of the teens) was living in households in which there were very few, if any, major risk factors. The remaining 50 percent fell into three different categories: (1) teens with histories of physical and sexual abuse, (2) teens with multiple parents/parent figures that had substance abuse or mental health problems, and (3) teens living in single-parent households in extreme poverty who were not receiving adequate supervision. These findings need to be confirmed in studies of other groups of children, but they suggest that no one service will adequately address the needs of all children.
Finally, research answers empirical questions, not moral questions. Thus far, this commentary has focused on research as it relates to the possible relationship between parental incarceration and adverse child outcomes. There is another framework for considering the needs of children of incarcerated parents – a procedural justice framework. The salient question from this perspective is not “are children of incarcerated parents at risk for delinquency and, if so, why?”, rather the salient question is “why punish the children?”.[42, 43] This framework, which is implicit in The Bill of Rights for Children of Incarcerated Parents, suggests the need for systemic reforms to make parental arrest and incarceration less noxious for children – not because doing so will necessarily reduce the chances of children developing serious problems – but because children are a vulnerable group who are dependent upon adults for their safety and well-being. When children are separated from their parents for other reasons such as military services, divorce, death, or serious illness, we show compassion and concern and try to ease their distress. Morally, children who are not able to be with a parent because that parent is in jail or prison deserve the same.
As a group, children whose parents are sent to prison are rightly considered an at-risk population. Accordingly, service planning and policy reforms would do well to include mechanisms to link children on an as needed basis with the various prevention and intervention services that already exist in the education, mental health, health, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems. At the same time, it also suggests that children’s experiences related to the arrest and incarceration of parents have consequences for children (for example, social stigma) that are distinct from other risks that may also be present in their lives. Providers in existing service systems would do well to explore and address these unique aspects of children’s experiences of parental arrest and incarceration.
Most importantly, research suggests there is no magic bullet. No single service or policy reform will adequately address the needs of all children with incarcerated parents. Moreover, services cannot be effective if children and families do not receive them. At present, only a fraction of parents in prison who might benefit from substance abuse treatment receive treatment, leaving their children vulnerable to parent and family problems associated with addiction when their parents leave prison. Similarly, only a fraction of parents take part in parenting programs while incarcerated. Other systems have an equally poor record of reaching children. For example, a large proportion of children who have mental health problems do not receive treatments that could be beneficial to them.[e.g., 44]
We should celebrate the fact that so many groups now recognize that sending parents to prison has consequences for children, but it is not yet time to rest. We cannot settle simply for developing new services that only address isolated problems or which only reach a small number of children and families yet leave the recalcitrant social problems associated with high levels of incarceration unaddressed.
1. Johnston, D. (1995). Effects of parental incarceration. In Gabel, K. and Johnston, D. (Eds.), Children of Incarcerated Parents (pp. 59-88). New York: Lexington Books.
2. Phillips, S. D., Erkanli, A., Costello, E. J. & Angold, A. (2007). Differences among children whose mothers have a history of arrest. Women & Criminal Justice, 17(2/3), 45-63.
3. Phillips, S. D. & Erkanli, A. (2008). Differences in patterns of maternal arrest and the parent, family, and child problems encountered in working with families Children & and Youth Services Review, 30, 157-172.
4. McCord, J. & McCord, W. (1958). The effects of parental role model of criminality. Journal of Social Issues, 14, 66-75.
5. Glueck, S. & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Rivera, B. & Widom, C. S. (1990). Childhood victimization and violent offending. Violence and Victims, 5, 19-35.
7. Carr, M. B. & Vandiver, T. A. (2001). Risk and protective factors among youth offenders. Adolescence, 36, 409-426.
8. Ingoldsby, E. M. & Shaw, D. S. (2000). Neighborhood contextual factors and early-starting antisocial pathways. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 21-55.
9. Frick, P. J., Lahey, B. B., Loeber, R., et al. (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.
10. Loeber, R. & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. Crime and Justice, 7, 29-149.
11. Clear, T. R. (Ed.). (1996). Backfire: When incarceration increases crime. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
12. Schneller, D. P. (1975). Prisoners’ families: a study of some social and psychological effect of incarceration on the families of Negro prisoners. Criminology, 12, 402-412.
13. Gentry, P. M. (2003). Damage to family relationships as a collateral consequence of parental incarceration. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30, 1671-1684.
14. Hinds, L. S. (1981). The impact of incarceration on low-income families. Journal of Offender Counseling, 5, 5-12.
15. Moore, J. & Vera, I. (1996). Bearing the burden: How incarceration policies weaken inner-city communities. In Anonymous (Ed.). New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
16. Hagan, J. & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral consequences of imprisonment for children, communities, and prisoners. In Tonry, M. and Petersilia, J. (Eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Loukas, A., Fitzgerald, H. E., Zucker, R. A. & Eye, A. V. (2001). Parental alcoholism and co-occurring antisocial behavior: prospective relationships to externalizing behavior problems in their young sons. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 91-106.
18. Dube, Felitti, S. D., Chapman, Giles & Anda. (2003). Child abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction and the risk of illicit drug use: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. Pediatrics, 111, 564-572.
19. Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., et al. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 245-258.
20. 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.
21. Sirpa, S. K. (2002). Familial criminality, familial drug use, and gang membership: Youth criminality, drug use, and gang membership – What are the connections? Journal of Gang Research, 9, 11-22.
22. Winslow, E. B. (2001). Development of boys’ early conduct problems in a low-income, urban sample: Implications of neighborhood context and maternal parenting. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 2509.
23. Dannerbeck, A. M. (2005). Differences in parenting attributes, experiences, and behavior of delinquent youth with and without a parental history of incarceration. Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice, 3, 99-213.
24. Farrington, D. P., Jolliffe, D., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M. & Kalb, L. M. (2001). The concentration of offenders in families, and family criminality in the prediction of boys’ delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 579-596.
25. Guzder, J., Paris, J., Zelfowitz, P. & Feldman, R. (1999). Psychological risk factors for borderline pathology in school-age children. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 206-212.
26. Leve, L. D. & Chamberlain, P. (2004). Female juvenile offenders: Defining an early-onset pathway for delinquency. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 13, 439-452.
27. Robins, L. N. (1978). Sturdy childhood predictors of adult antisocial behaviour: replications from longitudinal studies. Psychological Medicine, 8, 611-622.
28. Langbehn, D. R. & Cadoet, R. J. (2001). The adult antisocial syndrome with and without antecedent conduct disorder: Comparisons from an adoption study. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 42, 272-282.
29. 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.
30. Costello, E. J., Erkanli, A., Fairbank, J. A. & Angold, A. (2002). The prevalence of potentially traumatic events and in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 99-112.
31. Costello, E. J., Keeler, G. P. & Angold, A. (2001). Poverty, race/ethnicity, and psychiatric disorder: A study of rural children. American Journal of Public Health, 91(1494-1498).
32. Glaze, L. E. & Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Parents in prison and their minor children (NCJ 222984). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
33. Tonry, M. (1995). Malign neglect. New York: Oxford Press.
34. Phillips, S. D., Erkanli, A., Keeler, G. P., Costello, E. J. & Angold, A. (2006). Disentangling the risks: Parent criminal justice involvement and children’s exposure to family risks. Criminology and Public Policy, 5(4), 677-702.
35. Johnston, D. (2006). The wrong road: Efforts to understand the effects of parent crime and incarceration. Criminology and Public Policy, 5(4), 1101-1119.
36. Phillips, S. D., Burns, B. J., Wagner, H. R. & Barth, R. P. (2004). Parental arrest and children in child welfare services agencies. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2, 174-186.
37. Phillips, S. D., Burns, B. J., Wagner, H. R., Kramer, T. L. & Robbins, J. R. (2002). Parental incarceration among youth receiving mental health services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(4), 385-399.
38. Dallaire, D. H. (2007). Incarcerated mothers and fathers: A comparison of risks for children and families. Family Relations, 56, 440-453.
39. Johnson, E. I. & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Children of incarcerated parents: Cumulative risk and children’s living arrangement (Report). New York: Columbia University.
40. Biederman, J., Milberger, S., Faraone, S. V., et al. (1995). Family-environment risk factors for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: A test of Rutter’s indicators of adversity. Archive of General Psychiatry, 2, 464-470.
41. Bry, B. H., McKeon, P. & Pandina, R. (1982). Extent of drug use as a function of number of risk factors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 91, 273-279.
42. Bloom, B. & Steinhart, D. (1993). Why punish the children? A reappraisal of the children of incarcerated mothers in America. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
43. McGowan, B. & Blumenthal, K. (1978). Why punish the children? (Report). New York: Children’s Defense Fund.
44. Flisher, A. J., Kramer, R. A., Grosser, R. C., et al. (1997). Correlates of unmet need for mental health services by children and adolescents. Psychological Medicine, 27, 1145-1154.
Tips for getting copies of research publications:
Links are provided to many publications produced by governmental or not-for-profit agencies. To locate copies of other studies:
- Enter the title into an internet search engine such as Google Scholar.
- Request a copy through your local public library.
- Contact a researcher at a local college or university and ask for their assistance obtaining the article.