Matt Glavach

May 30, 2017

CLJ 423 Summer 2017
Paper Topic

Parental incarceration and child well-being

Research Questions

1) What are the consequences of the children and parent while the parent is incarcerated?

2) How are the children taken care of while the parent is incarcerated?

Mass incarceration is a big issue in our country. According to recent data (specifically the

Washington Post), the United States imprisons roughly 716 people per 100,000 citizens (Hee

Lee, 2015). We often think of the people imprisoned as statistics and simply as criminals who

belong to be in there due to their poor decisions and/or impulses. What we do not think about is

the prisoners families and how they are affected, especially if kids are involved. According to

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an estimated 809,800 prisoners of the 1,518,535 held in the

nations prisons at midyear 2007 were parents of minor children which the Bureau estimates

that 1,706,600 minors have parents in prison (Glaze and Maruschak, 2008). Unfortunately, this

report was revised in March 2010 and is the most recent report about the matter, so the statistics

are likely more since the prison population continued to grow since 2010. The topic for this

study will be a childs well-being while a parent is incarcerated. Well-being in this particular

study will be defined as the childs ability to cope and function, both mentally and physically, in

their present and future. It will also be defined by how healthy their surrounding environment is

while their parents are away, such as their economic situation and their treatment by and

interaction with fellow peers during this difficult situation. This study needs to be conducted

because children who have parents imprisoned are often forgotten about and how they are

1
affected while their parent(s) is away. There are a lot of moving parts to this phenomenon that

need to be closely examined, such as the collateral effects of both the parents and their children.

With the current trend of the United States prison population, there is a sense of urgency

to level it off or drastically lower it. There have been studies to determine if deterrence through

prison is effective, and the research has yielded mixed results along with a recidivism rate of

about 60 percent. With that being said, researchers continue to put in their effort to find

alternatives that are more effective, such as rehabilitation through counseling, community

involvement, or even probation. However, the current administration has adopted the get tough

on crime mentality that seems to circulate every decade or two. Unfortunately, the research

looking for alternatives may go on the wayside with the administrations criminal justice mindset

and pending policies. Even with the current uncertainty, the researching must go on for future

generations and the well-being of our society. The criminal justice system is tremendously

flawed but is such a unique organization for researchers and sociologists. Besides the vast

amount of research on the general effectiveness of incarceration, there are numerous specific-

oriented research with a basis of incarceration. This paper will focus on one of the specifics: the

collateral consequences of children who have or had incarcerated parents. The first section of the

paper will analyze the weight carried based on the gender of the parent who is incarcerated and

the race of the family. The second section inspects the impacts on the childs present and future

while considering the future of the parents. The third section will look at the childs caregiver

during the parents time in the criminal justice system and the childs coping strategies. Finally,

the paper will conclude with an overview of the topics covered along with current

recommendations to fix the problem.

2
 The collateral consequences of having a parent(s) incarcerated is often not considered.

Not only does the parent feel collateral consequences upon release, but the children also suffer

from mental and physical health during and after their parents prison sentence. According to the

California Research Bureau, an estimated 856,000 children in California have a parent currently

involved in Californias adult criminal justice system (Simmons, 2000, p. 4) and in this context,

the adult criminal justice system accounts for prison, jail, and on parole or probation. This

estimate is from California alone, and we see how many children are affected by the criminal

justice system. Simmons (2000) estimated that at some point in a childs life roughly 10 million

children had parents imprisoned nationwide at the time of the data collection (p. 4). Questions

need to be asked about the care that those 10 million children receive while their parents are a

part of the criminal justice system: how do the children handle the adjustment, and how the

parents cope with being away from their children? What needs further examination and research

is the cause for the parents involvement in criminal activity and if the criminal activity is violent

or nonviolent. Hagan and Dinovitzer (1999) note that the obstacles that lie ahead for former

convicts are limited employment opportunities which may lead to financial and emotional

struggles that effect the family (p. 122). Hagan and Dinovitzer (1999) also identify the issues that

the children might experience, specifically their emotional stability (p. 122). It is known that

children learn their behavior and values from their parents or guardians (social modeling). Hagan

and Dinvitzer (1999) acknowledge this and state that when imprisonment becomes more

common and widely expected in a social group, the changes in social networks and structures

may often become damaging for the group (p. 132). It makes sense that the social group

becomes sucked into a chaotic black hole of criminal behavior if it is present more often than

not, thus creating a vicious, almost familial, cycle of criminal behavior. Hagan and Dinovitzer

3
(1999) use the example of gangs as a prime example of this phenomenon but a normal family

setting can be applied as well. Is there a difference between how children react and/or cope when

their mother is incarcerated compared to their father?

Simmons (2000) has specific data regarding a mother and fathers rate of imprisonment

at the time of the study in California. Eighty percent of the seven total percent of women in

California state prison have an average of two children: roughly 20,000 children (Simmons,

2000, p. 4). Extrapolating the data with the women in prison population and applying it to the 12

percent of women in county jails and 10.6 percent of women on parole or probation, there are

about 97,000 children with parents in jail and 564,000 children with mothers on parole or

probation (Simmons, 2000, p. 5). That is a total of 681,000 children who have their mother

involved in the California criminal justice system. According to Simmons (2000), a mothers

imprisonment is more detrimental to children because approximately two-thirds of incarcerated

mothers were the primary caregivers for at least one child before they were arrested (p. 6). What

is more staggering in Simmons (2000) study found out that seven percent of incarcerated

women give birth while in prison (p.4) and that one out of five children witnessed their parents

arrest, most of them being under the age of six years old (p. 6). Simmons (2000) states that the

mothers incarceration is more impactful due to the statistics suggesting that the mother is more

involved with the child.

One of the few rights that convicts have is visitation from their loved ones, and parents

are no different. However, the mothers in Simmons study werent so lucky; over half of the

imprisoned mothers were unable to see their children while in prison (2000, p. 7). Even if one

has not been to California, many people are aware of the large vicinity of the state and the large

cities that inhabit the state. In Simmons (2000) work, 60 percent of the imprisoned women were

4
from the Los Angeles area while they were held in the central California facility, some 260 miles

away (p. 7). Obviously, the children typically cannot drive due to age restrictions, school, and

lack of transportation to visit their incarcerated mother. Geller, Garfinkel and Cooper (2009) note

that a parent is twice more likely to have a partner who has been incarcerated, suggesting that

their children may face increased risk from the incarceration of both parents (p. 1195). Could

that lack of motherly love lead to resentment? Indifference? Anger? Hopelessness or Sadness?

While Simmons gives great insight to the gender of the parents impact on the child,

Dalesman and Cales (1983) analyze the relationship between incarcerated mothers and their

children while Hairston looks at the relationship between incarcerated fathers and their children.

Dalesman and Cales (1983) also reiterate that the mother is most likely to be the main provider

for the child thus creating a more profound sense of loss while being locked up (p. 142).

McGowan and Blumenthal observed that incarcerated parents are largely ignored in the criminal

justice system since offenders are treated as individuals instead of members of a family (as cited

in Dalesman & Cales, 1983, p. 143). Musk notes that the visitation rules that were much more

restrictive (compared to now), which played a huge role in the lack of contact between mothers

and their children; it was much more difficult for those children under the age of 5 according to

McGowan and Blumenthal (as cited in Dalesman & Cales, 1983, p. 143). In the study, over 38

percent of the mothers felt that the greatest hurdle to overcome would be trying to reestablish the

mother/child relationship due to a lack of trust once the mother returns home (Dalesman &

Cales, 1983, p. 146). In Dalesman and Cales (1983) study, only 10 percent of mothers had no

contact due to the childs age, the sour relationship between the mother and child before

incarceration, and surprisingly, the caregivers opposition (p. 147). Interestingly, sometimes the

prison environment played a role in the visitation to the imprisoned mothers facility. Although a

5
small portion, some mothers felt that the prison environment was inappropriate for their children

due to the guards and lesbianism present in the prison, but a majority of mothers felt that the

visitation was necessary to maintain, or even strengthen the mother/child relationship (Dalesman

& Cales, 1983, p. 147). Incarcerated mothers who saw their children generaly had positive

effects. Some mothers felt reassured to see their childs development, both mentally and

physically (Dalesman & Cales, 1983, p. 148). It should be mentioned that the most positive

experience from incarcerated mothers were from a unique prison visitation experience that lasted

three days every 90 days where the mother cooked, supervised and even disciplined their child

like they were all at home that gave the mother a sense of parental responsibility; which is very

important for a parent (Dalesman & Cales, 1983, p. 148). The children and mother often slept in

the bed to reestablish a physical contact which is beneficial to both the child and mother

(Dalesman & Cales, 1983, p. 148). Not only did the mothers and children feel an overall positive

experience, it also was a positive experience for the womens prison facility too. Female inmates

mentioned that they were forced to behave since there were children present, including their

language. Knowing that if they misbehave, they will lose visitation privileges while giving her a

sense of hope once they were to be released (Dalesman & Cales, 1983, p. 149). The positive

experience was short-lived, though. Things became emotional once the visitation period ended

and the incarcerated mother felt frustrated if the child was having problems and felt helpless to

rectify the childs issues. Obviously, the visitation is less than ideal since it is in a prison setting

and has its limitations. But the study has shown that the extended visitations had a positive

impact for all parties.

An angle that is usually forgotten about is how incarcerated fathers feel while being away

from their children. Dalesman and Cales (1983) acknowledge that men usually have similar

6
feelings but not as profound as mothers based on the frequently mentioned caregiving that

mothers typically give to their children (p. 142). Hairston focuses on the father/child relationship

that involves the criminal justice system. It is no secret that men make up the overwhelming

majority of todays prison population, which means many children are fatherless and lack a

father-figure. Much like mothers, men have family obligations and aspirations for their children

that generally get pushed to the side in efforts to focus on the family outside of the prison cell

(Hairston, 1998, p. 618). As McGuire and Pastore point out, due to the unfortunate reality being

that African-American men in particular make up a disproportionate amount of the criminal

justice system (nearly one half), there is a heart-breaking acceptance that African American

males will inevitably find their way into the criminal justice system (as cited in Hairston, 1998,

p. 619). To prove the point that fathers are often forgot about, Hairstons work occurs in 1998

and states that there is little research done on incarcerated fathers compared to Dalesman and

Cales work 15 years earlier (p. 619). While most incarcerated men are either single or divorced,

Hairstons earlier studies deduce that 40 percent to 69 percent have two or more children (as

cited in Hairston, 1998, p. 620). The article refers to the few studies about incarcerated fathers is

quite different than media portrayals of absent, uninvolved fathers prior to imprisonment

(Hairston, 1998, p. 621). What is obvious is that fathers still do play a vital role in a childs life

and development. However, it is difficult for the father to maintain a relationship with their child

due to strict correctional facility guidelines; some that even require documentation that the

incarcerated father is indeed the biological father as discovered by Bauhofer, Hairston and Hess,

and Hairstons early work (as cited in Hairston, 1998, p. 624). Geller, Garfinkel & Cooper

(2009) found that children are more likely to receive public assistance and more likely to

experience material hardship (p. 1196).

7
 Hairstons (1998) research somewhat contradicts Simmons findings regarding more than

half of incarcerated fathers did not live with their youngest child (Simmons, 2000) stating that

most men usually favored their youngest child and most often lived with them before their arrest

(p. 620-621). Although, Simmons 2000 study was strictly focused on the California adult prison

system while Hairston doesnt mention specifically where his data comes from besides

referencing prior research and the U.S. Department of Justice Statistics. It was found that Latino,

African American and Caucasian fathers typically supported at least one child financially who

did not live with them before their arrest (Hairston, 1998, p. 621). Also regarding development,

boys aggressive, behavioral problems are 19 percent higher than the national average when their

father has been incarcerated (Geller, Garfinkel, & Cooper, 2009, p. 1198). Firsthand contact with

the incarcerated father and his child are limited due to ongoing custody battles with the childs

mother, and typically rely on other family members to keep the imprisoned father up to date on

the child (Hairston, 1998, p. 621). While there are married men in prison, their relationship with

their wife is very strained and often leads to divorce which also plays a role in firsthand contact

between father/child (Hairston, 1998, p. 622). Hairstons earlier work and Lanier have noticed

that fathers often feel threatened by being replaced given the limited contact between

spouse/partner and child (as cited in Hairston, 1998, p. 622). Similarly to what Dalesman and

Cales (1983) found, Bauhofer along with Hairston and Hess note that prisons are not a

welcoming place for families, viewing fathers as individual prisoners, and limited visiting hours

are frequent obstacles that confront fathers while in prison (as cited in Hairston, 1998, p. 624).

There needs to be further research on the subject of father/child relationship within the criminal

justice system, and the stereotype of indifferent fathers needs to be addressed.

8
 Finally, we will examine the subject of race that families with a parent in the criminal

justice system face. Hairston (1998) brought up that African American men are

disproportionately represented in the adult criminal justice system, and he debunked stereotype

portrayals of deadbeat dads that arent close to their children. Child homelessness seems to effect

African American children due to paternal incarceration (Wildeman, 2014, p. 75). Child

homelessness obviously leads to victimization, health problems, and problems in school (as cited

in Wildeman, 2014, p. 75). Communities are also put at-risk due to involvement in gangs and

seem to have special significance for members of minority communities in America (Hagan &

Dinovitzer, 1999, p. 132). As mentioned above, the prison boom has opened the flood gates for

the large disparity between African American and white males and inadvertently effect African

American children (Wildeman, 2014, p. 75). According to Culhane and Metraux, African

American children in New York City are 29-35 percent more likely to experience a stay at a

homeless shelter than white children (as cited in Wildeman, 2014, p. 76). Estimates from The

Pew Charitable Trusts in 2010 suggest that 11.4 percent of African American children have at

least one incarcerated parent while 1.8 percent of white children (as cited in Johnson &

Easterling, 2015, p. 245). The disparity in the racial gap no doubt effects African American

children much more than white children.

The impacts on the kids is arguably the most vital part since their life is just beginning

and they usually have little to no control of their situation. We will look at the impact on the

present as well as their future due to parental incarceration. There are a lot of great research

papers on the subject, but the topic still needs further research to try to find the best results and

impacts on the kids. The paper referenced above the sons of fathers are 19 percent more

aggressive and are more prone to experience behavioral issues (Geller, Garfinkel, & Cooper,

9
2009, p. 1198). Dr. Denise Johnston, Director of the Center for Children for Children of

Incarcerates Parents at Pacific Oaks College in Pasadena, CA, gave the most in-depth analysis

of children in their different stages of their childhood with parental incarceration and noted the

effects: 2-6 years old have anxiety, developmental regression, heightened stress; 7-10 years old

have additional stress with reactive behaviors; 11-14 years old have boundary issues regarding

their behavior; and 15-18 years old is when they begin to partake in criminal activity (as cited in

Simmons, 2000, p. 7).

Simmons (2000) notes that there is very little data collected on family information from

prisoners and are often neglected by the courts (p. 7). Simmons (2000) concludes that children

with incarcerated parents are at high risk for a number of negative behaviors that can lead in

some instances, absent positive intervention, to school failure, delinquency and intergenerational

incarceration (p. 12). As we saw in Wildemans (2014) work, urban children with parental

incarceration are prone to homelessness, especially African American children (p. 75). Dallaire;

Murray, Farrington, and Sekol; Lee, Fang, and Luo; Kjellstrand and Eddy; Trice and Brewster;

and Murray and Farrington state a laundry list of similar negative impacts listed above, in

addition she mentions that the children are prone because of an unstable living environment and

issues externalizing and internalizing behavioral expression (as cited in Dallaire, 2015, p. 1).

Dallaire (2015) observes that it is unclear if the incarceration of a parent is the true cause-and-

effect of troubled behavior since imprisoned individuals usually come from low education and

low socio-economic status (p. 1). Children who have had a parent incarcerated at some point in

their lives are prone to both environmental and psychological difficulties. There has been a

consistent trend in the references that children who have grown up with parental imprisonment

are more likely to become involved in delinquent behavior themselves; it truly is a vicious cycle.

10
While Murray, Farrington, and Sekol (2012) concluded that children had a 10 percent increase

risk for developing antisocial behavior, but little to no difference for mental health problems,

drug use, or poor educational performance but there is a lack of quality studies done on those

particular effects (p. 175). These emotional and social difficulties that the children develop may

linger and greatly affect their future (Murray, Farrington, & Sekol, 2012, p. 175).

While the impacts on the children are very important, we must not forget the impact is

has on the parents future once they leave the criminal justice system. Recidivism is another

issue that contributes to mass incarceration, coming in at about 60 percent. Why is recidivism so

high in our country? Luckily there is some research relating to that very question with regards to

parents. Unfortunately, being a convicted felon does not bode well for finding a job. We all

know that little check box on a job application that indicates if we have ever been convicted as a

felon. Not only does that carry wait and hesitation at the companys human resources, but it also

carries a significant stigma. It is like walking around with a ball and chain even after the

convicted felon has been released and there is very little sympathy for former convicts; people

usually assume that they belong in there due to poor decisions and innate evil instead of being

dealt poor circumstances. How can former convicts find work if they are constantly being

stigmatized? If they do find work, itll be a low paying job that keeps them in the low

socioeconomic class that they were in before being incarcerated (Dallaire, 2015, p. 3). While a

small fraction of prisoners actually earn a wage while imprisoned, their financial contributions

are limited at best; in fact, according to Hairston (1998), inmates usually are on the receiving end

of financial support (p. 628). As important as the financial support plays in a childs life, what

about the way a parent cares for the child? Hairston (1998) delves deep into the belief that while

11
imprisoned, parents should receive training that provides leadership and other social service

programs to help better the prisoner both as a parent and as a person (p. 632).

Finally, we will look at the resources provided for the children regarding their caregivers

and the strategies regarding a childs coping while the parents are imprisoned. When a parent is

sentenced to prison, where do they go? We saw the unfortunate aftermath of African American

children in Wildemans (2014) study and child homelessness. According to Simmons (2000) in

depth examination of impacts on children after a mothers imprisonment, about 60 percent of

children live with grandparents, 17 percent live with other relatives and a quarter live with non-

relatives (often foster care) while when fathers are incarcerated nearly 90 percent of children

continue to live with their mothers (p. 6). But how do the children end up in a caregivers

residence? Referencing the landmark case of White v Rochford of 1979 found that arresting

officers are responsible to fin guardianship of the parentless child (as cited in Simmons, 2000, p.

8). The American Bar Association conducted a study of must intervene regarding the childs

future whereabouts between neighbors, relatives, or friends; back to police headquarters; and

child protective services (as cited in Simmons, 2000, p. 8). Simmons (2000) has concluded that

there is no formal policy from the courts or any legal body to protect the children with newly

incarcerated parents with too much ambiguity (Simmons, 2000, p. 12). Simmons (2000) reports

the findings by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (1993) stating problems that

caregivers observe by children with incarcerated parents: 28.8 percent of children have

learning/school difficulties, 27.3 percent have behavioral issues, three percent have drug or

alcohol difficulties, three percent suffer from health/mental health difficulties, and 10.6 percent

were experiencing undefined problems (p. 6). These studies are very rare and are usually small-

12
scaled as a great deal in still unknown about the aftermath of children and their caregivers

(Simmons, 2000, p. 12).

Walls 1997 study on an Illinois forum that discovered that many state and local child

welfare agencies do not have written policies regarding child welfare with incarcerated parents

or have policies that are outdated (as cited in Hairston, 1998, p. 629). Also noted is that during

the child welfare practices, case managers have complete discretion on whether or not to include

the incarcerated father in the process; some fathers are unaware of their children being a part of

the welfare system and are left to find the child themselves (Hairston, 1998, p. 630. According

to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report, 84.2 percent of the childrens caregiver was the other

parent, 15.1 percent to a grandparent(s), 2.9 percent to a foster home or child agency, and 2.9

percent to friends of the newly-incarcerated parent (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008, p. 5). The data

consistently shows that grandparents and other parents are the most likely option while there is

limited data reflecting the difficulty that the child has being raised by someone other than their

parents.

How do the children with imprisoned parents deal with their present situation? One might

think that as the child grows older, the more they realize the situation and become angry and

depressed. Or one might make the argument that, depending on how long and consistent the

guardian has been, that they child becomes more comfortable with the situation due to the

stability regardless of who the guardian is. Lanskey, Lsel, Markson, and Souza (2015) collected

data on children in England and interviewed them during and after their parents imprisonment.

The overwhelming majority expressed sadness and anger during the incarceration of their father

but still had a great amount of hope (Lanskey, Lsel, Markson, & Souza, 2015, p. 487).

However, a small portion of the children expressed relief during the incarceration of their father,

13
mainly due to the fathers drinking problem, and the children expressed anxiety upon release

(Lanskey, Lsel, Markson, & Souza, 2015, p. 487-488). The children who had expressed sadness

and anger during their fathers imprisonment, however, still had the positive memories that they

shared with him before his incarcerationwhich built up the eagerness of his return for the

majority of the children (Lanskey, Lsel, Markson, 2015, p. 488). The home played a significant

role with the childs coping strategy. For some children, it was a place to rekindle those positive

memories and see pictures of him while for others, the home was a place to avoid due to the all-

too-real reminder that their father is not there (Lanskey, Lsel, Markson, & Souza, 2015, p. 488).

Interestingly, the home had a wide variety of feelings once their father returned with children

feeling at ease that the normal routine is back, the home was less stable due to a change in the

fathers personality, and a feeling of displacement from the child (Lanskey, Lsel, Markson, &

Souza, 2015, p. 488). The school setting yielded similar mixed feelings for the children during

their fathers prison sentence. Lanksey, Lsel, Markson, and Souza (2015) documented the

children feeling nervous and withdrawn due to fears of ridicule from their peers and some of

them did experience complications from others including name calling and even physical

altercations (p. 488-489). Luckily, some kids sought out the support from staff members at their

respective school that they relied upon in times of stress (Lanskey, Lsel, Markson, & Souza,

2015, p. 489). There were mixed coping strategies with some children finding interests to distract

them while others found support in teachers, parents or friends who were going through similar

situations (Lanskey, Lsel, Markson, & Souza, 2015, p. 489). Lanskey, Lsel, Markson, and

Souza (2015) observed other children suppressing their feeling; which led to a feeling of sadness,

guilt, frustration, and anger (p. 489-490). Some children even enjoyed their new-founded

independence after initially being upset (Lanksey, Lsel, Markson, & Souza, 2015, p. 490).

14
Lanskey, Lsel, Markson, and Souza (2015) conclude that how children coped is revealed

through a study of their agency and how it was shaped by structural, material and social

constraints (p. 491). Since this was not a longitudinal study, we are unable to see how the

childrens coping strategies affected their future development yet the study gave us great, in-

depth analysis of the strategies that the children utilized while their parent was gone and how

they were defined by forces (structural, material, and social) outside of them.

Johnson and Easterling (2015) cite from Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen,

and Wadsworth; and Compas and Reeslund that the ways in which young people navigate

theses stressors will have important implications for their emotional and psychological well-

being (as cited on p. 246). Johnson and Easterling (2015) cite two strategies that are statistically

associated with better outcomes: Primary and secondary control strategies (p. 246). According to

Compas and Reeslund, primary control strategies involve efforts to either modulate the stressor

or the emotions that accompany it and secondary control strategies involve efforts toward

maximizing ones fit to current conditions through acceptance and distraction or cognitive

restructuring (as cited in Johnson & Easterling, 2015, p. 246). Obviously, that is an academic

definition because usual children dont sit down and think about all that to determine how to

cope after a parents incarceration. How the children eventually determine which coping strategy

to use is still up for debate, the best factors may be Lanskey, Lsel, Markson, and Souza (2015)

findings of structural, material, and social impacts. There is still very little research on the

subject of coping strategies, as cited in Johnson and Easterling. The authors cite two studies that

found polar opposite results with Bocknek et al. characterized children coping mechanisms as

ineffective in 2009 whereas Nesmith and Ruhland found the coping strategies of children as

resourceful in 2008 (as cited in Johnson & Easterling, 2015, p. 247). Johnson and Easterling

15
(2015) concluded through their own study that adolescents generally use some combination of

three strategies: deidentification with the incarcerated parent, desensitization to incarceration,

and strength through control (p. 259). Strength through control is ways in which participants

found strength and control for themselves, including sub-categories of controlling the parental

relationship and helping others (Johnson & Easterling, 2015, p. 257). Compas and Reeslund;

Gullen, Power, and Leff; and Zimmerman all assert that one can speculate that youth who are

able to exercise control over contact will likely fare better in the long run than those who

disengage from the stressors associated with parental incarceration (as cited in Johnson &

Easterling, 2015, p. 260).

In conclusion, we have found that not much has changed since the prison boom that

began in the 1980s. Much research is needed to be done on the subject of the collateral

consequences on children with incarcerated parents since the limited research does suggest that

those children are more prone to behavioral issues and criminal activity than their counterparts

who do not have an incarcerated parent. It seemed like the U.S. government was beginning to

acknowledge the children with imprisoned parents, but there hasnt been a statistical update since

2010. The research that was conducted in the 1980s reflects those findings that have been found

in todays research with subtle differences. Simmons (2000) reports that the U.S. government

must become more involved with the safety of children with incarcerated parents (p. 12).

According to the Bureau of Prisons federal website, a residential program called Mothers and

Infants Nurturing Together, where select mothers who were pregnant at the time of detention

take classes to ready them for parenting (n.d.). The mothers are responsible for finding the

newborns caregiving arrangements while MINT staff and community social services may assist

the inmate; the inmate is also financially responsible for the childs medical care while in the

16
MINT program (bop.gov, n.d.). While this is a nice program, it seems all the burden is put onto

the mother, justifying Simmons suggestion that the government needs to help more. Hairston

(1998) points to the need for fatherhood to be a necessary part in a childs life and policies,

programs, and services need to be put into place to include fathers (p. 631). Hairston (1998)

outlines guidelines that applies to both fathers and mothers: 1) the child welfare system and

correctional system should institute basic requirements to provide humane, safe, and effective

systems in addition to setting family-orientated goals, 2) regulations within the child welfare

system, 3) More investigative research needs to be done on prisoner families and their children,

and 4) provide leadership roles within the correctional system to maintain ties to their children

(p. 632-636).

These are all very ambitious and would probably lead to better outcomes, or at the very

least, more data to suggest a next step regarding parental incarceration and children. But what

was suggested throughout all the studies, from 1980 to the present is that more data needs to be

collected on the children with incarcerated parents since they are often forgotten about by the

government and society. The research and studies, however, show that children with incarcerated

parents are more prone to criminal activity and have even been given a term as intergenerational

incarceration by Dr. Denise Johnston (as cited in Simmons, 2000, p. 8). That is an alarming

term and signifies that the children need to be the cared about just as much, if not more, than

their incarcerated parents to prevent an already ballooning prison population from getting any

larger.

17
 References

https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/female_offenders.jsp

Dallaire, D. H., Zeman, J. L., & Thrash, T. M. (2015). Children's experiences of maternal
incarceration-specific risks: Predictions to psychological maladaptation. Journal of
Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44(1), 109-122.

Datesman, S. K., & Cales, G. L. (1983). " I'm Still the Same Mommy": Maintaining the
Mother/Child Relationship in Prison. The Prison Journal, 63(2), 142-154.

Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., Cooper, C. E., & Mincy, R. B. (2009). Parental incarceration and child
wellbeing: Implications for urban families. Social science quarterly, 90(5), 1186-1202.

Glaze, Lauren E.; Maruschak, Laura M. (August 2008, Revised 3/30/10). Parents in Prison and
Their Minor Children. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf

Hagan, J., & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral consequences of imprisonment for children,
communities, and prisoners. Crime and Justice, 26, 121-162.

Hairston, C. F. (1998). The forgotten parent: Understanding the forces that influence incarcerated
fathers' relationships with their children. Child welfare, 77(5), 617.

Hee Lee, Michelle Ye. (2015, July 7). Yes, U.S. locks people up at a higher rate than any other
country. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/07/yes-u-s-locks-
people-up-at-a-higher-rate-than-any-other-country/?utm_term=.c5a81f6a4800

Johnson, E. I., & Easterling, B. A. (2015). Coping with confinement: Adolescents experiences
with parental incarceration. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30(2), 244-267.

Lanskey, C., Lsel, F., Markson, L., & Souza, K. A. (2015). Reframing the Analysis: A 3
dimensional Perspective of Prisoners Children's Wellbeing. Children & Society, 29(5),
484-494.

Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., & Sekol, I. (2012). Children's antisocial behavior, mental health,
drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: a systematic review
and meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 138(2), 175.

Simmons, C. W. (2000). Children of Incarcerated Parents. CRB note, 7(2), n2.

Wildeman, C. (2014). Parental incarceration, child homelessness, and the invisible consequences
of mass imprisonment. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 651(1), 74-96.

18