JOYCE A.
ARDITTI Virginia Tech
Child Trauma Within the Context of Parental
Incarceration: A Family Process Perspective
Informed by theory and the available empirical
research, 3 family processes are identified that
contribute to child trauma within the context of
a parent’s imprisonment: (a) preincarceration
factors, including the involvement of the offender
parent and children’s exposure to arrest;
(b) caregiving quality and stability; and (c) the
nature of children’s visitation experience during
the offender parent’s confinement. Children
whose parents were involved contributors in
their day-to-day lives prior to imprisonment,
who have been subject to harsh and unstable
care and exposed to other traumagenic factors
associated with incarceration (e.g., violence,
maltreatment), and who have difficult visitation
experiences have the most intense and long-
lasting traumatic experiences.
Between 1991 and mid-2007, the number of
parents of minor children held in the nation’s
prisons increased by 79%. Fifty-two percent of
state inmates and 63% of federal inmates are
parents, with an estimated 1,706,600 minor chil-
dren, accounting for 2.3% of the U.S. population
younger than age 18 (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008).
More ambitious estimates suggest that it is likely
that at least 10 million children have a parent
with current or past involvement in the criminal
justice system (Reed & Reed, 1997). Parental
Department of Human Development, 311 Wallace Hall
(0416), Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 (arditti@
vt.edu).
Key Words: at-risk children and families, attachment, care-
giving, incarceration, parent-child relationships, PTSD.
Journal of Family Theory & Review 4 (September 2012): 181–219
DOI:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2012.00128.x
incarceration involves significant emotional,
social, and economic losses to the family, and
these effects are unique from the separation
itself and the disadvantage that accompanies
incarceration (Arditti, Lambert-Shute, & Joest,
2003; Braman, 2004; Murray, 2005; Murray &
Farrington, 2008). Children with an incarcer-
ated parent have a higher risk of school failure,
poor self-esteem, internalizing problems, anti-
social and delinquent behavior, and subsequent
incarceration themselves (Huebner & Gustafson,
2007; Kinner, Alati, Najman, & Williams, 2007;
Murray & Farrington, 2008). Maternal incar-
ceration is generally linked to even more pro-
found child adjustment difficulties, including
higher rates of intergenerational incarceration
(Dallaire, 2007; Huebner & Gustafson, 2007;
Phillips, Burns, Wagner, Kramer, & Robbins,
2002), a particular concern given that women
are the fastest-growing prison population (Frost,
Greene, & Pranis, 2006).
The issue of child trauma is critical because
of the relationship between trauma exposure
and later adjustment or pathology (Anda et al.,
2006; Felitti et al., 1998; Pynoos, 1993; Roth &
Friedman, 1998). Indeed, trauma is of central
importance given a variety of child behavior and
health problems associated with traumatic stress
(Graham-Bermann & Seng, 2005), including
children’s internalizing and externalizing behav-
ior (Valentino, Berkowitz, & Stover, 2010).
The incarceration of a parent (and any asso-
ciated criminal activity in the home) has been
conceptualized as an adverse childhood expe-
rience (ACE), which is a traumatic experience
that serves as a pathway for social, emotional,
and cognitive neurodevelopmental impairments.
181
182
These impairments are believed to lead to the
adoption of high-risk behaviors during adoles-
cence and adulthood, disease, disability, social
problems, and ultimately early mortality (Felitti
et al., 1998). In general, ACEs tend to occur in
interrelated ‘‘clusters’’ and have a cumulative
impact: As the number of ACEs increase, so does
the impairment of multiple brain structures and
functions (e.g., affective, somatic, memory, sub-
stance abuse and aggression-related domains;
Anda et al., 2006). The ACE model applies to
children in justice-involved families who not
only are affected by a parent’s incarceration
but also likely to experience maltreatment and
exposure to violence within and outside the
home and to grow up with substance or alcohol
abuse (Phillips, Burns, Wagner, & Barth, 2004;
Phillips, Dettlaff, & Baldwin, 2010; Phillips,
Erkanli, Keeler, Costello, & Angold, 2006;
Phillips & Zhao, 2010).
In this manner, child trauma is both an out-
come and a mediator for additional child effects.
For example, Wildeman (2010) cited trauma
resulting from paternal incarceration as a root
cause of children’s aggressive behavior. As with
all child trauma experiences, trauma pertain-
ing to the imprisonment of a parent is complex
and involves the management of intense physi-
ological and emotional reactions. Some experts
characterize many children’s experience in the
context of parental incarceration as ‘‘enduring
trauma,’’ which comprises ongoing and repeated
stressors that serve to impede development
(Myers, Smarsh, Amlund-Hagan, & Kennon,
1999). The myriad forms of direct contact the
family may have with the police, courts, and
prison system are fertile opportunities for the
experience of child trauma (Comfort, 2008).
The purpose of this article is to consider
the implications of family processes for child
trauma within the context of parental incar-
ceration. In defining child trauma, a common
starting point is the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-
IV; American Psychiatric Association, 2000),
which delineates two critical components of a
traumatic event. First, a traumatic event is one in
which the individual witnesses or directly expe-
riences an event that poses a significant threat
of death, serious injury, or threat to the integrity
of self or others (American Psychiatric Associa-
tion, 2000). Second, the DSM-IV specifies that
children often express fear, helplessness, hor-
ror, and agitated or disorganized behavior as a
Journal of Family Theory & Review
result of a traumatic experience. Child trauma
is thus tied to specific diagnoses (e.g., acute
stress disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder)
that share a constellation of symptoms that may
include dissociative or numbing symptoms; per-
sistent reexperiencing and avoidance of certain
thoughts and emotions; and in general clini-
cally significant distress and social, emotional,
and cognitive impairment (American Psychiatric
Association, 2000). Critics of the diagnostic for-
mulation of the DSM-IV note the limitations of
its definition of trauma in that it is derived from
survivors of a narrow set of circumstances (e.g.,
rape, combat, disaster) and fails to capture the
sequelae of trauma and its complexity over time
(Herman, 1992). A more expansive definition
of child trauma, then, acknowledges not just
the threat that parental incarceration holds for
psychologically wounding a child but also the
complex and sometimes prolonged disruptions
to children’s relationships and beliefs about the
world that stem from the imprisonment of a par-
ent. To gain a comprehensive picture of child
trauma within the context of parental incarcer-
ation, I define it here to encompass children’s
experience or response as it pertains to either
events directly resulting from the parent’s incar-
ceration (e.g., arrest and separation from the
parent) as well as children’s exposure to events
deemed traumatic or potentially traumatic (e.g.,
violence exposure, foster care) that correspond
with family involvement in the criminal justice
system.
A NOTE ON METHODOLOGY
For the purpose of this review, I focused on
empirically based peer-reviewed publications,
books, and book chapters that draw directly from
populations affected by parental incarceration
(e.g., parents, caregivers, children) and were
relevant to the family process mechanisms
delineated here or to the issue of child
trauma. These studies serve as the core
of the review, and their design, findings,
and methodological strengths and weaknesses
are summarized in the appendix. I utilized
both qualitative and quantitative research, as
each kind of research design contributed
to understanding family process and child
trauma within the context of incarceration.
Most qualitative studies utilized here can be
characterized as purposeful in that the sampling
strategy involved planning, focused objectives
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration
and the selection of information-rich cases for
analysis (Patton, 2002). Purposeful studies yield
in-depth understanding, particularly with respect
to processes (Edin, Nelson, & Paranal, 2004),
although their generalizability is obviously
limited. Most of the quantitative work included
here is more generalizable, with those studies
that are population based having the greatest
external validity. However, population-based
studies often are not specifically designed to
answer questions about family process and
parental incarceration. Critical variables of
interest may be excluded, and measures may
lack depth or application to issues pertaining
to parental imprisonment. Data limitations
are particularly noticeable relative to female
incarceration and recidivism (Bloom, Owen,
& Covington, 2003; Deschenes, Owen, &
Crow, 2006). Utilizing both purposeful and
population-based empirical work allowed for
a more complete understanding of how parental
incarceration might connect to child trauma.
In addition to purposeful and population-
based empirical work, I also utilized critical
reviews (e.g., Murray, Farrington, Sekol, &
Olsen, 2009; Parke & Clarke-Stewart, 2003;
Poehlmann, Dallaire, Loper, & Shear, 2010) and
government reports that examined literature or
summarized statistical data related to parental
incarceration (e.g., reports originating from the
Bureau of Justice; see Glaze & Maruschak,
2008; Mumola, 2000). The coverage here is
systematic in that it is characterized by the use
of empirical sources, a comprehensive search
strategy, a critical appraisal of the literature,
and an evidence map or quantitative summary
(see the appendix) of exemplar studies (Cook,
Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997).
FAMILY PROCESS AND CHILD TRAUMA
Despite its importance, little research directly
assesses child trauma within the context of
incarceration. Moreover, the extent to which
family processes contribute to child trauma
within the context of parental incarceration
remains unexplored. Here, ‘‘family process’’
is used in its broadest sense to acknowledge
the systemic interdependence among family
members; the importance of the family’s social
placement in shaping its members’ experience;
and the psychopolitical reality of family systems,
in that different family members will have
distinct experiences and agendas (Broderick,
183
1993). In general, the current lack of a
processual understanding has been deemed a
serious gap in the research on incarceration
and prisoner reentry (Dallaire, 2007; Uggen
& Wakefield, 2005; Visher & Travis, 2003),
an inadequacy that is certainly applicable
to understanding children’s experience. A
consideration of family process implies paying
attention to the psychological and interpersonal
experience of the incarcerated parent as well
as to that of family members who are left
behind. Generally, ‘‘process’’ refers to ‘‘a
course of action, functions, operations, and
methods of working’’ (Mancini & Roberto,
2009, p. 573). A process-oriented approach
assumes that person–environment interactions
occur in multiple ecological domains over
time and ‘‘reflects a concern with more than
charting . . . risk factors. The assumption is that
risk factors and . . . outcomes are interrelated
due to the action of underlying mechanisms’’
(Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000, p. 52).
Thus, child trauma may be an outcome of poor
parenting and a contributor to parenting troubles
(Kiser & Black, 2005).
A process lens seeks to understand causal-
ity by articulating how risk factors set in
motion specific processes and mechanisms
(Cummings et al., 2000). From a process per-
spective, parental incarceration is a risk factor
that can potentially set in motion profound
alterations in the relationships among children,
their incarcerated parent, and their caregivers.
On the basis of existing theory and literature,
in this article I identify three family process
mechanisms that influence the nature of child
trauma within the context of parental incarcera-
tion: (a) preincarceration parental involvement,
(b) caregiving processes such as poor parenting
quality and instability, and (c) family visitation
with the offender parent during incarceration.
This list is not exhaustive; it represents key
family processes through which parental incar-
ceration may contribute to child trauma.
THEORETICAL SENSITIVITIES
Much of our thinking regarding the potential link
between parental incarceration and child trauma
is rooted in attachment theory. Attachment can
be defined as a primary emotional bond between
child and caregiver that serves as a basis for
later relationships and development. In brief,
children’s healthy attachment relationships are
184
believed to serve as a foundation for self-
organization and physiological self-regulation
and to promote self-control and social skills
(Bowlby, 1982; Lieberman & Van Horn, 2008).
Such bonds can be considered a safe haven
for children, as they promote confidence and
the ability to explore and make sense of
the world, as well as security in times of
distress (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall,
1978). Adverse childhood experiences that
diminish or eliminate the availability of an
attachment figure are critical because they
may increase a child’s vulnerability to later
adversity. Attachment disruptions can increase
the possibility that the child will meet with
similar experiences throughout his or her life
on the basis of actions that spring forward
from earlier attachment disruptions (Bowlby,
1982). Parental incarceration may be associated
with disruptions in attachment bonds because
of the physical separation stemming from the
parent’s confinement as well as discontinuities in
children’s care—particularly if the incarcerated
parent was a primary caregiver prior to
his or her imprisonment (Poehlmann, 2005b;
for a review, see also Poehlmann, 2010).
Attachment theory posits that real-life events
that disrupt attachment bonds or present a
risk of interruption result in acute anxiety for
children and mourning following the loss of
the attachment figure (Bowlby, 1982). From an
attachment perspective, parental incarceration
can be defined as traumatizing and aligns with
Lindemann’s (1944) classic and broadly used
definition of psychological trauma: the sudden,
uncontrollable disruption of affiliative bonds
(van der Kolk, 1987).
Social-psychological theories of loss and
trauma contextualize attachment bonds by
emphasizing that our greatest losses, such as
the loss of a parent or spouse, become social
losses—of interaction, companionship, love, and
the ‘‘human touch’’ (Harvey, 2002, p. 4). The
loss of a parent to incarceration can be thought of
as an ambiguous loss, defined as an unclear loss
whereby a loved one is missing either physically
or psychologically (Boss, 2004). Boss (2004)
notes that ambiguous loss lacks resolution:
‘‘Typically [it is] a long-term situation that
traumatizes and immobilizes, not a single event’’
(p. 24). Such a definition is consistent with
developmental theorists’ argument concerning
the unfolding of parental incarceration impacts
over time. Clearly, when thinking about the
Journal of Family Theory & Review
effects of parental incarceration on children, the
theory of ambiguous loss helps situate the fact
that families impacted by incarceration are not
dealing with an ordinary ‘‘clear-cut’’ loss—in
the sense that the loss is commonly defined and
understood, and marked by visible bereavement
rituals. Unlike other contexts of loss, such as
death or illness, loss of a family member because
of incarceration seldom elicits sympathy and
support from others (Schoenbauer, 1986).
Indeed, the uncertainty and pain that is a
hallmark of ambiguous loss is compounded by
hostile, disapproving, or indifferent social atti-
tudes pertaining to the loss of a family member
through imprisonment. Doka’s (1989) conceptu-
alization of disenfranchised grief is applicable to
families who are disrupted by incarceration. Dis-
enfranchised grief is defined as occurring when
persons experience a loss that is not or cannot
be openly acknowledged, publicly mourned, or
socially supported. Disenfranchisement is char-
acteristic of losses that are not openly recognized
and not defined as socially significant. This may
include highly charged losses, which do not fit
socially approved categories of loss but rather
generate feelings of shame, embarrassment, and
contribute to secret keeping (Werner-Lin &
Moro, 2004). Incarceration is one of those cir-
cumstances in which the reality of the loss itself
is not socially validated, and in which family
members may collude to maintain secrets about
the loss (e.g., lying to children regarding their
parents’ whereabouts). The inability to grieve
publicly means the parent is likely mourned in
isolation, thus denying family members critical
support from other family members or commu-
nity (Werner-Lin & Moro, 2004).
PARENTAL INCARCERATION AND CHILDREN’S
TRAUMATIC SEPARATION
Theory pertaining to the implications of
attachment disruption, ambiguous loss, and
disenfranchised groups sensitizes us to the
potential of parental incarceration to be a
traumatizing experience for children. Travis
and Waul (2003) used general principles in
the literature on child development and trauma
to hypothesize how children experience the
incarceration of a parent. In doing so, they draw
two conclusions: (a) Children always experience
the loss of a parent as a traumatic event, and
(b) children have greater difficulty coping in
situations characterized by uncertainty. Travis
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration
and Waul provided an important foundation in
thinking about child trauma and child outcomes,
although they note that ‘‘no research studies have
parsed out the effects of loss of a parent due to
incarceration from other stressful and traumatic
circumstances that also generally characterize
the lives of these children’’ (p. 17). Indeed, there
is a paucity of research available using designs
and analytic techniques that would permit a
certain answer to whether child trauma is a
result of the loss due to parental incarceration or
of other circumstances associated with the loss.
Murray et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis
of 16 empirically rigorous studies investigating
the effects of parental imprisonment during
childhood. Studies represented included children
of the incarcerated as well as imprisoned parents.
Although child trauma was not specifically
examined, parental imprisonment was connected
to poor mental health in children and a
trend toward antisocial behavioral outcomes for
children after parental imprisonment, even when
controlling for covariates. Similar conclusions
were yielded by a study of 3,540 children (in
2,348 different families in 1997; Johnson, 2009).
A priori measures of cumulative disadvantage
(e.g., socioeconomic status, education), as well
as fathers’ history of criminality and deviant
behavior, were included in the study; yet
even controlling for these factors, parental
incarceration still predicted child behavior and
school problems, thus giving credence to the
argument that a parent’s incarceration has a
direct impact on children.
Intriguing information about the source of
child effects among families that experience
parental incarceration comes from the reports
of 73 randomly selected inmates of a federal
minimum-security prison (Fritsch & Burkhead,
1981). Incarcerated mothers and fathers were
asked to describe the acting out (i.e., exter-
nalizing) and acting in (i.e., internalizing or
inner directed behaviors causing emotional dis-
tress) behaviors of their children. Statistically
significant associations between parental incar-
ceration and child adjustment were revealed.
However, these relationships held only provided
that children were aware of their parent’s incar-
ceration. When children believed their parent
to be away for some other socially acceptable
reason (e.g., being at school, working, in the
hospital), these significant relationships disap-
peared. The authors concluded that it is not the
parental absence per se that results in behavior
185
problems for children but absence in conjunc-
tion with imprisonment. Fritsch and Burkhead’s
(1981) study suggests that the loss of a parent
per se does not always result in pathology and
that other processes (e.g., social stigma) bear on
how children may react and ultimately adjust to
their parent’s incarceration.
Although a definitive answer to the cause of
child trauma within the context of incarcera-
tion may not be forthcoming from the empirical
literature, research utilizing purposeful samples
of justice-involved families provides prelimi-
nary confirmation that the loss of a parent due
to incarceration is in fact traumatic and can
be characterized as ambiguous and uncertain.
For example, Kampfner’s (1995) comparative
study of 36 children of incarcerated mothers
found that one third of the children in the study
displayed symptoms of posttraumatic stress dis-
order (PTSD), symptoms of which included
difficulty sleeping or concentrating; depression;
emotional expressions of fear, anger, and guilt;
and flashbacks and nightmares. Compared with
a control group of 36 children with a similar
high-risk background whose mothers remained
at home, children with incarcerated mothers
demonstrated sustained and vivid recalls of trau-
matic events even after 2 to 3 years of separation.
Kampfner also reported a striking difference
between the two groups of children: ‘‘Many
children of incarcerated mothers reported having
no emotional supports; they could not identify
people . . . with whom they could talk about their
mothers. This [lack of support] was not true of
children in the control group’’ (p. 94).
Empirical support of the link between parental
incarceration and trauma was revealed in a recent
mixed-methods study by Bocknek, Sanderson,
and Britner (2009). The 35 school-age children
participating in their study demonstrated a high
prevalence of posttraumatic stress, high rates
of both internalizing and externalizing behav-
iors, and school difficulties. The demographic
profile of the children in their sample who had
experienced a parent’s incarceration paralleled
national data (i.e., they were mostly children of
color with a father in prison, living with their
biological mother), which adds further credi-
bility to their results. Approximately 77% of
the children interviewed had clinical posttrau-
matic symptom scores (via the Child Report of
Posttraumatic Symptoms), and scores were cor-
related with youths’ self-report of withdrawal
(i.e., their measure of internalizing behavior)
186
and delinquency (i.e., their measure of exter-
nalizing behavior). The findings from this small
data set were enriched via in-depth qualitative
interviews. The authors’ descriptions poignantly
illustrate the nuances of child trauma and how
it might link with various outcomes in their
lives: ‘‘Jeremy, age 10, reported that he had
not attended school in over a year. He stated
that this was because he was afraid of the secu-
rity guard. His mother added that she doesn’t
make him go anymore and that he will have to
repeat the third grade’’ (Bocknek et al., 2009,
p. 328). Another child, Eduardo, age 12, also
had to repeat a grade. He exhibited symptoms of
posttraumatic stress and spent his time at school
alone and in the back of the classroom. His
social worker reported that when Eduardo was
‘‘frustrated or upset, he becomes unresponsive
and covers his head with his hands’’ (Bock-
nek et al., 2009, p. 328). Bocknek et al. (2009)
documented through their interviews the painful
feelings children have as a result of their par-
ents’ incarceration and their efforts to avoid the
intensity of those feelings. During the interview
one child who had a good relationship with
his nonincarcerated mother became so upset
when discussing his father that he put his head
inside his shirt. Other markers of trauma (see
Pynoos, 1993) and ambiguous loss as a result
of parent imprisonment were apparent in the
qualitative interviews, such as ineffective cop-
ing, ‘‘recurring nightmares in which children
witnessed their incarcerated parent’s death, or in
which they themselves were murdered’’ (Bock-
nek et al., 2009, p. 329), hypervigilance, guilt
and a sense of responsibility, and fear of police
officers. The authors discussed children’s cop-
ing—much of it they characterized as avoidant
and consistent with self-protective mechanisms
that children use to distance themselves from
trauma and traumatic reminders, as well as to
control physical arousal and anxiety.
Clues regarding children’s experience of trau-
matic separation are revealed in Poehlmann’s
(2005c) analysis of the impact of maternal incar-
ceration on young children’s attachment repre-
sentations. All children in this study had incar-
cerated mothers who were primary caregivers,
which suggests they were important attachment
figures. Indirect evidence of traumatic separation
was documented, with the majority of children’s
mothers and caregivers reporting the presence
of strong emotions and behavioral reactions
after the separation, including sadness, worry
Journal of Family Theory & Review
and confusion, loneliness, anger, fear, depres-
sion, crying, developmental regressions, and
sleep problems. Ultimately, Poehlmann (2005c)
concluded that two thirds of the children held
attachment representations that were character-
ized by intense ambivalence, disorganization,
violence, and detachment. More secure repre-
sentations were linked with children being older
and not reacting to the separation with anger.
Poehlmann’s (2005c) work gives indirect sup-
port to the idea that separations from mothers are
traumatic (i.e., characterized by intense emotion
and behavioral changes) and that older children
may have an advantage in terms of maintaining
more positive attachments with their mothers.
Evidence of children’s experience of trau-
matic separation has been directly observed in
the context of visitation and in caregiver reports
(Arditti, 2003; Arditti, Lambert-Shute et al.,
2003). Arditti’s (2003) jail study used another
purposeful sample, with family demographics
consistent with nationally representative sam-
ples of those affected by parental incarceration.
More specifically, participants were dispropor-
tionately poor and African American, and the
majority of children and visitors were at the jail
to visit fathers. Interview notes (written by clini-
cally trained staff) documented several instances
of children having difficulties as a result of trau-
matic separation due to parental incarceration.
For example, one mother described her daugh-
ter’s behavior regression (i.e., encopresis, or
defecating in her pants), which she attributed to
the trauma of parental incarceration: ‘‘She [the
mother] described many of the difficulties that
the child was having, particularly that she was
defecating in her pants, although she had been
potty trained for well over a year. Since her
father’s incarceration she wants to use diapers’’
(Arditti, 2003, p. 128).
In summary, the available empirical research
gives credence to the argument that parental
incarceration is an adverse childhood experience
with social, emotional, and behavioral markers
indicative of child trauma. Studies highlight-
ing attachment disruption, social stigma, and
ambiguous loss suggest that contexts of criminal
justice involvement augment the possibility of
child trauma stemming from parental separation.
FAMILY PROCESSES LINKED TO CHILD TRAUMA
In conjunction with any direct impact that
separation from a parent may have as a
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration
result of incarceration, several family processes
are salient in the literature that help explain
the underlying connection between a parent’s
imprisonment and child trauma. Figure 1 sum-
marizes salient family influences that link to
child trauma in the context of parental incarcer-
ation. These processes connect with attachment
dynamics, children’s experience of loss, and
the broader context of cumulative disadvantage
that characterizes so many families affected by
incarceration.
Preincarceration Factors
The literature suggests two critical mechanisms
of effect preincarceration with respect to
the extent to which parental incarceration
contributes to child trauma: children’s exposure
to parental arrest and the nature of their
involvement with the offender parent prior
to incarceration. With respect to each of
these factors, the data provide an incomplete
picture, yet the information that is available is
compelling.
Parental arrest. Children affected by incarcer-
ation may also witness their parents’ arrest. The
experience is viewed as enhancing the likelihood
of PTSD and symptom intensity (Kampfner,
1995; Phillips, Erkanli, et al., 2006; Phillips &
Zhao, 2010), as well as maladjustment (Dal-
laire & Wilson, 2010) and problem behaviors
such as substance abuse and later arrest (in boys
only; Kinner, Alati, Najman, & Williams, 2007;
Widom & White, 1997). Although little data
FIGURE 1. CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF FAMILY PROCESSES
LINKED TO CHILD TRAUMA WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF
PARENTAL INCARCERATION.
187
exist documenting the prevalence of children
who witness their parent’s arrest, the avail-
able information suggests that this occurrence
is not unusual. Estimates vary from 20% of
children (Covington, 1995; Johnston, 1991) to
rates approaching 84% (Kampfner, 1995). A
recent inquiry among parents in New Mexico
state prison revealed that 32% of mothers and
26% of fathers reported that their children had
witnessed their arrest (Nolan, 2003). Phillips
and Zhao (2010) estimated that nationally, of
the 1 million children age 8 and older who are
the subject of maltreatment reports, more than
33% of them witness the arrest of someone with
whom they live.
Despite the lack of precise and systematic data
collection documenting the numbers of children
who do in fact witness parental arrest, existing
information suggests that parental incarceration
correlates with substantial numbers of children
also witnessing their parent’s arrest. Further,
children may have multiple experiences of
witnessing arrest within their families, thus
compounding the potential for intense child
trauma. For example, elevated PTSD symptoms
were most prevalent among children who
witnessed a family member’s arrest and who
had a recently arrested parent (Phillips & Zhao,
2010). Witnessing parental arrest is highly
context specific and may involve witnessing
a parent engage in criminal activity. The arrest
scene may involve violence, verbal altercations
with police, and the use of weapons (Dallaire
& Wilson, 2010). Witnessing parental arrest
may not only traumatize and disorient children
but also can evolve into a hatred or fear of
the police and authority figures (Bernstein,
2005; Kampfner, 1995). Given these kinds of
scenarios and the limited empirical evidence, it
seems that parental unavailability due to arrest,
and ultimately incarceration, presents specific
difficulties for children.
Children’s Prior Involvement With the Offender
Parent
Child outcomes as a result of parental incar-
ceration depend in part on the extent to which
the offending parent contributed to family well-
being and was a part of the family system prior to
incarceration (Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999). As a
result of the scarcity of research directly bearing
on the issue of the preincarceration parent-
child involvement and child trauma, this review
188
also considers research dealing with children’s
exposure to the offender parent preincarceration
as well as child outcomes related to child trauma.
A parent’s physical presence in the household
prior to incarceration has been used as one basic
indicator of parental involvement in the liter-
ature. The Survey of Inmates (Mumola, 2000)
provided two basic measures of parents’ physi-
cal presence prior to incarceration. First, it seems
that less than 50% of parent-prisoners lived with
their minor children 1 month prior to arrest, with
more mothers (about 59%) than fathers (about
44%) living with their children before arrest.
The number of parents living with their children
increased when measured later at the time of
admission to prison, with about 64% of mothers
and 44% of fathers living with their children at
the time of incarceration. Therefore, it appears
that a good many parents were physically present
in their child’s household at some point prior to
their confinement (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008).
Other studies directly assessing children sug-
gest lower levels of parental residence prior to
incarceration. Johnston’s (1992, 1993; Johnston
& Carlin, 1996) Children of Criminal Offend-
ers Study looked at life experiences of chil-
dren of criminal offenders. Using standardized
measures of psychological and developmental
assessment, the researchers examined the lives
of 628 children who were affected by incarcer-
ation. Although 90% had experienced parental
incarceration, fewer than 12% had lived con-
tinuously with any parent or primary caregiver
from birth. In a follow-up investigation of 190
randomly selected public school children, most
of whom had an arrested or incarcerated par-
ent, the majority of the children were not living
with the offender parent at the time of the study
(Johnston, 2001). Forty percent of children of
male offenders had never lived with their fathers
(compared to 9% of other children without a
history of parental incarceration), and 20% of
children of female offenders never lived with
mother (compared to 1% of other children). On
the basis of these facts, Johnston (2006) pre-
sented a counterview to the widespread belief
that parental incarceration profoundly affects
children. She concludes that given nonresidence
and residential instability, parental incarcera-
tion has ‘‘little or no direct influence on child
outcomes’’ (Johnston, 2006, p. 706).
Yet such a conclusion may not be fully war-
ranted. A recent analysis of 3,000 low-income
urban families found evidence that paternal
Journal of Family Theory & Review
incarceration significantly increased young chil-
dren’s externalizing and attention problems.
Although these effects were stronger when
fathers resided with their children prior to incar-
ceration, they were still significant even for chil-
dren with nonresident fathers (Geller, Cooper,
Garfinkel, & Mincy, 2010). Implications of the
parent-child relationship preincarceration can
also be inferred from Johnson’s (2009) nation-
ally representative study of 3,540 incarcerated
fathers and their children. Findings revealed that
paternal incarceration was not associated with
child behavior problems if confinement occurred
prior to the birth of the child, thus providing
support for a connection between offender resi-
dence with children and negative psychological
consequences to children in the event of incar-
ceration. However, it is unknown whether the
negative child effects of paternal incarceration
revealed in the analysis would hold true for chil-
dren whose parent was incarcerated during their
childhood but did not live with them.
Beyond the fact of physical residence, the
full nature of parents’ presence in the family
prior to their arrest and incarceration is unclear.
National data on federal and state prisoners
suggests that most incarcerated fathers were
less likely than incarcerated mothers to be
responsible for the day-to-day care of their
children and relied heavily on someone else,
typically the mother of their child(ren), to
provide child care (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008).
In contrast, other studies based on smaller
samples suggest that some incarcerated fathers
do spend considerable time with their children
before incarceration (Day, Acock, Arditti, &
Bahr, 2001; Lattimore, Steffey, Visher, 2009).
In contrast to negative impacts of parental
incarceration, positive family outcomes are
possible to the extent that incarceration removed
parents from the picture who engaged in
problematic behaviors that were detrimental
and extremely harmful to their family (Jaffee,
Moffitt, Caspi, & Taylor, 2003; Sano, 2005).
For example, the removal of an abusive,
neglectful, or violent parent via imprisonment
may provide immediate relief to victimized
family members (Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008) and
decrease child aggression in boys (Wildeman,
2010). Similarly, Jaffee et al. (2003) found that
children living with fathers who engaged in
high levels of antisocial behavior were far more
likely to develop clinically significant behavior
problems than their peers whose fathers also
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration
were antisocial but did not reside with their
children.
Beyond residential information, little is
known about the relationships children have
with their incarcerated parent prior to their
imprisonment. About half of parents in state
prison report providing the primary financial
support for their minor children, with more
than 75% of those reporting employment and
salary or wages in the month prior to their
arrest (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Fathers
also were a source of child support for some
families prior to their incarceration (Arditti,
Lambert-Shute et al., 2003). In this manner,
parents, particularly fathers, contributed to their
children’s well-being prior to their incarceration.
It can then be inferred that the loss of parental
financial support as a result of incarceration
undermines child well-being by increasing the
economic and socioemotional vulnerability of
the families in which children live (Hagan &
Dinovitzer, 1999; McLoyd, 1990; Murray &
Farrington, 2006; Wildeman, 2010).
The literature on incarcerated mothers pro-
vides important clues that preincarceration
parenting involvement is an important factor
that influences the strength of the relation-
ship between parental incarceration and negative
child effects. Maternal incarceration is generally
linked to even more profound child adjustment
difficulties and intergenerational incarceration
(Huebner & Gustafson, 2007; Phillips, Burns,
Wagner, & Barth, 2004; Phillips, Burns, Wag-
ner, Kramer et al., 2002; for exceptions, see
Cho, 2009a, 2009b; Geller, Garfinkel, Cooper,
& Mincy, 2008). The more intense consequences
that are typically a result of maternal incarcer-
ation likely stem in part from mothers’ role
as primary caregivers prior to their incarcera-
tion and their day-to-day involvement with their
children. It is also duly noted that children of
mothers who are incarcerated are at greater risk
of having both parents incarcerated, thus com-
pounding risk to the child or children (Geller
et al., 2008; Johnston, 2006).
Research is fairly clear that children with
incarcerated mothers who were their primary
caregivers seem to suffer more intense nega-
tive effects than children who were not living
with their mothers prior to the incarceration
(Hairston, 1991; Hanlon, Blatchley et al., 2005).
The Hanlon, Blatchley et al. (2005) study pro-
vides the most powerful support of the relation-
ship between the preincarceration involvement
189
of the parent and the child’s well-being. The
incarceration of children’s drug-addicted moth-
ers had little effect on children’s well-being
because children were already receiving stable,
nonmaternal care prior to their mothers’ arrest
and imprisonment. One may also infer from this
study that children in these scenarios (i.e., non-
resident mother and receiving stable care) were
not subject to the same level of traumatic sepa-
ration that children residing with their mothers
and losing them to incarceration would be.
On the basis of this evidence and the findings
pertaining to maternal incarceration, as well as
drawing from other literature on the question
of the impact of separation of children from a
parent (e.g., Emery, 1994), one can infer that, to
the extent that incarceration leads to a separation
from an important attachment figure in a child’s
life, regardless of parent gender or residence,
then incarceration is associated with traumatic
separation or its behavioral manifestations.
Caregiving Quality and Stability
Although there are some instances when incar-
ceration might improve children’s caregiving
scenarios (e.g., removing an abusive or neglect-
ful parent from the home) and protect them
from exposure to harmful behaviors such as
parental drug abuse (see Hanlon, O’Grady,
Bennett-Sears, & Callaman, 2005), the body
of evidence suggests that parental incarcera-
tion poses specific risks in terms of the nature
of the care that children ‘‘left behind’’ will
receive. Overall, the empirical literature points
to a lack of quality parenting and stability on
the part of caregivers responsible for children
with incarcerated parents (Mackintosh, Myers,
& Kennon, 2006; Phillips, Erkanli et al., 2006;
Poehlmann, 2005c). The lack of quality, sta-
ble parenting can be considered an important
contributor to child trauma (Gewirtz, Forgatch,
& Wieling, 2008; Valentino et al., 2010). If
major disruptions occur in caregiving arrange-
ments, attachment relationships must be revised,
and children may experience insecurity and
subsequent emotional and cognitive problems
(Poehlmann, 2003). Instability between care-
giver and child can equate to multiple disruptions
over time.
The caregiver-child relationship is influenced
on many levels by a parent’s incarceration,
and it is not always in an expected manner.
For example, a reinspection of the jail data
190
(Arditti, Lambert-Shute et al., 2003) suggests
that about half of the 56 caregivers (the majority
of whom were their children’s mothers) visiting
their jailed family member reported that their
relationship with their children had been affected
by the incarceration—particularly with regard
to the amount of time they spent with their
children. It was expected that caregivers would
spend less time with children, with the reasoning
that, because of role strain and the loss of
income, caregivers would be outside the home
working more. However, 28% of caregivers
reported more time spent with children since the
incarceration, and only 11% reported less time
spent with children since the incarceration. The
fact that parental incarceration was associated
with caregivers’ loss of employment and perhaps
their child care helps explain why they may
spend more time with their children. What are the
implications of a caregiver spending more time
with their children, particularly in the context
of unemployment? This is a question that is
not easily answered, for it obviously depends
on the quality of parenting the children receive
from their caregiver. If care is good, then more
time might be good given sufficient resources;
if care is inadequate, particularly in conjunction
with economic shortfalls, then more time with
children can put the children at risk for poor
adjustment and health outcomes.
The preceding example from the jail study
(regarding caregiver time spent with children)
highlights the complexity of determining how
children may respond to a parent’s incarcera-
tion. Children’s response to incarceration largely
involves the extent to which parents’ impris-
onment is associated with risks to caregiver’s
mental health and risk experiences in chil-
dren’s interactions with caregivers (Dallaire &
Aaron, 2010). Children who have a history of
parental, and in particular maternal, incarcer-
ation are more likely to experience caregiver
risks, such as caregiver mental health problems,
high levels of caregiver stress, substance abuse
(Mackintosh et al., 2006; Phillips, Burns, Wag-
ner, & Barth, 2004; Phillips, Erkanli et al., 2006),
caregiver health problems (Arditti, Lambert-
Shute et al., 2003), harsh punitive discipline and
less parental supervision (Phillips, Erkanli et al.,
2006), and family victimization (Aaron & Dal-
laire, 2010; Phillips, Burns, Wagner, & Barth,
2004; Phillips, Erkanli et al., 2006). Further,
children’s care during a parent’s incarceration
can often be characterized as unstable (Johnston,
Journal of Family Theory & Review
2006). In the case of paternal incarceration, fre-
quent changes in the nonincarcerated parent’s
(usually the mother’s) romantic relationships
are all too often a feature of justice-involved
families (Edin et al., 2004). These frequent rela-
tionship changes in turn connect with maternal
distress and negative parenting practices, such
as harsh discipline and withdrawal (Arditti, Bur-
ton, & Neeves-Botelho, 2010; Beck, Cooper,
McLanahan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Braman,
2004), which link to deleterious child outcomes
(Osborne & McClanahan, 2007). In fact, recent
evidence has specifically linked hostile and coer-
cive parenting to children’s PTSD symptoms,
thus highlighting the potentially salient role
of parenting behaviors in explaining children’s
trauma symptoms (Valentino et al., 2010).
In addition to any family instability triggered
by a parent’s incarceration, caregivers responsi-
ble for the inmate’s children are often unprepared
physically, emotionally, and financially to care
for the children—particularly over extended
periods (Hanlon, Carswell, & Rose, 2007;
Hungerford, 1996; Mackintosh et al., 2006).
Given the demographics of the penal population
(disproportionately younger men of color), a
disproportionate number of caregivers responsi-
ble for the offender’s children are resource-poor
African American women (Christian & Thomas,
2009; Comfort, 2008; Hanlon, Carswell et al.,
2007). Consequences of women’s caregiving
and their connections to the offender include
further marginalization; role strain due to car-
ing for the prisoner and any shared children;
declining health; and economic decline resulting
from an array of sources, including shoul-
dering incarceration-related expenses (Arditti,
Lambert-Shute et al., 2003; Braman, 2004).
Grandmothers in particular are heavily relied
on to care for children affected by incarceration,
especially as a result of maternal incarceration
(see, e.g., Hanlon, Carswell et al., 2007). This
is noteworthy because women are the fastest-
growing prison population. Additionally, aging
parents of the incarcerated are also relied on
to provide support for the reentering offender
parent (upon release from confinement). Surro-
gate caregiving on the part of grandparents can
be problematic for child and grandparent, given
that many elders are poor and infirm (Hanlon,
Carswell et al., 2007) and that family markers
of risk are overrepresented in households with
grandparent caregivers (see Poehlmann, 2003).
For example, the National Council on Crime and
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration
Delinquency study of 66 caregivers of children
whose mothers were incarcerated found most
were maternal grandmothers over age 50 with
low income and on public assistance (Bloom
& Steinhart, 1993). Grandmothers in this study
were responsible for an average of 2.3 children
age 8.5 years of age. Grandparents raising grand-
children face multiple challenges and may be
unprepared or unable to deal with the demands of
childrearing. For example, grandparents respon-
sible for children who have an incarcerated
parent are also commonly caring for other family
members staying at the same residence (Dressel
& Barnhill, 1990). Grandparents who are care-
giving as a result of incarceration identify an
array of problems associated with the children
in their care, including school and learning diffi-
culties, behavior problems, and health or mental
health difficulties (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993;
Harm & Thompson, 1995). Those grandparents
raising children as a result of parental incarcer-
ation may also be reluctant to seek formal help
from agencies and social welfare organizations
(Dressel & Barnhill, 1994).
Caregivers’ reluctance to seek help for
themselves or for the children under their care
may be due in part to the social stigma that
surrounds a parent’s incarceration. In general,
stigma may be viewed as a force compromising
parenting and child adjustment (Lowenstein,
1986; Phillips & Gates, 2010). Caregivers may
face stigma and isolation from others who may
question their involvement with the incarcerated
parent, blame them for the incarcerated parent’s
criminality, or somehow make assumptions
about their values based on the incarcerated
parent’s actions (Nesmith, Ruhland, & Krueger,
2006). Seeing their children (or the children
under their care) experience stigma and blame
is particularly difficult for caregivers (Phillips
& Gates, 2010). Recent empirical evidence
of stigma in children’s school environments
confirms caregiver perceptions of children’s
stigmatization. Teachers with awareness that a
student’s parent is incarcerated are likely to
characterize those children as having chaotic
home environments and behavior problems at
school (Dallaire, Ciccone, & Wilson, 2010).
Even very young children have demonstrated
an awareness of societal attitudes toward
stigmatized groups. They may in turn internalize
negative beliefs, thus leading to low self-esteem
and emotional and behavioral problems (Phillips
& Gates, 2010).
191
It is unknown how stigma specifically
connects with the issue of child trauma.
Finkelhor and Browne’s (1985) traumagenic
model of sexual abuse may be particularly
applicable to children with incarcerated parents.
The model conceptualizes trauma as a process
(rather than a discrete event, as is often the
case with a PTSD diagnosis) that alters a child’s
cognitive and emotional orientation and distorts
perceptions about self and the world. The trauma
process from this perspective is influenced
by several key factors—with stigmatization
delineated as a critical dynamic augmenting
trauma.
Justice-involved families and child welfare.
Perhaps one of the most profound implications
of parental incarceration for child trauma
concerns the overlap of familial criminal justice
involvement, child welfare involvement, foster
care, and child maltreatment. Approximately
11% of incarcerated mothers and 2% of
incarcerated fathers have children in foster
care (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Further,
one in eight children who were subjects of a
Child Welfare Services (CWS) maltreatment
report had a parent who was recently arrested
(Phillips, Burns, Wagner, & Barth, 2004).
However, the connection among a parent’s
arrest and incarceration, child welfare service
involvement of his or her children, and child
trauma is not straightforward and may involve
indirect or secondary repercussions surrounding
the parents’ criminal justice involvement. For
example, many cumulative disadvantage factors
associated with arrest and parental incarceration
(e.g., substance abuse, mental illness, family
violence) are also risk factors for child
maltreatment (Phillips, Dettlaff, et al., 2010)
and subsequent trauma. Child maltreatment,
particularly sexual abuse, is a well-documented
source of child trauma (Briere, 1992; Roth &
Friedman, 1998). Recent data from the National
Survey of Children and Adolescent Well-Being
suggest that children in the child welfare system
who witnessed their parents’ arrest are distinct
from other children in the system in very
important ways. These children are more likely
to also witness and be victim to violence within
the family, more likely to witness nonviolent
crimes, and more likely to live in families
that struggle to meet their basic needs than
are children in the system who do not witness
parental arrest (Phillips & Zhao, 2010). These
192
co-occurring conditions, along with the unique
and significant contribution of parental arrest
to elevated trauma symptomatology (Phillips &
Zhao, 2010), highlight the vulnerability children
in justice-involved families with respect to child
trauma.
Unfortunately, there is little documentation
on the extent and implications of the overlap,
because child welfare agencies do not routinely
track information about parents’ criminal jus-
tice involvement, and criminal justice entities
do not track information about offender parents’
children (Phillips, Dettlaff et al., 2010). Despite
the tremendous effect a parent’s criminal justice
involvement has on his or her children, there
is no requirement that systems serving children
take note of parental incarceration (Bernstein,
2005). Systematic review of case records of 452
urban children in Texas suggests four pathways
in which the criminal justice system involvement
of children’s family members intersects with the
child welfare system. First, parental arrest and
CWS involvement may coincide, with maltreat-
ment coming to the attention of the authorities
as a result of parental arrest for some other
matter (more likely) or parental arrest occur-
ring as a result of a CWS investigation (less
likely). Second, it appears that parents’ criminal
histories played into CWS workers decisions to
remove children from the home—often parental
arrest and incarceration histories were viewed as
threatening a child’s safety. Third, in about one
in four cases of maltreatment requiring removal
from the home, relatives who were examined
as placement possibilities had criminal histories.
These relatives were often denied custody in
most instances, thus resulting in the child’s entry
into foster care. Finally, often CWS became
involved with children while their mothers or
fathers were in jail or prison. These were children
who were born to incarcerated mothers, chil-
dren whose living arrangements during parental
incarceration were deemed unsafe, or children
whose relative caregivers were no longer will-
ing or able to provide care. The Phillips, Dettlaff
et al. (2010) study is important because it sug-
gests that, with the expansion of the criminal
justice system in recent years, there is a greater
possibility that arresting and incarcerating par-
ents can precipitate children’s involvement with
CWS and enhance the likelihood of foster-
care placement. A related study confirms this
contention; on the basis of nationally repre-
sentative data, compared with other children
Journal of Family Theory & Review
who come to the attention of CWS, chil-
dren whose parents were recently arrested are
younger, disproportionately African American,
and significantly more likely to be in out-of-
home care (Phillips, Burns, Wagner, & Barth,
2004).
Children’s involvement in the child welfare
system carries implications with respect to child
trauma, in terms of the reasons that sent them
into foster care as well as the fact that it
exposes them to new stressors. For example,
children in foster care experience a great deal
of residential mobility and school disruption
(Pecora et al., 2005), as well as higher rates
of emotional difficulties than other children
who are disadvantaged (Stein et al., 2001). The
prevalence of PTSD among foster-care alumni
(25.2%), defined as those who had previously
been in foster care, was significantly higher than
the general U.S. population (4.0%) and U.S. war
veterans (Vietnam, 15%; Afghanistan, 6%; and
Iraq, 12–13%; Pecora et al., 2005) and is likely
a result of many factors, such as childhood
maltreatment and or traumatic separation from
a parent. Additionally, the majority of children
in foster care witness multiple forms of violence
within the family and the community, and
this exposure to violence may continue for
many despite their out-of-home placement (Stein
et al., 2001). Violence exposure explains a
substantial amount of variance in total trauma
symptoms (Singer, Anglin, Song, & Lunghofer,
1995), and even exposure to mild violence
can be linked to traumatic stress (Stein et al.,
2001).
In summary, children of incarcerated parents
are at great risk for child trauma given their risk
of maltreatment, as well as violence exposure
at home or in their communities. Unfortunately,
these risks continue with placement in foster
care. Violence exposure may be particularly
problematic for children with an incarcerated
mother, as those children may witness domes-
tic violence involving their mothers (Dehart &
Altshuler, 2009), as well as any violence expo-
sure or difficulties they encounter if in foster
care (Greene, Haney, & Hurtado, 2000). Such
experiences make children vulnerable to trauma
associated with either their own victimization
or the witnessing of another’s victimization
(Dehart & Altshuler, 2009; McKay, Lynn, &
Bannon, 2005; Stein et al., 2001). Apart from
foster care, caregivers of children with a parent
in prison may be overwhelmed and stressed as a
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration
result of the strains and risk markers associated
with single parenting or grandparent fosterage—
difficulties that can be compounded by the
stigma of parental incarceration.
The Paradox of Family Visitation
A developmental paradox implies social ecolo-
gies that have seemingly contradictory qualities
or developmental outcomes that run counter
to theoretical expectations (Bronfenbrenner,
1979). Visitation can be considered a paradox
with respect to child trauma for two primary rea-
sons. First, despite the delineation of visitation
as a key moderator facilitating child adjustment
(Parke & Clarke-Stewart, 2003), there is also the
potential that visitation serves as a context for
proximal traumatic reminders (Pynoos, 1993).
Visitation may arouse deeply painful emotions
among family members, particularly children,
which involve reliving traumatic separation from
the parent. Second, visitation may benefit some
family members more than others. For example,
family visitation may facilitate social reintegra-
tion for the offender parent; however, it also
more firmly entrenches the family in the insti-
tutional life of the inmate. Frequent contact
extends the reach and intensity of the influence
of the prison apparatus on the family; Comfort
(2008) referred to this process as secondary pris-
onization. Visitation may be particularly difficult
for children depending on their developmental
status and coping resources. Because there is lit-
tle in the way of direct assessment of the effects
of visitation on child trauma, benefits and dif-
ficulties of family visitation within prison and
jails will be broadly considered in terms of child
effects.
Contact and visitation trends. There is consid-
erable variation in contact and visitation trends
for incarcerated parents and their families. This
is partly because of contextual factors such as
parent gender and residence (prior to confine-
ment), visitation and communication policies of
the corrections facility, the distance between the
offender and his or her children, and sentence
length. The most comprehensive information
regarding children’s contact with their incarcer-
ated parents comes from the Bureau of Justice
special report ‘‘Parents in Prison and their
Minor Children’’ (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008).
This 2007 survey of state and federal inmates
revealed that, since their admission, the majority
193
of parents (70% state and 84% federal) had mail
contact with their children at some point, more
than half had spoken by telephone with their
children (53% state and 85% federal), and 42%
of state prisoner parents and 55% of federal pris-
oner parents reported having an in-person visit.
Mothers (62%) and fathers (49%) who had lived
with their children were more likely to report
some type of weekly contact with their chil-
dren. An analysis of data drawn from Chicago
offenders revealed similar trends in contact and
visitation (La Vigne, Visher, & Castro, 2005).
The vast majority of prisoners reported having
at least some telephone or mail contact with
family members, intimate partners, and children
(92%, 81%, and 53%, respectively). However,
the likelihood of having any in-person contact
was much lower than the national data sug-
gested. Only about 13% of prisoners reported
in-person visits with children or family, and 29%
reported visits from intimate partners. About two
thirds of participants reported that they had dif-
ficulties staying in touch with family primarily
because the prison was too far away or that tele-
phone calls were too expensive. Indeed, 62%
of parents in state prison and 84% of federal
prisoners were housed more than 100 miles
from their place of residence at arrest (Mumola,
2000).
Many parents in an array of institutional
settings report having contact with their children
and families via mail and phone a more frequent
and perhaps easier means of communication.
In-person visitation is the most proximal form
of contact, which suggests that it will have
the most impact on parents, children, and
caregivers (Arditti, 2003, 2005). Visits are ‘‘up
close and personal’’ and the focal point of
contact for offenders, family members, and even
correctional facilities with respect to any family-
oriented programming (Comfort, 2008). Several
factors connect with visitation frequency: having
less time to serve (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008),
living closer to the corrections facility, and
encountering fewer visitation problems (Arditti,
Smock, & Parkman, 2005). These findings
mirror research findings pertaining to divorce
in terms of the importance of proximity and
visitation quality in determining the frequency of
contact between nonresidential parents and their
children (see, e.g., Arditti, 1992 [using these
same measures]), which suggests that visitation
dynamics may have certain similarities across
family contexts.
194
Benefits of visitation. Beyond indicators of
visitation frequency, much less is known about
the quality and nature of in-person prison
visits between incarcerated parents and their
children. Visitation can potentially benefit the
incarcerated parent and provide emotional and
psychological continuity for family members.
Many imprisoned parents feel that, on balance,
visits with their children are worthwhile and
serve to strengthen family bonds. Several
studies have demonstrated that visits connect
to positive outcomes for the offender parent
including lower recidivism (for mothers in a
nursery program during confinement; Carlson,
1998), less parental distress and parenting
stress (mothers: Houck & Loper, 2002; Loper,
Carlson, Levitt, Scheffel, 2009; Poehlmann,
2005b; fathers: Landreth & Lobaugh, 1998), and
paternal involvement post-release (La Vigne,
Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005). More generic
research on offenders (who may or may not be
parents) also supports the idea that visitation can
improve inmates’ behavior while incarcerated
(for a summary, see Bales & Mears, 2008).
Although the preponderance of research sug-
gests visitation benefits the offender, less clear
are the effects of visits on children. There is
limited evidence suggesting that negative out-
comes for youths with parents in prison may
be mitigated via regular contact. For example,
Trice and Brewster (2004) found that adoles-
cents who reported regular contact with their
mothers were less likely to drop out of school or
be suspended than children whose mothers were
incarcerated but did not have consistent contact.
A qualitative study of 22 children with incarcer-
ated fathers found that children reported looking
forward to visits, although they were sad when
they had to leave (Sack & Seidler, 1978). Young
children with regular contact with their mothers
may have fewer feelings of alienation (Shlafer
& Poehlmann, 2010). Further, family-friendly
interventions such as prison nursery programs
for mothers and infants (Byrne, Goshin, &
Joestl, 2010) and enhanced prison visitation for
school-age children and their fathers (Landreth
& Lobaugh, 1998) appear to enhance attachment
and self-esteem, respectively.
Difficulties associated with visitation. The typ-
ically constrained and uninviting environmental
characteristics of traditional visitation settings
can create difficulties for offender parents and
their family members. Parents and children often
Journal of Family Theory & Review
have to withstand a lack of privacy; tedious
and lengthy waits; humiliation and rude treat-
ment by correctional officers; and visiting in
crowded, noisy, and dirty facilities (Arditti,
2003; Comfort, 2008; Hairston, 2001). Poor visi-
tation conditions suggest a lack of psychological
safety and do not support an enduring bond
among children, family members, and parents.
For many, going on visits entails major resource
expenditures of time, money, and energy, with
little return (Christian, 2005).
For children, visits to a parent in prison
or jail can be hard. It is not uncommon, for
example, that prisons restrict the inmate to his
or her seat (which is often bolted to the floor),
subsequently limiting visiting children’s move-
ment with few or no options in terms of play
activities. Visiting at jails may be particularly
problematic for children and caregivers given
the widespread use of no-contact visits, which
prohibit any physical contact between the incar-
cerated parent and visitors (Arditti, 2003). From
an ecological standpoint, the extent to which
an environment is promoting or inhibiting has
developmental implications for both parents and
youths (Garbarino, 1995). Traditional prison vis-
itation settings can largely be characterized as
inhibiting in that they are environments that
restrict exploration by children and put pressure
on parents to monitor children and provide regu-
lation (Lerner, 1998). Given these difficulties, it
is no surprise that several studies have found that
visitation between children and an incarcerated
parent can have negative effects on children,
such as insecure attachment (Dallaire, Wilson,
& Ciccone, 2009; Poehlmann, 2005a), traumatic
separation (Arditti, 2003; Arditti & Few, 2008),
child attention problems (Dallaire, Wilson et al.,
2009), and uncertainty and frustration on the part
of children and a sense of not wanting to visit
(Arditti, 2003; Arditti & Few, 2008; Nesmith
& Ruhland, 2008; for a review, see Poehlmann,
Dallaire, Loper, & Shear, 2010).1 Interviews
conducted directly with 34 children whose
fathers were incarcerated revealed a great deal
of ‘‘awkwardness’’ during in-person visits that
seemed to increase ‘‘with the length of the incar-
ceration or distance between communications’’
(Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008, p. 1124). A root of
1
Both the Dallaire et al. (2009) and Arditti (2003) studies
were at local jails, which tend to have the most prohibitive
visitation policies.
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration
this awkwardness is the fact that incarcerated
fathers ‘‘lost time’’ during their imprisonment
and stayed stuck, meaning that they treated their
children the same way they did before con-
finement, thus leaving the child embarrassed or
frustrated (Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008).
Visitation and secondary prisonization. It is
worth mentioning that the conditions asso-
ciated with visitation ‘‘reinforce the curious
position that visitors occupy in their relations
with the prison: neither fully captive nor fully
free’’ (Comfort, 2008, p. 64). Visitation con-
tact serves as a foundation for the institution’s
long-term alteration of the family’s personal,
domestic, and social worlds, or ‘‘secondary
prisonization’’ (Comfort, 2008). Secondary pris-
onization involves the transformation of the non-
incarcerated family members’ lives as a result of
interacting with the inmate and the correctional
system. Changes may result in the family’s
social life, routine, priorities, and appearance
based on their adaptations in response to a
parent’s incarceration. Most frequently, these
adaptations occur in the context of visiting the
incarcerated parent. Comfort (2008) argued that
prison authorities establish a relationship with
family through repeated processing of and tem-
porary containment (during visitation) of them
during visitation. This relationship ‘‘generates
changes in self-images and behaviors through
rituals of debasement and the persistent denial
of prestige’’ (p. 29). In pointing here to the paral-
lels between the nonincarcerated visiting family
members and the inmate, Comfort suggested that
the family is subjected to ‘‘weakened versions of
the elaborate regulations, concentrated surveil-
lance, and corporeal confinement governing the
lives of ensnared felons and thus are secon-
darily prisonized by their interactions with the
penal institution’’ (p. 29). In this manner (i.e.,
through secondary prisonization), visitation can
potentially contribute to child trauma.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The empirical research and theoretical sensitiv-
ities pertaining to attachment theory and loss
indicate that parental incarceration is a context
for child trauma. Children’s vulnerability to
trauma is influenced by their prior relationships
with the offender parent, the quality and stability
of caregiving they receive during the offender’s
confinement, and the nature of their contact
195
with the offender parent who is incarcerated.
Those children who reside with their parents
prior to incarceration seem particularly vulner-
able to traumatic separation given their greater
exposure to their parent, although there is some
evidence suggesting that children have difficul-
ties associated with the incarceration of even
a nonresident parent. After arrest and confine-
ment of a parent, children may be subjected to
a series of experiences that reactivate or inten-
sify trauma, including shifts in the quality and
stability of their care, exposure to violence, trou-
bled parenting, and repeated interactions with
penal institutions via visitation. Whether visi-
tation helps or hurts children largely depends
on the institutional environment, visitation poli-
cies, and the nature of family relationships prior
to and throughout a parent’s incarceration. The
intensification of poverty and social stigma that
links to parental incarceration further compro-
mise the family’s ability to respond effectively to
children’s experience of loss and support healthy
developmental trajectories.
This review represents a first step in draw-
ing attention to the issue of child trauma and
the need for research that specifically evalu-
ates children’s traumagenic experiences as they
pertain to a parent’s incarceration. The avail-
able literature suggests that parental arrest and
subsequent incarceration can directly link with
traumatic separation as a result of parental loss
and disrupted attachment. However, the bulk of
research points to a cascade of family process
alterations that stem from a parent’s incarcer-
ation and likely influence the extent to which
children in fact experience trauma, which may
be not a singular event but a complex continuum
of experiences over time.
Although the preponderance of evidence cur-
rently points to the risk of child trauma among
families affected by a parent’s incarceration,
broader efforts to assess resilience and protec-
tive factors pertinent to justice involved families
would yield important insights. Although a lim-
ited number of studies document resilience on
the part of children and families affected by
incarceration (e.g., Grant, 2006; Nesmith & Ruh-
land, 2008), systematic within-group research is
needed that examines how different contextual
and processual patterns lead to successful child
adjustment trajectories, despite the challenges
of parental incarceration. Presently, scholars
must look to other, comparable literature to
understand the role of resilience in improving
196
parenting behaviors for both offender and care-
giver, and how it is that children overcome the
adversity typically associated with the impris-
onment of one or both parents. Theory building
and research specific to justice-involved families
may reveal family strengths previously over-
looked and perhaps not defined as strengths in
other populations of at-risk families.
Beyond a need to more carefully unpack
specific resilience processes that may mitigate
any traumatizing effects of parental incarcera-
tion on children, there is a general scarcity of
population-based data sources that include rel-
evant process variables that bear on parenting
and family outcomes. Although the qualitative
research utilized for this review provides use-
ful information regarding the nature of some
children’s experience, the research designs pro-
hibit the drawing of any causal conclusions.
The lack of population-based information about
parent-child relationships and contact processes
is particularly problematic in that these mecha-
nisms seem to hold explanatory value relevant to
child adjustment during a parent’s confinement
and beyond. Given the growing popularity of
enhanced visitation programming at state and
federal institutions (Poehlmann et al., 2010), it
will be particularly important to clearly iden-
tify under which conditions visitation is helpful
to children and when it is contraindicated.
Because of the challenges inherent in conduct-
ing population-based research among justice-
involved families, efforts to build in relevant
family process variables to ongoing longitudi-
nal or recurring cross-sectional data collections
make sense. Additionally, studies following par-
ents prior to confinement (e.g., at the time of
arrest), during imprisonment, and for a signif-
icant period of time after release would prove
invaluable in developing theoretical and empiri-
cal models pertaining to parenting over time and
how changes may link to child outcomes. It may
be that key turning points are revealed that will
theoretically ground more effective interven-
tion in helping children successfully navigate a
parent’s incarceration.
REFERENCES2
*Aaron, L., & Dallaire, D. (2010). Parental incar-
ceration and multiple risk experiences: Effects on
2 An asterisk indicates that the study is summarized in the
appendix.
Journal of Family Theory & Review
family processes and children’s delinquency. Jour-
nal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1471 – 1484.
Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S.
(1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological
study of the strange situation. Oxford, UK:
Erlbaum.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic
and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.,
text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Anda, R., Felitti, V., Walker, J., Whitfield, C., Brem-
mer, J., Perry, B., et al. (2006). The enduring
effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in
childhood: A convergence of evidence from neu-
robiology and epidemiology. European Archives
of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 56,
174 – 186.
Arditti, J. A. (1992). Factors related to custody,
visitation, and child support for divorced fathers:
An exploratory analysis. Journal of Divorce and
Remarriage, 17, 23 – 42.
*Arditti, J. A. (2003). Locked doors and glass walls:
Family visiting at a local jail. Journal of Loss and
Trauma, 8, 115 – 138.
Arditti, J. A. (2005). Families and incarceration: An
ecological approach. Families in Society, 86,
251 – 258.
*Arditti, J. A., Burton, L. M., & Neeves-Botelho,
S. E. (2010). Maternal distress and parenting in
the context of cumulative disadvantage. Family
Process, 49, 142 – 164.
*Arditti, J. A., & Few, A. (2008). Maternal distress
and women’s reentry into family and community
life. Family Process, 47, 303 – 321.
Arditti, J. A., Joest, K. S., Lambert-Shute, J.,
& Walker, L. (2010). The role of emotions in
fieldwork: A self-study of family research in
a corrections setting. Qualitative Report, 15,
1387 – 1414.
*Arditti, J. A., Lambert-Shute, J., & Joest, K. (2003).
Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of
incarceration for families and children. Family
Relations, 52, 195 – 204.
*Arditti, J. A., Smock, S. & Parkman, T. (2005).
‘‘It’s been hard to be a father’’: A qualitative
exploration of incarcerated fatherhood. Fathering,
3, 267 – 283.
Bales, W. D., & Mears, D. P. (2008). Inmate social
ties and the transition to society: Does visitation
reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 45, 287 – 321.
Beck, A., Cooper, C., McLanahan, S., & Brooks-
Gunn, J. (2009). Relationship transitions and
maternal parenting (Working Paper No. 1131).
Retrieved from Princeton University, Center
for Research on Child Wellbeing website:
http://crcw.princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP08-
12-FF.pdf
Bernstein, N. (2005). All alone in the world: Child-
ren of the incarcerated. New York: New Press.
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003).
Gender-responsive strategies: Research, prac-
tice, and guiding principles for women offend-
ers. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice,
National Institute of Corrections.
Bloom, B., & Steinhart, D. (1993). Why punish
the children: A reappraisal of the children of
incarcerated mothers in America. Atlanta, GA:
Carter Center.
*Bocknek, E. L., Sanderson, J., & Britner, P. A.
(2009). Ambiguous loss and posttraumatic stress
of school-aged children of prisoners. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 18, 323 – 333.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1.
Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
(Original work published 1969)
Boss, P. (2004). Ambiguous loss. In F. Walsh
& M. McGoldrick (Eds.), Living beyond loss
(pp. 237 – 246). New York: Norton.
*Braman, D. (2004). Doing time on the outside:
Incarceration and family life in urban America.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Briere, J. (1992). Child abuse trauma: Theory and
treatment of the lasting effects. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Broderick, C. (1993). Understanding family process:
Basics of family system theory. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Byrne, M., Goshin, L., & Joestl, S. (2010). Intergen-
erational transmission of attachment for infants
raised in a prison nursery. Attachment and Human
Development, 12, 375 – 393.
Carlson, J. R. (1998). Evaluating the effectiveness of
a live-in nursery within a women’s prison. Journal
of Offender Rehabilitation, 27, 73 – 85.
*Cho, R. (2009a). The impact of maternal impris-
onment on children’s educational achievement:
Results from children in Chicago public schools.
Journal of Human Resources, 44, 772 – 797.
*Cho, R. (2009b). Impact of maternal imprisonment
on children’s probability of grade retention.
Journal of Urban Economics, 65, 11 – 23.
*Christian, J. (2005). Riding the bus: Barriers
to prison visitation and family management
strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice, 21, 31 – 48.
Christian, J., & Thomas, S. (2009). Examining
the intersections of race, gender, and mass
imprisonment. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal
Justice, 7, 69 – 84.
*Comfort, M. (2008). Doing time together: Love and
family in the shadow of prison. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Cook, D., Mulrow, C., & Hanes, R. (1997). Sys-
tematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for
197
clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine,
126, 376 – 380.
Covington, P. (1995). Breaking the cycle of despair:
Children of incarcerated mothers. New York:
Women’s Prison Association.
Cummings, E. M., Davies, P. T., & Campbell, S. B.
(2000). Developmental psychopathology and fam-
ily process: Theory, research, and clinical impli-
cations. New York: Guilford Press.
*Dallaire, D. (2007). Children with incarcerated
mothers: Developmental outcomes, special chal-
lenges and recommendations. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 28, 15 – 24.
Dallaire, D., & Aaron, L. (2010). Middle childhood:
Family, school, and peer contexts for children
affected by parental incarceration. In J. Poehlmann
& M. Eddy (Eds.), Children of incarcerated par-
ents: A handbook for researchers and practitioners
(pp. 101 – 119). Washington, DC: Urban Institute
Press.
Dallaire, D., Ciccone, A., & Wilson, L. (2010).
Teachers’ expectations of their experiences with
children with incarcerated mothers. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 281 – 290.
*Dallaire, D., & Wilson, L. C. (2010). The relation of
exposure to parental criminal activity, arrest, and
sentencing to children’s maladjustment. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 19, 404 – 418.
Dallaire, D., Wilson, L. C., & Ciccone, A. (2009,
April). Representations of attachment relation-
ships in family drawings of children with incar-
cerated parents. Paper presented at the Biennial
Meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Denver, CO.
Day, R., Acock, A., Arditti, J., & Bahr, S. (2001).
From prison to home: Men’s reentry into family
and community life. Unpublished raw data.
*DeHart, D. D., & Altshuler, S. J. (2009). Violence
exposure among children of incarcerated mothers.
Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 26,
467 – 279.
Deschenes, E., Owen, B., & Crow, J. (2006, October).
Recidivism among female prisoners: Secondary
analysis of the 1994 BJS recidivism data set
(Final report submitted to the U.S. Department
of Justice). Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/
pdffiles1/nij/grants/216950.pdf
Doka, K. (1989). Disenfranchised grief: Recognizing
hidden sorrow. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Dressel, P., & Barnhill, S. (1990). Three generations
at risk. Atlanta, GA: Aid to Imprisoned Mothers.
Dressel, P., & Barnhill, S. (1994). Reframing geron-
tological thought practice: The cases of grand-
mothers with daughters in prison. Gerontologist,
34, 685 – 691.
*Edin, K., Nelson, T., & Paranal, R. (2004). Father-
hood and incarceration as potential turning points
in the criminal careers of unskilled men. In
M. Patillo, D. Weiman, & B. Western (Eds.),
198
Imprisoning America: The social effects of mass
incarceration (pp. 46 – 75). New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Emery, R. (1994). Renegotiating family relationships:
Divorce, child custody, and mediation. New York:
Guilford Press.
Felitti, V., Anda, R., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D.,
Spitz, A., Edwards, V., 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.
Finkelhor, D. & Browne, A. (1985). The traumatic
impact of child sexual abuse: A conceptualiza-
tion. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55,
530 – 541.
*Fritsch, T. A., & Burkhead, J. D. (1981). Behavioral
reactions of children to parental absence due to
imprisonment. Family Relations, 30, 83 – 88.
Frost, N. A., Greene, J., & Pranis, K. (2006). Hard
hit: The growth in the imprisonment of women,
1977 – 2004. New York: Institute on Women &
Criminal Justice, Women’s Prison Association.
Garbarino, J. (1995). Raising children in a social toxic
environment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
*Geller, A., Cooper, C., Garfinkel, I., & Mincy, R.
(2010). Beyond absenteeism: Father incarcera-
tion and its effects on children’s development.
Retrieved from http://crcw.princeton.edu/working
papers/WP09-20-FF.pdf
Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., Cooper, C., & Mincy, R.
(2008). Parental incarceration and child well-
being: Implications for urban families (Working
Paper No. 1080). Retrieved from http://crcw.prince
ton.edu/workingpapers/WP08-10-FF.pdf
Gewirtz, A., Forgatch, M., & Wieling, E. (2008).
Parenting practices as potential mechanisms for
child adjustment following mass trauma. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 177 – 192.
Glaze, L., & Maruschak, L. (2008, August). Parents
in prison and their minor children. (Bureau of
Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ222984).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs.
Graham-Bermann, S., & Seng, J. (2005). Violence
exposure and traumatic stress symptoms as
additional predictors of health problems in
high-risk children. Journal of Pediatrics, 146,
349 – 354.
Grant, D. (2006). Resilience of girls with incarcerated
mothers: The impact of girl scouts. Prevention
Researcher, 13, 11 – 14.
Greene, S., Haney, C., & Hurtado, A. (2000). Cycles
of pain: Risk factors in the lives of incarcerated
mothers and their children. Prison Journal, 80,
3 – 23.
Hagan, J., & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral
consequences of imprisonment for children,
Journal of Family Theory & Review
communities, and prisoners. Crime and Justice,
26, 121 – 142.
Hairston, C. F. (1991). Mothers in jail: Parent–child
separation and jail visitation. Affilia, 6, 9 – 27.
Hairston, C. F. (2001). Fathers in prison: Respon-
sible fatherhood and responsible public policy.
Marriage and Family Review, 32, 111 – 135.
*Hanlon, T., Blatchley, R., Bennett-Sears, T.,
O’Grady, K., Rose, M., & Callaman, J. (2005).
Vulnerability of children of incarcerated addict
mothers: Implications for preventive intervention.
Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 67 – 84.
Hanlon, T., Carswell, S., & Rose, M. (2007).
Research on caretaking of children of incarcerated
parents: Findings and their service delivery
implications. Children and Youth Services Review,
29, 348 – 362.
*Hanlon, T., O’Grady, K., Bennett-Sears, T., &
Callaman, J. (2005). Incarcerated drug-abusing
mothers: Their characteristics and vulnerability.
American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 1,
59 – 77.
Harm, N. J., & Thompson, P. (1995). Needs assess-
ment: Children of incarcerated women and their
caregivers. Little Rock, AR: Centers for Youth
and Families.
Harvey, J. H. (2002). Perspectives on loss and
trauma: Assaults on the self. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Herman, J. L. (1992). Complex PTSD: A syndrome
in survivors of prolonged and repeated trauma.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 4, 377 – 391.
*Houck, K. D. F., & Loper, A. B. (2002). The rela-
tionship of parenting stress to adjustment among
mothers in prison. American Journal of Orthopsy-
chiatry, 72, 548 – 558.
*Huebner, B. M., & Gustafson, R. (2007). The effect
to maternal incarceration on adult off-spring
involvement in the criminal justice system. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 35, 283 – 296.
*Hungerford, G. (1996). Caregivers of children
whose mothers are incarcerated: A study of the
kinship placement system. Children Today, 24,
23 – 34.
Jaffee, S. R., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A. & Taylor, A.
(2003). Life with (or without) father: The benefits
of living with two biological parents depend on the
father’s antisocial behavior. Child Development,
74, 109 – 126.
*Johnson, R.C. (2009). Ever-increasing levels of
parental incarceration and the consequences for
children. In S. Raphael & M. Stoll (Eds.), Do
prisons make us safer? The benefits and costs
of the prison boom (pp. 177 – 206). New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Johnston, D. (1991). Jailed mothers. Pasadena, CA:
Pacific Oaks Center for Children of Incarcerated
Parents.
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration
Johnston, D. (1992). Children of criminal offenders.
Pasadena, CA: Pacific Oaks Center for Children of
Incarcerated Parents.
Johnston, D. (1993). Children of the therapeutic
intervention project. Pasadena, CA: Pacific Oaks
Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents.
Johnston, D. (2001, September 23 – 26). What works
for children of prisoners: The ‘‘Children of Crim-
inal Offenders in the Community’’ study. Paper
presented at the Annual Research Conference of
the International Community Corrections Associ-
ation, Philadelphia, PA.
Johnston, D. (2006). The wrong road: Efforts to
understand the effects of parental crime and
incarceration. Criminology and Public Policy, 5,
703 – 719.
Johnston, D., & Carlin, M. (1996). Enduring trauma
among children of criminal offenders. Family
Systems Research and Therapy, 5, 22 – 39.
*Kampfner, C. J. (1995). Post-traumatic stress reac-
tions in children of imprisoned mothers. In
K. Gabel & D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of incar-
cerated parents (pp. 89 – 100). New York: Lexing-
ton Books.
*Kinner, S., Alati, R., Najman, J., & Williams, G.
(2007). Do paternal arrest and imprisonment lead
to child behavior problems and substance use? A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 48, 1148 – 1156.
Kiser, L., & Black, M. (2005). Family processes in
the midst of urban poverty: What does the trauma
literature tell us? Aggression and Violent Behavior,
10, 715 – 750.
*La Vigne, N., Naser, R., Brooks, L., & Castro, J.
(2005). Examining the effects of incarceration and
family contact on prisoners’ family relationships.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21,
314 – 355.
La Vigne, N., Visher, C., & Castro, J. (2005).
Chicago prisoners’ experiences returning home.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Landreth, G. L., & Lobaugh, A. F. (1998). Filial
therapy with incarcerated fathers: Effects on
parental acceptance of child, parental stress, and
child adjustment. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 76, 157 – 165.
Lattimore, P. K., Steffey, D. M., & Visher, C. (2009,
December). Prisoner reentry experiences of adult
males: Characteristics, service receipt, and out-
comes of participants in the SVORI multi-site
evaluation. Retrieved from the US Department of
Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference Ser-
vice website: http://Ncjrs.Gov/Pdfiles1/Nij/Grants/
230419
Lerner, R. (1998). Theories of human development:
Contemporary perspectives. In W. Damon &
R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development
(5th ed., pp. 1 – 24). New York: Wiley.
199
Lieberman, A. F., & Van Horn, P. (2008). Psy-
chotherapy with infants and young children:
Repairing the effects of stress and trauma on early
attachment. New York: Guilford Press.
Lindemann, E. (1944). Symptomatology and man-
agement of acute grief. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 101, 141 – 148.
Loper, A. B., Carlson, L. W., Levitt, L., & Schef-
fel, K. (2009). Parenting stress, alliance, child
contact, and adjustment of imprisoned mothers
and fathers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,
48, 483 – 503.
*Lowenstein, A. (1986). Temporary single parent-
hood: The case of prisoners’ families. Family
Relations, 35, 79 – 85.
*Mackintosh, V., Myers, B., & Kennon, S. (2006).
Children of incarcerated mothers and their
caregivers: Factors affecting the quality of their
relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
15, 579 – 594.
Mancini, J. A., & Roberto, K. A. (Eds.). (2009).
Pathways of human development: Explorations
of change. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
McKay, M., Lynn, C., & Bannon, W. (2005). Under-
standing inner city child mental health need and
trauma exposure: Implications for preparing urban
service providers. American Journal of Orthopsy-
chiatry, 75, 201 – 210.
McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hard-
ship on black families and children: Psychological
distress, parenting, and socioemotional develop-
ment. Child Development, 61, 311 – 346.
Mumola, C. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their
children (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special
Report NCJ 182335). Washington, DC: US
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Murray, J. (2005). The effects of imprisonment on
families and children. In. A. Liebling & S. Maruna
(Eds.), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 442 – 462).
Cambridge, UK: Willan.
Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Evidence-
based programs for children of prisoners. Crim-
inology and Public Policy, 5, 721 – 735.
*Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Parental
imprisonment: Long-lasting effects on boys’
internalizing problems through the life-course.
Development and Psychopathology, 20, 273 – 290.
Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., Sekol, I., & Olsen, R. F.
(2009). Effects of parental imprisonment on
child antisocial behaviour and mental health: A
systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews,
4, 1 – 105.
Myers, B., Smarsh, T., Amlund-Hagen, K., & Ken-
non, S. (1999). Children of incarcerated mothers.
Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8, 11 – 25.
*Nesmith, A., & Ruhland, E. (2008). Children of
incarcerated parents: Challenges and resiliency, in
their own words. Child and Youth Services Review,
30, 1119 – 1130.
200
Nesmith, A., Ruhland, E., & Krueger, S. (2006, Jan-
uary). Children of incarcerated parents (Coun-
cil on Crime and Justice). Retrieved from the
US Department of Justice website: http://www.
racialdisparity.org/. . ./CCJ%20CIP%20FINAL%
20REPORT.pdf
Nolan, C. M. (2003, July). Children of arrested
parents: Strategies to improve their safety and
well-being (California Research Bureau 03 – 011).
Retrieved from the California State Library
website: http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/03/11/03-
011.pdf
Osborne, C., & McClanahan, S. (2007). Partnership
instability and child wellbeing. Journal of Mar-
riage and Family, 69, 1065 – 1083.
Parke, R., & Clarke-Stewart, A. (2003). Effects of
parental incarceration on children: Perspectives,
promises, and policies. In J. Travis & M. Waul
(Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of
incarceration and reentry on children, families,
and communities (pp. 189 – 232). Washington,
DC: Urban Institute Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and
evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pecora, P. J., Kessler, R. C., Williams, J., O’Brien, K.,
Downs, A. C., English, D., et al. (2005). Improv-
ing family foster care: Findings from the Northwest
Foster Care Alumni Study. Seattle, WA: Casey
Family Programs.
Phillips, S., Burns, B. J., Wagner, H. R., & Barth, R.
(2004). Parental arrest and children involved with
child welfare services agencies. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 74, 174 – 186.
*Phillips, S. D., Burns, B. J., Wagner, H. R.,
Kramer, T. L., & Robbins, J. M. (2002). Parental
incarceration among adolescents receiving mental
health services. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 11, 385 – 399.
Phillips, S., Dettlaff, A., & Baldwin, M. (2010). An
exploratory study of the range of implications of
families’ criminal justice system involvement in
child welfare cases. Children and Youth Service
Review, 32, 544 – 550.
*Phillips, S., Erkanli, A., Keeler, G., Costello, J.,
& Angold, A. (2006). Disentangling the risks:
Parent criminal justice involvement and children’s
exposure to family risks. Criminology and Public
Policy, 5, 677 – 702.
Phillips, S., & Gates, T. (2010, July). A conceptual
framework for understanding the stigmatization
of children of incarcerated parents. Journal of
Child and Family Studies. doi:10.1007/s10826-
010-9391-6
*Phillips, S., & Zhao, J. (2010). The relationship
between witnessing arrests and elevated symptoms
of posttraumatic stress: Findings from a national
study of children involved in the child welfare
system. Children and Youth Services Review, 32,
1246 – 1254.
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Poehlmann, J. (2003). An attachment perspective on
grandparents raising their very young grandchil-
dren: Implications for intervention and research.
Infant Mental Health Journal, 24, 149 – 173.
*Poehlmann, J. (2005a). Children’s family environ-
ments and intellectual outcomes during maternal
incarceration. Journal of Marriage and Family,
67, 1275 – 1285.
*Poehlmann, J. (2005b). Incarcerated mothers’ con-
tact with children, perceived family relationships,
and depressive symptoms. Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 19, 350 – 357.
*Poehlmann, J. (2005c). Representations of attach-
ment relationships in children of incarcerated
mothers. Child Development, 76, 679 – 696.
Poehlmann, J. (2010). Attachment in infants and
children of incarcerated parents. In J. Poehlmann
& J. M. Eddy (Eds.), Children of incarcerated
parents (pp. 75 – 100). Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.
Poehlmann, J., Dallaire, D., Loper, A., & Shear, L.
(2010). Children’s contact with their incarcerated
parents: Research findings and recommendations.
American Psychologist, 65, 575 – 598.
Pynoos, R. S. (1993). Traumatic stress and devel-
opmental psychopathology in children and
adolescents. In J. M. Oldham, M. B. Riba, &
A. Tasman (Eds.), Review of psychiatry (Vol. 12.,
pp. 205 – 238). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chiatric Press.
Reed, D. F., & Reed, E. L. (1997). Children of
incarcerated parents. Social Justice, 24, 152 – 169.
Roth, S., & Friedman, M. (1998). Childhood trauma
remembered: A report on the current scientific
knowledge base and its applications. Journal of
Child Sexual Abuse, 7, 83 – 109.
*Sack, W., & Seidler, J. (1978). Should children visit
their parents in prison? Law and Human Behavior,
2, 261 – 266.
Sano, Y. (2005). The unanticipated consequences of
promoting father involvement: A feminist per-
spective. In V. Bengston, A. Acock, K. Allen,
P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Source-
book of family theory and research (pp. 355 – 356).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schoenbauer, L. J. (1986). Incarcerated parents and
their children—Forgotten families. Law and
Inequality, 4, 579 – 601.
Shlafer, R. J., & Poehlmann, J. (2010). Attachment
and caregiving relationships in families affected
by parental incarceration. Attachment and Human
Development, 12, 395 – 415.
Singer, M., Anglin, T., Song, L., & Lunghofer, L.
(1995). Adolescents’ exposure to violence and
associated symptoms of psychological trauma.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 273,
477 – 482.
Stein, B. D., Zima, B. T., Elliott, M. N., Burnam,
A. M., Shahinfar, A., Fox, N. A., et al. (2001).
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration
Violence exposure among school-age children in
foster care: Relationship to distress symptoms.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 588 – 594.
Travis, J., & Waul, M. (2003). Prisoners once
removed: The impact of incarceration and
reentry on children, families, and communities.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
*Trice, A. D., & Brewster, J. (2004). The effects
of maternal incarceration on adolescent children.
Journal of Policy and Criminal Psychology, 19,
27 – 35.
Uggen, C., & Wakefield, S. (2005). Young adults
reentering the community from the criminal justice
system: The challenge of becoming an adult.
In D. W. Osgood, E. M. Foster, C. Flanagan, &
G. Ruth (Eds.), On your own without a net: The
transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations
(pp. 114 – 144). Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Valentino, K., Berkowitz, S., & Stover, C. (2010).
Parenting behaviors and posttraumatic symptoms
201
in relation to children’s symptomatology following
a traumatic event. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 23,
403 – 407.
van der Kolk, B. (1987). Psychological trauma.
Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishers.
Visher, C., & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from
prison to community: Understanding individual
pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29,
89 – 113.
Werner-Lin, A., & Moro, T. (2004). Unacknowl-
edged and stigmatized losses. In F. Walsh
& M. McGoldrick (Eds.), Living beyond loss
(pp. 247 – 271). New York: Norton.
Widom, C. P., & White, H. R. (1997). Problem
behaviors in abused and neglected children grown
up: Prevalence and co-occurrence of substance
abuse, crime and violence. Criminal Behavior and
Mental Health, 7, 287 – 310.
Wildeman, C. (2010). Paternal incarceration and chil-
dren’s physically aggressive behaviors: Evidence
from the fragile families and child wellbeing study.
Social Forces, 89, 285 – 309.
 APPENDIX
202

Table A1. Evidence Map of Selected Empirical Studies Sampling Incarcerated Parents and Families Impacted by Incarceration

Sample Comparison Methodological

Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Aaron & X C, CGa 874 C, 150 of whom X Follow-up Recent parental Multiple informants,
Dallaire, had parent incarceration data triangulation;
2010 incarcerated and predicted family adequate reliability;
their parents conflict, control variables in
victimization, and analyses; 22%
parent reports of attrition of parent
child delinquency response at
follow-up
Arditti & Few, X X 10 Follow-up Manifestations of Case-study method
2008 Jail/prison maternal distress described; in-depth
were backbone of interviews yielding
women’s reentry thick description;
stories; mothers’ member checking;
distress was data and
intensified by investigator
punitive and triangulation
traumatic context
of prison,
undermining
reentry trajectories
and relationships
with children
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Table A1. Continued

Sample Comparison Methodological

Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Arditti, X X CG/W/IPb 56 Families were at risk Methods, data, and

Lambert- Jail economically before investigator
Shute et al., incarceration; most triangulation; study
2003 vulnerable became participants
even more financially represented larger
strained afterward. population
Problems are created
by incarceration:
parenting strain,
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration

emotional stress,
concerns about
children’s loss of
involvement with the
incarcerated parent
Arditti, 2003 X X CG/W/IP 56 Issues that emerged in Methods and data
Jail the context of family triangulation
visiting at the jail
included concerns of
the lack of physical
contact affecting
inmate’s children,
and various obstacles
and barriers
connected to the
setting and harsh,
disrespectful
treatment by jail staff
203
 204
Table A1. Continued

Sample Comparison Methodological

Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Arditti, Smock X X 51 Many fathers perceived Investigator

et al., 2005 Prison mothers’ gatekeeping, triangulation;
or efforts to prevent intercoder
contact, as evidence of reliability check
their powerlessness
Arditti, Burton X X 14 Xc In response to high levels Exemplar case-study
et al., 2010 Jail/prison of maternal distress and approach;
accumulated investigator
disadvantage, most triangulation
mothers exhibited
harsh discipline of their
children; some mothers
transformed distress by
advocating for their
children under difficult
circumstances
Bocknek et al., X X CM & Fd 35 Findings showed that Descriptive study
2009 Prison children’s with methods
posttraumatic stress triangulation;
mediates relationship excellent alpha
between trauma and reported for
decreased mental posttraumatic stress
health functioning; assessment;
internalizing rather however, alphas for
than externalizing was other child
a common reaction to outcomes fair to
emotional stress from poor
the ambiguous loss
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Table A1. Continued

Sample Comparison Methodological

Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Braman, 2004 X Couples 10e Follow-up Families revealed that the In-depth repeated
Prison burden of stigma persists interviews
and often falls more
heavily on nonoffending
family members than on
offenders; the result is
that relationships at
individual and
community level are
diminished and distorted
to guard information
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration

about incarceration
Cho, 2009a X CM 2173; 4689f X X Although children with Panel data; statistical
Prison imprisoned mothers have
lower test scores than the
average child attending
public elementary
school, they do not
appear to perform worse
because of their mother’s
imprisonment
Cho, 2009b X CM 4135; 9346g X Test twice Results suggest that 3 separate
Jail separation between
imprisoned mother and
her elementary
school-age children does
not cause children to
suffer in terms of
increased retention rates
model specified;
bias accounted for
statistically via
fixed effects
longitudinal data
bases; statistical
model specified;
exact block
matching for
comparison group;
conditional DID
regression
estimator usedh
205
 206
Table A1. Continued

Sample Comparison Methodological

Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Christian, X CG/W/IP 19 Highlights the collateral Data triangulation;

2005 Prison consequences of extensive time in
incarceration, the field;
especially what is participants
required for families to representative of
maintain contact with population of
prisoners; relationships family members
before incarceration, using transportation
prisoners’ efforts to provided by NY
improve themselves, prison system for
economic resources, visitation
and social support
system may influence
how families stay
connected to prisoners
over time
Comfort, 2008 X W/IP 50 Female intimate partners Immersion in the field
Prison of male inmates over an extended
showed evidence of period of time;
secondary thick description
prisonization, i.e., regarding setting
adopting mores, and methods
customs, and norms of
the prison
environment; women
created psychological
presence of partner
outside of prison walls
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Table A1. Continued

Sample Comparison Methodological

Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Dallaire, 2007 X X X 690/324i Compare Maternal incarceration Nationally

4029/1103j mothers and over paternal representative data;
Jail and prison fathers incarceration is a risk z-approximation
for children to be tests used to
incarcerated compensate for
themselves; comparing groups
accumulated risks of different size
increase
intergenerational
incarceration; children
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration

with both parents

incarcerated may be at
especially high risk for
problem behavior
Dallaire & X X X X C, CM 46/49/32/32 Within-group Children who witnessed Small sample with
Wilson, Jail with some their parent’s criminal limited power
2010 children activity, arrest, and enhanced by use of
witnessing sentencing had more multiple informants
arrest and maladjustment in as to children’s
sentencing emotional regulation, maladjustment,
performed worse on a including child
receptive vocabulary reports;
test, and exhibited standardized
more anxiety and measures with good
depression than internal consistency
children who had an
incarcerated parent but
did not witness these
events
207
Table A1. Continued
208
Sample Comparison Methodological
Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

DeHart & X X C 60 Children experience Random selection of

Altshuler, Prison violence in their lives participants;
2009 with incarcerated in-depth interviews
mother, including and debriefing;
child witnessing of reflexive field
violence, emotional notes; data
sequelae, bodily triangulation
harm from abuse and
neglect, sexual abuse,
and birth defects
from prenatal
violence
Edin et al., X X 300 Repeated Incarcerated fathers Large N for
2004 Jail, prison, and inter- who believe underrepresented
court-ordered drug view incarceration has group; life history
rehab profound effects on interviews
relationships both conducted over
with their children 5 years; sample
and their children’s stratified by age
mothers may manage and ethnicity in two
to avoid incarceration cities
again; for male
inmates with
continued ties to
children and the
mothers of these
children, their
journey in
renegotiating a
fathering role was
certainly easier
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Table A1. Continued

Sample Comparison Methodological

Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Fritsch & X X X 91 Parental absence is a Exploratory study;

Burkhead, Prison multidimensional variable randomly selected
1981 (minimum that takes on added sample with detailed
security) meaning depending on good description of
whether the child believes participants
the parent is absent for
socially acceptable
reasons or for reasons that
carry a stigma; sex of the
absent parent was shown
to be correlated with the
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration

type behavior exhibited,

absence of the father with
acting-out and absence of
the mother with acting-in
behavior.
Geller et al., X X X 8,728 X Repeated Children of incarcerated Fragile Families Data
2008 Jail or interviewk parents face more Set comprising
prison economic and residential multiple informants;
instability than their data triangulation;
counterparts; children of most alphas reported
incarcerated fathers also good, although one
display more behavior subscale retained with
problems, though other low alpha; inclusion
developmental differences of confounding
are insignificant; several covariates in
family differences are analyses; bias
magnified when both accounted for
parents have been statistically via
incarcerated fixed-effects
modeling
209
Table A1. Continued
210
Sample Comparison Methodological
Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Greene et al., X X X 102 The majority of Purposeful sample

2008 Jail incarcerated mothers with methods
come from families triangulation
with criminogenic risk
factors (e.g., poverty,
physical abuse, sexual
abuse, witnessing
violence); short- and
long-term attempts to
cope with these
traumatic childhood
experiences, however,
led most of them to jail
Hanlon, X CM 88 Most children with Methods triangulation;
Blatchley, Prison incarcerated mothers multiple informants;
et al., 2005 were neither especially good to excellent
deviant nor alphas on most
maladjusted, all but a measures used in
small percentage having study; widely used
successfully avoided assessment tools
substance abuse and the
adoption of a deviant
lifestyle at this point in
their development;
primary caregivers of
the children may have
attenuated the negative
impact ordinarily
associated with a
mother’s absence from
the home
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Table A1. Continued

Sample Comparison Methodological

Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Hanlon, X X X 167 For the incarcerated Good response rate;

O’Grady, Prison drug-abusing mothers, widely used
et al., 2005 results revealed significant assessment tools
relationships between
higher risk levels and less
favorable current
adjustment; despite
potential disruption
stemming from their drug
use and incarceration, their
children were protected
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration

from the negative

consequences of these
circumstances by a kinship
phenomenon prevalent
among African American
families
Houck & X X 362 This study demonstrated a Racially diverse
Loper, 2002 Prison clear relationship between sample;
incarcerated mothers’ well-established
feelings of parenting stress measures used,
and emotional and although subscale
behavioral maladjustment; alphas varied from
incarcerated mothers who poor to excellent;
report high levels of some data
anxiety and depression and triangulation to
who exhibit behavioral check accuracy of
difficulties tend to mother reports
experience feelings of
inadequacy and loss as a
parent
211
Table A1. Continued
212
Sample Comparison Methodological
Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Huebner & X CM/CCl 31, 1666 X X 26% of children with Nationally

Gustafson, incarcerated mothers were representative
2007 convicted of a criminal study, confounding
offense as adults, variables controlled
compared to 10% of the for statistically;
children in the change during
comparison group incarceration not
measured
Hungerford, X X X CG/C 150,107/398 Follow- The majority of the inmate Sequential mixed
1996 Pre-release upm mothers reported that their methods design;
Center for children’s caregivers were multiple informants
Women the best possible choices
they could have arranged;
however, caregivers
expressed that they
accepted the children’s
care usually made
voluntarily, so they were
unprepared for the tasks
Johnson, 2009 X CF 3540 Xn Parental imprisonment was Nationally
Prison connected to poor mental representative
health in children, and a sample of adults
trend toward antisocial and children;
outcomes for children control variables
after parental included; model
imprisonment; tests for unobserved
incarceration magnified bias included
economic, educational,
and social disadvantage
for the offender and his or
her family
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Table A1. Continued

Sample Comparison Methodological

Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Kampfner, X CM, CC 36, 36 Children of incarcerated Thick description but

1995 mothers displayed used convenience
evidence of PTSD sample
symptoms, even
several years after
separation; children
with incarcerated
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration

mothers had less social

support than a control
group of children
whose mothers were at
home
Kinner et al., X CF, CC 137, 2262 X X Although poor child Population-based
2007 (Australia) outcomes in study; good alpha
adolescence largely reported for one
accounted for by social assessment;
and familial risk weighted analysis
factors, paternal used to account for
incarcerated predicted those lost to
internalizing problems follow-up;
and antisocial behavior sensitivity analyses
for boys and girls: conducted to
paternal arrest linked to account for changes
substance use for boys over time
213
Table A1. Continued
214
Sample Comparison Methodological
Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

La Vigne, X X 233 X The level and type of family
Naser, Prison contact typically mediate the
et al., 2005 effect of pre-prison
relationship quality on
post-prison family
relationship quality and
support, but in-prison contact
can be a negative influence if
intimate partner relationships
are already poor
Lowenstein, X W 118 The ability of children to adjust Widely used measures
1986 Prison successfully to father’s
imprisonment is related to
familial and personal
resources of the mother and to
the stigmatizing effects of the
criminal event
Mackintosh X X CG/CM 25/69 Children who felt lower levels of Methods
et al., 2006 Jail warmth and acceptance from
their caregivers self-reported
greater internalizing and
externalizing behaviors;
caregivers’ warmth and
acceptance toward the
children was lower when they
assessed the children’s
behavior as difficult and the
caregivers’ parenting stress
was high
Five facility sample
from one state; 2
in-depth repeated
interviews;
excellent reliability
alphas reported for
all measures; use of
control variables,
interaction terms,
and testing of
multiple models to
confirm hypotheses
with acceptable
reliability; factor
structure of
children’s
adjustment measure
explored
triangulation;
widely use
measures for quant
portion with very
good reliability
alphas
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Table A1. Continued

Sample Comparison Methodological

Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Murray & X CMo 411 X X Parental imprisonment Population-based

Farrington, Prison predicted worse study; fair to
2008 (England) internalizing excellent alphas
outcomes than other reported for most
forms of parent–child measures; control
separation; prisoner’s variables included
children were more in analyses
likely than their peers
to show both
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration

internalizing and
antisocial problems
throughout their lives
Nesmith & X C/CGp 34q Xr This study explored the Multiple informants;
Ruhland, Prison impact of parental engagement with
2008 incarceration from participants over
the children’s own repeated
perspectives. interviews; random
Children revealed a transcription
variety of stresses checks; three
around social independent coders
isolation and and collaborative
worrying about their coding of content
caregivers but also
demonstrated
resilience in locating
venues for support
and self sufficiency
215
Table A1. Continued
216
Sample Comparison Methodological
Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Phillips, Burns, X C 258 Follow-up Subjects who experienced Population-based

Wagner, Jail or prison parental incarceration study; fair to good
Kramer et al., were exposed to reliability alphas
2002 significantly more risk reported
factors during their
lifetimes, including
parental substance
abuse, extreme poverty,
and abuse or neglect;
they were more likely
than other youths to
present attention-
deficit/hyperactivity
and conduct disorders
Phillips, Erkanli X Cs 1420 X Xt Children whose parents Population-based
et al., 2006 CJS involvement become involved in study; 80%
CJS are at the risk of response rate for
parental substance families in the
abuse and parental sample; multiple
mental health informants (parent
problems; incarceration and child); data
and other outcomes of weighted to
arrest linked to represent general
increased likelihood of population from
children developing which sample
serious emotional and recruited; statistical
behavioral problems, modeling accounts
and of becoming for error stemming
involved with criminal from within
authorities subjects and design
effects
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Table A1. Continued

Sample Comparison Methodological

Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Phillips & X Children who 1869, 122 of X X Witnessing of parental Population-based

Zhao, 2010 reportedly whom arrest significantly study with reliable
experienced witnessed a predicted heightened measures;
maltreat- parent’s arrest PTSD symptoms; well-executed
ment children who witnessed multivariate
their parents’ arrests analyses with
were more likely to be controls; however,
exposed to violence, study limited to
victims of violence, children who are
witness nonviolent the subject of
crime, and live in maltreatment
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration

families that had trouble reports

meeting their basic
needs
Poehlmann, X X X CG/C 60,60/60 Children of incarcerated Characteristics of
2005a Prison mothers experienced participants
risks at multiple mirrored national
contextual levels; with surveys of
high-risk status, incarcerated
children’s intellectual women; method
outcomes were triangulation;
compromised; caregiver multiple
risks were associated informants;
with children’s adequate or
intellectual outcomes; excellent reliability
the relation between alphas reported
caregiver risks and
children’s intellectual
outcomes was mediated
by quality of current
family environment
217
Table A1. Continued
218
Sample Comparison Methodological
Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Poehlmann, X X X 94 Mother–child relationships Methods triangulation;

2005b Prison were more positive when excellent reliability
mothers had more frequent alphas reported; control
telephone contact with variables included in
older children; conflicted analyses
relationships with
caregivers related to less
contact between mothers
and their children
Poehlmann, X CM 60 Most children of imprisoned Characteristics of
2005c Prison mothers held participants mirrored
representations of insecure national surveys of
relationships with mothers incarcerated women;
and caregivers; however, method triangulation;
secure relationships were multiple informants;
more likely when children very good reliability
lived in a stable caregiving alphas for measures
situation, when children used; codes with
reacted to separation from inadequate interrater
the mother with sadness reliability dropped
rather than anger, and
when children were older
Sack & X CF 22 Children placed a high value Clinical interviews
Seidler, Prison on prison visits but also
1978 experienced inner conflict
over fathers’
imprisonment; children
seemed isolated from peers
and showed evidence of
depression and anxiety
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Table A1. Continued

Sample Comparison Methodological

Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments

Trice & X X CG/C 41,47/58 Xu Children of incarcerated Stratified sample to

Brewster, Prison mothers were at high
2004 risk for school,
community, and home
problems; although the
children initially
experienced difficulty
adapting to structured
placements, those who
were living in homes
enhance
representativeness
of women in
prison; very high
response rate;
multiple informants
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration

with rules and with

family members had
better educational
outcomes, as did
children who
communicated
frequently with their
mothers
Note: C = children; CG = Caregiver.
a Children and caregivers of incarcerated parent. b Caregivers, wives, or intimate partners of male inmates. c Data from a longitudinal ethnographic study: Three-City Study. d Majority of

children in study had an incarcerated father. e More than 200 interviews conducted with 10 couples over 3 years. f Compared records from children affected by incarceration with records
from children who did not experience parental incarceration. g Compared records from children affected by incarceration with records from children who did not experience parental
incarceration. h Conditional difference-in-difference (DID) regression estimator technique helps avoid bias that would occur if children selected into ‘‘prison’’ group due to unobserved
characteristics that are not controlled for via matching. i Mothers of minor and/or adult children. j Fathers of minor and/or adult children. k A longitudinal family survey. l Control children.
m
Structured interviews with mothers were followed by questionnaires. n Panel Survey of Income Dynamics. o Prospective study of UK males age 8–48 separated from parents as a result
of incarceration, death, or divorce. p Although authors interviewed both children and their caregivers, in this article, they discussed only the child portion of the study; the caregiver
perspective will be presented in a forthcoming article. q Thirty-two with incarcerated fathers, 2 with incarcerated mothers. r Repeated interviews with family over 12 months. s By age 16,
47% of children had parent involved in criminal justice system (CJS): of these 41.6% had father in CJS, and 10.4% had mother in CJS. t Data were from a longitudinal epidemiologic
study of youth from 11 rural counties in North Carolina. u 41 parents of friends known by the children in the study.
219