Kate Luther Pacific Lutheran University
Examining Social Support Among Adult Children
of Incarcerated Parents
Parental incarceration is related to many chal-
lenges and risks, yet we know little about
resilience among this population. This study
examined how social support contributed to the
resilience of a sample of adult children of incar-
cerated parents. In-depth qualitative interviews
were conducted with 32 college students who
had experienced parental incarceration during
their childhoods. Social support from caring
adults, including caregivers, incarcerated par-
ents, grandparents, older siblings, teachers,
and coaches helped facilitate success in light
of parental criminality and incarceration. In
particular, these adults promoted resilience in
3 ways: (a) providing access to conventional
activities, (b) supporting a vision of a better
life, and (c) encouraging turning points. Impli-
cations for those who work with children of
incarcerated parents are discussed.
Approximately 1.7 million minor children in the
United States have a parent serving time in state
or federal prison (U.S. Department of Justice,
2008). Researchers who study this population
have found that parental incarceration is related
to a variety of deleterious outcomes for children
(Arditti, 2012; Wakefield & Wildeman, 2014),
including educational problems (Cho, 2011;
Foster & Hagan, 2009) and antisocial behavior
Department of Sociology, Pacific Lutheran Univer-
sity, Xavier Hall, Room 332, Tacoma, WA 98447
(lutherke@plu.edu).
Key Words: children of incarcerated parents, resilience,
social support, turning points.
Family Relations 64 (October 2015): 505–518
DOI:10.1111/fare.12134
(Kjellstrand & Eddy, 2011; Murray, Farrington,
& Sekol, 2012). Parental incarceration, which
may also be coupled with economic disad-
vantage and inconsistent living arrangements
(Geller, Garfinkel, Cooper, & Mincy, 2009),
can be an extremely difficult experience for
children. Overall, the body of literature that has
examined the “collateral consequences” (Hagan
& Dinovitzer, 1999) of incarceration on families
paints a very grim picture of the life chances for
children of incarcerated parents.
Research that primarily focuses on risks and
negative outcomes limits our ability to develop
effective policies and interventions; we also
need to understand what promotes and con-
tributes to positive outcomes for this population.
Scholars know very little about children of
incarcerated parents who manage to “overcome
the odds” (Werner & Smith, 1992) and achieve
normative success (Arditti, 2012; Poehlmann &
Eddy, 2013). In particular, Poehlmann and Eddy
recommended that researchers begin “to exam-
ine protective factors and resilience processes in
children with incarcerated parents, especially in
the areas of interpersonal relationships” (p. 3).
To help fill this gap in the literature, in this
study I examined a sample of adult children
of incarcerated parents who can be defined as
educationally resilient on the basis of their col-
lege enrollment. Specifically, in this exploratory
research I investigated how social support from
caring adults can promote resilience.
I begin by reviewing research on the chal-
lenges and risks faced by children of incarcer-
ated parents. Next, I review key findings on
resilience that address how populations at risk
505
506
for negative outcomes adapt in positive ways. I
demonstrate how findings from the resilience lit-
erature on the role of social support and turning
points can be applied to understand participants’
ability to pursue higher education in light of
parental incarceration. Furthermore, I draw from
work by Giordano (2010), Nesmith and Ruhland
(2008), and Poehlmann and Eddy (2010, 2013)
that highlights how interpersonal relationships
may promote resilience among this population.
Taken together, this literature provides a frame-
work for understanding how social support can
contribute to resilience among children of incar-
cerated parents.
Children of Incarcerated Parents
and Resilience
When parents are incarcerated, children’s
lives are commonly disrupted (Travis, 2005).
They may experience changes in their living
situations and primary caregivers, in particu-
lar in cases of incarcerated mothers (Davies,
Brazzell, La Vigne, & Shollenberger, 2008;
Travis & Waul, 2003; U.S. Department of Jus-
tice, 2000). Furthermore, parental incarceration
may result in financial difficulties for families
(Geller, Garfinkel, & Western, 2011). Through-
out parental incarceration, children may have
trouble maintaining their relationships with
their incarcerated parents because of a lack
of support from caregivers or difficulty finding
transportation to the prison (Davies et al., 2008).
In addition to changes in their day-to-day living
situations and relationships with their parents,
these children may be stigmatized by their
parents’ criminal behavior and incarceration
(Adalist-Estrin, 2006; Siegel, 2011). Children
can face further difficulties reuniting with their
parents upon their release from jail or prison
(Davies et al., 2008; Siegel, 2011). In sum,
parental incarceration can be a challenging
experience for children.
Parental incarceration is linked to elevated
child risk in numerous areas. Researchers have
found it to be associated with posttraumatic
stress (Bocknek, Sanderson, & Britner, 2009)
and aggression (Geller et al., 2009). Although
there are conflicting findings (see Murray et al.,
2012), some researchers have discovered that
the incarceration of a parent contributes to
negative educational outcomes for children,
including school suspension (Hanlon et al.,
2005), school dropout (Cho, 2011), and fewer
Family Relations
years of completed education (Foster & Hagan,
2009). Even more troubling is the relationship
between parental incarceration and antisocial
behavior (Murray et al.), delinquency (Kjell-
strand & Eddy, 2011), and contact with the
criminal justice system (Huebner & Gustafson,
2007). Current research, though, has not con-
firmed a causal relationship between parental
incarceration and negative outcomes (Murray,
Bijleveld, Farrington, & Loeber, 2014; Wake-
field & Wildeman, 2014). Instead, it may be that
these families faced other disadvantages prior to
parental incarceration (Wakefield & Wildeman,
2014), such as economic hardship and unsta-
ble living conditions, that were intensified by
incarceration (Travis & Waul, 2003).
Overall, parental incarceration can be under-
stood as a potentially adverse situation. In
light of this experience, many children adapt
in a positive manner, which can be defined as
resilience (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000).
As Siegel (2011) stated: “Negative outcomes are
far from inevitable for children whose parents
are incarcerated” (p. 19). Even so, we know
little about the experiences of this population,
who overcome the challenges associated with
parental incarceration and manage to avoid
following in their parent’s footsteps (Arditti,
2012; Poehlmann & Eddy, 2013). For example,
what promotes resilience among a population
at risk for negative educational outcomes and
antisocial behavior? The current study adds to
the limited existing literature by examining the
positive trajectories taken by a sample of adult
children of incarcerated parents.
To best understand prosocial outcomes
among children of incarcerated parents, I
examined the extant literature on resilience.
Resilience is “a dynamic process encompassing
positive adaptation within the context of signif-
icant adversity” (Luthar et al., 2000, p. 543).
To explain how this positive adaptation occurs,
scholars commonly focus on three areas: (a) the
individual, (b) the family, and (c) the commu-
nity (Luthar et al.; Zolkoski & Bullock, 2012).
Individual characteristics include psychological
factors, such as temperament and intelligence;
family and community focus on factors external
to the individual, including social support from
parents and positive role models from school,
athletics, religion, and the general community,
respectively (Zolkoski & Bullock). In addition,
within the family or community the “presence
of a caring adult” has frequently been found to
Examining Social Support
be a protective influence for children in adverse
situations (Fraser, Kirby, & Smokowski, 2004,
p. 45). For example, in Werner and Johnson’s
(2004) study of children of alcoholic parents,
they found that caring adults, such as grandpar-
ents, aunts and uncles, teachers, and friends’
parents contributed to children’s ability to
effectively cope with parental alcoholism. In
particular, such individuals served as mentors
and role models who could boost children’s
self-esteem and “[open] doors for them that
changed their lives in a positive way” (p. 711).
For the purpose of this study, I specifically
focused on exploring the ways social support
from caring adults in participants’ families and
communities can promote resilience.
Social support is the “emotional, psycholog-
ical, physical, informational, instrumental, and
material assistance provided to others to either
maintain well-being or promote adaptations to
different life events” (Dunst & Trivette, 1985,
p. 3). In general, social support is categorized as
being emotional or instrumental (Wills & Shinar,
2000); emotional support includes comfort and
advice, whereas instrumental support includes
money and housing (Jones, 2014). In this arti-
cle I briefly discuss the instrumental support
received by participants, but I primarily empha-
size the emotional social support that contributes
to the resilience of adult children of incarcerated
parents. One salient theoretical explanation of
how social support leads to positive outcomes is
the buffering model (Cohen & Wills, 1985). This
model suggests that individuals are protected
from stressful experiences through social sup-
port. Thus, for children of incarcerated parents,
social support could act as a buffer from the
negative effects of parental incarceration. Nev-
ertheless, the buffering effect for this population
might function in unique ways because of the
stigma associated with parental incarceration
(Adalist-Estrin, 2006; Siegel, 2011) and the
fact that incarceration disproportionately affects
poor marginalized communities (Wakefield &
Wildeman, 2014). These factors may make it
especially challenging for children of incarcer-
ated parents to find social support from adults
outside of their families.
In studying resilience, researchers have also
discovered the importance of turning points
that transition individuals to more resilient
trajectories. Turning points, such as entering
into a healthy relationship, educational suc-
cess, employment, connecting with a religious
507
community, and finding a mentor or caring
adult, have been explored by scholars (Dra-
peau, Saint-Jacques, Lepine, Begin, & Bernard,
2007; King et al., 2003; Notter, MacTavish,
& Shamah, 2008; Rutter, 2000; Sampson &
Laub, 1993; Werner & Smith, 1992) and present
individuals with new opportunities to take
resilient paths (Notter et al., 2008). Turning
points toward resilient trajectories have been
examined in a diverse array of samples, yet
one of the commonalities between different
turning points is the role of social support in
facilitating this change. For example, Drapeau
et al.’s (2007) study of resilience in a sample
of youth in foster care indicated that partic-
ipants experienced turning points related to
action, relation, and reflection. Two of these
turning points were connected to social sup-
port; relational turning points resulted from a
relationship with an important adult, whereas
action turning points called attention to adults
who assisted youth to form new social ties.
Taking a cue from these findings, I explored
how caring adults in their families and commu-
nities encouraged turning points that promoted
resilience.
Even though “resilience in the face of diffi-
cult circumstances appears to be the rule, not
the exception” (Eddy, Martinez, & Burraston,
2013, p. 76), there is scant work on resilience
among children of incarcerated parents (Arditti,
2012; Poehlmann & Eddy, 2013). From a theo-
retical standpoint, Poehlmann and Eddy (2010)
developed resilience models that focus on pro-
motive and protective factors, including inter-
personal relationships with caregivers, incarcer-
ated parents, mentors, teachers, and engagement
in positive extracurricular activities. A small
number of researchers have empirically exam-
ined the factors outlined in these models. Using
interview data, Nesmith and Ruhland (2008)
highlighted how social support and participa-
tion in conventional activities, such as religion,
athletics, and theater, contributed to resilience
among their sample of children of incarcer-
ated parents. Likewise, Giordano (2010) ended
her book, Legacies of Crime, by examining the
“success stories” of children of seriously delin-
quent parents. She found some common themes
among the portion of her sample who were
resilient, which included turning to religion,
developing long-term goals, and having caring
adults in their lives. More recently, scholars
508
have focused their attention on how relation-
ships among parents, caregivers, and children
may function in a protective manner for chil-
dren of incarcerated parents (Eddy et al., 2013;
Loper & Novero Clarke, 2013; McHale, Salman,
Strozier, & Cecil, 2013). Both Loper and Novero
Clarke (2013) and McHale et al. (2013) have
argued that healthy coparenting by incarcerated
or formerly incarcerated mothers and grand-
mother caregivers may prove to be beneficial
for children. Likewise, Eddy et al. (2013) exam-
ined a parenting program for incarcerated par-
ents and suggested that parenting is a “malleable
protective factor” that can contribute to resilient
outcomes for children.
Take together, these studies underscore how
interpersonal relationships can provide social
support that may contribute to resilience among
children of incarcerated parents. Even so, these
studies delved only briefly into how social sup-
port, which is a key predictor of resilience (Goel,
Amatya, Jones, & Ollendick, 2014), actually
cultivates these positive outcomes. Thus, the cur-
rent study, in which I followed the suggestions of
Poehlmann and Eddy (2010, 2013), fills a void
in the literature by exploring how social sup-
port from caring adults can contribute to resilient
outcomes for children of incarcerated parents.
Unlike much of the research discussed, which
has primarily centered on how parents and care-
givers can promote resilience among children
of incarcerated parents, this exploratory study
is also unique in that I examined additional
sources of support such as older siblings, teach-
ers, coaches, and religious communities.
Method
To study how social support can promote
resilience among children of incarcerated par-
ents, my research assistant and I interviewed
college-enrolled adult children of incarcerated
parents who were enrolled in college. Although
there are many ways to operationalize resilience
among this population, such as stable employ-
ment, marriage, attending trade school, or
serving in the military, college attendance is one
indicator (Poehlmann & Eddy, 2010) and, in
particular, educational resilience. College atten-
dance is an appropriate indicator of resilience
because researchers have found parental incar-
ceration to be correlated with school suspension
(Hanlon et al., 2005), dropping out of school
Family Relations
(Cho, 2011), fewer years of completed edu-
cation (Foster & Hagan, 2009), and antisocial
behavior (Kjellstrand & Eddy, 2011; Murray
et al., 2012), all of which may make graduating
high school and subsequently attending college
difficult. Likewise, changes in living situations
associated with parental incarceration (Davies
et al., 2008; Travis & Waul, 2003) may lead
to children moving from school to school and
thus isolation from their systems of support,
which may also negatively influence academic
success. Thus, attending college is an example
of positive adaptation (Luthar et al., 2000) for
children of incarcerated parents.
Upon receiving institutional review board
approval from my university and an additional
university where I recruited participants, my
research assistant and I conducted 32 interviews
with college students who experienced the
incarceration of a parent during their childhood.
To be eligible for the study, participants needed
to be enrolled in college courses and over age
18. Furthermore, their parent must have been
incarcerated for a minimum of 6 months when
the participant was under age 18 years. Six
months was chosen as the minimal period of
incarceration to include time in jail or prison
and to be a length of time that could affect a
family’s financial and housing situation. In gen-
eral, jail stays average between 3 and 20 days
(Pollock, 2012), and to avoid participants whose
parents spent a very short time in jail, I chose
to stipulate a minimum incarceration length. In
addition to recruiting children with biological
or adoptive incarcerated parents, I recruited
children with incarcerated stepparents. Albeit
a different experience from having a biological
parent being incarcerated, the incarceration of a
stepparent has the potential to disrupt a family’s
functioning and become an adverse situation for
a child.
As a result of the challenges associated with
recruiting a population that is not easily identifi-
able and is often considered stigmatized, I used
convenience and snowball sampling. Although
nonprobability sampling is not methodologi-
cally ideal, like other scholars who study groups
that are difficult to access (e.g., Schroeder &
Mowen, 2014), I felt it was necessary to use
these methods. I recruited children of incarcer-
ated parents in multiple ways, including (a) post-
ing fliers on two college campuses, (b) making
announcements through one university’s sociol-
ogy research subject pool, (c) posting messages
Examining Social Support
on Facebook through my research assistant, (d)
reaching out to faculty on an e-mail listserv ask-
ing them to announce the study in their classes,
and (e) asking colleagues to share my study with
eligible students. When college students con-
tacted us about the study, we confirmed their
eligibility and invited them to take part in an
in-depth interview. Prior to the start of the inter-
views, participants reviewed the consent form
and indicated their consent to participate in the
study.
The majority (69%) of initial interviews took
place in person in my office or in a location
chosen by the participant (e.g., university library,
university study room). In the remaining cases
(31%), interviews took place over the phone
because of a participant’s preference or his or
her distance from my university. Thirty-one of
the 32 initial interviews were digitally recorded
with the permission of participants. On average,
interviews lasted 66 minutes, with a range of
30 minutes to 2 hours. Upon completion of the
interview, all participants were given a $25 gift
card to Target to compensate them for their time.
The interviews focused on three main topics:
(a) their parent’s incarceration, (b) how they
experienced their parent’s incarceration, and
(c) their path to college. We began by ask-
ing participants to tell us about their parent’s
incarceration, followed by probing questions
concerning what they knew about their parent’s
incarceration as children and how their lives had
changed during that period of time. Next, we
asked them about any support they had received
during parental incarceration; specifically, we
invited them to share about their relationships
to their primary caregivers and other significant
relationships they formed at this time. We then
asked participants to describe their relationships
with their incarcerated parents. Subsequently,
we inquired how their parent’s incarceration
affected them and how they coped. We ended
by asking participants to explain how they
came to be college students. On account of the
sensitive nature of the questions we asked, we
reminded participants that they could always
skip a question, turn off the recorder, or end their
participation. Whenever a participant became
visibly emotional, we checked in with them to
confirm whether they wanted to continue the
interview. In all of these instances, participants
told us they wished to complete the interview.
After completing the initial seven interviews,
I reflected on the interviews with my research
509
assistant and adjusted the interview guide to
better address some of the subjects that had
come up in these interviews. I then contacted
the seven applicable participants to request a
follow-up interview. Five participants responded
to my request, and I conducted these inter-
views in person, over the phone, or through
e-mail.
The sample comprised community college
students (n = 13), 4-year university undergrad-
uates (n = 15), and graduate students (n = 4;
one student had already earned his/her master’s
degree and was researching doctoral programs).
Eighty-one percent of participants attended col-
leges and universities in the Pacific Northwest.
On average, participants were 23 years of age,
and 63% were women. The sample was racially
diverse, with 44% of the participants being
White, 38% Black, 13% Latino, and 6% biracial.
The majority (91%) of participants were biolog-
ical children of incarcerated parents. In particu-
lar, 72% had incarcerated fathers/stepfathers, 9%
had incarcerated mothers, and 19% had incar-
cerated mothers and fathers. Although some
participants were not able to answer questions
about their family’s financial situation during
parental incarceration, almost half (47%) said
they remembered receiving some form of gov-
ernment assistance, such as food stamps or hous-
ing assistance. In addition, approximately 35%
of participants indicated that at least one of
their parents had drug abuse issues during their
childhood. In comparison to what we gener-
ally know about children of incarcerated par-
ents, this sample appears to be less financially
disadvantaged (Kjellstrand & Eddy, 2011) and
less likely to have a parent who used drugs
(U.S. Department of Justice, 2000). In sum,
these participants may have experienced fewer
life stressors (Myers et al., 2013) than other chil-
dren of incarcerated parents whose social sup-
port could not compensate for their accumulated
risks.
In regard to parental criminality, there was
much variability in the offenses (e.g., assault,
attempted murder, domestic violence, drug
dealing, theft, and wire fraud) that resulted in
incarceration. Even so, 47% of participants
stated that a drug-related crime was the reason
for their parent’s incarceration. Only one partic-
ipant was not able to recall what crimes resulted
in his/her parents’ incarceration. Using partic-
ipants’ best estimations, the average length of
parental incarceration during their childhood
510
(under age 18) was 3 years, with a range of 6
months to 13 years. This calculation does not
include four participants who knew their parents
were incarcerated for at least 6 months but who,
because of their parents’ reoccurring criminal
behavior and incarceration, were unable to
provide a specific estimate. In addition, if a
parent had been incarcerated numerous times,
or both parents had been incarcerated, I calcu-
lated this average using the longest period of
incarceration. On average, participants were 8
years old when the first parental incarceration
occurred.
Retrospective research that requires partici-
pants to reflect on an earlier time period is always
limited by the accuracy of participants’ memo-
ries. In particular, some participants had to skip
specific questions because they were unaware of
certain details or they were too young to remem-
ber. Also, for participants who had experienced
numerous parental incarcerations, it was difficult
at times to separate each period of incarceration.
In these cases, we encouraged participants to try
to focus on the one period of incarceration that
was clearest in their memory or the most signif-
icant to them.
With the assistance of two additional research
assistants, 37 interviews (32 initial and 5
follow-up) were transcribed. Each participant
was assigned a pseudonym to ensure the con-
fidential nature of the interview. In accordance
with grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser
& Strauss, 1967), transcriptions were thor-
oughly coded for emergent themes. Through
this coding process, I “name[d] segments of data
with a label that simultaneously categorize[d],
summarize[d], and account[ed] for each piece
of data” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 43).
First, I conducted line-by-line coding, which
allows the researcher to stay open to what par-
ticipants are stating (Charmaz, 2006) instead
of coding only for preconceived ideas. During
this early coding process, I developed codes,
which were short titles for what I saw in these
data. These codes included experiencing turn-
ing points (e.g., “turned my life around”), the
impact of role models (e.g., “I saw good in
all their lives[,] so that’s just what I strived
for”), consistency in the home (e.g., “stayed in
the same house”), positive relationships to care-
givers (e.g., “she was staying on top of our emo-
tions and how we were all processing it”), rela-
tionships to incarcerated parents (e.g., “never
felt betrayed”), and the significance of caring
Family Relations
adults outside of the home (e.g., “whether you
want him there or not, he’s there”). Through
line-by-line coding, I also generated codes that
were not connected to the central topic of this
research; thus, some codes were not further
examined in the next step of coding.
I explored these initial codes in the transcrip-
tions through more focused coding with the help
of research assistants. Focused coding enables
the researcher to analyze large quantities of data
using commonly occurring and important codes
(Charmaz, 2006). Throughout this process, my
research assistants and I compared our coding
to confirm interobserver reliability. During this
phase of coding I was open to new codes that
emerged from these data; when this happened, I
recoded previously coded interviews. In cases in
which quotes fell under multiple codes, I coded
them in both categories and acknowledged the
interconnected nature of the codes. When quotes
were ambiguous, I reexamined the transcrip-
tions to provide additional clarification of the
quotes. During the coding process, I engaged in
memo writing, which is the practice of analyzing
one’s data/codes and writing about the emergent
themes (Charmaz, 2006). Through my analysis
of these data, emotional social support emerged
as a reoccurring way that participants explained
their resilience.
Results
The central focus of this research was to examine
how social support promoted resilience among
children of incarcerated parents. Throughout
the interviews, it became clear that social sup-
port from caring adults—primary caregivers
(overwhelmingly, mothers and grandmothers),
incarcerated or formerly incarcerated parents,
grandparents, older siblings, aunts and uncles,
teachers, coaches, and mentors—encouraged
stability in participants’ lives and helped facili-
tate resilience in the face of parental criminality,
parental incarceration, disadvantage, and fam-
ily instability. Many of these adults provided
instrumental social support, including housing,
meals, and clothing, yet social support extended
beyond meeting participants’ needs through
monetary means. Caring adults also provided
emotional social support that encouraged partic-
ipants to take law-abiding prosocial paths in life.
In particular, social support promoted resilience
among children of incarcerated parents in three
ways: (a) providing access to conventional
Examining Social Support
activities, (b) supporting a vision of a better life,
and (c) encouraging turning points.
Providing Access to Conventional Activities
Social support from caring adults encouraged
resilience among participants by providing them
with access to conventional activities. These
activities took the form of athletics, day camps,
religious activities, and community programs
such as Upward Bound and the Boys and Girls
Club. In the interviews, approximately two thirds
of participants indicated they had been involved
in conventional activities during childhood; of
these participants, most were able to articulate
how key adults played an important role in facil-
itating their involvement.
For some participants, key adults encour-
aged engagement in athletics. Marcus, whose
father was incarcerated for robbery, explained
how his mom kept him around “positive things.”
In addition to making sure he attended good
schools, she “kept me playing basketball my
whole life.” Serena, a young woman involved
in both athletic and community activities, articu-
lated how her involvement, directly facilitated by
her grandmother, helped keep her from follow-
ing her mother, who had committed numerous
drug related offenses, to prison:
[My grandmother] does support me in everything
I’ve done. She is the one that has kept me moti-
vated. Since I was a kid, every year since 5 years
old, I’ve always been involved in a program. She’s
always paid for me to play a sport; she’s always
paid for me to go to day camp. Every summer I’ve
never just been sitting at home; I’ve always been
involved in something. I say that she’s probably
like one of the majority [sic] reasons probably why
I’m not like my mother, in the streets or something,
because with the motivation of always doing some-
thing kept me not to be out there.
Although Serena was involved in more con-
ventional activities than most participants, she
clearly linked this involvement to her resilience
to the effects of her mother’s criminal behavior.
For other participants, supportive adults
encouraged their involvement in religious activ-
ities, which kept them on a path that led to
college attendance. In Dominic’s case, his foot-
ball coach, a mentor outside of just football,
introduced him to Young Life, a Christian youth
organization:
511
Going into sophomore year, that’s when people
started to do the dropout of high school, start doing
drugs, and start the sex and all that. And that’s
when Young Life kicked in for me and I think that’s
kind of like, didn’t prevent me, but it kind of gave
me like a different picture of like, what it could …
what high school could be like.
Dominic, whose father was still incarcerated for
arson at the time of the interview, explained that
Young Life “changed his life.”
In contrast to organized activities, some
participants also shared about the ways support-
ive adults allowed them to engage in normal
childhood activities. For example, Ethan, whose
father had been incarcerated for a domestic
violence–related offense, shared about how
his older adult sister, her boyfriend, and her
boyfriend’s parents involved him in their regular
family outings:
We would go to the park or the pumpkin patch and
stuff. They would always invite me and my little
sister to go with them. And so that was really, I just
want to really acknowledge that as being a huge
support system because I was actually getting to go
out and do stuff . . . I’m really thankful to have that.
Not only would they take Ethan and his sis-
ter along on activities but, when necessary, they
also paid for their expenses. Likewise, Scott,
who attributed much of his resilience to his
“church family,” explained that men from his
church supported him by taking him out to
“do things when they did things with their
sons.” Although Scott’s father was incarcer-
ated for drug dealing, these men involved him
in their father–son activities and allowed him
to feel supported by a father figure. Overall,
key adults provided participants access to con-
ventional activities—whether organized or more
informal—that kept them involved and con-
nected to prosocial individuals.
Supporting a Vision of a Better Life
In addition to providing access to conventional
activities, caring adults also supported partici-
pants to envision and work toward life trajec-
tories different than their incarcerated parents.
Almost 90% of participants reported that their
social support systems helped them see not a
life that consisted of crime and incarceration but
instead one in which they could achieve norma-
tive success. Martin, whose mother and father
512
were both incarcerated for drug-related crimes,
highlighted this theme by sharing that his grand-
parents, his primary caregivers,
Were adamant about like not letting that, those
circumstances [parental incarceration] like dictate
like what stuff meant for us . . . my grandmother, at
the time, you know, “No, you’re going to do some-
thing and you’re going to do something good.”
Thus, caring adults guided participants in envi-
sioning a life that did not replicate the mistakes
of their parents.
Participants’ social support systems com-
monly encouraged a life trajectory of academic
achievement and success. Numerous partic-
ipants shared their mentors’ direct encour-
agement to succeed in school and pursue a
postsecondary education. In particular, much
of this support came from individual teachers
who went out of their way to let participants
know that they believed in their academic
abilities. Maria, whose father was incarcerated
for domestic violence offenses followed by
detention for his immigration status, stated the
following:
I think ever since I was little, I think ever since I
heard there was a university, I have always wanted
to go, but I never thought it was possible. I mean,
I never, you know, I just thought it was a dream.
And then in high school, I actually started actually
considering because all of my teachers were like
“You are really smart, you can do it.”
Likewise, Andre reflected on how his high
school counselor “straight up told me that I was
not going to go to community college and that
that was not an option.” Instead, she encour-
aged him to attend a 4-year university and helped
him apply for scholarships. Although Andre’s
parents, including his father, who was incarcer-
ated on federal drug charges, were supportive of
him pursuing academic success, his counselor
allowed him to think about opportunities unfa-
miliar to his parents. Andre’s relationship with
his counselor developed throughout high school,
and at the time of the interview he considered
her and her husband to be his “adopted fami-
ly” who continue to provide him with significant
emotional support.
As with Andre, some of the encouragement
for higher education even came from incarcer-
ated parents. Kiera, whose father was incarcer-
ated for burglary related charges, explained:
Family Relations
[My formerly incarcerated father is] the reason I’m
here in school now. Because if it wasn’t for him
supporting me and saying “Kiera, stay in school.
Don’t just try to get a job . . .” He was supportive
if I just lost all hope and he was supportive in me
stepping up to be one of his first real, his first child
to go to college.
Other participants repeated Kiera’s description
of her formerly incarcerated parent’s support for
her education. Renee, the daughter of parents
incarcerated on drug related charges, remarked:
My dad always pushed school on me . . . my dad
doesn’t want me to end up like him. He doesn’t
want me in and out of jail. He wants me to have a
job and like, you know, he wants me in college.
Furthermore, Renee’s father, who was incar-
cerated at the time of the interview, encour-
aged a college education so she could “have
money all the time” and “a house that you can
call your house.” Her father’s goals encouraged
her to take a path separate from his and her
mother’s criminal paths. In sum, participants
were encouraged by their social support sys-
tems to follow law-abiding life trajectories that
would enable them to live better lives than their
parents.
Encouraging Turning Points
In addition to providing access to conventional
activities and fostering a commitment to educa-
tion, supportive adults also helped some partic-
ipants redirect their lives onto prosocial paths.
Approximately one third of the sample shared
that they had not initially been on a path to col-
lege and, in some cases, not even a law-abiding
path. During their adolescence or young adult-
hood, this subsample of participants experienced
significant difficulties in high school, dropped
out of high school, used drugs and alcohol,
participated in gang activity, and/or commit-
ted other law-breaking behaviors. Turning points
varied greatly by participant, but they identi-
fied these experiences as helping to shift their
lives from engaging in risky or illegal behav-
ior to a future with academic success. For these
participants, key adults commonly indirectly or
directly facilitated the positive changes they
made in their lives.
Some participants indicated that caring adults
indirectly facilitated their turning points. Indi-
rect facilitation was characterized by adults who
Examining Social Support
encouraged participants to reflect on a new way
of life or provided opportunities for them to
change course. For example, Malcolm, whose
father was incarcerated for robbery, shared that
he could have followed his father and three older
brothers’ paths to prison. Instead, during an
especially difficult time in his life when his best
friend was murdered, his brother was arrested,
and Malcolm was suspended from high school
for fighting, his principal reached out to him.
During this meeting, Malcolm’s principal told
him that he was going to stop getting into trou-
ble and that he wanted him to attend an academy
at a local university over the summer. Attend-
ing this academy made college a reality for him,
and he explained that he “went from being a
cool guy to like being the square who went to
school.”
Likewise, Julian, whose father was incarcer-
ated for multiple charges, including domestic
violence, elaborated on the extra support from
two of his high school teachers:
They sat down and talked to me and said: “We
care about you. We don’t want you going in the
wrong direction.” . . . They told me “Where do you
see [yourself] in 5 years?” and I answered them
straight: “I see myself dead.” . . . They grabbed
the yardstick and they went and they said “How
old are you?” and I said “16.” They went up to 16
inches and they said “this is how old you are and
this goes up to 32. You see how much life you still
have missing here and you just want to die at this
age.”
Although Julian still ended up dropping out of
school and living with gang members after this
conversation with his teachers, when asked in
the interview who had supported him during his
father’s incarceration, he cited these teachers.
After dropping out of high school, he reflected
on his situation and returned to complete high
school.
Similarly, James, whose father was incar-
cerated for drug-related offenses, revealed that
the support of his brother, who was 9 years
older than he, helped him turn his life around.
He shared that he had been selling marijuana
but started “thinking real hard and looking at
myself. And, I was like, standing on the outside
of myself looking at myself like, ‘What the
hell am I doing?’” When I asked him how he
came to this realization, he mentioned that his
older brother had always supported him and
encouraged him to be productive in his life. In
513
Malcolm’s, Julian’s, and James’s cases, each of
them shared how the social support from their
principal, teachers, and older brother, respec-
tively, indirectly helped them to change course
in their lives.
For other participants, significant adults
directly facilitated their turning points. Instead
of encouraging them to change course or pro-
viding them with opportunities that eventually
helped them change course, other caring adults
directly enabled participants’ turning points.
In Hannah’s case, it was her grandparents
who helped her turn away from her delinquent
behavior. Hannah’s father was incarcerated for
a drug-related offense:
When I was in 8th grade, I got in a little trouble of
my own with the law . . . and my grandparents were
really frustrated with me cuz [sic] they were like,
“You’ve seen everything that’s happened to your
parents and now you’re like starting to go down the
same road.” . . . They were like, “Just go to church,
maybe you’ll learn right from wrong.”. . . I would
see [the youth pastor] and his wife and my uncle
and his wife and I was like, I want to live lives like
theirs. I don’t wanna live lives like my parents. I
want to have a life like theirs, like a life I can be
proud of.
Hannah’s quote connects back to first theme
of supportive adults facilitating involvement in
conventional activities. Hannah’s grandparents
helped her change her life course and, in doing
this, they suggested she participate in religious
activities. Although not as drastic as Hannah’s
experience, Betty, whose father was incarcerated
for embezzlement, forgery, and theft, shared the
following:
If I continued like I did, how I was in middle
school, I don’t think I would be in college. I don’t
know if I would have even graduated from high
school. I thank my mom for that. For making sure
I did go to therapy and talk about it, even when I
didn’t want to.
In both Hannah’s and Betty’s cases, their turning
points were directly aided by caring adults. In
sum, whether directly or indirectly facilitated,
the social support from caring adults enabled
participants to positively change their life
trajectory.
Discussion
Although this study was exploratory in nature, it
advances our knowledge of how social support
514
can contribute to positive adaptation among
children of incarcerated parents. Following
Poehlmann and Eddy’s (2010, 2013) calls to
examine resilience processes related to interper-
sonal relationships, this research demonstrates
how caring adults can promote resilience in
three ways. First, they provided access to
conventional activities, including athletics,
day camps, religious activities, community
programs, and positive everyday childhood
activities. Underscoring Nesmith and Ruhland’s
(2008) finding that involvement in athletics and
religious activities contributed to participants’
coping and resilience, this theme also expands
on how these factors foster resilient outcomes.
In particular, participants in the current study
shared that this involvement connected them to
prosocial individuals, kept them motivated, and
helped them feel a sense of normalcy in their
lives. Second, key adults supported a vision of
a better life for participants, which excluded
criminal activity and focused strongly on edu-
cational success. This confirms Giordano’s
(2010) finding of the significance of future goals
for the resilient portion of her sample, but it
also builds on this finding by highlighting the
role of participants’ social support systems in
fostering this goal. It was not only they had
a vision of a better life that helped; instead,
supportive adults directly helped encourage
and facilitate their goals. Third, social support
from caring adults encouraged turning points,
which mirrors other research on turning points
among youth (e.g., Drapeau et al., 2007). To
my knowledge, this is the first study to examine
turning points among children of incarcerated
parents.
Overall, these findings confirm the buffering
effect (Cohen & Wills, 1985) of social support
for children of incarcerated parents. Caregivers,
older siblings, extended family members, edu-
cators, and church members helped buffer these
children from some of the negative effects of
parental incarceration. Through analysis of
the interviews, primary caregivers emerged as
the most significant source of social support.
Although many participants had complicated
relationships with their caregivers, they under-
stood that their caregivers protected them from
the negative effects of parental incarceration
by providing stable supportive homes. This
finding confirms the need for equipping pri-
mary caregivers to best assist the children of
incarcerated parents in their care to participate
Family Relations
in prosocial activities, to focus on educational
goals, and to change paths when necessary.
There are promising programs (e.g., Miller
et al., 2013), but further research must be con-
ducted to develop best practices for caregivers
to promote resilient outcomes among this
population.
Two key barriers may limit the buffering
effect of social support for many children of
incarcerated parents: (a) stigma and (b) the
disproportionate impact of incarceration on
poor, marginalized communities. First, stigma
may not deter social support from within the
family, but it may discourage social support
from outside of the family. If children are not
comfortable asking adults for help in their
schools, churches, and sports teams because
they feel stigmatized, this will decrease their
likelihood of receiving social support. The
majority of participants in the current study
felt stigma surrounding parental incarceration;
they did not commonly share that they were
children of incarcerated parents or actively look
for mentors. Instead, adults began conversations
with them that led to supportive relationships.
The decisions of these adults may be partially
explained by research suggesting that a child’s
disposition contributes to how others respond
to them and whether they provide support (see
Werner & Johnson, 2004). In the current study,
participants’ dispositions may have encouraged
caring adults to initiate relationships. In general,
this may be problematic for many children
whose emotional and behavioral reactions to
parental incarceration could deter potentially
supportive adults from reaching out to them.
Second, social support from families and com-
munities may also be limited because of how
incarceration disproportionately affects disad-
vantaged communities. Adults who could aid
these children may be overwhelmed with other
responsibilities. In regard to the buffering effect
of social support in the current study, it may be
that participants lived in more stable families in
communities with greater resources than most
children of incarcerated parents, which made it
easier for caring adults to support them. Even so,
these findings still contribute to a limited litera-
ture on how social support can promote resilient
outcomes among children of incarcerated
parents.
In regard to caring adults outside of the
family supporting children of incarcerated par-
ents, there must be more strategic efforts made,
Examining Social Support
especially in communities with high rates of
incarceration, to educate adults who regularly
come in contact with these children, such as
teachers, coaches, and pastors, on how to best
support them. In what was originally a surprising
finding, I found that only two participants had
been involved in any programming specifically
designed for children of incarcerated parents.
Instead, support from their schools, churches,
or communities typically came from caring
individuals who decided to reach out to them.
Recent research on the positive role schools
can play in providing support to children of
incarcerated parents confirms this finding (Mor-
gan, Leeson, Dillon, Wirgman, & Needham,
2014). Morgan et al. (2014) discovered that
many of the “good practice[s]” resulted from
particular teachers and staff deciding to reach
out to children with incarcerated parents, instead
of these practices occurring at an institutional
level. Thus educators, and others who interact
with this population, need to more system-
atically reach out to children of incarcerated
parents in ways that do not add further stigma
yet provide them with needed support. For
example, school districts located in areas with
high rates of incarceration should regularly edu-
cate teachers about the experience of parental
incarceration. This may enable teachers to
not only better understand students’ behaviors
but also provide them with tools for how to
inspire their students to envision positive life
trajectories and if necessary, encourage turning
points.
Most of the literature on children of incar-
cerated parents centers on how parental
incarceration disrupts children’s lives and
does not address the ways some incarcerated
parents can still contribute positively to their
children’s well-being. As Wakefield and Wilde-
man (2014, p. 46) mentioned, we should not
classify all incarcerated parents as “bad par-
ents”; instead, some are good parents, some
are bad parents, and some are a combination
of both. The current study advances knowledge
on this point in that many participants shared
how the emotional social support from their
incarcerated or formerly incarcerated parents
contributed to their academic success. Thus, the
individual who created the challenging situa-
tion of parental incarceration can also become
a motivating force in a child’s path toward
college. This suggests that criminality and
incarceration do not negate the positive impact
515
of some incarcerated or formerly incarcerated
parents. These parents need opportunities for
quality parenting education during incarcera-
tion that provide guidance on how to support
children from behind bars and help prepare
them for navigating the complexities of the
postrelease parent–child relationship. Although
many prisons offer parenting classes (Hughes &
Harrison-Thompson, 2002; Pollock, 2002), pro-
grams must be developed to help incarcerated
parents figure out how they can encourage their
children, in light of their own criminal records,
to engage in conventional activities; develop
prosocial goals; and, when necessary, change
their path in life. Furthermore, the potential
positive impact of some incarcerated parents
also draws attention to reentry programs, which
need to include a focus on supporting formerly
incarcerated individuals to reengage with their
roles as parents.
In addition to discussing how emotional
social support contributed to their educational
successes, some participants shared about their
own internal motivation. In particular, they
described their personal drive to do better in life
than their parents had. Similarly, some partici-
pants also explained how they were motivated
by their younger siblings to take a prosocial
path in life and that this contributed to their
resilience. Future research should examine both
of these topics.
As with most qualitative research, on the basis
of the sampling method and sample size, the
findings of this study cannot be generalized.
As an exploratory study, though, the purpose of
this research was not to generalize the findings;
instead, the intent was to explore how social sup-
port can contribute to resilience among children
of incarcerated parents. The primary limitation
of the present study is that the sample included
only adult children who attended college. By not
studying children of incarcerated parents who
were resilient in other ways, such as joining the
military or going to trade school, the implica-
tions of this study are restricted to one type of
resilience. Furthermore, children of incarcerated
parents can receive social support regardless of
whether they attend college, and their exclusion
from this study limits our full understanding of
social support in the context of parental incar-
ceration. Thus, future research should consider
both (a) how social support functions for chil-
dren of incarcerated parents who do not attend
516
college, and (b) other types of resilient out-
comes for this population. Another shortcoming
of the study is that this sample may be markedly
different from the population of children of
incarcerated parents. Although I reached the-
oretical saturation, my participants, compared
to other children of incarcerated parents, may
have received more consistent caregiving, expe-
rienced stronger social support systems, enrolled
in better schools, or lived in communities with
greater resources. Next, the majority of partici-
pants lived in the Pacific Northwest, which has
lower rates of incarceration than many areas of
the United States (U.S. Department of Justice,
2013), and this may have influenced their expe-
riences and resilient trajectories. Last, this study
was limited by variability between participants’
experiences of parental incarceration pertaining
to their age at first parental incarceration, length
of incarceration, number of incarcerations, type
of parental crime, living situation, and which
parent was incarcerated. Nevertheless, this study
does help fill a gap in the literature by examining
how children of incarcerated parents can over-
come the odds.
References
Adalist-Estrin, A. (2006). Providing support to ado-
lescent children with incarcerated parents. The
Prevention Researcher, 13, 7–10.
Arditti, J. A. (2012). Parental incarceration and the
family. New York: New York University Press.
Bocknek, E. L., Sanderson, J., & Britner, P. A.
(2009). Ambiguous loss and posttraumatic stress
in school-age children of prisoners. Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 18, 323–333.
doi:10.1007/s10826-008-9233-y
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cho, R. M. (2011). Understanding the mechanism
behind maternal imprisonment and adolescent
school dropout. Family Relations, 60, 272–289.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00649.x
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social
support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 98, 310–357. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.98.2.310
Davies, E., Brazzell, D., La Vigne, N. G., & Shol-
lenberger, T. (2008). Understanding the experi-
ences and needs of children of incarcerated par-
ents. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Drapeau, S., Saint-Jacques, M., Lepine, R., Begin, G.,
& Bernard, M. (2007). Processes that contribute
to resilience among youth in foster care. Jour-
nal of Adolescence, 30, 977–999. doi:10.1016/
j.adolescence.2007.01.005
Family Relations
Dunst, C., & Trivette, C. (1985). A guide to measures
of social support and family behavior. Monograph
of the Technical Assistance Development System
(No. 1). Chapel Hill, NC: TADS.
Eddy, J. M., Martinez, C. R., & Burraston, B.
(2013). A randomized controlled trial of a parent
management training program for incarcer-
ated parents. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 78(3), 75–93.
doi:10.1111/mono.12022
Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2009). The mass incarcera-
tion of parents in America. Annals of the Ameri-
can Academy of Political and Social Science, 623,
179–194. doi:10.1177/0002716208331123
Fraser, M. W., Kirby, L. D., & Smokowski,
P. R. (2004). Risk and resilience in childhood.
In M. W. Fraser (Ed.), Risk and resilience in
childhood: An ecological perspective (pp. 13–66).
Washington, DC: National Association of Social
Workers.
Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., Cooper, C. E., & Mincy, R.
B. (2009). Parental incarceration and child well-
being. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 1186–1202.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00653.x
Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., & Western, B. (2011).
Paternal incarceration and support for children
in fragile families. Demography, 48, 25–47.
doi:10.1007/s13524-010-0009-9
Giordano, P. C. (2010). Legacies of crime. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, S. L. (1967). The discovery
of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Goel, K. S., Amatya, K., Jones, R. T., & Ollendick,
T. H. (2014). Child and adolescent resiliency
following a residential fire. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 23, 537–547. doi:10.1007/
s10826-013-9715-4
Hagan, J., & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral con-
sequences of imprisonment for children, com-
munities, and prisoners. Crime and Justice, 26,
121–162.
Hanlon, T. E., Blatchley, R. J., Bennett-Sears, T.,
O’Grady, K. E., Rose, M., & Callaman, J. M.
(2005). Vulnerability of children of incarcerated
addict mothers. Children and Youth Services
Review, 27, 67–84. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.
2004.07.004
Huebner, B. M., & Gustafson, R. (2007). The
effect of maternal incarceration on adult off-
spring involvement in the criminal justice system.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 283–296.
doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.03.005
Hughes, M. J., & Harrison-Thompson, J. (2002).
Prison parenting programs: A national survey.
Social Policy Journal, 1, 57–74. doi:10.1300/
J185v01n01_05
Examining Social Support
Jones, L. P. (2014). The role of social support in
the transition from foster care to emerging adult-
hood. Journal of Family Social Work, 17, 81–96.
doi:10.1080/10522158.2013.865287
King, G., Cathers, T., Brown, E., Specht, J. A.,
Willoughby, C., Polgar, J. M., . . . Havens, L.
(2003). Turning points and protective processes
in the lives of people with chronic disabilities.
Qualitative Health Researcher, 13, 184–206.
doi:10.1177/1049732302239598
Kjellstrand, J. M., & Eddy, J. M. (2011). Parental
incarceration during childhood, family context,
and youth problem behavior across adolescence.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 18–36.
doi:10.1080/10509674.2011.536720
Loper, A. B., & Novero Clarke, C. (2013). Attachment
representations of imprisoned mothers as related
to child contact and the caregiving alliance. Mono-
graphs of the Society for Research in Child Devel-
opment, 78(3), 41–56. doi:10.1111/mono.12020
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000).
The construct of resilience. Child Development,
71, 543–562. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00164
McHale, J. P., Salman, S., Strozier, A, & Cecil,
D. K. (2013). Triadic interactions in mother–
grandmother coparenting systems following
maternal release from jail. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 78(3),
57–74. doi:10.1111/mono.12021
Miller, A. L., Perryman, J., Markovitz, L., Franzen,
S., Cochran, S., & Brown, S. (2013). Strength-
ening incarcerated families: Evaluating a pilot
program for children of incarcerated parents and
their caregivers. Family Relations, 62, 584–596.
doi:10.1111/fare.12029
Morgan, J., Leeson, C., Dillon, R. C., Wirgman, A.
L., & Needham, M. (2014). “A hidden group
of children.” Children & Society, 28, 269–279.
doi:10.1111/chso.12012
Murray, J., Bijleveld, C. C., Farrington, D. P., & Loe-
ber, R. (2014). Effects of parental incarceration on
children. Washington, DC: American Psychologi-
cal Association.
Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., & Sekol, I. (2012). Chil-
dren’s antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use,
and educational performance after parental incar-
ceration. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 175–210.
doi:10.1037/a0026407
Myers, B. J., Mackintosh, V. H., Kuznetsova, M. I.,
Lotze, G. M., Best, A. M., & Ravindran, N. (2013).
Teasing, bullying, and emotional regulation in chil-
dren of incarcerated mothers. Monographs of the
Society for Research in Child Development, 78(3),
26–40. doi:10.1111/mono.12019
Nesmith, A., & Ruhland, E. (2008). Children of
incarcerated parents. Children and Youth Ser-
vices Review, 30, 1119–1130. doi:10.1016/
j.childyouth.2008.02.006
517
Notter, M. L., MacTavish, K. A., & Shamah, D.
(2008). Pathways toward resilience among women
in rural trailer parks. Family Relations, 57,
613–624. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00527.x
Poehlmann, J., & Eddy, J. M. (2010). A research
and intervention agenda for children of incarcer-
ated parents. In J. M. Eddy & J. Poehlmann (Eds.),
Children of incarcerated parents: A handbook
for researchers and practitioners (pp. 319–341).
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Poehlmann, J., & Eddy, J. M. (2013). Introduction and
conceptual framework. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development, 78(3), 1–6.
doi:10.1111/mono.12017
Pollock, J. M. (2002). Parenting programs in women’s
prisons. Women & Criminal Justice, 14, 131–154.
doi:10.1300/J012v14n01_04
Pollock, J. M. (2012). Crime and justice in America
(2nd ed.). Waltham, MA: Anderson.
Rutter, M. (2000). Resilience reconsidered. In J. P.
Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early
childhood intervention (pp. 651–682). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in
the making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Schroeder, R. D., & Mowen, T. J. (2014). “You
can’t eat what?” Managing the stigma of
celiac disease. Deviant Behavior, 35, 456–474.
doi:10.1080/01639625.2014.855105
Siegel, J. A. (2011). Disrupted childhoods. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back. Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute.
Travis, J., & Waul, M. (2003). Prisoners once
removed. In J. Travis & M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners
once removed: The impact of incarceration and
reentry on children, families, and communities
(pp.1–29). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). Incarcerated par-
ents and their children (NCJ Report No. 182335).
Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?
ty=pbdetail&iid=981
U.S. Department of Justice. (2008). Parents in
prison and their minor children (NCJ Report No.
222984) Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.
cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=823
U.S. Department of Justice. (2013). Prisoners in
2012—Advance counts (Report No. NCJ 242467).
Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=
pbdetail&iid=4737
Wakefield, S., & Wildeman, C. (2014). Children of the
prison boom. New York: Oxford University Press.
Werner, E. E., & Johnson, J. L. (2004). The role
of caring adults in the lives of children of alco-
holics. Substance Use & Misuse, 39, 699–720.
doi:10.1081/JA-120034012
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the
odds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
518
Wills, T. A., & Shinar, O. (2000). Measuring per-
ceived and received social support. In S. Cohen,
L. G. Underwood, & B. H. Gottleib (Eds.),
Social support measurement and intervention (pp.
86–135). New York: Oxford University Press.
Family Relations
Zolkoski, S. M., & Bulllock, L. M. (2012). Resilience
in children and youth. Children and Youth Ser-
vices Review, 34, 2295–2303. doi:10.1016/
j.childyouth.2012.08.009