Interrupting Intergenerational Offending in the Context of America’s Social Disaster of Mass Imprisonment

Abstract

Paralleling the growth of the U.S. criminal justice system in recent decades, American families have increasingly experienced a social disaster of parents, and subsequently their children, undergoing imprisonment. Adopting a life course perspective to examine the likely drivers of the intergenerational transmission of offending and incarceration, we contextualize the development of antisocial behavior in an era of mass imprisonment. In doing so, we draw from the literature on the sociology of disasters to examine how traumas related to intergenerational incarceration may be both understood and ameliorated through appropriate policies and interventions. We argue that it is possible to better frame how risk factors for antisocial behavior, such as prenatal maternal stress, exposure to trauma, and deviant peer groups, may be integrated with factors that promote resilience and recovery. This includes improving safety, self-efficacy, and connectedness to prevent intergenerational offending and incarceration and facilitate desistance. By framing mass incarceration as a social disaster, a multifaceted, comprehensive approach takes on new urgency so as to reduce the prevalence of intergenerational offending and incarceration among millions of families in the United States.

Keywords

adverse childhood experiences intergenerational delinquency mass imprisonment trauma development antisocial behavior in the life course

Introduction

With imprisonment rates between 5 and 15 times higher than in other Western democracies, the United States is unique in the scale and impact of mass imprisonment as a common event in the life course of adults and their families (Wakefield & Wildeman, 2014). It is particularly concentrated among minorities. Demographically, 4% of White children and 1 in 4 African American children experience a parent spending 1 year or more in prison before they reach the age of 15 years, while one in seven young adults report experiencing parental imprisonment (jail or prison) at some point in their lives (Roettger & Swisher, 2011; Wildeman, 2009). Along with the 2.1 million adults imprisoned at any one time, Sykes & Pettit (2014) estimate, approximately 2.6 million children in the United States have a parent undergoing incarceration. Among U.S. males experiencing parental imprisonment, two thirds will be arrested and one half will be sentenced to imprisonment by their early 30s—double the risk for males not experiencing parental imprisonment in the general population (Roettger, Swisher, & Boardman, 2018). Based on these figures, it is estimated that 3% to 4% of American men would experience intergenerational imprisonment lasting three generations (Roettger et al., 2018). This equates to approximately 4.5 million to 6 million men, using the 2010 U.S. Census population estimates (Howden & Meyer, 2011). This is a population larger than the 3 million Puerto Ricans affected by Hurricane Maria in 2017 and the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, both considered large-scale social disasters in modern research. And yet the profound intergenerational risks associated with mass incarceration are not afforded the attention, resources, or sense of urgency consistent with a response framework for social disasters.

Beyond their immediate effects, social disasters adversely affect individuals over the longer term through ill-considered policies and a failure to implement actions that ameliorate the impacts of the disaster. In the context of the widespread application of “tough on crime” policies, resulting in mass imprisonment in the United States, these state sanctions simultaneously affect multiple generations of families, thereby failing in their crime prevention objectives. For example, an analysis of national probability samples for the United States suggests that experiencing parental imprisonment extends young people’s offending from adolescence to adulthood, significantly increasing their risk for eventual imprisonment (Muftić, Bouffard, & Armstrong, 2016; Roettger & Swisher, 2011). Compared with other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, the U.S. legal system exposes incarcerated parents to temporary or permanent loss of voting rights, legal discrimination in employment, ineligibility for social welfare support programs (e.g., food and housing), lack of health care, and a general paucity of rehabilitation and transition programs to aid (re)entry into society (Pinard, 2010). These formal penalties compound with informal social penalties, such as residing in disadvantaged communities with high unemployment, untreated mental health and substance abuse problems, and the potential “double whammy” of being a minority member with a criminal record while seeking employment (Clear & Frost, 2014; Pager, 2008).

The historical concentration of criminal offending within families has been observed for more than a century and remains one of the most robust associations in criminology, present across a range of societies and cultures (Besemer, Ahmad, Hinshaw, & Farrington, 2017; Mead, 1918; Murray, Bijleveld, Farrington, & Loeber, 2014; Robins, 1966; Thornberry, Freeman-Gallant, Lizotte, Krohn, & Smith, 2003). A recent study by Wildeman and Andersen (2017) examined a Danish policy shock shifting sentencing from imprisonment to community service for some criminal acts, finding that parental offending and parental imprisonment each distinctly increase the risk of their children engaging in delinquency. In the context of a punitive U.S. culture where more than one third of young adults are arrested by early adulthood and 70% of Black high school dropouts are incarcerated for 1 year or more, the research of Wildeman and Andersen suggests that the intergenerational transmission of offending and incarceration poses a distinct risk for aggregately increasing offending rates among future generations of children (Brame, Turner, Paternoster, & Bushway, 2012; Western & Wildeman, 2009).

The central question we address in this article is this: In the context of mass imprisonment, how does intergenerational offending and incarceration unfold as a social disaster, and how may we prevent it? To answer this question, we utilize a developmental and life course framework to examine how parental imprisonment and the traumas linked to it may be associated with the development of antisocial behavior and offending. We identify social policies and interventions that may ameliorate adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), reducing the risk of intergenerational offending and incarceration. By framing mass imprisonment as a social disaster brought on American society that requires a dedicated response like any other social disaster, we believe that it is possible to reduce the intergenerational transmission of offending and incarceration. In what follows, we argue that this necessitates a focus on reducing the traumas associated with parental incarceration and ameliorating their effects at relevant developmental stages, as well as intervening in the social disaster itself (i.e., reducing the rate of incarceration). In the context of a developmental and life course perspective, adopting a disaster framework can promote policies and interventions that more systemically build resiliency to adverse outcomes in later life.

Intergenerational Offending and the Disaster of Mass Incarceration

As outlined in a recent report by the National Academies of Science (National Research Council, 2014), an extensive body of research has examined the scope of and issues related to mass incarceration in the United States, along with the parallel issues of parental imprisonment and inequalities experienced by children (Wildeman & Wang, 2017). Important dimensions for understanding mass imprisonment have been captured using racial discrimination and the perpetuation of racial caste and class systems (Alexander, 2010; Semien & Roettger, 2013), a mechanism to control populations with rising inequality and wealth redistribution (Reiman & Leighton, 2015), the shifting use of criminal law to enforce social norms (Simon, 2007), intergenerational social exclusion (Foster & Hagan, 2015), and punitive sanctions arising from the “War on Drugs” and “War on Crime,” linked with public fears of crime and illicit drug use (Clear & Frost, 2014). However, by failing to comprehensively address the multiple underlying causes and factors that are implicit in a disaster, these perspectives leave gaps in the literature that need to (1) more comprehensively frame the intergenerational transmission of offending and incarceration in the context of a social phenomenon detrimentally affecting American society, (2) examine intergenerational imprisonment in the context of the developmental research on ACEs and adversity in adulthood, and (3) develop policies and interventions more applicable to the different stages in the life course.

Placing the intergenerational transmission of offending within the context of the sociological disaster of mass imprisonment can help address these limitations. A concept traditionally applied to natural disasters and human events that inflict harm on populations, such as Hurricane Katrina, terrorist attacks, and the Holocaust, social disasters pose major threats to societies and create or exacerbate risks to human populations (Tierney, 2007; Webb, 2002). We frame mass imprisonment as a disaster because of its scale, the complex nature of its underlying causes, and the economic, human, and social costs for society. As with other disasters, mass imprisonment is linked with loss of life, major health and economic consequences for offenders and their families, the breakdown of social structures, and the financial and social destruction of communities where imprisonment is concentrated (Binswanger et al., 2007; Clear, 2007; Clear & Frost, 2014; Pinard, 2010; Tierney, 2007; Wildeman & Wang, 2017). The work of Clear and Frost (2014) is suggestive of the complicated underlying factors leading to mass imprisonment, and the many intentional and unintentional collateral effects that result from the threat that mass imprisonment poses to the social fabric of American society.

While overall levels of imprisonment have declined slightly in the past decade, the U.S. justice system’s focus on punishment, coupled with the heightened risk of criminal justice involvement among the offspring of prisoners, may impede efforts to reduce prison populations and prevent children and young people’s recovery from the trauma of having an incarcerated parent (Kaeble & Glaze, 2016; Roettger et al., 2018; Wakefield & Wildeman, 2014). As in the case of natural disasters where recovery efforts fail to assist marginalized and vulnerable populations, efforts aimed at reducing the scope of imprisonment and associated economic and social costs will likely fail unless the array of collateral consequences for prisoners and their families are fully addressed (Wisner, 1998). The focus of disaster research on the effects of collective trauma and recovery provides insights into ameliorating the adverse developmental outcomes related to traumas affecting millions of children experiencing parental imprisonment.

ACEs are recognized risks for later antisocial behavior (Giordano & Copp, 2015; Schilling, Aseltine, & Gore, 2007). The adversities for children stemming from parental incarceration can include homelessness, lack of health care, family instability, poverty, food insecurity, social exclusion, and abuse/neglect (Giordano, 2010; Giordano & Copp, 2015; Foster & Hagan, 2007, 2015). Long-term exposure to traumatic experiences such as these is strongly linked to antisocial behaviors and offending in later life. Both the severity and the number of adversities children of incarcerated parents face may create significant obstacles to resiliency against the intergenerational transmission of offending and incarceration (Fox, Perez, Cass, Baglivio, & Epps, 2015; Mears & Siennick, 2016). As Giordano (2010) notes, resiliency “is a process rather than a fait accompli . . . conceptualized in relative, multi-dimensional terms” (p. 165). A recent meta-analysis on ACEs suggests that traumas common to parental imprisonment increase the odds of a range of adversities in the life course, including mental health issues, substance abuse, and violence perpetration, factors that perpetuate offending and related adversities across generations (Hughes et al., 2017; Kinner & Borschmann, 2017).

When considering intergenerational trauma in the context of mass imprisonment, disaster research highlights the importance of treatment of issues affecting both parents and children, along with the importance of promoting parent–child bonds and supportive social environments where children are raised. For example, Braga, Mello, and Fiks (2012) observed patterns of resiliency to behavioral problems among children of Holocaust survivors. Children demonstrated resiliency when parents were able to overcome their own personal issues, effectively communicate with their children about their Holocaust experiences, and create a loving and supportive environment. Arditti and colleagues (Arditti, 2015; Arditti & Salva, 2015) have similarly highlighted resiliency in children of incarcerated mothers in the context of communication between children and imprisoned parents, stable and supportive familial environments, and policies that address an array of issues faced by incarcerated mothers (e.g., addictions, histories of domestic violence/assault, and childhood abuse).

Braman (2004) has documented the economic strains, shame, separation issues, and emotional difficulties faced by fathers and children when the father is incarcerated. Although maternal gatekeeping often plays a pivotal role in preventing traumatic contact between formerly imprisoned fathers and their children, research suggests that, apart from cases leading to exposure to antisocial behaviour, maintaining the father–child bond after imprisonment can have a prosocial effect (Jaffee, Moffitt, Caspi, & Taylor, 2003; Roy & Dyson, 2005). Although exposure to parental criminality and substance abuse likely strengthens the intransigence of intergenerational offending, addressing intergenerational traumas stemming from issues linked to mass imprisonment by promoting communication and improving the functioning of parents and children may promote resiliency to offending across generations (Giordano, 2010; Rodriguez, 2016).

The complexity and varying nature of the traumas experienced by children who have a parent undergoing incarceration suggest a need for a general, comprehensive framework to provide interventions that may prevent the emergence of adolescent and adult offending. Drawing on research on individuals experiencing disaster-related traumas, Hobfoll and colleagues (2007) propose a framework of five components for developing such interventions: (1) promoting a sense of safety, (2) promoting calming, (3) promoting a sense of self-efficacy and collective efficacy, (4) promoting connectedness, and (5) providing children and their families with opportunities for reintegrating into the societies in which they reside through social acceptance and tangible prospects. In the following sections, we consider this disaster framework with respect to opportunities to intervene in the intergenerational transmission of offending and incarceration at different stages of the life course.

Prenatal and Infancy

In disaster research, prenatal and postnatal trauma is linked to adverse birth outcomes, poor child development, and problem behaviors among children in later life (King, Dancause, Turcotte-Tremblay, Veru, & Laplante, 2012; Tan et al., 2009). As with children of Holocaust survivors, early traumas associated with parental incarceration may lead to antisocial behavior and offending. Parental imprisonment prior to birth and during infancy may have profound impacts on the type and extent of adversity experienced in childhood, with the impacts varying by parent gender. For example, paternal imprisonment during the prenatal and perinatal stages of offspring development may severely restrict the immediate and longer-term economic and caregiving activities of fathers (Pinard, 2010; Swisher & Waller, 2008). Economic instability in infancy and early childhood is linked with adverse development and antisocial behaviors in later childhood (Aizer, Stroud, & Buka, 2016; Petterson & Albers, 2001). Additionally, paternal imprisonment is linked with maternal stress and depression, which can have significant negative impacts on child development and behaviors (Wildeman, Schnittker, & Turney, 2012).

Although there is generally a paucity of research on child outcomes related to imprisonment of mothers during the prenatal stage, a limited body of research has found that maternal imprisonment is linked with poor birth outcomes and development, mother–child separation, and attachment issues (Clarke & Adashi, 2011; Shaw, Downe, & Kingdon, 2015). A large body of research in psychology and medicine has found prenatal maternal mental and physical stress measures with poor child outcomes across the life span that include poor health and mortality, poor educational outcomes, and antisocial behaviour (Aizer et al., 2016; Entringer et al., 2011; MacKinnon, Kingsbury, Mahedy, Evans, & Colman, 2018). Postnatally, maternal imprisonment may lead to a lack of stable familial bonds and barriers to communication and interaction (Arditti & Salva, 2015), which medical research has found to be critical in ameliorating the effects of toxic stress in early life (Johnson, Riley, Granger, & Riis, 2013).

Policies and interventions that seek to ameliorate the impact of parental imprisonment on the early development of children are critical to promoting resiliency to delinquency and offending in later life. Consistent with Hobfoll et al.’s (2007) disaster framework, promoting a sense of safety and promoting calming are likely to be essential for infant development. As Johnson and colleagues (2013) note, a stable, nurturing environment can reduce risks for a range of adversities later in the life course. Policies and programs that improve nutrition, health, and economic stability (e.g., welfare benefits, child health insurance, jobs programs for incarcerated parents) may reduce the economic costs linked with parental imprisonment (Dallaire, Forestell, Kelsey, Ptachick, & MacDonnell, 2017). In randomized clinical trials, treating the effects of socioeconomic disadvantage, maternal stress, and substance abuse has been linked to improving child birth outcomes, reversing the impact of stress, and limiting adverse development related to drug use (Davis et al., 2007; Fontein-Kuipers, Nieuwenhuijze, Ausems, Budé, & Vries, 2014; Glover, 2014; Neger & Prinz, 2015).

Parallel to research on parental imprisonment occurring prenatally or in infancy, findings from disaster research suggest that children whose parents experience extreme trauma are more likely to engage in substance abuse and family violence. Similarly, having parents who experience posttraumatic stress disorder, poverty, and mental health issues that may detrimentally impact children throughout their lives (Catani, Jacob, Schauer, Kohila, & Neuner, 2008; King et al., 2012). By adopting a social disaster framework to address traumas associated with parental imprisonment, it is possible to reduce the probability of antisocial behaviors and other developmental issues which, untreated, may negatively affect children for the duration of their lives.

Childhood

As children develop beyond infancy, parental imprisonment is linked with the development of aggression, conduct disorder, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and deviance (Murray & Farrington, 2008a, 2008b; Turney, 2014; Turney & Wildeman, 2015; Wildeman, 2010). Adverse experiences such as poverty, residential instability, parental substance abuse, risk of abuse/neglect, homelessness, and lack of closeness to parents or caregivers who are imprisoned may all act as potential sources of trauma (Arditti, 2015; Poehlmann, 2005; Sheehan, 2010). Existing multiple and complex traumatic experiences may compound the adversities related to parental imprisonment (Hughes et al., 2017). Thus, ACEs and traumas due to parental imprisonment interlink associated behavioral problems with a range of other adverse outcomes, including poor academic performance, stigma and alienation, poor physical health, sleep problems, internalizing behaviors, and delayed cognitive and physical development (Braman, 2004; Jackson & Vaughn, 2017; McNichol & Tash, 2001; Murray & Farrington, 2008a, 2008b; Poehlmann, 2005; Roettger & Boardman, 2012; Turney, 2014; Turney & Wildeman, 2015; Wildeman, Scardamalia, Walsh, O’Brien & Brew, 2017). The presence of these adversities heightens children’s risk of engaging in antisocial behaviors (Nagin & Tremblay, 2001; Wallinius et al., 2016). Thus, through both direct and indirect association, the traumas relating parental imprisonment to childhood adversity may perpetuate antisocial behavior and eventual intergenerational offending and incarceration.

Interventions and policies aimed at reducing the risk for the intergenerational transmission of offending and incarceration should consider the age of the child, the nature and sequencing of the traumas experienced, and the gender of the parent. While promoting a sense of safety and promoting calming are also relevant for childhood, Hobfoll et al.’s (2007) third and fourth elements of promoting a sense of self-efficacy and collective efficacy and promoting connectedness, respectively, also become particularly relevant. This can include providing a sense of control for children by enabling choices in interacting with incarcerated parents, and fostering dialogue between parents, children, and kin networks about traumatic experiences related to imprisonment. For example, for younger children who experience maternal imprisonment, implementing policies and guidelines for correctional and social service agencies may help maintain communication with imprisoned mothers, address residential instability, and promote parent–child bonds (Arditti & Salva, 2015). Developing interventions that target substance abuse issues, preventing child abuse, creating a developmental context for parenting and the development of parenting skills in prison, and addressing issues of poverty and disadvantage may improve parent–child relations and reduce the risk of children experiencing additional traumas (Dallaire et al., 2017; Dennison, Smallbone, & Occhipinti, 2017; Junger, Greene, Schipper, Hesper, & Estourgie, 2013; Roettger & Swisher, 2013). School-based interventions may promote interaction with current or formerly incarcerated parents and address child behavioral problems. However, recent research suggests that the stigma of parental imprisonment may create bias toward children by teachers, making the training of educators and intervention personnel critical for success (Roettger & Swisher, 2013; Wildeman, Scardamalia, Walsh, O’Brien, & Brew, 2017).

Research by Turney and Wildeman (2015) suggests that complex traumas and heightened disadvantage are (1) much more difficult to overcome and (2) predominant in the majority of cases where children experience parental imprisonment. Consequently, the nature, complexity, and timing of the underlying causal factors of the trauma (e.g., if parental imprisonment → aggression vs. if parental imprisonment and physical abuse → internalizing behavior and poor academic performance → marginalization at school → conduct disorder) create the need for significantly varying treatment and interventions across individuals. As children grow from early childhood into late primary school years, it is also critical to consider the type of problem behavior and the appropriate set of policies and interventions. At age 3 to 5 years, when aggression and externalizing behaviors are more prevalent, antisocial behaviour is almost universal; however, by late primary school, social environments typically modulate children’s behavior so that they act prosocially, making antisocial behavior a much rarer event (Tremblay, 2013). Thus, whereas teaching parenting skills and a stable home environment at ages 3 to 5 years may be appropriate for reducing aggression related to parental imprisonment, multisystemic approaches incorporating cognitive behavioral therapy for antisocial behaviour and encouraging a close relationship with the father or a father figure may be more appropriate for conduct disorder at age 12 years.

Adolescence

The period of adolescence marks a critical stage in the onset and development of offending trajectories. Adolescence is characterized by increased freedoms and choices and marks a period when antisocial peers and family play a heightened role in the child’s engaging in delinquent behavior (Giordano, 2010; Haynie & Osgood, 2005). Compared with general patterns of offending in adolescence, adolescents experiencing parental imprisonment are more likely to engage in delinquency with greater frequency and chronicity (Moffitt, 1993; van de Rakt, Murray, & Nieuwbeerta, 2012; Roettger & Swisher, 2011). With more than half the sons of incarcerated parents undergoing imprisonment by their early 30s (Roettger et al., 2018), the widely replicated work of Nagin, Farrington, and Moffitt (1995) suggests that children of incarcerated parents are more likely to engage in offending trajectories at varying levels of chronicity. Consequently, interventions should place greater focus on reducing the frequency and chronicity of juvenile delinquency as it occurs.

Compared with those not experiencing parental imprisonment, adolescents who experienced parental incarceration have been found to have lower school attachment and increased risk of dropping out of high school, smaller and more antisocial peer networks, higher rates of parental absence, increased risk for poverty and homelessness, increased risk for teenage pregnancy, and a higher risk of engaging in risky sexual behaviors and substance abuse (Cho, 2011; Cochran, Siennick, & Mears, 2018; Dobbie, Grönqvist, Niknami, Palme, & Priks, 2018; Foster & Hagan, 2007; Giordano, 2010; Khan, Scheidell, Rosen, Geller, & Brotman, 2018; Roettger, Swisher, Kuhl, & Chavez, 2011). These risks, in turn, may combine with earlier traumas and behavioral problems to substantially increase the risk for subsequent delinquency and adult offending (Giordano & Copp, 2015; Hughes et al., 2017). Policies and interventions must thus take into account multiple risks and cumulative trauma to aid in the desistance process, along with the unique issues faced by children who have experienced parental imprisonment.

Thus, interventions may need to be tailored or combined to deal with parental imprisonment, and promoting self-efficacy and promoting connectedness may be particularly important. For example, the school-based PROSPER intervention has generally been found to reduce levels of antisocial behavior by marginalizing such behaviors in adolescent social networks (Osgood et al., 2013). However, a supplemental program such as strengthening ties with a father figure may prevent unintentional increases in antisocial behavior that could be caused by further marginalizing children of incarcerated parents and shifting them into smaller, more antisocial networks (Cochran et al., 2018; Roettger, Boardman, Harris, & Guo, 2016). Programs helping children of incarcerated parents increase school attachment and complete secondary school might also be paired with a cognitive behavioral therapy program encouraging prosocial behaviors.

As suggested by disaster research, the reoccurrence of parental imprisonment may exacerbate prior traumas, increasing the risk for depression, antisocial behaviors, and posttraumatic stress disorder (Brown et al., 2017; Self-Brown, Lai, Patterson, & Glasheen, 2017). Research on disasters and research in criminology suggest that schools, families, and peers play an important role in reducing such effects on antisocial behavior (Brown et al., 2017; Cook, Buehler, & Henson, 2009). However, as the research noted above suggests, these forms of social support may be diminished or, where the network is antisocial, may lead to increased risk for antisocial behavior in young people with an incarcerated parent. Policies and interventions must, subsequently, account for these limitations by attempting to create multiple sources of social support. Thus, successful multifaceted interventions may need to encourage communication with imprisoned parents (which also requires prisons removing barriers to maintaining or developing quality parent–child relationships), assist caregivers in providing social structures to avoid problematic unstructured free time, locate an appropriate role model or mentor to encourage graduation from high school, provide treatment for substance use problems, and create alternative school social networks to reduce the influence of antisocial peers. These efforts are consistent with Hobfoll et al.’s (2007) fifth element of instilling hope, by creating opportunities for social acceptance, achievement, and alternative prosocial pathways. As with younger children who experience parental imprisonment, a more comprehensive and sustained effort is critical for overcoming the multiple, persistent traumas related to a parent being imprisoned.

As noted above, parental imprisonment is linked to increases in residential instability, lack of health care, and general social exclusion in the communities where adolescent children of incarcerated parents reside (Foster & Hagan, 2007, 2015). Disasters are known to eliminate social capital and also create conditions where the possibility of exiting poverty and disadvantage is remote if appropriate interventions are not taken (Adato, Carter, & May, 2006; Hawkins & Maurer, 2009). Hobfoll et al.’s (2007) conditions for recovery thus imply developing policies and interventions that provide resources to reintegrate into communities, including promoting stable housing, access to health care, and active involvement in civil society. Failing to address these basic needs exacerbates the risk of antisocial behavior extending into adulthood. It is therefore essential to connect adolescents who have experienced parental imprisonment with the needed resources and community linkages to enable resiliency through creating prosocial bonds and hope to foster change. Such efforts would likely be put in place in response to other social disasters but have largely been ignored in the context of mass (parental) incarceration.

Adulthood

As children reach adulthood, the failures of policies and interventions at earlier stages of development increase the risk for intergenerational imprisonment. We then see the reoccurrence of the many collateral consequences of parental imprisonment, compounding existing traumas experienced in childhood as adult children experience imprisonment, disadvantage, and marginalization. As with disasters where the effects are not fully addressed, the ongoing social disaster of mass imprisonment in the United States is thus perpetuated on millions of American families. It is important to consider that offspring of incarcerated parents who offend in adulthood may still substantially benefit from policies and interventions. In fact, strong family ties and having children have been found to be strong predictors of hope, optimism, and imagining a possible nonoffending self, seen as important for desistance (Visher & O’Connell, 2012). Furthermore, opportunities to develop parenting skills and engage in parenting while in prison are important not only for current relationships but also for parental and cultural generativity, so that disconnection from family and community is not perpetuated (Dennison, Smallbone, Stewart, Freiberg, & Teague, 2014). In addition, Gendreau (2012) notes that a range of rehabilitation programs provide an effective means for addressing substance abuse, mental health issues, antisocial behavior, and other issues to aid in the desistance process.

For adult children of incarcerated parents who become parents themselves, support for desistance and reintegration is essential for limiting the intergenerational traumas, exclusion, and risk for imprisonment that may be brought onto the next generation. Opportunities to integrate into communities after release, to receive social acceptance, to find work and engage in civic participation are important in instilling hope for families to recover from the intergenerational transmission of offending and incarceration. Disaster research emphasizes the importance of communities collectively acting to address traumas (Tierney, 2007), making reintegration and social support of adult offenders a critical component in both the desistence process and preventing intergenerational offending in the next generation.

Conclusion

By examining the transmission of intergenerational offending and incarceration in the context of mass imprisonment as a social disaster, it is possible to better understand how the trauma of parental imprisonment and associated issues is linked to antisocial behaviors at various stages of development in the life course. Moreover, the research on interventions to reduce the impact of disasters provides a frame for addressing the complex, interrelated traumas faced by children who experience parental incarceration. Research on the challenges and needs linked with parental imprisonment suggests that a more comprehensive framework is needed to address these issues, particularly for the large majority of children experiencing parental imprisonment who appear unresponsive to a simple intervention or change in personal circumstances (Arditti, 2015; Giordano & Copp, 2015). Furthermore, traumatic experiences and adverse risks may interact, resulting in an increase in antisocial behaviors over time. Promoting well-being and resiliency to traumas is therefore likely to require a long-term and multipronged effort that should incorporate families, schools, government institutions, and the communities in which children of incarcerated parents reside.

Using approaches for treating trauma after disasters can aid in formulating such efforts. As suggested by Hobfoll et al. (2007), creating safe, supportive, and socially connected environments that lead to self-efficacy and hope in children of incarcerated parents can provide a basis for preventing and reducing antisocial behaviors. As the work of Braga et al. (2012) suggests, rehabilitating current and formerly incarcerated parents and treating them for addictions and mental health issues are also critical in enabling a supportive environment where interventions such as parental education and training can be implemented to reduce early antisocial behaviors that persist into adulthood.

Children of incarcerated parents have been found to transition to adulthood earlier than the general population. The experience of traumas and the heightened risk for a range of adverse outcomes, such as dropping out of high school, criminal behaviors, and imprisonment, set the stage for transition into a life of disadvantage and marginalization (Hughes et al., 2017; Turney & Lanuza, 2017; Wildeman & Wang, 2017). By addressing such collateral consequences resulting from mass imprisonment, it is possible to reduce the continuity of intergenerational offending among millions of families while improving the overall welfare of one of society’s most marginalized populations. Failing to act may, alternatively, perpetuate intergenerational offending and contribute to high economic, social, and personal costs for generations of families unable to recover from the disaster of mass imprisonment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article was supported by a Griffith Criminology Institute visiting scholar travel grant to enable collaboration between the authors.

Author Biographies

Michael E. Roettger is a lecturer in the School of Demography at The Australian National University. A social demographer and criminologist, his research focuses on intergenerational delinquency and criminal justice involvement. His recent research focuses on how traumitic and social enviroments are linked to vulnerabilities and resilience in the lifecourse against adversities associated experiencing parental imprisonment.

Susan Dennison is a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Griffith University. She is a former Australian Research Council Future Fellow, examining the impact of parental incarceration on the family system and the mechanisms that mediate developmental outcomes for incarcerated parents, their children and caregivers. More broadly, her research focuses on the contexts affecting children’s developmental systems and life outcomes as well as using evidence-based research to inform policy and prevention for at-risk children.

References

Adato

Carter

M. R.

May

. (2006). Exploring poverty traps and social exclusion in South Africa using qualitative and quantitative data. Journal of Development Studies, 42, 226-247.

Aizer

Stroud

Buka

(2016). Maternal stress and child outcomes: Evidence from siblings. Journal of Human Resources, 51, 523-555.

Alexander

(2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in an age of colored-blindness. London, England: New Press.

Arditti

J. A.

(2015). Family process perspective on the heterogeneous effects of maternal incarceration on child wellbeing. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 169-182.

Arditti

J. A.

Savla

(2015). Parental incarceration and child trauma symptoms in single caregiver homes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24, 551-561.

Besemer

Ahmad

S. I.

Hinshaw

S. P.

Farrington

D. P.

(2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the intergenerational transmission of criminal behavior. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 161-178.

Binswanger

I. A.

Stern

M. F.

Deyo

R. A.

Heagerty

P. J.

Cheadle

Elmore

J. G.

Koepsell

T. D.

(2007). Release from prison: A high risk of death for former inmates. New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 157-165.

Braga

L. L.

Mello

M. F.

Fiks

J. P.

(2012). Transgenerational transmission of trauma and resilience: A qualitative study with Brazilian offspring of Holocaust survivors. BMC Psychiatry, 12, 134.

Braman

(2004). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family life in urban America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

10.

Brame

Turner

Paternoster

Bushway

(2012). Cumulative prevalence of arrest from ages 8-23 in a national sample. Pediatrics, 129, 21-27.

11.

Brown

R. C.

Witt

Fegert

J. M.

Keller

Rassenhofer

Plener

P. L.

(2017). Psychosocial interventions for children and adolescents after man-made and natural disasters: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Psychological Medicine, 47, 1893-1905.

12.

Catani

Jacob

Schauer

Kohila

Neuner

(2008). Family violence, war, and natural disasters: A study of the effect of extreme stress on children’s mental health in Sri Lanka. BMC Psychiatry, 8, 33.

13.

Cho

(2011). Understanding the mechanism behind maternal imprisonment and adolescent school dropout. Family Relations, 60, 272-289.

14.

Clarke

J. G.

Adashi

E. Y.

(2011). Perinatal care for incarcerated patients: A 25-year-old woman pregnant in jail. JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association, 305, 923-929.

15.

Clear

T. C.

(2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

16.

Clear

T. R.

Frost

N. A.

(2014). The punishment imperative: The rise and failure of mass incarceration in America. New York: New York University Press.

17.

Cochran

J. C.

Siennick

S. E.

Mears

D. P.

(2018). Social exclusion and parental incarceration impacts on adolescents’ networks and school engagement. Journal of Marriage and Family. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/jomf.12464

18.

Cook

E. C.

Buehler

Henson

(2009). Parents and peers as social influences to deter antisocial behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 1240-1252.

19.

Dallaire

D. H.

Forestell

Kelsey

Ptachick

MacDonnell

(2017). A nutrition-based program for pregnant incarcerated women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56, 277-294.

20.

Davis

E. P.

Glynn

L. M.

Schetter

C. D.

Hobel

Chicz-Demet

Sandman

C. A.

(2007). Prenatal exposure to maternal depression and cortisol influences infant temperament. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 737-746.

21.

Dennison

Smallbone

Occhipinti

(2017). Understanding how incarceration challenges proximal processes in father–child relationships: Perspectives of imprisoned fathers. Journal of Developmental and Life Course Criminology, 3, 15-38.

22.

Dennison

Smallbone

Stewart

Freiberg

Teague

(2014). “My life is separated”: An examination of the challenges and barriers to parenting for indigenous fathers in prison. British Journal of Criminology, 54, 1089-1108.

23.

Dobbie

Grönqvist

Niknami

Palme

Priks

(2018). The intergenerational effects of parental incarceration (No. w24186). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

24.

Entringer

Epel

E. S.

Kumsta

Lin

Hellhammer

D. H.

Blackburn

E. H.

. . . Wadhwa

P. D.

(2011). Stress exposure in intrauterine life is associated with shorter telomere length in young adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U S A, 108, E513-E518.

25.

Fontein-Kuipers

Y. J.

Nieuwenhuijze

M. J.

Ausems

Budé

Vries

(2014). Antenatal interventions to reduce maternal distress: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 121, 389-397.

26.

Foster

Hagan

(2007). Incarceration and intergenerational social exclusion. Social Problems, 54, 399-433.

27.

Foster

Hagan

(2015). Punishment regimes and the multilevel effects of parental incarceration: Intergenerational, intersectional, and interinstitutional models of social inequality and systemic exclusion. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 135-158.

28.

Fox

B. H.

Perez

Cass

Baglivio

M. T.

Epps

(2015). Trauma changes everything: Examining the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 46, 163-173.

29.

Gendreau

(2012). Rehabilitation. In Cullen

F. T.

Jonson

(Eds.), Correctional theory: Context and consequences (pp. 147-170). London, England: Sage.

30.

Giordano

(2010). Legacies of crime: A follow-up of the children of highly delinquent girls and boys (Cambridge Studies in Criminology). London, England: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Giordano

P. C.

Copp

J. E.

(2015). “Packages” of risk: Implications for determining the effect of maternal incarceration on child wellbeing. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 157-168.

32.

Glover

(2014). Maternal depression, anxiety and stress during pregnancy and child outcome; what needs to be done. Best Practice & Research: Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 28, 25-35.

33.

Hawkins

R. L.

Maurer

(2009). Bonding, bridging and linking: How social capital operated in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 1777-1793.

34.

Haynie

D. L.

Osgood

D. W.

(2005). Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers matter? Social Forces, 84(2), 1109-1130.

35.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Watson

Bell

C. C.

Bryant

R. A.

Brymer

M. J.

Friedman

M. J.

. . . Maguen

(2007). Five essential elements of immediate and mid-term mass trauma intervention: Empirical evidence. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 70, 283-315.

36.

Howden

L. M.

Meyer

J. A.

(2011). Age and sex composition: 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

37.

Hughes

Bellis

M. A.

Hardcastle

K. A.

Sethi

Butchart

Mikton

. . . Dunne

M. P.

(2017). The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health, 2, e356-e366.

38.

Jackson

D. B.

Vaughn

M. G.

(2017). Parental incarceration and child sleep and eating behaviors. Journal of Pediatrics, 185, 211-217.

39.

Jaffee

S. R.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

Taylor

(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.

40.

Johnson

S. B.

Riley

A. W.

Granger

D. A.

Riis

(2013). The science of early life toxic stress for pediatric practice and advocacy. Pediatrics, 131, 319-327.

41.

Junger

Greene

Schipper

Hesper

Estourgie

(2013). Parental criminality, family violence and intergenerational transmission of crime within a birth cohort. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 19, 117-133.

42.

Kaeble

Glaze

L. E.

(2016). Correctional populations in the United States, 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5870

43.

Khan

M. R.

Scheidell

J. D.

Rosen

D. L.

Geller

Brotman

L. M.

(2018). Early age at childhood parental incarceration and STI/HIV-related drug use and sex risk across the young adult lifecourse in the US: Heightened vulnerability of Black and Hispanic youth. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 183, 231-239.

44.

King

Dancause

Turcotte-Tremblay

A. M.

Veru

Laplante

D. P.

(2012). Using natural disasters to study the effects of prenatal maternal stress on child health and development. Birth Defects Research Part C: Embryo Today: Reviews, 96, 273-288.

45.

Kinner

S. A.

Borschmann

(2017). Inequality and intergenerational transmission of complex adversity. Lancet Public Health, 2, e342-e343.

46.

MacKinnon

Kingsbury

Mahedy

Evans

Colman

(2018). The association between prenatal stress and externalizing symptoms in childhood: Evidence from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Biological Psychiatry, 83, 100-108.

47.

McNichol

Tash

(2001). Parental substance abuse and the development of children in family foster care. Child Welfare, 80, 239-256.

48.

Mead

G. H.

(1918). The psychology of punitive justice. American Journal of Sociology, 23, 577-602.

49.

Mears

D. P.

Siennick

S. E.

(2016). Young adult outcomes and the life-course penalties of parental incarceration. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53, 3-35.

50.

Moffitt

T. E.

(1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.

51.

Murray

Bijleveld

C. C.

Farrington

D. P.

Loeber

(2014). Effects of parental incarceration on children: Cross-national comparative studies. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

52.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

(2008a). The effects of parental imprisonment on children. Crime and Justice, 37, 133-206.

53.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

(2008b). Parental imprisonment: Long-lasting effects on boys’ internalizing problems through the life course. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 273-290.

54.

Muftić

L. R.

Bouffard

L. A.

Armstrong

G. S.

(2016). Impact of maternal incarceration on the criminal justice involvement of adult offspring: A research note. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53, 93-111.

55.

Nagin

D. S.

Farrington

D. P.

Moffitt

T. E.

(1995). Life-course trajectories of different types of offenders. Criminology, 33, 111-139.

56.

Nagin

D. S.

Tremblay

R. E.

(2001). Parental and early childhood predictors of persistent physical aggression in boys from kindergarten to high school. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58(4), 389-394.

57.

National Research Council. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

58.

Neger

E. N.

Prinz

R. J.

(2015). Interventions to address parenting and parental substance abuse: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Clinical Psychology Review, 39, 71-82.

59.

Osgood

D. W.

Feinberg

M. E.

Gest

S. D.

Moody

Ragan

D. T.

Spoth

. . . Redmond

(2013). Effects of PROSPER on the influence potential of prosocial versus antisocial youth in adolescent friendship networks. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, 174-179.

60.

Pager

(2008). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

61.

Petterson

S. M.

Albers

A. B.

(2001). Effects of poverty and maternal depression on early child development. Child Development, 72, 1794-1813.

62.

Pinard

(2010). Collateral consequences of criminal convictions: Confronting issues of race and dignity. New York University Law Review, 85, 457-534.

63.

Poehlmann

(2005). Children’s family environments and intellectual outcomes during maternal incarceration. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1275-1285.

64.

Reiman

Leighton

(2015). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice. New York, NY: Routledge.

65.

Robins

R. N.

(1966). Deviant children grown up. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.

66.

Rodriguez

(2016). Bridging the gap between research and practice: The role of science in addressing the effects of incarceration on family life. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665, 231-240.

67.

Roettger

M. E.

Boardman

J. D.

(2012). Parental incarceration and gender-based risks for increased body mass index: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in the United States. American Journal of Epidemiology, 175(7), 636-644.

68.

Roettger

M. E.

Boardman

J. D.

Harris

K. M.

Guo

(2016). The association between the MAOA 2R genotype and delinquency over time among men: The interactive role of parental closeness and parental incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(8), 1076-1094.

69.

Roettger

M. E.

Swisher

R. R.

(2011). Associations of fathers’ history of incarceration with sons’ delinquency and arrest among Black, White, and Hispanic males in the United States. Criminology, 49(4), 1109-1148.

70.

Roettger

M. E.

Swisher

R. R.

(2013). Incarcerated fathers. In Pattnaik

(Ed.), Father involvement in young children’s lives (pp. 107-122). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

71.

Roettger

M. E.

Swisher

R. R

Boardman

J. D.

(2018). Associations of parental incarceration with patterns of criminal justice involvement among Black, White, and Hispanic males in the US (Working Paper Series). Bowling Green, OH: National Center for Marriage and Family Research.

72.

Roettger

M. E.

Swisher

R. R.

Kuhl

D. C.

Chavez

(2011). Paternal incarceration and trajectories of marijuana and other illegal drug use from adolescence into young adulthood: Evidence from longitudinal panels of males and females in the United States. Addiction, 106, 121-132.

73.

Roy

K. M.

Dyson

O. L.

(2005). Gatekeeping in context: Babymama drama and the involvement of incarcerated fathers. Fathering, 3, 289-310.

74.

Schilling

E. A.

Aseltine

R. H.

Gore

(2007). Adverse childhood experiences and mental health in young adults: A longitudinal survey. BMC Public Health, 7, 30.

75.

Self-Brown

Lai

Patterson

Glasheen

(2017). The impact of natural disasters on youth: A focus on emerging research beyond internalizing disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 19(8), 53. doi:10.1007/s11920-017-0798-2

76.

Semien

D. S.

Roettger

M. E.

(2013). Employing Du Bois and Myrdal to analyze the US criminal justice system. Race, Gender & Class, 20, 141-155.

77.

Shaw

Downe

Kingdon

(2015). Systematic mixed-methods review of interventions, outcomes and experiences for imprisoned pregnant women. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71, 1451-1463.

78.

Sheehan

(2010). Parental imprisonment and child protection: A study of children presented to the Melbourne children’s court. Australian Social Work, 63, 164-178.

79.

Simon

(2007). Governing through crime: How the war on crime transformed American democracy and created a culture of fear. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

80.

Swisher

R. R.

Waller

M. R.

(2008). Confining fatherhood: Incarceration and paternal involvement among nonresident White, African American, and Latino fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1067-1088.

81.

Sykes

B. L.

Pettit

(2014). Mass incarceration, family complexity, and the reproduction of childhood disadvantage. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654, 127-149.

82.

Tan

C. E.

H. J.

Zhang

X. G.

Zhang

Han

P. Y.

. . . Wang

M. Q.

(2009). The impact of the Wenchuan earthquake on birth outcomes. PLoS One, 4, e8200.

83.

Thornberry

T. P.

Freeman-Gallant

Lizotte

A. J.

Krohn

M. D.

Smith

C. A.

(2003). Linked lives: The intergenerational transmission of antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 171-184.

84.

Tierney

K. J.

(2007). From the margins to the mainstream? Disaster research at the crossroads. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 503-525.

85.

Tremblay

R. E.

(2013). Development of antisocial behavior during childhood. In Gibson

C. L.

Krohn

M. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of life-course criminology (pp. 3-19). New York, NY: Springer.

86.

Turney

(2014). Stress proliferation across generations? Examining the relationship between parental incarceration and childhood health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 55, 302-319.

87.

Turney

Lanuza

Y. R.

(2017). Parental incarceration and the transition to adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79, 1314-1330.

88.

Turney

Wildeman

(2015). Detrimental for some? Heterogeneous effects of maternal incarceration on child wellbeing. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 125-156.

89.

van de Rakt

Murray

Nieuwbeerta

(2012). The long-term effects of paternal imprisonment on criminal trajectories of children. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49, 81-108. doi:10.1177/0022427810393018

90.

Visher

C. A.

O’Connell

D. J.

(2012). Incarceration and inmates’ self-perception about returning home. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 386-393.

91.

Wakefield

Wildeman

(2014). Children of the prison boom. London, England: Oxford University Press.

92.

Wallinius

Delfin

Billstedt

Nilsson

Anckarsäter

Hofvander

(2016). Offenders in emerging adulthood: School maladjustment, childhood adversities, and prediction of aggressive antisocial behaviors. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 551-563.

93.

Webb

G. R.

(2002). Sociology, disasters, and terrorism: Understanding threats of the new millennium. Sociological Focus, 35, 87-95.

94.

Western

Wildeman

(2009). The Black family and mass incarceration. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621, 221-242.

95.

Wildeman

(2009). Parental imprisonment, the prison boom, and the concentration of childhood disadvantage. Demography, 46, 265-280.

96.

Wildeman

(2010). Paternal incarceration and children’s physically aggressive behaviors: Evidence from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Social Forces, 89, 285-309.

97.

Wildeman

Andersen

S. H.

(2017). Paternal incarceration and children’s risk of being charged by early adulthood: Evidence from a Danish policy shock. Criminology, 55, 32-58.

98.

Wildeman

Scardamalia

Walsh

E. G.

O’Brien

R. L.

Brew

(2017). Paternal incarceration and teachers’ expectations of students. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World, 3, 1-14. doi:10.1177/2378023117726610

99.

Wildeman

Schnittker

Turney

(2012). Despair by association? The mental health of mothers with children by recently incarcerated fathers. American Sociological Review, 77, 216-243.

100.

Wildeman

Wang

E. A.

(2017). Mass incarceration, public health, and widening inequality in the USA. Lancet (London, England), 389, 1464-1474.

101.

Wisner

(1998). Marginality and vulnerability: Why the homeless of Tokyo don’t “count” in disaster preparations. Applied Geography, 18, 25-33.