The Dynamics of Intra-Family Relationships During Incarceration and the Implications for Children of Incarcerated Parents

Abstract

The current study examines effects of changes in intra-family relationships after parental incarceration on internalizing behaviors of the children of incarcerated parents. Using data from a sample of 249 incarcerated parents with minor children in South Korea, the present study found that perceived degradation of family relationships among inmate parents, their non-incarcerated spouses, and children was a significant risk factor of internalizing behaviors of children of incarcerated parents. The current study also found that inmate parents who had more frequent family contact were more likely to perceive improvements of all forms of intra-family relationships during incarceration. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Keywords

dynamics of family relationships parental incarceration children of incarcerated parents internalizing behaviors family contact

Introduction

A large and growing body of empirical research has identified a number of adverse effects of incarceration on offenders, their families, and communities (Bhati & Piquero, 2008; Chung & McFadden, 2010; Clear, 2007, 2008; E. I. Johnson & Easterling, 2012; Turney, 2014a). These deleterious effects of incarceration especially harm the children of incarcerated parents. Prior research indicates that parental incarceration has numerous unintended effects on children of inmates, including internalizing behaviors, mental health problems, antisocial behaviors, truancy/school failure, substance abuse, delinquency, criminal justice involvement, and child mortality (Cho, 2009; Foster & Hagan, 2013; Huebner & Gustafson, 2007; R. C. Johnson, 2009; Mears & Siennick, 2016; Muftić, Bouffard, & Armstrong, 2016; Murray & Farrington, 2005; Murray & Farrington, 2008a, 2008b; Murray, Farrington, & Sekol, 2012; Murray, Janson, & Farrington, 2007; Poehlmann, 2005b; Wilbur et al., 2007; Wildeman, Andersen, Lee, & Karlson, 2014; Will, Whalen, & Loper, 2014). Furthermore, many scholars concern about its additional harms that minor children of incarcerated parents may experience in local and familial contexts, including poverty, changes of caregiver, family dissolution, parental substance abuse, stigma and rejection from neighbors and peers, and participation in gang affiliation or establishment of delinquent peer networks (Aaron & Dallaire, 2010; Murray et al., 2012; Murray, Loeber, & Pardini, 2012; Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008).

Although many prior studies have found that positive intra-family relationships such as parent–child relationship (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; Demuth & Brown, 2004; Gove & Crutchfield, 1982; Mack, Leiber, Featherstone, & Monserud, 2007) and marital relationship (Gove & Crutchfield, 1982; McCord, 1991; Schermerhorn, Cummings, DeCarlo, & Davies, 2007; see also Davies & Cummings, 1994) were critical factors in preventing delinquent behaviors and other adverse outcomes for children, dynamics of intra-family relationships in the context of incarceration and its effects on minor children have rarely been discussed. Some scholars recently pointed out that diverse pre- or post-incarceration familial contexts (e.g., family relationship prior to incarceration, economic strain, strained parenting, family visitation, inmate’s participation in parenting programs; see Murray & Farrington, 2008a) might be related to heterogeneous outcomes for children of incarcerated parents including deleterious (Mears & Siennick, 2016; Muftić et al., 2016; Murray et al., 2012), null (Turney & Wildeman, 2015; Wildeman & Turney, 2014), inconsequential (Turanovic, Rodriguez, & Pratt, 2012), and even beneficial (see Dallaire & Wilson, 2010; Murray, Bijleveld, Farrington, & Loeber, 2014) effects. As dynamics of intra-family relationships after parental incarceration might also be directly related to these familial conditions pre- or post-incarceration, its effects on children need to be examined to understand the complicated heterogeneous effects of parental incarceration on children.

Using a sample of incarcerated South Korean parents who have minor children and consistent family contact, this study examines whether changes in intra-family relationships between pre- and post-incarceration can predict their minor children’s internalizing behaviors. The current study also examines whether familial contexts pre- or post-incarceration significantly predict these changes in intra-family relationships. In the following section, we first provide an overview of current issues about intergenerational effects of parental incarceration. We then discuss why the dynamics of family relationships since parental incarceration is important to explain behavioral outcomes for the minor children of imprisoned parents.

Literature Overview

Effects of Parental Incarceration on Children of Incarcerated Parents

Parental incarceration is associated with many detrimental outcomes for children of incarcerated parents. In the perspective of attachment (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980) and control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi, 1969) theories, children’s sufficient attachment to their parents and proper parental supervision/discipline are critical protective factors of children’s internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Due to parent–child separation and frequent changes of caregivers in the context of parental incarceration, children of the incarcerated are more likely to experience emotional detachment from their parents/caregivers and unstable caregiving as well as a lack of proper supervision or discipline (Murray, Bijleveld, Farrington, & Loeber, 2014; Novero, Booker Loper, & Warren, 2011; Phillips, Erkanli, Costello, & Angold, 2007; Phillips, Erkanli, Keeler, Costello, & Angold, 2006; Poehlmann, 2005b), and this, in turn, may lead to adverse behavioral outcomes of children with incarcerated parents.

The strain theory perspective also provides a possible explanation about the mechanism of intergenerational adverse consequences of parental incarceration. The basic proposition of strain theory is that stressful life events may produce an individual’s negative emotional status such as anger and frustration, and these negative emotions result in deviant behaviors (Agnew, 1992). For most children of the incarcerated, parental incarceration is one of the certain sources of stress (Foster, 2012; Turney, 2014b). For instance, parental entanglement with the criminal justice system, such as an arrest, trial, and incarceration, can be a shocking and terrifying event for minor children; these negative experiences may lead them to trauma or emotional maladjustment (Dallaire & Wilson, 2010; Jose-Kampfner, 1995). Economic decline of family after parental incarceration is another source that induces children’s negative emotions. As incarcerated parents are unable to participate in the labor market, their family members are often left without vital financial support (Arditti, Lambert-Shute, & Joest, 2003; Geller, Garfinkel, Cooper, & Mincy, 2009; Murray & Farrington, 2005; Phillips et al., 2007, 2006; Wildeman, 2014). These negative consequences that children of incarcerated parents are likely to experience thus may be key elements to understand their negative emotional status as well as their internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Johnston, 1995a; Murray et al., 2014; Murray & Farrington, 2008a; Murray & Murray, 2010).

Although most of the studies on intergenerational effects of parental incarceration have been conducted in the context of Western countries, some studies examined these negative effects of parental incarceration on children with a focus on Asian contexts and their findings were consistent to those of studies in Western countries. Drawing on the results from face-to-face interviews with both partners and children of the incarcerated in Hong Kong, Chui (2010) concluded that families of the incarcerated experienced financial and emotional difficulties as well as aggravation of their familial relationships. With a sample of 54 female caregivers of children with incarcerated fathers in Hong Kong, his later study (2016) found that more than a half of the caregivers suffered from borderline to severe depression. He also reported that internalizing and externalizing behaviors of children with incarcerated parents were associated with psychological distress of their caregivers, especially, those associations were mediated by caregivers’ depression.

Although many prior studies consistently found strong correlations between parental incarceration and children’s adverse outcomes, there have also been discussions about whether parental incarceration is a direct causal risk factor or a risk marker, which is mediated by other direct risk factors (Arditti, 2012; E. I. Johnson & Easterling, 2012; Murray & Farrington, 2008a). Some studies reported that the direct effects of parental incarceration disappeared or were greatly reduced by other risk factors relevant to post-incarceration family processes and contexts such as degraded socioeconomic status, dysfunctional parenting, and parent health problems (Kinner, Alati, Najman, & Williams, 2007; Kjellstrand & Eddy, 2011).

In the cross-national perspective, the intervening effects of familial and penal contexts since parental incarceration have also been discussed. Comparing four longitudinal studies from the United States, England, Sweden, and Netherlands, Murray and colleagues (2014) indicated that direct effects of parental incarceration on children’s offending were found in the samples from the United States, England, and the Netherlands (1970s-1980s), whereas it was not in Sweden and the Netherlands (1950s-1960s). Regarding the difference, the authors pointed out that Sweden and the Netherlands (in the 1950s-1960s), unlike the United States and England, had egalitarian social welfare policies and liberal penal contexts focused on rehabilitation and family-friendly prison policies. In this context, families of incarcerated individuals, particularly their children, might have been less likely to suffer from economic hardship and loss of family contact, which may result in degradation of family relationship (see also Murray & Farrington, 2008a). Thus, these positive family processes supported by the liberal social and penal contexts can be a protective factor that mitigates the negative intergenerational effects of parental incarceration.

Family settings pre-incarceration may also be related to heterogeneous effects of parental incarceration on children. That is, the intergenerational effects of parental incarceration can be either null, deleterious, or even beneficial depending on differences in family settings before parental incarceration (e.g., Chui, 2010). Parental incarceration may have more detrimental effects on children who had a stable family setting and enjoyed high-quality care provided by their parents prior to parental incarceration due to their losses of the family stability, quality of care, and affective relationships; moreover, children from such families are often unprepared for these losses. On the contrary, parental incarceration is more likely to have null or even beneficial effects on children with abusive parents in a disadvantaged family as they may actually benefit from the removal of abusive care and the source of a disorderly family environment. In addition, children from disadvantaged families may respond to incarceration of their parents and its negative consequences more resiliently compared with those with a better family context because they may have been more exposed to these negative events (Arditti, 2015; see also Patterson, 2002; Turney & Wildeman, 2015).

Dynamics of Intra-Family Relationships Between Pre- and Post-Incarceration

Prior studies indicate that intergenerational effects of parental incarceration might be direct, indirect, spurious, and/or heterogeneous depending on various family processes in the context of both pre- and post-incarceration. This suggests that changes in intra-family relationships, or dynamics of intra-family relationships, between pre- and post-incarceration might be important to understand the complicated intergenerational consequences of parental incarceration. It is because the dynamics of intra-family relationships, as an immediate factor affecting behavioral outcomes for children of incarcerated parents, might reflect the diverse family settings and processes pre- or post-incarceration. In other words, the dynamics of intra-family relationships, referring to as a degree of how much family relationships improved or degraded between pre-and post-incarceration, may work as an intervening factor connecting parental incarceration with adverse outcomes for children of imprisoned parents.

The dynamics of intra-family relationships may account for many types of moderating and mediating effects between parental incarceration and children’s adverse outcomes. For example, positive family relationship before parental incarceration, which is one of the most critical protective predictors of juveniles’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; Demuth & Brown, 2004; Gove & Crutchfield, 1982; Mack et al., 2007; Schermerhorn et al., 2007), might be degraded by the incarceration because it may lead to family conflict and instability (Aaron & Dallaire, 2010; Lopoo & Western, 2005; Phillips et al., 2006). Through this process, the negative change in family relationships, in turn, may lead to internalizing and externalizing behaviors of children of the incarcerated. Correctional policies for family contact (e.g., visitation) and/or participation in parent/family programs (Carlson & Cervera, 1991; La Vigne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005; Mowen & Visher, 2016) may also have beneficial indirect effects on children’s behavioral outcomes because these policies and programs may have beneficial direct effects on the dynamics of intra-family relationships. Abusive family settings prior to parental incarceration and reduced/nullified effects of parental incarceration derived from the family settings (e.g., the removal of abusive family conditions, children’s resilience; see Arditti, 2015) can also be understood in the context of the dynamics of intra-family relationships. In the abusive family settings, parental incarceration may not degrade family relationships as much as it does in the healthier family context. As discussed earlier, parental incarceration may also have a positive effect on the dynamics of family relationships in these abusive family settings due to the removal of abusive family contexts.

In sum, the dynamics of intra-family relationships between pre- and post-incarceration may be able to explain diverse forms of intergenerational effects of parental incarceration as this concept includes many familial processes affecting adverse outcomes for children of imprisoned parents. If this relative change in family relationships is large and negative, children of incarcerated parents are more likely to show adverse behavioral outcomes. Despite its importance, little is known about how intra-family relationships are changing over the period of parental incarceration and how the dynamics of intra-family relationships in the context of parental incarceration affect behavioral outcomes for minor children (Arditti, 2015; Dallaire, 2007; E. I. Johnson & Easterling, 2012; Rodriguez, 2016).

In addition, effects of multiple intra-family relationships since parental incarceration on children should also be examined. While parent–child relationships including inmate parent–child and non-incarcerated parent–child relationships are considered as a predictor of adverse behavioral outcomes for children, inmate–spouse relationship may also be important because it can be related to stable and quality caregiving (Rodriguez, 2016). In other words, incarceration of inmate parents may increase stress and mental/physical health problems for their non-incarcerated spouses (caregivers), which may relate to dysfunctional caregiving, and this, in turn, may lead to adverse outcomes for children (Arditti, 2012; Chui, 2016; Dallaire, 2007; see also Arditti et al., 2003; Mackintosh, Myers, & Kennon, 2006); yet these effects may also be heterogeneous due to the nature of pre-incarceration family settings (Turanovic et al., 2012; Turney, 2015a, 2015b).

Current Focus

The current study examines whether the dynamics of multiple intra-family relationships after parental incarceration including inmate–child, inmate–spouse, and spouse–child relationships can predict internalizing behaviors of children of imprisoned parents. Relatively fewer studies on examining an association between parental incarceration and internalizing behaviors of children with incarcerated parents have been conducted to date compared with studies on other negative behavioral outcomes such as delinquency, antisocial behaviors, or poor academic performance. Pointing out the lack of research, Murray and Farrington (2008b) focused on a causal relationship of parental incarceration with children’s internalizing behaviors and found its significant effects even controlling for other individual and family risk factors. Based on their findings, the current study thus focuses on relationships between family dynamics in the context of parental incarceration and children’s internalizing behaviors.

As discussed earlier, it is highly likely that family relationships change, especially parental caregiving patterns and qualities, due to parental incarceration. Caregivers’ psychological difficulties after their partner’s incarceration may discourage them from being attentive to caregiving, and this in turn may be related to children’s internalizing behaviors. However, it may also lead to intrusive psychological control of children such as inhibiting and manipulative parenting behaviors (Phillips et al., 2006), which might also be associated with children’s internalizing behaviors (Barber, 1992).

Thus, research hypotheses are following:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Degradation of intra-family relationships since parental incarceration significantly predicts an increase in internalizing behaviors of children of incarcerated parents.

Hypothesis 1A: Degradation of inmate–spouse relationships significantly predicts an increase in their child’s internalizing behaviors.

Hypothesis 1B: Degradation of inmate–child relationships significantly predicts an increase in their child’s internalizing behaviors.

Hypothesis 1C: Degradation of spouse–child relationships significantly predicts an increase in their child’s internalizing behaviors.

This study also explores pre- or post-incarceration familial contexts that may influence the dynamics of intra-family relationships since parental incarceration. As discussed earlier, some prior studies found that family economic decline during incarceration (Chui, 2010; Conger, Ge, Elder, Lorenz, & Simons, 1994), inmate’s contact with family during incarceration (Carlson & Cervera, 1991; La Vigne et al., 2005; Mowen & Visher, 2016), and inmate’s residence with children prior to incarceration (Turney & Wildeman, 2013) were significantly related to family relationships since incarceration. Relevant research hypotheses regarding the associations between these familial conditions pre- or post-incarceration and the dynamics of family relationships since incarceration include the following:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Familial contexts pre- or post-incarceration significantly predict the dynamics of intra-family relationships since parental incarceration.

Hypothesis 2A: Family economic decline since incarceration significantly predicts degradation of family relationships.

Hypothesis 2B: Inmate’s frequent contact with family during incarceration significantly predicts improvement in family relationships.

Hypothesis 2C: Inmate’s residence with children prior to incarceration significantly predicts degradation of family relationships.

Method

Participants

The present study utilized data from a survey of prison inmates in South Korea. The original data were collected by the Korean Institute of Criminology¹ in 2007 (Jeon, Shin, & Kim, 2007). The original survey employed stratified sampling based on location of correctional facilities and inmates’ prison terms, and 600 inmates were invited to participate in the original survey. In South Korea, there are 51 correctional institutions belonging to four regional corrections headquarters located in Seoul, Daegu, Daejeon, and Gwangju. Two correctional facilities for each regional headquarter, eight institutions, including seven penitentiaries in Anyang, Busan, Daegu, Daejeon, Jeonju, Seoul, and Suncheon and one women’s prison in Chungju were selected as subject prisons. In terms of inmates’ prison terms, 1 to 5 years was the majority (47%) followed by less than 1 year (24%), more than 10 years (15%), and 5 to 10 years (14%). Although all the invited inmates agreed to participate in the survey, the sample size of the original dataset is 556 because 44 responses were eliminated due to insufficient response to the survey. The current study utilized a part of the original sample including responses from inmates who had at least one minor child aged less than 19 (N = 267) and reported family contact more than once every 6 months (N = 249). Accordingly, 249 responses were finally utilized in this study. Respondents were informed that their participation was completely voluntary, non-participation would not result in any negative consequences, and their responses were confidential. The original questionnaire was written in Korean and was translated into English during the analysis by bilingual criminal justice faculty members to ensure conceptual equivalence of contents in two languages.

To understand characteristics of South Korean prisoners, the context of the South Korean correctional system should also be addressed. According to the World Prison Brief,² South Korean prison population rates per 100,000 of national population were 96 and 101 in 2008 and 2014, respectively, which are remarkably lower than those of the United States (755 and 693 per 100,000 people in 2008 and 2014, respectively). The percentages of female prisoners were 5.2% and 6.5% in 2010 and 2016, respectively, which are also lower than those of the United States (8.7% in 2010 and 9.7% in 2016). As South Korea is close to a homogeneous society in terms of race, ethnicity, and language, there are only few differences in characteristics of inmates regarding those categories. In terms of South Korean prison contexts, inmates are provided with education and vocational programs, psychological treatment, religious activities, and work assignments based on risk and needs assessment (Reyns, Woo, Lee, & Yoon, 2016). In addition, they are allowed for calls, letters, furloughs, and visits under certain supervisions and regulations.

Measures

Internalizing behaviors

Internalizing behaviors of children of incarcerated parents were indirectly measured by respondents, the incarcerated parents. There might be considerable differences between the inmate parents’ recognition and children’s actual behaviors. Nevertheless, some prior studies that applied indirect measures have found, to a certain degree, similar results as other studies with direct measures have found (Johnston, 1995a; see also Geller et al., 2009; Wildeman, 2010). Participants of the current study are expected to have recognized their children’s internalizing behaviors because they responded that they had consistent contact with their families at the time of taking the survey. Based on Stanton’s (1980) measures, four questions such as “Since my incarceration, my kid has (a) not wanted to talk to others, (b) been afraid of meeting new people, (c) been timid and lethargic, and (d) suffered from depression and insomnia” were used to measure internalizing behaviors (α = .88). Inmate parents were informed that they should respond to those questions applying the case of their oldest child if they had more than one child. For each of the four items, a 4-point ordinal scale was applied (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = somewhat agree, 4 = strongly agree) and the rounded means of multiple questions were used as a value of this variable.

Perceived degradation of family relationships since incarceration

Regarding the dynamics of family relationships, degradation of three separate family relationships since incarceration—(a) inmate–spouse, (b) inmate–child, and (c) spouse–child relationships—were measured by three single-items. Participants were asked how these relationships changed after incarceration compared with the time prior to incarceration. A 5-point ordinal scale was provided to the respondents and a greater value indicates more degraded family relationships since incarceration (1 = much better, 2 = somewhat better, 3 = no change, 4 = somewhat worse, 5 = much worse). To assess an overall quality of family relationships, a composite variable measured by the rounded mean of the sum of the three separate family relationships was applied as well.

Family economic decline

Participants responded to two questions about economic status of their family before and after incarceration. A 5-point scale (1 = very wealthy, 2 = somewhat wealthy, 3 = normal, 4 = somewhat poor, 5 = very poor) was applied to both questions, then the final variable was dichotomously coded based on the difference between before and after incarceration (0 = worse after their incarceration, 1 = better or no change after incarceration).

Frequency of family contact

Seven questions related to frequency of family contact in prison such as letter, email, telephone, video, and visitation were asked of the participants. A 5-point ordinal scale was used to measure the frequency (1 = more than once in 6 months, 2 = more than once in 2 or 3 months, 3 = more than once in a month, 4 = more than once in a week), again the rounded mean of the seven questions was used.

Living with children

Participants responded to a question asking their experience regarding whether they lived with their minor children prior to incarceration (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Awareness of parent’s incarceration

If children of incarcerated parents are not aware of the fact that their parents are behind bars, effects of parental incarceration on adverse outcomes for these children could be reduced or null (Fritsch & Burkhead, 1981). To control this, a binary variable on children’s awareness of parental incarceration was measured (0 = not aware, 1 = aware).

Visitation to incarcerated parent

Children’s visitation to incarcerated parents may have beneficial effects on their emotional adjustment because it allows them to interact with their parents and express their feelings or emotional reactions (Johnston, 1995b; see also Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010; Trice & Brewster, 2004). Thus, participants were asked whether they had experienced children’s visitation (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Change of caregiver

Stability of caregiving is one of the important factors that may affect children’s emotional stability (Poehlmann, 2005b). Participants were asked if caregivers for their children had changed at least more than once since their incarceration (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Inmate’s characteristics

Inmates’ socio-demographic characteristics and prior criminal records were employed as control variables. In regard to gender (0 = female, 1 = male), maternal incarceration has been reported to have more adverse effects on children than paternal incarceration because imprisoned mothers are more likely to live with their children when they are arrested (Mumola, 2000), and children of incarcerated mothers are more likely to live with relatives rather than the non-incarcerated parent—fathers—since incarceration (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008; see also Murray & Murray, 2010). Participants’ Age (continuous in years), education (1 = less than elementary school, 2 = middle school, 3 = high school, 4 = more than college), and prior imprisonment history before the current incarceration (0 = no prior record, 1 = one, 2 = two, 3 = three, 4 = more than four records) were also measured.

Missing Data and Analytic Strategies

Issues on missing data are not ignorable for the current study (see Table 1). In regard to handling missing data, listwise deletion provides unbiased estimates when missing data are not correlated with observed and unobserved variables, often referred to as missing completely at random (MCAR). If a pattern of missing data is not MCAR but missing at random (MAR), having correlations between missing data and observed variables, listwise deletion may lead to biased results (Allison, 2000). According to the result of the Little’s test (1988; see also Li, 2013), the pattern of missing data in the current study was not MCAR (p < .001). For example, we found that participants who did not respond to questions asking their children’s internalizing behaviors reported significantly more degraded intra-family relationships than participants who responded to those questions. It is thus ill-advised to apply listwise deletion for the current study. Listwise deletion is also problematic for this study given the small sample size. Due to sizable missing cases, a significant portion of the cases will be dropped if listwise deletion is applied. This lowers the statistical power, which leads to inefficiency of significance test.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variable	n ^a	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
Internalizing behaviors of children of incarcerated parents
Internalizing behaviors	192	1	4	1.89	0.89
Perceived degradation of family relationships
Inmate–spouse	206	1	5	3.14	1.16
Inmate–child	221	1	5	3.00	1.13
Spouse–child	196	1	5	2.71	1.11
Composite index	238	1	5	2.95	1.02
Probable risk/protective predictors
Economic decline	228	0	1	0.294	0.46
Frequency of family contact	247	1	4	2.92	0.90
Living with children prior to incarceration	232	0	1	.85	0.35
Awareness of parent’s incarceration	225	0	1	0.52	0.50
Visitation to incarcerated parent	243	0	1	0.40	0.49
Change of caregiver	232	0	1	0.24	0.43
Inmate’s characteristics
Gender	249	0	1	0.61	0.49
Age	231	19	60	40.85	7.09
Education	232	1	4	3.07	0.76
Prior record	203	0	4	0.78	1.24

Total N = 249.

To handle this issue, multiple imputation (MI) was applied in this study. In the MI algorithm, multiple imputed data are produced based on existing relationships between multiple observed data in a dataset, and then coefficients and standard errors are estimated by the multiple imputed data according to “Rubin’s rule (1987)” (Royston, 2009). There are two types of MI: (a) Multivariate Normal (MVN) and (b) chained equation. MVN is generally applied if relevant variables are continuous and normally distributed. Chained equation, however, is applicable when variables are either continuous or categorical. In addition, it does not require the assumption of normal distribution (Manly & Wells, 2015; Royston, 2009). As most of the variables are categorical, the current study employed chained equation for MI.

In terms of the number of imputation, more than 100 imputations are recently recommended for better inference (Kenward & Carpenter, 2007) although Rubin (1987) suggested that five imputations would be good enough. Relatedly, White, Royston, and Wood (2011) also pointed out that “rule of thumb that the number of imputations should be at least equal to the percentage of incomplete cases” (p. 38). As approximately 65% of cases include at least one missing value, it seems to need more than 65 imputations for this study. The current study thus applied 100 imputations.

Drawing on the imputed data, the current study applied ordered logit regressions with multiple imputed data to predict internalizing behaviors of children of incarcerated parents, and perceived degradation of family relationships during parental incarceration. All the statistical applications were executed via Stata 13.

Findings

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics of variables. Participants who disagreed that their children experienced internalizing behaviors since the current incarceration were more than those who agreed (M = 1.89, SD = .89). In regard to perceived degradation of family relationships, spouse–child relationship slightly improved (M = 2.71, SD = 1.11) compared with both inmate–spouse relationship (M = 3.14, SD = 1.16) and inmate–children relationship (M = 3.00, SD = 1.13). For other risk factors, approximately 29.4% of participants reported that their family suffered from economic decline after their incarceration. A majority of the respondents reported that they were in touch with their families more than once a month (71.7%) and had been living with their children prior to the current incarceration (85.3%). About half of the participants’ children were aware of their parent’s incarceration (52.0%), and more than one third of children had visited their parents in prison at least once (39.9%). In addition, about 23.7% of children had experienced a replacement of their caregivers at least once since incarceration. Regarding characteristics of participants, male offenders were the majority of the sample (61.0%) and the average of the inmate’s age was approximately 41. The majority of them were more than high school graduates (80.0%) and had no prior record before their incarceration (62.6%).

As indicated in Table 2, effects of perceived degradation of multiple intra-family relationships since parental incarceration on children’s internalizing behaviors were examined after controlling for other potential risk factors. Degradation of all intra-family relationships was identified as risk factors to increase children’s internalizing behaviors. Specifically, it was reported that one unit increase in degradation of family relationships led to 39% (between inmate and spouse, odds ratio [OR] = 1.39, p < .05; see Model 1), 51% (between inmate and child, OR = 1.51, p < .01; see Model 2), 74% (between spouse and child, OR = 1.74, p < .01; see Model 3), and 67% (composite family relationship, OR = 1.67, p < .01; see Model 4) of increases in the odds of children’s internalizing behaviors versus somewhat and strongly disagree when all the other variables are held constant.

Table 2.

Ordered Logistic Regression for Perceived Degradation of Intra-Family Relationships Predicting Internalizing Behaviors of Children of Incarcerated Parents (n = 214).

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE
Risk/protective predictors
Family relationship
Inmate–spouse	1.39	.21*
Inmate–child			1.51	.24**
Spouse–child					1.74	.26**
Composite							1.67	.28**
Family economic decline	1.74	.64	1.91	.71^†	2.16	.82*	1.93	.72^†
Frequency of family contact	0.88	.16	0.91	.17	0.92	.17	0.92	.17
Living with children prior to incarceration	0.53	.27	0.59	.31	0.54	.28	0.55	.28
Awareness of parental Incarceration	1.76	.69	2.10	.84^†	1.60	.63	1.86	.74
Visitation to parents	0.86	.33	0.84	.33	1.01	.40	0.90	.35
Change of caregiver	0.74	.29	0.81	.31	0.88	.35	0.82	.32
Inmate’s characteristics
Gender	0.76	.27	0.72	.26	0.66	.24	0.71	.25
Age	1.04	.03	1.04	.03	1.04	.03	1.04	.03
Education	0.61	.14*	0.62	.14*	0.61	.14*	0.59	.14*
Prior record	0.77	.12^†	0.79	.12	0.79	.12	0.76	.12^†
Model F-statistics	2.23*		2.38**		2.82**		2.55**

Note. OR = odds ratio.

†

p < .10 level (two-tailed test). *p < .05 level (two-tailed test). **p < .01 level (two-tailed test).

Family economic decline since parental incarceration, and inmate’s education also had significant associations with children’s internalizing behaviors. Experience of family economic decline increased the odds of children’s internalizing behaviors from 91% to 116% although it did not indicate a significant effect in Model 1. Inmate’s education was also found to have consistent protective effects on children’s internalizing behaviors, reporting that one unit increase in inmate’s education was associated with about 39% (Models, 1, 2, and 3) and 41% (Model 4) decreases in the odds of children’s internalizing behaviors, respectively.

Table 3 indicates results for predictors of perceived degradation of intra-family relationships since parental incarceration. Frequency of family contact was the only significant predictor for all types of family relationships. In the model predicting degradation of inmate–child relationship, one unit increase in frequency of family contact decreased a 43% of the odds of responding worse relationship versus better relationship since incarceration (OR = 0.57, p < .01). In the models predicting degraded changes in inmate–spouse, spouse–child, and composite relationships, one unit increase in frequency of family contact was associated with 37% (OR = 0.63, p < .01), 34% (OR = 0.66, p < .05), and 42% (OR = 0.58, p < .01) of decreases in the odds of responding worse relationship versus better relationship since incarceration, respectively. In addition, inmate’s gender significantly predicted degradation of inmate–child and spouse–child relationships. Paternal incarceration was associated with approximately 73% to 82% of increases in the odds of responding degraded changes in inmate–child and spouse–child relationships, respectively. Family economic decline only had a significant effect on a degraded inmate–spouse relationship (OR = 1.82, p < .05).

Table 3.

Ordered Logistic Regression Predicting Perceived Degradation of Intra-Family Relationships (n = 201).

	Inmate–spouse		Inmate–child		Spouse–child		Composite
	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE	OR	SE
Risk/protective predictors
Family economic decline	1.82	.56*	1.04	.33	0.61	.20	0.95	.29
Frequency of family contact	0.63	.10**	0.57	.09**	0.66	.12*	0.58	.09**
Living with children prior to incarceration	1.12	.44	0.65	.27	0.94	.40	0.88	.35
Inmate’s characteristics
Gender	1.26	.39	1.73	.55^†	1.82	.61^†	1.59	.49
Age	1.01	.02	1.00	.02	1.03	.02	1.02	.02
Education	0.94	.20	0.88	.19	1.04	.23	1.05	.22
Prior record	1.16	.15	0.95	.13	1.01	.14	1.12	.15
Model F-statistics	2.50*		2.46*		1.81^†		2.57*

Note. OR = odds ratio.

†

p < .10 level (two-tailed test). *p < .05 level (two-tailed test). **p < .01 level (two-tailed test).

Discussion and Conclusion

As consistent with the first set of research hypotheses (H1), inmate parents’ perceived degradation of all four types of family relationships—inmate–spouse, inmate–child, spouse–child, and composite relationships—increased children’s internalizing behaviors controlling for other risk/protective predictors. These findings indicate that dynamics of intra-family relationships since parental incarceration can be an immediate risk factor of internalizing behaviors of children with incarcerated parents. The results thus provide important implications about the mechanism of the heterogeneous intergenerational effects of parental incarceration reported by prior studies. That is, diverse family contexts and processes before and after incarceration might directly affect both direction and strength of changes in intra-family relationships since parental incarceration, and the dynamics of family relationships embedded in the familial conditions pre- and post-incarceration, in turn, may immediately affect children’s internalizing behaviors.

For degradation of inmate–spouse relationship, its significant associations with internalizing behaviors of children of the incarcerated provide some important implications about the mechanism of children’s internalizing behaviors in the context of parental incarceration. Due to the degraded relationship, first of all, non-incarcerated parents/caregivers might be reluctant to conduct protective parenting roles for their children such as providing consistent care, emotional support, and proper supervision (Mackintosh et al., 2006; Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010), and this insufficient child care, in turn, may lead to their children’s internalizing behaviors. Second, if children of the incarcerated directly observe the degrading process of relationship between their parents after incarceration, they are more likely to feel anxiety, insecurity, or frustration, and these negative emotions may lead to their internalizing behaviors. As discussed earlier, children who had relatively better familial contexts prior to parental incarceration are more likely to experience these negative emotions and internalizing behaviors. Therefore, future studies should further examine whether these two processes related to non-incarcerated spouses and children are significantly associated with degradation of inmate–spouse relationship as well as children’s internalizing behaviors.

Significant associations between degradation of inmate–child relationship and children’s internalizing behaviors may imply that parenting roles conducted by incarcerated parents are still important for their children’s internalizing behaviors even in the context of incarceration. For example, if inmate parents attempt to show how much they love their children and to provide them with sufficient emotional support via frequent family contact, children are more likely to feel that their parents are still concerned about them and trying to protect them although they are currently incarcerated. Through these positive interactions during incarceration, children are also more likely to expect better circumstances after their parents are released from prison and back home, and this, in turn, may reduce children’s internalizing behaviors. As indicated, since inmate’s frequent family contact had significantly positive effects on improvement of inmate–child relationship since incarceration, policy makers who design correctional policies should consider how they can provide inmate parents with more opportunities of family contact to help them conduct parenting roles and to improve their relationship with children.

Degradation of spouse–child relationship since parental incarceration was also a significant risk factor of internalizing behaviors of children with incarcerated parents. To understand its mechanism more clearly, some preceding processes that may lead to degradation of spouse–child relationship should be considered. For example, economic, emotional, and psychological difficulties that non-incarcerated parents are likely to experience due to incarceration of their partners may degrade their conjugal relationships, and this, as discussed above, may also lead non-incarcerated parents to avoid performing protective parenting roles for their children. The insufficient child care of non-incarcerated parents may also lead to degradation of relationships between non-incarcerated parents and their children as well as children’s internalizing behaviors. Future studies thus should focus on identifying pre-conditions that affect the dynamics of spouse–child relationship and examining their indirect effects on internalizing behaviors of children with incarcerated parents through degradation of spouse–child relationship since parental incarceration.

In addition to the dynamics of intra-family relationships, family economic decline after incarceration was also a significant risk factor of internalizing behaviors of children with incarcerated parents other than the case of the model including degradation of inmate–spouse relationship. These results imply that policy makers are also required to consider how correctional policies can minimize these negative intergenerational effects of economic difficulties derived from parental incarceration. In terms of its insignificant effects in the model including degradation of inmate–spouse relationship, it is possible that effects of family economic decline on children’s internalizing behaviors were mediated by degradation of inmate–spouse relationship. As discussed earlier, family economic decline may lead to degradation of inmate–spouse relationship, and this degraded conjugal relationship, in turn, may result in insufficient child care as well as diverse emotional and psychological problems of their children such as anxiety, frustration, and depression. The results of the model predicting degradation of inmate–spouse relationship also indirectly support this explanation. Family economic decline was significantly associated with degradation of inmate–spouse relationship in this model, while it did not have any significant effects on the dynamics of both inmate–child and spouse–child relationships. Therefore, future studies should further examine mediating effects of family economic decline on internalizing behaviors of children of the incarcerated through degradation of inmate–spouse relationship since parental incarceration.

In terms of possible risk/protective factors of degradation of intra-family relationships, the second set of hypotheses (H2), inmate’s family contact was the only significant protective factor for the degradation of family relationship variables. It was found to have beneficial effects on not only inmate–spouse and inmate–child relationships but spouse–child relationship as well. That is, inmates who frequently meet or communicate with their families are more likely to improve, or maintain at least, their family relationships during incarceration. These findings correspond to the results of previous studies (La Vigne et al., 2005; Mowen & Visher, 2016). Despite no significant direct effects of inmate’s family contact on children’s internalizing behaviors, it is still possible that family contact had an indirect effect on children’s internalizing behaviors through the dynamics of intra-family relationships since parental incarceration. Future studies thus should examine structural relationships among inmate’s family contact, degradation of family relationships, and children’s behavioral outcomes.

It should also be noted that incarcerated mothers reported less deterioration of both inmate–child and spouse–child relationships than incarcerated fathers controlling for frequency of family contact. According to the data of the current study, 24.7% of male inmates and 29.2% of female inmates reported that they had relatively rare family contact (the sum of both responses more than once in 6 months and more than once in 2 or 3 months). For those who reported relatively frequent family contact (the sum of both responses more than once in a month and more than once in a week), 67.9% of males and 65.1% of females were categorized in this group. Rather, the gender difference in perceived degradation of parent–child relationship might be related to maternal roles traditionally and socially constructed and required of females to conduct. Female inmates with minor children might implicitly accept the socially constructed norms that mothers need to give priority to taking care of their children, thereby they might tend to perceive and/or report more positive relationships with children as it could be difficult for them to admit, given the socially required maternal roles, that their incarceration harmed their families, particularly their children. In this context, incarcerated mothers may either intentionally or unintentionally attempt to avoid possible blame for deterioration of parent–child relationships after their incarceration from not only others but also themselves.

Relatedly, Arditti (2012) pointed out that this stereotype of being a good mother can be one of the sources of maternal distress for incarcerated mothers because the gap between their current condition and an idealized mother caring and supporting their children perfectly can lead them to feel guilty and distressed. Interviewing incarcerated mothers, Poehlmann (2005a) also found that most of them felt extreme guilt about their separation from their children. In South Korean contexts, it is also expected that incarcerated mothers might go through similar emotional processes as those from Western countries would. It might be even more apparent because Confucian culture and patriarchal values are still influential in South Korea. Although social values and ideologies have been changing rapidly, South Korea has a relatively short history of modernization compared with Western countries, therefore, gendered ideologies, norms, or expectations such as stereotypes about motherhood still continue in a few areas of the country. Considering those factors, we might think the possibility that incarcerated mothers in the current study tended to respond more positively than incarcerated fathers in terms of changes in family relationships after incarceration to compensate for their feelings of guilt and inadequacy due to their gendered identity as a mother. Applying cross-country or cross-cultural data, future studies thus should further examine effects of gender differences on both perceived degradation of parent–child relationships and perceived responsibility for their children.

Despite these findings and implications, there are some limitations in the current study. Measurement issues should be noted foremost because children’s internalizing behaviors were indirectly measured by inmate parents. We cannot deny that direct responses from children are superior to the indirect measurement applied in this study. It is thus strongly suggested that future research directly measure these variables from all family members. In addition, children’s demographic information such as gender and age was not included in the model. It can be problematic if these demographic variables have significant moderating effects on children’s adverse outcomes although a recent meta-analysis study reported that no significant moderating effects of children’s age and sex on their outcomes were found (Murray et al., 2012).

Sizable missing data are also problematic. The current study applied multiple imputation process and multiple imputed data analysis based on the assumption that the missing pattern was MAR. However, it still cannot rule out a possibility of missing not at random (MNAR), the missing pattern that has correlations with not only observed variables but also unobserved ones. In this context, multiple imputed data analysis may produce biased results and implications based on the biased results are misleading.

In addition, it is difficult to confirm the direction of causal relationship due to cross-sectional research design applied in this study. For example, the current study cannot firmly conclude that degradation of intra-family relationships since parental incarceration leads to internalizing behaviors of children with incarcerated parents despite strong associations between them. That is, we cannot rule out that children’s internalizing behaviors degraded family relationships, especially non-incarcerated spouse–child relationship, during parental incarceration because non-incarcerated parents may have to provide special care to their children with internalizing behaviors. They are thus more likely to be exhausted, and this, in turn, may lead them to avoid conducting their parenting roles. Likewise, it is also possible that degradation of family relationship, especially inmate–spouse relationship, was a causal risk factor of a decrease in family contact during incarceration rather than the opposite. If degradation of inmate–spouse relationship precedes for a certain reason, frequency of family contact might decrease because non-incarcerated spouses are likely to be reluctant to contact their incarcerated partners. Thus, some advanced methodological aspects such as longitudinal research design and propensity score matching are needed for future research to identify the direction of effects between the dynamics of intra-family relationships and outcomes for children of incarcerated parents.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Aaron

Dallaire

D. H.

(2010). Parental incarceration and multiple risk experiences: Effects on family dynamics and children’s delinquency. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 39, 1471-1484.

Agnew

(1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47-88.

Allison

P. D.

(2000). Multiple imputation for missing data: A cautionary tale. Sociological Methods & Research, 28, 301-309.

Arditti

J. A.

(2012). Parental incarceration and the family: Psychological and social effects of imprisonment on children, parents, and caregivers. New York: New York University 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.

Lambert-Shute

Joest

(2003). Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of incarceration for families and children. Family Relations, 52, 195-204.

Barber

B. K.

(1992). Family, personality, and adolescent problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 69-79.

Bhati

A. S.

Piquero

A. R.

(2008). Estimating the impact of incarceration on subsequent offending trajectories: Deterrent, criminogenic, or null effect. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 98, 207-254.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. London, England: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis.

10.

Bowlby

(1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation, anxiety and anger. London, England: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis.

11.

Bowlby

(1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness and depression. London, England: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis.

12.

Carlson

B. E.

Cervera

(1991). Inmates and their families: Conjugal visits, family contact, and family functioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 318-331.

13.

Cernkovich

S. A.

Giordano

P. C.

(1987). Family relationships and delinquency. Criminology, 25, 295-319.

14.

Cho

R. M.

(2009). Impact of maternal imprisonment on children’s probability of grade retention. Journal of Urban Economics, 65, 11-23.

15.

Chui

W. H.

(2010). “Pains of imprisonment”: Narratives of the women partners and children of the incarcerated. Child & Family Social Work, 15, 196-205.

16.

Chui

W. H.

(2016). Association between caregiver stress and behavioral problems in the children of incarcerated fathers in Hong Kong. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 20, 2074-2083.

17.

Chung

H. L.

McFadden

(2010). The effects of incarceration on neighborhoods and communities. In Harris

Y. R.

Graham

J. A.

Oliver Carpenter

G. J.

(Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents: Theoretical, developmental and clinical issues (pp. 105-126). New York, NY: Springer.

18.

Clear

T. R.

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

19.

Clear

T. R.

(2008). The effects of high imprisonment rates on communities. In Tonry

(Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 37, pp. 97-132). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

20.

Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H.

Lorenz

F. O.

Simons

R. L.

(1994). Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents. Child Development, 65, 541-561.

21.

Dallaire

D. H.

(2007). Children with incarcerated mothers: Developmental outcomes, special challenges, and recommendations. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 15-24.

22.

Dallaire

D. H.

Wilson

L. C.

(2010). The relation of exposure to parental criminal activity, arrest, and sentencing to children’s maladjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 404-418.

23.

Davies

P. T.

Cummings

E. M.

(1994). Marital conflict and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387-411.

24.

Demuth

Brown

S. L.

(2004). Family structure, family processes, and adolescent delinquency: The significance of parental absence versus parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 58-81.

25.

Foster

(2012). The strains of maternal imprisonment: Importation and deprivation stressors for women and children. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 221-229.

26.

Foster

Hagan

(2013). Maternal and paternal imprisonment in the stress process. Social Science Research, 42, 650-669.

27.

Fritsch

Burkhead

(1981). Behavioral reactions of children to parental absence due to imprisonment. Family Relations, 30, 83-88.

28.

Geller

Garfinkel

Cooper

C. E.

Mincy

R. B.

(2009). Parental incarceration and child well-being: Implications for urban families. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 1186-1202.

29.

Glaze

L. E.

Maruschak

(2008). Parents in prison and their minor children (NCJ 222984). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

30.

Gottfredson

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

31.

Gove

W. R.

Crutchfield

R. D.

(1982). The family and juvenile delinquency. The Sociological Quarterly, 23, 301-319.

32.

Hirschi

(1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

33.

Huebner

B. M.

Gustafson

(2007). The effect of maternal incarceration on adult offspring involvement in the criminal justice system. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 283-296.

34.

Jeon

Shin

Kim

(2007). A study on family relationships of prison inmates and improvement strategies for the familiar relationship during incarceration (Project No. 11-1270000-000485-01). Gwacheon, Republic of Korea: Ministry of Justice. (In Korean)

35.

Johnson

E. I.

Easterling

(2012). Understanding unique effects of parental incarceration on children: Challenges, progress, and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 342-356.

36.

Johnson

R. C.

(2009). Ever-increasing levels of parental incarceration and the consequences for children. In Raphael

Stoll

M. A.

(Eds.), Do prisons make us safer? The benefits and costs of the prison boom (pp. 177-206). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

37.

Johnston

(1995a). Effects of parental incarceration. In Gabel

Johnston

(Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 59-88). New York, NY: Lexington Books.

38.

Johnston

(1995b). Parent-child visitation in the jail or prison. In Gabel

Johnston

(Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 135-143). New York, NY: Lexington Books.

39.

Jose-Kampfner

(1995). Post-traumatic stress reactions in children of imprisoned mothers. In Gabel

Johnston

(Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 89-100). New York, NY: Lexington Books.

40.

Kenward

M. G.

Carpenter

(2007). Multiple imputation: Current perspectives. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 16, 199-218.

41.

Kinner

S. A.

Alati

Najman

J. M.

Williams

G. M.

(2007). Do paternal arrest and imprisonment lead to child behaviour problems and substance use? A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 1148-1156.

42.

Kjellstrand

J. M.

Eddy

J. M.

(2011). Mediators of the effect of parental incarceration on adolescent externalizing behaviors. Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 551-565.

43.

La Vigne

N. G.

Naser

R. L.

Brooks

L. E.

Castro

J. L.

(2005). Examining the effect of incarceration and in-prison family contact on prisoners’ family relationships. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 314-335.

44.

(2013). Little’s test of missing completely at random. Stata Journal, 13, 795-809.

45.

Little

R. J.

(1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198-1202.

46.

Lopoo

L. M.

Western

(2005). Incarceration and the formation and stability of marital unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 721-734.

47.

Mack

K. Y.

Leiber

M. J.

Featherstone

R. A.

Monserud

M. A.

(2007). Reassessing the family-delinquency association: Do family type, family processes, and economic factors make a difference? Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 51-67.

48.

Mackintosh

V. H.

Myers

B. J.

Kennon

S. S.

(2006). Children of incarcerated mothers and their caregivers: Factors affecting the quality of their relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 579-594.

49.

Manly

C. A.

Wells

R. S.

(2015). Reporting the use of multiple imputation for missing data in higher education research. Research in Higher Education, 56, 397-409.

50.

McCord

(1991). Family relationships, juvenile delinquency, and adult criminality. Criminology, 29, 397-417.

51.

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.

52.

Mowen

T. J.

Visher

C. A.

(2016). Changing the ties that bind: How incarceration impacts family relationships. Criminology & Public Policy, 15, 503-528.

53.

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.

54.

Mumola

C. J.

(2000). Incarcerated parents and their children (NCJ 182335). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

55.

Murray

Bijleveld

C. C. J. H.

Farrington

D. P.

Loeber

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

56.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

(2005). Parental imprisonment: Effects on boys’ antisocial behavior and delinquency through the life-course. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1269-1278.

57.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

(2008a). The effects of parental imprisonment on children. In Tonry

(Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 37, pp. 133-206). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

58.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

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

59.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

Sekol

(2012). Children’s antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 175-210.

60.

Murray

Janson

Farrington

D. P.

(2007). Crime in adult offspring of prisoners: A cross-national comparison of two longitudinal samples. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 133-149.

61.

Murray

Loeber

Pardini

(2012). Parental involvement in the criminal justice system and the development of youth theft, marijuana use, depression, and poor academic performance. Criminology, 50, 255-302.

62.

Murray

(2010). Parental incarceration, attachment and child psychopathology. Attachment & Human Development, 12, 289-309.

63.

Nesmith

Ruhland

(2008). Children of incarcerated parents: Challenges and resiliency, in their own words. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1119-1130.

64.

Novero

C. M.

Booker Loper

Warren

J. I.

(2011). Second-generation prisoners: Adjustment patterns for inmates with a history of parental incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 761-778.

65.

Patterson

J. M.

(2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 349-360.

66.

Phillips

S. D.

Erkanli

Costello

E. J.

Angold

(2007). Differences among children whose mothers have been in contact with the criminal justice system. Women & Criminal Justice, 17, 43-61.

67.

Phillips

S. D.

Erkanli

Keeler

G. P.

Costello

E. J.

Angold

(2006). Disentangling the risks: Parent criminal justice involvement and children’s exposure to family risks. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 677-702.

68.

Poehlmann

(2005a). Incarcerated mothers’ contact with children, perceived family relationships, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 350-357.

69.

Poehlmann

(2005b). Representations of attachment relationships in children of incarcerated mothers. Child Development, 76, 679-696.

70.

Reyns

B. W.

Woo

Lee

H. D.

Yoon

O. K.

(2016). Vulnerability versus opportunity: Dissecting the role of low self-control and risky lifestyles in violent victimization risk among Korean inmates. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0011128716679375

71.

Rodriguez

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

72.

Royston

(2009). Multiple imputation of missing values: Further update of ICE, with an emphasis on categorical variables. Stata Journal, 9, 466-477.

73.

Rubin

D. B.

(1987). Multiple imputation for non response in surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley.

74.

Schermerhorn

A. C.

Cummings

E. M.

DeCarlo

C. A.

Davies

P. T.

(2007). Children’s influence in the marital relationship. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 259-269.

75.

Shlafer

R. J.

Poehlmann

(2010). Attachment and caregiving relationships in families affected by parental incarceration. Attachment & Human Development, 12, 395-415.

76.

Stanton

A. M.

(1980). When mothers go to jail. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

77.

Trice

A. D.

Brewster

(2004). The effects of maternal incarceration on adolescent children. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 19, 27-35.

78.

Turanovic

J. J.

Rodriguez

Pratt

T. C.

(2012). The collateral consequences of incarceration revisited: A qualitative analysis of the effects on caregivers of children of incarcerated parents. Criminology, 50, 913-959.

79.

Turney

(2014a). Incarceration and social inequality: Challenges and directions for future research. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 651, 97-101.

80.

Turney

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

81.

Turney

(2015a). Hopelessly devoted? Relationship quality during and after incarceration. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 480-495.

82.

Turney

(2015b). Liminal men: Incarceration and relationship dissolution. Social Problems, 62, 499-528.

83.

Turney

Wildeman

(2013). Redefining relationships: Explaining the countervailing consequences of paternal incarceration for parenting. American Sociological Review, 78, 949-979.

84.

Turney

Wildeman

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

85.

White

I. R.

Royston

Wood

A. M.

(2011). Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30, 377-399.

86.

Wilbur

M. B.

Marani

J. E.

Appugliese

Woods

Siegel

J. A.

Cabral

H. J.

Frank

D. A.

(2007). Socioemotional effects of fathers’ incarceration on low-income, urban, school-aged children. Pediatrics, 210, e678-e685.

87.

Wildeman

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

88.

Wildeman

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

89.

Wildeman

Andersen

S. H.

Lee

Karlson

K. B.

(2014). Parental incarceration and child mortality in Denmark. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 428-433.

90.

Wildeman

Turney

(2014). Positive, negative, or null? The effects of maternal incarceration on children’s behavioral problems. Demography, 51, 1041-1068.

91.

Will

J. L.

Whalen

M. L.

Loper

A. B.

(2014). From one generation to the next: Childhood experiences of antisocial behavior and parental incarceration among adult inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53, 190-210.