Externalizing Behavior Among Youth With a Current or Formerly Incarcerated Parent

Abstract

This study examined associations between parental incarceration and youths’ externalizing behaviors (e.g., damage to property, fighting, theft, etc.). Data were drawn from the 2016 Minnesota Student Survey, a statewide sample of 126,868 youth in public schools. Logistic regression analyses examined associations between youths’ experience of parental incarceration and their self-reported externalizing behaviors, controlling for key demographic characteristics. Youth with a currently or formerly incarcerated parent reported significantly more externalizing behaviors compared with youth who never had a parent incarcerated. In addition, youth with a currently incarcerated parent reported significantly more externalizing behaviors than youth who had a formerly incarcerated parent in six out of the eight externalizing behaviors. However, youth who reported having a formerly incarcerated parent were more likely to report lying or conning and more likely to have difficulty paying attention than youth who currently had an incarcerated parent. Results illustrate that parental incarceration has important implications for youths’ own risk for delinquency and high-risk behavior.

Keywords

parental incarceration delinquency externalizing behaviors

Introduction

The U.S. incarceration rate has significantly increased since the 1980s (Carson, 2018), which is often referred to as a period of mass incarceration. Mass incarceration continues in present day, and has collateral impacts that extend to the family and children of prisoners (Eddy & Poehlmann, 2010). Parental incarceration affects an individual’s life course in youth and persists into young adulthood (Mears & Siennick, 2016). Even when the parent is no longer incarcerated, there may be consequences for youth development.

Children and adolescents with an incarcerated parent experience a number of negative outcomes across several domains, including physical and mental health, substance use, and risky and delinquent behavior (Brook, Brook, Rubenstone, Zhang, & Saar, 2011; Lee, Fang, & Luo, 2013; Miller & Barnes, 2015; Swisher & Shaw-Smith, 2015). Using data from the National Survey of Children’s Health, Turney (2014) found that children with a history of parental incarceration had a statistically increased risk for learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD), behavioral conduct problems, developmental delays, and speech or language problems. These associations were significant even after adjusting for key demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status variables, and family characteristics. Using data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods and the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, Wakefield and Wildeman (2011) found similar results. Children who experienced paternal incarceration were found to have both externalizing (aggression and delinquency) and internalizing problems (anxiety and depression).

Yet, many existing studies of the effects of parental incarceration focus on young children (Geller, Garfinkel, & Western, 2011; Turney, 2017; Washington, Juan, & Haskins, 2018; Zeman, Dallaire, Folk, & Thrash, 2018). This current study is unique in that it explores externalizing behaviors in an adolescent sample, which is critical because these are behaviors that can lead to involvement in the juvenile justice system; creating potential cycles of intergenerational incarceration. The goal of this study is to explore the intersection of parental incarceration and externalizing behavior in a sample of adolescents. Consistent with other studies, we define externalizing behaviors as rebellious and delinquent acts (Brook et al., 2011) including substance abuse, aggression and violence, theft, and property damage (Vaughn, Salas-Wright, DeLisi, & Maynard, 2014). To address this goal, we analyzed data from youth who reported that they currently had an incarcerated parent, those that reported having a parent incarcerated in the past, and youth with no experience of parental incarceration. A contribution of this study is that we can explore if past parental incarceration affects youth in similar ways as having a currently incarcerated parent. Adolescents may continue to be affected even when their parent is no longer incarcerated. To date, few studies have examined externalizing behavior in an adolescent population that had current and former experience with parental incarceration. This study provides two unique contributions to the literature on the association between parental incarceration and externalizing in youth. First, we use the Minnesota Student Survey (MSS), a unique statewide sample of adolescents, which complements findings from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Studies and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which are commonly used to examine this topic (Haskins, Amorim, & Mingo, 2018). Second, we examine the independent temporal effects of parental incarceration, by contrasting youth whose parents are currently incarcerated with those who had parents incarcerated in the past, and those with no experience of parental incarceration.

Background

Most incarcerated individuals are parents with minor children (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate that 52% of state prisoners and 63% of federal prisoners were parents with minor children (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). A more recent study using anonymous reports from incarcerated parents suggests that data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics likely underestimate the true magnitude of the number of children with an incarcerated parent (Shlafer, Duwe, & Hindt, 2019). Recent data from the National Survey of Children’s Health suggest that as many as 5 million U.S. children have experienced the incarceration of a coresident parent at some point during childhood (Murphey & Cooper, 2015). People from racial and ethnic minority groups are more likely to be incarcerated (Mauer, 2011), and so there are marked racial disparities in children who have a parent in prison. In one study, an estimated 46% of children with an incarcerated father were Black (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008).

Substance Use

Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Roettger, Swisher, Kuhl, and Chavez (2011) found that there were no differences in age of first marijuana use depending on youths’ history of paternal incarceration. However, for youth with an incarcerated father, the frequency of use was higher and continued longer into young adulthood, whereas marijuana use for individuals without a history of paternal incarceration declined in their early twenties. This study also found that having a father incarcerated was significantly associated with increased use of other illegal drugs, even after controlling for age and race. Another study using data from the Pittsburgh Youth Study found marijuana use increased for all youth during adolescence, but it did so more quickly for youth who experienced parental incarceration than those with no experience of parental incarceration. In addition, these youth had higher average use of marijuana than youth who had parental arrest and conviction, but no parental incarceration (Murray, Loeber, & Pardini, 2012).

Building on these studies, Davis and Shlafer (2017a) found that adolescents whose parents were formerly or currently incarcerated reported higher levels of alcohol use or dependency. These adolescents were between 1.5 to 2 times more likely to report using alcohol by age 12, using prescription drugs, and binge drinking. Adolescents with a history of parental incarceration also reported higher rates of marijuana use and use of other illegal drugs. Davis and Shlafer (2017a) found that adolescents with a currently incarcerated parent were 4 times more likely to report marijuana use than adolescents who never had an incarcerated parent.

In addition to reporting higher rates of drug and alcohol use, adolescents with a history of parental incarceration also report experiencing more problems from their substance use. For example, Foster and Hagan (2013) found that the odds of having what the authors called “substance role problems” (e.g., problems at work or school because of drinking or problems with friends because of drug use) in young adulthood were higher for individuals who experienced parental incarceration in early childhood and adolescence. Parental incarceration during childhood increased substance use problems more than experiencing parental incarceration in later adulthood. In another study, Davis and Shlafer (2017a) found that adolescents with a formerly incarcerated parent were 1.5 times as likely to meet diagnostic criteria for substance abuse or dependence, whereas adolescents with a currently incarcerated parent were nearly 4 times as likely to meet this definition. Youth with formerly and currently incarcerated parents were also more likely to receive treatment for their drug or alcohol use.

Parental Incarceration and Risky Behavior

Previous research has demonstrated that children who had a parent in prison in the past or who were currently experiencing parental incarceration were more likely to report risky and antisocial behavior than children who had no history of parent incarceration (Murray & Farrington, 2005; Murray et al., 2012). Furthermore, separation as a result of the parent’s incarceration was found to be a stronger predictor for antisocial behavior than other forms of parental separation. A study using data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development found that boys who had an incarcerated parent had more antisocial behaviors (e.g., convictions as juveniles, self-reported delinquency, self-reports of violence) than boys who were separated by a parental death or hospitalization (Murray & Farrington, 2005). This same study found antisocial behaviors remained significant for boys who experienced parental incarceration even after controlling for other risk factors.

Parental incarceration has also been associated with youth delinquency. Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health found high delinquency scores (measured on a scale of 12 items involving aggression, use of a weapon, fighting, damage to property, and theft) for youth who experienced parental incarceration at any age (Swisher & Shaw-Smith, 2015). However, youth who were born after their fathers were incarcerated and whose fathers’ last release from prison was after their birth had higher delinquency scores than youth who experienced parental incarceration at other times.

Another study revealed similar findings, in that the incarceration of one’s biological father increased youths’ propensity for delinquency. Using data from Add Health, Swisher and Roettger (2012) found parental incarceration after birth not only to be associated with delinquency, but also that parental incarceration prior to birth significantly increased delinquency compared with adolescents who experienced no parental incarceration. A study on parents’ reports of their child’s delinquency (from the non-incarcerated parent) found their children to be more delinquent than children who had not experienced parental incarceration (Aaron & Dallaire, 2010). However, when additional covariates of family victimization and sibling delinquency were added to the models, the impact of parental incarceration was no longer significant. A different study by J. M. Kjellstrand and Eddy (2011) found that adolescents who experienced parental incarceration had higher levels of problem behavior (e.g., argues a lot, destroys things). Delinquency for adolescents in 10th grade was higher for youth who experienced parental incarceration than for youth who did not experience parental incarceration. Serious youth delinquency assessed by the Elliot Delinquency Scale (involving 11 items such as robbing a person, selling drugs, or rape) was also higher for adolescents who had a parent incarcerated compared with those who did not. Finally, another study found that youth who experienced parental incarceration were more likely to experience arrest and/or detention than youth whose parents had not been incarcerated (Phillips, Burns, Wagner, Kramer, & Robbins, 2002).

While there is a growing body of research that highlights parental incarceration for youths’ antisocial and delinquent behavior, the current study uses data from the MSS, a large, statewide sample of adolescents. Unlike some of the previous research in this area, this statewide survey permits us to distinguish between current parental incarceration and past parental incarceration using a representative sample of youth in one state. We sought to explore externalizing behaviors among youth and compared those who had a parent currently incarcerated at the time of the survey, those who have had an incarcerated parent in the past, and those who never had an incarcerated parent.

Theoretical Framework

Two theoretical frameworks—stigma and strain theories—informed the current study and were valuable in guiding previous research in this area (e.g., Murray et al., 2012). Parental incarceration is associated with stigma (Arditti, 2012; Murray & Murray, 2010; Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008). A qualitative study with youth ages 8 to 18 who had a parent incarcerated found that stigma made the youth question if they were “bad” or “damaged” or if they themselves would become involved in criminal activity like their parent (Saunders, 2018; p. 23). These youth also experienced stigma from others who either bullied or discriminated against them because of who their parent was. To cope with the stigma, youth excluded themselves from others, kept friends away, and did not share that their parent was incarcerated (Saunders, 2018). In another qualitative study with college students who experienced parental incarceration before age 18, Luther (2016) found that research participants often did not share with their social circle or with others that their parent was incarcerated, out of concern that others would assume they had characteristics or criminal behavior similar to their parent. The participants managed this perceived stigma in similar ways that Saunders (2018) found by separating or distancing themselves from their incarcerated parent. This distancing would prevent healthy relationships from developing and growing during the parent’s incarceration and upon a parent’s release. In addition, Hagen and Myers (2003) found that the less social support children had, the higher their externalizing behavior scores. Others have found that stigma remains for youth even after their parent is incarcerated, likely due to the parent’s criminal record and the collateral consequences associated with the record (Turney & Goodsell, 2018). Stigma prevents adolescents from openly and honestly discussing their parent’s incarceration, which may affect their ability to form healthy attachments and develop positive social supports (Murray & Murray, 2010).

The stigma of parental incarceration may also contribute to the strain that these youth experience; strain from the physical absence of their parent, the trauma of witnessing the events that led up to the incarceration (criminal activity, arrest, court proceedings), and/or due the economic stress caused by removal of a parent who was financially contributing. This strain may lead to negative consequences and behavior problems for the youth involved (Murray et al., 2012). Strain is more likely to lead to crime when individuals do not have the coping mechanism to adequately deal with it (Agnew, 2001). The negative emotions caused by the strain of having their parent removed may lead to low social control and the pressure or incentive to engage in delinquent acts (Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 2015) and cause youth to turn toward delinquency to decrease or escape the strain (Agnew, Brezina, Wright, & Cullen, 2002).

Not every individual, or in this case youth, who experiences strain responds to it with delinquency. The magnitude of the strain is important too (Agnew, 2001). Youth who experience parental incarceration are not random and tend to experience other strains and socioeconomic disadvantages (Turney & Haskins, 2014). The magnitude of the strain and the additional strains experienced in combination with limited coping and problem-solving skills (Agnew, 2015) may lead to higher prevalence of delinquency in youth with an incarcerated parent.

The strain may not ease once the parent is released due stigma of criminal records that makes obtaining employment and housing difficult (Turney & Goodsell, 2018). The strain caused by having parent incarcerated either currently or formerly may cause youth to try to escape the stress by lashing out physically, using illegal means to achieve their goals, or turning to drugs or alcohol (Murray, Bijleveld, Farrington, & Loeber, 2014). Strain is more likely to lead to crime when individuals do not have the coping mechanism to adequately deal with it (Agnew, 2015).

Research Question

This study sought to answer the following research question: are youth who have a history of parental incarceration more likely to report externalizing behaviors than youth with no experience of parental incarceration?

Hypothesis: Youth who report a history of parental incarceration will report higher levels of externalizing behaviors than youth who have never had a parent incarcerated. Furthermore, youth with a currently incarcerated parent will report higher levels of externalizing behaviors than youth with a formerly incarcerated parent.

Method

Data

This study utilized data from the 2016 MSS. The MSS is administered to all students in fifth, eighth, ninth, and 11th grade in Minnesota public schools every 3 years. Participation in this survey is anonymous and voluntary; in 2016, 282 of 330 (85%) school districts in the state participated. Individual response rates in participating districts were high, ranging from 84.8% for eighth graders to 69.8% of 11th graders (Minnesota Department of Education, n.d.). Students can opt of the survey or skip any questions. Students in fifth grade were removed from the sample because they were not asked a number of questions on sensitive topics (e.g., parental incarceration). In total, 126,868 students in eighth, ninth, and 11th grades completed the survey.

Participant Sample

Demographic characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1. Participants’ ages ranged from 12 to 19 years (M = 14.8, SD = 1.32). The sample was evenly split between males (50%) and females (50%). Slightly fewer females reported having a parent currently incarcerated than males (52.9% males vs. 47.1% females); however, slightly more females (52.7%) reported having a parent formerly incarcerated than males (47.3%). These differences were statistically but not practically significant. The majority of the sample was White. However, there were marked racial disparities in the percentage of youth who reported having a currently incarcerated parent. In total, 56% of youth of color reported having a parent currently incarcerated, compared with 43.5% of White, non-Hispanic youth. More White youth, however, reported having a formerly incarcerated parent than youth of color (56.7% vs. 43.3%). In all, 31% of the students had at least one poverty risk; students with currently and formerly incarcerated parents were more likely to experience poverty than their peers with no history of parental incarceration. In total, 47% of the sample lived in a rural area; youth with incarcerated parents were more likely to live in a rural area than youth with no history of parental incarceration.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Tests of Correlations by Incarceration Status (N = 118,880).

	N	Full sample	0 = none	1 = former	2 = current
	N	M (SD)/%	M (SD)/%	M (SD)/%	M (SD)/%
Age (years)		14.8 (1.32)	14.8 (1.32)	14.8 (1.30)**	14.6 (1.28)**
Gender (1 = Female)	118,758	50.4	50	52.7**	47.1**
Poverty (1 = At least one risk)	119,012	31.3	25.2	60.4**	75.5**
Race/ethnicity (1 = Not White)	118,239	29.2	26.2	43.3**	56.5**
Urbanicity (1 = Nonmetro area)	119,029	47.2	45.6	55.6**	54.4**
Damage to property (1 = Yes)	116,933	12.2	9.7	23.7**	31.0**
Physical fighting (1 = Yes)	116,907	9.9	7.6	20.7**	30.8**
Driving under the influence (= Yes)^a	24,884	5.6	5.2	6.0**	10.8**
Theft (1 = Yes)	116,924	9.1	6.8	19.5**	27.7**
Lie or con (1 = Yes)	117,862	50.3	48.5	59.5**	58.8**
Hard time paying attention (1 = Yes)	118,017	62.9	60.5	75.3**	72.6**
Bully (1 = Yes)	117,983	7.0	5.8	12.1**	20.9**
Start fights (1= Yes)	117,943	7.1	5.6	13.4**	24.0**

This question is only asked to ninth and 11th grade students.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Measures

Externalizing behaviors

Externalizing behaviors and criminal offending were assessed with items from the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAINS) Short Screener, an instrument that has been found to accurately and reliably identify internalizing, externalizing, substance use, and crime/violence disorders in adolescents (Dennis, Chan, & Funk, 2006). In the current study, we used four out the five items from the externalizing (EDScr) subscale and four out of the five items from the crime/violence (CVScr) subscale. Prior studies have demonstrated that these subscales have strong psychometric priorities; the two subscales are highly correlated with their longer versions (EDScr r = .88, CVScr r = .86; Dennis et al., 2006).

The four questions in the EDScr subscale were

during the last 12 months, did you do any of the following two or more times: (1) lie or con to get things you wanted or to avoid having to do something? (2) have a hard time paying attention at school, work or home? (3) be a bully or threaten other people? and (4) start fights with other people?

Response options for each item were “yes” or “no.” We totaled the responses from these four items and dichotomized, where 0 = none and 1 = any instances of externalizing behavior.

The four questions in the CVScr subscale were

during the last 12 months, how often have you: (1) damaged or destroyed property? (2) hit or beat up another person? (3) taken something from a store without paying for it? and (4) driven a motor vehicle after using alcohol or drugs?

Response options included the following: “never; once or twice; 3 to 5 times; 6 to 9 times; and 10 or more times.” The item about driving a motor vehicle after using alcohol or drugs was only asked to ninth and 11th grade students, which results in a smaller sample size for that item. In addition, students were instructed to skip this question if they had not used drugs or alcohol during the last 12 months. We totaled the responses from these four items and dichotomized, where 0 = none and 1 = any instances of crime/violence. We made the decision to recode the EDScr and CVScr subscales into dichotomous variables because the distributions for these responses were positively skewed. In addition, these behaviors are problematic even if they only occur once, as they could lead to an adolescent becoming involved in the justice system. The frequency of the behavior is less important than if the behavior occurs at all.

Parental incarceration

Parental incarceration was assessed with one item: “Have any of your parents or guardians ever been in jail or prison?” Response options included the following: (a) “None of my parents or guardians has ever been in jail or prison”; (b) “Yes, I have a parent or guardian in jail or prison right now”; or (c) “Yes, I have had a parent or guardian in jail or prison in the past.” For the analysis, never = 0, formerly = 1, and currently = 2. Youth who marked both formerly and current were coded as 2. In 2016, 119,029 students responded to the parental incarceration question (94% of the total sample). Most (83.5%) reported never having a parent incarcerated, 14.5% had a parent incarcerated in the past, and 2% reported that a parent was currently incarcerated.

Covariates

We controlled for a number of demographic variables based on findings in the literature about associations with parental incarceration and externalizing behaviors. Participants’ biological sex was coded as 0 = male, 1 = female. Age was used as a continuous variable, ranging from 12 to 19 years old. While the MSS sample is large, some of the racial groups were quite small and thus there was not enough statistical power to analyze the results by racial categories; therefore, race was coded as a dichotomous variable were White, non-Hispanic = 0, and Hispanic, Native American/Alaskan Native, and/or youth of color = 1. Poverty was assessed by combining the following three items: “Do you currently get free or reduced-price lunch at school?”; “During the last 30 days, have you had to skip meals because your family did not have enough money to buy food?”; and “During the past 12 months, have you stayed in shelter, somewhere not intended as a place to live or someone else’s home because you had no other place to stay?” Participants who endorsed any of these items were coded as 1; otherwise, they were coded as 0. This index for poverty was modeled after other studies using the MSS data (Davis & Shlafer, 2017b; Shlafer, Reedy, & Davis, 2017). Urbanicity was measured by whether youth lived in the 7-county Saint Paul/Minneapolis metropolitan area (0) or if they lived outside the metropolitan area (1).

Data Analysis

All data were stored and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 23. Descriptive statistics and inferential tests were conducted first to understand the characteristics of the youth in the sample. Next, logistic regression analyses were used to examine the associations between parental incarceration and youths’ self-reported externalizing behaviors and delinquency.

Missing data

The number of cases with missing data was small. For the independent variable−parental incarceration−missing data were 6%. The missing data on the dependent variables ranged from 5% to 7%. Regarding the covariates, age, race, gender, and poverty had less than 1% of missing data. Urbanicity had no missing data. Because the percentage of missing data was small and unlikely to bias estimates (Bannon, 2013), we did not apply any protocol to account for the missingness. The sample sizes for each variable are identified in Table 1.

Bivariate analysis was conducted prior to the regressions to ensure that correlations were found among the independent and dependent variables and covariates.

Results

In unadjusted models, youth with a formerly or currently incarcerated parent reported more delinquent behavior than youth who never had a parent incarcerated. Damage to property was higher for youth with a currently incarcerated parent (31%), and for youth with a formerly incarcerated parent (23.7%), compared with youth who never had a parent in prison or jail (9%). In all but two externalizing items, youth with a currently incarcerated parent reported the highest levels of problem behavior, followed by youth with a formerly incarcerated parent, and then youth with no experience of parental incarceration. In two of the externalizing categories (i.e., lie or con; hard time paying attention) youth with a formerly incarcerated parent reported slightly higher rates than youth who currently had an incarcerated parent.

In the multivariate models, many of the demographic variables were statistically significant in the externalizing behavior categories. Race was statistically significant in every category except bullying. In the category of driving under the influence, the odds ratio was small. In every model, females were less likely than males to report each of the externalizing behaviors. These differences were all statistically significant with the expectation of driving under the influence and the lie/con variable. The odds ratios, however, were under one in every category except in the variable—hard time paying attention. Rural youth were more likely to report high levels of externalizing behavior for six of the eight categories.

Logistic regressions were used to determine whether parental incarceration was associated with higher levels of delinquent behaviors after controlling for demographic characteristics. The hypothesis was confirmed; youth with a currently or formerly incarcerated parent were more likely to report delinquent behavior than youth whose parent was never incarcerated, after controlling for key covariates. Youth with a currently or formerly incarcerated parent reported higher delinquency in every measure of the externalizing disorder and the crime/violence subscale than youth who never had a parent incarcerated, across each of the eight measures. Youth with a currently incarcerated parent were 4.09 times as likely to report theft as their peers who had never experienced parental incarceration, whereas youth with a formerly incarcerated parent were 2.79 times as likely to report theft. Youth with a currently incarcerated parent were 3.82 times as likely to report physical fighting as youth with no experience of parental incarceration; youth with a formerly incarcerated parent were 2.60 times as likely. Table 2 highlights similar results in the categories of damage to property, driving under the influence, and starting fights.

Table 2.

Adjusted Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals by Outcome.

	Damage to property	Physical fighting	Driving under the influence	Theft	Lie or con	Hard time paying attention	Bully	Start fights
Parental incarceration
Former	2.58 [2.47, 2.70]**	2.60 [2.5, 2.7]**	1.30 [1.13, 1.50]**	2.79 [2.66, 2.93]**	1.56 [1.50, 1.61]**	1.96 [1.88, 2.03]**	1.92 [1.81, 2.03]**	2.16 [2.04, 2.29]**
Current	3.37 [3.06, 3.70]**	3.82 [3.5, 4.2]**	2.63 [2.03, 3.41]**	4.09 [6.70, 4.51]**	1.51 [1.38, 1.64]**	1.72 [1.57, 1.89]**	3.36 [3.02, 3.75]**	3.90 [3.61, 4.44]**
Age	1.01 [0.99, 1.02]	0.89 [0.88, 0.91]**	1.58 [1.50, 1.67]**	1.19 [1.17, 1.21]**	1.02 [1.01, 1.03]**	1.13 [1.12, 1.14]**	0.93 [0.92, 0.95]**	0.932 [0.915, 0.948]**
Gender	0.48 [0.47, 0.50]**	0.45 [0.43, 0.47]**	0.90 [0.81, 1.01]	0.93 [0.89, 0.96]**	0.98 [0.96, 1.01]	1.25 [1.22, 1.28]**	0.66 [0.63, 0.69]**	0.716 [0.684, 0.749]**
Race/ethnicity	1.08 [1.04, 1.13]**	1.34 [1.28, 1.40]**	0.87 [0.76, 0.99]*	1.20 [1.15, 1.26]**	1.05 [1.02, 1.08]**	0.90 [0.88, 0.93]**	1.03 [0.97, 1.08]	1.07 [1.02, 1.13]**
Region	0.97 [0.93, 1.0]	1.07 [1.03, 1.12]**	0.98 [0.88, 1.10]	0.78 [0.75, 0.82]**	0.89 [0.87, 0.91]**	0.88 [0.86, 0.91]**	1.27 [1.21, 1.33]**	1.25 [1.19, 1.31]**
Poverty	1.51 [1.5, 1.6]**	1.76 [1.69, 1.84]**	1.00 [.88, 1.14]	1.72 [1.64, 1.80]**	1.02 [.99, 1.05]	1.15 [1.12, 1.18]**	1.47 [1.39, 1.54]**	1.57 [1.49, 1.65]**

p < .05. **p < .01.

Youth with a currently incarcerated parent reported higher externalizing behaviors in every category than youth with a formerly incarcerated parent; confirming the second study hypothesis. Youth with a currently incarcerated parent were 2 times more likely to report driving under than influence and 1.8 times more likely to start fights than youth with a formerly incarcerated parent. Table 3 illustrates these and the other externalizing behavior findings along with the control variables comparing youth with a currently incarcerated parent with youth with a formerly incarcerated parent.

Table 3.

Adjusted Odds Ratio and 95% Confidence Intervals by Outcome.

	Damage to property	Physical fighting	Driving under the influence	Theft	Lie or con	Hard time paying attention	Bully	Start fights
Parental incarceration
Current	1.30 [1.18, 1.43]**	1.47 [1.33, 1.63]**	2.02 [1.54, 2.63]**	1.46 [1.32, 1.62]**	0.970 [0.89, 1.60]	0.88 [0.79, 0.97]*	1.75 [1.57, 1.96]**	1.85 [1.66, 2.06]**
Age	1.01 [0.99, 1.02]	0.89 [0.88, 0.91]**	1.58 [1.50, 1.67]**	1.19 [1.17, 1.21]**	1.02 [1.01, 1.03]**	1.13 [1.12, 1.14]**	0.93 [0.92, 0.95]**	0.932 [0.915, 0.948]**
Gender	0.48 [0.47, 0.50]**	0.45 [0.43, 0.47]**	0.90 [0.81, 1.01]	0.93 [0.89, 0.96]**	0.98 [0.96, 1.01]	1.25 [1.22, 1.28]**	0.66 [0.63, 0.69]**	0.716 [0.684, 0.749]**
Race/ethnicity	1.08 [1.04, 1.13]**	1.34 [1.28, 1.40]**	0.87 [0.76, 0.99]*	1.20 [1.15, 1.26]**	1.05 [1.02, 1.08]**	0.90 [0.88, 0.93]**	1.03 [0.97, 1.08]	1.07 [1.02, 1.13]**
Region	0.97 [0.93, 1.0]	1.07 [1.03, 1.12]**	0.98 [0.88, 1.10]	0.78 [0.75, 0.82]**	0.89 [0.87, 0.91]**	0.88 [0.86, 0.91]**	1.27 [1.21, 1.33]**	1.25 [1.19, 1.31]**
Poverty	1.51 [1.5, 1.6]**	1.76 [1.69, 1.84]**	1.00 [0.88, 1.14]	1.72 [1.64, 1.80]**	1.02 [0.99, 1.05]	1.15 [1.12, 1.18]**	1.47 [1.39, 1.54]**	1.57 [1.49, 1.65]**

Note. Currently incarcerated parent compared with formerly incarcerated parent.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

The study’s hypotheses were confirmed. Youth who reported experiencing parental incarceration were more likely to report externalizing behaviors even after the incorporation of the control variables. In addition, for six of the eight outcomes, youth with a currently incarcerated parent reported more externalizing behaviors than youth with a formerly incarcerated parent. Youth with a formerly incarcerated parent were more likely to report lying or conning and having a hard time paying attention than youth who currently had an incarcerated parent. However, what is important is the overall pattern that illustrates youth with a currently incarcerated parent had more externalizing behaviors than youth who formerly or never had an incarcerated parent. It could be argued that these externalizing behaviors were more severe than lying and having a hard time paying attention. Importantly, youth who had a formerly incarcerated parent were more likely to engage in externalizing behaviors than youth who never experienced parental incarceration. Similar to other studies, we found youth of color to be disproportionately more likely to be currently experiencing parental incarceration. However, more White youth reported formerly having a parent in prison. Consistent with Murphey and Cooper’s (2015) findings, youth in our current study living in rural areas were more likely to experience parental incarceration than urban youth.

The stigma and strain of parental incarceration may explain the prevalence of externalizing behaviors in youth who experienced parental incarceration. Murray et al. (2012) suggest that the stigma associated with parental incarceration may cause youth to take on a “delinquent identity” (p. 284). If the youth adopts this identity, they may be more likely to engage in externalizing behavior. Social expectations and the belief that the youth “bad” or similar to their incarcerated parent (Saunders, 2018) may cause the youth to act out on that self-fulling prophecy (Murray et al., 2012). There may be few positive outlets for youth to express and cope with the strain they experience. Thus, they might engage in unhealthy behaviors. In addition, youth who had a formerly incarcerated parent were more likely to experience externalizing behavior than those who had never experienced parental incarceration. This suggests the stigma and strain continues even after the parent is no longer incarcerated.

This study has several limitations. First, the survey question about parental incarceration does not specify which parent was incarcerated. Furthermore, we do not know if one or both of the parents were incarcerated, as the question asks generally if any parent was incarcerated. Having an incarcerated mother may be more impactful than having an incarcerated father (Dallaire, 2007); having both parents incarcerated is potentially more significant than having one parent incarcerated. Second, we do not know how long or how many times the parent was incarcerated. There may be important differences for youth whose parent was incarcerated for a short period versus youth whose parent was incarcerated for a longer period. Relatedly, for youth who reported experiencing parental incarceration in the past, we do not know how long ago they experienced this. In addition, we do not know where the parent was incarcerated, or whether it was in a jail or prison. This may be important, as jail stints are typically shorter than prison and may differentially impact children’s outcomes (Poehlmann-Tynan, Burnson, Runion, & Weymouth, 2017). We also do not know how involved the parent was in the youth’s life prior to the incarceration (and after for those who reported parental incarceration in the past). Construct underrepresentation may be another potential limitation due to the limited questions in the MSS to measure externalizing behaviors. The cross-sectional design allows us to understand the prevalence of externalizing behaviors in youth who currently or formerly had a parent incarcerated compared with youth who never experienced parental incarceration. However, a limitation of this type of design is that it only captures data at one point in time. We cannot examine the longitudinal impacts nor can examine the timing of behaviors in relation to the parent’s incarceration.

Future research needs to examine the particular factors surrounding a parents’ incarceration. Data are limited on the offense characteristics, history of incarceration, and information around contact during the incarceration. A better understanding of specific factors that may affect youth experiencing parental incarceration would help program developers address their specific needs.

Regardless of these limitations, the study still has several important findings. This research highlights parental incarceration as an added risk factor for externalizing behavior. Given the sheer number of individuals incarcerated in the United States and its negative effects, it is important to focus not only on those incarcerated, but also their children. Practical and policy solutions should focus on adolescents who are currently experiencing parental incarceration, as well as adolescents who experienced parental incarceration in the past.

Little is known on how to best assist youth who currently or formerly experience incarceration. There is not a one-size fits all approach due to the complexities and situational factors of incarceration (i.e., length of incarceration, type of crime the parent was convicted of, history of incarceration; J. Kjellstrand, Yu, Eddy, & Martinez, 2018). However, it is important that teachers and other social services providers become aware of how parental incarceration may impact youth and the unique needs the youth may have. J. Kjellstrand et al. (2018) suggest that an assessment be completed that measures youth’s exposure to trauma and behavioral problems they may be experiencing. The results of the assessment could be used to determine services that are specific to needs of the youth and their family.

Some youth that experience parental incarceration and the return of the parent may have experienced trauma as a result. It is critical in these situations that trauma-informed care be provided. Trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) has been found to reduce posttraumatic stress, behavioral problems, and feelings of shame in children and youth (Mannarino, Cohen, Deblinger, Runyon, & Steer, 2012). TF-CBT is a therapeutic, family-centered approach that is adaptable to individual family needs and situations. The components of its practice recognize the cultural/religious and community aspects of youth and their family (Deblinger, Cohen, & Mannarino, 2012). TF-CBT may be a mechanism to help youth cope with the stigma and strain of experiencing parental incarceration (Morgan-Mullane, 2018), decrease their risk for engaging in externalizing behaviors, as well as aid families when the parent is released from jail or prison.

Connecting adolescents with mentors through individual and group mentoring may also be beneficial to reduce strain and stigma associated with parental incarceration. Previous research has shown that children who have incarcerated parents were more likely to have antisocial peers who engaged in lying, skipping school, and fighting (Cochran, Siennick, & Mears, 2018). Added with the findings of this research that adolescents with experiences of parental incarceration were more likely to engage in externalizing behaviors, it is important for these youth to be connected to positive influences. Youth mentoring was seen to have positive outcomes on youth’s social–emotional, cognitive, and identity development (Rhodes & DuBois, 2008). Mentoring would also provide a positive network of individuals to share their feelings and experiences, which could help youth with incarcerated parents mobilize support networks that they can rely on during a parent’s incarceration and beyond. Mentoring can help youth better understand, express, and control their emotions (Rhodes, Grossman, & Resch, 2000). Evidence-based therapeutic interventions may also be helpful to assist youth in coping with their parent’s incarceration (Gordon, Hunter, & Campbell, 2017).

It is necessary to provide services for children and adolescents once the parent is incarcerated, but it is also important to continue services upon the parent’s release. Adolescents with a formerly incarcerated parent experienced more externalizing behaviors than adolescents who never had a parent in prison. For two of the outcomes we examined, youth with formerly incarcerated parents exhibited more problem behavior than those with a currently incarcerated parent. Programs to help facilitate parents’ reintegration to their families’ lives and strengthen relationships between parents and children after release may prove beneficial. Post-release services that connect formerly incarcerated parents and their children would also be beneficial. Parole or other community supervision services that connect family members and aid in reunification may also be beneficial (Taylor, 2016). Whether services are provided while the parent is incarcerated or upon release, the services should be strength-based, building on the resilience of these youth (Gordon et al., 2017).

Conclusion

Using a statewide sample, this study found youth who experienced parental incarceration had more externalizing behaviors than youth who had no experience with parental incarceration. Youth with a currently incarcerated parent had more externalizing behaviors than youth who had a formerly incarcerated parent. Damage to property, theft, driving under the influence, and physical fighting are behaviors that could put youth at risk for becoming involved in the justice system themselves and thus creating a cycle of intergenerational incarceration. The study findings help identify ways to prevent intergenerational incarceration. By knowing that youth who experience parental incarceration are at increased risk for these externalizing behaviors, interventions can be implemented to prevent such behaviors.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the Minnesota Student Survey provided by the public school students in Minnesota via local public school district and managed by the Minnesota Student Survey Interagency Team 2016.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr. Davis’s effort on this manuscript was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under National Research Service Award in Primary Medical Care grant number T32HP22239 (PI: Borowsky), Bureau of Health Workforce. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.

ORCID iD

Ebony L. Ruhland

References

Aaron

Dallaire

D. H.

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

Agnew

(2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 38, 319-361.

Agnew

(2015). General strain theory and delinquency. In Krohn

M. D.

Lane

(Eds.), The handbook of juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice (pp. 270-287). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Agnew

Brezina

Wright

J. P.

Cullen

F. T.

(2002). Strain, personality traits, and delinquency: Extending general strain theory. Criminology, 40, 43-72.

Arditti

J. A.

(2012). Child trauma within the context of parental incarceration: A family process perspective. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 4, 181-219.

Bannon

W. M.

(2013). The 7 steps of data analysis. Brooklyn, NY: William Bannon Associates.

Brook

D. W.

Brook

J. S.

Rubenstone

Zhang

Saar

N. S.

(2011). Developmental associations between externalizing behaviors, peer delinquency, drug use, perceived neighborhood crime, and violent behavior in urban communities. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 349-361.

Carson

E. A.

(2018). Prisoners in 2016 (NCJ 251149). Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p16.pdf

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, 80, 478-498.

10.

Dallaire

D. H.

(2007). Incarcerated mothers and fathers: A comparison of risks for children and families. Family Relations, 56, 440-453.

11.

Davis

Shlafer

R. J.

(2017a). Mental health of adolescents with currently and formerly incarcerated parents. Journal of Adolescence, 54, 120-134.

12.

Davis

Shlafer

R. J.

(2017b). Substance use among youth with currently and formerly incarcerated parents. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 87, 43-58.

13.

Deblinger

Cohen

J. A.

Mannarino

A. P.

(2012). Introduction. In Cohen

J. A.

Deblinger

Mannarino

A. P.

(Eds.), Trauma-focused CBT for children and adolescents (pp. 1-26). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

14.

Dennis

M. L.

Chan

Y. F.

Funk

R. R.

(2006). Development and validation of the GAIN Short Screener (GSS) for internalizing, externalizing and substance use disorders and crime/violence problems among adolescents and adults. American Journal on Addictions, 15, S80-S90.

15.

Eddy

J. M.

Poehlmann

(2010). Multidisciplinary perspectives on research and intervention with children of incarcerated parents. In Eddy

J. M.

Poehlmann

(Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents: A handbook for researchers and practitioners (pp. 1-13). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

16.

Foster

Hagan

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

17.

Geller

Garfinkel

Western

(2011). Parental incarceration and support for children in fragile families. Demography, 48, 25-47.

18.

Glaze

L. E.

Maruschak

L. M.

(2008). Parents in prison and their minor children (NCJ 222984). Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf

19.

Gordon

D. M.

Hunter

B. A.

Campbell

C. A.

(2017). Children of incarcerated parents: Promising intervention programs and future recommendations. In Wildeman

Haskins

A. R.

Poehlmann-Tynan

(Eds.), When parents are incarcerated: Interdisciplinary research and interventions to support children (pp. 130-150). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

20.

Hagen

K. A.

Myers

B. J.

(2003). The effects of secrecy and social support on behavioral problems in children of incarcerated women. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 229-242.

21.

Haskins

A. R.

Amorim

Mingo

(2018). Parental incarceration and child outcomes: Those at risk, evidence of impacts, methodological insights, and areas of future work, 12(3), e12562.

22.

Kjellstrand

Eddy

J. M.

Martinez

C. R.

(2018). Children of incarcerated parents: Developmental trajectories of externalizing behavior across adolescence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45, 1742-1761.

23.

Kjellstrand

J. M.

Eddy

J. M.

(2011). Parental incarceration during childhood, family context, and youth problem behavior across adolescence. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 18-36.

24.

Lee

R. D.

Fang

Luo

(2013). The impact of parental incarceration on the physical and mental health of young adults. Pediatrics, 131, e1188-e1195.

25.

Lilly

R. J.

Cullen

F. T.

Ball

R. A.

(2015). Criminological theory: Context and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

26.

Luther

(2016). Stigma management among children of incarcerated parents. Deviant Behavior, 37, 1264-1275.

27.

Mannarino

A. P.

Cohen

J. A.

Deblinger

Runyon

M. K.

Steer

R. A.

(2012). Trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy for children: Sustained impact of treatment 6 and 12 months later. Child Maltreatment, 17, 231-241.

28.

Mauer

(2011). Addressing racial disparities in incarceration. The Prison Journal, 91, 875-1015.

29.

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.

30.

Miller

H. V.

Barnes

(2015). The association between parental incarceration and health, education, and economic outcomes in young adulthood. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 765-784.

31.

Minnesota Department of Education. (n.d.). Minnesota Student Survey. Retrieved from https://education.mn.gov/MDE/dse/health/mss/

32.

Morgan-Mullane

(2018). Trauma focused cognitive behavioral therapy with children of incarcerated parents. Clinical Social Work Journal, 46, 200-209.

33.

Murphey

Cooper

M. P.

(2015). Parents behind bars: What happens to their children? Bethesda, MD: Child Trends.

34.

Murray

Bijleveld

C. C. J. H. C.

Farrington

D. P.

Loeber

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

35.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

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

36.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

(2010). Risk factors for conduct disorder and delinquency: Key findings from longitudinal studies. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55, 633-642.

37.

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.

38.

Murray

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

39.

Nesmith

Ruhland

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

40.

Phillips

S. D.

Burns

B. J.

Wagner

R. H.

Kramer

T. L.

Robbins

J. M.

(2002). Parental incarceration among adolescents receiving mental health services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 385-399.

41.

Poehlmann-Tynan

Burnson

Runion

Weymouth

L. A.

(2017). Attachment in young children with incarcerated fathers. Development and Psychopathology, 29, 389-404.

42.

Rhodes

J. E.

DuBois

D. L.

(2008). Mentoring relationships and programs for youth. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 254-258.

43.

Rhodes

J. E.

Grossman

J. B.

Resch

N. L.

(2000). Agents of change: Pathways through which mentoring relationships influence adolescents’ academic adjustment. Child Development, 71, 1662-1671.

44.

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.

45.

Saunders

(2018). What does your dad do for a living? Children of prisoners and their experiences of stigma. Children and Youth Services Review, 90, 21-27.

46.

Shlafer

R. J.

Duwe

Hindt

(2019). Parents in prison and their minor children: Comparison between state and national estimates. The Prison Journal, 99(3), 310-328.

47.

Shlafer

R. J.

Reedy

Davis

(2017). School-based outcomes among youth with incarcerated parents: Differences by school setting. Journal of School Health, 87, 687-695.

48.

Swisher

R. R.

Roettger

M. E.

(2012). Father’s incarceration and youth delinquency and depression: Examining differences by race and ethnicity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 597-603.

49.

Swisher

R. R.

Shaw-Smith

U. R.

(2015). Parental incarceration and adolescent well-being: Life course contingencies and other moderators. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 104, 929-950.

50.

Taylor

C. J.

(2016). The family’s role in the reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals: The direct effects of emotional support. The Prison Journal, 96, 331-534.

51.

Turney

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

52.

Turney

(2017). The unequal consequences of mass incarceration for children. Demography, 54, 361-389.

53.

Turney

Goodsell

(2018). Parental incarceration and children’s wellbeing. Future of Children, 28, 147-164.

54.

Turney

Haskins

A. R.

(2014). Falling behind? Children’s early grade retention after parental incarceration. Sociology of Education, 87, 241-258.

55.

Vaughn

M. G.

Salas-Wright

C. P.

DeLisi

Maynard

B. R.

(2014). Violence and externalizing behavior among youth in the United States. Is there a severe 5%? Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12, 3-21.

56.

Wakefield

Wildeman

(2011). Mass imprisonment and racial disparities in childhood behavioral problems. Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 793-817.

57.

Washington

H. M.

Juan

Haskins

A. R.

(2018). Incapacitated involvement: Incarceration and fatherhood in fragile families at age 9. Journal of Family Issues, 39, 3463-3486.

58.

Zeman

J. L.

Dallaire

D. H.

Folk

J. B.

Thrash

T. M.

(2018). Maternal incarceration, children’s psychological adjustment, and the meditating role of emotion regulation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46, 223-236.