children s contact with their incarcerated parents -...

Children’s Contact With Their Incarcerated ParentsResearch Findings and Recommendations

Julie Poehlmann University of Wisconsin—MadisonDanielle Dallaire College of William and Mary

Ann Booker Loper University of VirginiaLeslie D. Shear University of Wisconsin Law School

Approximately 1.7 million children have parents who areincarcerated in prison in the United States, and possiblymillions of additional children have a parent incarceratedin jail. Many affected children experience increased riskfor developing behavior problems, academic failure, andsubstance abuse. For a growing number of children, in-carcerated parents, caregivers, and professionals, parent–child contact during the imprisonment period is a key issue.In this article, we present a conceptual model to provide aframework within which to interpret findings about parent–child contact when parents are incarcerated. We thensummarize recent research examining parent–child con-tact in context. On the basis of the research reviewed, wepresent initial recommendations for children’s contact withincarcerated parents and also suggest areas for futureintervention and research with this vulnerable population.

Keywords: children, jail, parental incarceration, prison, vis-itation

In 2007, 1.7 million children had a parent in state orfederal prison in the United States, an increase of 80%since 1991 (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). It is estimated

that possibly millions of additional children have a parentin jail (Kemper & Rivara, 1993; Western & Wildeman,2009). However, the actual number of affected children isunknown because this information is not systematicallycollected by jails, corrections departments, schools, childwelfare systems, or other systems. For a growing numberof children, parent–child contact during the incarcerationperiod is a key issue. Family members as well as profes-sionals (e.g., psychologists, attorneys, social workers)question whether children should have contact with incar-cerated parents and express concerns about how and whencontact occurs, who regulates contact, what types of con-tact are feasible and desirable, and the effects of contact (orlack thereof) on children.

Given these questions and concerns, our goal in thisarticle is to present current research findings regardingvisitation and other forms of contact that occur betweenchildren and their incarcerated parents. To place contactissues in a broader context, we briefly summarize theliterature examining outcomes of children with incarcer-ated parents and present a conceptual model to provide aframework within which to interpret findings about parent–

child contact. We then summarize national trends regardingchildren’s contact with incarcerated parents and reviewrecent research findings that have emerged. Finally, wepresent initial recommendations for children’s contact withincarcerated parents and suggest directions for future re-search.

Children of Incarcerated Parents inContextChildren’s Outcomes When Parents AreIncarcerated

Children of incarcerated parents are at risk for nega-tive social and academic outcomes, including internalizingand externalizing behavior problems, substance abuse,adult offending and incarceration, truancy, and school fail-ure (see Murray, Farrington, Sekol, & Olsen, 2009, for aquantitative review). Affected children often experienceadditional risks in their environments (e.g., poverty, paren-tal substance abuse, changes in caregivers); thus, it isunclear whether parental incarceration is the cause of chil-dren’s problematic outcomes or a risk marker (Murray &Farrington, 2008). Because large-scale longitudinal studiesfocusing on children of incarcerated parents have relied onsecondary analyses of data that were not collected to assesspotential effects of parental incarceration on children, theytell us little about developmental, familial, or contextualprocesses linking parental incarceration with children’soutcomes. However, numerous smaller scale studies havebegun to shed light on such processes, although many ofthe studies have methodological limitations such as smallsample sizes, cross-sectional designs, and lack of compar-ison groups. Some of these studies have focused on parent–child contact during parental incarceration, and these arereviewed later in this article.

Julie Poehlmann, Human Development and Family Studies, School ofHuman Ecology, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin—Madison;Danielle Dallaire, Department of Psychology, College of William andMary; Ann Booker Loper, Clinical and School Psychology, Curry Schoolof Education, University of Virginia; Leslie D. Shear, Frank J. RemingtonCenter, University of Wisconsin Law School.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to JuliePoehlmann, University of Wisconsin—Madison, 1500 Highland Avenue,Madison, WI 53705. E-mail: [email protected]

575September 2010 ● American Psychologist© 2010 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/10/$12.00Vol. 65, No. 6, 575–598 DOI: 10.1037/a0020279

Conceptual FrameworkTo address the multiple contexts that must be consideredwhen examining children’s contact with incarcerated par-ents, we use a developmental ecological model (Bronfen-brenner, 1979) that is integrated with attachment theory(Bowlby, 1982) (see Figure 1). Ecological models empha-size the importance of multiple contexts, or interrelatedsettings in which development occurs (Bronfenbrenner,1979), whereas attachment theory focuses on the quality ofthe parent–child interactions that contribute to children’sclose relationships and well-being across the life span(Bowlby, 1982). Attachment theory also emphasizes thesignificance of disruptions in relationships that occur whena child is separated from a parent, such as when a parentgoes to prison or jail (Poehlmann, 2005b). Both of thesemodels have been applied to parental incarceration previ-ously (Arditti, 2005; Murray & Murray, 2010), althoughthey have not been integrated or applied to parent–childcontact experiences when parents are incarcerated.

Dyadic interactions such as those that contribute to achild’s attachment security are examples of proximal pro-cesses, or “enduring forms of interaction in the immediateenvironment” (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, p. 572).Proximal processes are seen as key contextual mediators,or “the primary engines” of development (Bronfenbrenner& Ceci, 1994, p. 572). Bronfenbrenner (1979) originallyreferred to the context in which proximal processes occuras the child’s microsystem, or the activities, roles, andrelationships experienced by the child.

Microsystem factors. Children’s attachmentrelationships and contact with parents are considered partof the child’s microsystem. Previous research has foundthat early attachment quality is an important predictor ofchildren’s later social and emotional functioning (see R. A.

Thompson, 2008, for a review). A child who has developeda secure attachment derives comfort from contact with theattachment figure when distressing or threatening situationsarise and uses the attachment figure as a base from whichto explore the environment with increasing confidence overtime (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). In con-trast, insecure, and especially disorganized, attachments areconsidered risk factors for emerging psychopathology(R. A. Thompson, 2008).

For children of incarcerated parents, key microsystemprocesses that are important for the development of secureattachments and other competencies involve caregivinginteractions that occur within the home (Poehlmann, Park,et al., 2008) as well as ongoing contacts with incarceratedparents (Poehlmann, 2005b). The child’s home may bedifferent from the environment in which he or she livedprior to the parent’s incarceration because of changes incaregivers and economic disruption (Arditti, Lambert-Shute, & Joest, 2003). Child characteristics such as age arealso important. In their analysis of 2007 national prisonerdata, Glaze and Maruschak (2008) found that 22% ofchildren with parents in state prison and 16% of childrenwith parents in federal prison were four years of age oryounger. Figures for 1989 showed that nearly 1% of U.S.children under four years of age had a parent in jail (Kem-per & Rivara, 1993). These statistics suggest that manychildren experience parental incarceration while in the pro-cess of forming primary attachments.

Mesosystem factors. Also important are chil-dren’s mesosystems, defined as the connections that occuracross microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For childrenof incarcerated parents, the parent–caregiver relationship isa key mesosystem context. Positive parent–caregiver rela-tionships are associated with more stability in children’sliving arrangements when mothers are in prison, and rela-tionship quality is related to parent–child contact as well(Poehlmann, Shlafer, Maes, & Hanneman, 2008). Yet mi-cro- and mesosystem processes are not sufficient to capturethe complex dynamics that occur at multiple contextuallevels for children whose parents are incarcerated. Ecolog-ical theory highlights variables in the larger social context,including the exosystem (processes that occur in settingswithout the child but that still affect the microsystem), themacrosystem (the organization and ideals of the society andculture in which the child is embedded), and the chrono-system (time factors, including transitions) (Bronfenbren-ner, 1979).

Exosystem factors. For children of incarcer-ated parents, multiple exosystem factors are critical, includ-ing parent and caregiver poverty, stress, supports available,and the gender of the incarcerated parent. It is caregiverswho must handle children’s developmental, academic, andsocial issues on a day-to-day basis during parental incar-ceration (Hanlon, Carswell, & Rose, 2007). Caregivers areoften economically disadvantaged people of color whomust deal with chronic strains (Arditti et al., 2003). Con-sistent with our model, caregiver and child well-beingappear to be linked in families with incarcerated parents(e.g., Poehlmann, Park, et al., 2008).

JuliePoehlmann

576 September 2010 ● American Psychologist

Regarding parent gender, the vast majority of childrenaffected by parental incarceration have a father in prison orjail (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008; Kemper & Rivara, 1993).However, research indicates that children with incarceratedmothers may face comparatively greater stress and morecumulative risks in their environments than children ofincarcerated fathers (Johnson & Waldfogel, 2002), includ-ing homelessness, mental and physical health problems(Glaze & Maruschak, 2008), and exposure to parentalcriminal activity (Dallaire & Wilson, 2010). The vast ma-jority of children with incarcerated fathers live with theirmothers during the incarceration period, whereas childrenwith incarcerated mothers are more likely to live with theirgrandparents, other family members, or in foster care(Glaze & Maruschak, 2008).

Macrosystem and chronosystem factors.Macrosystem or structural factors, such as societal andjudicial attitudes toward imprisonment and racial dispari-ties in incarceration rates, are important considerations for

children of incarcerated parents. Issues related to time andtransitions, such as changes in policies and sentencelengths, are important chronosystem factors.

Changes in policies over time have resulted in grow-ing U.S. prison and jail populations. Incarceration ratesrose dramatically during the 1980s and 1990s largely as aresult of policies designed to “get tough” on drug offenders(Austin & Irwin, 2001; Hagan & Coleman, 2001; TheSentencing Project, n.d.). These policies resulted in anunprecedented reliance on incarceration, disproportionatelyaffecting poor and minority individuals and families (West-ern & Wildeman, 2009). In 2007, Black children were 7.5times more likely to have an incarcerated parent than wereWhite children (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Racial dispar-ities are even greater when one examines estimates ofcumulative risk for having an incarcerated parent duringchildhood (Wildeman, 2009). Additional factors at themacrosystem level include differences in local, state, andfederal visitation policies and the interface between the

Figure 1Children’s Ecological Contexts Related to Frequency and Quality of Parent–Child Contact When Parents AreIncarcerated

Child’s Chronosystem: Change Over the Lifecourse, Timing of Transitions

Parent-Caregiver

Relationship

Federal & State Laws

Parent Characteristics

& Stress

Child Welfare System

Poverty, Stigma

Experienced by Families

Attachment Relationships

Caregiver Characteristics

& Stress

Child Experiences with Contact

Child Characteristics

Educational Disparities in

Society

Interactions in the Home

CoEn

rrections vironments

Child’s Exosystem

& Mesosystem

Child’s Macrosystem

Child’s Microsystem

Corrections Policies

Racial Disparities in Society

577September 2010 ● American Psychologist

corrections, child welfare, and legal systems. Glaze andMaruschak (2008) found that 10.9% of imprisoned mothersand 2.2% of imprisoned fathers had a child in foster care,which has implications for parent–child contact.

The type of correctional facility and the facility’spolicies impact children’s experiences of contact with theirincarcerated parent. According to the Bureau of JusticeStatistics (2010), jails are locally operated correctionalfacilities that confine persons before or after adjudication.Sentences to jail are usually one year or less (typically formisdemeanors), whereas sentences to state prison are gen-erally more than one year (typically for felonies), althoughthis varies by state. Six states (Connecticut, Rhode Island,Vermont, Delaware, Alaska, and Hawaii) have an inte-grated correctional system that combines jails and prisons(Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010). Compared with pris-ons, jails are often located closer to the incarcerated indi-vidual’s family members, possibly affecting visitation fre-quency. Compared with state prisons, there are fewerfederal prisons; federal prisoners are under the legal au-thority of the U.S. federal government (Bureau of JusticeStatistics, 2010), and federal prisons are often located farfrom the incarcerated individual’s family.

National Trends Regarding Children’sContact With Incarcerated ParentsAlthough the majority of imprisoned parents have somecontact with their children during the incarceration period,mail contact is much more common than visitation (Mar-uschak, Glaze, & Mumola, in press). A 2007 survey of stateand federal prisoners in the United States revealed thatmore than three quarters of incarcerated parents had mailcontact with their children (52% reported at least monthlymail contact) and more than half had phone contact (38%

reported at least monthly phone calls). In contrast, only42% of state and 55% of federal prisoners had visits withtheir children during incarceration (Glaze & Maruschak,2008). Comparable national statistics are not available forjailed parents, although results from smaller samples sug-gest considerable variation in levels of parent–child con-tact during parental jail stays (e.g., Arditti, 2003).

In our theoretical model, visitation between childrenand incarcerated parents is seen as the most proximal formof contact, and thus it may have the greatest effects onchildren’s attachment relationships and well-being. How-ever, when children talk on the phone with or engage inwritten correspondence with their incarcerated parents,these experiences become part of the child’s proximalcontext as well. In addition, multiple levels of contextualinfluence affect children’s proximal experience of contact(see Figure 1). In the next section we summarize researchfocusing on factors at each of these contextual levels inrelation to parent–child contact.

Recent Research Focusing on Parent–Child ContactStudies assessing incarcerated parent–child contact thathave been conducted since 1998 are summarized in Table1. When we began writing this review in 2008, we decidedto focus on the literature that has emerged during the pastdecade because (a) there has been a dramatic increase in theproportion of racial and ethnic minority individuals withlow education levels (see Western & Wildeman, 2009) andof women (Mumola, 2000) who are incarcerated; (b) over-crowding in prisons and jails resulting from increasedpopulations has led to proportionally fewer dollars beingspent on rehabilitation efforts (e.g., parenting and visitationprograms), more crowded visiting environments, and in-

Ann BookerLoper

DanielleDallaire


mates sometimes being sent to facilities in different states,which may affect visitation; and (c) advances in technologyhave increased the use of closed-circuit TV visits and otheralternatives (e.g., video). Because of these issues, findingswith samples collected earlier than 1998 may not be asrelevant for this area of scholarship.

To identify the studies reviewed, we searched ninedatabases (PsycINFO, PsycArticles, ProQuest Research Li-brary, Web of Knowledge/Web of Science, Social SciencesFull Text, SocINDEX, Family and Society Studies World-wide, Sociological Abstracts, and Google Scholar),searched the reference lists of articles focusing on childrenof incarcerated parents, and contacted researchers whowork in this area to locate unpublished data as well as datapresented at conferences. We included both quantitativeand qualitative studies in our review. Table 1 summarizesthe studies according to the findings (positive outcomes forchildren or caregivers, negative outcomes for children orcaregivers, or descriptive).

As an indication of methodological rigor, we rated thestudies with regard to sampling procedures, response rates,sample size, inclusion of covariates such as poverty, atten-tion to children’s age, measurement quality, and the pub-lication outlet (see the Appendix for coding and interraterreliability data). Ratings of the 36 studies ranged from 4 to13, with a mean of 8.6 (SD � 2.6). Of the studies reviewed,8.3% were unpublished. We had hoped to use these ratingsto clarify research findings when results about parent–childcontact were mixed or contradictory. However, the meanratings of studies finding positive versus negative associa-tions between contact and child or adult outcomes did notdiffer, t(23) � 0.72, ns. Thus, variables other than meth-odological rigor appeared to be responsible for the mixedfindings, as we discuss later.

Microsystem Factors in Relation to Contact

Child attachment and parent perceptionsof the relationship. No published studies have re-ported direct, systematic observations of children’s attach-ment behaviors during visits between incarcerated parentsand their children, in part because of the logistical difficul-ties in recording such behaviors in prison and jail settings.Thus, the studies reviewed relied on representational (sym-bolic instead of behavioral) assessments of children’s at-tachments with incarcerated parents, or they measured pa-rental perceptions of the parent–child relationship.

Several studies (Dallaire, Wilson, & Ciccone, 2009;Poehlmann, 2005b; Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010) assessedchildren’s attachment representations in relation to theirexperiences of contact with parents in prison or jail usingmethods such as the Attachment Story Completion Task(Bretherton, Ridgeway, & Cassidy, 1990), the FamilyDrawing procedure (Main, Kaplan, & Cassidy 1985), orself-report measures of attachment security (e.g., the In-ventory of Parent and Peer Attachment; Armsden & Green-berg, 1987). Poehlmann (2005b) and Dallaire et al. (2009)found associations between visits with parents in correc-tions facilities and representations of insecure attachmentrelationships in children ranging from 2.5 to 14 years ofage. In both of these studies, the visitation environmentswere described as not child friendly.

One explanation for these findings is that the qualityof visits is likely affected by the institutional settings,which vary from child friendly to highly stressful, thuspotentially affecting children’s attachment security. An-other explanation for these findings is that a recent visitmay activate the child’s attachment system, including elic-iting signs of distress and anxiety, without affording op-portunities to work through intense feelings about the re-lationship with the parent because the parent–childseparation continues following the visit (Poehlmann,2005b).

Although visits may be stressful when visiting envi-ronments are not child friendly, lack of any contact withincarcerated parents also may be associated with children’snegative feelings about their incarcerated parents. For ex-ample, in a study of children who participated in a men-toring program for children of incarcerated parents, Shlaferand Poehlmann (2010) found that for the 24 children (agenine and older) who rated their relationships, experiencingno contact with the incarcerated parent was associated withchildren’s feelings of alienation from the parent. However,there was no relation between children’s feelings of trust orcommunication and contact with the incarcerated parent. Inqualitative analyses of interviews with children, Shlaferand Poehlmann also found that some children reportedfeeling unsure about whether they wanted to see or havecontact with the incarcerated parent. Children who dis-cussed their experiences visiting the incarcerated parent didnot report positive visitation experiences.

Table 1 indicates that the methodological rigor ratingsof the studies assessing contact and child attachmentranged from 7 to 13. The studies with higher (13) (Poehl-

Leslie D.Shear


Table

1St

udie

sA

sses

sing

Con

tact

Betw

een

Inca

rcer

ated

Pare

nts

and

Thei

rC

hild

ren

(Con

duct

edSi

nce

1998

)

Aut

hor(s

)G

roup

(s)s

ampl

edA

geof

child

ren

Sam

ple

size

Pare

ntin

carc

erat

edFi

ndin

gsre

late

dto

pare

nt–c

hild

cont

act

Stud

yra

tinga

Con

tact

asso

ciat

edw

ithpo

sitiv

ech

ildou

tcom

es(m

ean

study

ratin

gof

7.0)

Bloc

k&

Potth

ast

(199

8)b

Mot

hers

,chi

ldre

n,ca

regi

vers

7–17

year

s35

mot

hers

,32

daug

hter

s,22

care

give

rsin

Girl

Scou

tsBe

yond

Bars

(GSB

B)

Mot

her

inM

Dsta

tepr

ison

Mot

hers

inin

terv

entio

nre

ceiv

edm

ore

visi

tsfro

mth

eir

daug

hter

spe

rye

arth

anm

atch

edgr

oup;

care

give

rsde

scrib

edso

me

decr

ease

ingi

rls’p

robl

ems

follo

win

gpa

rtici

patio

nin

GSB

B

4

Byrn

e,G

oshi

n,&

Joes

tl(2

010)

bM

othe

rs,c

hild

ren

2–16

mon

ths

30M

othe

rin

NY

state

pris

onnu

rser

ypr

ogra

m

Infa

nts

who

parti

cipa

ted

inth

epr

ison

nurs

ery

inte

rven

tion

with

thei

rm

othe

rsfo

rat

leas

tone

year

wer

em

ore

likel

yto

have

secu

reat

tach

men

tsth

anin

fant

sdi

scha

rged

from

the

nurs

ery

prog

ram

earli

er

11

Dal

laire

,Wils

on,&

Cic

cone

(201

0)c

Chi

ldre

n,ca

regi

vers

4–14

year

s32

Fath

eran

d/or

mot

her

inVA

jail

Mor

ele

tters

wer

eas

soci

ated

with

less

child

depr

essi

onan

dso

mat

icco

mpl

aint

s

6

Dal

laire

,Cic

cone

,&

Wils

on(2

010)

d

Teac

hers

6–18

year

s30

Fath

eran

d/or

mot

her

inVA

jail

orpr

ison

Teac

hers

note

dbe

nefit

sof

mai

lco

rres

pond

ence

for

child

ren

with

inca

rcer

ated

pare

nts

5

Land

reth

&Lo

baug

h(1

998)

bFa

ther

s,ch

ildre

n4–

9ye

ars

16in

terv

entio

n,16

cont

rol

Fath

erin

fede

ral

pris

on

Chi

ldse

lf-es

teem

incr

ease

dfo

llow

ing

parti

cipa

tion

invi

sita

tion

prog

ram

,al

thou

ghto

om

any

child

parti

cipa

nts

drop

ped

outo

fin

terv

entio

nto

mak

egr

oup

com

paris

ons

6

Shla

fer

&Po

ehlm

ann

(201

0)b

Chi

ldre

n,ca

regi

vers

4–15

year

s57

Fath

eran

d/or

mot

her

inW

Ipris

on

Chi

ldre

nw

hoha

dco

ntac

twith

thei

rin

carc

erat

edpa

rent

sre

porte

dfe

wer

feel

ings

ofal

iena

tion

tow

ard

that

pare

ntco

mpa

red

with

child

ren

who

had

noco

ntac

t(vi

sits,

calls

,le

tters

notd

iffer

entia

ted)

;con

tact

notr

elat

edto

child

ren’

sbe

havi

orpr

oble

ms

9

Tric

e&

Brew

ster

(200

4)M

othe

rs,

care

give

rs13

–19

year

s58

Mot

her

inVA

state

pris

onM

ore

frequ

entc

onta

ct(v

isits

,cal

ls,le

tters

notd

iffer

entia

ted)

with

inca

rcer

ated

mot

hers

asso

ciat

edw

ithle

ssch

ildsc

hool

drop

outs

and

susp

ensi

ons

8


Table

1(c

ontinued

)

Aut

hor(s

)G

roup

(s)s

ampl

edA

geof

child

ren

Sam

ple

size

Pare

ntin

carc

erat

edFi

ndin

gsre

late

dto

pare

nt–c

hild

cont

act

Stud

yra

tinga

Con

tact

asso

ciat

edw

ithpo

sitiv

epa

rent

orca

regi

ver

outc

omes

(mea

nstu

dyra

ting

of8.

2)C

arlso

n(1

998)

bM

othe

rsIn

fant

s(m

onth

sno

tre

porte

d)24

Mot

her

inN

Epr

ison

nurs

ery

prog

ram

Reci

divi

smw

aslo

wer

for

the

mot

hers

inth

enu

rser

ypr

ogra

mco

mpa

red

with

mot

hers

who

wer

ein

carc

erat

edpr

ior

toim

plem

enta

tion

ofth

enu

rser

ypr

ogra

m

6

Hou

ck&

Lope

r(2

002)

Mot

hers

Birth

–20

year

s36

2M

othe

rin

VAsta

tepr

ison

Mor

eco

ntac

twith

child

ren

was

asso

ciat

edw

ithle

ssm

ater

nal

distr

ess

7

LaVi

gne,

Nas

er,B

rook

s,&

Cas

tro(2

005)

Fath

ers

Und

er18

year

s14

2Fa

ther

inIL

state

pris

onM

ore

visi

tsan

dm

ailc

orre

spon

denc

ew

ithch

ildre

ndu

ring

inca

rcer

atio

npr

edic

ted

mor

epa

tern

alin

volv

emen

twith

child

ren

follo

win

gth

efa

ther

’sre

leas

efro

mpr

ison

6

Land

reth

&Lo

baug

h(1

998)

bFa

ther

s,ch

ildre

n4–

9ye

ars

16in

terv

entio

n,16

cont

rol

Fath

erin

fede

ral

pris

on

Fath

ers

inth

evi

sita

tion

inte

rven

tion

repo

rted

less

pare

ntin

gstr

ess

and

mor

eac

cept

ance

ofth

ech

ild

6

Lope

r,C

arlso

n,Le

vitt,

&Sc

heffe

l(20

09)

Mot

hers

,fat

hers

Birth

–20

year

s21

1M

othe

ror

fath

erin

TXor

OH

state

pris

on

Mor

em

ailc

onta

ctas

soci

ated

with

low

erpa

rent

ing

stres

sfo

rm

othe

rs;

stron

ger

allia

nce

betw

een

care

give

ran

din

carc

erat

edpa

rent

asso

ciat

edw

ithm

ore

mai

lcon

tact

and

phon

eca

llsw

ithch

ildre

n

12

Poeh

lman

n(2

005a

)M

othe

rs2–

7ye

ars

94M

othe

rin

WI

state

pris

onM

ore

phon

eca

llsas

soci

ated

with

mat

erna

lper

cept

ions

ofm

ore

posi

tive

mot

her–

child

rela

tions

hips

;m

ore

visi

tsas

soci

ated

with

few

erm

ater

nald

epre

ssiv

esy

mpt

oms

12

Snyd

er,C

arlo

,&C

oats

Mul

lins

(200

1)b

Mot

hers

1–16

year

s31

inte

rven

tion,

27w

aitl

ist

Mot

her

inM

idw

este

rnsta

tepr

ison

Mot

hers

inth

ein

terv

entio

ngr

oup

repo

rted

mor

em

aila

ndph

one

cont

actw

ithch

ildre

nan

dm

ore

posit

ivepe

rcep

tions

ofth

em

othe

r–ch

ildre

latio

nshi

p

8

P.J.

Thom

pson

&H

arm

(200

0)b

Mot

hers

Infa

ncy–

32ye

ars

104 inte

rven

tion

Mot

her

inA

Rsta

tepr

ison

Mot

hers

repo

rted

impr

ovem

enti

nem

path

yan

dpa

rent

ing

attitu

des

follo

win

gin

terv

entio

n,bu

tonl

yw

hen

they

rece

ived

frequ

entv

isits

from

child

ren

6

(table

continues

)


Table

1(c

ontinued

)

Aut

hor(s

)G

roup

(s)s

ampl

edA

geof

child

ren

Sam

ple

size

Pare

ntin

carc

erat

edFi

ndin

gsre

late

dto

pare

nt–c

hild

cont

act

Stud

yra

tinga

Con

tact

asso

ciat

edw

ithpo

sitiv

epa

rent

orca

regi

ver

outc

omes

(mea

nstu

dyra

ting

of8.

2)Tu

erk

&Lo

per

(200

6)M

othe

rsBi

rth–

21 year

s

357

Mot

her

inVA

state

pris

onM

ore

frequ

entl

ette

rwrit

ing

(not

visits

orph

one

calls

)ass

ocia

ted

with

less

mat

erna

ldist

ress

rega

rdin

gpa

rent

ing

com

pete

nce

11

Con

tact

asso

ciat

edw

ithne

gativ

ech

ildou

tcom

es(m

ean

study

ratin

gof

8.0)

Dal

laire

,Wils

on,&

Cic

cone

(200

9)c

Chi

ldre

n,ca

regi

vers

4–14 ye

ars

32Fa

ther

and/

orm

othe

rin

VAja

il

Mor

evi

sits

with

jaile

dpa

rent

asso

ciat

edw

ithch

ildre

n’s

inse

cure

atta

chm

ent

7

Dal

laire

,Wils

on,&

Cic

cone

(201

0)c

Chi

ldre

n,ca

regi

vers

4–14 ye

ars

32Fa

ther

and/

orm

othe

rin

VAja

il

Mor

evis

itsw

ithja

iled

pare

ntas

soci

ated

with

mor

ech

ildat

tent

ion

prob

lem

s6

Dal

laire

,Cic

cone

,&W

ilson

(201

0)d

Teac

hers

6–18 ye

ars

30Fa

ther

and/

orm

othe

rin

VAja

ilor

pris

on

Teac

hers

note

dne

gativ

ech

ange

sin

child

ren’

sbe

havio

rsfo

llow

ing

visita

tion

with

inca

rcer

ated

pare

nts

5

Poeh

lman

n(2

005b

)C

hild

ren,

care

give

rs,

mot

hers

2.5– 7.

5ye

ars

60M

othe

rin

WI

state

pris

onRe

cent

visit

with

mot

hera

ssoc

iate

dw

ithch

ildre

n’s

inse

cure

atta

chm

ent;

lette

rsan

dph

one

calls

note

xam

ined

beca

use

ofyo

ung

age

ofch

ildre

n

13

Shla

fer

&Po

ehlm

ann

(201

0)b

Chi

ldre

n,ca

regi

vers

4–15 ye

ars

57Fa

ther

and/

orm

othe

rin

WIp

rison

Som

ech

ildre

nre

porte

dfe

elin

gun

sure

abou

twhe

ther

orno

tthe

yw

ante

dto

see

orha

veco

ntac

twith

the

inca

rcer

ated

pare

nt;o

fthe

child

ren

who

disc

usse

dth

eire

xper

ienc

esvis

iting

the

inca

rcer

ated

pare

nt,n

one

repo

rted

posit

ivevis

itatio

nex

perie

nces

9

Con

tact

asso

ciat

edw

ithne

gativ

epa

rent

orca

regi

ver

outc

omes

(mea

nstu

dyra

ting

of9.

0)A

rditt

i(20

03)d

Car

egiv

ers

Not re

porte

d56

Fath

eror

mot

her

inja

ilin

mid

-A

tlant

icsta

te

Desc

riptio

nsof

care

give

rs’c

once

rns

abou

tnon

cont

actv

isits;

lack

ofch

ild-

frien

dly

spac

e;ha

rsh

and

disr

espe

ctful

treat

men

tby

staff;

long

wai

ts;77

.8%

ofca

regi

vers

who

brou

ghtt

heir

child

ren

indi

cate

dth

atth

e“n

o-co

ntac

t”pa

rtof

the

visit

was

ase

rious

prob

lem

8


Table

1(c

ontinued

)

Aut

hor(s

)G

roup

(s)s

ampl

edA

geof

child

ren

Sam

ple

size

Pare

ntin

carc

erat

edFi

ndin

gsre

late

dto

pare

nt–c

hild

cont

act

Stud

yra

tinga

Bale

s&

Mea

rs(2

008)

Adm

inis

trativ

eda

ta(D

epar

tmen

tof

Cor

rect

ions

)

Not

repo

rted

7,00

0In

carc

erat

edin

divi

dual

inFL

corr

ectio

ns

Mor

ech

ildvi

sits

asso

ciat

edw

ithin

crea

sed

reci

divi

sm;m

ore

spou

salv

isits

asso

ciat

edw

ithde

crea

sed

reci

divi

sm

9

Cas

ey-A

ceve

do,B

akke

n,&

Karle

(200

4)M

othe

rsU

nder

18ye

ars

158

Mot

her

rele

ased

from

state

pris

on

Mot

hers

who

rece

ived

child

visi

tsw

ere

mor

elik

ely

toen

gage

invi

olen

tor

serio

usdi

scip

linar

yin

fract

ions

durin

gin

carc

erat

ion,

whe

reas

wom

enw

hodi

dno

tre

ceiv

ech

ildvi

sits

wer

em

ore

likel

yto

com

mit

noin

fract

ions

orm

inor

ones

10

Poeh

lman

n,Sh

lafe

r,&

Mae

s(2

006)

c,d

Car

egiv

ers

2.5–

7.5

year

s60

Mot

her

inW

Ista

tepr

ison

Car

egiv

ers

did

notk

now

how

toha

ndle

child

ren’

sbe

havi

oris

sues

that

occu

rred

befo

rean

daf

ter

visi

ts

9

Des

crip

tive

study

orstu

dyex

amin

edpr

edic

tors

ofco

ntac

tfre

quen

cy(m

ean

study

ratin

gof

9.8)

Ard

itti&

Few

(200

8)d

Mot

hers

1.5–

27ye

ars

10M

othe

rin

VAco

rrec

tions

or prob

atio

n

Des

crip

tions

ofch

ildre

n’s

distr

ess

durin

gvi

sits;

child

ren’

svi

sits

“ten

ded

tobe

unce

rtain

and

bitte

rsw

eet”

(p.8

)

9

Ard

itti&

Few

(200

6)d

Mot

hers

Mea

nof

11ye

ars;

rang

eno

tre

porte

d

28M

othe

rre

leas

edfro

mVA

jail

orpr

ison

Des

crip

tions

ofm

othe

rs’p

robl

ems

with

visi

tsan

dre

ports

ofw

hatw

asdi

scus

sed

with

care

give

rs;m

ajor

ityof

wom

enth

ough

tvis

itsw

ere

too

shor

tto

emot

iona

llyco

nnec

twith

child

ren

7

Ard

itti,

Lam

bert-

Shut

e,&

Joes

t(20

03)

Car

egiv

ers

Not

repo

rted

56Fa

ther

orm

othe

rin

jail

inm

id-

Atla

ntic

state

Fam

ilym

embe

rsvi

sitin

gth

eja

ilte

nded

tobe

econ

omic

ally

disa

dvan

tage

d;m

any

had

heal

thco

ncer

ns,e

mot

iona

lstre

ss,

pare

ntin

gstr

ain

8

Ard

itti,

Smoc

k,&

Park

man

(200

5)d

Fath

ers

Mea

nof

10ye

ars;

rang

eno

tre

porte

d

51Fa

ther

inm

inim

umse

curit

ypr

ison

inU

Tor

OR

Them

esof

lost

cont

actw

ithch

ildre

nan

dlo

stpa

tern

alid

entit

y11

Day

,Aco

ck,B

ahr,

&A

rditt

i(20

05)d

Fath

ers

Not

repo

rted

51Fa

ther

inU

Tor

OR

state

pris

on

Men

had

very

few

cont

acts

with

child

ren,

butm

ostm

enre

porte

dfe

elin

gcl

ose

orve

rycl

ose

toth

ech

ild

7

(table

continues

)


Table

1(c

ontinued

)

Aut

hor(s

)G

roup

(s)s

ampl

edA

geof

child

ren

Sam

ple

size

Pare

ntin

carc

erat

edFi

ndin

gsre

late

dto

pare

nt–c

hild

cont

act

Stud

yra

tinga

Cas

ey-A

ceve

do&

Bakk

en(2

002)

Mot

hers

Und

er18

year

s15

8M

othe

rin

max

imum

secu

rity

pris

onin

ano

rthea

stern

state

Youn

ger

mot

hers

wer

em

ore

likel

yto

rece

ive

visi

tsfro

mth

eir

child

ren

than

wer

eol

der

mot

hers

7

Enos

(200

1)d,e

Mot

hers

6m

onth

s–21

year

s25

Mot

her

inRI

pris

onC

areg

iver

sof

ten

regu

late

dco

ntac

tbe

twee

nin

carc

erat

edm

othe

rsan

dch

ildre

n;re

latio

nshi

psbe

twee

nm

othe

rsan

dca

regi

vers

impo

rtant

for

cont

act

7

Gla

ze&

Mar

usch

ak(2

008)

Fath

ers,

mot

hers

Und

er18

year

s14

,499

state

pris

oner

san

d3,

686

fede

ral

pris

oner

s

Pare

ntin

state

orfe

dera

lpr

ison

Mot

hers

insta

tepr

ison

repo

rted

mor

eph

one

and

mai

lcon

tact

with

child

ren

bute

qual

leve

lsof

visi

tsco

mpa

red

with

fath

ers;

the

long

erth

epa

rent

sw

ere

inca

rcer

ated

,the

less

likel

yth

eyw

ere

toha

vew

eekl

ych

ildco

ntac

t

13

John

son

&W

aldf

ogel

(200

2)Fa

ther

s,m

othe

rsU

nder

18ye

ars

13,0

00to

17,0

00pr

ison

ers

Pare

ntin

state

orfe

dera

lpr

ison

Freq

uenc

yof

inca

rcer

ated

pare

nt–

child

cont

actd

ecre

ased

betw

een

1991

and

1997

12

Mar

usch

ak,G

laze

,&M

umol

a(in

pres

s)e

Fath

ers,

mot

hers

Und

er18

year

s14

,499

state

pris

oner

san

d3,

686

fede

ral

pris

oner

s

Pare

ntin

state

orfe

dera

lpr

ison

The

long

erth

epa

rent

sw

ere

inca

rcer

ated

,the

less

likel

yth

eyw

ere

toha

vew

eekl

ych

ildco

ntac

t

13

Mum

ola

(200

0)Fa

ther

s,m

othe

rsU

nder

18ye

ars

10,4

03Pa

rent

insta

teor

fede

ral

pris

on

Insta

tepr

ison

s,m

ore

mot

hers

than

fath

ers

had

atle

astm

onth

lyph

one

orm

ailc

onta

ctw

ithch

ildre

n.M

ore

than

half

ofpa

rent

sin

state

pris

ons

rece

ived

noch

ildvi

sits

13

Poeh

lman

n,Sh

lafe

r,M

aes,

&H

anne

man

(200

8)

Mot

hers

2.5–

7.5

year

s92

Mot

her

inW

Ista

tepr

ison

Chi

ldre

nha

dm

ore

frequ

entv

isits

and

phon

eca

llsw

ithth

eir

mot

hers

whe

nm

othe

r–ca

regi

ver

rela

tions

hips

wer

ew

arm

,clo

se,

and

loya

l

12

Roy

&D

yson

(200

5)d

Fath

ers

Not

repo

rted

40Fa

ther

inIN

wor

k-rel

ease

prog

ram

Mot

hers

ofch

ildre

nfu

nctio

ned

asga

teke

eper

sof

cont

actw

ithin

carc

erat

edfa

ther

s

6

Swis

her

&W

alle

r(2

008)

Mot

hers

Birth

–3ye

ars

1,00

2N

onre

siden

tfa

ther

had

past,

curre

nt,

orno

time

inja

il

Cur

rent

lyja

iled

fath

ers

saw

thei

rch

ildre

nle

ssth

anot

hern

onre

siden

tfa

ther

s;th

isw

asle

sspr

onou

nced

for

Blac

kfa

ther

sth

anW

hite

fath

ers

12


mann, 2005b) and lower (7) (Dallaire et al., 2009) ratingsdocumented negative associations between visitation andchild attachment, whereas the study rated in the averagerange (9) (Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010) found that noparent–child contact was associated with children’s feel-ings of alienation. Because the index of methodologicalrigor does not resolve the contradictory findings, we sug-gest examining other variables that differed in the studies:quality of parent–child interactions during visits, whetheran intervention occurred, type of contact, and children’sage.

As a key proximal process, the quality of parent–childinteraction during a visit likely influences children’s reac-tions to the visit. Intervention efforts often focus on in-creasing the quality and frequency of parent–child interac-tions. It is important to note that four of the seven studiesfinding benefits of contact for children involved interven-tions (e.g., visitation programs, prison nursery interven-tion), whereas only one of the five studies finding negativeassociations between contact and child outcomes involvedan intervention. Moreover, of the seven studies focusingspecifically on visits and child outcomes, only studies thatinvolved interventions showed benefits of visitation forchildren. For example, in one examination of a parentingintervention for 16 fathers incarcerated at a federal correc-tional facility and their young children, Landreth andLobaugh (1998) found that children’s self-esteem increasedacross a 10-week intervention. A key component of thisintervention was a weekly parent–child visit in which thefathers could interact and have physical contact with theirchildren in a child-friendly environment.

Additional studies examined contact in relation toparental perceptions of the parent–child relationship, ratherthan assessing the child’s attachment or other direct indi-cators of child well-being. These studies generally foundpositive associations between contact and parental relation-ship perceptions. For instance, in a study focusing onimprisoned mothers, Poehlmann (2005a) found that moretelephone calls, but not visits, related to positive maternalperceptions of relationships with children. In addition, sev-eral studies examined the effects of interventions designedto increase contact between incarcerated parents and theirchildren in child-friendly settings and found positive ef-fects of such contact for incarcerated parents (e.g., Snyder,Carlo, & Coats Mullins, 2001).

It is also possible that effects of contact on the parent–child relationship are more apparent following the parent’srelease from prison. LaVigne, Naser, Brooks, and Castro(2005) interviewed 142 fathers during incarceration andpostrelease and found that more frequent visits and mailcorrespondence with children during incarceration wererelated to more parental involvement with the child in themonths following prison release.

Child age and contact. Children’s age is animportant microsystem factor when considering parent–child contact during parental incarceration. To our knowl-edge, no published studies have assessed contact betweenincarcerated parents and their infants and toddlers living inthe community. Infants need frequent contact with a care-Ta

ble

1(c

ontinued

)

Aut

hor(s

)G

roup

(s)s

ampl

edA

geof

child

ren

Sam

ple

size

Pare

ntin

carc

erat

edFi

ndin

gsre

late

dto

pare

nt–c

hild

cont

act

Stud

yra

tinga

Tew

ksbu

ry&

DeM

iche

le(2

005)

Visi

tors

toth

eco

rrec

tions

faci

lity

Not

repo

rted

113

visi

tors

with

child

ren;

ofth

ese,

77ch

ildre

nvi

site

d

Med

ium

-se

curit

yfa

cilit

yin

KY;

pare

ntal

gend

erno

tre

porte

d

Des

crip

tion

ofvi

sita

tion

expe

rienc

ean

dra

ting

ofvi

sita

tion

envi

ronm

ents;

nosi

gnifi

cant

diffe

renc

esbe

twee

nvi

sita

tion

expe

rienc

esfo

rth

ose

who

brou

ghtc

hild

ren

and

thos

ew

hodi

dno

t;un

clea

rif

child

visi

tor

was

inm

ate’

sch

ildor

not

11

Not

e.Ta

ble

isor

gani

zed

bystu

dyfin

ding

s(c

onta

ctan

dpo

sitiv

eor

nega

tive

child

orad

ulto

utco

mes

;stu

dyde

scrip

tive

only

orstu

dyex

amin

edpr

edic

tors

ofco

ntac

t).W

ithin

each

sect

ion,

studi

esar

elis

ted

inal

phab

etic

alor

der

byfir

stau

thor

.Stu

dies

are

liste

din

mor

eth

anon

ese

ctio

nw

hen

findi

ngs

diffe

red

byty

peof

cont

acto

rch

ild/a

dult

outc

omes

.a

Met

hodo

logi

calr

igor

rate

dac

cord

ing

toth

ecr

iteria

show

nin

the

App

endi

x.b

Chi

ldre

nor

pare

nts

wer

ein

volv

edin

anin

terv

entio

n.c

The

study

was

unpu

blis

hed.

dTh

estu

dyw

aspr

imar

ilyqu

alita

tive.

eTh

estu

dyw

asre

porte

din

abo

okor

book

chap

ter.


giver to form an attachment relationship with that individ-ual (Bowlby, 1982) and, to state the obvious, infants areunable to talk on the phone and write or read letters. Theneed for mother–child contact during the newborn andinfancy periods has been acknowledged in a few progres-sive jails and prisons with nursery programs in whichincarcerated mothers are permitted to have extended con-tact or live with their newborns and infants. For instance,the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women in NewYork has, since 1901, allowed incarcerated mothers to livewith their newborns for the child’s first year, and an eval-uation of infant–mother attachment in the Bedford Hillsprogram was recently completed (Byrne, Goshin, & Joestl,2010). Byrne et al. found that infants who resided with theirmothers in the prison nursery intervention program for atleast one year were more likely to have secure attachmentsto their mothers than were infants discharged from thenursery program prior to one year. Also, the NebraskaCorrectional Center for Women has allowed mothers tolive with their newborn infants since 1994. Though childoutcomes were not examined, Carlson (1998) reported thatthe 24 women who participated in this program were lesslikely to be readmitted to prison (5% recidivism rate) thanwere a group of women who gave birth while incarceratedprior to implementation of the prison nursery program(these women had a 17% recidivism rate).

Child age may affect children’s experiences of visitsand other forms of contact, and it may determine how muchcontrol caregivers have regarding children’s contact withincarcerated parents. For young children, caregivers oftenfunction as gatekeepers of children’s contact (Enos, 2001).Whereas some caregivers of young children support theparent–child relationship by fostering contact, other care-givers limit contact. When children are young, caregivers’responses to children’s behavioral reactions to visits withincarcerated parents are critical factors as well (Arditti etal., 2003). Young children may need emotional support andreassurance within the microsystem setting to cope effec-tively with the prison or jail setting so that the experiencefunctions as a means of strengthening parent–child rela-tionships rather than as a source of stress.

As children grow older, however, they may havecontact with their incarcerated parents that is not regulatedby caregivers but is facilitated by other family members.For example, some adolescents in Shlafer and Poehlmann’s(2010) study reported that they had contact with the incar-cerated parent without the caregiver’s knowledge. As chil-dren develop, they may also express their opinions aboutcontact because of advances in verbal skills (Shlafer &Poehlmann, 2010).

Child behavior problems and contact. Theways in which children’s behaviors with others (e.g., care-givers, teachers, peers) relate to contact with the incarcer-ated parent constitute another important microsystem pro-cess. Several studies examined children’s behaviorproblems and school functioning in relation to contact withincarcerated parents, with mixed findings. In a study of 58adolescents with incarcerated mothers, Trice and Brewster(2004) found that more mother–child contact (a combina-

tion of phone calls, visits, and letters) was associated withfewer instances of school dropout and suspensions fromschool for the adolescents. In contrast, Dallaire, Wilson,and Ciccone (2010) found that children of jailed parentsreported more attention problems when they visited moreoften with the parent. However, children also reportedfewer anxious/depressed and somatic complaints whenthey had more mail correspondence with the jailed parent.Shlafer and Poehlmann (2010) found no statistically sig-nificant association between children’s contact with incar-cerated parents and caregiver- and teacher-reported behav-ior problems. However, they did not differentiate amongtypes of contact. A study examining the Girl Scouts Be-yond Bars intervention, which includes an enhanced visi-tation component, found that nearly all caregivers inter-viewed reported some decrease in girls’ problem behaviorsfollowing the intervention (Block & Potthast, 1998).

Table 1 indicates that our methodological rigor ratingswere similar across studies focusing on contact in relationto child behavior issues and school functioning (ratingsranged from 4 to 9). Rather than reflecting a difference instudy quality, perhaps these mixed findings reflect varia-tions in the assessment of contact used, underscoring theimportance of differentiating among types of parent–childcontact in relation to child outcomes.

To further examine different types of parent– childcontact and children’s school functioning, Dallaire, Cic-cone, and Wilson (2010) conducted interviews with 30teachers who described the behaviors of children withincarcerated parents and conducted qualitative analysisof the interviews. Teachers said that following a week-end when children had visited their incarcerated parents,the children had trouble concentrating when they re-turned to school. The teachers also made several positivecomments about mail correspondence between incarcer-ated parents and children. For example, one teachermentioned that a child in her class often sent her incar-cerated mother pictures and letters. The teacher felt thatthis correspondence with the incarcerated mother waspositive because it gave the child an opportunity to shareher private thoughts and feelings with her mother. Inaddition, when the mother wrote back, the child hadsomething tangible to hold on to or refer to when she feltsad or was missing her mother.

It should also be noted that there are likely bidirec-tional associations between children’s behavior problemsand contact. Children visiting their parent at a jail or prisonmay on occasion present with behavioral and emotionaldifficulties (Arditti & Few, 2006) that can exacerbate analready tenuous visiting environment and impact the qual-ity of parent–child interaction during the visit.

Mesosystem Factors in Relation to Contact

The relationship that is formed and maintained betweenincarcerated parents and children’s caregivers represents akey mesosystem factor. Communication and shared per-ceptions about child rearing and contact issues are alsoincluded in the mesosystem.


Several studies found that the quality of the relation-ship between the incarcerated parent and the child’s care-giver was associated with frequency of child contact (Enos,2001). For example, in an analysis of interviews with 92incarcerated mothers with young children, Poehlmann,Shlafer, et al. (2008) found that children visited and spokeon the phone with their incarcerated mothers more fre-quently when mother–caregiver relationships were charac-terized by warmth, closeness, and loyalty. Loper, Carlson,Levitt, and Scheffel (2009) used a modification of theParenting Alliance Measure (PAM; Abidin & Konold,1999) to assess the perceived convergence between theimprisoned parent and the child’s caregiver regarding co-parenting issues. They found that imprisoned mothers andfathers perceiving stronger coparenting alliances weremore likely to experience child contact (letters in particu-lar). Other studies focusing on incarcerated mothers andusing different methods found similar results (e.g., Enos,2001).

Although parental perceptions of the alliance with thecaregiver are important, these perceptions may not neces-sarily be the same as the caregivers’ perceptions regardingcontact issues or the parents’ relationship with the child.Tuerk (2007) also queried incarcerated mothers and care-givers regarding the average levels of contact that they hadwith each other to discuss child issues. Incarcerated moth-ers consistently estimated higher levels of such contact thandid children’s caregivers. Day, Acock, Bahr, and Arditti’s(2005) interviews with fathers at minimum security prisonsin Utah and Oregon indicated that although the men hadexperienced very few contacts with their children, 32 of the51 men interviewed said that they felt close or very close totheir children. It is possible that incarcerated parents mayperceive more contact and positive relationships with fam-ily members than do the family members themselves.

Exosystem Factors in Relation to ContactSeveral exosystem factors impact (and are impacted by) thequality and frequency of parent–child contact during pa-rental incarceration. Family socioeconomic resources, thecharacteristics of incarcerated parents (e.g., gender), andparent and caregiver stress during the incarceration periodappear interrelated with parent–child contact.

Family socioeconomic resources and con-tact. Economically stressed families face challenges inarranging contact between children and incarcerated par-ents. The distant location of the prison or jail and the highcost of transportation and long-distance calls are key bar-riers (e.g., Banauch, 1985; Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; My-ers, Smarsh, Amlund-Hagen, & Kennon, 1999). State pris-ons are often located 100 or more miles from the urbansettings in which most of the prisoners’ families live, andfederal prisons are typically located even farther fromfamilies. Moreover, many prisons and jails only allowcollect calls from incarcerated individuals, and receiversare often charged extraordinarily high rates for such calls.Thus, children in families with fewer socioeconomic re-sources may experience difficulty staying in contact withtheir incarcerated parents. Poehlmann, Shlafer, et al. (2008)

found that imprisoned mothers with more pre-incarcerationsocioeconomic risks such as unemployment, young age,single marital status, and low education were less likely toreceive visits from children during the incarceration. Chris-tian and colleagues (Christian, 2005; Christian, Mellow, &Thomas, 2006) examined the social and financial costs tofamilies of maintaining ties to their imprisoned familymembers during the time of incarceration in state prisonfacilities in New York. They conservatively estimated thatthe family members, who resided in a particular neighbor-hood in the Bronx, spent at least 15% of their monthlyincomes to stay in contact with the incarcerated familymember.

Parental gender and contact. In a 2007 na-tional survey of state and federal prisoners, imprisonedmothers more frequently reported at least monthly phonecalls (47% vs. 38%) and mail correspondence with children(65% vs. 51%) than did imprisoned fathers (Glaze & Ma-ruschak, 2008). However, no gender differences in fre-quency of visits with children emerged. Other studies like-wise reported lower levels of contact between children andtheir incarcerated fathers than between children and theirincarcerated mothers (e.g., Loper et al., 2009).

Caregiver stress and contact. The stress ex-perienced by the child’s caregiver represents another con-textual feature that relates to contact. Often caregivers mustarrange transportation to the jail or prison, pay for phonecalls to and from the corrections facility, and cope withchildren’s behaviors related to separation from and contactwith parents (Cecil, McHale, Strozier, & Pietsch, 2008).Shlafer and Poehlmann (2010) conducted a qualitativeanalysis of caregivers’ responses to questions about chil-dren’s contact with incarcerated parents during monthlyinterviews (across 6 months). Caregivers expressed bothpositive and negative feelings about children’s visitationand phone contact with incarcerated parents. Althoughmany caregivers wanted the child to have contact with theincarcerated parent, most caregivers worried that such con-tact might have detrimental effects on the child. Somecaregivers said that they limited contact because of per-ceived behavioral changes, citing children’s confusion,frustration, and upset following visits and phone conversa-tions with the incarcerated parent.

To better understand the caregiving context for behav-ioral difficulties associated with visitation, Poehlmann,Shlafer, and Maes (2006) examined caregivers’ reports ofhow they handled young children’s behaviors prior to,during, and after visits with imprisoned mothers. Qualita-tive analyses of interviews revealed that caregivers oftendid not know how to support children around visitationissues. Caregivers perceived children’s behaviors prior toand following visits as a source of stress and as a barrier tofacilitating the mother–child relationship.

Parental stress and contact. Whereas care-givers’ stress may result in their limiting children’s visitsand other forms of contact, difficulties in maintaining con-tact with children may result in distress for incarceratedparents. Interviews with imprisoned fathers have revealedthemes related to lost contact with children and paternal


identity confusion (Arditti, Smock, & Parkman, 2005;Clarke et al., 2005; Magaletta & Herbst, 2001; Roy &Dyson, 2005). Women likewise suffer pain associated withloss of child contact (Arditti & Few, 2008). For example,drawing on interviews with 56 women in a county jail,Hairston (1991) found that most jailed mothers regardedseparation from children as the most difficult aspect ofconfinement.

Quantitative studies have likewise documented link-ages between low levels of parent–child contact and pa-rental distress. Houck and Loper (2002) reported thatwomen who experienced more child contact were lesslikely to report symptoms of depression and anxiety duringimprisonment. Similarly, Poehlmann (2005a) found thatmore visits from young children were related to less de-pression in 94 mothers in state prison. In their study of 211mothers and fathers incarcerated in state prisons, Loper etal. (2009) found that mothers who had lower levels ofphone and mail contact with children experienced higherlevels of parenting stress. However, it is unclear whethersuch parental distress is related to quality of contact withchildren.

Parental disciplinary infractions and con-tact. Although incarcerated parents appear to experiencemore stress and depression when they experience less childcontact, visits may be associated with some degree ofemotional upheaval as well (Arditti, 2003). For example, ina review of prison records for 158 mothers recently re-leased from state prison, Casey-Acevedo, Bakken, andKarle (2004) found that mothers who received child visitsduring the prison stay were more likely to engage in violentor serious disciplinary infractions during the incarcerationperiod, whereas women who did not receive child visitswere more likely to commit no infractions or minor ones(contrary to the authors’ hypotheses). Casey-Acevedo andcolleagues suggested that although visits can be associatedwith joy and relief, they can also lead to feelings of upsetand anger at the lack of control mothers have regardingtheir children’s lives.

Macrosystem Factors in Relation to ContactMultiple and complex macrosystem factors affect parent–child contact during parental incarceration, including theinterface between the child welfare and corrections systemsand corrections policies regarding visitation. Although cor-rections environments are considered part of the child’sexosystem, we discuss these issues here because they aredetermined by policies.

Child welfare policies and legal issues. Ingeneral, courts and child welfare systems implement lawsthat attempt to strike a balance between the rights ofparents and the best interests of their children. For incar-cerated parents with children in foster care, that balance hasbecome more precarious since enactment of the Adoptionand Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA, 2000). AlthoughASFA requires “family service agencies to make ‘reason-able efforts’ to reunify parents and families” (Holtz, 2007,p. 294), it does not define “reasonable efforts” (Conway &Hutson, 2007, p. 214). Thus, interpretation of “reasonable

efforts” is left up to each state’s courts and family serviceagencies. At the same time, ASFA “encourages placingchildren with adoptive resources that could eventually leadto permanent placement” (Holtz, 2007, p. 294) and man-dates commencement of proceedings to terminate parentalrights once a child has been in foster care for 15 out of themost recent 22 months (ASFA, 2000). Some scholars seepassage of ASFA as a shift in child welfare policy awayfrom an emphasis on family reunification for incarceratedparents and toward termination of parental rights and adop-tion (Genty, 2003, 2008; Nicholson, 2006). Parent–childcontact during the child’s placement is a key factor whenASFA’s timelines are being considered.

When a child is in foster care and the parent is inprison or jail, multiple barriers exist regarding facilitationof parent–child contact (Allard & Lu, 2006), in part be-cause of the lack of coordination between systems (deHaan, in press). However, national statistics indicate thatfar fewer children with an incarcerated parent live in fostercare than live with the other parent or another relative(Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). These statistics suggest thatmost decisions about a child’s contact with an incarceratedparent are made by an individual family member ratherthan by a children’s court judge or social worker, both ofwhom would be required to consider the concurrent ASFAgoals of reunification and permanence. When called uponto resolve intrafamilial disputes that may arise about con-tact between an incarcerated parent and a child, family lawcourts seek to determine the conditions, frequency, andtype of contact that will be in the child’s best interest. In alljurisdictions, the standard by which courts determine whichof the parents will be awarded custody, including place-ment and visitation, is known as the “best interests of thechild” standard (Balnave, 1998). Although judges are cer-tainly guided by their states’ relevant laws and precedent, a“best interest” determination is inherently subjective. In thecase of an incarcerated parent, such a decision is alsousually final, at least until the parent’s release from incar-ceration, because the appeal of a custody or visitation orderis extremely difficult for an unrepresented inmate and, inany event, has a low likelihood of success.

Correctional facility visitation policies. Akey correctional policy decision relates to whether to allow“full” contact visits, where physical contact is allowed;“open” but noncontact visits that occur without a physicalbarrier; or “barrier” visits, which occur through or across abarrier such as Plexiglas (see Johnston, 1995). Such poli-cies typically reflect differences in institutional securitylevels and concerns for the safety of visitors (Sturges &Hardesty, 2005).

Policies at jails and federal and state prisons affect thelevel and type of contact children can have with the incar-cerated parent. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons(n.d.), when visiting a federal prison facility, “in mostcases, handshakes, hugs, and kisses (in good taste) areallowed at the beginning and end of a visit” (para. 3). Mostfederal facilities allow some type of contact between theincarcerated individual and the visitor. To determine thelevel of contact allowed during visitation at state prisons,


we obtained information about state prison policies andprocedures in 10 states (see Table 2). We chose these statesto represent all of the major geographical regions in theUnited States. Many of the state facilities that we surveyedhad guidelines similar to those outlined by the FederalBureau of Prisons limiting contact to an embrace at the startand end of a visit. In addition, we examined visitation and

contact policies in local and regional jails in major citiesand counties in the same 10 states (see Table 2). County,city, and regional jails are often located in closer proximityto inmates’ homes and families than are state or federalprisons, thus making opportunities to visit with a jailedparent relatively feasible. However, we found that jailsappear less likely than prisons to offer opportunities for

Table 2Visitation Policies at State Prisons and City/County/Regional Jails in 10 States

State

No. of stateprisons surveyed

(% of prisons in state)

% of state prisonswith contact visits

for generalprisoners

% of state prisonswith contact visits

for maximumsecurity prisoners City/county of jails surveyed Type of jail visitation permitted

Arizona 18 (100%) 100% 0% Phoenix/MaricopaCounty

Noncontact closed-circuit TV

Tucson/Pima County Noncontact closed-circuit TVFlorida 60 (95%) 100% 100% Tallahassee/Leon County Noncontact closed-circuit TV

Orlando/Orange County Noncontact barrierLouisiana 9 (81%) 100% 0% New Orleans/Orleans

ParishNoncontact barrier

Baton Rouge/E. BatonRouge Parish

Noncontact barrier

Massachusetts 13 (100%) 82% 0% Boston/Suffolk County Noncontact barrierNorth Hampton/

Hampshire CountyContact visits

Michigan 38 (100%) 100% 0% Detroit/Wayne County Noncontact barrierLansing/Ingham County Noncontact barrier

Nebraska 9 (90%) 100% 100% Omaha/Douglas County Noncontact barrier;however, inmates canapply for contact visits

Lincoln/Lancaster County Noncontact closed-circuit TVPennsylvania 25 (100%) 100% 100% Harrisburg/Dauphin

CountyNoncontact barrier visits;

however, inmates canearn contact visitationprivilege

Pittsburgh/AlleghenyCounty

Both contact and noncontactbarrier visits; determinedby offense

Virginia 36 (92%) 100% 100% Richmond/HenricoCounty

Noncontact barrier;however, some inmatescan earn monthly contactvisitation

Fairfax/Fairfax County Noncontact barrierWashington 19 (90%) 94% 0% Seattle/King County Noncontact barrier

Olympia/ThurstonCounty

Noncontact barrier

Wisconsin 19 (100%) 95% 100% Madison/Dane County Noncontact barrier;however, Huber inmatescan apply for contactvisits

Milwaukee/MilwaukeeCounty

Noncontact barrier

Note. We chose the 10 states listed in Table 2 so that we could represent all the major regions of the United States: New England (MA), Mid Atlantic (PA, VA),South (FL, LA), Southwest (AZ), Pacific Northwest (WA), Midwest (MI, WI), and Central Plains (NE). At the time this article was revised (December 2009), theinformation about visitation policies pertained to the majority of inmates at these corrections facilities; however, some policies may have changed since that time.


physical contact between incarcerated parents and theirchildren. It should also be noted that for visitors to somejails, visits occur through a closed-circuit television trans-mission in which the visitors are in a separate area of thejail. In these types of visitation situations, children do nothave the opportunity to actually see their incarcerated par-ents other than on the television screen.

Concerns about visitation policies and pro-cedures. Several studies have documented incarceratedparents’ concerns about having their children visit them inprison or jail. Some of these concerns relate to correctionalinstitutions’ visitation policies, visitation environments, orlocations. For example, British incarcerated fathers ex-pressed concerns about visitation in terms of transportationcosts, concerns for the safety of their children, and lack ofopportunities for more natural and comfortable interactions(Clarke et al., 2005). Along similar lines, Hairston (1991)found that a majority of the jailed parents she intervieweddid not wish for a visit from their children because ofconcerns about transportation costs, visitation and securityconditions, and worries that the visit would be emotionallyupsetting for the children. Although longed for, child visitscan be associated with emotional distress, uncomfortableand unfriendly visitation environments, and limited oppor-tunities for meaningful contact (Arditti, 2003; Loper et al.,2009).

Corrections policies regarding visitation have a directeffect on the environments in which visitation betweenchildren and incarcerated parents occurs. During a visit,these environments become part of the child’s proximalcontext (see section on Microsystem Factors in Relation toContact). Differences across visitation settings can affectthe potential outcomes of contact and may explain some ofthe contradictory findings regarding the benefits of contactfor family members.

For example, Houck and Loper (2002) found thathigher levels of contact with children were related to lessdepression among imprisoned mothers, although in a sub-sequent study using similar measurement, no such associ-ation was evident (Loper et al., 2009). In the Houck andLoper (2002) study, incarcerated mothers were housed in asingle facility where considerable attention was directed toproviding child-friendly visitation opportunities, whereasthe subsequent Loper et al. (2009) study drew incarceratedindividuals from multiple institutions with more variedvisitation environments. Some included child-centric areas,whereas others required Plexiglas barriers. These variationsin visitation environments may affect contact experiences.

Similarly, Dallaire et al. (2009) linked more visitswith insecure attachment patterns in children. However, thevisits occurred through a Plexiglas barrier in a large, noisyroom, and children and caregivers were sometimes friskedor patted down before being allowed into the visitors’waiting room. Such experiences surrounding visitation mayfrighten children, thus negatively affecting their sense ofsecurity. This variability in the hospitality of visitationsettings is typical across correctional settings (Hairston,1996) and reflects largely unmeasured differences in insti-tutional contact policies that may obfuscate patterns regard-

ing the degree to which visits between incarcerated parentsand children are beneficial to family members.

Alternatives to visitation. Because of suchpolicies, visitation environments are not under the controlof incarcerated individuals or families. However, remoteforms of contact such as phone calls or written correspon-dence may offer a viable alternative for reliable contactbetween incarcerated parents and their children. Tuerk andLoper (2006) found that frequency of letter writing, ratherthan the frequency of personal visits or phone calls, ac-counted for the association between more child contact andless parenting stress. This general pattern was replicated inthe Loper et al. (2009) study, in which incarcerated motherswho had frequent mail contact with children reported lessdistress regarding feelings of competence as a parent.

The potential benefits of remote forms of contact maybe a reflection of the systems that affect healthy parent–child relationships. Fulfillment of the child’s need for “en-during forms of interaction in the immediate environment”(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994, p. 572) may depend onmesosystem factors such as the parent’s own sense ofparenting competency and skill as well as on exosystemfactors such as the hospitality of the visitation setting.Letters and phone calls may remove some of the potentiallynegative aspects of visitation settings. Parents have controlover the content of letters and can plan and anticipate whattheir children may need to hear in ways that are notavailable to them in a noisy or unpredictable visitationenvironment. Clarke et al. (2005) reported that the fathersin their study perceived letters and phone calls to be a morepositive form of contact than visits because they providedan opportunity for a show of paternal commitment to theirchildren’s welfare in a safe and controlled setting. Theparent’s own sense of competency and devotion to the childmay be better expressed in contexts that involve stabilityand control.

Chronosystem Factors in Relation to ContactAn important chronosystem factor involves how incarcer-ated populations change over time. During the past severaldecades in the United States, there have been significantincreases in the rates of incarceration among certain demo-graphic groups, including women, African Americans, andindividuals of low socioeconomic status and low educa-tional attainment (see Wildeman, 2009). The concentrationof incarceration among impoverished, African Americancommunities that has occurred in the United States overtime may negatively affect children’s ability to stay incontact with their incarcerated parents because of limitedresources in these families and communities (see section onExosystem Factors in Relation to Contact). Indeed, a com-parison of 1991 and 1997 national prisoner surveys indi-cated that all forms of contact between incarcerated parentsand their children decreased significantly over time (John-son & Waldfogel, 2002).

Another chronosystem factor related to parent–childcontact involves the length of time that parents are incar-cerated. Results of the 2004 U.S. national prisoner surveyindicated that as the length of parents’ prison stays in-


creased, the likelihood of having at least weekly contactwith their children decreased (Maruschak et al., in press).This decline appeared to result from fewer parents report-ing at least weekly mail contact with children (Maruschaket al., in press).

An additional chronosystem factor that is of greatinterest to families and society is whether incarceratedparents eventually return to prison or jail in the months oryears following release. Carlson (1998) found reduced re-cidivism among mothers who participated in a nurseryprogram that allowed continuous child–mother contact.However, this small-scale study involved a unique inter-vention that is distinctly different from that afforded duringcorrectional visitation experiences. In an examination oflinkages between recidivism and prison visitation, Balesand Mears (2008) reviewed visitation records of 7,000Florida inmates and found that spousal visitation duringincarceration was associated with decreased recidivism.However, the value of child visitation was questioned.Contrary to the authors’ hypotheses, there was no associ-ation between recidivism and the occurrence of any childvisitation (when measured as a dichotomous variable), andmore frequent child visits were associated with increasedrecidivism. The authors speculated that this finding mayreflect the incarcerated parents’ own distress that may haveoccurred during visitation, and they recommended furtherstudy of the quality of the visitation context as a means toshed further light on the value of child visitation. The studyalso found that more visitation (of all types assessed)reduced recidivism for men only. It is possible that anunexamined interaction between the incarcerated individu-al’s gender and relationship to the visitor (e.g., spouse,child) affected the results.

Conclusions and RecommendationsRegarding Contact and FutureResearchOur review of the emerging research reveals that contactbetween children and their incarcerated parents depends ona number of interrelated factors at each systemic level. Inaddition, parent–child contact appears to affect certaincontexts (e.g., parent and caregiver stress, children’s at-tachments), indicating bidirectional associations, as pre-dicted by our model.

Overall, with only a few exceptions, studies havegenerally found benefits of child contact for incarceratedparents (82% of the studies listed in Table 1 that assessedparent outcomes), whereas the literature assessing childoutcomes in relation to contact has yielded somewhatmixed findings (58% of the studies listed in Table 1 thatassessed child outcomes found benefits). Studies focusingspecifically on visits documented positive child outcomeswhen such contact occurred as part of an intervention (e.g.,Byrne et al., 2010; Landreth & Lobaugh, 1998) and foundnegative outcomes when such contact occurred in the ab-sence of intervention (e.g., Dallaire et al., 2009; Poehl-mann, 2005b). In contrast, studies documented benefits ofmail contact even when interventions were not in place

(e.g., Dallaire, Wilson, & Ciccone, 2010), and no studydocumented any negative effects of mail contact. Giventhese findings, we emphasize the need for interventions ateach contextual level, especially when visits occur. We alsohighlight the positive aspects of remote forms of contact.

Our recommendations (see Table 3) regarding childcontact reflect the ecological systems presented in ourconceptual model. In keeping with our focus on children,we frame our recommendations from the “outside in,”starting with the broad macrosystem. In making recom-mendations, we considered the quality of the research,which raises two important issues. First, we recognize thatadditional high-quality studies focusing on contact betweenincarcerated parents and their children are needed, whichthus makes any recommendations tentative. Second, al-though such high-quality work is needed, the methodolog-ical rigor of the studies reviewed was unrelated to findingsof positive or negative associations between contact andchild or adult outcomes.

Improving the Macrosystem

The policies and laws that govern who goes to jail or prisonrepresent one of the foremost factors that affect contactbetween children and their incarcerated parents. With morepeople in U.S. prisons than ever before (Sabol, West, &Cooper, 2009), a growing number of children experienceseparation from parents because of parental incarceration.The basis for this increase is the subject of considerablescholarly attention and includes multiple macrosystem fac-tors, including changes in population demographics, sen-tencing policies, and increases in arrests for drug-relatedoffenses (Mauer, 2002; Zhang, Maxwell, & Vaughn,2009). In addition, ASFA may particularly affect familiesof the incarcerated, speeding the process of adoption forsome children who are in foster care and who have incar-cerated parents (Allard & Lu, 2006).

The increase in the number of affected children andfamilies has recently led to an initiative that may improvethe macrosystem for affected children and parents. TheSecond Chance Act of 2007: Community Safety throughRecidivism Prevention (2008) authorizes assistance for of-fenders with the intention of reducing prison reentry. Itspecifically calls for the implementation of family-basedtreatment programs for incarcerated parents with minorchildren. As such initiatives take hold, there is promise formore innovative programming that may improve parent–child contact as well as provide better opportunities tosystematically evaluate optimal conditions for contact.

Correctional policies regarding visitation likewiserepresent an important aspect of the child’s macrosystemthat affects the quality of contact. Caregivers as well asincarcerated parents have reported wanting improved pol-icies regarding visitation with family members (Arditti,2003; Kazura, 2001), including provision of child-friendlysettings that have age-appropriate games and toys for chil-dren. Our review suggests that several of the contradictoryfindings regarding the benefits, or lack thereof, of contactmay be explained by differences in the hospitality of the


visitation environment or the presence of an intervention toincrease visitation quality.

There are several emerging programs that intention-ally seek to provide enhanced child-centric contact oppor-tunities; to help parents, caregivers, and children under-

stand the context in which visitation occurs; and to preparevisitors and incarcerated parents for the emotional ramifi-cations of visitation (e.g., Girl Scouts Beyond Bars; Block& Potthast, 1998). For example, the Linkages Program (seeGrayson, 2007) gives incarcerated parents the opportunity

Table 3Recommendations Organized by Children’s Ecological Subsystems

Subsystem Recommendations regarding contact between children and incarcerated parents

Macrosystem Implement Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA, 2000) timelines with incarcerated parents in amanner that is sensitive to their unique situations, and decrease racial disparities in implementation ofASFA

Improve coordination between the foster care and corrections/criminal justice systemsImplement the Second Chance Act of 2007: Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention (2008)Improve corrections policies and programs to provide child- and family-friendly visitation and other forms of

contact by• Increasing the availability of child-friendly environments with toys and other materials and systematically

rating the quality of such environments• Increasing the use of interventions such as Girl Scouts Beyond Bars or the Linkages Program• Not frisking very young children or engaging in other procedures that scare children• Limiting child visits behind Plexiglas• Eliminating exorbitant rates for collect phone calls from prisons and jails

Further examine the potential links between child visits and recidivism or inmate disciplinary infractions,paying particular attention to the context and quality of visits and parental gender

Make efforts to decrease racial and educational disparities in• Arrest, sentencing, and incarceration rates• Interventions available to incarcerated parents, their children, and their children’s caregivers by

increasing the cultural sensitivity of programs• Resources available to facilitate parent–child contact (e.g., affordable transportation)

Conduct a cost–benefit analysis of different forms of parent–child contact during parental incarcerationChronosystem Improve sensitivity to children and parent–child relationships during transitions, including

• Arrest, sentencing, and incarceration• Release and family reunification

Examine changes over time in incarcerated populations and how children are affectedMesosystem Improve parent–caregiver relationships and the parenting alliance

Improve communication between parents and caregiversExosystem Decrease parent and caregiver stress

Increase educational opportunities and interventions (and intervention research) that help incarceratedparents cope with feelings of loss and separation and learn healthy ways of interacting with childrenduring visits and following reunification; decrease racial disparities in these opportunities

Provide resources and support to caregivers to facilitate positive parent–child contact, especially incommunities of color that are most affected by parental incarceration

Microsystem Note that children of different ages have different needs regarding parent–child contactIntervene to increase the likelihood that a visit or another form of contact will positively impact children’s

attachment relationships and well-being by• Better preparing children, caregivers, and parents for the visitation experience• Increasing caregiver support of children before, during, and after contact• Helping caregivers cope with children’s behaviors that arise before, during, and after visits• Helping children feel safe during visits• Conducting intervention research focusing on child outcomes and using observational methods

Recognize the complexity of the determination of the child’s best interest regarding contact with incarceratedparents if a dispute about contact arises among family members

Increase opportunities for remote forms of contact such as• Letters, cards, pictures, scrapbooks, and journals• Video- or audiotaped books• Video conferencing• Programs such as “Messages From Mom and Dad,” “Father Read”


to visit with their families face to face in a friendly envi-ronment at a monthly family night. Visitation would oth-erwise occur through a Plexiglas barrier. The incarceratedparents who participate in this program also attend weeklyparenting education classes that address the needs of chil-dren. Extended visits (six hours) in a friendly, homelikecottage are also available to eligible incarcerated mothersand their children at some prisons (e.g., Harris, 2006),although the effects of such programs on children have notbeen systematically evaluated.

Concerns regarding the quality of prison and jail vis-itation also have important implications for correctionsfacilities and their policies. Textbooks focusing on correc-tional administration (e.g., Wilkinson & Unwin, 2008) andother publications (e.g., Laughlin, Arrigo, Blevins, & Cos-ton, 2008) have emphasized the importance of visitation asa mechanism for reducing recidivism and improving insti-tutional behavior. At least two states have enacted statutesthat specifically require attention to family visitation withinstate prisons as a mechanism to improve prison safety andto reduce recidivism (Laughlin et al., 2008). However,visitation with children may not yield these intended ben-efits in the incarcerated individual’s adjustment (e.g., Bales& Mears, 2008; Casey-Acevedo et al., 2004) if the expe-rience is marked by emotional distress. In corrections fa-cilities with adverse visitation environments, the theorizedpositive link between parent–child contact and better ad-justment on the part of the incarcerated parent may beundermined.

Because communities of color and impoverished com-munities have been strongly affected by increases in incar-ceration rates, interventions focusing on decreasing racialand educational disparities in arrest, sentencing, and incar-ceration rates are needed. These communities may alsobenefit from provision of resources to children of incarcer-ated parents that facilitate positive parent–child contact(e.g., providing transportation for visits, defraying the costof phone calls, developing culturally relevant interven-tions).

Improving the MesosystemA positive relationship or parenting alliance between thechild’s caregiver and the incarcerated parent is associatedwith more frequent parent–child contact (e.g., Loper et al.,2009), a finding suggesting the benefits of programs thatdirectly assist caregivers in dealing with stress and com-municating with incarcerated parents. Likewise, parentingprograms for incarcerated individuals may benefit fromdeliberate inclusion of instructions regarding the best waysof communicating and coparenting with caregivers (Baker,McHale, Strozier, & Cecil, 2010; Loper & Tuerk, 2006).

Difficulties in forming strong coparenting alliancesmay relate, in part, to the different experiences of incar-cerated parents, caregivers, and children regarding contact.Because of their isolation and disconnection from day-to-day experiences with children and families, as well as otherfactors, incarcerated parents may idealize their family re-lationships and contact experiences (e.g., Day et al., 2005).Whereas incarcerated parents may not understand the hard-

ships incurred by caregivers and children around contactand other issues, caregivers may feel overwhelmed by theirresponsibilities and focus on problems. Caregivers mayneed time and space to reflect on the potential positivelong-term benefits that may accrue from facilitating contactand a positive relationship between the incarcerated parentand the child, or at least to reflect on the situation from thechild’s point of view. Psychologists and other mentalhealth care providers who work with this population canhelp with the process of encouraging reflection, supportingfamilies, and helping parents and caregivers deal with theirown stress while staying attuned to children’s needs.

Improving the Exosystem

In our review, we identified several exosystem factorsrelated to contact, including parent and caregiver stress,family socioeconomic resources, and parental race/ethnic-ity.

Parent and caregiver stress. Our reviewhighlighted incarcerated parents’ experiences of distressregarding separation from their children (Arditti et al.,2005; Arditti & Few, 2008; Clarke et al., 2005). Incarcer-ated parents need support throughout their internment toresolve feelings of stress and disconnection that may affecttheir adjustment in prison and contact with their children.Optimal interventions assist parents in dealing with theirown feelings of loss and separation, developing a child-centric orientation, empathizing with children and caregiv-ers, and seeking strategies for successful contact (Loper &Tuerk, 2006). The incarcerated parent’s understanding ofcontact with children may need to be reframed beyond therare personal visits to encompass contact via letters andphone calls, consultation with caregivers, and other mean-ingful avenues. Optimal prison and jail experiences forincarcerated parents should include ongoing and appropri-ately supervised networks united by the common goals ofhelping parents learn healthy ways to interact with childrenduring incarceration, prepare for visitation and other con-tact experiences, and go beyond painful feelings to focuson their children’s needs.

Caregivers likewise need support for dealing withtheir stress and concerns about visitation. The financial andlogistical difficulties of arranging visitation, as well as theincreased burden presented by the demands of child rearingcan affect the caregiver, who often serves as gatekeeper(Roy & Dyson, 2005) in terms of his or her willingness tofacilitate contact.

Family socioeconomic resources and pa-rental race/ethnicity. Families who experienceeconomic strain need additional resources so that childrencan have meaningful contact with incarcerated parents, asthe cost of contact can be high. In addition, parenting andcaregiving interventions related to parent–child contactshould not only be sensitive to racial and ethnic variationsamong families but should also attempt to decrease racialand educational disparities in contact opportunities. Oneway to do this is to provide inexpensive transportation andphone calls to low-income families. Psychologists can be


instrumental in developing and implementing such in-terventions within corrections settings and communities.

Improving the Microsystem and Quality ofProximal ProcessesAt the microsystem level, our review highlighted the im-portance of child characteristics (e.g., age, behavior prob-lems), interactions with parents and caregivers, and attach-ment patterns.

Child age. The age of the child is a relevantaspect of the microsystem with implications for contact.For example, children’s mixed or ambivalent feelings re-garding contact may be expressed in different ways de-pending on their age. Young children are apt to expresstheir confusion in an unclear manner and may not be ableto articulate their concerns verbally (Poehlmann, 2005b).For older children, caregivers and incarcerated parents maywant to inquire about their opinions and feelings aboutcontact. Open communication about contact and efforts tohonor children’s feelings in developmentally sensitiveways can promote secure attachment (Poehlmann, 2005b)as well as strengthen the coparenting alliance concerningcontact issues.

Child attachment and contact. The child’sattachment relationships with the incarcerated parent andcaregiver are key microsystem elements that relate to con-tact. Though visits in prison or jail settings that are notchild friendly can evoke distress and expressions of inse-curity (Dallaire et al., 2009; Poehlmann, 2005b), absence ofany contact with parents may be problematic and associ-ated with feelings of alienation (Shlafer & Poehlmann,2010). These results imply that the question is not simplywhether contact has positive or negative effects on chil-dren, but rather, What are the conditions that promotechildren’s well-being and feelings of security when parentsare in prison or jail? As is the case with any decisionsregarding contact with a nonresidential parent, it is essen-tial to establish that contact, and the potential for a rela-tionship, is in the child’s best interest. Although the deter-mination of best interest is subjective, these decisionsrevolve around multiple pieces of information such as theanswers to the following questions: Did the parent care forthe child prior to incarceration? Was the child well caredfor and protected? Is the parent hoping to reunite with thechild following release from jail or prison? Is there poten-tial for a positive relationship even if the parent is notanticipating reunification?

Child attachment and remote forms ofcontact. It is also important to consider the benefitsof remote forms of contact, such as letters or phone calls,in relation to the potential benefits of visits, as theseexperiences become part of the child’s proximal envi-ronment as well. There are several situations in whichmore distal contact methods make sense. For example, ahistory of no parent– child contact may reflect a lack ofany relationship between the child and the incarceratedparent. Initiating visitation right away in these situationsmay be contraindicated if the child expresses reserva-tions or distress (Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010). For many

children, mail correspondence can be a supplement tovisits or an alternative means of communicating if vis-itation is not feasible. Mail correspondence offers flex-ibility, is inexpensive, and involves an element of con-trol, reflection, and planning that can potentially benefitincarcerated parents, children, and caregivers (Tuerk &Loper, 2006).

Advances in technology have made additional typesof remote contact between incarcerated parents and theirchildren possible. For instance, Boudin (1997) describeda program in which incarcerated parents recorded them-selves reading bedtime stories and then sent these au-diotaped stories to their children. In addition, telecon-ferencing or video conferencing may allow parents andchildren to see and hear each other without traveling tothe jail or prison (Hilliman, 2006). Another program thatfacilitates alternative means of contact for eligible in-carcerated parents in Virginia’s prisons is called Mes-sages From Mom and Dad. The program involves parenteducation as well as the recording and sending of tapedmessages to children on an audiotape or DVD (C. Le-Croy, personal communication, December 11, 2008). Toour knowledge, though, these alternative forms of com-munication have not been systematically studied in theresearch literature. However, they present unique fea-tures, such as allowing a child to have transitional ob-jects during separation that can be replayed or reused atthe child’s discretion and pace.

Child attachment and visitation. When vis-its occur, one must consider the institutional environment(Arditti, 2003), which appears to contribute to visitationquality and children’s feelings of security. Knowledge ofthe environment is critical for making adequate prepara-tions for children, caregivers, and incarcerated parents.Psychologists can be instrumental in helping with suchpreparations. At a minimum, preparation should includetalking to the child about the upcoming visit in a way thatthe child understands given his or her age and developmen-tal level, providing details about what the child might seeand hear at each step of the visit, informing the child ofinstitutional rules or procedures that need to be followed,and discussing potential emotional reactions that mightoccur. This information should be presented in a supportiveway while answering the child’s questions simply andhonestly, because distorted communication about a par-ent’s incarceration has been linked to feelings of insecurityin young children of incarcerated mothers (Poehlmann,2005b). Caregivers need information about institutionalpolicies and procedures as well as about children’s com-mon reactions to visits (e.g., how to interpret children’ssignals and meet their needs following activation of theattachment system). In addition to caring for the child, thecaregiver will need to cope with his or her own emotionalreactions (Arditti, 2003).

Directions for Future ResearchA critical step that has been missing in many interventionsand programs that facilitate visitation between children andincarcerated parents is assessment of the effects of contact


on children’s development and well-being and systematicrating of visitation environments. Rather than merely focusingon the frequency of contact, researchers should give specialconsideration to the effects of different forms of contact onchildren at different ages and to the quality of the contact. Theresearch should examine key microsystem factors that maymediate the effects of contact, such as the quality of theobserved parent–child interactions, interactions in the home,and child characteristics such as age and developmental level(see Figure 1). In addition, researchers should examine poten-tial moderators of the effects of contact, including exosystemvariables such as parental gender and caregiver socioeco-nomic resources as well as mesosystem factors such as thequality of parent–caregiver relationships. Contact could beexamined as a potential mediator or moderator of the relationbetween parental incarceration and children’s social and aca-demic outcomes as well.

Additional research with larger samples, rigorousmeasurement, and longitudinal designs is needed to exam-ine incarcerated parent–child contact over time, thus cap-turing aspects of the chronosystem (e.g., key transitionssuch as reunification after a parent’s release). More needsto be learned about how supports from caregivers andparents, as well as institutional policies and procedures,affect children’s feelings and behaviors during and follow-ing visits and other forms of contact. Understanding thesephenomena in more depth is critical for designing inter-ventions that can meaningfully sustain positive relation-ships between incarcerated parents and children over timeand contribute to resilience processes, including betterpreparation for reunification following the parent’s prisonor jail term. Intervention research also is critically impor-tant in this endeavor. Additional interventions are neededfor children of incarcerated parents, and such interventionsshould be rigorously evaluated. Cost–benefit analyses as-sessing various forms of family contact during parentalincarceration are also needed.

Few studies in this area of scholarship have collecteddata directly from children. Of the studies in Table 1, only25% (9 of 36) included child participants. Including childparticipants and direct observations of children are key nextsteps in this line of research. By adding children’s uniqueperspectives on their experiences with incarcerated parents,we can better understand how exo-, macro-, and mesosys-tem forces impact children’s very personal and proximalexperiences of contact. Further, by including child partic-ipants and observing their behaviors, affect, and interac-tions, we can better identify the current strengths of thesechildren and families, including what aspects of visitationand contact they enjoy and find meaningful. Gathering suchinformation will allow interventionists to build on chil-dren’s current strengths and positive experiences to fosterresilience. For example, interventions that promote contactbetween incarcerated parents and their children throughletter writing may also help children develop literacy skills,an important skill set associated with resilience (Vander-Staay, 2006).

Research evaluating the impact of interventions de-signed for incarcerated parents, their children, and the

children’s caregivers may pose distinct challenges (seeEddy, Powell, Szubka, McCool, & Kuntz, 2001). Eddy etal. (2001) documented the challenges they faced in recruit-ing caregiver participants in a research project evaluating aparenting intervention program designed for incarceratedparents and children’s caregivers. In particular, they foundthat during the course of the intervention and evaluation,many caregivers severed ties with the incarcerated parent,and though at baseline all children had at least monthlycontact with the incarcerated parent (a requirement of theprogram), at the six-month follow-up assessment, 25% hadhad no recent contact with the inmate. Future studies mustanticipate such challenges and develop multiple ways ofaddressing them, including those outlined in the recom-mendations in Table 3.

Despite a growing interest in how parental incarcerationrelates to child and family well-being, this review has high-lighted the need for more information about family commu-nication during the time of parental incarceration and howdifferent types of contact impact children, caregivers, andincarcerated parents. With more and more families beingaffected by parental incarceration over time, it is importantthat additional research be conducted to explore the conditionsunder which contact and visitation can benefit incarceratedparents and their children. With better research, perhaps poli-cymakers and corrections administrators can make more in-formed decisions about programming (e.g., the content ofparent education classes), policies (e.g., when to allow face-to-face contact with children), and procedures (e.g., not frisk-ing child visitors) as well as bring attention to the impact ofthe high U.S. incarceration rate on children.

In sum, parent–child contact during parental incarcer-ation is a multifaceted issue that may have significanteffects on children’s development, caregivers’ well-being,and incarcerated parents’ stress, mental health, and possi-bly recidivism. Evaluation of visitation programs and of theeffects of different forms of contact is crucial, as isthoughtful planning regarding the optimal frequency andquality of children’s contact with parents during parentalincarceration.

REFERENCES

Abidin, R. R., & Konold, T. R. (1999). Parenting Alliance Measure profes-sional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, Public Law No. 105–89, 111Stat. 2115, 65 F.R. 4020 (2000, January 25).

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978).Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange Situation.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Allard, P. E., & Lu, L. D. (2006). Rebuilding families, reclaiming lives:State obligations to children in foster care and their incarceratedparents. New York, NY: Brennan Center for Justice, New York Uni-versity School of Law.

Arditti, J. A. (2003). Locked doors and glass walls: Family visiting at alocal jail. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 8, 115–138. doi:10.1080/15325020305864

Arditti, J. A. (2005). Families and incarceration: An ecological approach.Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86,251–260.

Arditti, J. A., & Few, A. L. (2006). Mothers’ reentry into family lifefollowing incarceration. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 103–123.doi:10.1177/0887403405282450


Arditti, J., & Few, A. (2008). Maternal distress and women’s reentry intofamily and community life. Family Process, 47, 303–321.

Arditti, J. A., Lambert-Shute, J., & Joest, K. (2003). Saturday morning atthe jail: Implications of incarceration for families and children. FamilyRelations, 52, 195–204. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00195.x

Arditti, J. A., Smock, S. A., & Parkman, T. S. (2005). “It’s been hard tobe a father”: A qualitative exploration of incarcerated fatherhood.Fathering, 3, 267–288. doi:10.3149/fth0303.267

Armsden, G. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (1987). The Inventory of Parent andPeer Attachment: Relationships to well-being in adolescence. Journalof Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427–454. doi:10.1007/BF02202939

Austin, J., & Irwin, J. (2001). It’s about time: America’s imprisonmentbinge. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Baker, J., McHale, J., Strozier, A., & Cecil, D. (2010). Mother–grand-mother coparenting relationships in families with incarcerated mothers:A pilot investigation. Family Process, 49, 165–184. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01316.x

Bales, W. D., & Mears, D. P. (2008). Inmate social ties and the transitionto society: Does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research inCrime & Delinquency, 45, 287–321. doi:10.1177/0022427808317574

Balnave, R. D. (1998). Standards used to determine custody betweenparents. In Family law and practice (Vol. 3, chap. 32, § 32.06). Albany,NY: Matthew Bender.

Banauch, P. J. (1985). Mothers in prison. New Brunswick, NJ: Transac-tion Books.

Block, K. J., & Potthast, M. J. (1998). Girl Scouts Beyond Bars: Facili-tating parent–child contact in correctional settings. Child Welfare, 77,561–578.

Bloom, B., & Steinhart, D. (1993). Why punish the children? A reap-praisal of the children of incarcerated mothers in America. Atlanta,GA: National Institute of Corrections.

Boudin, K. (1997). The Children’s Center programs of Bedford HillsCorrectional Facility. In C. L. Blinn (Ed.), Maternal ties (pp. 55–86).Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1: Attachment (2nd ed.).New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bretherton, I., Ridgeway, D., & Cassidy, J. (1990). Assessing internalworking models of the attachment relationship: An attachment storycompletion task for 3-year-olds. In M. T. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, &E. M. Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory,research, and intervention (pp. 273–308). Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature–nurture reconceptual-ized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psycholog-ical Review, 101, 568–586. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.568

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). All terms & definitions. Retrievedfrom Office of Justice Programs, U. S. Department of Justice website:http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty�tda

Byrne, M. W., Goshin, L. S., & Joestl, S. S. (2010). Intergenerationaltransmission of attachment for infants raised in a prison nursery. At-tachment & Human Development, 12, 375–393. doi:10.1080/14616730903417011

Carlson, J. R. (1998). Evaluating the effectiveness of a live-in nurserywithin a women’s prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 27, 73–85. doi:10.1300/J076v27n01_06

Casey-Acevedo, K., & Bakken, T. (2002). Visiting women in prison: Whovisits and who cares? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(3), 67–83.doi:10.1300/J076v34n03_05

Casey-Acevedo, K., Bakken, T., & Karle, A. (2004). Children visitingmothers in prison: The effects on mothers’ behaviour and disciplinaryadjustment. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37,418–430. doi:10.1375/0004865042194412

Cecil, D. K., McHale, J., Strozier, A., & Pietsch, J. (2008). Femaleinmates, family caregivers, and young children’s adjustment: A re-search agenda and implications for corrections programming. Journalof Criminal Justice, 36, 513–521. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.09.002

Christian, J. (2005). Riding the bus: Barriers to prison visitation andfamily management strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Jus-tice, 21, 31–48. doi:10.1177/1043986204271618

Christian, J., Mellow, J., & Thomas, S. (2006). Social and economic

implications of family connections to prisoners. Journal of CriminalJustice, 34, 443–452. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.05.010

Clarke, L., O’Brien, M., Godwin, H., Hemmings, J., Day, R. D., Connolly,J., & Van Leeson, T. (2005). Fathering behind bars in English prisons:Imprisoned fathers’ identity and contact with their children. Fathering:A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice About Men as Fathers, 3,221–241. doi:10.3149/fth.0303.221

Conway, T., & Hutson, R. Q. (2007). Parental incarceration: How to avoida “death sentence” for families. Clearinghouse Review Journal ofPoverty Law and Policy, 41(3–4), 212–221.

Dallaire, D. H., Ciccone, A., & Wilson, L. (2010). Teachers’ experienceswith and expectations of children with incarcerated perents. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 31, 281–290. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2010.04.001

Dallaire, D. H., & Wilson. L. (2010). The relation of exposure to parentalcriminal activity, arrest, and sentencing to children’s maladjustment.Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 404–418. doi:10.1007/s10826-009-9311-9

Dallaire, D. H., Wilson, L. C., & Ciccone, A. (2009, April). Representa-tions of attachment relationships in family drawings of children withincarcerated parents. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of theSociety for Research in Child Development, Denver, CO.

Dallaire, D. H., Wilson, L., & Ciccone, A. E. (2010). Children’s attach-ment representations and problem behaviors in relation to their contactwith their incarcerated parent. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Day, R. D., Acock, A. C., Bahr, S. J., & Arditti, J. A. (2005). Incarceratedfathers returning home to children and families: Introduction to thespecial issue and a primer on doing research with men in prison.Fathering, 3, 183–200.

de Haan, B. (in press). The interface between corrections and childwelfare for children of incarcerated parents. In J. M. Eddy & J.Poehlmann (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents. Washington, DC:Urban Institute Press.

Eddy, B. A., Powell, M. J., Szubka, M. H., McCool, M. L., & Kuntz, S.(2001). Challenges in research with incarcerated parents and importance inviolence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20, 56–62.

Enos, S. (2001). Mothering from the inside: Parenting in a women’sprison. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Federal Bureau of Prisons. (n.d.). Visiting room procedures: Generalinformation. Retrieved from http://www.bop.gov/inmate_locator/procedures.jsp

Genty, P. M. (2003). Damage to family relationships as a collateral conse-quence of parental incarceration. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30, 1671.

Genty, P. M. (2008). Some reflections about three decades of working withincarcerated mothers. Rutgers Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 29, 11–14.

Glaze, L., & Maruschak, L. (2008, August). Parents in prison and theirminor children. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (NCJ22984), 1–25. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf

Grayson, J. (2007, Winter). Children of incarcerated parents. VirginiaChild Protection Newsletter, 81, 1–24. Retrieved from http://psychweb.cisat.jmu.edu/graysojh/volume%2081.pdf

Hagan, J., & Coleman, J. P. (2001). Returning captives of the Americanwar on drugs: Issues of community and family reentry. Crime andDelinquency, 47, 352–367. doi:10.1177/0011128701047003004

Hairston, C. F. (1991). Mothers in jail: Parent–child separation and jailvisitation. Affilia, 6, 9–27. doi:10.1177/088610999100600203

Hairston, C. F. (1996). Family programs in state prisons. In R. A.McNeece & A. R. Roberts (Eds.), Policy and practice in the justicesystem (pp. 143–157). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Hanlon, T. E., Carswell, S. B., & Rose, M. (2007). Research on thecaretaking of children of incarcerated parents: Findings and their ser-vice delivery implications. Children and Youth Services Review, 29,348–362. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.09.001

Harris, W. (2006, January 16). Part 2: Prison visits provide reprieve formoms: Taycheedah program helps inmates endure ‘the toughest thing.’Appleton Post-Crescent. Retrieved from http://www.postcrescent.com/article/99999999/APC0101/601160541/Part-2-Prison-visits-provide-reprieve-for-moms

Hilliman, C. A. (2006). Assessing the impact of virtual visitation onfamilial communication and institutional adjustment for women in


prison. (Doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York, 2006).Dissertations Abstracts International, 67, 1098.

Holtz, K. (2007). In re the termination of parental rights to Max G. W.:Beginning to pave the way for Wisconsin’s incarcerated mothers toretain their parental rights and serve the best interest of their children.Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society, 22(2), 289–312.

Houck, K. D. F., & Loper, A. B. (2002). The relationship of parentingstress to adjustment among mothers in prison. American Journal ofOrthopsychiatry, 72, 548–558. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.72.4.548

Johnson, E. I., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Parental incarceration: Recent trendsand implications for child welfare. Social Service Review, 76, 460–479.

Johnston, D. (1995). Parent–child visits in jails. Children’s Environments,12, 25–38.

Kazura, K. (2001). Family programming for incarcerated parents: A needsassessment among inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 32(4),67–83. doi:10.1300/J076v32n04_05

Kemper, K. J., & Rivara, F. P. (1993). Parents in jail. Pediatrics, 92,261–264.

Landreth, G. L., & Lobaugh, A. F. (1998). Filial therapy with incarceratedfathers: Effects on parental acceptance of child, parental stress, and childadjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 157–165.

Laughlin, J. S., Arrigo, B. A., Blevins, K. R., & Coston, C. T. M. (2008).Incarcerated mothers and child visitation: A law, social science, andpolicy perspective. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 19, 215–238. doi:10.1177/0887403407309039

LaVigne, N. G., Naser, R. L., Brooks, L. E., & Castro, J. L. (2005).Examining the effect of incarceration and in-prison family contact onprisoners’ family relationships. Journal of Contemporary CriminalJustice, 21, 314–355. doi:10.1177/1043986205281727

Loper, A. B., Carlson, L. W., Levitt, L., & Scheffel, K. (2009). Parentingstress, alliance, child contact, and adjustment of imprisoned mothersand fathers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 483–503. doi:10.1080/10509670903081300

Loper, A. B., & Tuerk, E. H. (2006). Parenting programs for incarceratedparents: Current research and future directions. Criminal Justice PolicyReview, 17, 407–427. doi:10.1177/0887403406292692

Magaletta, P. R., & Herbst, D. P. (2001). Fathering from prison: Commonstruggles and successful solutions. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research,Practice, Training, 38(1), 88–96.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood,and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. Monographs of theSociety for Research in Child Development, 50(1–2, Serial No. 209).

Maruschak, L. M., Glaze, L. E., & Mumola, C. J. (in press). Incarceratedparents and their children: Findings from the Bureau of Justice Statis-tics. In J. M. Eddy & J. Poehlmann (Eds.), Children of incarceratedparents. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Mauer, M. (2002). Analyzing and responding to the driving forces ofprison population growth. Criminology and Public Policy, 1, 389–392.doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2002.tb00098.x

Mumola, C. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children. Bureau ofJustice Statistics Special Report (NCJ 182335), 1–12. Retrieved fromhttp://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/iptc.pdf

Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). The effects of parental imprisonmenton children. In M. Tony (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research(Vol. 37, pp. 133–206). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., Sekol, I., & Olsen, R. F. (2009). Effects ofparental imprisonment on child antisocial behaviour and mental health:A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 4, 1–105. doi:10.4073/csr.2009.4

Murray, J., & Murray, L. (2010). Parental incarceration, attachment, and childpsychopathology. Attachment & Human Development, 12, 289–309.

Myers, B. J., Smarsh, T. M., Amlund-Hagen, K., & Kennon, S. (1999).Children of incarcerated mothers. Journal of Child and Family Studies,8, 11–25. doi:10.1023/A:1022990410036

Nicholson, E. K. (2006). Racing against the ASFA clock: How incarcer-ated parents lose more than freedom. Duquesne Law Review, 45, 83–95.

Poehlmann, J. (2005a). Incarcerated mothers’ contact with children, per-ceived family relationships, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Fam-ily Psychology, 19, 350–357. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.3.350

Poehlmann, J. (2005b). Representations of attachment relationships inchildren of incarcerated mothers. Child Development, 76, 679–696.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00871.x

Poehlmann, J., Park, J., Bouffiou, L., Abrahams, J., Shlafer, R., & Hahn,E. (2008). Representations of family relationships in children livingwith custodial grandparents. Attachment and Human Development, 10,165–188. doi:10.1080/14616730802113695

Poehlmann, J., Shlafer, R., & Maes, E. (2006, August). Parent–childrelationships in families of incarcerated mothers. Symposium pre-sented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Asso-ciation, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Poehlmann, J., Shlafer, R. J., Maes, E., & Hanneman, A. (2008). Factorsassociated with young children’s opportunities for maintaining familyrelationships during maternal incarceration. Family Relations, 57, 267–280. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00499.x

Roy, K. M., & Dyson, O. L. (2005). Gatekeeping in context: Babymamadrama and the involvement of incarcerated fathers. Fathering, 3, 289–310. doi:10.3149/fth.0303.289

Sabol, W. J., West, H. C., & Cooper, M. (2009, December). Prisoners in2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (NCJ 228417). Retrievedfrom http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf

Second Chance Act of 2007: Community Safety Through RecidivismPrevention, Pub. L. 110-199, 122 Stat. 657 (2008).

The Sentencing Project. (n.d.). Drug policy. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/template/page.cfm?id�128

Shlafer, R. J., & Poehlmann, J. (2010). Attachment and caregiving rela-tionships in families affected by parental incarceration. Attachment &Human Development, 12, 395–415. doi:10.1080/14616730903417052

Snyder, Z. K., Carlo, T. A., & Coats Mullins, M. M. (2001). Parentingfrom prison: An examination of a children’s visitation program at awomen’s correctional facility. Marriage & Family Review, 32, 33–61.doi:10.1300/J002v3n03_04

Sturges, J. E., & Hardesty, K. N. (2005). Survey of Pennsylvania jailwardens: An examination of visitation policies within the context ofecosystem theory. Criminal Justice Review, 30, 141–154. doi:10.1177/0734016805284145

Swisher, R. R., & Waller, M. (2008). Confining fatherhood: Incarcerationand paternal involvement among nonresident White, African American,and Latino fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1067–1088. doi:10.1177/0192513X08316273

Tewksbury, R., & DeMichele, M. (2005). Going to prison: A prisonvisitation program. The Prison Journal, 85, 292–310. doi:10.1177/0032885505279525

Thompson, P. J., & Harm, N. J. (2000). Parenting from prison: Helpingchildren and mothers. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 23,61–81. doi:10.1080/01460860050121402

Thompson, R. A. (2008). Early attachment and later development: Famil-iar questions, new answers. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications(2nd ed., pp. 348–365). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Trice, A. D., & Brewster, J. (2004). The effects of maternal incarcerationon adolescent children. Journal of Policy and Criminal Psychology, 19,27–35. doi:10.1007/BF02802572

Tuerk, E. (2007). Parenting from the inside: Assessing a curriculum forincarcerated mothers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofVirginia, Charlottesville, VA.

Tuerk, E. H., & Loper, A. B. (2006). Contact between incarceratedmothers and their children: Assessing parenting stress. Journal ofOffender Rehabilitation, 43, 23–43. doi:10.1300/J076v43n01_02

VanderStaay, S. L. (2006). Learning from longitudinal research in criminol-ogy and health sciences. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 328–350.

Western, B., & Wildeman, C. (2009). The Black family and mass incar-ceration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and SocialScience, 621, 221–242. doi:10.1177/0002716208324850

Wildeman, C. (2009). Parental imprisonment, the prison boom, and theconcentration of childhood disadvantage. Demography, 46, 265–280.doi:10.1353/dem.0.0052

Wilkinson, R. A., & Unwin, T. (2008). Visitation. In P. M. Carlson & S.Garrett (Eds.), Prison and jail administration: Practice and theory.(2nd ed., pp. 383–390). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

Zhang, Y., Maxwell, C. D., & Vaughn, M. S. (2009). The impact of statesentencing policies on the U.S. prison population. Journal of CriminalJustice, 37, 190–199. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.02.012

(Appendix follows)


AppendixCriteria Used to Rate Methodological Rigor of Studies Reviewed

The first three authors independently rated seven randomlychosen studies from Table 1 using the criteria that Murrayet al. (2009) used to rate quantitative studies included intheir meta-analysis. After discussing these ratings, we mod-ified and expanded the coding scheme so that we could ratequalitative and quantitative studies using identical criteria.Subsequently, two raters independently coded 10 studieswith the expanded criteria shown below, and there was91% agreement within one point of the total score. One ofthese raters (a trained graduate student) coded the remain-ing 26 studies.

Sample Size3 � Large (able to detect small effects), N � 1,0732 � Mid-sized (able to detect moderate effects), N � 1111 � Small (able to detect large effects), N � 340 � Too small to detect even large effects, N � 33

Sampling Procedures3 � Probability sampling2 � Purposive sampling (efforts to obtain a representative

sample or relate to population)1 � Convenience sampling0 � Sampling not described

Response Rate3 � Response rate of 66% or greater2 � Response rate between 33% and 65%

1 � Response rate lower than 33%0 � No response rate reported

Attention to Covariates (e.g., Child Age,Socioeconomic Status, Ethnicity) inQualitative or Quantitative Analysis1 � Yes0 � No

Child Age Reported2 � Sufficient information about child age (range, mean,

standard deviation)1 � Some information about child age, but some informa-

tion missing or unclear0 � No information about child age

Quality of Publication Outlet3 � High-impact peer-reviewed journal2 � Peer-reviewed journal, book, or government bulletin1 � Refereed conference proceeding0 � Unpublished data

Quality of Instruments and CodingProcedures Used1 � Acceptable reliability/validity information or detailed

information provided about qualitative methodology0 � No reliability/validity information presented or lack of

detail


children s contact with their incarcerated parents -...

Documents