A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Psychological Bulletin
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Children’s Antisocial Behavior, Mental Health, Drug Use, and
Educational Performance After Parental Incarceration:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Joseph Murray, David P. Farrington, and Ivana Sekol
University of Cambridge
Unprecedented numbers of children experience parental incarceration worldwide. Families and children of
prisoners can experience multiple difficulties after parental incarceration, including traumatic separation,
loneliness, stigma, confused explanations to children, unstable childcare arrangements, strained parenting,
reduced income, and home, school, and neighborhood moves. Children of incarcerated parents often have
multiple, stressful life events before parental incarceration. Theoretically, children with incarcerated parents
may be at risk for a range of adverse behavioral outcomes. A systematic review was conducted to synthesize
empirical evidence on associations between parental incarceration and children’s later antisocial behavior,
mental health problems, drug use, and educational performance. Results from 40 studies (including 7,374
children with incarcerated parents and 37,325 comparison children in 50 samples) were pooled in a
meta-analysis. The most rigorous studies showed that parental incarceration is associated with higher risk for
children’s antisocial behavior, but not for mental health problems, drug use, or poor educational performance.
Studies that controlled for parental criminality or children’s antisocial behavior before parental incarceration
had a pooled effect size of OR ⫽1.4 (p⬍.01), corresponding to about 10% increased risk for antisocial
behavior among children with incarcerated parents, compared with peers. Effect sizes did not decrease with
number of covariates controlled. However, the methodological quality of many studies was poor. More
rigorous tests of the causal effects of parental incarceration are needed, using randomized designs and
prospective longitudinal studies. Criminal justice reforms and national support systems might be needed to
prevent harmful consequences of parental incarceration for children.
Keywords: parental incarceration, antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, education
With prison populations growing rapidly in many countries
worldwide (Walmsley, 2009), effects of incarceration on prison-
ers’ well-being, health, and behavior have become urgent social
concerns (Liebling & Maruna, 2005; Tonry & Petersilia, 1999).
Equally important are possible far-reaching effects of incarceration
beyond prison walls, on recidivism, employment opportunities for
ex-prisoners, and on families and communities (Clear, 2007; Ha-
gan & Dinovitzer, 1999; Murray, 2005; Murray & Farrington,
2008a; Walker, 1983). Children with incarcerated parents have
been referred to as the “forgotten victims” of crime (Matthews,
1983), the “orphans of justice” (Shaw, 1992a) and the “unseen
victims of the prison boom” (Petersilia, 2005, p. 34). They can
experience multiple emotional and social difficulties during their
parent’s incarceration, which may develop into a range of adjust-
ment problems in the long term. This article describes key aspects
of children’s experiences during parental incarceration and reports
results from a systematic review and meta-analysis on the associ-
ations between parental incarceration and children’s later antiso-
cial behavior, mental health problems, drug use, and low educa-
tional performance.
This article was published Online First January 9, 2012.
Joseph Murray, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, England; David P. Farrington and Ivana Sokol, Institute of
Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in
this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the
funding bodies. The meta-analysis presented here updates and extends a
previous meta-analysis (Murray, Farrington, Sekol, & Olsen, 2009) conducted
under the aegis of the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. Work
on the Campbell report was supported by the Economic and Social Research
Council (RES-000-22-2311), the Nordic Campbell Collaboration (Denmark),
the U.S. National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (2007-IJ-CX-
0045), and the British Academy. The current update was conducted during
Joseph Murray’s Wellcome Trust Research Career Development Fellowship
(089963/Z/09/Z). We are very grateful to Rikke Olsen, Kirstine Fjordbak-
Trier, Anne-Marie Jørgensen, and Frederik Sigurd who helped search, retrieve,
and conduct initial screening of studies for this review. We are very grateful to
Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group for assistance and helpful
comments on the preliminary report. The following researchers kindly pro-
vided extra information about their studies so that we could include them in the
review: Sytske Besemer, Howard Cabral, William Copeland, Danielle Dal-
laire, Anne Dannerbeck, David Fergusson, Deborah Frank, Amanda Geller,
Peggy Giordano, Liz Gordon, Rucker Johnson, Jean Kjellstrand, Jennifer Park,
Julie Poehlmann, Marieke van de Rakt, Nancy Rodriguez, Michael Roettger,
Rosemary Sarri, Jane Siegel, Melinda Tasca, Sara Wakefield, and Christopher
Wildeman. We are also very grateful to James Derzon and Aaron Alford, who
examined their extensive database on results from longitudinal surveys to
identify studies we might not have located.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joseph
Murray, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Box 189,
Level E4, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QQ,
England. E-mail: jm335@cam.ac.uk
Psychological Bulletin © 2012 American Psychological Association
2012, Vol. 138, No. 2, 175–210 0033-2909/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0026407
175
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
More parents than ever are behind bars. The United States has
the largest prison population in the world, as well as the highest
rate of imprisonment (756 per 100,000: Walmsley, 2009). The
country’s adult prison population was 1.5 million in 2009, and its
adult jail population was 760,000 (Glaze, 2010). About half of
U.S. prisoners are parents of children under age 18 years (Glaze &
Maruschak, 2008). As shown in Figure 1, the number of children
with a parent in state or federal prison increased from 950,000 in
1991 to 1.7 million in 2007, reaching 2.3% of the nation’s children
(Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Estimates suggest that cumulatively,
one in 25 White children and a staggering one in four Black
children born in 1990 had experienced parental imprisonment by
their 14th birthday (Wildeman, 2009). Less is known about how
many children experience parental incarceration in other countries,
but provisional estimates suggest that the numbers are substantial
(Murray & Farrington, 2008a). Thus, given potential harm to
literally millions of children, and the need to rationally appraise
overall costs and benefits of incarcerating offenders, it is important
to investigate possible effects of parental incarceration on children.
Several recent studies suggest possible long-term undesirable
effects of parental incarceration on children. In an English study of
411 boys, those who experienced parental incarceration in their
first 10 years of life had about double the risk for antisocial
behavior, internalizing problems, and other adverse outcomes up
to age 48 years, compared with boys without incarcerated parents
(Murray & Farrington, 2005, 2008a, 2008b). Several comparison
groups were used in this study: boys never separated from their
parents, boys separated from their parents for other reasons (pri-
marily parental divorce and death), and boys whose parents had
been incarcerated before the boy’s birth but not afterward. Asso-
ciations with boys’ adverse outcomes remained in these compar-
isons even after controlling for other risk factors in boys’ child-
hoods, including parental criminal behavior. In the National
Longitudinal Study of Youth, 1979, in the United States, maternal
incarceration (compared with no maternal incarceration) was also
associated with offspring criminal behavior in adulthood (Huebner
& Gustafson, 2007). However, in an Australian longitudinal study
(Kinner, Alati, Najman, & Williams, 2007), it was concluded that
the risk for antisocial behavior and mental health problems was not
higher for children with incarcerated fathers (compared with chil-
dren without incarcerated fathers), after controlling for other child-
hood risk factors (see also, Murray, Janson, & Farrington, 2007,
for similar results in Sweden).
Narrative reviews of these and other studies have drawn con-
trasting conclusions about the association between parental incar-
ceration and children’s adverse outcomes. Some suggest that the
risks for children appear fairly strong (Murray, 2010; Murray &
Farrington, 2008a). Others claim that there is no specific risk to
children imparted by parental incarceration (Eddy & Reid, 2003)
or that adequate tests are lacking (Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999).
In the only meta-analysis on this topic to date, Murray, Far-
rington, Sekol, and Olsen (2009) reported quite large bivariate
associations between parental incarceration and children’s antiso-
cial behavior (OR ⫽2.5 in random effects model) and mental
health problems (OR ⫽1.9 in random effects model) in 16 studies.
When covariates were controlled, these effect sizes were only
slightly reduced. However, without a larger number of primary
studies, other outcomes (such as drug use and educational perfor-
mance) could not be examined, and statistical power was low,
especially for examining variation in study results. The current
article updates and extends this preliminary analysis in four prin-
cipal ways: (a) As well as children’s antisocial behavior and
mental health, this review examines drug use and educational
performance as child outcomes after parental incarceration; (b) a
broader range of studies are included in the current meta-analysis:
for example, studies comparing children with incarcerated parents
and children separated from parents for other reasons are included
in the current review but were not included in the previous meta-
analysis; (c) the search for eligible studies was updated and ex-
tended in February 2011, resulting in many more primary studies
for analyses; and (d) important questions that were not investigated
in the previous review are examined in the current meta-analysis:
for example, whether the effects of parental incarceration in the
United States have declined over time (while incarceration rates
have risen). Thus, this new meta-analysis, including 50 samples
from 40 studies, provides the most comprehensive review on child
outcomes after parental incarceration to date.
Definitions
We use the term parental incarceration to refer to any kind of
custodial confinement of a parent by the criminal justice system,
except being held overnight in police cells. Incarceration can refer to
confinement in jails or prisons (e.g., in the United States, at the state
or federal level). We do not examine the effects on children of parents
being held as a prisoner of war (e.g., McCubbin, Dahl, Lester, & Ross,
1977; Najafi, Akochkian, & Nikyar, 2007), nor do we examine
studies that investigated incarceration of “any household member”
(e.g., Ramiro, Madrid, & Brown, 2010), as opposed to incarceration
of a parent figure (biological or acting father or mother).
By children’s outcomes we mean outcomes for children with
incarcerated parents, not outcomes that necessarily happen in child-
hood. Outcomes might have occurred and been measured any time
after parental incarceration first happened: while parents are in prison
or after release, in childhood or in adulthood. It is important to
Figure 1. Estimated number of parents in U.S. state and federal prisons and
their minor children. Data downloaded from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
index.cfm?ty ⫽pbdetail&iid ⫽823. From Bureau of Justice Statistics Special
Report: Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children, by L. E. Glaze and L. M.
Maruschak, 2008, Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Copyright
2008 by Bureau of Justice Statistics. Reprinted with permission.
176 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
investigate a range of children’s outcomes that might be affected by
parental incarceration in order to specify and delimit its effects
(Aneshensel, Rutter, & Lachenbruch, 1991). Children’s antisocial
behavior, mental health problems, drug use, and educational perfor-
mance were chosen as outcomes for this meta-analysis because nar-
rative reviews suggested that these outcomes have been studied most
frequently, and because of theories predicting that parental incarcer-
ation will have adverse effects on these outcomes (Murray & Far-
rington, 2008a).
Antisocial behavior refers to a wide variety of behaviors that
violate societal norms or laws (Rutter, Giller, & Hagell, 1998). We
examine children’s antisocial behavior (also called externalizing
behavior) that does not necessarily involve crime, for example,
persistent lying and deceit, as well as criminal behavior, as mea-
sured by self-reports, arrests, convictions, or incarceration of the
child. In this review, mental health problems mainly refers to
internalizing problems, such as anxiety and depression (Goldberg
& Goodyer, 2005). However, we also include results from studies
examining general mental disorder, which consists of other mental
health problems as well as internalizing problems. A previous
review, based on a smaller number of studies, included neuroti-
cism and poor self-concept as mental health outcomes to try to
increase statistical power (e.g., Murray, Farrington, Sekol, & Ol-
sen, 2009). We do not include these outcomes in the current review
because they are not clearly measures of mental health problems,
and with more studies in this review, power is not such an issue.
We examine drug use in terms of illicit drugs. Studies that only
measured alcohol or tobacco use were not included in the review.
However, studies that used combined measures of illicit drug use
and other forms of substance use were included. Educational
performance refers to children’s academic performance as mea-
sured through school grades and teachers’, parents’, and children’s
ratings of children’s academic performance. Because not many
studies reported results for children’s school performance, we
included results from studies that used standardized tests of chil-
dren’s cognitive ability, as well as studies using school perfor-
mance test scores.
Circumstances in Which Parental Incarceration
Takes Place
Children experience parental incarceration under different cir-
cumstances, and their reactions to the event might vary according
to which parent is incarcerated, prior living arrangements, the
quality of parent–child relationships before the incarceration, the
child’s age at the time of incarceration, the nature and length of
the sentence, alternative care arrangements, contact with the in-
carcerated parent, how other family members cope with the event,
and the wider social context (Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999; E. I.
Johnson & Waldfogel, 2004; Murray & Farrington, 2008a; Parke
& Clarke-Stewart, 2003). This variation is important to bear in
mind when considering average outcomes observed for children
with incarcerated parents in large-scale studies and in meta-
analyses. Below, we describe what is known about some of the
different circumstances under which parents are incarcerated,
based on results from national surveys of state and federal inmates
in the United States, as reported in Glaze and Maruschak (2008),
unless cited otherwise.
Among minor children with parents in U.S. state prisons in
2004, 22% were aged 4 years or younger, 30% were 5–9 years,
32% were 10–14 years, and 16% were 15–17 years (Glaze &
Maruschak, 2008). More than one third was expected to reach 18
years of age while their parent was incarcerated. The vast majority
of children with an incarcerated parent had a father in prison
(91%). However, between 1991 and 2007, the number of children
with mothers in prison more than doubled, up 131%, whereas the
number of children with a father in prison grew by 77%.
In 2004, 57% of parents in state prison had a mental health
problem, and 67% had a substance dependence or abuse problem
(Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). The most common current offense for
inmate mothers was a drug offense (35%), and the most common
offense for inmate fathers was a violent offense (45%; E. I.
Johnson & Waldfogel, 2002). Most inmate fathers (67%) and
mothers (53%) had been incarcerated previously at least once (E. I.
Johnson & Waldfogel, 2002).
Among state inmates, mothers (61%) were more likely than
fathers (42%) to have been living with at least one of their children
immediately before the incarceration (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008).
Mothers were almost three times more likely (77%) than fathers
(26%) to have provided most of the daily child care before incar-
ceration, although nearly two thirds (63%) of fathers reported
having shared the daily care. About half of imprisoned mothers
and fathers provided the primary financial support for their chil-
dren before incarceration (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008).
Incarcerated mothers (37%) were much less likely than fathers
(88%) to report that their child was currently cared for by the other
parent (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Incarcerated mothers were
more likely to report that other people were looking after their
children: grandparents (45% mothers, 13% fathers), other relatives
(23% mothers, 5% fathers), foster homes or agencies (11% moth-
ers, 2% fathers), and friends or others (8% mothers, 2% fathers).
Seventy percent of parents in state prison reported exchanging
letters with their children during incarceration; 53% had spoken
with their children on the telephone, and 42% had had a personal
visit since incarceration (this refers to contact with any child, of
any age, Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Incarcerated mothers were
more likely (56%) than incarcerated fathers (39%) to report at least
weekly contact with their children.
In summary, national surveys of incarcerated parents in the
United States show that the circumstances under which children
experience parental incarceration vary a great deal. There may be
significant variation in the effects of parental incarceration on
children across these different situations, and investigation of how
context matters is important. Potentially important differences
exist between children whose mothers and fathers are incarcerated
in terms of their living arrangements before the incarceration,
offences for which their parents are incarcerated, alternative care
arrangements during parental incarceration, and possibilities for
contact with incarcerated parents. Probably, there are many other
contextual factors that influence how children react to parental
incarceration that have not been documented in the large-scale
prisoner surveys reviewed above. For example, the quality of care
given to children, levels of social support, family economic re-
sources, and maybe even national penal and social contexts may
moderate how parental incarceration impacts on children.
177
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Children’s Experiences of Parental Incarceration
Many studies of children with incarcerated parents are based on
small samples and qualitative methods, providing in-depth descrip-
tions of children’s various experiences during parental incarceration
(Bocknek, Sanderson, & Britner, 2009; Boswell, 2002; Braman,
2004; Henriques, 1982; Kampfner, 1995; Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008;
Pellegrini, 1996; Poehlmann, 2005; Richards et al., 1994; Sack, 1977;
Sack, Seidler, & Thomas, 1976; Sharp, Marcus-Mendoza, Bentley,
Simpson, & Love, 1997/1998; Skinner & Swartz, 1989). These stud-
ies have documented many practical and emotional difficulties that
can affect families and children of prisoners from arrest onward and
provided an important starting point for understanding possible effects
of parental incarceration on children.
Even before parental incarceration takes place, the arrest of a
parent can cause children to feel shocked, bewildered, and scared
(Fishman, 1983; Nijnatten, 1998; Richards et al., 1994). Arrest
often occurs at night or in the early morning, when people are
likely to be at home with their families (Braman, 2004). The
experience can be unexpected and sometimes involve witnessing
violence. An incarcerated mother in an English study described
how, at the arrest, “the front and back door were crashed in
simultaneously. The house was full of policemen with hammers
looking for drugs. It was very frightening, my son was hysterical”
(Richards et al., 1994, p. 54). In a survey of 192 incarcerated
parents in Arkansas, 40% of parents reported that their children
had been present at the arrest (Harm & Phillips, 1998). In 27% of
those cases, weapons were drawn. Law enforcement officers ex-
plained why they were arresting the parent to just 20% of the
children. Handcuffing the parent was postponed until parents were
out of children’s sight in only 3% of fathers’ arrests and 30% of
mothers’ arrests. In Kampfner’s (1995) study of 36 children with
incarcerated mothers, many children had symptoms of posttrau-
matic stress disorder, including flashbacks of their mother’s arrest
(see also, Phillips & Zhao, 2010).
Following parental arrest, trial in court can be highly anxiety
provoking for families and children. Uncertainty about the out-
come of the trial means that families cannot plan concretely for
their future (Fishman, 1983). Children cannot be assured of their
parent’s availability, and they may not understand court processes
relating to their parent’s trial, leaving them more bewildered by the
events that surround them. During the trial, family members often
hope for the best, which means that they may react to a custodial
sentence with shock and disbelief (Fishman, 1983). Often, alter-
native care arrangements have not been made for children in
advance (Richards et al., 1994).
When parents are incarcerated, families can experience multiple
difficulties that might in turn lead to long-lasting maladjustment for
children. One potential source of difficulty for families of prisoners is
social stigma (Braman, 2004, p. 173; Condry, 2007). In some cases,
the stigma of a relative’s incarceration can lead to isolation, peer
hostility, and rejection (Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008). For example, one
boy with a father in prison described how “they bully me, say nasty
things. I don’t let them know I care, but sometimes I cry on the way
home. The teachers don’t know my Dad’s in prison and I don’t want
to tell them” (Boswell, 2002, p. 19). The stigma associated with
having a family member in prison is likely to explain why some
families keep the incarceration secret from friends, neighbors, and
work colleagues (Braman, 2004), which can push children into a
“forced silence” about their situation, making it even more difficult
for them to receive support (Arditti, 2005; Myers, Smarsh, Amlund-
Hagen, & Kennon, 1999, p. 20).
A related difficulty for some children is that often they are not
given honest and developmentally sensitive explanations about the
whereabouts of their incarcerated parent. In Morris’s (1965) clas-
sic study of 469 wives of English prisoners, 38% said that the
children did not know that their father was in prison. In Sack and
Seidler’s (1978) study in the United States, and in Shaw’s (1987,
1992a) English study, about one third of children were told lies
about the whereabouts of their incarcerated father, one third were
told a fudged truth, and one third were told the whole truth. When
children are confused or deceived (even with good intention),
children may not be able to understand why their parent is missing,
and their absence may be more difficult to cope with (Bocknek et
al., 2009; Bretherton, 1997; Kobak, 1999). In a study of 54
children aged 2–7 years, those who were given emotionally open
and developmentally appropriate information about their incarcer-
ated mother’s absence were more likely to have secure attachment
representations of their current caregivers than were other children
(but they were not more likely to have secure attachment repre-
sentations of their incarcerated mothers, Poehlmann, 2005).
A third source of difficulty that children can experience during
parental incarceration is lack of dependable and intimate contact
with their incarcerated parent. Although most incarcerated parents
have some contact with their children, in the United States, tele-
phone communication can be limited by the high costs of collect
calls. Many families have their phones disconnected within 2
months of incarceration because of these costs (Braman, 2004).
Visits can also be limited because of long distance and costly
travel, because visiting times can overlap with school hours, and
because sometimes incarcerated parents need documented proof of
parenthood for the visit to take place (Hairston, 1998; Murray,
2005, 2007). Some children cannot visit their incarcerated parent
because they have no adult who will accompany them. Children’s
caregivers might not want to visit the person in prison, or they
might think that children would be adversely affected by visiting
their incarcerated parent (Arditti, Smock, & Parkman, 2005; Ne-
smith & Ruhland, 2008).
Moreover, prisons are generally not child-friendly places to
visit, and children can find visitation distressing (Hairston, 1998;
Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008; Richards et al., 1994). Typically,
children wait for 30–60 min in a visitation area with little to do
before being called for a 20 min visit in a crowded, noisy room
(Arditti, 2005). To enter the visitation area, children might have to
pass through a locked door, pass a metal detector, be sniffed by
dogs, and sometimes be searched. Children can be scared of these
procedures and the officers who enforce them. One female pris-
oner reported, “[the officers] are very insensitive to what kids go
through and what it means to kids. They don’t understand how
threatening they are with their uniforms and such. My daughter is
very intimidated by officers” (Richards et al., 1994, p. 34). In
many prisons, inmates are restricted to their seat (bolted to the
floor) during visitation, and sometimes physical contact between
prisoners and visitors is prohibited. Although visitation conditions
vary by prison and jurisdiction (Robertson, 2007), it seems that
normal visitation environments do not facilitate the close contact
that could reassure children of parental availability. In fact, in
Poehlmann’s (2005) study, it appeared that young children who
178 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
visited their mother in prison had less secure attachment represen-
tations of their mother than children who did not visit (see also,
Poehlmann, Dallaire, Loper, & Shear, 2010).
A fourth difficulty for children during parental incarceration
can be changes in caregiving arrangements and reduced quality
of care (Kjellstrand & Eddy, 2011a, 2011b). Prisoners’ partners
can be left depressed, overworked, lonely, and struggling under
the burdens of providing childcare and providing support for an
incarcerated partner (Morris, 1965; Richards et al., 1994). Thus,
supervision of children and attention to their needs might be
impaired by the considerable stress that caregivers can experi-
ence during parental incarceration. Effects of strained caregiv-
ing on children can be exacerbated by loss of family income and
home, school, and neighborhood moves after parental incarcer-
ation (Bocknek et al., 2009; Murray, 2005; Sharp et al., 1997/
1998).
Families and children can also experience further difficulties
when ex-prisoners return to the community. They may have
adapted to new roles while their relative was inside
(McDermott & King, 1992; Morris, 1965), and ex-prisoners
themselves face significant barriers to successful reintegration,
which may impose further burdens on the family. From the
early 1990s, there has been large-scale cut-backs in prison
vocational and education programs in the United States, as well
as reduced parole supervision, which means that inmates are
left more idle in prison and have fewer prospects for employ-
ment on release (Petersilia, 2003). These problems are exacer-
bated by stigma that reduces ex-prisoners’ chances of finding
and keeping employment and housing (Pager, Western, & Su-
gie, 2009; Petersilia, 2003; Uggen, Wakefield, & Western,
2005). Thus, when incarcerated parents return to the commu-
nity, they may struggle to provide positive support for their
families and children.
In summary, parental arrest, trial, incarceration, and return home
can cause multiple difficulties for families and children. Accord-
ingly, it has been theorized that parental incarceration might have
long-lasting harmful effects on children’s adjustment (for reviews,
see Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999; Murray & Farrington, 2008a). The
principal mechanisms that have been considered are attachment
relations regarding parent–child separation and quality of care
(Murray & Murray, 2010; Poehlmann, 2010), social and economic
strain in relation to reduced family income and loss of other kinds
of social capital (Geller, Garfinkel, & Western, 2011; Hagan &
Dinovitzer, 1999), social learning mechanisms in relation to re-
duced parental monitoring and involvement, changes in discipline
(Kjellstrand & Eddy, 2011a), and stigma and labeling processes
(Murray, 2007). However, each mechanism is only likely to op-
erate under certain circumstances: for example, attachment disrup-
tion will only occur if the child has already formed secure attach-
ment relations with the parent before they were incarcerated,
which may not be the case if parents were minimally involved in
children’s lives. It has also been pointed out that in some instances,
there might even be beneficial effects for children when a parent is
incarcerated if the parent has been particularly antisocial, violent,
or disruptive in the home (Cunningham & Baker, 2003, p. 12;
Eddy & Reid, 2003, p. 241; Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999, p. 125;
Wildeman, 2010).
Lessons Learned From Research on Children’s
Adjustment to Parental Divorce
Research on the effects of parental divorce on children is much
more advanced than research on parental incarceration. In this
section, we draw on the divorce literature to consider themes that
may be important for studying children with incarcerated parents.
Richards (1992) highlighted the following as significant similari-
ties between children’s experiences of parental divorce and paren-
tal incarceration: sudden and often unexpected departure of a
parent; loss of contact between children and their absent parent;
reductions in family income; and caregivers becoming depressed,
confused, and unable to cope. Before considering the research on
parental divorce further, it is important to point out that unlike
children experiencing parental divorce, many children with incar-
cerated parents were not actually living with both parents before
the event and might have had very limited contact with their
nonresident parent. Among 6–12–year old children with nonresi-
dential fathers in the United States, almost 70% had less than
weekly contact with them in 2002 (Amato, Meyers, & Emery,
2009). Thus, parental incarceration may not involve the same
changes in parent–child contact as parental divorce. Another dif-
ference is that although parental incarceration sometimes leads to
permanent parent–child separation (sometimes even via parental
divorce), parental incarceration is usually time-limited, unlike pa-
rental divorce (in 2004, 2.3% of state inmate parents had no
expected release date, and approximately 50% would be released
within a year, Glaze & Maruschak, 2008).
There are a number of excellent narrative and meta-analytic
reviews of research on the effects of parental divorce on children
(Amato, 1993, 2001; Amato & Keith, 1991a, 1991b; Emery, 1999;
Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 1999; Rodgers & Pryor, 1998;
Sigle-Rushton & McLanahan, 2004), from which we highlight a
few key points. The evidence clearly shows that compared with
children living in intact families, children with divorced parents
are at increased risk for a broad range of adverse outcomes, both
in the short and long term. In meta-analyses, Amato (2001; Amato
& Keith, 1991a, 1991b) found that parental divorce was signifi-
cantly associated with children’s conduct problems, psychological
difficulties, and poor academic achievement, as well as other
adverse outcomes. However, effect sizes were generally small and,
with a few exceptions, they were smallest among more method-
ologically sophisticated studies. The largest effects were generally
on children’s conduct problems. Interestingly, effect sizes declined
somewhat during the 1980s but then increased again in the 1990s.
Early research on children’s adjustment to parental divorce was
guided by a deficit model, and this research focused on family
structure to explain the association with children’s later outcomes,
but increasingly, a life-course approach has been taken, emphasiz-
ing the importance of various family processes before, during, and
after divorce (Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan, 1999). Amato
(1993) reviewed five key theoretical perspectives that might ex-
plain the increased risk for adverse outcomes among children of
divorce. First were theories suggesting that it is parental absence
after divorce that explains children’s outcomes because of reduced
emotional and practical resources available to the child. Research
comparing outcomes for children who experience parental divorce
and children who experience parental death has been important in
showing the limitation of this perspective: Despite the loss in-
179
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
volved, parental death does not carry the same level of risk for
children as parental divorce (Emery, 1999; Rodgers & Pryor,
1998). A second theoretical perspective emphasizes the adjustment
of the remaining parent. Because divorce is stressful for parents,
quality of childrearing might be impaired, and this could explain
children’s outcomes. This has also been hypothesized as a poten-
tially important factor explaining children’s outcomes after paren-
tal incarceration. However, the evidence has not been conclusive
on this hypothesized mechanism regarding parental divorce
(Amato, 1993). Third, interparental conflict occurring before, dur-
ing, and after divorce has been highlighted as an important factor
explaining children’s adjustment, and there is considerable empir-
ical support for this point of view (Amato, 1993; Emery, 1999;
Rodgers & Pryor, 1998). Fourth, economic hardship and loss of
family income may be important, although it must be recognized
that low socioeconomic status also predicts divorce and therefore
may act as a confounding variable.
The fifth and most general theoretical perspective described by
Amato (1993) was the “life stress perspective,” which emphasizes
that multiple stressful events, including both those described above
and others, such as house and school moves and new marriages of
parents, are important for understanding children’s postdivorce
adjustment. Although there is general support for this notion,
some research suggests that it may not be the absolute number
of stressful events that is important, but rather the particular
characteristics of some types of change. Amato (1993) con-
cluded that empirical evidence provided strongest support for
the interparental conflict model, which implies a degree of
spuriousness in the association between parental divorce and
children’s adverse outcomes; however, no single model can
fully account for the findings.
A few important considerations should be taken from this more
extensive work on parental divorce when studying children’s out-
comes after parental incarceration. First, the parental divorce lit-
erature indicates that a broad range of outcomes should be exam-
ined for children with incarcerated parents to capture potential
diversity in its effects. Second, a simple deficit model is unlikely
to adequately explain the effects on children of either parental
divorce or parental incarceration. Third, neither parental divorce
nor parental incarceration is randomly distributed in the popula-
tion; therefore, observed associations with child outcomes might
be spurious, and it is very important to consider other factors
associated with parental incarceration, both before and after the
event, to try to understand its effects on children. In the context of
parental divorce, interparental conflict has emerged as a particu-
larly important issue to consider. Regarding parental incarceration,
parental crime and antisocial behavior are the most obvious cova-
riates that should be taken into account when studying children’s
outcomes. Also, as in research on parental divorce, studies of
parental incarceration should ideally include preincarceration mea-
sures of children’s well-being, to examine whether children’s
problem behaviors actually increase from before to after the event.
Objectives of the Systematic Review
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to sum-
marize evidence on the following questions. To what extent is
parental incarceration associated with children’s later antisocial
behavior, mental health problems, drug use, and poor educational
performance? Do these associations vary across different types of
samples (children in the community, compared with children in
clinics and courts)? Does parental incarceration predict worse
outcomes for children than other forms of parent–child separation?
Are associations between parental incarceration and children’s
outcomes moderated by the child’s sex, maternal versus paternal
incarceration, child age at parental incarceration, age at outcome
measurement, type of outcome assessed, and country of study?
1
Do results vary according to study methodological characteristics?
We chose to analyze the possible moderators listed above be-
cause these variables were easy to code from primary studies and
because they have been hypothesized to explain variation in the
effects of parental incarceration on children (see Murray & Far-
rington, 2008a, for a review). For example, it has been suggested
that incarceration of a mother might be more disruptive for chil-
dren than incarceration of a father because mothers tend to be more
involved in childcare and are more likely to be incarcerated farther
from home than fathers (Murray & Farrington, 2008a). Johnston
(1995) suggested that the effects of parental incarceration might be
strongest when children experience the event in early childhood,
when it is harder for children to cognitively process the event
(however, in relation to parental divorce, there is no consistent
difference in the effects on children according to their age at the
time of the divorce: Emery, 1999; Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan,
1999; Rodgers & Pryor, 1998). With regard to timing of outcome
measurement, Hagan and Dinovitzer (1999, p. 151) hypothesized
that the strongest effects are likely to emerge in the transition from
childhood to adulthood, during a period of increasing challenges
and responsibility. Murray and colleagues (Murray et al., 2007)
speculated that in countries where prison sentences are longer and
social support systems are weaker (for example in the United
States, compared with many European countries), effects of pa-
rental incarceration on children might be more pronounced.
Method
Search for Studies
We systematically searched for relevant studies until February
2011. We started with an initial set of reports on children with
incarcerated parents collected in our previous research on this topic.
Four methods were used to search for additional studies. First, key-
words were entered into 23 electronic databases and Internet search
engines. The keywords entered were (prison*orjail*orpenitentiary
or imprison*orincarcerat*ordetention) and (child*orson*or
daughter*orparent*ormother*orfather*) and (antisocial*or
delinquen*orcrim*oroffend*orviolen*oraggressi*ormental
health or mental illness or internaliz*ordepress*oranxiety or
anxious or psychological*ordrug*oralcohol*ordrink*ortobacco
or smok*orsubstance or education*orschool or grade*orachieve-
ment).
1
Ideally, we would have also investigated other moderators, such as
living circumstances and quality of relationships before incarceration, what
children are told about the event, length of parental incarceration, levels of
social support, and type of prison in which parents were held. However, it
was extremely rare for studies to report such information, making it
impossible to study these variables as moderators.
180 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Second, bibliographies of prior reviews were examined (Dal-
laire, 2007; S. Gabel, 2003; Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999; Johnston,
1995; Murray, 2005; Murray & Farrington, 2008a; Myers et al.,
1999; Nijnatten, 1998) as well as edited books on children of
incarcerated parents (Eddy & Poehlmann, 2010; K. Gabel &
Johnston, 1995; O. Harris & Miller, 2002; Y. R. Harris, Graham,
& Carpenter, 2010; Shaw, 1992b; Travis & Waul, 2003). Third,
experts in the field were contacted to request information about
any other studies that we might not have located. The first group
of experts contacted consisted of about 65 researchers and practi-
tioners who we knew were professionals with an interest in chil-
dren with incarcerated parents. The second group consisted of
about 30 directors of major longitudinal studies in criminology
(see Farrington & Welsh, 2007, pp. 29–36). We thought that
longitudinal researchers might have important results that were
eligible for this meta-analysis that had not been published or were
hidden in articles that did not mention parental incarceration in
titles, abstracts, or keywords. Finally, James Derzon and Aaron
Alford kindly searched their extensive database of results on
family factors and offending in longitudinal studies (see Derzon,
2010) to identify any other studies that we might not have located.
Inclusion Criteria
Five criteria were used to determine whether studies were eli-
gible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Studies had to have
numerical results and meet all five criteria below to be included.
1. The study included children of incarcerated parents and
at least one comparison group of children without incar-
cerated parents (i.e., children whose parents had not been
incarcerated since the child’s birth).
2. The study included a measure of children’s antisocial
behavior, mental health, drug use, or educational perfor-
mance.
3. Children’s outcomes were measured after parental incar-
ceration first occurred.
4. The study used the same outcome measure for children
with incarcerated parents and the comparison group.
5. At least one effect size was reported, or there was enough
numerical information to calculate at least one effect size
for the association between parental incarceration and a
child outcome.
All studies meeting the above five criteria were included in the
review. They could be published or unpublished. They may have
been conducted in any country and may have been reported in
English, German, Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Swedish,
Danish, or Norwegian.
Screening for Eligible Studies
Our searches identified 14,690 references for screening to iden-
tify eligible studies. A flow chart of the screening process is shown
in Figure 2. After examining the titles and abstracts of all the
references and discarding obviously irrelevant ones, 454 reports
were identified as potentially relevant to the review. Of these, 451
full-text documents were retrieved, and 188 described an empirical
study of children of incarcerated parents with numerical results
(and were not review articles or commentaries on previously
reported research). Of these, 40 studies with 50 samples, reported
in 74 documents, met all five eligibility criteria, and these were
coded for the meta-analysis.
Four studies are briefly described here, which were not included
in the meta-analysis because an effect size could not be derived
from the results. Friedman and Esselstyn (1965) compared 117
children with incarcerated fathers and 211 control children in the
same schools on academic performance and other aspects of pupil
adjustment. They reported that a higher proportion of children with
incarcerated fathers scored “above average” on academic achieve-
ment than did the control children, but exact proportions and
significance tests were not reported. Guo, Roettger, and Cai (2008)
tested for a gene–environment interaction between the
DRD2*178/304 genotype and “dad jailed” in predicting delin-
quency in the sibling sample of the National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health (Add Health). The interaction was not signifi-
cant. Further results for main effects were not available, and we
were not able to include this study in the review (although we did
include other results on main study participants in Add Health,
Figure 2. Flow chart of screening process.
181
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
based on other analyses). Kampfner (1995) compared 36 children
with incarcerated mothers and control children (nnot reported)
matched on age, race, sex, and social class. She reported that
children with incarcerated mothers had significantly more post-
traumatic stress symptoms than did control children, but further
information was not available to calculate an effect size (and it was
not clear whether “significant” meant statistically significant or
substantially different). Naudeau (2005) compared rates of depres-
sion, drug use, and delinquency between 18 youths with incarcer-
ated parents and 36 matched controls who had never experienced
parental absence, in the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Develop-
ment. It was reported that there were no significant differences
between the groups on any of these outcomes, but further infor-
mation was not available to calculate an effect size.
Coding of Studies
Studies included in the meta-analysis were coded for the fol-
lowing key features: reference information (title, authors, publica-
tion year, etc.), study location, sample characteristics (gender, age
range, etc.), study design (prospective, retrospective, cross-
sectional), details about the measure of parental incarceration,
type(s) of comparison groups included, details of subsamples and
multiple comparisons made, type(s) of outcomes measured and
measurement details, statistical information used to derive an
effect size, and methodological quality. If some statistical infor-
mation was missing that was needed to calculate an effect size,
study authors were contacted to try to obtain the relevant infor-
mation. If other information was not available (e.g., details about
the measurement of parental incarceration), this was coded as
missing.
The methodological quality of studies included in the review
was assessed on the Cambridge Quality Checklists, which were
developed to evaluate the quality of risk factor studies in system-
atic reviews (Murray, Farrington, & Eisner, 2009). Each study was
coded “yes” or “no” according to whether it had each of the
following five characteristics (for further details about this check-
list, scoring instructions, and rationale for cut-points, see Murray,
Farrington, & Eisner, 2009)
1. An adequate sampling method, with either random or
total sampling methods.
2. An adequate response rate, with response and retention
rates ⱖ70% and differential attrition between children of
incarcerated parents and the comparison group ⱕ10%.
3. An adequate sample size of 400 or more.
4. A good measure of parental incarceration, meaning chil-
dren with incarcerated parents were identified by sam-
pling parents in a jail or prison, by using official criminal
records to determine whether parents were incarcerated,
or by asking parents themselves about their own history
of incarceration. (Note, if children reported whether their
parents were incarcerated, this was not coded as a good
measure because it is possible that many children are not
told the truth about the whereabouts of their incarcerated
parent.)
5. A good measure of the child outcome, with a reliability
coefficient ⱖ.75 and reasonable face validity; a criterion
validity coefficient ⱖ.3; more than one instrument or
information source used to assess the outcome; official
records of arrest, conviction, or incarceration used to
measure an antisocial outcome; a clinical diagnosis used
to measure mental health problems; or standardized test
or grade scores used to measure educational perfor-
mance.
As recommended by Murray, Farrington, and Eisner (2009), in
addition to coding the five items above and coding the basic study
design (prospective, retrospective, or cross-sectional), we also
coded the covariates that were controlled in each study. Most
studies controlled at least some covariates either by matching or by
using statistical modeling techniques, for example, in regression
analyses. We coded the total number of covariates that were
controlled in each study (excluding demographic covariates such
as child sex, race, and social class) and coded whether parental
criminality or antisocial behavior was controlled for (e.g., by
including the number of prior parental criminal convictions as a
covariate in multiple regression analysis). We also coded whether
studies controlled for a pretest of children’s outcomes before
parental incarceration, for example, by adjusting for pretest scores
in regression analyses or by analyzing change scores. Arguably,
parental criminality is the most important confounding variable to
take into account when investigating the association between pa-
rental incarceration and children’s outcomes, and analysis of
change (control for children’s outcomes before parental incarcer-
ation) helps rule out the possibility that children with incarcerated
parents had raised levels of problem behavior before their parent
was incarcerated.
Effect Sizes
The odds ratio was chosen as the effect size to represent the
association between parental incarceration and children’s out-
comes for five reasons. First, many primary studies reported re-
sults using odds ratios. Second, many measures of both parental
incarceration and children’s outcomes were dichotomous (e.g.,
incarcerated or not, convicted or not). Third, the odds ratio is easily
and often used as an effect size in meta-analysis and can be
estimated from other commonly reported statistics. Fourth, the
odds ratio is unaffected by differential base rates (the marginal
distributions of the predictor or the outcome), giving greater com-
parability across studies and types of outcome. Fifth, the odds ratio
is easily interpretable. The odds ratio represents how more or less
likely children of incarcerated parents are to experience an out-
come, compared with children without incarcerated parents.
The odds are equal to the number of children with the outcome
divided by the number of children without the outcome. For
example, among 60 children, if 20 are arrested and 40 are not
arrested, the odds of arrest is 20/40 ⫽0.5. The odds ratio is
calculated by dividing the odds for children with incarcerated
parents by the odds for comparison children. An odds ratio less
than 1.0 indicates that children with incarcerated parents are less
likely to have the outcome than are other children. An odds ratio
that is larger than 1.0 shows an increased probability of the
outcome for children with incarcerated parents. An odds ratio of
2.0 or larger indicates relatively strong prediction (Cohen, 1996).
182 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
If studies reported only other statistics, such as Cohen’s dor
mean differences and standard deviations (from which dcan be
calculated), we converted them into odds ratios using the for-
mulas presented in Lipsey and Wilson (2001). An odds ratio
based on dis interpretable like any other odds ratio: the increase
(or decrease) in odds associated with parental incarceration.
However, it is necessary to interpret the underlying continuous
variable, which was used to calculate d, as dichotomous. For
example, Stroble (1997) compared mean depression scores be-
tween children with incarcerated parents and children without
incarcerated parents. In this study, d⫽0.3, and we converted
this into an odds ratio ⫽1.8. This can be interpreted as showing
that parental incarceration was associated with 1.8 times the
odds of high depression scores, compared with no parental
incarceration. When the underlying continuous distribution is
approximately normal, dis an appropriate metric for summa-
rizing the relationship between the two variables and can be
converted to an odds ratio without problem. However, we note
that if the distribution is skewed (e.g., SD ⬎M), dis reduced
because of the high standard deviation, and an odds ratio based
on dis likely to be conservative or too small.
Wherever possible, covariate-adjusted odds ratios were ex-
tracted from study results. Covariate-adjusted odds ratios indi-
cate how many times greater (or smaller) the odds of the
outcome is for children with incarcerated parents, compared
with other children, while taking into account effects of cova-
riates. For example, by comparing children of prisoners and
children of parents with other criminal justice sentences, the
resulting odds ratio shows how more or less likely children of
prisoners are to experience the outcome, while taking into
account parental crime and conviction. Covariate-adjusted odds
ratios can be calculated directly from 2 ⫻2 tables comparing
outcomes for children with incarcerated parents and matched
controls, extracted directly from logistic regression results, or
converted from other effect sizes, such as d, when covariates are
taken into account in the calculation of d(based on output from
multiple regression analyses).
Meta-Analyses
To synthesize the findings from the studies included in the
review, we conducted meta-analyses of their results. We used the
results from each study that were most controlled (adjusted for
the most covariates). The meta-analyses proceeded in three stages.
In the first stage, results for each child outcome (antisocial behav-
ior, mental health problems, drug use, and poor educational per-
formance) were pooled for all studies, and separately by type of
sample (community samples and samples of children recruited
from clinics and courts). Pooled results were also calculated sep-
arately for studies that compared children of incarcerated parents
with children who were separated from parents for other reasons.
In the second stage of analysis, focusing on the outcome of child
antisocial behavior (which was studied most frequently and
showed the strongest association with parental incarceration, as
well as the greatest variation in results), we examined possible
moderating variables that might explain variation in effect sizes. In
the third stage of analysis, we examined whether methodological
characteristics of the studies were related to their findings.
Some studies were not included in some of the meta-analyses
because they lacked relevant results. For example, some studies
only provided results on children’s antisocial behavior and no
other outcome and so were only included in analyses of antisocial
behavior. Thus, different numbers of studies are included in dif-
ferent analyses.
The meta-analyses were conducted using the inverse variance-
weight approach recommended by Lipsey and Wilson (2001) and
were performed in SPSS using the syntax written by Lipsey and
Wilson (2001) and available on David Wilson’s website (http://
mason.gmu.edu/⬃dwilsonb/ma.html). Effect sizes were first calcu-
lated in Microsoft Excel and then copied into SPSS to run the
meta-analyses. Random effects models were used to pool results
across studies because of significant heterogeneity in the results that
we believed was not due to sampling error alone (given the diverse
characteristics of the studies, as we describe in the Results section).
Multiple Results From Single Studies
One issue that must be dealt with in meta-analysis is the as-
sumption of the statistical independence of results. Studies some-
times have multiple results reported for the same outcome for the
same sample (for example, in multiple publications). Using more
than one result from the same sample in a meta-analysis can lead
to underestimating error variance and inflating significance tests.
To isolate independent findings for use in each meta-analysis, first
we identified independent samples by doing the following.
1. Separate meta-analyses were conducted for antisocial
behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational per-
formance. Thus, only if a study reported multiple results
for a single outcome would we need to address indepen-
dence of findings further.
2. Samples of boys and girls were coded separately and
used as the unit of analysis. (This was done even if
combined results, for boys and girls together, were also
reported.) Thus, only if a study reported multiple results
either for boys or for girls for any particular outcome
would we need to address independence of findings fur-
ther. Although there might be some dependence between
effect sizes derived for boys and girls in the same study,
we assume that they are independent in these analyses.
3. Two studies reported results separately for main study
participants and their siblings. For each study, we coded
the main participants and their siblings separately (as two
different samples) because different types of analyses
were performed on each group.
4. Within a study, when more than one sample of children
with incarcerated parents was compared with a single
comparison group, the results from these multiple com-
parisons were averaged, and the average effect size was
used in the analysis. For example, if a study compared
both children of incarcerated mothers and children of
incarcerated fathers with a single comparison group, the
183
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
mean odds ratio (and mean variance) from these two
comparisons was used in analysis.
2
5. Within a study, if a single group of children with incar-
cerated parents was compared with multiple comparison
groups, we selected or combined the comparison groups
to derive a single effect size for each analysis. Compar-
ison groups were selected or combined to produce a
single effect size reflecting the maximum control of
covariates. In studies that included a comparison group of
children separated from parents for reasons other than
parental incarceration, results from that comparison were
coded separately for specific analysis.
Sometimes, for a single sample or comparison, multiple results
for the same outcome were reported. When this occurred, we did
the following, in order, until we identified a single effect size for
the sample.
1. If an outcome was measured at multiple time points, the
measure longest after parental incarceration was selected for
analysis, unless attrition since the previous measure was
over 10%. For example, a measure of conviction at ages
30–40 years would be selected instead of a measure of
conviction at ages 20–30 years, so long as the later measure
did not have more than 10% attrition since the earlier
measure.
2. If there were multiple covariate-adjusted effect sizes, the
effect size reflecting maximum control for covariates was
selected for analysis. For example, if one effect size esti-
mated the effects of parental incarceration while controlling
for family income and another effect size controlled for
family income and parental criminality, the latter effect size
was selected. Effect sizes that estimated change in chil-
dren’s outcomes from before to after parental incarceration
(i.e., controlling for preincarceration child outcome scores)
were always selected in preference to effect sizes that did
not estimate change in children’s outcomes.
3. Measures of an outcome with higher reliability or validity
were selected in preference to measures with lower reli-
ability or validity.
4. For antisocial behavior, measures of criminal behavior were
selected in preference to measures of antisocial behavior
that did not necessarily involve breaking the law. Measures
of antisocial behavior that were closer to official delin-
quency (e.g., the Delinquency subscale on the Child Behav-
ior Checklist) were selected instead of other measures (e.g.,
a total externalizing score). Measures of crime in general
(e.g., conviction for any offence) were selected in prefer-
ence to measures of specific types of crime (e.g., conviction
for violence). Effect sizes based on conviction records were
used in preference to self-reports. Measures using children’s
own reports were chosen in preference to measures based on
other people’s reports (e.g., caregivers’ or teachers’ reports)
because parents and teachers may not know about children’s
delinquent behaviors. Children’s self-reports were also se-
lected in preference to measures of arrest.
5. For outcomes of mental health, drug use, and educational
performance, more generic measures were selected in pref-
erence to subtypes of the outcome. For example, for mental
health, measures of general internalizing problems were
selected in preference to measures of depression or anxiety
specifically. If a result for general internalizing problems
was not reported but results for more than one specific
internalizing problem (e.g., both depression and anxiety)
were reported, these were combined into one effect size. If
multiple results for educational performance were reported,
standardized test scores were selected in preference to other
measures of educational performance.
6. If there were still multiple results for a single type of
outcome, results were combined to produce one summary
effect size.
For some of the moderator variables that we investigate (e.g.,
whether it was the mother or the father who was incarcerated),
multiple relevant results were reported for a single sample (i.e.,
one result for maternal incarceration and one result for paternal
incarceration). Where this was the case, separate effect sizes were
calculated for each category of the moderator (i.e., one effect size
for maternal incarceration and one for paternal incarceration),
following Steps 1–6, above. In analysis of that moderator variable,
the result for the category that was most rare (i.e., maternal
incarceration in this case) was selected for analysis. In all other
analyses, the average effect size was used (i.e., for maternal
incarceration and paternal incarceration combined).
Using these procedures for handling multiple comparisons, mul-
tiple measures of outcomes, and multiple results on moderator
variables, each sample counted only once in each meta-analysis.
Results
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the 50 samples from the
40 studies included in the meta-analysis. Details of the individual
studies and their references can be found in the Appendix. In total, the
50 samples included 7,374 children with incarcerated parents and
37,325 comparison children without incarcerated parents. Research
on the associations between parental incarceration and children’s
outcomes has been increasing. Since 2000, results on 39 samples have
been reported, compared with 11 in previous years. The samples were
recruited in seven different countries: the United States, the United
Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Australia, and New
Zealand. Most samples of children were recruited in the community
rather than in juvenile courts or mental health clinics. Just fewer than
half of the samples came from studies with a prospective design,
which means that parental incarceration was measured at one point in
time, and children’s outcomes were assessed at a later point in time.
Thirty-two samples included both children with incarcerated mothers
and children with incarcerated fathers (but they were rarely analyzed
separately). Children’s parents had been incarcerated during child-
hood (age 0–10 years) in 10 samples, during adolescence (age 11–18
yeaers) in two samples, and during both childhood and adolescence in
16 samples. In 12 samples, parental incarceration was measured in
2
It was not possible to pool the groups of children of prisoners before
calculating an effect size in these studies.
184 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
such a way that it might have occurred before children were born. In
most samples, children’s outcomes were assessed between birth and
age 18 years, rather than in adulthood. A variety of informants
(children themselves, caretakers, teachers, peers, clinical assessment,
and clinical records) were used to assess children’s outcomes. Only 10
samples of children were assessed using multiple informants.
Studies used several different types of comparison groups to assess
the association between parental incarceration and children’s out-
comes. In nine samples,
3
children with incarcerated parents were
compared with children who were separated from their parents for
other reasons, such as parental divorce or parental death. These
comparisons can help assess whether parent–child separation per se is
the main factor explaining children’s outcomes after parental incar-
ceration. Several studies compared children with incarcerated parents
to children whose parents were convicted but not incarcerated, to try
to parse out the effects of parental incarceration from the effects of
parental criminality. Another method used to try to control for paren-
3
Includes two samples in which multiple comparisons were made.
Table 1
Characteristics of Samples Included in the Meta-Analysis
Variable Category Number of
samples (k)
Location United States 36
Europe (England, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands) 11
Australia/New Zealand 3
Report date 1970s 3
1980s 2
1990s 6
2000s 21
2010s/unpublished and no date 18
Sampling frame Children in the community 40
Children in clinics/courts 10
Study design Prospective 21
Retrospective 17
Cross-sectional 12
Child sex Boys only 14
Girls only 7
Both boys and girls 29
Parent incarcerated Mother figure only 6
Father figure only 12
Both mother and father figure 32
Age of children at time of
parental incarceration Childhood (0–10 years) only 10
Adolescence (11–18 years) only 2
Both childhood and adolescence 16
Parent ever incarcerated (including before child’s birth) 12
Not known 10
Age at child outcome Juvenile (0–17 years) only 28
Adult (18⫹years) only 12
Both juvenile and adult 9
Not known 1
Informant for child outcomes Child only 12
Caretaker only 9
Teacher only 2
Peers only 1
Clinical assessment only 1
Official records only 15
Multiple informants 10
Comparison group Children separated from parents for other reasons 7
Children with parent convicted but not incarcerated 5
Children with parent incarcerated only before child’s birth 4
Other children in same study, but not matched as above 27
Multiple comparison groups 7
Number covariates controlled
a
09
1–4 20
5–9 10
10–14 8
15⫹3
Controlled for parental criminality Yes 13
No 37
Controlled for pre-test of child
outcome Yes 4
No 46
a
If different numbers of covariates were controlled for in different analyses, the maximum number was coded.
185
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tal criminality was to compare children whose parents were incarcer-
ated after the child’s birth with children whose parents were incar-
cerated only before the child’s birth. The logic of this comparison is
that the two groups should be quite similar in background character-
istics, but only children whose parents are incarcerated after birth are
actually exposed to the event, helping isolate its environmental
effects.
Through matching and statistical modeling, most studies con-
trolled for some covariates when estimating the association be-
tween parental incarceration and children’s outcomes (only nine
samples were analyzed without control for any covariates). Most
samples (k⫽30) were analyzed controlling for between one and
nine covariates. Only 13 samples were analyzed controlling for
parental criminality, and only four samples were analyzed in terms
of change in children’s outcomes, by controlling for a “pretest” of
the child outcome, measured before parental incarceration took
place.
Meta-Analysis: Main Effects
Table 2 shows weighted mean effect sizes for the associations
between parental incarceration and children’s antisocial behav-
ior, poor mental health, drug use, and low educational perfor-
mance in all samples with relevant results. Across all samples,
the pooled odds ratio for the association between parental
incarceration and children’s antisocial behavior was significant
and fairly large (OR ⫽1.6, CI [1.4, 1.9], k⫽45). For poor
mental health, the pooled odds ratio was nonsignificant across
all samples and showed almost zero association with parental
incarceration (OR ⫽1.1, CI [1.0, 1.3], k⫽23). Also, there was
almost no association between parental incarceration and chil-
dren’s drug use (OR ⫽1.1, CI [0.9, 1.3], k⫽12). Parental
incarceration was significantly associated with poor educational
performance (OR ⫽1.4, CI [ 1.1, 1.8], k⫽13). For all four
outcomes, the Qstatistic was significant (p⬍.01), indicating
heterogeneity in the results that could not be accounted for by
sampling error alone.
Table 2 also shows the average effect sizes for different types of
sample. We expected effect sizes to be larger among samples of
children in the community than among samples of children re-
cruited from clinics or courts (in which comparison children are
also likely to be at risk for problem behavior). Within community
samples, effect sizes were significant for antisocial behavior
(OR ⫽1.7, CI [1.4, 2.0], k⫽36), mental health (OR ⫽1.2, CI
[1.0, 1.4]; k⫽17), and poor educational performance (OR ⫽1.5,
CI [1.1, 2.1], k⫽11), but not for drug use. By contrast, within
court and clinic samples, parental incarceration was significantly
associated with increased risk only for children’s antisocial behav-
ior (OR ⫽1.4, CI [1.1, 1.7], k⫽9) and not for other child
outcomes. However, the differences in effect sizes between com-
munity samples and clinic and court samples were not significant
(p⬎.05 in QB tests of between-group heterogeneity, for all four
outcomes).
Table 2 also shows average results for the subset of samples that
compared children with incarcerated parents to children separated
from parents for other reasons. The average effect size for this
comparison was positive and significant for children’s antisocial
behavior (OR ⫽1.4, CI [1.2, 1.6], k⫽9), but not for the other
outcomes.
Table 2
Average Associations Between Parental Incarceration and Children’s Outcomes Across Different Types of Sample
Type of sample
Antisocial behavior Mental health problems Drug use Poor educational performance
OR [95% CI] QkOR[95% CI] QkOR[95% CI] QkOR[95% CI] Qk
Children in the community 1.7
ⴱⴱ
[1.4, 2.0] 112.9
ⴱⴱ
36 1.2
ⴱ
[1.0, 1.4] 22.9 17 1.0 [0.9, 1.1] 7.2 8 1.5
ⴱⴱ
[1.1, 2.1] 34.4
ⴱⴱ
11
Children in clinics/courts 1.4
ⴱⴱ
[1.1, 1.7] 8.3 9 0.9 [0.6, 1.3] 9.7 6 1.0 [0.6, 1.8] 20.3
ⴱⴱ
4 1.2 [0.8, 1.8] 1.5 2
Comparison group separated
for other reasons 1.4
ⴱⴱ
[1.2, 1.6] 7.6 9 0.9 [0.7, 1.1] 10.6 8 0.8 [0.6, 1.1] 4.7 5 1.3 [0.8, 1.9] 4.2 4
All samples 1.6
ⴱⴱ
[1.4, 1.9] 121.3
ⴱⴱ
45 1.1 [1.0, 1.3] 45.0
ⴱⴱ
23 1.1 [0.9, 1.3] 27.6
ⴱⴱ
12 1.4
ⴱⴱ
[1.1, 1.8] 35.9
ⴱⴱ
13
Note. Results from random effects models. Samples with Comparison group separated for other reasons are a subset of the Children in the community and Children in clinics/courts samples. OR ⫽
odds ratio; CI ⫽confidence interval; Q⫽Qstatistic for the test of heterogeneity within samples; k⫽number of samples.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
186 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Possible Moderators of the Association Between
Parental Incarceration and Children’s Antisocial
Behavior
We investigated whether six possible moderators explained
variation in the results for antisocial behavior. We chose to con-
duct these analyses for antisocial behavior because this outcome
was examined most often (k⫽45), had the largest mean effect size
(OR ⫽1.6), and had the greatest heterogeneity in study results
(Q⫽123.3).
4
Figure 3 shows the distribution of individual effect
sizes for all 45 samples in which antisocial behavior was mea-
sured. Forty effect sizes (89%) show a positive association be-
tween parental incarceration and children’s antisocial behavior.
Although not many individual effect sizes were statistically sig-
nificant, as noted above, pooled effect sizes were significant for all
samples, for community samples, and for clinic and court samples
(as reported in Table 2).
Table 3 shows the results of the moderator analyses. Slightly
larger pooled odds ratios were found for boys (compared with
girls), parental incarceration during adolescence, parental incarcer-
ation “ever” (compared with parental incarceration during child-
4
If we had conducted these six tests for all four outcomes, the proba-
bility of a Type I error (finding a significant result by chance) would have
increased considerably.
Figure 3. Distribution of effect sizes for antisocial behavior. Multiple samples analyzed by the same authors are
identified by study names, sibling samples, and children’s sex (boys or girls). For the study by Geller, we combined
results for boys and girls so that we could analyze children’s outcomes in relation to both maternal and paternal
incarceration. Results were also available for boys and girls separately, but for paternal incarceration only—and we
used these results only in moderator analyses. TRANSFIVE ⫽NSCR (Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime
and Law Enforcement) Transfive Study; CSDD ⫽Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development; PM ⫽Project
Metropolitan; PHDCN ⫽Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods; DHS ⫽Department of Human
Services; NSCR ⫽Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement.
187
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
hood), and outcomes in adulthood (compared with outcomes in
juvenile years). However, no moderator variable was statistically
significant, and pooled effect sizes were almost identical for ma-
ternal compared with paternal incarceration, type of outcome mea-
sured (antisocial or crime), and whether or not studies were con-
ducted in the United States.
We also examined whether effect sizes for U.S. studies varied
according to the year in which parental incarceration took place, in
a metaregression analysis (which can examine variation in effect
sizes by continuous-level predictors). We did this because the U.S.
incarceration rate grew rapidly over several decades, and some
researchers hypothesize that as the event became more common,
stigma associated with incarceration might have diminished, and
harmful effects on children might have reduced. Figure 4 shows
the distribution of the (logged) odds ratios by year of parental
incarceration in U.S samples. Although a very slight downward
slope is observed in this graph, the regression analysis showed that
the effects of parental incarceration on children’s antisocial behav-
ior were not significantly smaller among samples of children for
whom parental incarceration occurred more recently (B⫽⫺0.01,
p⫽.52).
Variation in Results by Study Methodology
We investigated whether study methodology explained variation
in effect sizes for antisocial behavior. Table 4 shows average effect
sizes for different study designs and whether studies controlled for
covariates. Prospective studies had the largest average effect size,
followed by retrospective and then cross-sectional studies, but
these differences were not quite significant (QB ⫽4.7, p⫽.10).
There existed a clear and significant difference between studies
that controlled for covariates (OR ⫽1.4) and studies that did not
(OR ⫽3.0; QB ⫽13.9, p⬍.01). Given the importance of
covariates for these results on antisocial behavior, we also exam-
ined whether effect sizes for educational performance (which were
also positive and significant on average for all samples; see Table
2) differed according to whether studies controlled for covariates.
Again, there was a significant difference. Studies that controlled
for covariates had, on average, a significantly (QB ⫽3.8, p⬍.05)
smaller association between parental incarceration and poor edu-
cational performance (OR ⫽1.1, CI [1.0, 1.3], k⫽8) than did
studies that did not control for covariates (OR ⫽1.5, CI [1.2, 1.9],
k⫽5). In fact, the average effect size for educational performance
when covariates were controlled (OR ⫽1.1) shows almost zero
association with parental incarceration.
We expected that the type of covariates controlled might also
make a difference to study results. We expected that studies that
controlled for parental criminality or children’s antisocial behavior
before parental incarceration would have smaller effect sizes than
would other studies. In 13 samples, the association between pa-
rental incarceration and children’s antisocial behavior was esti-
mated while controlling for parental criminality, using three dif-
ferent methods: (a) by comparing children who experienced
parental incarceration during childhood with children whose par-
ents were incarcerated only before the child was born; (b) by
comparing children whose parents were incarcerated with children
whose parents were convicted but received noncustodial sen-
tences; and (c) by comparing children whose parents were incar-
cerated with other children while statistically controlling for a
measure of parental criminality (e.g., controlling for the number of
parental convictions in regression analyses). In these 13 samples,
the pooled association between parental incarceration and chil-
dren’s antisocial behavior was OR ⫽1.4 (CI [1.2, 1.7], k⫽13).
In three samples, the association between parental incarceration
and children’s later antisocial behavior was estimated while control-
ling for children’s antisocial behavior before parental incarceration.
5
The pooled effect size in these samples was OR ⫽1.3 (CI [1.0, 1.7],
k⫽3). Combining all 14 studies that controlled either for parental
5
Note that four samples included results controlling for children’s
antisocial behavior before parental incarceration. However, two samples
(boys and girls in the study by Geller, Cooper, Garfinkel, Schwartz-
Soicher, & Mincy, in press) were analyzed together here because, other-
wise, only results for paternal incarceration (rather than both maternal and
paternal incarceration) could be included.
Table 3
Possible Moderators of the Association Between Parental Incarceration and Antisocial Behavior
Variable Category OR [95% CI] kQB
Child sex Girls 1.4 [0.9, 2.4] 7 0.5
Boys 1.8
ⴱⴱ
[1.3, 2.6] 13
Mother/father imprisoned Mother 1.6
ⴱ
[1.0, 2.6] 8 0.0
Father 1.7
ⴱⴱ
[1.2, 2.5] 11
Child age at parental imprisonment Childhood (0–10 years) 1.5
ⴱ
[1.1, 2.3] 9 2.4
Adolescence (11–17 years) 2.0
ⴱ
[1.2, 3.5] 5
Parent ever incarcerated 2.4
ⴱⴱ
[1.6, 3.6] 9
Child age at outcome Juvenile (0–17 years) 1.6
ⴱⴱ
[1.3, 1.9] 26 1.1
Adult (18⫹years) 1.9
ⴱⴱ
[1.4, 2.6] 15
Type of outcome Antisocial 1.6
ⴱⴱ
[1.2, 2.1] 17 0.0
Crime 1.6
ⴱⴱ
[1.3, 2.0] 28
In the United States United States 1.6
ⴱⴱ
[1.3, 1.9] 31 0.0
Not United States 1.7
ⴱⴱ
[1.2, 2.2] 14
Note. Results from mixed effects models. OR ⫽odds ratio; CI ⫽confidence interval; k⫽number of samples;
QB ⫽QB statistic for test of heterogeneity between categories, distributed as chi-square with c⫺1 degrees of
freedom, where cis the number of categories in the moderator variable.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
188 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
criminality or for children’s antisocial behavior before parental incar-
ceration, the pooled odds ratio was 1.4 (CI [1.1, 1.6], k⫽14). This
association was similar to that among other studies that controlled for
some covariates but not for these two particular covariates (OR ⫽1.4,
CI [1.2, 1.6], k⫽22; QB ⫽.02, p⫽.89). Thus, the two covariates
that we thought would be most important to take into account (pa-
rental criminality and previous child antisocial behavior) did not
significantly influence the meta-analytic results.
We also considered whether effect sizes for antisocial behavior
might have been biased by the omission of additional covariates.
To do this, we examined the association between study results and
the total number of covariates controlled in each study, both
graphically and in metaregression. Figure 5 shows the distribution
of effect sizes according to the number of covariates controlled
(excluding one outlier, which controlled for 32 covariates). As can
be seen, there is greater variability in the results for samples in
which fewer covariates were controlled (toward the left hand side
of the graph). However, the regression line is almost flat, and
metaregression showed that as the number of covariates controlled
increased, effect sizes did not significantly decrease (B⫽⫺0.01,
p⫽.46). Similar results were obtained when including the outlier
(B⫽⫺0.01, p⫽.24). Therefore, there is no evidence that if
studies had controlled for more covariates, the average association
between parental incarceration and child antisocial behavior would
have been smaller.
Finally, we examined whether the five methodological quality
characteristics of the studies, as coded on the Cambridge Quality
Checklists, were related to effect size. None of the items examined
(sampling methods, response rates, sample size, measure of paren-
tal incarceration, measure of outcome) was significantly associated
with study results on antisocial behavior.
Investigating Possible Publication Bias
We investigated whether our meta-analytic results on antisocial
behavior might be affected by publication bias: bias caused by
unpublished studies having smaller effect sizes and being under-
represented in the review. The weighted mean odds ratio for
antisocial behavior among published studies was 1.8, and among
unpublished studies it was 1.4, but the difference was not signif-
icant (QB ⫽2.1, p⫽.14). A funnel plot showed a roughly
symmetrical dispersion of effect sizes by standard error that indi-
cated a lack of publication bias. To consider possible effects of
publication bias further, missing studies were imputed using the
trim and fill method. When imputed missing studies were included
in the analysis, the weighted mean odds ratio for the association
between parental incarceration and children’s antisocial behavior
changed only slightly from 1.6 (CI [1.4, 1.9]) to 1.5 (CI [1.2, 1.7]),
suggesting that the results of this meta-analysis are quite robust to
possible missing studies.
Discussion
Incarceration can cause many difficulties for families and chil-
dren of prisoners, including traumatic separation, confusing expla-
nations given to children, unstable child care arrangements,
strained parenting, reduced family income, stigma, and home,
school, and neighborhood moves. As such, it has been hypothe-
Figure 4. The association between parental incarceration and antisocial behavior through time in the United
States. OR ⫽odds ratio.
189
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
sized that parental incarceration might cause increases in chil-
dren’s problem behaviors. A meta-analysis of the most rigorous
empirical evidence showed that parental incarceration predicts
increased risk for children’s antisocial behavior, but not mental
health problems, drug use, or poor educational performance. Based
on 50 samples in 40 published and unpublished studies, we are
confident that this is the most comprehensive synthesis of the
empirical evidence to date.
No previous meta-analysis had been conducted on children’s
drug use or educational performance after parental incarceration.
In the current meta-analysis, there was no association between
parental incarceration and children’s drug use. Among studies that
controlled for covariates, there was also no association between
parental incarceration and children’s educational performance.
One previous meta-analysis of eight samples demonstrated a large
bivariate association between parental incarceration and children’s
mental health problems and a smaller covariate-adjusted associa-
tion (Murray, Farrington, Sekol, & Olsen, 2009). However, in the
current meta-analysis, we found no association between parental
incarceration and poor mental health when synthesizing across the
most controlled results in 23 samples. This difference may be
because the current meta-analysis of mental health is based on a
larger number of primary studies than the previous meta-analysis,
and it only includes studies that clearly measured mental health
(e.g., results on “self-concept” were excluded from the current
review, but they were included in the previous review). The
different results might also be explained by the fact that the earlier
review excluded certain types of studies that were included in the
current review, for example studies that sampled children in clinics
or courts. However, when we restricted the current meta-analysis
to community samples only, the association between parental
incarceration and poor mental health was only just significant, and
the effect size was small (OR ⫽1.2). Thus, on the basis of the
current review, summarizing the most rigorous evidence to date,
we must conclude that there are zero or only weak associations
Figure 5. The association between parental incarceration and antisocial behavior by number of covariates
controlled. OR ⫽odds ratio.
Table 4
Variation in Effect Sizes for Antisocial Behavior by Study Design and Control for Covariates
Variable Category OR [95% CI] kQB
Study design Prospective 1.9
ⴱⴱ
[1.5, 2.4] 21 4.7
Retrospective 1.4
ⴱ
[1.1, 1.9] 13
Cross-sectional 1.3 [1.0, 1.8] 11
Covariates controlled Zero covariates controlled 3.0
ⴱⴱ
[2.1, 4.2] 9 13.9
ⴱⴱ
Any covariates controlled 1.4
ⴱⴱ
[1.2, 1.6] 36
Note. Results from mixed effects models. OR ⫽odds ratio; CI ⫽confidence interval; k⫽number of samples;
QB ⫽QB statistic for test of heterogeneity between categories, distributed as chi square with c⫺1 degrees of
freedom, where cis the number of categories in the moderator variable.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
190 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
between parental incarceration and children’s poor mental health,
drug use, and educational performance.
The results from 45 samples confirm that on average, children
with incarcerated parents are at significantly higher risk for anti-
social behavior compared with their peers (overall OR ⫽1.6). The
specificity of this effect (given the null results for mental health
problems, drug use, and educational performance) could indicate
potentially important explanatory mechanisms linking parental
incarceration and children’s antisocial behavior. Note that al-
though antisocial behavior is commonly associated with other
kinds of youth problems (such as drug use and mood disorders)
explanatory factors are not necessarily the same (Loeber, Far-
rington, Stouthamer-Loeber, & van Kammen, 1998). There are
three main possible explanations for the specific association of
parental incarceration with children’s antisocial behavior.
A first possible explanation for the specific association with
children’s antisocial behavior is an interaction between preexisting
antisocial propensity and the stressful experiences caused by pa-
rental incarceration. Social modeling processes might be impli-
cated here. If children grow up seeing their parents respond to
stressful life events with antisocial behavior, they may be social-
ized into having antisocial reactions to disruptive events, such as
parental incarceration. This “double whammy” of prior exposure
to parental antisocial behavior and strains caused by parental
incarceration might interact to increase the probability of children
developing antisocial behavior without necessarily affecting other
outcomes. Another potentially important interaction is between the
genetic risk transmitted by antisocial parents and the social im-
pacts of parental incarceration. Thus, a gene? environment inter-
action or correlation may be implicated in the increased risk for
antisocial behavior among children of incarcerated parents.
A second possible explanation for the specific association be-
tween parental incarceration and children’s antisocial behavior is
that the stigma of parental incarceration has particular effects on
this outcome. Stigma can manifest itself in social bias toward
children with incarcerated parents: peers, teachers, and other com-
munity members believing that “the apple doesn’t fall far from the
tree” (Phillips & Gates, 2011) or viewing children with incarcer-
ated parents as destined toward a life of crime (Braman, 2004, pp.
173–174). Although criminological research clearly shows that
intergenerational criminal behavior is only a probabilistic phenom-
enon, according to criminological labeling theory, social expecta-
tions can produce self-fulfilling prophecies by cutting children off
from conventional others, fostering a delinquent self-image, and
increasing the probability of antisocial and criminal behavior
(Becker, 1963; Farrington & Murray, in press; Lemert, 1967).
These hypothetical mechanisms linking parental incarceration and
children’s later antisocial behavior would need to be carefully
tested in new empirical studies.
A third possible explanation for the specific effects on antisocial
behavior is that unmeasured confounding variables have particular
effects on this outcome: the observed association with antisocial
behavior might be spurious. For example, preexisting genetic and
social influences that predispose children toward antisocial behav-
ior might have been inadequately controlled in existing studies. If
this were true, the association between parental incarceration and
children’s antisocial behavior would reflect the intergenerational
transmission of antisocial behavior (via other mechanisms) rather
than an impact of parental incarceration itself (Murray & Far-
rington, 2008a). To test this hypothesis, it would be highly desir-
able to employ genetically sensitive research designs, such as
longitudinal twin studies, to tease apart the relevant environmental
and genetic mechanisms involved (Moffitt & Caspi, 2006).
We conclude that although some individual studies and prior
reviews have suggested that there are multiple types of adverse
effects of parental incarceration on children, taking all evidence
into account, the only outcome that remains associated with pa-
rental incarceration after adjustment for covariates is children’s
antisocial behavior. Among the most rigorous studies to date, the
average effect size for antisocial behavior was OR ⫽1.4. This can
be transformed into a percentage difference in antisocial behavior
between children with incarcerated parents and children without
incarcerated parents (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, pp. 151–154). When
this is done, the difference in antisocial behavior between children
of incarcerated parents and comparison children is approximately
10%.
It must be emphasized that although existing studies point
toward the possibility that parental incarceration increases the risk
for children’s antisocial behavior, firm causal conclusions cannot
be drawn. No randomized experiment has been conducted on this
topic, and the nonexperimental studies that have been conducted to
date might be systematically biased. There was some evidence that
even if studies included more covariates, effect sizes would not
reduce much further: Metaregression showed no reduction in ef-
fect sizes with more covariates controlled. Nonetheless, it is very
hard to rule out all alternative explanations for associations in
nonexperimental studies.
Several commentators have drawn connections between paren-
tal incarceration and other forms of parent–child separation, such
as parental divorce (e.g., S. Gabel, 2003; Poehlmann, 2010; Rich-
ards, 1992). It is important to remember that many children with
incarcerated parents were not living with their parent before the
incarceration. Our meta-analysis of studies comparing children of
incarcerated parents with children separated from parents for other
reasons showed significantly higher risk for antisocial behavior
among the parental incarceration group. Therefore, it is clear that
parent–child separation per se is not the main influence explaining
children’s outcomes after parental incarceration.
Given considerable variation in the study results, we investi-
gated possible moderators of the association between parental
incarceration and children’s antisocial behavior. Although several
possible moderators have been suggested in the literature, we
found no significant differences in study results according to the
following variables: the child’s sex, which parent was incarcer-
ated, the child’s age at the time of parental incarceration, the
child’s age at the time of outcome, the “crime” outcomes versus
outcomes of “general antisocial behavior,” and whether studies
were conducted in the United States. Also, there was no evidence
that the effects of parental incarceration have diminished through
time in the United States, as some researchers have speculated.
Why did the current meta-analysis reveal no significant moder-
ator effects for the association between parental incarceration and
children’s antisocial behavior? First, it is possible that the effects
of parental incarceration are similar across a range of different
circumstances. The reasons why it has been speculated that ma-
ternal incarceration has stronger effects on children than paternal
incarceration, for example, have to do with mechanisms of sepa-
ration, changes in childcare, and difficulties staying in contact.
191
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
However, if other mechanisms are more important and have rela-
tively uniform effects, this could explain the lack of significant
moderator variables. For example, levels of stigma resulting from
maternal and paternal incarceration might be quite similar and
have similar consequences for children.
A second possible explanation for the lack of significant mod-
erator effects relates to confounding. Expected moderator effects
assume a causal relationship between parental incarceration and
children’s outcomes. For example, the hypothesis that maternal
incarceration is more harmful for children than paternal incarcer-
ation assumes that parental incarceration itself has a causal impact.
If the association is in fact spurious rather than caused by the
incarceration experience then the rationale for the expected mod-
erator effects will not apply.
A third possible reason for the lack of moderator effects is that
the range of moderator variables that we investigated was limited,
and perhaps there are other, untested moderator variables that do
have significant effects. For example, it is possible that significant
moderators would have been found if we had tested other variables
such as whether parents and children were living together before
the incarceration, the quality of prior and ongoing family relation-
ships, what children are told about the event, the offence for which
parents are incarcerated, the length of parental incarceration, types
of incarceration (jail or prison, and types of prison), levels of social
support, family income, and neighborhood context. We could not
test these variables as moderators because not enough primary
studies reported the relevant information. Finally, it should be
remembered that the tests of possible moderators in the current
analysis compared results across a diverse group of studies that
also varied in sample characteristics, measures used, and method-
ologies. Therefore, it is possible that real moderator effects were
obscured because of these differences.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
The conclusions that we are able to draw from this systematic
review and meta-analysis are necessarily limited by the available
primary evidence. Although we retrieved a reasonably large num-
ber of studies, few had rigorous research designs. Only three
studies (including four samples) examined changes in children’s
behavior from before to after parental incarceration. Many studies
did not control for parental criminality in comparing children with
incarcerated parents and other children. No study used a random-
ized experimental design, limiting inferences about causal effects.
Most studies only included children of incarcerated fathers or
children of incarcerated parents, most of whom are likely to be
fathers. Therefore, less is known about impacts of maternal incar-
ceration on children, compared with paternal incarceration.
Many primary studies controlled for covariates with little regard
to when those covariates were measured. Covariates that were
measured after parental incarceration might indicate preexisting
family situations, or they might represent consequences of parental
incarceration itself. If such covariates are controlled for in statis-
tical analyses, this could bias estimates of the effects of parental
incarceration downward. Future studies should pay careful atten-
tion to the time ordering of variables used in analyses (see, e.g.,
Murray, Loeber, & Pardini, in press).
Hagan and Dinovitzer (1999, p. 152) rightly argued that “the
implication of not having better and more systematic research on
the collateral effects of incarceration is that we are making penal
policy in a less than fully, indeed poorly, informed fashion.” New
studies are needed that are specifically designed to investigate the
effects of incarceration on families and children. Some key ques-
tions that still need answering are as follows: How do the effects
of parental incarceration develop over time, from the point of
arrest, through trial, during incarceration, and after release? What
are the effects of repeated parental incarcerations, compared with
the first incident? Do the effects of parental incarceration on
children increase linearly the longer parents are held in prison?
Which mechanisms (e.g., attachment, strain, learning, and stigma)
link parental incarceration and undesirable child outcomes? Can
replicable moderating factors be identified that explain variation in
its effects? Does parental incarceration represent a protective fac-
tor for some children, and under what circumstances? Which child,
parent, family, and wider intervention programs could support
families of prisoners and prevent undesirable effects of parental
incarceration on children?
We recommend two types of research design for new studies.
The first is a randomized experiment in which convicted parents
who would normally be incarcerated are randomly assigned either
to incarceration (as usual) or to alternative sentences (e.g., com-
munity service). Randomization (with large enough samples) en-
sures that children with incarcerated parents and comparison chil-
dren are similar on observed and unobserved factors before
incarceration, making any difference afterward attributable to the
incarceration itself. A few randomized experiments have been
conducted on the effects of incarceration on ex-prisoner outcomes
(Barton & Butts, 1990; Bergman, 1976; Killias, Aebi, & Ribeaud,
2000; Schneider, 1986). For example, Killias et al. (2000) invited
people sentenced to prison for up to 2 weeks in Switzerland to
participate in a study in which they were randomly assigned either
to serve their sentence in prison as usual or to serve a community
sentence. Among the 123 randomly assigned participants, those
who received prison sentences had higher rates of rearrest 2 years
later and more unfavorable attitudes toward the criminal justice
system than did control participants. However, no differences were
observed with respect to employment or social and private life, and
effects seemed to dissipate in the long term (Killias, Gillie´ron,
Villard, & Poglia, 2010).
If similar experiments were conducted focusing on convicted
parents and including interviews with families and children, the
causal effects of parental incarceration (of a short duration) could
be estimated with greater confidence than has been possible to
date. Randomized studies would have to focus on short-term
incarceration so that the alternative punishment condition was of
comparable severity. The combination of circumstances that made
the experiment by Killias and colleagues feasible (despite various
forms of opposition to its implementation) was a Swiss legal
provision for introducing (and thereby evaluating) new forms of
punishment for limited periods of time (for instance, alternatives to
incarceration) and the commitment to evidence-based policy by
the director of the local corrections services and the Minister of
Justice (Killias et al., 2010). One can imagine many practical,
political, and ethical obstacles to conducting randomized studies of
incarceration. However, these difficulties may not be as absolute
as they first seem (Killias & Villetaz, 2008). A few studies now
show that they can be overcome, and the benefits of randomized
192 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
experiments imply that opportunities to conduct them should be
taken wherever possible (Killias & Villetaz, 2008).
The second research design that could be used to investigate the
effects of parental incarceration (of various lengths) on children is
a prospective longitudinal design, starting before parental incar-
ceration takes place. To analyze development and change over
time, and moderators and mediators of change (Hinshaw, 2002),
new studies should include large samples and a wide range of
repeated assessments, starting before parental incarceration.
Nearly all studies to date have started after parental incarceration
first occurred, and this makes it nearly impossible to disentangle
the effects of parental incarceration from preexisting influences.
Data need to be collected from both before and after parental
incarceration to investigate within-individual change and isolate
incarceration effects. In new studies, it would be necessary to
involve enough high risk families such that parental incarceration
occurs frequently during the course of the study and can be
analyzed quantitatively. This might be done by recruiting a cohort
of arrested or convicted parents with noncustodial sentences (who
are at risk for future offending and incarceration) or including a
large number of families with known correlates of incarceration,
perhaps living in high risk neighborhoods.
A new prospective study might be combined with an experi-
mental intervention aimed at reducing the risk of future parental
incarceration (Loeber & Farrington, 2008). For example, a cohort
of convicted parents receiving noncustodial sentences could be
randomly assigned to receive additional employment programs,
drug rehabilitation programs, cognitive behavioral therapy (aimed
at reducing the chances of future offending and incarceration), or
services as usual. Combining such experimental interventions with
a longitudinal study would provide the opportunity to study effects
of incarceration as it naturally occurs (in quasiexperimental anal-
yses) while also gaining direct knowledge about the effects of
prevention programs aimed at reducing incarceration.
From the start of a new prospective study, detailed assessment
of multiple influences on child development should be conducted,
including careful examination of children’s individual character-
istics, relationships with their parents and significant others, pa-
rental antisocial behavior and mental health, parenting behaviors,
caretaker arrangements, and children’s wider social environment.
Children with incarcerated parents and comparison children should
be matched (for example, using propensity scores, Rosenbaum &
Rubin, 1983) on a wide range of confounding variables that are
measured before incarceration. In quasiexperimental analyses,
changes in outcomes should be compared between children who
experience parental incarceration and carefully matched controls
(Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). It is essential that confound-
ing variables and moderating variables are measured before incar-
ceration and that mediating variables are measured after parental
incarceration so that their distinct effects can be estimated appro-
priately (Kraemer, Lowe, & Kupfer, 2005).
Policy and Practice Considerations
If evidence continues to point toward possible adverse effects of
parental incarceration on children’s antisocial behavior, interven-
tion programs should be considered to prevent these effects. In-
tervention programs should be designed based on evidence about
the key mediating mechanisms linking parental incarceration and
youth problem behavior (Murray & Farrington, 2006). Currently,
the evidence base is too weak to draw strong conclusions about the
kinds of interventions that might be most effective for children
with incarcerated parents. The provision of parenting programs in
U.S. prisons is sporadic, and those used tend to have little scientific
basis. However, there are ongoing efforts to develop and rigor-
ously test prison parenting programs that address the unique needs
of incarcerated parents and their families (Eddy et al., 2008).
Mentoring programs for children of incarcerated parents have been
given considerable support from the U.S. Congress but have not
been evaluated in randomized experiments (Zwiebach, Rhodes, &
Dun Rappaport, 2010). Several policy initiatives have been sug-
gested as possible ways to reduce the stigma experienced by
children with incarcerated parents, as well as by prisoners them-
selves (Murray & Farrington, 2006). These include prohibition of
the public identification of offenders, not only before conviction
but also afterward (Petersilia, 2003, pp. 215–216; Walker, 1980),
diversion of offenders away from courts to restorative justice
conferences (Braithwaite, 1999; Sherman et al., 2005), and in-
creased use of community services that emphasize the positive
contributions that ex-offenders can make to the community (Clear,
Rose, & Ryder, 2001; Maruna & LeBel, 2002, p. 167). However,
little or no research has been conducted on how such policies
might actually change outcomes for children.
Conclusion
The number of children experiencing parental incarceration in
countries like the United States is unprecedented. Identifying and
understanding the possible effects on children is of great impor-
tance. It is clear that children with incarcerated parents are at
increased risk for antisocial behavior compared with their peers.
However, relatively little is known about the causal effects of
parental incarceration on children. This topic warrants large-scale
investment to understand why children develop undesirable out-
comes after parental incarceration and identify how harmful ef-
fects can be prevented.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
*Aaron, L., & Dallaire, D. H. (2010). Parental incarceration and multiple
risk experiences: Effects on family dynamics and children’s delin-
quency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1471–1484. doi:10.1007/
s10964-009-9458-0
*Allegheny County Department of Human Services. (2008). Children of
incarcerated parents. Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
Amato, P. R. (1993). Children’s adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypoth-
eses, and empirical support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55,
23–38. doi:10.2307/352954
Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the
Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology,
15, 355–370. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.355
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991a). Parental divorce and adult well-being:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 43–58.
doi:10.2307/353132
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991b). Parental divorce and the well-being of
children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.26
Amato, P. R., Meyers, C. E., & Emery, R. E. (2009). Changes in nonres-
193
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ident father–child contact from 1976 to 2002. Family Relations, 58,
41–53. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2008.00533.x
Aneshensel, C. S., Rutter, C. M., & Lachenbruch, P. A. (1991). Social
structure, stress, and mental health: Competing conceptual and analytic
models. American Sociological Review, 56, 166–178. doi:10.2307/
2095777
Arditti, J. A. (2005). Families and incarceration: An ecological approach.
Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86,
251–260. Retrieved from http://www.familiesinsociety.org/
Arditti, J. A., Smock, S. A., & Parkman, T. (2005). “It’s been hard to be
a father”: A qualitative exploration of incarcerated fatherhood. Father-
ing, 3, 267–288. doi:10.3149/fth.0303.267
Barton, W. H., & Butts, J. A. (1990). Viable options: Intensive supervision
programs for juvenile delinquents. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 238–
256. doi:10.1177/0011128790036002004
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New
York, NY: Free Press.
Bergman, G. R. (1976). The evaluation of an experimental program
designed to reduce recidivism among second felony criminal offenders.
Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.
*Besemer, S., van der Geest, V., Murray, J., Bijleveld, C. C. J. H., &
Farrington, D. P. (2011). The relationship between parental imprison-
ment and offspring offending in England and the Netherlands. The
British Journal of Criminology, 51, 413–437. doi:10.1093/bjc/azq072
Bocknek, E., Sanderson, J., & Britner, P. (2009). Ambiguous loss and
posttraumatic stress in school-age children of prisoners. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 18, 323–333. doi:10.1007/s10826-008-9233-y
*Bor, W., McGee, T. R., & Fagan, A. A. (2004). Early risk factors for
adolescent antisocial behavior: An Australian longitudinal study. Aus-
tralian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 365–372. doi:
10.1080/j.1440-1614.2004.01365.x
Boswell, G. (2002). Imprisoned fathers: The children’s view. Howard
Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 14–26. doi:10.1111/1468-2311.00222
Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pes-
simistic accounts. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of
research (Vol. 25, pp. 1–127). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Retrieved from http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/series/
CJ.html
Braman, D. (2004). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family
life in urban America. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
*Brazzell, D. (2008). Using local data to explore the experiences and
needs of children of incarcerated parents. Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.
Bretherton, I. (1997). Bowlby’s legacy to developmental psychology.
Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 28, 33–43. doi:10.1023/A:
1025193002462
*Bryant, E. S., & Rivard, J. C. (1995). Correlates of major and minor
offending among youth with severe emotional disturbance. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 3, 76–84. doi:10.1177/
106342669500300202
*Carter, K., & Dallaire, D. (2009). The relationship between delinquent
behavior, adolescent–parent relationships and intergenerational cycles
of crime (Master’s thesis).The College of William and Mary, Williams-
burg, VA.
Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration
makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Clear, T. R., Rose, D. R., & Ryder, J. A. (2001). Incarceration and the
community: The problem of removing and returning offenders. Crime
and Delinquency, 47, 335–351. doi:10.1177/0011128701047003003
Cohen, P. (1996). Childhood risks for young adult symptoms of personality
disorder: Method and substance. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 31,
121–148. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3101_7
Condry, R. (2007). Families shamed: The consequences of crime for
relatives of serious offenders. Collumpton, England: Willan.
*Cox, M. (2009). The relationships between episodes of parental incar-
ceration and students’ psycho-social and educational outcomes: An
analysis of risk factors (Doctoral dissertation).Temple University, Phil-
adelphia, PA.
*Craigie, T. (2009). Empirical essays in family structure and early child
outcomes (Doctoral dissertation).Michigan State University, East Lan-
sing, Michigan.
*Crowe, R. R. (1972). The adopted offspring of women criminal offenders:
A study of their arrest records. Archives of General Psychiatry, 27,
600–603. Retrieved from http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/
*Crowe, R. R. (1974). An adoption study of antisocial personality. Ar-
chives of General Psychiatry, 31, 785–791. Retrieved from http://
archpsyc.ama-assn.org/.
*Crowe, R. R. (1975). An adoptive study of psychopathy: Preliminary
results from arrest records and psychiatric hospital records. In R. R.
Fieve, D. Rosenthal, & H. Brill (Eds.), Genetic research in psychiatry
(pp. 95–103). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Cunningham, A., & Baker, L. (2003). Waiting for Mommy: Giving a voice
to the hidden victims of imprisonment. London, Canada: Centre for
Children and Families in the Justice System.
Dallaire, D. H. (2007). Children with incarcerated mothers: Developmental
outcomes, special challenges, and recommendations. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 28, 15–24. doi:10.1016/j.appdev
.2006.10.003
*Dallaire, D., Wilson, L. C., & Ciccone, A. (2009). Representations of
attachment relationships in family drawings of children with incarcer-
ated parents. Poster session presented at the Biennial Meeting of the
Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, CO.
*Dallaire, D., & Zeman, J. L. (n.d.). Empathy as a protective factor for
children with incarcerated parents. Unpublished manuscript.
*Dannerbeck, A. M. (2003). Differences between delinquent youth with
and without a parental history of incarceration. School of Social Work,
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
*Dannerbeck, A. M. (2005). Differences in parenting attributes, experi-
ences, and behaviors of delinquent youth with and without a parental
history of incarceration. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3, 199–
213. doi:10.1177/1541204005276260
Derzon, J. (2010). The correspondence of family features with problem,
aggressive, criminal, and violent behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 6, 263–292. doi:10.1007/s11292-010-
9098-0
*Drabkin, A. S., Copeland, W. E., Costello, E. J., & Sikkema, K. J. (n.d.).
Effects of parental incarceration on likelihood of psychiatric disorder
and criminal behavior in youth: A longitudinal, population-based study.
Unpublished manuscript.
*Dyer, W. J. (2009). Investigating the various ways parental incarceration
affects children: An application of mixture regression (Doctoral dissera-
tion). University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL.
Eddy, J. M., Martinez, C. R., Schiffmann, T., Newton, R., Olin, L., Leve,
L., . . . Short, J. W. (2008). Development of a multisystemic parent
management training intervention for incarcerated parents, their chil-
dren, and families. Clinical Psychologist, 12, 86–98. doi:10.1080/
13284200802495461
Eddy, J. M., & Poehlmann, J. (2010). Children of incarcerated parents: A
handbook for researchers and practitioners. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.
Eddy, J. M., & Reid, J. B. (2003). The adolescent children of incarcerated
parents. In J. Travis & M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The
impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and commu-
nities (pp. 233–258). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Emery, R. E. (1999). Marriage, divorce, and children’s adjustment (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
194 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
*Evens, C. C., & Stoep, A. V. (1997). II. Risk factors for juvenile justice
system referral among children in a public mental health system. Journal
of Mental Health Administration, 24, 443–455. doi:10.1007/
BF02790505
Farrington, D. P., & Murray, J. (Eds.). (in press). Labeling theory: Empir-
ical tests: Vol. 18: Advances in criminological theory. New Brunswick,
NJ: Trans-Action.
Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2007). Saving children from a life of
crime: Early risk factors and effective interventions. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Fishman, S. H. (1983). The impact of incarceration on children of offend-
ers. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 15, 89–99. doi:
10.1300/J274v15n01_11
*Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2007). Incarceration and intergenerational social
exclusion. Social Problems, 54, 399– 433. doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.4.399
*Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2009). The mass incarceration of parents in
America: Issues of race/ethnicity, collateral damage to children, and
prisoner reentry. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 623, 179–194. doi:10.1177/0002716208331123
Friedman, S., & Esselstyn, T. C. (1965). The adjustment of children of jail
inmates. Federal Probation, 29, 55–59. Retrieved from http://
www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/ProbationPretrialServices/Federal
ProbationJournal.aspx
Gabel, K., & Johnston, D. (Eds.). (1995). Children of incarcerated parents.
New York, NY: Lexington Books.
Gabel, S. (2003). Behavioral problems in sons of incarcerated or otherwise
absent fathers: The issue of separation. In O. Harris & R. R. Miller
(Eds.), Impacts of incarceration on the African American family (pp.
105–119). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
*Gabel, S., & Shindledecker, R. (1992). Incarceration in parents of day
hospital youth: Relationship to parental substance abuse and suspected
child abuse/maltreatment. International Journal of Partial Hospitaliza-
tion, 8, 77–87.
*Gabel, S., & Shindledecker, R. (1993). Characteristics of children whose
parents have been incarcerated. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 44,
656–660.
*Garfinkel, I., Geller, A., & Cooper, C. (2008). Parental incarceration and
child wellbeing in Fragile Families: Summary of five-year findings.
Unpublished manuscript.
*Geller, A., Cooper, C. E., Garfinkel, I., Schwartz-Soicher, O., & Mincy,
R. B. (in press). Beyond absenteeism: Father incarceration and child
development. Demography.
*Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., Cooper, C. E., & Mincy, R. B. (2008). Parental
incarceration and child wellbeing: Implications for urban families
(Working Paper WP08–10-FF). Princeton, NJ: Bendheim-Thoman Cen-
ter for Research on Child Wellbeing, Princeton University, Princeton,
NJ.
*Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., Cooper, C. E., & Mincy, R. B. (2009). Parental
incarceration and child well-being: Implications for urban families.
Social Science Quarterly, 90, 1186–1202. doi:10.1111/j.1540-
6237.2009.00653.x
Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., & Western, B. (2011). Paternal incarceration and
support for children in Fragile Families. Demography, 48, 25–47. doi:
10.1007/s13524-010-0009-9
*Giordano, P. C. (2010). Legacies of crime: A follow-up of the children of
highly delinquent girls and boys. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Glaze, L. E. (2010). Correctional populations in the United States, 2009.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Bureau of Justice statistics
special report: Parents in prison and their minor children. Washington,
DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Goldberg, D., & Goodyer, I. (2005). The origins and course of common
mental disorders. London, England: Routledge.
*Gordon, L. (2009). Invisible children: First year research report. A study
of the children of prisoners. Christchurch, New Zealand: Pillars.
Guo, G., Roettger, M. E., & Cai, T. (2008). The integration of genetic
propensities into social-control models of delinquency and violence
among male youths. American Sociological Review, 73, 543–568. doi:
10.1177/000312240807300402
*Hagan, J., & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral consequences of impris-
onment for children, communities and prisoners. In M. Tonry & J.
Petersilia (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of research: Prisons (Vol.
26, pp. 121–162). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved
from http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/series/CJ.html
*Hagan, J., & Foster, H. (2009). Intergenerational school effects of mass
imprisonment in America. Unpublished manuscript.
Hairston, C. F. (1998). The forgotten parent: Understanding the forces that
influence incarcerated fathers’ relationships with their children. Child
Welfare Journal, 77, 617–639. Retrieved from http://www.cwla.org/
Harm, N. J., & Phillips, S. D. (1998). Helping children cope with the
trauma of parental arrest. Interdisciplinary Report on At-Risk Children
and Families, 1, 35–36.
Harris, O., & Miller, R. R. (Eds.). (2002). Impacts of incarceration on the
African American family. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Harris, Y. R., Graham, J. A., & Carpenter, G. J. O. (Eds.). (2010). Children
of incarcerated parents: Theoretical, developmental, and clinical issues.
New York, NY: Springer.
*Hayatbakhsh, M. R., Kinner, S. A., Jamrozik, K., Najman, J. M., &
Mamun, A. A. (2007). Maternal partner criminality and cannabis use in
young adulthood: Prospective study. Australian and New Zealand Jour-
nal of Psychiatry, 41, 546–553. doi:10.1080/00048670701341897
Henriques, Z. W. (1982). Imprisoned mothers and their children: A de-
scriptive and analytical study. Washington, DC: University Press of
America.
Hetherington, E. M., & Stanley-Hagan, M. (1999). The adjustment of
children with divorced parents: A risk and resiliency perspective. Jour-
nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 129–140. doi:10.1111/
1469-7610.00427
Hinshaw, S. P. (2002). Process, mechanism, and explanation related to
externalizing behavior in developmental psychopathology. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 431–446. doi:10.1023/A:
1019808712868
*Huebner, B. M., & Gustafson, R. (2007). The effect of maternal incar-
ceration on adult offspring involvement in the criminal justice system.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 283–296. doi:10.1016/j.jcrim-
jus.2007.03.005
*Johanson, E. (1974). Background and development of youth-prison in-
mates: A long-term, follow-up study of 128 consecutive inmates and of
a control group. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine. Supplemen-
tum, 9, 1–290. Retrieved from http://sjp.sagepub.com/
Johnson, E. I., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Parental incarceration: Recent
trends and implications for child welfare. The Social Service Review, 76,
460–479. doi:10.1086/341184
Johnson, E. I., & Waldfogel, J. (2004). Children of incarcerated parents:
Multiple risks and children’s living arrangements. In M. Pattillo, D.
Weiman, & B. Western (Eds.), Imprisoning America: The social effects
of mass incarceration (pp. 97–131). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
*Johnson, R. (2009). Ever-increasing levels of parental incarceration and
the consequences for children. In S. Raphael & M. Stoll (Eds.), Do
prisons make us safer? The benefits and costs of the prison boom (pp.
177–206). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Johnston, D. (1995). Effects of parental incarceration. In K. Gabel & D.
Johnston (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 59–88). New
York, NY: Lexington Books.
Kampfner, C. J. (1995). Post-traumatic stress reactions in children of
imprisoned mothers. In K. Gabel & D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of
incarcerated parents (pp. 89–102). New York, NY: Lexington Books.
195
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
*Kandel, E., Mednick, S. A., Kirkegaard-Sorensen, L., Hutchings, B.,
Knop, J., Rosenberg, R., & Schulsinger, F. (1988). IQ as a protective
factor for subjects at high risk for antisocial behavior. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 224–226. doi:10.1037/0022-
006X.56.2.224
Killias, M., Aebi, M. F., & Ribeaud, D. (2000). Does community service
rehabilitate better than short-term imprisonment? Results of a controlled
experiment. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 40–57. doi:
10.1111/1468-2311.00152
Killias, M., Gillie´ron, G., Villard, F., & Poglia, C. (2010). How damaging
is imprisonment in the long-term? A controlled experiment comparing
long-term effects of community service and short custodial sentences on
re-offending and social integration. Journal of Experimental Criminol-
ogy, 6, 115–130. doi:10.1007/s11292-010-9093-5
Killias, M., & Villetaz, P. (2008). The effects of custodial vs. non-custodial
sanctions on reoffending: Lessons from a systematic review. Psico-
thema, 20, 29–34. Retrieved from http://www.psicothema.es/
*Kinner, S. A., Alati, R., Najman, J. M., & Williams, G. M. (2007). Do
paternal arrest and imprisonment lead to child behavior problems and
substance use? A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 48, 1148–1156. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01785.x
*Kjellstrand, J. M. (2009). Children with incarcerated parents: A longi-
tudinal study of the effect of parental incarceration on adolescent
externalizing behaviors (Doctoral disseration). Portland State Univer-
sity, Portland, OR.
*Kjellstrand, J. M., & Eddy, J. M. (2011a). Mediators of the effect of
parental incarceration on adolescent externalizing behaviors. Journal of
Community Psychology, 39, 551–565. doi:10.1002/jcop.20451
*Kjellstrand, J. M., & Eddy, J. M. (2011b). Parental incarceration during
childhood, family context, and youth problem behavior across adoles-
cence. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 18–36. doi:10.1080/
10509674.2011.536720
Kobak, R. (1999). The emotional dynamics of disruptions in attachment
relationships: Implications for theory, research, and clinical intervention.
In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research and clinical applications (pp. 21–43). New York, NY: Guil-
ford Press.
Kraemer, H. C., Lowe, K. K., & Kupfer, D. J. (2005). To your health: How
to understand what research tells us about risk. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Lemert, E. M. (1967). Human deviance, social problems, and social
control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Liebling, A., & Maruna, S. (Eds.). (2005). The effects of imprisonment.
Cullompton, England: Willan.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Advancing knowledge about causes
in longitudinal studies: Experimental and quasi-experimental methods.
In A. M. Liberman (Ed.), The long view of crime: A synthesis of
longitudinal research (pp. 257–279). New York, NY: Springer. doi:
10.1007/978-0-387-71165-2_8
Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & van Kammen,
W. B. (1998). Antisocial behavior and mental health problems: Explan-
atory factors in childhood and adolescence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Maruna, S., & LeBel, T. P. (2002). Revisiting ex-prisoner re-entry: A
buzzword in search of a narrative. In S. Rex & M. Tonry (Eds.), Reform
and punishment: The future of sentencing (pp. 158–180). Cullompton,
England: Willan.
Matthews, J. (1983). Forgotten victims: How prison affects the family.
London, England: National Association for the Care and Resettlement of
Offenders.
McCubbin, H. I., Dahl, B. B., Lester, G. R., & Ross, B. (1977). The
prisoner of war and his children: Evidence for the origin of second
generational effects of captivity. International Journal of Sociology of
the Family, 7, 25–36.
McDermott, K., & King, R. D. (1992). Prison rule 102: Stand by your man.
In R. Shaw (Ed.), Prisoners’ children: What are the issues? (pp. 50–73).
London, England: Routledge.
*Mednick, S. A., & Kandel, E. (1988). Genetic and perinatal factors in
violence. In T. E. Moffitt & S. A. Mednick (Eds.), Biological contribu-
tions to crime causation (pp. 121–131). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Martinus Nijhoff.
*Moerk, E. L. (1973). Like father like son: Imprisonment of fathers and the
psychological adjustment of sons. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2,
303–312. doi:10.1007/BF02213702
Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2006). Evidence from behavioral genetics for
environmental contributions to antisocial conduct. In P.-O. H. Wikström
& R. J. Sampson (Eds.), The explanation of crime: Context, mechanisms
and development (pp. 108–152). Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Morris, P. (1965). Prisoners and their families. Woking, England: Unwin
Brothers.
Murray, J. (2005). The effects of imprisonment on families and children of
prisoners. In A. Liebling & S. Maruna (Eds.), The effects of imprison-
ment (pp. 442–492). Cullompton, England: Willan.
*Murray, J. (2006). Parental imprisonment: Effects on children’s antiso-
cial behaviour and mental health through the life-course (Doctoral
dissertation). University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
Murray, J. (2007). The cycle of punishment: Social exclusion of prisoners
and their children. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 7, 55–81. doi:
10.1177/1748895807072476
Murray, J. (2010). Longitudinal research on the effects of parental incar-
ceration on children. In J. M. Eddy & J. Poehlmann (Eds.), Children of
incarcerated parents: A handbook for researchers and practitioners (pp.
55–73). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
*Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Parental imprisonment: Effects on
boys’ antisocial behaviour and delinquency through the life-course.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1269–1278. doi:
10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01433.x
Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Evidence-based programs for
children of prisoners. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 721–735. doi:
10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00412.x
*Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2008a). The effects of parental impris-
onment on children. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of
research (Vol. 37, pp. 133–206). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press. Retrieved from http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/series/
CJ.html
*Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2008b). Parental imprisonment: Long-
lasting effects on boys’ internalizing problems through the life-course.
Development and Psychopathology, 20, 273–290. doi:10.1017/
S0954579408000138
Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., & Eisner, M. P. (2009). Drawing conclusions
about causes from systematic reviews of risk factors: The Cambridge
Quality Checklists. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5, 1–23. doi:
10.1007/s11292-008-9066-0
Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., Sekol, I., & Olsen, R. F. (2009). Effects of
parental imprisonment on child antisocial behaviour and mental health:
A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 4. doi:10.4073/
csr.2009.4
*Murray, J., Janson, C.-G., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Crime in adult
offspring of prisoners: A cross-national comparison of two longitudinal
samples. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 133–149. doi:10.1177/
0093854806289549
*Murray, J., Loeber, R., & Pardini, D. (in press). Parental involvement in
the criminal justice system and the development of youth theft, depres-
sion, marijuana use, and poor academic performance. Criminology.
Murray, J., & Murray, L. (2010). Parental incarceration, attachment and
196 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
child psychopathology. Attachment & Human Development, 12, 289–
309. doi:10.1080/14751790903416889
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
Najafi, M., Akochkian, S., & Nikyar, H. R. (2007). Being child of prisoners
of war: The case of mental health status. Iranian Journal of Pediatrics,
18, 154–158. Retrieved from http://journals.tums.ac.ir/abs/8012
Naudeau, S. (2005). Positive development among children of incarcerated
parents: A focus on character (Doctoral disseration). Tufts University,
Medford/Somerville, MA.
*Neal, M. F. (2009). Evaluating the school performance of elementary and
middle school children of incarcerated parents (Doctoral disseration).
East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN.
Nesmith, A., & Ruhland, E. (2008). Children of incarcerated parents:
Challenges and resiliency, in their own words. Children and Youth
Services Review, 30, 1119–1130. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth
.2008.02.006
Nijnatten, C. (1998). Detention and development: Perspectives of children
of prisoners. Mönchengladbach, Germany: Forum Verlag Godesberg.
*Osborn, S. G., & West, D. J. (1979). Conviction records of fathers and
sons compared. The British Journal of Criminology, 19, 120–133.
Retrieved from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/.
Pager, D., Western, B., & Sugie, N. (2009). Sequencing disadvantage:
Barriers to employment facing young Black and White men with crim-
inal records. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 623, 195–213. doi:10.1177/0002716208330793
*Pakiz, B., Reinherz, H. Z., & Giaconia, R. M. (1997). Early risk factors
for serious antisocial behavior at age 21: A longitudinal community
study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 92–101. doi:10.1037/
h0080214
Parke, R., & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2003). The effects of parental incar-
ceration on children: Perspectives, promises, and policies. In J. Travis &
M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration
and reentry on children, families, and communities (pp. 189–232).
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Pellegrini, A. M. (1996). Children coping with a father in prison: Psycho-
logical tasks. Paper presented at the NEPACS The Child and the Prison
conference, Grey College, Durham, England.
*Peniston, D. A. (2006). The effects of parental incarceration on children:
An examination of delinquency and criminality, school performance and
alcohol and drug usage (Master’s thesis). University of Texas at Ar-
lington, Arlington.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner
reentry. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Petersilia, J. (2005). From cell to society: Who is returning home? In J.
Travis & C. Visher (Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp.
15–49). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
*Phillips, S. D., Burns, B. J., Wagner, H. R., Kramer, T. L., & Robbins,
J. M. (2002). Parental incarceration among adolescents receiving mental
health services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 385–399.
doi:10.1023/A:1020975106679
Phillips, S. D., & Gates, T. (2011). A conceptual framework for under-
standing the stigmatization of children of incarcerated parents. Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 20, 286–294. doi:10.1007/s10826-010-
9391-6
Phillips, S. D., & Zhao, J. (2010). The relationship between witnessing
arrests and elevated symptoms of posttraumatic stress: Findings from a
national study of children involved in the child welfare system. Children
and Youth Services Review, 32, 1246–1254. doi:10.1016/j.childy-
outh.2010.04.015
Poehlmann, J. (2005). Representations of attachment relationships in chil-
dren of incarcerated mothers. Child Development, 76, 679–696. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00871.x
Poehlmann, J. (2010). Attachment in children of incarcerated parents. In
J. M. Eddy & J. Poehlmann (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents: A
handbook for researchers and practitioners (pp. 75–100). Washington,
DC: Urban Institute.
Poehlmann, J., Dallaire, D., Loper, A. B., & Shear, L. D. (2010). Chil-
dren’s contact with their incarcerated parents: Research findings and
recommendations. American Psychologist, 65, 575–598. doi:10.1037/
a0020279
*Poehlmann, J., Park, J., Bouffiou, L., Joshua, A., Shlafer, R., & Hahn, E.
(2008). Representations of family relationships in children living with
custodial grandparents. Attachment & Human Development, 10, 165–
188. doi:10.1080/14616730802113695
Ramiro, L. S., Madrid, B. J., & Brown, D. W. (2010). Adverse childhood
experiences (ACE) and health-risk behaviors among adults in a devel-
oping country setting. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 842–855. doi:
10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.02.012
Richards, M. (1992). The separation of children and parents: Some issues
and problems. In R. Shaw (Ed.), Prisoners’ children: What are the
issues? (pp. 3–12). London, England: Routledge.
Richards, M., McWilliams, B., Allcock, L., Enterkin, J., Owens, P., &
Woodrow, J. (1994). The family ties of English prisoners: The results of
the Cambridge project on imprisonment and family ties. Centre for
Family Research, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
Robertson, O. (2007). The impact of parental imprisonment on children.
Geneva, Switzerland: Quakers United Nations Office.
Rodgers, B., & Pryor, J. (1998). Divorce and separation: The outcomes for
children. York, England: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
*Roettger, M. E. (2008). Three essays on social inequality and the U.S.
Criminal justice system (Master’s thesis). University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
*Roettger, M. E. (2009). Paternal incarceration and adversity in young
adulthood. Corrections Today, 71, 18–20. Retrieved from http://
www.aca.org/publications/ctmagazine.asp
*Roettger, M. E. (n.d.). Associations of father’s history of incarceration
with delinquency and arrest among Black, White, and Hispanic males in
the U.S., ages 12–25. Unpublished manuscript.
*Roettger, M. E., & Swisher, R. R. (2008). Racial and ethnic variations in
associations of fathers’ incarceration with sons’ delinquency and arrest.
Unpublished manuscript.
*Roettger, M. E., Swisher, R. R., Kuhl, D. C., & Chavez, J. (2011).
Paternal incarceration and trajectories of marijuana and other illegal
drug use from adolescence into young adulthood: Evidence from longi-
tudinal panels of males and females in the United States. Addiction, 106,
121–132. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03110.x
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propen-
sity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70,
41–55. doi:10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
Rutter, M., Giller, H., & Hagell, A. (1998). Antisocial behavior by young
people. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sack, W. H. (1977). Children of imprisoned fathers. Psychiatry, 40, 163–
174.
Sack, W. H., & Seidler, J. (1978). Should children visit their parents in
prison? Law and Human Behavior, 2, 261–266. doi:10.1007/
BF01039083
Sack, W. H., Seidler, J., & Thomas, S. (1976). The children of imprisoned
parents: A psychosocial exploration. American Journal of Orthopsychi-
atry, 46, 618–628. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1976.tb00960.x
*Sarri, R. C., Ng, I., Stoffregen, E., & Shook, J. (2011). Intergenerational
incarceration: Risk factors and social exclusion. Unpublished manu-
script.
Schneider, A. L. (1986). Restitution and recidivism rates of juvenile
offenders: Results from four experimental studies. Criminology, 24,
533–552. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1986.tb00389.x
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and
197
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston,
MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Sharp, S. F., Marcus-Mendoza, S. T., Bentley, R. G., Simpson, D. B., &
Love, S. R. (1997/1998). Gender difference in the impact of incarcera-
tion on the children and families of drug offenders. Journal of the
Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, 4. Retrieved from
http://www.doc.state.ok.us/offenders/ocjrc/index.htm
Shaw, R. (1987). Children of imprisoned fathers. London, England: Hod-
der and Stoughton.
Shaw, R. (1992a). Imprisoned fathers and the orphans of justice. In R.
Shaw (Ed.), Prisoners’ children: What are the issues? (pp. 41–49).
London, England: Routledge.
Shaw, R. (Ed.). (1992b). Prisoners’ children: What are the issues? Lon-
don, England: Routledge.
Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Angel, C., Woods, D., Barnes, G. C., Bennett,
S., & Inkpen, N. (2005). Effects of face-to-face restorative justice on
victims of crime in four randomized, controlled trials. Journal of Ex-
perimental Criminology, 1, 367–395. doi:10.1007/s11292-005-8126-y
*Siegel, J. A., & Marano, D. (2008). Victimization and delinquency in an
at-risk population of youth. Paper presented at the International Family
Violence Research Conference, Portsmouth, NH.
Sigle-Rushton, W., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Father absence and child
wellbeing: A critical review. In D. P. Moynihan, L. Rainwater, & T.
Smeeding (Eds.), The future of the family (pp. 116–155). New York,
NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Skinner, D., & Swartz, L. (1989). The consequences for preschool children
of a parent’s detention: A preliminary South African clinical study of
caregivers’ reports. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30,
243–259. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1989.tb00238.x
*Stanton, A. M. (1980). When mothers go to jail. Lexington, MA: Lex-
ington Books.
*Stroble, W. L. (1997). The relationship between parental incarceration
and African-American high school students’ attitudes towards school
and family (Doctor’s disseration). College of William and Mary, Wil-
liamsburg, VA.
*Swisher, R., & Roettger, M. E. (2011). Father’s incarceration and youth
delinquency and depression: Examining differences by race/ethnicity.
Unpublished manuscript.
*Tasca, M., Rodriguez, N., & Zatz, M. S. (2011). Family and residential
instability in the context of paternal and maternal incarceration. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 38, 231–247. doi:10.1177/0093854810391632
Tonry, M. & J. Petersilia, J. (Eds.). (1999). Crime and justice: A review of
research:Vol. 26. Prisons. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Travis, J., & Waul, M. (Eds.). (2003). Prisoners once removed: The impact
of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
*Trice, A. D., & Brewster, J. (2004). The effects of maternal incarceration
on adolescent children. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 19,
27–35. doi:10.1007/BF02802572
Uggen, C., Wakefield, S., & Western, B. (2005). Work and family per-
spectives on reentry. In J. Travis & C. Visher (Eds.), Prisoner reentry
and crime in America (pp. 209–243). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
*van der Rakt, M. (2010). Two generations of crime: The intergenerational
transmission of criminal convictions (Doctoral disseration). Radboud
University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
*van der Rakt, M., Murray, J., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (in press). The long-term
effects of paternal imprisonment on criminal trajectories of children.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. doi:10.1177/
0022427810393018
*Wakefield, S. (2007). The consequences of incarceration for parents and chil-
dren (Doctoral disseration). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
*Wakefield, S. (n.d.). Parental disruption of another sort? Bringing pa-
rental imprisonment into a model of children’s mental health and
well-being. Unpublished manuscript.
*Wakefield, S., & Wildeman, C. (2011). Mass imprisonment and racial
disparities in childhood behavioral problems. Criminology & Public
Policy, 10, 793–817. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00740.x
Walker, N. (1980). Punishment, danger, and stigma: The morality of
criminal justice. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Walker, N. (1983). Side-effects of incarceration. The British Journal of
Criminology, 23, 61–71. Retrieved from http://bjc.oxfordjournals.org/.
Walmsley, R. (2009). World prison population list (8th ed.). London,
England: International Centre for Prison Studies, Kings College London.
*Wilbur, M. B., Marani, J. E., Appugliese, D., Woods, R., Siegel, J. A.,
Cabral, H. J., & Frank, D. (2007). Socioemotional effects of fathers’
incarceration on low-income, urban, school-aged children. Pediatrics,
120, e678–e685. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2166
*Wildeman, C. (2008). Paternal incarceration and children’s physically
aggressive behaviors: Evidence from the Fragile Families and Child
Wellbeing Study. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Aage Sørensen
Memorial Conference (New Frontiers in Research on Inequality and
Social Exclusion) Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Wildeman, C. (2009). Paternal incarceration, the prison boom, and the
concentration of disadvantage. Demography, 46, 265–280. doi:10.1353/
dem.0.0052
*Wildeman, C. (2010). Paternal incarceration and children’s physically aggressive
behaviors: Evidence from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study.
Social Forces, 89, 285–309. doi:10.1353/sof.2010.0055
*Wintfield, J. R. (2008). Children of incarcerated mothers: The effect of
maternal incarceration on child cognitive, behavioral and educational
outcomes (Master’s thesis). Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Zwiebach, L., Rhodes, J. E., & Dun Rappaport, C. D. (2010). Mentoring
interventions for children of incarcerated parents. In J. M. Eddy & J.
Poehlmann (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents: A handbook for
researchers and practitioners (pp. 217–236). Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.
198 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Appendix
Table of Studies Included in the Review
Study Location
Sample (age, in years,
of children at start of
study) Children with incarcerated
parents (CIP) Comparison children (CC) Covariates controlled for
in statistical analyses Child outcome
(age, in years, at outcome) Effect size
(OR)
Aaron & Dallaire
(2010):
Children at
Risk (see also,
Peniston,
2006)
Austin, TX;
Bridgeport, CT;
Memphis, TN;
Seattle, WA;
Savannah, GA
Boys/girls with
personal/family risk
factors, randomly
assigned to 3
interventions or no
treatment (10–14)
15 with parent incarcerated
in 2 years between
baseline & follow up
355 in the same study. No
significant differences
from CIP in child sex,
age, parent gender, 8
risk indicators, sibling
delinquency, and family
environment scales. CIP
more likely than CC to
have parent drug
problem, family
financial problems, and
family criminal
victimization
Child age, sex, and
intervention-control
status; caretaker sex;
prior parental
incarceration; family
conflict and family
victimization; risk
score (summarizing
child ethnic minority;
parental absence,
unemployment,
education, and drug
use; family financial
problems; large
family)
Delinquency
(12–16) 2.5
Aaron & Dallaire
(2010):
Children at
Risk: Sibling
sample
Austin, TX;
Bridgeport, CT;
Memphis, TN;
Seattle, WA;
Savannah, GA
Older siblings of main
study participants,
as described above
(10⫹)
8 with parent incarcerated
in 2 years between
baseline and follow up
236 older siblings in same
study Main subject child age,
sex, and intervention-
control status;
caretaker sex; prior
parental incarceration;
family conflict and
family victimization;
risk score
(summarizing main
child ethnic minority;
parental absence,
unemployment,
education, and drug
use; family financial
problems; large
family)
Delinquency
(10⫹)1.5
Allegheny
County
Department of
Human
Services
(2008; see
also, Brazzell,
2008)
Allegheny County,
PA Boys/girls entering
foster care for first
time (0–18)
699 with mother
incarcerated at unknown
age
3,401 with first foster care
placement at the same
time as CIP (2001–
2004). No significant
differences in sex or
race, but CC are
younger than CIP, and
mothers are less likely
to have used drugs/
alcohol and mental
health services
None Juvenile justice
involvement
(12–17)
1.2
Mental health service use
(0–18) 0.7
a
Drug/alcohol treatment use
(5–17) 0.7
a
(Appendix continues)
199
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Appendix (continued)
Study Location
Sample (age, in years,
of children at start of
study)
Children with
incarcerated parents
(CIP) Comparison children (CC) Covariates controlled for in
statistical analyses Child outcome (age,
in years, at outcome) Effect size
(OR)
Besemer et al.
(2011):
Cambridge
Study in
Delinquent
Development:
Sibling sample
London, England Brothers and sisters of
main study boys.
Born between 1946
and 1962 and living
in south London in
1962 (0–16)
103 with father/mother
incarcerated
between birth and
age 18 years
111 with father/mother convicted
between birth and age 18 but not
incarcerated
Boys only: risk score
(summarizing family
socioeconomic class, low
family income, large family
size, teen mother at birth of
first child, parental conflict,
parents’ interest in
education, and poor job
record of father)
Convicted
(19–40) 1.2 boys
1.7 girls
Besemer et al.
(2011):
Transfive
National, the
Netherlands Boys/girls born between
1946 and 1962 and
descendants of boys
born in 1899 and sent
to a reform school
(0–16)
82 with father/mother
incarcerated
between birth and
age 18 years
87 with father/mother convicted
between birth and age 18 but not
incarcerated
None Convicted
(19–40) 0.4 boys
1.2 girls
Bryant & Rivard
(1995) South Carolina Boys/girls in social and
mental health services
(5–17)
66 with father/mother
incarcerated at
unknown age
114 in same clinics as CIP Child age, clinic treatment
service level, sibling
incarceration, and child ran
away from home
Juvenile justice
contact
(5–17)
2.5
Carter & Dallaire
(2009) Williamsburg, VA Boys/girls in a juvenile
detention center (13–
17)
9 with father/mother
ever incarcerated 23 in same juvenile detention center
as CIP. Similar to CIP on 4
mother–child relationship
variables and father–child
alienation. CIP significantly
higher scores on father–child
relationship quality, trust and
communication, and family pride.
CC higher scores on emotional
distance
None Delinquency
(13–17) 0.7
Cox (2009):
Longitudinal
Study of Child
Abuse and
Neglect
Baltimore, MD;
Chicago, IL;
Seattle, WA;
San Diego, CA;
North Carolina
Boys/girls born 1986–
1994; in child
protection services,
foster care, or other
clinics; plus not high
risk control group (4)
305 with father/mother
incarcerated
between ages 4–9
305 in same cohort matched on
child sex, race, and high risk for
neglect
None Externalizing
(6–9)
Internalizing
(6–9)
Academic problems
(6–9)
1.3
1.0
1.0
Crowe (1972,
1974; 1975) Iowa Adopted boys/girls
followed up in
adulthood (15–46)
46 with mother
incarcerated soon
after birth
46 matched to CIP on age, sex,
race, and approximate age at time
of adoption. Very similar to CIP
on parental psychopathology in
the adoptive families,
socioeconomic status, and broken
homes
None Juvenile
incarceration/
Adult conviction
(15–46)
Clinical depression
(15–46)
Drug dependence
(15–46)
8.0
1.4
0.3
(Appendix continues)
200 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Appendix (continued)
Study Location
Sample (age, in years,
of children at start of
study) Children with incarcerated
parents (CIP) Comparison children (CC) Covariates controlled for in
statistical analyses Child outcome (age,
in years, at outcome) Effect size
(OR)
Dallaire &
Zeman (n.d.):
Main CC
comparison
Mid-Atlantic city
in the United
States
Boys/girls in
elementary schools
(7–11)
80 with father/mother
currently or previously
incarcerated
54 in same schools who
had never experienced a
separation from a
parent
None Aggressive behavior
(7–11) 3.1
a
Dallaire &
Zeman (n.d.):
CC separated
for other
reasons
Mid-Atlantic city
in the United
States
Boys/girls in
elementary schools
(7–11)
80 with father/mother
currently or previously
incarcerated
69 in same schools
currently or previously
separated from parents
for other
reasons—commonly
marital
separation/divorce and
parental work/family
commitments
None Aggressive behavior
(7–11) 1.7
Dallaire et al.
(2009) Southern city in
the United
States
Boys/girls recruited
via incarcerated
parents and faith
based support
groups (M⫽10,
SD ⫽3.7)
32 with father/mother
currently incarcerated
and in substance abuse
rehabilitation program
32 separated from parents
because of parental
divorce/separation, child
abandonment, or
substance
abuse/rehabilitation.
Recruited from faith-
based support groups in
same areas as CIP.
Similar to CIP in age,
sex, ethnicity, and
relation to absent
parent; negative life
events; 8 family
environment variables;
caregiver stress,
depression, warmth, and
hostility
None Rule breaking/
aggressive
(M⫽10)
Anxious/withdrawn/
depressed
(M⫽10)
1.0
0.9
Dannerbeck
(2003, 2005)
b
Missouri Boys/girls in juvenile
court (⬍21) 346 with parent
incarcerated at unknown
age
766 in same juvenile
courts as CIP. CC
parents less likely to
have mental disorder,
substance abuse history,
and effective parenting;
CC more likely to have
abuse, placement
history, young first
court referral, and
assault referral
For delinquency outcome only:
child sex, race, mental
health, academic perfor-
mance, school attendance,
substance abuse,
interpersonal skills, age at
first court referral, referral
for assault, prior out of
home placement, and child
abuse/neglect; parental
mental health, substance
abuse, ineffective parenting;
and peer influence
Prior delinquency
referrals
(⬍21)
Mental disorder
(⬍21)
Substance abuse
(⬍21)
Poor academic perfor-
mance
(⬍21)
1.1
1.3
1.5
a
1.3
a
(Appendix continues)
201
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Appendix (continued)
Study Location
Sample (age, in years,
of children at start of
study)
Children with
incarcerated parents
(CIP) Comparison children (CC) Covariates controlled for in
statistical analyses Child outcome (age,
in years, at outcome) Effect size
(OR)
Drabkin et al. (n.d.):
Great Smoky
Mountains Study:
Main CC
comparison
North Carolina Boys/girls in public
schools; oversample
of children with
high behavior
problem scores (9,
11, & 13)
313 with parent figure
ever incarcerated up
to age 16 years
1,012 in same cohorts
excluding children
whose parents had died.
No significant
differences between CC
and CIP on child sex or
race, but CIP more
likely to have low
socioeconomic status,
parental mental health
difficulties, and
physical or sexual
abuse
Child sex, race, low
socioeconomic status,
parental mental health
difficulties, and physical or
sexual abuse
Crime
(16–21)
Emotional disorder
(9–16 & 19–21)
Substance use
disorder
(9–16 & 19–21)
1.8
1.4
0.9
Drabkin et al. (n.d.):
Great Smoky
Mountains Study:
CC separated for
other reasons
North Carolina Boys/girls in public
schools; oversample
of children with
high behavior
problem scores (9,
11, & 13)
313 with any parent
figure ever
incarcerated up to
age 16 years
95 in same cohorts as CIP
whose parents had died.
CC and CIP similar in
child race, but CIP
more likely to be
female, have low
socioeconomic status,
parental mental health
difficulties, and
physical or sexual
abuse
Child sex, race, low
socioeconomic status,
parental mental health
difficulties, and physical or
sexual abuse
Crime
(16–21)
Emotional disorder
(9–16 & 19–21)
Substance use
disorder
(9–16 & 19–21)
2.7
2.7
1.8
Evens & Stoep
(1997) King County, WA Boys/girls entering
mental health
services (10–17)
124 with father/mother
or adoptive/foster
parents incarcerated
at unknown age
236 in the same age range
and entering same
mental health services
as CIP
History of physical abuse,
drug and alcohol use Police referrals
(10–17) 1.5
Gabel &
Shindledecker
(1992, 1993)
New York, NY Boys/girls treated at a
day hospital (5–12) 11 with father
incarcerated at
unknown age
20 in same age range and
treated at same day
hospital as CIP. CC not
significantly different in
race or child abuse but
less likely than CIP to
have parents with
substance abuse
None Delinquency
(5–12)
Internalizing
(5–12)
5.5 boys
1.6 girls
0.6 boys
0.6 girls
(Appendix continues)
202 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Appendix (continued)
Study Location
Sample (age, in years,
of children at start of
study)
Children with
incarcerated parents
(CIP) Comparison children (CC) Covariates controlled for in
statistical analyses Child outcome (age,
in years, at outcome) Effect
size (OR)
Geller et al. (in
press)
b
: Fragile
Families and
Child
Wellbeing
Study: Main
CC
comparison
(see also
Craigie, 2009;
Dyer, 2009;
Garfinkel et
al., 2008;
Geller et al.,
2008, 2009;
Wakefield &
Wildeman,
2011;
Wildeman,
2008, 2010)
20 cities in the
United States Boys/girls born to
mostly unmarried
mothers in 1998–
2000 (0)
577 with father
incarcerated
between ages 3
years and 5 years
(143 with mother
incarcerated
analyzed separately)
2,132 in same cohort as
CIP Child sex, birthweight, birth
order, and outcome scores
at age 3 years; prior
parental incarceration;
concurrent maternal
incarceration; parents
cohabiting at birth; father
and mother: race, immigrant
status, impulsivity,
cognitive score, age at
child’s birth, education,
employed, hard drug use,
and alcohol use;
father/mother lived with
both their parents at 15
years; maternal poverty,
health, domestic violence,
and smoked in pregnancy;
father’s income; maternal/
paternal grandmother
depression
Aggressive behavior
(5)
Internalizing
(5)
Verbal ability test
(5)
1.9
a
boys
1.4
a
girls
1.1 boys
0.9 girls
1.1 boys
1.0 girls
Geller et al. (in
press)
b
: Fragile
Families and
Child Well-
being Study:
CC separated
for other
reasons
20 cities in the
United States Boys/girls born to
mostly unmarried
mothers in 1998–
2000 (0)
577 with father
incarcerated
between ages 3
years and 5 years
1,339 in same cohort as
CIP with fathers absent
for reasons other than
incarceration
Child sex, birth weight, birth
order, and outcome scores
at age 3 years; prior
parental incarceration;
concurrent maternal
incarceration; parents
cohabiting at birth; father
and mother: race, immigrant
status, impulsivity,
cognitive score, age at
child’s birth, education,
employed, hard drug use,
and alcohol use;
father/mother lived with
both their parents at 15
years; maternal poverty,
health, domestic violence,
and smoked in pregnancy;
father’s income; maternal/
paternal grandmother
depression
Aggressive behavior
(5)
Internalizing
(5)
Verbal ability test
(5)
1.4
a
1.0
1.2
a
(Appendix continues)
203
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Appendix (continued)
Study Location
Sample (age, in years,
of children at start of
study)
Children with
incarcerated parents
(CIP) Comparison children (CC) Covariates controlled for in
statistical analyses Child outcome (age,
in years, at outcome) Effect size
(OR)
Giordano
(2010)
b
: Ohio
Life-Course
Study
Ohio Sons/daughters of
men/women
institutionalized as
adolescents in 1982
(8–22)
114 with father/mother
incarcerated at
unknown age
44 in same study as CIP Child sex, age, and ethnicity; parent
substance abuse, parent–child
attachment, and parental
monitoring
Delinquency
(8–22) 1.3
Gordon (2009)
Christchurch
Health and
Development
Study
Christchurch, New
Zealand Boys/girls born in
Christchurch in
1977 (0)
33 with parent ever
incarcerated up to
age 15 years
953 in same cohort as CIP None Arrested/convicted
(21–25)
Depression/ anxiety
disorder
(21–25)
Drug dependence
(21–25)
No educational
qualifications
(25)
2.6
a
1.6
2.6
a
4.3
a
Hagan & Foster
(2009)
National
Longitudinal
Study of
Adolescent
Health (see
also, Foster &
Hagan, 2007,
2009)
National, United
States Boys/girls in Grades
7–12 during 1994–
1995 school year
(12–18)
828 with father
incarcerated
between ages 0–12
years
12,977 in same study Child sex, race, age, and
delinquency; father education,
alcoholism, and smoking;
closeness with father; single
parent family; school rate of
paternal incarceration, single
parent families, household
income, crime, and student
attendance; school size,
urbanicity, number of teachers,
education level of teachers, and
public school status
Lower school grades
(cumulative to
2001–2002 school
year)
1.5
a
Hayatbakhsh et
al. (2007):
Mater
University
Study of
Pregnancy:
Main CC
comparison
Brisbane,
Australia Boys/girls born to
mothers pregnant in
Brisbane between
1981 ⫺1983 (0)
123 with father
(mother’s partner)
incarcerated up to
age 14 years
1,854 in the same cohort
as CIP whose mothers
had partners without
arrests at age 14 years
Child sex; child internalizing,
externalizing, smoking, and
alcohol use during adolescence;
maternal age, education,
depression, anxiety, smoking,
alcohol use, and marital
circumstances; mother–child
communication; family income
Cannabis use
(21) 1.1
Hayatbakhsh et
al. (2007):
Mater
University
Study of
Pregnancy: CC
separated for
other reasons
Brisbane,
Australia Boys/girls born to
mothers pregnant in
Brisbane between
1981–1983 (0)
123 with father
(mother’s partner)
incarcerated up to
age 14
248 in the same cohort as
CIP with single mothers
at age 14
None Cannabis use
(21) 0.9
(Appendix continues)
204 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Appendix (continued)
Study Location
Sample (age, in years,
of children at start of
study)
Children with
incarcerated parents
(CIP) Comparison children (CC) Covariates controlled for in
statistical analyses Child outcome (age,
in years, at outcome) Effect size
(OR)
Huebner &
Gustafson
(2007):
National
Longitudinal
Survey of
Youth (see
also, Wintfield,
2008)
National, United
States Sons/daughters of
nationally
representative
sample of women
aged 14–22 years
in 1978 (0)
31 with mother ever
incarcerated up to
ages 18–24 years
1,666 in the same cohort
as CIP. CC not
significantly different
from CIP in sex, race,
home environment,
parental supervision,
peer pressure, and
maternal years of
education. CIP more
likely than CC to have
mother: non-White,
adolescent, smoked in
pregnancy, absent, and
delinquent
Child age, sex, race,
delinquency, education;
maternal age, education,
delinquency, absence,
smoking during pregnancy;
parental supervision, home
environment, and peer
pressure
Convicted
(up to 18–24
years)
3.0
a
Johanson (1974) National, Sweden Imprisoned and
nonimprisoned men
born in the same
parish in Sweden
(19–23)
35 with father
incarcerated (and 4
with mother
incarcerated) at
unknown age
189 in same study as CIP None Incarceration
(19–23) 6.2
Johnson (2009):
Panel Study of
Income
Dynamics
National, United
States Boys/girls aged 0–12
years in 1997 in
nationally
representative
sample of families
recruited in 1968
(0–12)
⬃584 with
father/mother
incarcerated in one
of three age periods:
0–5 years, 6–11
years, 11–16 years
⬃3,750 in same cohort as
CIP Child sex, age, and race;
parental incarceration at
other ages, family member
alcohol problems,
religiosity, parental
education, mother married,
neighborhood quality, and
neighborhood policing for
drugs
Antisocial behavior
(3–17)
Internalizing
(3–17)
3.1
a
3.2
Kandel et al.
(1988): Danish
Cohort Study
(see also,
Mednick &
Kandel, 1988)
Copenhagen,
Denmark Boys born between
1936–1938 in
Copenhagen (0)
92 with father
incarcerated at
unknown age
513 in the same cohort as
CIP. Excluded boys
with minor offenses,
boys whose fathers had
only minor offenses,
and serious offenders
with no jail sentence
None Incarceration
(up to 34–36) 8.5
a
Kinner et al.
(2007): Mater
University
Study of
Pregnancy (see
also, Bor et
al., 2004)
Brisbane,
Australia Boys/girls born to
mothers pregnant in
Brisbane between
1981–1983 (0)
137 with father
(mother’s partner)
ever incarcerated up
to age 14 years
2,262 in the same cohort
as CIP Maternal age, education,
anxiety/depression, and
alcohol/tobacco use; family
income, dyadic adjustment,
domestic violence, and
parenting style
Antisocial behavior
(14)
Internalizing
(14)
1.3 boys
1.2 girls
1.1 boys
1.9 girls
(Appendix continues)
205
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Appendix (continued)
Study Location
Sample (age, in
years, of
children at start
of study)
Children with
incarcerated parents
(CIP) Comparison children (CC) Covariates controlled for in
statistical analyses Child outcome (age,
in years, at outcome) Effect size
(OR)
Kjellstrand (2009)
Linking Interests
of Families and
Teachers study
(see also,
Kjellstrand &
Eddy, 2011a,
2011b)
Eugene–
Springfield,
Oregon
Boys/girls in
1st and 5th
grades in
1991 and in
experimental
evaluation of
a school-
based
preventive
intervention
program (5–
10)
69 with father/mother
incarcerated
between birth and
age 10 years
602 in same cohort as CIP. CC parents
less likely than CIP parents to be
lower socioeconomic status and
have depression/health problems and
less likely to use
inconsistent/inappropriate discipline;
CC more likely to be White
Parent health and depression;
family income,
socioeconomic status and
hours of work; parent–child
praise, monitoring
involvement, relationship
quality, and inappropriate
and inconsistent discipline;
experimental intervention
assignment
Antisocial behavior
(15–16) 2.3
a
Moerk (1973) Unknown location
in the United
States
Boys of low
socioeconomic
class (11–20)
24 with father
incarcerated from
birth to age 15
24 with fathers absent because of
parental divorce, matched to CIP on
socioeconomic status, parental
education, ethnicity, and age at
separation from father
None Behavior problems
(11–20) 0.8
Murray & Farrington
(2005, 2008a,
2008b)
b
:
Cambridge Study
in Delinquent
Development:
Main CC
comparison (see
also, Murray,
2006; Osborn &
West, 1979)
London, England Boys born
about 1953
and living in
south
London in
1962–1963
(8)
23 with father/mother
incarcerated from
birth to age 10 years
17 boys in the same cohort as CIP but
with parental incarceration before
the boy’s birth and not afterward.
CC not significantly different from
CIP on 9 individual and family risk
factors. CIP more likely to have low
socioeconomic status and low family
income
Boy’s IQ, daring, family size,
and number parental
convictions
Boy’s junior attainment,
family income, and number
parental convictions
Poor marital relations and
number parental convictions
Boy’s IQ, harsh maternal
attitude, family size, and
number parental convictions
Conviction
(10–18 & 19–50)
Internalizing
(48)
Drug use
(18 & 48)
Poor educational
performance
(14)
1.4
2.9
3.9
22.8
a
Murray & Farrington
(2005, 2008a,
2008b)
b
:
Cambridge Study
in Delinquent
Development: CC
separated for other
reasons (see also,
Murray, 2006)
London, England Boys born
about 1953
and living in
south
London in
1962–1963
(8)
23 with father/mother
incarcerated from
birth to age 10 years
138 boys in same cohort as CIP
separated from parents for other
reasons for at least 1 month between
birth and age 10 years: 77 because
of hospitalization or parental death
and 61 principally because of
parental discord. CC and CIP not
significantly different on 5
individual and family risk factors.
CIP more likely than CC to have
low IQ, poor attitude father, large
family, low socioeconomic status,
and low family income
Boy’s IQ, daring, number of
parental convictions, and
family size
Boy’s junior attainment,
family income, and number
parental convictions
Poor marital relations and
number parental convictions
Boy’s IQ, harsh maternal
attitude, family size, and
number parental convictions
Conviction
(10–18 & 19–50)
Internalizing
(48)
Drug use
(18 & 48)
Poor educational
performance
(14)
2.2
1.5
1.4
6.9
a
(Appendix continues)
206 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Appendix (continued)
Study Location
Sample (age, in years,
of children at start of
study)
Children with
incarcerated parents
(CIP) Comparison children (CC) Covariates controlled for
in statistical analyses Child outcome (age,
in years, at outcome) Effect size
(OR)
Murray, Janson,
& Farrington
(2007)
b
:
Project
Metropolitan
Stockholm,
Sweden Boys/girls born in
1953 and living in
Stockholm in 1963
(10)
283 with father/mother
incarcerated
between ages 0
years and 6 years or
7 years and 19 years
245 in same cohort as CIP
with parental
incarceration before
birth but not afterward
Number parental
convictions and
family social class
Conviction
(19–30) 1.6 boys
1.4 girls
Murray, Loeber,
& Pardini (in
press):
Pittsburgh
Youth Study
Pittsburgh, PA Boys randomly
selected from
Pittsburgh public
schools, with
oversample of boys
with higher
behavior problem
scores (7 years and
13 years)
52 with any parent
incarcerated
between start of
study and age 18
years
156 in same study,
individually matched to
CIP children in the same
cohort on propensity
scores (covariates used
to calculate propensity
scores listed on the
right)
Child theft, marijuana
use, depression, and
academic achievement
in year before
parental incarceration;
parental incarceration
before start of study;
parent lifetime
antisocial behavior,
substance use, and
arrests/convictions
until year before
incarceration;
caretaker stress,
parent–child
communication,
parental supervision,
boy involved with
family, peer relations,
and peer delinquency
in year before
parental incarceration
Theft
(1–7 years after
parent
incarcerated)
Marijuana use
(1–4 years after
parent
incarcerated)
Depression
(1–4 years after
parent
incarcerated)
Poor educational
performance
(1–4 years after
parent
incarcerated)
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.1
Neal (2009) Tennessee Boys/girls in
mentoring programs
for children with
incarcerated parents
and children in
single-parent
households (6–16)
66 with parent
incarcerated any
time since birth
39 in mentoring programs
for children in single-
parent households. CC
had fewer caregiver
changes and higher
caregiver education than
CIP
None Lower school test
scores
(6–16)
1.4
Pakiz et al.
(1997):
Simmons
Longitudinal
Study
Northeast United
States Boys in public school
kindergarten in
1977 (5)
Parent ever
incarcerated up to
age 18 years. CIP ⫹
CC ⫽188
Children in the same
cohort as CIP Childhood behavior
problems, physical
abuse in family,
family disadvantage,
school grades, and
marijuana use
Antisocial behavior
(21) 5.4
a
(Appendix continues)
207
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Appendix (continued)
Study Location
Sample (age, in
years, of children at
start of study)
Children with
incarcerated parents
(CIP) Comparison children (CC) Covariates controlled for in
statistical analyses Child outcome (age, in
years, at outcome) Effect size
(OR)
Phillips et al.
(2002) Arkansas Boys/girls using
mental health
services (11–18)
100 with father/mother
incarcerated at
unknown age
137 in the same age range and in the
same mental health services as
CIP
None Conduct
disorder/oppositional
defiant disorder
(6 months later)
Depression/anxiety disorder
(6 months later)
Drug abuse/dependency
(6 months later)
1.3
0.9
1.9
Poehlmann et al.
(2008)
b
Midwest United
States Boys/girls separated
from mothers,
living with
grandparents (3–7)
36 with mother
currently
incarcerated
40 with custodial grandparents and
in same age range as CIP,
separated from mothers because of
maternal substance abuse/mental
health problems, abandonment, or
other problems. CC not
significantly different from CIP in
child sex, ethnicity, age, number
of family sociodemographic risks,
and grandparent’s age. CC
separated from mothers longer
than CIP
None Externalizing
Internalizing 0.8
0.8
Roettger et al.
(2010)
National
Longitudinal
Study of
Adolescent
Health (see
also, Roettger,
2009)
National, United
States Boys/girls in Grades
7–12 during the
1994-95 school
year (12-18)
2,134 with father ever
incarcerated 12,976 in same study. CC less likely
than CIP to have mothers with
history of binge drinking, arrests
as juveniles, substance using
friends, low family and
neighborhood socioeconomic
status, and low father involvement
Child age, race, low self-
control, and juvenile arrest;
parental supervision,
physical abuse, mother
drinking, father closeness,
father involvement, two
biological parents,
socioeconomic status, friend
marijuana use, school
attachment, and
neighborhood poverty
Hard drug use
(12–27) 1.6
a
boys
1.3
a
girls
Sarri et al.
(2011) Michigan Males/females being
released from
juvenile and adult
prisons (juvenile
sample median ⫽
18; adult sample
median ⫽24)
62 with father/mother
ever incarcerated 33 in same institutions as CIP. CC
and CIP not significantly different
on child sex, grew up with both
parents, low supervision, many
moves, stigma, understanding legal
rights, and perceived court
fairness. CC more likely than CIP
to be White, and to be in adult
prisons and less likely to have
negative life events, have drunk
parents, be in foster care, and
experience material disadvantage
None Depression
(median 18 & 24)
Drug abuse
(median 18 & 24)
Poor school grades
(median 18 & 24)
1.1
0.6
0.8
(Appendix continues)
208 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Appendix (continued)
Study Location
Sample (age, in
years, of children at
start of study)
Children with
incarcerated parents
(CIP) Comparison children (CC) Covariates controlled for
in statistical analyses Child outcome (age,
in years, at outcome) Effect size
(OR)
Siegel & Marano
(2008)
Developmental
Victimization
Survey
National, United
States Boys/girls sampled
through random
telephone digit
dialing (10–17)
92 with father/mother
incarcerated
between birth and
ages 10–17 years
924 children in the same study. CC
less likely than CIP to be
Hispanic, low socioeconomic
class, subject to maltreatment, or
living with single parent
Child age, Hispanic
race, witness/indirect
victimization,
maltreatment, child
sent/taken away,
number of parents,
parental substance
abuse, parental
warmth,
socioeconomic status,
school attachment,
and neighborhood
violence
Delinquency
(10–17) 1.6
Stanton (1980) California Boys/girls with
mothers
incarcerated (CIP)
or on probation
(CC). (4–18)
24 with mother
currently
incarcerated
18 in same age range as CIP but
with mothers on probation. CC
and CIP not significantly different
in sex, age, number of siblings,
and financial support before
mother’s sentence; mother’s age,
race, marital status, CC more
likely than CIP to be White and
be of a higher social class. CC
mothers less likely than CIP
mothers to have been unemployed
or have prior criminal justice
involvement
None Antisocial behavior
(4–18)
Poor academic
performance
(4–18)
2.3
11.4
a
Stroble (1997):
Main CC
comparison
Richmond, VA Boys/girls in public
high school (14–
18)
15 with parent ever
incarcerated up to
ages 14–18 years
15 students in the same school as
CIP, with both parents at home.
CC and CIP similar in sex, but
CC slightly older than CIP
None Depression
(14–18)
Low school test
scores
(14–18)
3.3
1.1
Stroble (1997):
CC separated
for other
reasons
Richmond, VA Boys/girls in public
high school (14–
18)
15 with parent
incarcerated up to
age 14–18
15 students in same school as CIP,
living in single parent families.
CC and CIP similar in sex and age
None Depression
(14–18)
Low school test
scores
(14–18)
0.9
0.6
Swisher &
Roettger
(2011)
b
:
National
Longitudinal
Study of
Adolescent
Health (see
also, Roettger,
2008, 2009,
n.d.; Roettger
& Swisher,
2008)
National, United
States Boys/girls in Grades
7–12 during the
1994–1995 school
year (12–18)
1,224 with father
incarcerated
between birth and
12–18 years
12,962 in same study. CC less likely
than CIP to have mothers with a
history of binge drinking, arrests
as juveniles, substance using
friends, low family and
neighborhood socioeconomic
status, and low father involvement
Child age, race, sex, and
temperament; physical
abuse, family
structure, father not
known, and
socioeconomic status
Delinquency
(12–27)
Depression
(12–27)
1.5
a
1.2
a
(Appendix continues)
209
CHILD OUTCOMES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Appendix (continued)
Study Location
Sample (age, in
years, of children at
start of study)
Children with
incarcerated parents
(CIP) Comparison children (CC) Covariates controlled for
in statistical analyses Child outcome (age,
in years, at outcome) Effect size
(OR)
Tasca et al.
(2011) Maricopa, AZ Boys/girls referred to
a juvenile court
and followed up 1
year after court
disposal (M⫽16,
SD ⫽1.2)
55 with father/mother
ever incarcerated 301 from same courts as CIP Child age, sex, race,
type of offense, prior
referral, and mother/
father drug use
history
Rearrest
(1 year after court
disposal)
2.3
a
Trice & Brewster
(2004) Virginia Boys/girls (13–19) 47 with mother
currently
incarcerated
41 same sex best friends of CIP None Arrest
(previous year)
Failing classes
(previous year)
3.0
a
3.3
a
van der Rakt,
Murray, &
Nieuwbeerta
(in press)
b
:
Criminal
Careers and
Life Course
Study (see
also, van der
Rakt, 2010)
National, the
Netherlands Boys/girls born up to
2003 whose
fathers had a
criminal
conviction in 1977
(18⫹)
1,254 with father
incarcerated
between ages 0
years and 12 years
or 12 years and 18
years
569 in same cohort as CIP, but
father incarcerated only before
birth
Child sex, age, number
of offences of father,
criminal trajectory
group father, father
born abroad, alcohol/
drug abuse by father,
teen-pregnancy
mother, parental
separation, and family
size
Conviction
(18–30) 1.1 boys
1.6 girls
Wakefield &
Wildeman
(2011): Project
on Human
Development
in Chicago
Neighborhoods
(see also,
Wakefield,
2007, n.d.)
Chicago, IL Boys/girls in four
cohorts recruited
between 1994–
1997 (6–15)
69 with father
incarcerated
between start of
study and 3 years
later
2,313 in same study as CIP Child age, sex, and race;
prior child outcome
scores, parental
education and
employment,
household income,
parental criminal
history, and
relationship to
primary caregiver
Antisocial behavior
(9–18)
Internalizing
(9–18)
1.6
2.2
a
Wilbur et al.
(2007) Boston, MA Boys/girls in a study
of the effects of
cocaine exposure
in utero (0)
31 with father
incarcerated
between ages 6-11
71 in the same cohort as CIP. CC
and CIP not significantly different
in maternal education, ethnicity,
mental health, use of alcohol,
cigarettes, and marijuana in
pregnancy; father drug/alcohol
problem and child birth weight.
CC had a higher proportion (50%)
exposed to cocaine in utero than
CIP (32%)
Child age, sex, and
exposure to cocaine in
utero
Antisocial behavior
(6–11)
Internalizing
(6–11)
2.3
1.1
Note. Results are shown separately for boys and girls where possible. Results are shown separately for comparisons made with children separated from parents for other reasons. Results are averaged
across similar outcomes measured in childhood and adulthood and across different types of parental incarceration (e.g., maternal and paternal incarceration): Results used in the meta-analyses may be
slightly different.
a
Confidence interval for odds ratio does not include 1.0.
b
Additional, unpublished information provided by the author(s) was used to calculate the results.
Received April 21, 2010
Revision received October 7, 2011
Accepted October 12, 2011 䡲
210 MURRAY, FARRINGTON, AND SEKOL
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Content uploaded by Joseph Murray
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joseph Murray on Jun 03, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
