By Jose Santana

Much literature exists on the nuances of family structure and its inextricable relation to optimal child development. There are considerable resources on single-parent households resulting from death and divorce, for instance; but there has been, and there still remains, to this day, an insufficient amount of research on the effects of paternal incarceration on the lives of children. Studies have reported that children suffer adverse effects in response to the absence in the family of a father (Fritsch & Burkhead, 1981), but the effects of paternal incarceration have not been extensively explored (Arditti, Lambert-Shute, & Joest, 2003). However, it is clearly apparent from the little material that exists that paternal incarceration is becoming problematic. Paternal incarceration—in its direct and indirect effects alike, to varying degrees—is detrimental to child socio-emotional development, often posing irreparable damage, absent any mitigating protective factors.

The loss of a father through incarceration has affected two-parent households in the past, but with the dramatic increase in the number of males being incarcerated since 1990 (Arditti et al., 2003), the resultant number of single-mother households has similarly increased. The most recent national account for the number of males in State and Federal prisons indicates that 55% of State prisoners (or 593,800) and 63% of Federal prisoners (or 74,100) reported having at least one minor child—a combined total of 1,372,700 minor children (Mumola, 2000). It was also found that 20.2% of fathers in State prison and 32.9% of fathers in Federal prison specified living with their children in a two-parent household. The minimum number of children, then, who lived with both a mother and a father, is 144,326, which accounts for roughly 10% of the total number of children affected by parental incarceration. These 10% are the focus of this study.

Paternal incarceration creates a temporary single-parenting system, in which the mother acts as sole guardian, but imprisonment tends to produce far worse effects on children than do other causes of parent-child separation (Lowenstein, 1986). Separation due to death or similar causes disrupt the family, yet these happen to provide a “focal concern around which the remaining members can rally and mitigate the impact of their loss”; quite to the contrary, separation due to imprisonment rarely elicits any such response because of the stigma with which it is associated (Fritsch & Burkhead, 1981, p. 84). Typically, a child faced with the social stigma of paternal incarceration will often also encounter embarrassment and shame, which may in turn further inhibit the ability of the child to adequately adjust to the anxieties resulting from the separation through incarceration (Hannon et al., 1984; Lowenstein, 1986). The deleterious effects on child behavior, of course, are that prolonged periods of shame and embarrassment may promote depression or behavior typical of withdrawal, such as an unwillingness to engage in social interactions. Unlike other causes for paternal separation, paternal absence due to imprisonment is a multi-dimensional phenomenon, which takes on different meaning depending on the manner in which the particular cause for the incarceration is perceived—either as being “normatively approved” or as “bearing a stigma” (Lowenstein, 1984).

While there is a correlation between paternal incarceration and subsequent child behavioral, emotional, and psychological problems, these concerns may not necessarily be the sole result of the separation, per se: maladaptive behavior could have existed at the time of incarceration because of faulty parenting structures. Gabel (1992) has argued that the discordant home characteristics and abusive parent management practices, such as child abuse, are better predictors of child behavior than is the effect of paternal separation. This claim has been further substantiated by research, suggesting that “children of incarcerated parents may be at risk long before parents are incarcerated” (Johnson & Waldfogel, 2002, p. 461). Other researchers agree with these claims, but they also add that these at-risk children may behave worse as a result of paternal incarceration (Arditti et al., 2003). Nevertheless, other studies (Fritsch & Burkhead, 1981) have continued to show that child problems existing prior to incarceration become more pronounced after separation; the study also indicated that new problems emerge after the separation. It matters little whether paternal absence initiates or aggravates behavioral problems: in either case, absence of the father promotes acting-out conduct.

The direct effects associated with paternal incarceration are many, but two factors clearly stand out above all else: parent-child separation and enduring traumatic stress (Johnston, 1992). Both of these can affect each stage of child development, but this study is only concerned with the socio-emotional development of children in middle childhood, from 7-11 years of age, since the average age of affected children is 8 years of age (Mumola, 2000). The separation is a source of emotional injury and there is a sense of anger, sadness or grief, and anxiety. Lowenstein (1986) has found that 40% of children experienced emotional and health problems, including recurring nightmares and a sudden fear of darkness, both of which reflect a fear of isolation from others. Other studies showed depression to be the most prominent emotional problem during the time of paternal incarceration (Gabel, 1992). “Even in households that were disrupted by parental crime, children who have an incarcerated father miss his affection (92%) and feel lonely (59%) as a result of his absence” (Johnston, 1995, p. 75). Trauma—a pronounced psychological shock in response to a disastrous event—interferes with the “process of learning to control emotions” and “impairs the… ability to recover from future traumatic events,” a result of which is the “development of trauma-reactive behaviors, particularly aggression,” attention and concentration problems, anxiety states, and withdrawal (Johnston, 1995, pp. 76-77). As is clearly evident, psychological, emotional, and behavioral problems are all intricately linked, meaning that one will likely lead to the others.

Children in middle childhood generally attempt to achieve a sense of industry and to gain the ability to work productively. Their aggressive behavior and attention or concentration difficulties resulting from emotional responses to trauma tend to create academic and disciplinary problems, such as truancy, which prevent future academic achievement (Hannon et al., 1984; Johnston, 1992). Lowenstein (1986) found that 20% of children studied suffered from behavioral problems, including hostile responses and acting out, deterioration in school work, drug problems. It was also found that 40% of these children, the same who suffered from emotional and health problems, suffered from interactional interpersonal problems, the most prominent of which included confrontations with mother and inability to relate to peers. In view of these immense socio-emotional problems in direct response to paternal separation, it is common for these children to develop long-term maladaptive coping patterns, absent the availability of coping mechanisms or mitigating protective factors (Fritsch & Burkhead, 1981; Johnston, 1995; Lange, 2000; Lowenstein, 1986).

The indirect factors—that is, the subsequent factors—affecting child development deal primarily with the manner in which the primary caregiver—the mother, in this instance—is able to resolve problems at home and provide quality care. Many of the problems exhibited by children in response to paternal separation may be aggravated or mitigated, depending on the individual coping skills of the mother (Lowenstein, 1986). “Because there is fairly good evidence that many children’s ultimate adjustment is based on the nature of the home environment in which they live, attention to the parenting practices of the [mother] is crucial” (Gabel, 1992, pp. 42-43). Gabel (1992) also indicated that maternal warmth, monitoring, and supervision, all of which are protective devices, meant to aid children in their coping process, are likely to be absent, since many mothers may share the antisocial qualities that the father possessed or are overly stressed themselves. If a mother is unable to cope with her own situation, the child will likely fare much worse in most circumstances.

Mothers “experience risk on several dimensions: via emotional stress, parenting strain, work-family conflict, financial strain…and social stigma” (Arditti et al., 2003, p. 201). Two more indirect factors are worthy of notice here: deception and economic factors. Mothers find it more beneficial to explain to their young children that their fathers are absent for various false reasons, because mothers are afraid that if told the truth, children may pattern their behavior after the imprisoned parent or become frightened. When children are deceived, however, they find it difficult to discuss feelings about the paternal absence, and they may even begin to grow suspicious of the lying parent, often becoming insecure prior to acting out (Hannon et al., 1984; Lange, 2000). Interestingly enough, mothers are likely to leave their places of employment after paternal incarceration, because they soon become overburdened with child care needs in the face of financial deadlines (Arditti et al., 2003). Other observations (Hannon et al., 1984; Lange, 2000) have shown that paternal incarceration leads to significant adverse financial effects. Families may experience a decrease in income, could possibly rely on public assistance, and may have to relocate to a more affordable area. This has complications of its own: children will have to readjust to a new environment and adapt to a new school and peers in the midst of paternal separation—this is daunting for anyone.

Paternal incarceration—in its direct and indirect effects alike, to varying degrees—is detrimental to child socio-emotional development, often posing irreparable damage, absent any mitigating protective factors. Though resiliency and caregiver protective factors may forestall some of the socio-emotional problems associated with paternal separation through incarceration, it is highly unlikely that all problems will be resolved without public policy efforts. Likewise, more attention needs to be given to the effects on children; otherwise, the purpose of incarceration will become ineffectual at best, antithetical at worst: a new group of delinquents will be ready and coming.


References

Arditti, J. A., Lambert-Shute, J., & Joest, K. (2003). Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of incarceration for families and children. Family Relations, 52(3), 195-204.

Fritsch, T. A., & Burkhead, J. D. (1981). Behavioral reactions of children to parental absence due to imprisonment. Family Relations, 30(1), 83-88.

Gabel, S. (1992). Children of incarcerated and criminal parents: Adjustment, behavior, and prognosis. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 20(1), 33-45.

Hannon, G., Martin, D., & Martin, M. (1984). Incarceration in the family: Adjustment to change. Family Therapy, 11(3), 253-260.

Johnson, E. I., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Parental incarceration: Recent trends and implications for child welfare. Social Service Review, 76(3), 460-479.

Johnston, D. (1992). Children of offenders. Pasadena, CA: Pacific Oaks Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents.

Johnston, D. (1995). Effects of parental incarceration. In K. Gabel & D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 59-88). New York: Lexington Books.

Lange, S. M. (2000). The challenges confronting children of incarcerated parents. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 11(4), 61-68.

Lowenstein, A. (1986). Temporary single parenthood—The case of prisoners’ families. Family Relations, 35, 79-85.

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

About the writer: Jose Santana attends the University of Maryland, College Park,
where he is studying Criminology and Criminal Justice. He plans to conduct
research on the effects of inadequate parenting on child development in
an effort to more fully understand the cause and nature of criminality. Jose
may be reached at jsantana@umd.edu

Return to Essays Index Page