Young Children’s Contact with their Parents in Jail and Child Behavior Problems

Abstract

Contact between incarcerated parents and their children can help maintain family relationships. However, links between parent-child contact and child behavior problems are understudied in young children, especially the contexts in which visits and other forms of contact occur. Data were collected from 157 parents incarcerated in one of two jails regarding contact with their young children (age 2-6), as well as children’s behavior problems. Findings indicated that jail site moderated the association between visit frequency and child behavior problems. At the jail that offered both on-site video and Plexiglas visits, with no security procedures for the on-site video visits, more frequent parent-child visits were associated with fewer child externalizing problems; however, in the jail that offered primarily Plexiglas visits, more frequent visits were associated with more child externalizing problems. Additionally, more phone calls related to more child externalizing behavior problems. This research has implications for policies and practices regarding contact between incarcerated parents and their young children.

Introduction

On any given day, more than 5 million minor children experience the incarceration of a resident parent, half of whom are under the age of 9 (Murphey & Cooper, 2015). As this number has grown, more attention has been given to how contact while incarcerated (via visits, calls, and letters) may shape children’s behaviors (e.g., AUTHOR, 2019). Children’s visits to correctional facilities can be controversial, especially in jails where non-contact barrier visits - where children can see and hear but not touch parents because of a Plexiglas barrier - are the norm (Arditti, 2003; AUTHOR, 2010; Shlafer et al., 2015). That said, alternative forms of contact, such as calls or letters, may prove challenging for young children whose developmental capacities, including limited reading, writing, and joint attention skills, cause difficulty given the absence of verbal cues (AUTHOR, 2020a). To further explore this, the current study examines the association between various forms of contact and young children’s socio-emotional development, with implications for correctional policy and practice.

Background

Theoretical Framework

When a child loses a parent to jail or prison, feelings of ambiguous loss may ensue due to the often-unexpected nature of the parent’s departure, the lack of details about their whereabouts, and the stigma that follows families in the community – a key tenet of Arditti’s (2016) Family Stress-Proximal Process (FSPP) model. In this framework, stress associated with parental incarceration may prevent families from communicating full details of the incarceration to children in developmentally appropriate and supportive ways, especially when they are young (AUTHOR, 2020b), which may exacerbate experiences of ambiguous loss and contribute to heightened behavioral and emotional concerns throughout the incarceration (Arditti, 2012).

That said, frequency of contact between children and their incarcerated parents is included in the framework as a potential mechanism to attenuate uncertainty contributing to children’s feelings of ambiguous loss and thus bolster their well-being (Arditti, 2016). However, the type and frequency of communication, as well as the child’s age and developmental competencies prove critical when understanding the extent to which contact with parents during incarceration is actually safeguarding in nature for children (AUTHOR, 2019). Other contextual factors, such as facilities’ contact policies, availability of visits, and security procedures are relevant to children’s coping and adjustment. For example, family members visiting their incarcerated loved ones can experience “secondary prisonization” such as constant surveillance, temporary restrictions of one’s liberty, and dehumanization present in carceral environments Comfort, 2003, 2019). This can have collateral consequences – even for children – which can cyclically contribute to their feelings of ambiguous loss and subsequent expression of problem behaviors (Arditti, 2012, 2016).

Parental Jail Incarceration, Contact, and Child Adjustment

With more than 10 million annual admissions, the vast majority of incarcerated parents are detained in jail settings. Jails are typically locally operated facilities that hold those awaiting court proceedings or serving sentences for misdemeanor charges of one-year or less. Therefore, jails are typically located closer to where families reside, and thus, family visits, calls, and letters are more common compared to that of prison (Shanahan & Agudelo, 2012). That said, most jails offer non-contact visits (mostly through barriers) that can be complicated for young children because they can see, but not touch, their parents (Shlafer et al., 2015). Further, extreme racial, economic and mental health disparities are seen in jail settings, even more so than prisons, such that children with parents in jail may be systemically made to be particularly vulnerable (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020). Economic disparities may result from removing earners from the household and additional costs of supporting loved ones while in jail (Arditti, 2018). Additionally, mental health problems in jails are experienced at 3 to 5 times the rate of the general population with limited access to supportive services (AUTHOR 2021). Indeed, these risks may make it so that children of color are further exposed to structural disadvantage tied to their parents’ incarceration, experience limited financial resources that hinder their ability to maintain relationships with parents, or make it so that parents must tend to their own needs before meeting the competing demands of their children. Finally, examining frequency of contact without attention to the type of visit may obscure the strengths or challenges of children’s visit experiences. The present study’s examination of types of contact across two jail sites may help clarify some of the mixed findings in the literature.

In-person Visits

Jails typically offer non-contact visits, with either glass barriers separating families or with the visit occurring through video. In the instances of Plexiglass visits, audio connections usually occur through telephone receivers whereas video visits are often offered through closed circuit monitors inside the corrections facility (though some facilities now offer video visits to a remote location, such as the family’s home). Visit frequency is often affected by the availability and cost of transportation, how far the corrections facility is located from the family, days and times offered for visits, and the policies of the corrections facility (AUTHOR, 2015). Additionally, family attitudes and the parent-caregiver relationship can influence how often a child visits their incarcerated parent (AUTHOR, 2005, 2019; Tasca, 2016).

When visit access is granted to children, interacting with a parent behind a barrier may be particularly difficult to understand and cope with, especially when children are young as they tend to demonstrate more distress and negative affect during Plexiglas visits compared to contact visits or on-site video visits (AUTHOR, 2015, 2017). When a child can see their parent through the glass but they cannot touch them they may experience confusion and anxiety, resulting in distress, which Dallaire and colleagues (2015) characterize as heightened internalizing symptoms. However, visits are not exclusively detrimental. In a systematic review, AUTHOR and colleagues (2010) concluded that in-person visits that were child-friendly (meaning that opportunities for joint activity were offered such as crafts or games, corrections staff dressed informally to reduce fear, and families had the ability to express affection through hugs, hand-holding, and sitting on parents laps) or occurred as part of an intervention were more likely to facilitate positive child outcomes, whereas visits that occurred behind barriers or did not involve supportive programming were associated with less optimal child outcomes.

Phone Calls

In a regional sample of 315 diverse jailed fathers, telephone contact was the most common way that fathers communicated with their children (Shlafer et al, 2020). However, phone calls from correctional facilities can be expensive, (e.g., $0.21 per minute), and the incarcerated parent may be limited to a certain number of calls per week. Favorably, calls can be completed while the child is in a familiar and comfortable environment (e.g., at home). However, because young children often rely on visual cues and perceived visual contingencies to communicate, phone calls can be developmentally challenging for very young children (AUTHOR, 2020a; Shlafer et al., 2015). Nevertheless, studies have generally found positive associations between incarcerated parent-child phone contact and child well-being, such as better child psychological adjustment and fewer internalizing symptoms (Dallaire et al., 2015; Stein, 2014).

Mail Correspondences

Sending letters provides children with a tangible item they can seek out when in need of comfort, and incarcerated parents can take time and reflect prior to sending it (Shlafer et al., 2015). Though more limited in its study, this form of contact has been associated with fewer child internalizing problems (Dallaire et al., 2015). Despite these benefits, very young children need assistance for letters , with caregivers often reading, helping children write and send letters, or, as the gatekeeper, preventing written correspondence altogether (AUTHOR, 2008).

Current Study

Young children remain a relatively understudied group of those affected by parental incarceration due in part to methodological constraints arising from cognitive and verbal abilities. Because of this, observational methods complimented with adult report measures, prove crucial to triangulating young children’s experiences, particularly in the context of jail visits, as is done in this study. The strength of using these tools to examine young children’s expressions of ambiguous loss comes coupled with an understanding that opportunity for ongoing contact contributes to the formation and maintenance of secure attachments that can contribute to resilience in the face of adversity (Bowlby, 1982; AUTHOR, 2017).

Given that, this study examines whether frequency of contact between incarcerated parents and their young children (ages 2-6 years), including visits, calls, and letters, is associated with child behavior problems as well as whether the type of visits offered by the jails moderated the relationship between visit frequency and behavior problems. Our first hypothesis is that more frequent Plexiglas visits would be linked to heightened problem behaviors. Our second hypothesis is that more contact with less potentially traumatic exposure would be related to fewer behavior problems. We controlled for parents’ internalizing and externalizing symptoms in our analyses as research has found that parental report of child behaviors may be affected by the parent’s own emotional state, (e.g, Najman et al., 2001). Additionally,children exhibit more positive outcomes when they spend time with both of their parents, thus we’ve also controlled for the length of separation between the parent in jail and child, number of previous separations, the distance from the jail, number of previous arrests, and whether the child lived with the parent prior to incarceration (Nielsen, 2018).

Method

Procedure and Participants

Recruitment began with the parent in jail. Each week, administrative staff at the jails provided researchers either with the names of newly sentenced parents, or access to a database where researchers were allowed to collect the names of individuals who may be eligible and interested. Identified individuals then participated in a brief initial screening to determine if they met research criteria. Parents were able to participate if they: (1) were at least 18 years old, (2) had a child who lived with kin (biological or fictive) in or around the county in which they were serving time, (3) had legal rights to the child and had not committed a crime against them, (4) had cared for the child in some way prior to incarceration, (5) could read English, and (6) had already been sentenced to serve jail time. 85% of those screened and eligible participated in the study. If the incarcerated individual had several children, one child was randomly selected to participate in the study (termed “target child”).

Researchers and parents met in a specified room at the jail to read and sign the consent form, then complete an interview and self-administered questionnaires. At the home visit, caregivers read and signed consent forms for themselves and for the child, then participated in an interview to assess the child’s behaviors and the child’s contact with the incarcerated parent. For families in which both the parent in jail and the caregiver consented, researchers observed a child’s visit at the jail. The caregivers were given $50 after the home visit and the jail visit observation, and children were given an age-appropriate book. Incarcerated parents were unable to be compensated because of jail policies. The study was approved by the University IRB and an NIH Certificate of Confidentiality was used.

Data were collected from 157 parents in two Midwestern county jails. 84.7% identified as men and15.3% as women. Parents ranged in age from 18 to 49 years (M = 29, SD = 5.96). In addition, 48.7% percent of parents were Black, 31.2% Caucasian, 7.1% Latino, and 12.9% multiple or other races. More than one-third of parents had a high school diploma or equivalent (37.0%) and more than half of parents (56.6%) were employed prior to incarceration with family incomes averaging just under $15,000 (SD = $18,009). Parents were incarcerated for drug-related charges (16%), probation violations (23%), violence (11%), child support nonpayment (12%), domestic violence (11%), DUI/DWI (9%), and property crimes(8%).

Target children ranged from two to six years of age (M = 4, SD = 1.32). This sampling frame was used because children who experience parental incarceration before age six are more likely to experience significant behavior problems (Johnson, 2009). Of the children, 55.8% were boys (44.2% girls), and 38.4% were Black, 26.7% were Caucasian, 1.2% were Latino, and 32.7% multiple or other races. Children were separated from their parents for an average of 2.5 months. Nearly three-quarters of children lived with their parent prior to jail (70.1%), half of whom (54.3%) were the child’s primary caregiver.

Measures

Parent-Child Contact during Incarceration

Incarcerated parents reported the average weekly frequency of each type of contact with their child including letters, phone calls, or in-person visits. Telephone contact was most common, with 17.9% reporting daily calls with children, 26.3% reporting one to five calls per week, 21.8% less than one call, and 42.9% with no phone contact. Families were allowed to visit once or twice a week, depending on the facility. 33.1% of parents in jail reported that their children visited once a week while 7.0% reported multiple weekly visits, though the majority (59.9%) did not regularly visit. Although most parents (65.8%) did not write to their children, 25.2% reported writing up to once per week, 6.4% between one to two times per week, and 2.6% wrote between two and seven times per week.

Child Behavior Problems

The Child Behavior Checklist is a standardized behavior rating that is completed by an adult with whom the child lives and appropriate for children ages 18 months to 18 years with high internal consistency (Cronbach’s ɒ .78 to .97; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2000, 2001). Parents in jail rated various child behaviors on a scale of 0 (not true), 1 (somewhat or sometimes true), or 2 (very true or often true) regarding the last six months. For child behavior, analyses use reports from the parent in jail because data were obtained from 157 parents, but only 86 caregivers. Responses were then summed and converted into T-scores based on children’s age and gender to obtain scores for Internalizing and Externalizing Problem Scales, with higher scores indicating more problematic behaviors. In this sample, 9.7% of children scored in the clinical range (T-Score of 65+) for internalizing problems and 11.6% for externalizing problems. See Table 1a.

Table 1.

Jailed parent and child behavior t scores.

Variable	N	Range	Mean ± SD
Jailed parent internalizing problems	150	30-88	56.21 ± 11.46
Jailed parent externalizing problems	150	30-87	57.52 ± 10.38
Child internalizing problems	149	29-94	51.51 ± 10.52
Child externalizing problems	149	25-92	50.36 ± 11.04

Jail Site

Two jail systems participated in this research from 2012 to 2015, both overseen by the county sheriff’s departments and in urban communities.. Site 1 (n = 81) has a 949-bed capacity, and a daily population of 792 (81% men, 19% women). Site 2 (n = 74) has an 823-bed capacity, with an average daily population of 788 (79% men, 21% women).

Jail Prison Observation Checklist

Researchers observed the visiting spaces using the Jail Prison Observation Checklist (JPOC, AUTHOR, 2012), which captures children’s experiences of visits including their emotions, behaviors, interactions with jail staff, security procedures present, and ratings of the facility. Interrater reliability was established between two independent observers across 15 observed jail visits. Cohen’s kappas fell within an acceptable to high range (0.60 – 0.81).

Plan of Analysis

This study used hierarchical multiple regression analyses, with covariates entered in the first step, contact frequency and Jail Site in the second step, and contact*Jail Site interactions in the third step. Standardized coefficients are provided for individual variables and R² is used to determine if the contact variables significantly explained variation in child behavior. Parent socio-emotional well-being, child age, child gender, parent gender, race, education, and number of previous arrests, whether or not the child lived with the parent prior to incarceration, length of the parent’s incarceration, and length of parent-child separation (as they may have been separated prior to the parent’s incarceration) are used as control variables.

A power analysis was conducted using the G*Power program, with reported effects characterized as small (r = .10), moderate (r = .30), or large (r = .50) using Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks. With 157 participants, an alpha level .05, and all covariates, variables, and interactions entered, our power to detect moderate (.30) and small-to-moderate (.20) effects was .99 and .91, respectively. For small effects (.10), our power was not adequate (.55).

Participants had missing data (2.4%), which appeared to occur at random. To address missingness, a multiple imputation procedure (Raghunathan et al., 2001; Van Buuren, 2007), was used by generating five datasets in which missing values were randomly produced conditional upon other variables. Multiple regression analyses were applied to all five datasets, with aggregate results reported. Based on sensitivity analyses, findings were similar in original and aggregate data sets, but for ease of interpretation, consistent sample sizes, and robust estimates of standard errors and confidence intervals, aggregate results are presented.

Results

Jail Site Differences

At Jail Site 1, most visits occurred through Plexiglas; contact visits (which took place at tables in a visiting room) occurred in less than 4% of cases as they were only available for those on work release. At Jail Site 2, visits occurred through Plexiglas or through on-site video visits.

Analyses of 28 observed visits corroborated these findings. In terms of security, Jail Site 2 used a metal detector and searched bags significantly more than Jail Site 1 (X²(1) = 5.73, p = .017 and X²(1) = 4.56, p = .033), respectively. Asking for ID was consistent across sites (X²(1) = 5.73, p = .017) and no children at either site were frisked or patted down. A one-way ANOVA indicated no differences in how positively or negatively Jail Site staff interacted with children upon entry, with most interactions rated neutral or slightly positive, F(1,26) = 0.327, p = .573 and F(1,25) = 1.042, p = .317, respectively; however, staff were more friendly during interactions with children during visits at Site 1. Jail Sites were similar in cleanliness.

Because of visiting policy differences, ANOVAs were used to compare contact by site. Findings show that parent-child visits, calls, and letters were more frequent at Site 1, which offered primarily Plexiglas visits, compared to Site 2, which offered both Plexiglas and video visits (Table 1b). As a result, Jail Site*contact frequency interactions are included in analyses.

Contact Frequency and Child Behavior Problems

To test whether less frequent calls and letters and more frequent visits would be related to more child behavior problems, six hierarchical multiple linear regression analyses were conducted [one for each type of behavior problem (internalizing and externalizing) and each type of contact (visits, calls, letters)]..

Findings from steps 1 and 2 indicated no direct associations of frequency of parent-child visits, calls, or letters on child internalizing behaviors (β = 0.160, p = 0.065, X²(2) = 0.007; β = 0.080, p = 0.446, X²(2) = 0.015; β = 0.031, p = .718, X²(2) = 0.020; respectively). However, there was a statistically significant association linking parent-child call frequency (but not visits or letters) with elevated externalizing behaviors for children (β = 0.231, p = .012, X²(2) = 0.042; β = 0.092, p = .221, X²(2) = 0.004; β = 0.038, p = .614, X²(2) = 0.007; respectively), contrary to hypotheses. In step 3, there was a significant interaction between frequency of visits and Jail Site for child externalizing problems (β = −0.213, p = .002, X²(1) = 0.042). See Table 2.

Table 2.

Differences in Incarcerated Parent-Child Contact Across Jail Sites (N=157)

Contact Variable	Jail Site	N	Range	Mean ± SD	ANOVA
How far does your child live from the jail? (in miles)	1	78	0.40-162.00	19.00 ± 28.89	F(1,149) = 10.23*
	2	75	0.25-40.00	7.70 ± 9.37
	Total	153	0.25-229.00	15.54 ± 27.67
How often do you receive visits from your child? (per week)	1	82	0.00-2.00	0.39 ± 0.58	F(1,153) = 1.50
	2	75	0.00-3.00	0.27 ± 0.58
	Total	157	0.00-4.50	0.35 ± 0.67
How often do you have telephone contact with your child? (per week)	1	82	0.00-7.00	2.70 ± 2.93	F(1,152) = 19.65*
	2	74	0.00-7.00	0.93 ± 1.85
	Total	156	0.00-7.00	1.79 ± 2.59
How often do you write to your child? (per week)	1	82	0.00-7.00	0.44 ± 1.02	F(1,152) = 0.12
	2	73	0.00-7.00	0.39 ± 1.00
	Total	155	0.00-7.00	0.47 ± 1.12

Note. Not all cells add up to 157 because of missing data. *p<.01.

ANOVA = analysis of variance.

To further examine the interaction between Site and visit frequency on child externalizing problems, regression analyses were run separately by site. For Jail Site 1 (the primarily Plexiglas option), more frequent parent-child visits related to more child externalizing problems, whereas for Jail Site 2 (offering both Plexiglas and video visits), more frequent visits related to fewer externalizing problems (β = 0.284, p = .010, X²(1) = 0.090; β = −0.231, p = .044, X²(1) = 0.039).

Discussion

This study of parents in jail examined associations between the frequency of parent-child contact and children’s behavior problems. Findings suggest that associations may vary based on the type of contact and the mode of visit. Consistent with the FSPP (Arditti, 2016), more frequent visits in the jail with primarily Plexiglas visits was related to more externalizing behavior problems in young children, yet more visits to the jail that offered both Plexiglas and video visits related to fewer problem behaviors. Contrary to hypotheses, more parent-child calls was associated with heightened externalizing (but not internalizing) behavior.

Children can show behavior and emotional fluctuations before, during, and after contact with incarcerated parents (Tasca, 2016), with age and contextual factors influencing reactions (AUTHOR, 2019). Visits to corrections facilities may provide connection with the parent but, they can occur in the context of stress, secondary prisonization, and ambiguous loss (Arditti, 2012; Comfort, 2019). This explains why the type and frequency of contact can relate to child distress and externalizing behavior problems (e.g., Dallaire et al., 2015).

The jail site which offered both Plexiglas and video visits saw parent-child visits being related to fewer behavior problems; this is in line with the ongoing dialogue between scholars and practitioners as to how visits can be helpful for children to see that their parent is safe, clarify feelings of ambiguous loss, and allow for discussion of release plans (Arditti, 2003; Sack & Siedler, 1978). Child-friendly contact visits are best for facilitating such positive processes (AUTHOR et al., 2010), but other types of visits may facilitate positive processes as well. Video visits may approximate familiar interactions within the homes, such as video chats with other family, while allowing for visual cues to establish joint attention (McClure & Barr, 2017). At this included jail site, video visits did not require security checks and the visits were less crowded than Plexiglas visit areas, which may also contribute to more positive findings.

Conversely, more frequent visits were associated with more externalizing behaviors for children visiting at the jail that offered almost exclusively Plexiglas visits, even though the visits at this jail site had fewer security procedures, more positive staff interactions during the visit, and were less crowded. The findings support research emphasizing the negative impact of“glass walls and locked doors” for families during non-contact barrier visits (Arditti, 2003). Plexiglas visits have been found to be more stressful for children than contact or video visits, resulting in more distress, anger, and acting out for young children (AUTHOR, 2015, 2020b). The presence of a supportive, securely attached adult may buffer some stress, prepare children for the visit, and facilitate other forms of contact (AUTHOR, 2017, 2019).

The frequency of visits was not associated with children’s internalizing problems. It is possible that withdrawal, and depressive symptoms are sometimes difficult for adults to detect and thus report, or, potentially, are not even viewed as problematic (Tandon et al., 2009). Alternatively, feelings of ambiguous loss may spur children to exhibit more disruptive and attention seeking behaviors that elicit responses from the adults, rather than withdrawing. Trauma-informed interventions view child behavior as a type of communication, and adult responses can be intentional regarding the child’s development, relationships, and the impact of trauma (Kramer et al., 2013). Incorporating trauma-informed approaches for children who visit parents through Plexiglas is imperative; future research should examine these possibilities.

The importance of centering the needs of children during visits is likewise apparent from research on visit interventions which attempt to create child-friendly visit spaces and practices. Child-centered visits meet children’s needs by including age-appropriate toys and games, opportunities for enhanced contact with the parent, and strategies to increase child comfort such as safe yet home-like furniture; such efforts have been found to facilitate positive child outcomes which may impact future trajectories for families. (AUTHOR et al., 2010; Schubert et al., 2016). For example, Western and Smith (2017) found that formerly incarcerated parents were more likely to reside or be involved with their children post-release when there was a history of warm and nurturing contact before and during incarceration.

Findings surrounding telephone contact contradict hypotheses such that the more often young children spoke to their parents via phone, the more externalizing behavior problems children showed. Because other studies used different scales for frequency of contact, it is difficult to compare findings with previous research, particularly due to the focus on young children who are less adept to phone conversations than older children (AUTHOR, 2020a).

As alluded to, young children rely more on visual cues and nonverbal communication (i.e., pointing to objects in the room) compared to older children and adults (McClure & Barr, 2017, for a review). Phone calls, with their auditory only stimuli, do not adequately allow young children to make use of visual contingencies, thus, young children’s responses in phone conversations can be disjointed (AUTHOR 2020a). Yet, adults can facilitate positive phone calls between young children and parents in jail by narrating the child’s play, helping keep the child’s attention, and using visual cues. They can also show children photos of the incarcerated parent and help prepare for calls by suggesting conversation topics.

Similar trends are seen in the literature on military families with a deployed parent such that there are optimal amounts of phone and video contact, with too little or too much contact than expected being problematic (Greene et al., 2010). Too much contact can be overwhelming and distracting to daily interactions with people who are physically present (Greene et al., 2010). Similarly, frequent calls between parents and their children might be overwhelming because it causes children to think about the parent’s absence and may activate feelings of ambiguous loss, leading to more behavior problems. Conversely, the child may be showing behavior problems, prompting the parent in jail to call more frequently in an attempt to intervene. Future research should clarify issues related to causality and examine variations in frequency of phone contact, other than financial limitations, which have been discussed previously (e.g., AUTHOR, 2015).

Findings regarding mail contact were similar to many previous studies, with no negative associations between frequency of letters and child behavior problems (e.g., AUTHOR et al., 2010). However, Dallaire and colleagues’ (2015) find that more letter writing was associated with fewer child internalizing problems, evidence not replicated herein. When supported by caregivers, letter writing may allow young children to create their own picture of where the parent is staying. Yet, when adults decline to assist young children with reading or writing, the positive consequences of letters may be diminished.

The findings and policies discussed in this study would be altered by the recent Coronavirus pandemic. Initially, all states suspended in-person visits in March of 2020 (Dallaire et al., 2021). In response, most states then offered two free phone calls per week. Further, some states offered a few free video visits per week, as well as free email access or postage stamps. However, it is unclear how long these policies will last, and whether or not they may be permanent in some states (Dallaire et al., 2021). The initial disruption in visiting routines may have been challenging for children, however children may be more accustomed to and engaged with conversations via remote video visit, which may lead to more positive interactions.

Limitations

Despite these contributions, there are some limitations to consider. Social desirability may make it so that responses are not completely accurate because participants may not want to report on sensitive subjects. Similarly, interview bias makes it so that researchers’ presence may have caused families to act differently than they typically would (Zegiob, Arnold, & Forehand, 1975). Selection bias is present given that parents in jail who are isolated may be eager to seek out attention from a researcher while others may not fully trust researchers and therefore may potentially withhold pieces of information or choose to not enroll in the study. Additionally, incarcerated parents were asked to report on their children’s current behavior despite being physically separated, potentially skewing perceptions. These reports may be influenced by the parent’s relationship with the caregiver, which may relate to both the parent’s mental health and how the parent reports about the child (Tadros et. al, 2021). Because previous research has found that parents’ own socio-emotional well-being influences how they perceive children’s behaviors (e.g., Najman et al., 2020), having additional respondents such as teachers or childcare providers may be helpful to triangulate data. Further, whereas researchers assessed the quality of interactions during in-person visits with the Jail Prison Observation Checklist, only 28 visits were observed, thus quality of the visits was not included in the present analyses (see Author et al., 2017). Next, the small sample size limits generalizability as well as power to detect small effect sizes. Also, the proportion of parents who did not sign up for the study screening is unable to be determined as research staff were not allowed to retain information on parents who did not participate in the screener. However, at the time of data collection, 58% of inmates in the state identified as White, 27% identified as Black, 8% identified as Latino, 6% identified as Native populations, and 1% identified as another race, therefore, Black and African American individuals were overrepresented in our sample (Minten et al., 2015). Additionally, 86% of our sample identified as male. This is similar to the state population, yet limiting as rates of incarcerated women and mothers are rapidly climbing (Kajstura, 2019). Future research should attempt to use larger samples with longitudinal study designs to provide a more accurate representation of how parental incarceration and parent-child contact during incarceration ultimately affects child well-being.

Conclusion

The study findings suggest that parent-child contact during incarceration is complex. When tailored to the developmental competencies of children and designed to promote positive interactions, contact can be helpful. However, frequent Plexiglas visiting for young children may be stressful and, thus, associated with increased child behavior problems. Because of this, additional supports should be implemented for children. It would be beneficial for families to know both the strengths and limits of Plexiglas visits involving young children. If a choice is available to occasionally visit via video as a supplement, this may be easier for young children to handle, especially if it occurs off-site, where children can visit from the comfort of home (not to mention they are a potentially cost-effective alternative). Moving forward, correctional institutions may offer free video visits for families, as a positive way for children to connect with their incarcerated parents and minimize the risk of secondary prisonization experiences. In a recent feasibility study, for example, in-home video visits with incarcerated parents have been well-received by diverse families of children 3 to 12 years of age, and may offer a promising way to connect families without exposure to security procedures or the carceral environment (Charles et al., 2020; Kerr et al., 2020). However, remote video visits should not replace in-person visits, as child-friendly contact visits remain a meaningful way for children and parents to connect. Expanding and supporting evidence-based efforts for children to stay in touch with their incarcerated parents not only responds to inequities and hardship with humanity but also hands agency back to families all-too-often left at the mercy of the carceral system.

Table 3.

Regression Results for Predictors of Child Externalizing Behavior Problems for Frequency of Parent-Child Contact

Outcomes:	Visits			Phone Calls			Letters
	Standardized Coefficients			Standardized Coefficients			Standardized Coefficients
Predictors, Step 3	Beta	t	p	Beta	t	p	Beta	t	p
Child Age	−0.190	−2.536	0.011*	−0.236	−3.065	0.002*	−0.216	−2.798	0.005*
Child Gendera	−0.110	−1.456	0.147	−0.143	−1.860	0.064	−0.121	−1.549	0.123
JP b # Arrests	−0.083	−1.079	0.281	−0.055	−0.712	0.477	−0.056	−0.710	0.478
JP b Lived with Child	0.081	1.056	0.291	0.046	0.580	0.562	0.096	1.223	0.221
JP b Gender	−0.151	−1.968	0.049*	−0.148	−1.905	0.057	−0.138	−1.726	0.084
JP b Education	0.087	−1.188	0.235	−0.114	−1.505	0.133	−0.109	−1.423	0.155
Distance from Jail	−0.023	−0.306	0.759	−0.041	−0.520	0.604	−0.058	−0.731	0.466
Days Separated	0.044	0.583	0.560	0.059	0.756	0.450	0.025	0.324	0.746
# Prior Separations	0.016	0.167	0.868	0.051	0.556	0.579	0.027	0.292	0.770
JP b Race d	0.088	1.073	0.283	0.058	0.697	0.486	0.161	0.676	0.499
JP b Internalizing	0.099	0.934	0.350	0.048	0.451	0.652	0.025	0.245	0.807
JP b Externalizing	0.471	4.587	0.000*	0.498	4.745	0.000*	0.506	4.738	0.000*
# P-Cb Visits	0.092	1.225	0.221	0.231	2.525	0.012*	0.038	0.506	0.614
Jail Site	0.003	0.046	0.963	0.069	0.834	0.404	−0.216	−2.798	0.005*
Visits X Jail Site	−0.213	−3.046	0.002*	0.111	1.252	0.213	−0.121	−1.549	0.123

Note. ^a Gender coded as 0 = male, 1 = female, ^b JP = parent in jail. ^c Parent-Child. ^d Race coded as White = 1, not White = 0. *p<.05