Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Mar 17.
Published in final edited form as: J Forensic Soc Work. 2015;5(1-3):167–185. doi: 10.1080/1936928X.2015.1093992

Adversity Across the Life Course of Incarcerated Parents: Gender Differences

Sharon Borja 1, Paula Nurius 2, J Mark Eddy 3
PMCID: PMC4794641  NIHMSID: NIHMS750920  PMID: 26998189

Abstract

More than half of the 1.6 million adults in U.S. prions are parents. Despite growing knowledge regarding the life course adversities of corrections-involved populations, less is known regarding incarcerated parents per se and the implications of cumulative adversities both on their needs and those of their children. Using a gender-balanced (41% minority) sample of incarcerated parents (N=357) from a randomized controlled trial of an in-prison parent training program, this study examines differences between incarcerated mothers and fathers in their exposures to adversities across the life course. Mothers and fathers shared similar patterns of adversity exposure in their families of origin, but differed in their experiences of juvenile justice and child welfare systems involvement, as well as in their adult experiences of victimization and related adult social and mental health outcomes. Implications for gender-responsive parent support and prevention programs for their children of incarcerated mothers and fathers are discussed.

Keywords: life course adversity, incarcerated parents, stress, adversity

Introduction

The continuation of disparities in health and health care accessibility for certain subpopulations within the U.S. point attention to possible developmental pathways through which life stress accumulates, progressively building risk for a variety of problems within certain populations. Research on adverse child experiences (ACEs) has highlighted early life adversity of particular concern, and has ignited studies on the accumulation and proliferation of adversities and their impact on health across the life course (e.g., Dube, Felitti, Dong, Giles & Anda, 2003). Exploring pathways through which early adversities exert their long reaching impact on highly vulnerable and fragile populations of parents is critical, given the importance of interrupting the transgenerational transmission of risk (Brook, Whiteman, & Zheng, 2001). An underinvestigated population of high interest is incarcerated parents (Eddy & Poehlmann, 2010). Interest is due both because of their experiences with adversities and because of their potential role in the intergenerational transmission of risk and adversities.

Informed by life course and stress proliferation frameworks, the present analysis is intended to provide an overview of adversities and disadvantages within the incarcerated parent population as well as to describe the stacking of exposures across the lifespan. The life course perspective underscores that adversity occurs over a considerable span of time and serves as a framework for examining patterns and trends of exposures during various periods of development (Kuh, Ben-Shlomo, Lynch, Hallqvist, & Power, 2003). In a parallel vein, the stress proliferation framework focuses on the processes through which earlier events or hardships increase the likelihood of subsequent stressors (Pearlin, 2010), overwhelm coping capacity and incrementally result in a layering of adversities (O'Rand, 1996).

This study examines life course exposures to adversity of incarcerated parents, beginning from exposures in their families of origin to more proximal adversities during adulthood. Due to potential differences in pathways for men versus women, we also examined gender differences in order to generate hypotheses relevant for future research regarding potential gendered pathways through which these adversities proliferate as well as the development and testing of services tailored to possible gender-specific needs.

Background

The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world. More than 1.5 million men and women are currently in prison (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010), a 790% increase since the early 1980's, wherein mandatory sentencing and related policies went into widespread effect across the country (James, 2014). More than half of U.S. prisoners are parents of minor children (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010). Recent decades have produced several generations of children of incarcerated parents whose developmental and lifetime of experiences are often starkly different from their peers (Western & Pettit, 2010). Preventing problems amongst these children will likely require a variety of approaches that engage parents and caregivers, including current and formerly incarcerated parents (Eddy, Martinez, Schiffmann, Newton et al., 2008).

Children of incarcerated parents

The high rate of incarceration in the U.S has resulted in the exposure of over 1.7 million children to parental incarceration (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010). Many of these children are exposed to difficult circumstances associated with parental incarceration such as poverty and parent mental health and substance abuse problems (Geller, Garfinkel, Cooper, & Mincy, 2009; Bouchet, 2008; Travis & Waul, 2003). Consequently, children of incarcerated parents often have to contend with unfavorable outcomes associated with parental incarceration and/or these other parental problems, including their own antisocial behavior, associated juvenile justice involvement, emotional difficulties, and mental health problems (Wilbur, Marani, Appugliese, Woods et al., 2007; Murray & Farrington, 2008; Kjellstrand & Eddy, 2011; Poehlmann, & Eddy, 2013; Murray, Farrington, & Sekol, 2012; Arditti, 2005), as well as the influence of these childhood outcomes on their adjustment during adulthood (Kjellstrand & Eddy, 2011). These experiences are nested within the context of their immediate families and call for attention towards a greater understanding of the cumulative adverse experiences of incarcerated parents who are at the cusp of re-uniting with their children.

Life course adversities

From a life course theory perspective, incarcerated parents’ exposure to adversities in their families of origin may impact later life outcomes via long term biological or psychological “chains of risk” (Kuh, et al. 2003). The stress proliferation framework also considers the experiences of prior generations as potential sources of later stressors (Pearlin, Schieman, Fazio & Meersman, 2005), highlighting further the importance of exploring the early exposures of incarcerated parents to adverse conditions and experiences. A cumulative depiction of these adversities combines the benefit of the stress process and life course lenses to reveal the dynamic circumstances and contexts (Pearlin & Skaff, 1996) of the experiences of incarcerated parents.

Socio-economic disadvantage

Parental incarceration is strongly associated with poverty and related socioeconomic disadvantage, including lower levels of education, setting the stage for worsening financial outcomes relative to the general population (Western and Wildeman, 2009). Poverty-related adversities is common among families experiencing parental incarceration (Greene, Haney, & Hurtado, 2000) such as lower household income (Kjellstrand & Eddy, 2011; Western & Wildeman, 2009; Wildeman, 2009) and neighborhood deprivation (Arditti, Burton, & Neeves-Botelho, 2010). Fathers in prison disproportionately come from impoverished urban neighborhoods (Travis, 2005), and most report incomes below the poverty line (Mumola, 2000). Many incarcerated fathers were primary sources of financial support for their children prior to incarceration (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010), pointing to the potential for worse economic conditions for their families following their incarceration. The exposure of incarcerated parents’ children to these poverty-related challenges is almost inevitable as they grow up in the context of family poverty, potentially increasing their vulnerability to poor life outcomes.

Family instability

Disruptions of relationships have become the norm in families experiencing incarceration, intensified by social disconnection inherent to incarceration but also by geographic distance, when inmates are housed a great distance from their families (Western & Pettit, 2010). These disruptions include interruptions of parent-child relationships, especially when circumstances require the involvement of child protective services (e.g. lack of available or qualified relative caregiver, child victimization/endangerment-related offenses), further exacerbating family instability. Some children affected by parental involvement with corrections transition into foster care (Dallaire, 2007), and may be burdened further by consequential loss and trauma due to additional family/caregiving disruptions.

The incarceration of male partners often leaves mothers as sole caregivers and providers for their children; on the other hand, when mothers are incarcerated, separations and divorce are likely (Sharp, Peck, & Hartsfield, 2012). These disruptions suggest important gender difference, with the children of incarcerated women differently and disproportionately affected. Incarceration of mothers highlights the overlapping dimensions of poverty, child welfare intervention and incarceration; the lack of institutional support to maintain connection; and institutional barriers to reunification with their children (e.g., 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act; Schen, 2005). Additionally, the stigma of incarceration imposes a heavy burden on the family and undermines parental relationships (Western & Wildeman, 2009).

Health concerns

Recent theories on psychological stress points to its physical embodiment, where adversities “get under the skin” and manifest in health concerns (Ferraro & Shippee, 2009). There is now compelling evidence that stress can result in physiologic disruptions which are associated with higher levels of chronic diseases (Shonkoff & Garner, 2012). The wear and tear of the body's organ systems and regulatory function can begin as early as childhood, when stress can impact brain development.

Adversity imposes stress on individuals, and higher levels of stress are associated with experiencing additional adversities. As a result, the many adversities in families impacted by incarceration have health implications that are cause for concerns. Several studies have found that adults in prison have multiple physical and mental health concerns. They have a higher prevalence of chronic medical conditions compared to the general population (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010; Wilper, Woolhandler, Boyd, Lasser et al., 2009), an issue that is especially significant given the relatively young age of many prisoners (Schnittker, Massoglia & Uggen, 2011). The health burden of this population is further complicated by limited access to quality health care, particularly outside of the prison setting (Lee, Fang and Lou, 2013).

These health concerns, however, are not limited to the incarcerated individual. Poor health outcomes are also observed in partners of incarcerated adults (Murray & Farrington, 2005) and other immediate family members (Foster & Hagan, 2007). Parents whose own parents had histories of incarceration may be more depressed and have worse physical health than parents without such a history (Kjellstrand and Eddy, 2011; Lee et al., 2013). Children of incarcerated parents may also be exposed early to substance abuse due to its prevalence among incarcerated parents (Mullings, Hartley & Marquart, 2004), potentially contributing to poorer health outcomes.

Victimization

Layering onto adversities related to socio-economic disadvantage, instability in their families of origin, and health concerns, many incarcerated adults are exposed to multiple types of victimization. Women, compared to men, report higher prevalence of childhood victimization, especially physical abuse (Carlson & Shafer, 2010), although recent findings also suggest that many men also were victimized as children (Hochstetler, Murphy & Simons, 2004; Carlson & Shafer, 2010). Youth in the juvenile justice system report similar experiences, and are likely to have experienced multiple traumas, including witnessing violence at home (Maschi, MacMillan, Morgen, Gibson, & Stimmel, 2010). Additionally, exposure to victimization extends to adulthood. Incarcerated fathers commonly report traumatic experiences related to war, homicide, and witnessing killing, while victimization reports of incarcerated mothers are more likely to focus on abuse within the family (Carlson and Shafer, 2010). The lifelong exposures to violent victimization may lead to debilitating physical and mental health as well as other adverse social consequences.

In summary, the dramatic increase in incarceration has spurred research on adults in prison. However, these studies have had a rather limited focus on prisoner health and behavior (Tonry & Petersilia, 1999), and fewer still on trauma and victimization and the collateral impact of incarceration on the children of incarcerated parents (e.g., Poehlmann & Eddy, 2013). Only recently has the emergent lens of life course accumulation of adversities showed momentum towards elucidating the layered disadvantages experienced by the prison population. Even then, studies have largely focused on specific adversities such as socioeconomic disadvantage or abuse and trauma histories (Carlson & Shafer, 2010), with the typical study offering snapshots of adversities at one or a few developmental period(s). In short, the empirical evidence regarding incarcerated parents remains limited. The present analysis begins to address this gap, providing a more linked understanding of adversities in incarcerated parents, spanning distal adversities in their families of origin and concluding with more proximal adulthood adversities.

The Present Study

The present analyses extend existing research on incarcerated parents by examining the adverse experiences of incarcerated parents and the extent to which multiple adversities accumulate over three time periods, using life course and stress proliferation frameworks as a guide. Due to potential differences in pathways to early vulnerability and later life outcomes for men versus women, we focus on life course profiles within gender with the purpose of illuminating possible gender-specific vulnerabilities and service needs and to generate hypotheses relevant for future research regarding potential gendered pathways through which these adversities proliferate.

Methods

Data were drawn from the initial assessment of the Parent Child Study (PCS), a randomized controlled trial of a parent management training program, Parenting Inside Out (PIO), designed specifically for incarcerated mothers and fathers (see Eddy et al., 2008; Eddy, Martinez, & Burraston, 2013). The program was delivered in prison, and comprised three 3-hour meetings each week for a period of 12 weeks. The goal of the intervention is to increase parenting-relevant knowledge and skills, including communication with other caregivers, to assist not only with parenting while incarcerated, but parenting in the post-incarceration period. in preparation (Eddy et al., 2008). The development of the PIO program is discussed in detail in Eddy et al. (2008). The study was conducted in 4 minimum or medium security level Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) facilities designated as “releasing institutions” where incarcerated parents transferred to prior to their release. Women and minority inmates were oversampled from an eligible pool of participants to achieve a diverse sample that is approximately 50% women and 40% ethnic minority. Participants were individually randomized, blocking on sex and on race/ethnicity, into either an “intervention” condition (i.e., the parenting program) or a “control” service-as-usual condition, and were assessed pre- and post-intervention as well as 6 and 12 months post-release (Eddy et al., 2013). The study was conducted with the approval and under the oversight of the federal Office of Human Research Protections and the Oregon Social Learning Center Institutional Review Board.

Participants

Participants were incarcerated fathers and mothers (N=357) who were parents of at least one “focus” child between the ages of 3 and 11 years, who have had some role in parenting their children in the past, who expected to have some such role in parenting them after release from prison, and who had 9 months or less remaining on their prison sentence. Approximately fifty-nine percent of participants were White, 13% African American, 11% multiracial, 8% Native American, and 8% Latino (Eddy, et al. 2013). The average number of children per incarcerated parent was 3, and most parents reported having a focus biological child with an average age of 8 years. Prior to incarceration, only 34% had lived with their children full time. Incarcerations for fathers were more likely a result of a person crime. Fathers were serving longer sentences than mothers. Mothers, on the other hand, reported being older when first arrested as adults (see Eddy et al., 2013).

Measures

Data were collected through in person interviews conducted in private rooms in prison. Adversities across the life course of incarcerated parents were classified into adversities in their families of origin, adversities in childhood, and adversities in adulthood. Most of the constructs of interest were measured with one item questions which had face validity. Items were summed within categories to construct cumulative indexes of exposure across an array of risk factors. This indexing approach is consistent with cumulative stress and disadvantage research methods that aim to gauge and contrast aggregate loads (Bauman Silver, & Stein, 2006; Schafer & Ferraro, 2013).

Family of origin (FoO) adversity is based on 14 dichotomized items summed to calculate each incarcerated parent's score of family of origin adversities. These items include: educational background of the parents of inmate (below high school), substance abuse problems of the parents of inmates (2 items), criminal justice involvement of the parents of inmates (experience of arrest, jail, or prison, 6 items), and histories of substance abuse and criminal justice involvement by extended family members (4 items). Unlike the Center for Disease Control and Prevention measure of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), this study's measure of FoO adversity also includes parental education, which is often associated with socioeconomic status, but does not include parental histories of mental illness, victimization and divorce. These differences are due to the information available in the existing dataset.

Childhood adversity comprises a sum of 5 dichotomous items of incarcerated parent's own experiences in the juvenile justice system (i.e., arrest, detention or lockup) and child welfare system (i.e., foster care, group home or treatment facility). Summed indices were created for child welfare and juvenile justice experiences as well as their combination.

Adult adversity was based on 12 items distinguishing non-violent adversities and victimization. Non-violent adversities were a summed index of 9 dichotomies items: family income below poverty; unstable housing condition (i.e., lived in shelter, on streets or motel); physical problems (i.e., physical injury, major illness and chronic illness); taking medication; and drugs and alcohol. Violent victimization dichotomous items assessing sexual assault, being hit, and or physically hurt by a romantic partner were summed into an index.

Analytic Procedures

In order to examine the extent that adversities accumulate in incarcerated parents’ lives, descriptive statistics were calculated, including means and standard deviations (Table 1). Pearson chi-square (χ2) tests of differences among proportions and independent sample t-tests for equality of means were used to test differences between incarcerated fathers and mothers, including both item and total indices for each set of life course adversities. Bivariate correlations by gender were used to assess relations among aggregate life period adversities.

Table. 1.

Early Life Adversity Experiences of Incarcerated Parents

Women (n=198) % or (M/SD) Men (n=159) % or (M/SD) X2 or (t) p
Family of Origin (FoO)
Parent's Level of Education
Father 1.99 .16
    < High School 72.4 84.7
Mother .32 .57
    < High School 78.1 75.4
Father
    Drug & Alcohol 66.0 63.6 .17 .68
    Arrest 64.0 61.9 .12 .73
    Jail 56.7 55.0 .08 .78
    Prison 20.4 26.1 1.20 .27
Mother
    Drug & Alcohol 40.2 43.7 .42 .52
    Arrest 42.4 34.0 2.7 .10
    Jail 33.0 25.7 2.08 .15
    Prison 8.1 6.7 .22 .64
Extended Family
Aunts/Uncles
    Drug & Alcohol 71.4 79.4 2.9 .09
    Jail/Prison 55.9 58.4 .23 .63
Grandparents
    Drug & Alcohol 51.3 42.4 .14 .71
    Jail/Prison 20.9 22.6 2.76 .10
At least one FoO Adversity 96.2 95.2
Mean # FoO Adversities (5.43/3.16) (5.54/3.39) (−.21) .83
Childhood Adversity
Juvenile Justice
    Arrest 46.7 69.8 19.15 .00
    Detention/Lockup 30.8 55.7 22.27 .00
                At least one Juvenile Justice 38.9 61.1
                Mean # Juvenile Justice (.78/.87) 1.26 (.89) (−5.06) .00
Child Welfare 27.7 22.2 1.42 .23
    Foster Care
    Group Home 20.7 24.7 .78 .38
    Treatment Facility 22.5 22.6 .00 .99
                At least one Child Welfare 40.1 42.7
                Mean # Child Welfare .72 (.95) .70 (.93) (.27) . 79
At least one Childhood Adversity 64.7 75.2
Mean # Childhood Adversities (1.52/1.57) (1.96/1.56) (−2.54) .01
Open in a new tab

Results

Family of Origin Adversity

Ninety percent of incarcerated mothers and fathers endorsed at least one type of family of origin adversity, with almost half reporting 6 or more of the 14 types (see Table 1). A considerable majority came from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, with more than 75% reporting having parents with less than a high school education. Particularly marked is the prevalence of substance abuse and involvement in criminal justice, not only among the parents of inmates, but also among extended family members. The lack of significant gender differences reflects comparability between incarcerated fathers and mothers in their family of origin adversity histories.

Childhood Adversity

During childhood, the majority of incarcerated fathers and mothers experienced childhood adversity through involvement with one or more systems. In contrast to the absence of differences across family of origin adversities, a greater proportion of incarcerated fathers reported at least one form of system involvement (75% for fathers versus 65% for mothers), due predominantly to greater juvenile justice system involvement with 61% of fathers and 39% of mothers reporting juvenile arrest, detention, or lock up. Fathers and mothers were comparable in their experiences of out of home foster care, group home care, or treatment care settings, with approximately 40% having experienced at least one such placement.

Adult Adversity

Virtually all incarcerated mothers and fathers reported experiencing at least one type of adversity besides incarceration during adulthood. The most prevalent was alcohol and drug abuse, followed by intimate partner violence, and having a condition that requires medication. Although the presence of a major illness was the least prevalent adversity, a notable proportion of participants (20%) reported experiencing a major illness.

Overall, incarcerated mothers reported a significantly greater number of types of adversities experienced with a mean of nearly 7 versus 5 for fathers (see Table 2). While fathers and mothers were comparable on a history of unstable housing, mothers were more likely to report family income below the poverty line in the year prior to their arrest. Incarcerated mothers reported elevated indicators of poorer health than fathers, such as chronic illness, mental illness and substance abuse and taking prescribed medications. Markedly greater proportions of incarcerated mothers reported violent victimization histories. Mothers experienced greater multi-form victimization, with 23% reporting 2 forms and 42% reporting 3 forms, compared to 32% and 3% for fathers.

Table 2.

Adult Adversity Experiences of Incarcerated Parents

Women % or (M/SD) Men % or (M/SD) X2 or (t) p
Adult Adversity
Non-violent Adversities
    < Poverty Line 43.3 29.1 6.9 .01
    Lived in shelter 23.9 19.0 1.23 .27
    Lived on streets 48.7 48.1 .01 .91
    Lived in motel 58.4 51.3 1.79 .18
                Mean # Unstable Housing (1.31/1.08) (1.18/1.03) (3.53) .32
    Physical Injury 31.6 35.4 .57 .45
    Major illness 21.7 17.7 .92 .34
    Chronic Illness 41.5 29.3 5.65 .02
                Mean # Physical Problems .95 .82 (6.27) .10
    Taking medication 61.3 33.8 26.08 .00
    Drug & Alcohol 93.4 86.7 4.47 .04
At least one Non-violent Adversity 98.8 95.7
Mean # Non-violent Adversities (4.33/1.97) (3.34/1.94) (3.25) .00
Violent Victimization
    Hit by a partner 77.2 61.4 10.41 .00
    Physically hit 71.1 31.0 56.50 .00
    Sexually assaulted 51.4 12.8 56.06 .00
        Mean # victimizations (1.98/1.15) (1.04/.90) (8.18) .00
At Least One Adult Adversity 98.4 96.8
Mean # Adult Adversities (6.29/2.50) (4.56/2.21) (6.31) .00
Open in a new tab

Lifetime Adversity

Although gender differences in number of total lifetime experiences of adversity did not achieve significance, gender differences were evident in the types of adversities that constituted these totals. Males reported greater juvenile justice system involvement in their youth and women reported greater poverty, illness, substance abuse, and victimization in adulthood.

Associations among Life Period Adversities

Tables 3 and 4 present correlations for fathers and mothers among the 5 aggregate adversity indices. Among incarcerated mothers, adversities stemming from families of origin are related to proximal adversities in childhood (child welfare and juvenile justice involvement) but not with adversities in adulthood. However, systems-involvement of incarcerated mothers is subsequently associated with greater victimization in adulthood. In contrast, fathers’ family of origin adversity showed a stronger relationship with later adversities both in childhood and in adulthood. Male child welfare involvement was more strongly associated with adult non-violent adversity and weaker associations overall were evident for fathers than mothers regarding adult victimization.

Table 3.

Correlations between life-course adversity measures (Incarcerated Mothers).

FoO Adversity Child Welfare Juvenile Justice Non-violent Adult Adversity Adult Victimization
Child welfare .25**
Juvenile justice .25** .48**
Non-violent adult adversity .09 .10 .14
Adult victimization .15 .25** .24** .33**
Scale Means 4.98 .73 .78 4.33 2
Open in a new tab

Note.

* p<.05

**

p<.01

Table 4.

Correlations between life-course adversity measures (Incarcerated Fathers).

FoO Adversity Child Welfare Juvenile Justice Non-violent Adult Adversity Adult Victimization
Child welfare .41**
Juvenile justice .33** .46**
Non-violent adult adversity .33** .20** .05
Adult victimization .26* .13 .12 .158
Scale Means 5.02 .697 1.26 3.34 1.04
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p<.05

**

p<.01

Discussion

This study expands the existing knowledge regarding incarcerated parents and their histories of adversity by examining these experiences within a cumulative adversity framework, establishing a deeper understanding of the burden with which they have to contend. Results of this study indicate an accumulation of adversities across the life course of incarcerated parents, with similar patterns of exposure between mothers and fathers in their families of origin. Findings reveal gender differences around early systems involvement as well as adult adversities that warrant further consideration. These findings have implications for post-release services that consider the cumulative histories of adversity of incarcerated parents, many of whom are likely to resume their parenting role upon release.

Biological and Social Cascades

Very striking is the early exposures to multiple adversities and disadvantage that this group of incarcerated men and women experienced. Many parents were embedded during their childhoods in extended families characterized by poverty, substance abuse and incarceration. Within a stress proliferation perspective, the adverse experiences of incarcerated parents in their families of origin could have first set in motion multiple subsequent stressors (Pearlin, 2010) such as stigma of having a parent in prison and socialization to health damaging behaviors, and later difficulties in the form of educational and economic strains (Foster & Hagan, 2009).

As children, incarcerated parents very likely experienced the biological embodiment of strain imposed by these early adversities during critical and sensitive periods in their life course, when experiences and environments have the strongest impact on their development (Fox & Rutter, 2010). The strain imposed by these adversities on the physical and emotional well-being of incarcerated parents as children are often correlated with problems of emotional regulation and impulse inhibition, and also associated with difficulties in school, problems of peer rejection, and association with antisocial peers (Frick, 2004), potentially influencing risk towards delinquency and involvement with the juvenile justice system. These incarcerated parents were also potentially exposed in their childhood to antisocial and health damaging behaviors through interactions with their parents and extended kin, many of whom had criminal justice involvement and substance abuse histories. As a result, incarcerated parents were at higher risk for poorer adjustment, and particularly the display of antisocial behaviors, during adolescence (Kjellstrand & Eddy, 2011).

Histories of substance abuse and incarceration of inmate parents’ extended family suggests that for some children of incarcerated parents, options for prosocial modeling are limited, and sources of less tangible support (e.g., emotional support, moral boost) may be potentially lacking. These early exposures to unstable family circumstances and adversities in their families of origin are related to increased vulnerability to risk, such as later involvement in foster care, a type of adverse experience that is associated with antisocial behavior, negative coping skills, and limited economic opportunities later in life.

Gender Differences

A notable finding is the lack of gender differences in respondents’ exposure to family of origin adversities, but then emerging gender differences during childhood and adult adversities. These results support current evidence regarding gender-specific stress responses and coping mechanisms that possibly explain this divergence, with women exhibiting internalizing behaviors more than men (Kramer, Krueger, & Hicks, 2008). Additionally, differences during childhood potentially suggest gendered intergenerational exposure to adversities into adolescence, demonstrated by significantly higher rate of juvenile justice involvement by incarcerated fathers compared to incarcerated mothers. The higher prevalence of fathers involved in juvenile justice system spurs further question regarding diverging pathways between men and women who later become parents themselves, standing at the cusp of their own intergenerational transmission of risk and disadvantage. Are prior adversities associated with early involvement in criminal justice for fathers? Is the accumulation of adversities a potential pathway of victimization, poor mental health and substance abuse and later criminal justice involvement in their adulthood? Are their gender differences in these pathways?

Within adult adversities, gender differences for more than half of all items indicate the disproportional exposure of mothers to the types of adversities assessed here, supporting prior studies regarding the disproportional burden that women in prison contend with, such as chronic physical and psychiatric disorders (Binswanger, Krueger, & Steiner, 2009) and victimization (Browne, Miller, & Maguin, 1999; Carlson & Shafer, 2010). Lifelong exposure to poverty and the continued accumulation of more adversities in adulthood has expected consequences related to worsening health outcomes as well as a subsequently higher prevalence of further victimization for incarcerated mothers compared to fathers. These mothers may cope with the resulting trauma in ways learned from early exposure to substance use in their families of origin. Arguably, the higher proportion of mother reporting substance abuse could potentially be explained by the intense histories of victimization with which they have contended. Previous findings suggest the relationship between victimization and substance abuse (Golding, 1999) and that substance use may serve as a way to cope with the emotional pain of victimization, and to cope with the related trauma (Wills & Hirky, 1996).

Differences in correlation patterns between adversities further underscore potential gender differences, with incarcerated mothers’ experiences highlighted by victimization. On the other hand, incarcerated fathers’ experiences are mainly characterized by their exposure to family of origin adversities that seem to proliferate through systems involvement into adulthood. These differences present added complexities, warranting further consideration. Do these patterns point to different mechanisms through which early adversities proliferate across the lives of incarcerated mothers and fathers? Furthermore, the lack of correlation between family of origin and adult adversities for incarcerated mothers points to the need to better examine pathways of adversities to later life difficulties in this population. Some of these pathways might include off-time transitions (e.g., early parenthood) and early forms of victimization.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research

The findings from this study highlight the accumulation of adversities throughout the life course of incarcerated parents. They shed light on the potential diverging pathways between fathers and mothers towards later life adversities and poor outcomes. This information has important implications for practice and policy, especially in the context of preventive services. The correlations between families of origin and childhood adversity for both genders suggest the potential of preventive interventions during childhood and adolescence to prevent further adversities and worse outcomes in adulthood. They also argue for a comprehensive assessment of adversities that include intergenerational and childhood histories of adversities in addition to adversities, traumatic experiences and difficulties in adulthood. Information collected from these assessments could inform the design of interventions for incarcerated parents that have potential impact in interrupting the intergenerational proliferation of adversities by reducing their own children's exposure to consequential adversities.

Findings regarding gender differences underscore the importance of developing prevention and intervention services that are more attentive to trauma histories, as women in prison appear to be more likely to have been exposed to personal victimization than their male counterparts. Significant differences between incarcerated mothers and fathers regarding juvenile justice involvement and child welfare experiences also need further investigation. Key questions for subsequent investigation include the following. Do gender differences in childhood systems involvement define diverging pathways to later adversities for incarcerated parents? Do diverging experiences translate into gender differences in adult adversities? Further research should proceed towards further illuminating potential gendered pathways, and investigate factors that protect men or protect women and that offset the long reaching and damaging impact of adversities.

Limitations

These analyses utilized an existing data set that was collected to examine outcomes from a randomized controlled trial, rather than the present purposes.. Thus, a variety of adversities at each point in the life course were not assessed. For example, specific experiences of physical, sexual, emotional abuse and neglect during childhood were not queried. Thus, it is not known how incarcerated mothers and fathers differ in their experiences of these and other types of adversities in this sample. The sample was drawn from a certain geographic region, the Pacific Northwest, and this may limit the generalizability of the findings. Part of the assessment of life course experiences was retrospective, raising questions of accuracy. However, a growing body of retrospective measurement of early life adversity has indicated adequate variance, stability of linear trends between retrospectively assessed adversity and subsequent outcomes, and weak to no evidence of current mood state effects on reporting (Hardt, Vellaisamy, & Schoon, 2010; Yancurra & Aldwin, 2009), particularly for concrete experiences such as prior incarceration or child welfare system involvement.

Despite these limitations, our findings provide valuable information regarding parents in prison. First, this analysis elucidates the unnoticed background of current difficulties of incarcerated parents by looking at the accumulation of adversities across their lives. Second, it provides some evidence towards life course proliferation of adversity, highlighting how early adversities accumulate and almost inevitably lead to subsequent adversities over time. Third, these findings suggest gendered differences in the accumulation of adversities underscoring a need for further investigations of the experiences of incarcerated mothers and fathers across the life course.

Conclusion

From birth we found a life course lined with adversities for incarcerated mothers and fathers. The lives of the participants in this study have been compromised by a pile-up of adversities since birth, including having families characterized by high percentages of criminal justice involvement and substance abuse and with personal lives characterized by chronic adversities related to poverty, illnesses and histories of violent victimization. The findings suggest compromised support systems defined by histories of intense exposure to substance abuse and incarceration from their family of origins and patterns of juvenile justice and foster care. In adulthood, incarcerated mothers were more likely than fathers to endorse substance abuse problems, chronic illness, and live below the poverty line, notably a pattern that has been observed in incarcerated women regardless of parenting status. Mothers were also disproportionately victimized. We see a replication of adversities from the families of origin of these parents that points to intergenerational patterns of adversities. Individuals born into families with extensive histories of adversities are also at greater risk of taking on the greater consequences of intergenerational adversities manifesting in different ways related to poor health and behavioral outcomes.

Disentangling these patterns and differences is important but must consider the context of cumulative adversities that continue to pile up in their lives and the gender related roles and statuses that further complicate such a cascade. Future research should focus on the processes and mechanisms linking these adversities, elucidate the ways that proliferation takes place, and most importantly, rigorously test both clinical and preventive interventions that reduce and mitigate the impact of risk factors in the lives of incarcerated parents and their families.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported through grants MH46690 and MH65553 from the Division of Epidemiology and Services Research, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant 5RO1 HD54880-04 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.; U.S. Public Health Service (PHS); grant HD054480 from the Social and Affective Development/Child Maltreatment and Violence, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, U.S. PHS; a grant from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation; and by the legislature of the state of Oregon. Analyses were supported by grant TL1 TR000422 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, NIH, and by grant T32MH20010 from the NIMH. The University of Washington Center on Social Demography and Ecology provided computing resources for data analysis.

Contributor Information

Sharon Borja, University of Washington.

Paula Nurius, University of Washington.

J. Mark Eddy, Partners for Our Children, University of Washington.

References

  1. Arditti J, Burton L, Neeves-Botelho S. Maternal distress and parenting in the context of cumulative disadvantage. Family Process. 2010;49(2):142–164. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01315.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bauman LJ, Silver EJ, Stein RE. Cumulative social disadvantage and child health. Pediatrics. 2006;117(4):1321–1328. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-1647. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Binswanger A, Krueger PM, Steiner JF. Prevalence of chronic medical conditions among jail and prison inmates in the USA compared with the general population. Journal of Epidemiology Community Health. 2009;63:912–919. doi: 10.1136/jech.2009.090662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bouchet S. Children and families with incarcerated parents: Exploring the development in the field and opportunities for growth. Annie E. Casey Foundation; Baltimore, MD: 2008. [Google Scholar]
  5. Brook J, Whiteman M, Zheng L. Intergenerational transmission of risks for problem behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2001;30(1):65–76. doi: 10.1023/a:1014283116104. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Browne A, Miller B, Maguin E. Prevalence and severity of lifetime physical and sexual victimization among incarcerated women. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 1999;22:301–322. doi: 10.1016/s0160-2527(99)00011-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carlson B, Shafer M. Traumatic histories and stressful life events of incarcerated parents: childhood and adult trauma histories. The Prison Journal. 2010;9(4):475–493. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dallaire D. Incarcerated mothers and fathers: A comparison of risks for children and families. Family Relations. 2007;56(5):440–453. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dube SR, Felitti VJ, Dong M, Giles WH, Anda RF. The impact of adverse childhood experiences on health problems: Evidence from four birth cohorts dating back to 1900. Preventive Medicine. 2003;37(3):268–77. doi: 10.1016/s0091-7435(03)00123-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Eddy JM, Martinez CR, Jr., Burraston B. A randomized controlled trial of a parent management training program for incarcerated parents: Proximal impacts. In: Poehlmann J, Eddy JM, editors. Relationship processes and resilience in children with incarcerated parents. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development; 2013. pp. 108–134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Eddy JM, Martinez CR, Jr., Schiffmann T, Newton R, Olin L, Leve L, Foney DM, Shortt JW. Development of a multisystemic parent management training intervention for incarcerated parents, their children and families. Clinical Psychologist. 2008;12(3):86–98. doi: 10.1080/13284200802495461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Eddy JM, Poehlmann J, editors. Children of incarcerated parents: A handbook for researchers and practitioners. Urban Institute Press; Washington, DC: 2010. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferraro K, Moe A. Mothering, crime and incarceration. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 2003:9–40. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ferraro KF, Shippee TP. Aging and cumulative inequality: How does inequality get under the skin?. The Gerontologist. 2009;49(3):333–343. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnp034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Foster H, Hagan J. Incarceration and intergenerational social exclusion. Social Problems. 2007;54(4):399–433. [Google Scholar]
  16. Foster H, Hagan J. The mass incarceration of parents in America: issues of race/ethnicity, collateral damage to children and prisoner re-entry. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2009;623:179–194. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fox N, Rutter M. Introduction to the special section on the effects of early experience on development. Child Development. 2010;81(1):23–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01379.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Frick P. Developmental pathways to conduct disorder: Implications for serving youth who show severe aggressive and antisocial behavior. Psychology in the Schools. 2004;41(8):823–834. [Google Scholar]
  19. Geller A, Garfinkel I, Cooper CE, Mincy RB. Parental incarceration and child well-being: Implications for Urban Families. Social Science Quarterly. 2009;90(5):1186–1202. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00653.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Glaze L, Maruschak L. Parents in prison and their minor children (Revised) US Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics; Washington, D.C.: 2010. [Google Scholar]
  21. Golding J. Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Family Violence. 1999;14(2):99–132. [Google Scholar]
  22. Greene S, Haney C, Hurtado A. Cycles of pain: Risk factors in the lives of incarcerated mothers and their children. The Prison Journal. 2000:3–23. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hardt J, Vellaisamy P, Schoon I. Sequelae of prospective versus retrospective reports of adverse childhood experiences. Psychological Reports. 2010;107(2):425–440. doi: 10.2466/02.04.09.10.16.21.PR0.107.5.425-440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hochstetler A, Murphy D, Simons R. Damaged goods: Exploring predictors of distress in prison inmates. Criminology & Penology. 2004;50(3):437–457. [Google Scholar]
  25. James N. The federal prison population buildup: Overview, policy changes, issues and options. Congressional Research Service Report. 2014 Retrieved from: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42937.pdf.
  26. Kjellstrand J, Eddy JM. Parental incarceration during childhood, family context, and youth problem behavior across adolescence. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 2011;50(1):18–36. doi: 10.1080/10509674.2011.536720. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kramer MD, Krueger RF, Hicks BM. The role of internalizing and externalizing liability factors in accounting for gender differences in the prevalence of common psychopathological syndromes. Psychological Medicine. 2008;38(1):51–61. doi: 10.1017/S0033291707001572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kuh D, Ben-Shlomo Y, Lynch J, Hallqvist J, Power C. Life course epidemiology. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2003;57(10):778–783. doi: 10.1136/jech.57.10.778. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee R, Fang X, Fuo L. The impact of incarceration on the physical and mental health of young adults. Pediatrics. 2013;131(4):e1188–11195. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-0627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Maschi T, MacMillan T, Morgen K, Gibson S, Stimmel M. Trauma, world assumptions, and coping resources among youthful offenders: social work, mental health, and criminal justice implications. Child Adolescent Social Work Journal. 2010;27(6):377–393. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mullings JL, Hartley DJ, Marquart JW. Exploring the relationship between alcohol use, childhood maltreatment, and treatment needs among female prisoners. Substance Use & Misuse. 2004;39(2):277–305. doi: 10.1081/ja-120028491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mumola C. Incarcerated parents and their children. US Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics; Washington, D.C.: 2000. [Google Scholar]
  33. Murray J, Farrington DP. The effects of parental imprisonment on children. Crime and Justice. 2008;37(1):133–206. [Google Scholar]
  34. Murray J, Farrington DP, Sekol I. Children's antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 2012;138(2):175. doi: 10.1037/a0026407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. O'Rand A. The precious and the precocious: understanding cumulative disadvantage and cumulative advantage over the life course. The Gerontologist. 1996;36(2):230–238. doi: 10.1093/geront/36.2.230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Pearlin L, Schieman S, Fazio E, Meersman S. Stress, health, and the life course: some conceptual perspectives. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2005:205–219. doi: 10.1177/002214650504600206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pearlin L. The life course and the stress process: some conceptual comparisons. Journal of Gerontology. 2010;65(2):207–215. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbp106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Poelhmann J, Eddy JM. Relationship processes and resilience in children with incarcerated parents. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 2013;78(3) doi: 10.1111/mono.12017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Schen C. When mothers leave their children behind. Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 2005;13(4):233–243. doi: 10.1080/10673220500243380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Schnittker J, Massoglia M, Uggen C. Incarceration and the health of the African-American community. Du Bois Review. 2011:1–9. [Google Scholar]
  41. Schafer MH, Ferraro KF. Childhood misfortune and adult health: enduring and cascadic effects on somatic and psychological symptoms?. Journal of Aging and Health. 2013;25(1):3–28. doi: 10.1177/0898264312464884. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Sharp S, Peck M, Hartsfield J. Childhood adversity and susbtance use of women prisoners: a general strain theory approach. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2012;40:202–211. [Google Scholar]
  43. Shonkoff J, Garner A. The lifelong effects of childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics. 2012;129:e232–e246. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-2663. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tonry M, Petersilia J. American prisons at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Crime & Justice. 1999;26:1. [Google Scholar]
  45. Travis J. Families and children of offenders who return home. Federal. Probation. 2005;69:31. [Google Scholar]
  46. Travis J, Waul M. Prisoners once removed: The children and families of prisoners. Urban Institute Press; Washington, D.C: 2003. [Google Scholar]
  47. Western B, Pettit B. Incarceration and social inequality. American Academy of the Arts and Sciences. 2010:8–19. doi: 10.1162/daed_a_00019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Western B, Wildeman C. The black family and incarceration. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2009;621(1):221–242. [Google Scholar]
  49. Wilbur MB, Marani JE, Appugliese D, Woods R, Siegel JA, Cabral HJ, Frank DA. Socioemotional effects of fathers' incarceration on low-income, urban, school-aged children. Pediatrics. 2007;120:e678–e685. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Wildeman C. Parental imprisonment, the prison boom, and the concentration of childhood disadvantage. Demography. 2009;46(2):265–280. doi: 10.1353/dem.0.0052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wills TA, Hirky E. Coping and substance abuse: A theoretical model and review of the evidence. In: Zeidner M, Endler N, editors. Handbook of coping: Theory, research and applications. John Wiley & Sons; Oxford, England: 1996. pp. 279–302. [Google Scholar]
  52. Wilper A, Woolhandler S, Boyd, Karen W, Lasser K, McCormick D, Bor D, Himmelstein D. The health and health care of US prisoners: Results of a nationwide survey. American Journal of Public Health. 2009;99(4):666–672. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.144279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Yancura LA, Aldwin CM. Stability and change in retrospective reports of childhood experiences over a 5-year period: findings from the Davis longitudinal study. Psychology and Aging. 2009;24(3):715. doi: 10.1037/a0016203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES