Linking parental incarceration and family dynamics associated with intergenerational transmission: A life‐course perspective*

• Published date: 01 August 2019
• Date: 01 August 2019
• Author: Monica A. Longmore,Wendy D. Manning,Jennifer E. Copp,Peggy C. Giordano
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12209

Received: 1 February 2018 Revised: 30 November2018 Accepted: 3 December 2018

DOI: 10.1111/1745-9125.12209

ARTICLE

Linking parental incarceration and family dynamics

associated with intergenerational transmission: A

life-course perspective*

Peggy C. Giordano1Jennifer E. Copp2Wendy D. Manning1

Monica A. Longmore1

1Department of Sociology and Center for Family and Demographic Research, BowlingGreen State University

2College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University

Correspondence

PeggyC. Giordano, Depar tment of Sociol-

ogyand Center for Family and Demographic

Research,Bowling Green State University,

BowlingGreen, OH 43403.

Email:pgiorda@bgsu.edu

Fundinginformation

NationalInstitute of Justice, Grant/Award

Numbers:2009-IJ-CX-0503, 2010-MU-

MU-0031;Eunice Kennedy Shriver National

Instituteof Child Health and Human Devel-

opment,Grant/Award Numbers: HD036223,

HD044206,HD66087, R24HD050959

*Additionalsupporting information

canbe found in the listing for this arti-

clein t he WileyOnline Library at

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/

crim.2019.57.issue-3/issuetoc.

Abstract

Children experiencing parental incarceration face numer-

ous additional disadvantages, but researchers have often

relied on these other co-occurring factors primarily as

controls. In this article, we focus on the intimate links

between crime and incarceration, as well as on the broader

family context within which parental incarceration often

unfolds. Thus, parents’ drug use and criminal behavior

that precedes and may follow incarceration periods may be

ongoing stressors that directly affect child well-being. We

also use our analyses to foreground mechanisms associated

with social learning theories, including observations

and communications that increase the child’s risk for

criminal involvement and other problem outcomes. These

related family experiences often channel the child’s own

developing network ties (peers, romantic partners) that

then serve as proximal influences. We explore these

processes by drawing on qualitative and quantitative data

from a study of the lives of a sample of respondents

followed from adolescence to young adulthood, as well

as on records searches of parents’ incarceration histories.

Through our analyses, we find evidence that 1) some

effects attributed to parental incarceration likely connect

to unmeasured features of the broader family context, and

Criminology. 2019;57:395–423. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/crim © 2019 American Society of Criminology 395

396 GIORDANO ET AL.

b) together parental incarceration and the broader climate

often constitute a tightly coupled package of family-related

risks linked to intergenerational continuities in criminal

behavior and other forms of social disadvantage.

KEYWORDS

familydynamics, life course, parental incarceration, social learning, young

adulthood

Research is accumulating rapidly on the negativeconsequences of recent incarceration trends for neigh-

borhoods, families, and individuals (see Travis, Western, & Redburn, 2014, for a review). The findings

from studies of effects on children who experience a parent’s incarceration (PI) have highlighted that

the negative impact often reaches to the next generation. Researchers have documented effects across

multiple domains ranging from delinquency to educational deficits and, eventually, to an intergenera-

tional cycle of involvement with the criminal justice system (Foster & Hagan, 2015; Murray, Loeber,

& Pardini, 2012). The results of studies with a focus on underlying mechanisms have highlighted the

stressful, traumatic aspects of the experience (Arditti & Salva, 2015), negative effects on parent–child

bonds, family stability, and parenting practices (Poehlmann-Tynan, 2015), as well as the deleterious

role of secondary stigma/labeling (Comfort, 2007).

A potential limitation of this line of research is that, as Uggen (2013) has noted, the literature on

consequences of incarceration has developed mainly along a separate trackfrom the broader “causes of

crime” and related criminological traditions, including the literature on intergenerational transmission.

Most studies of PI effects haveincluded controls for numerous sources of disadvantage, but a challenge

is that data sets may lack detailed information about the parent’s criminal behavior(Kirk & Wakefield,

2018). In addition, as the objective of most studies has been to isolate the incarceration effect itself, this

has required “zooming in” on the incarceration period rather than the kind of “zooming out” that would

be more likely to direct attention to these other features of family climate. Wakefield and Apel (2018)

recently offered an additional rationale forfocusing attention primarily on the incarceration period. The

authors suggested that in contrast to the sporadic and frequently less observable character of parents’

criminal involvement, parental absence resulting from incarceration is an experience that is almost by

definition noticeable to the child. Thus, in focusing in on a discrete, timed event and its consequences,

PI effects studies have fit well with the broader life-course tradition, which has also generally been

centered on the impact of key events, transitions, and turning points (see, e.g., Elder, 1998).

Although researchers have documented considerable stresses and long-term corrosive effects of the

experience of PI, a comprehensive treatment of mechanisms nevertheless requires additional scrutiny

of the broader family context (BFC) within which incarceration often unfolds. It is important to focus

theoretically and empirically on the nature of family life before and after the parent’s incarceration

as, in most instances, these other periods last longer and may be more all encompassing relative to the

incarceration period(s). Family systems theory and trauma-informed approaches are logical conceptual

frameworks for locating PI within the context of a broader set of family experiences (Arditti, 2012).

We wish, however, to focus attention as well on the family dynamics highlighted by social learning

theorists. Such influence processes within the family are generally considered foundational, but they

have been somewhat peripheral to research that has been aimed at examining PI effects.

Our view is that in families touched by incarceration, parents’ and other family members’ criminal

behavior (especially substance use and violence) may be recurrent, observable features of children’s