Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:2891–2900
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01468-8
ORIGINAL PAPER
Effects of Paternal Incarceration on Father Involvement on Child
Behavior Outcomes at Middle Childhood
Jamel Slaughter
1
●
Jaya B. Davis2 Craig Nagoshi3
●
1234567890();,:
1234567890();,:
Published online: 21 May 2019
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract
Objectives This study tested the separate and combined effects of father involvement and paternal incarceration on child
internalizing and externalizing behaviors at 9 years of age.
Methods Our sample contains completed interviews of 2652 fathers, 3515 mothers, and 3377 children. The mean age of
fathers was 28 at child age 9. Multiple regression analysis of secondary data was conducted from the Fragile Families and
Child Wellbeing Study, a national study that followed a cohort of low-income married and unmarried parents and their
young children living in 20 US cities.
Results Higher socioeconomic status and greater father involvement were associated with lower child internalizing and
externalizing behaviors, while paternal incarceration for property crimes was associated with greater externalizing in boys
and internalizing in girls. Incarceration for drug crimes was associated with lower father involvement.
Conclusions Multiple regression analyses confirmed the independent effects of father involvement on child internalizing and
externalizing, but the incarceration for property crimes effects were attenuated and moderated by SES.
Keywords Externalizing behaviors Father involvement Internalizing behaviors Middle childhood Paternal incarceration
●
●
Parental incarceration is recognized as an “adverse childhood experience” (ACE) and distinguished from other
adverse childhood experiences due to the combination of
trauma, shame, and stigma (Hairston 2007). A report on
parental incarceration from the Bureau of Justice Statistics
found the number of parents in state and federal prisons
increased by 79% between 1991 and midyear 2007 (Glaze
and Maruschak 2008), resulting in 2.7 million children
under the age of 18 with a parent in jail or prison. Current
figures estimate 7% of, or 5 million children have experienced the incarceration of a parent during their childhood.
Based on the most recent data available (2007),
* Jamel Slaughter
jamel.slaughter@uta.edu
1
School of Social Work, University of Texas at Arlington,
Arlington, TX 76019, USA
2
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of
Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, USA
3
Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Arlington,
Arlington, TX 76019, USA
●
●
approximately 2% of, or 1.7 million children currently have
an incarcerated parent (Glaze and Maruschak 2008).
Studies have discovered an association between parental
incarceration and externalizing behaviors in children (Aaron
and Dallaire 2009; Murray et al. 2012). The effects of
maternal incarceration are well documented, however,
relatively little is known about the effects of paternal
incarceration on father involvement and the influence of
paternal incarceration on children’s behavior (Murray and
Farrington 2008). The unknown effects of paternal incarceration are especially troubling because fathers account for
91% of all incarcerated parents (Mumola 2010). Additionally, father incarceration may be more detrimental to boys,
given that fathers are typically less involved with daughters
than sons (Lundberg et al. 2007).
The children of incarcerated fathers are at risk for
increased probabilities of negative outcomes which, in turn,
impact their wellbeing. Wellbeing refers to the child’s
physical health, development, and safety; psychological and
emotional development; social development and behavior;
and cognitive development and educational achievement
(Moore 2013). Negative outcomes include stress, anxiety,
delinquency, and other antisocial behaviors (Foster and
2892
Hagan 2013; Murray and Farrington 2008; Roettger and
Swisher 2011).
Several studies in the extant literature identified associations between paternal incarceration and depression,
anxiety, attention problems, PTSD, and delinquency in
young children and adolescents (Geller et al. 2011; Lee
et al. 2013; Mazza 2002; Murray and Farrington 2008;
Murray et al. 2012; Roettger and Swisher 2011; Turney and
Haskins 2014; Wilbur et al. 2007). Unresolved feelings of
sadness, isolation, and anger in children of incarcerated
fathers result in behavior problems, drugs and alcohol abuse
(Dallaire and Wilson 2009; Nesmith and Ruhland 2008;
Roettger and Swisher 2009), and emotional withdrawal
(Parke and Clarke-Stewart 2002). Children of incarcerated
parents often carry an additional emotional burden due to
their caretakers prohibiting them from discussing their
fathers’ incarceration or how they have been affected
(Thombre et al. 2009).
Although there is a body of research identifying internalizing behaviors associated with parental incarceration,
Wildeman and Western (2010) found paternal incarceration
related to increased children’s externalizing behaviors but
not internalizing behaviors. Further, Wildeman and Western
(2010) found an association between parental incarceration
and heightened aggression in boys, but not girls. This
gendered finding is not unique. Geller et al. (2011) reported
increased aggressive behaviors (externalizing) among children of incarcerated fathers, with the effect of aggression in
boys being almost two times that of girls. Other studies also
found boys respond to paternal absence with increased
externalizing behaviors and greater physical aggression
(Craigie 2011; Malone et al. 2004; Murray and Farrington
2008; Wildeman and Western 2010).
While some research is divided regarding the association
of paternal incarceration on internalizing or externalizing
behaviors or whether the outcomes are worse for boys or
girls, most agree that paternal incarceration negatively
impacts children. This association includes internalizing and
externalizing behavior problems, substance abuse, adult
offending and incarceration, truancy, and school failure
(Poehlmann and Eddy 2013; Geller et al. 2009; Murray
et al. 2009; Wakefield and Wildeman 2011).
In addition to social and relational behaviors, withdrawal, anxiety, loneliness, guilt, sadness, and depression
are also examples of internalizing behaviors (Burt et al.
2008; Hay et al. 2004). Father involvement has been found
to increase children’s positive social, relational, and behavioral (Carlson 2006; Chang et al. 2007; Parke et al. 2004)
outcomes, while decreasing emotional and behavioral problems. Furthermore, children with high quality relationships
with their fathers, displayed lower levels of internalizing
behavior problems (Bronte-Tinkew et al. 2006; White and
Gilbreth 2001). This is of importance because internalizing
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:2891–2900
behaviors in children are predictors of future psychological
maladjustment (Copeland et al. 2009).
Paternal incarceration also impacts father involvement by
limiting father’s availability, income, engagement, and
responsibility. This is especially troubling because of the
influence of father involvement on child behavior. Father
involvement has been associated with fewer externalizing
behaviors, such as acting out, disruptive behavior, and
antisocial behaviors (Flouri and Buchanan 2002; King and
Sobolewski 2006; Mosley and Thomson 1995). Research
has found that father involvement reduces behavioral problems (Amato and Rivera 1999; Howard et al. 2006) and is
negatively associated with conduct disorders, hyperactivity,
and bullying behavior (Flouri 2005).
One under-discussed and researched aspect of father
incarceration is the impact of incarceration on fathers’
wellbeing. The extant literature has revealed that fathers
experience distress related to not being able to fulfill their
roles as financial providers (Tripp 2001), maintaining relationships with their wives or partners/ex-partners (Arditti
et al. 2005; Day et al. 2005), and trying to remain involved
in their children’s lives (Arditti et al. 2005; Hairston and
Hess 1989; Hairston 1995; Tripp 2001). Supporting the
findings of Arditti et al. (2005), Swisher and Waller (2008)
found a negative association between fathers’ history of
incarceration and contact with their children. Research has
suggested that fathers’ well-being, among other predictors,
influences their levels of involvement and thus influences
child outcomes. In support of these findings, Cabrera et al.
(2014) developed an expanded heuristic model of father
involvement which suggests fathers’ characteristics (inclusive of their mental and physical health) influences or predicts father parenting behaviors and subsequently their
child’s development.
Based on the original Cabrera et al. (2007) heuristic
model of father involvement, several factors have been
identified as predictors of father involvement: fathers’
demographics, rearing, cultural and biological history, and
fathers’ socioeconomic status (SES). In addition to predictors of father involvement, barriers to father involvement
include: mother-father relationship, father-child relationship, and fathers’ financial difficulties (SES) (Roberts et al.
2014). SES has been shown to be a predictor of and barrier
to father involvement. Higher income is associated with
greater father involvement (Ahmeduzzaman and Roopnarine 1992), while lower levels of father involvement are
associated with lower socioeconomic status fathers (Seward
et al. 2006). While Dooley and Stewart (2006) found
income level was not a significant predictor of father
involvement, studies by Marsiglio et al. (2000) and Pleck
and Masciadrelli (2004) found lower levels of SES are
linked to broader environmental conditions that present
challenges to father involvement.
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:2891–2900
The extant literature has found greater detrimental effects
on children’s social, emotional, and behavioral well-being
due to forced separation from paternal incarceration compared to lack of father involvement with their children
(Egeland et al. 1988). Several studies have discovered
evidence of a stronger effect of paternal incarceration on
child aggressive behaviors than other forms of absence
(Geller et al. 2011; Swisher and Waller 2008). Researchers
posit that unmarried, non-resident fathers are more able to
maintain contact with their children and be involved in their
children’s daily activities (bedtime, games, etc.) (Argys and
Peters 2001; Swisher and Waller 2008; Tach et al. 2010).
Contrarily, less than 33% of incarcerated fathers see their
children regularly (Hairston 1995), thereby limiting the
quality and quantity of interactions, resulting in negative
outcomes (Swisher and Waller 2008). Important to note,
Wildeman and Western (2010) found that the effects of
paternal incarceration on child outcomes are largely
dependent on the relationship the father had with the child
prior to being incarcerated.
The purpose of this study is to build on and extend
previous paternal incarceration and child outcomes research
by investigating the association between paternal incarceration and type of offense committed on the behavioral
outcomes of children at middle childhood, and the extent to
which father involvement moderates the effects of paternal
incarceration on children’s internalizing and externalizing
behaviors. We thus address the following research questions: (a) What are the effects of father involvement on the
internalizing and externalizing behaviors of children at
middle childhood; (b) What are the effects of paternal
incarceration on the internalizing and externalizing behaviors of children at middle childhood; (c) Are the effects of
father incarceration moderated by father involvement; (d)
Are any of these effects moderated by child gender; and (e)
Are any of these effects moderated by father socioeconomic
status?
2893
having less than a high school education, 20% having some
college or technical school, and 10% having a college or
graduate degree.
Six hundred and thirty-five (13%) fathers in the sample
reported being incarcerated at some point before their child
reached age 9, whereas 2017 (41%) reported not having
been incarcerated at any point. Twenty percent (981) of
fathers reported being married to the child’s mother and
another 6% reported to living with child’s mother. Conversely, 34% (1660) of fathers reported not being married to
child’s mother and another 48% (2345) reported not living
with the child’s mother.
The mean age of mothers at child age 9 was 26. Mothers
of African American decent represented the largest group
with 48%, followed by 27% Hispanic, and 21% White.
Nearly 35% of mothers reported having less than a high
school education, followed by 30% having a high school
diploma or equivalent (GED), 24% having some college or
technical school, and 11% having a college or graduate
degree.
Two thousand five hundred and sixty-eight (52%) of the
children were boys, and 2329 (48%) were girls. The
demographics of the sample are also presented in Table 1.
Table 1 Sample demographics
Mother
Father
Gender
Male
52%
Female
48%
Race
African American
48%
49%
49%
Hipanic
27%
28%
28%
White
21%
18%
18%
Avg. age
26
28
9
Education
Method
Participants
The sample for this study was selected from the 9-year
follow-up interview data collection wave of the Fragile
Families Study and included fathers, mothers, and their
children. In total, our sample contains completed interviews
of 2652 fathers, 3515 mothers, and 3377 children. The
mean age of fathers was 28 at child age 9. African American
fathers represented 49%, Hispanic fathers represented 28%,
and White fathers represented 18% of study participants.
Roughly 35% of fathers reported having a high school
diploma or equivalent (GED), followed by 31% reporting
Child
Did not complete HS
35%
31%
HS/GED/Equiv
30%
35%
Some College/Tech
24%
20%
College/Grad Degree
11%
10%
Incarcerated
Any point prior to child’s 9th yr.
13%
Not incarcerated
41%
Married to child’s mother
Yes
20%
No
34%
Living w/child’s mother
Yes
6%
No
48%
2894
Procedure
The data for this study were drawn from a sample of the
Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS), a
national study that followed a cohort of low-income married
and unmarried parents and their young children living in 20
US cities with populations over 200,000. The FFCWS was
designed primarily to investigate the conditions of lowincome and unmarried families, how children born into
these families’ fare, and how local policies and environmental circumstances affect families (Center for Research
on Child Well-Being 2011). Nested sampling occurred in
three stages: (1) cities; (2) hospitals within cities; and (3)
births within hospitals. A national sample of 16 cities was
selected randomly from a stratified sample of 77 cities. Four
additional cities were added to the sample because they
were of primary interest to the funding bodies. Baseline data
were collected between 1998 and 2000, 4789 mothers and
3742 fathers were interviewed for the study. Mothers were
interviewed in the hospital within 24 h of their child’s birth
(1186 marital births and 3712 nonmarital births). Fathers
were also interviewed in the hospital when possible and
contacted in other locations if they were not present at the
birth (Reichman et al. 2001).
Mothers were reinterviewed for 1-year, 3-year, 5-year,
and 9-year follow-up data collection. Response rates for the
1-year, 3-year, 5-year, and 9-year follow-up interviews were
89% (n = 4270), 86% (n = 4140), 83% (n = 4055)
(Reichman et al. 2001), and 76% (n = 3515) (CRCW 2011),
respectively.
Fathers were reinterviewed for 1-year, 3-year, 5-year,
and 9-year follow-up data collection interviews. Response
rates for the 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, and 9-year follow-up
interviews were 69% (n = 3306), 67% (n = 3225), 64% (n
= 3087) (Reichman et al. 2001), and 59% (n = 2652)
respectively (CRCW 2011). The data for this study were
drawn from the mothers’ and children’s 9-year follow-up
interview.
Measures
Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) internalizing and
externalizing
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:2891–2900
“Child is unhappy, sad, or depressed” for internalizing)
were measured on a 3-point scale ranging from 0 (not true)
to 2 (very true). The reported internal consistency alphas for
the subscales range from 0.70 to 0.89. For the current study,
six externalizing items were used, yielding a Cronbach’s
alpha of 0.59, and eight internalizing items were used,
yielding a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.65.
Father involvement
Involvement was operationalized as child reported father
engagement and father closeness. The five items (“Your dad
talks over important decisions with you;” “Your dad spends
enough time with you;” “Your dad misses events or activities that are important to you” (reversed); “How close you
feel to your dad;” “How well you and your dad share ideas
or talk about things that matter;” α = 0.73) were measured
on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (always).
Father ever incarcerated
This item was a father reported measure of incarceration
and measured whether dad was “ever in jail” by the nineyear wave interview. The item gauged whether the father
was incarcerated at any point over the prior 9 years (0 = no,
1 = yes).
Father offense type
These items were father-reported and assessed whether (yes
versus no) the father reported having been incarcerated for
particular classes of criminal offenses. These offenses
included: (1) Public order (gambling, commercial vice); (2)
Drugs (sale, possession); (3) Property (destruction, vandalism, theft); and (4) Violent crimes (assault, robbery).
Socioeconomic status
SES was based on whether family incomes fell within one
of five categories: below 49% (1), 50–99% (2), 100–199%
(3), 200–299% (4), or above 300% (5) of the Federal
poverty line.
Data Analyses
This scale was designed to measure children’s internalizing
and externalizing behaviors through questions taken from
the aggressive behavior, rule breaking behavior, withdrawn/
depressed, anxious/depressed, attention problems, and
social problem subscales of the CBCL/6-18 (CBCL/6-18:
Achenbach and Rescorla 2001). The CBCL −6/18
(Achenbach and Rescorla 2001) provides problem items
scores for eight sub-scales. The items (e.g., “Child is cruel,
bullies, or shows meanness to others?” for externalizing,
For the father criminality variable, property crimes and
public order crimes were combined to increase the variance
of the variable, with the logic that these types of offenses
are fundamentally different, and less serious, when compared to drug and violent offenses. Multiple regression
analyses were conducted with variables entered hierarchically in this order: (1) child gender (1 or 2), (2) SES
(1–5), (3) father property or public order crime (0 or 1), (4)
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:2891–2900
2895
violent crimes separately by child gender. The patterns of
correlations were generally similar for boys and girls. As
expected, greater father involvement and higher SES was
significantly correlated with lower externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Whether father was ever in jail, father
drug crimes, and father violent crimes were not significantly
correlated with child externalizing nor internalizing behaviors, but property and public order crimes were significantly or near-significantly correlated with the child
variables. Interestingly, higher SES was significantly correlated with greater father involvement, while drug crimes
were correlated with lower father involvement.
The correlation results described above suggested that it
would be useful to look at the combined effects of father
involvement and father property and public order crimes in
predicting child externalizing and internalizing behaviors.
The correlation matrices presented in Table 3 did not suggest that gender would moderate effects, but the significant
effects of SES and inspection of correlation matrices separated by SES suggested that SES might moderate some of
the effects of father involvement and father property and
public order crimes on child externalizing and internalizing
behaviors. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were
thus conducted to look at the separate and interactive effects
of SES, father involvement, and father criminality.
Table 4 presents the results of these hierarchical multiple
regression analyses, with the betas showing the independent
effects of each predictor and the multiple R2 changes
showing the effect of each predictor as it was entered into
the model. For CBCL externalizing, there was a large,
significant negative main effect of SES and a significant
negative main effect of father involvement, with no other
significant effects. For CBCL internalizing, there was a
large, significant negative main effect of SES, a nearsignificant (p = 0.089) positive main effect of father property or public order crime, a large, significant negative main
effect of father involvement, a significant interaction of SES
father involvement, (5) SES × offense, (6) SES × father
involvement, (7) father property or public order crime ×
father involvement, (8) SES × father crime × father involvement. The interaction terms were computed by multiplying centered terms (SES contrast coded −2 −1 0 1 2;
offense contrast coded −1 1; father involvement centered
by subtracting the mean). The two dependent variables were
externalizing and internalizing.
Results
Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for
CBCL externalizing, CBCL internalizing, father involvement, whether father was ever in jail, and whether father
was in jail for drug, property, public order, or violent crimes
by child gender. The only significant difference was that
boys scored higher than girls on CBCL externalizing.
Table 3 presents the correlations among CBCL externalizing, CBCL internalizing, father involvement, socioeconomic status, whether father was ever in jail, and
whether father was in jail for drug, property, public order, or
Table 2 Means and standard deviations by gender
Boys
Mean
Girls
S.D.
Mean
S.D.
t
CBCL externalizing
0.03
0.09
0.02
0.08
2.43*
CBCL internalizing
0.14
0.20
0.14
0.18
0.18
Father involvement
2.93
0.75
2.94
0.73
−0.65
−0.17
Father ever in jail
0.50
0.05
0.50
0.05
Drug crimes
0.03
0.18
0.03
0.16
0.81
Property crimes
0.02
0.14
0.02
0.14
−0.15
Public order crimes
0.06
0.24
0.06
0.23
0.11
Violent crimes
0.02
0.16
0.03
0.18
−1.41
*p < 0.05
Table 3 Correlations among the variables by gendera
Ext.
Externalizing
Internalizing
Int.
0.45***
0.43***
Inv.
SES
−0.06
−0.07**
0.02
0.03
−0.09***
−0.06*
0.04
−0.02
Father inv.
−0.07*
−0.06*
SES
−0.09***
−0.15***
Father in jail
−0.04
−0.01
0.01
Drug crimes
0.01
−0.01
−0.08**
0.10***
0.17***
Jail
Prop.
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.00
−0.07**
0.00
−0.07**
−0.03
0.00
−0.03
−02
Property crimes
0.05*
0.01
−0.01
−0.06*
0.03
−0.03
Public order crimes
0.00
0.04
0.01
−0.06*
0.00
−0.05
−0.04
Violent crimes
0.02
−0.03
0.00
0.00
−0.03
−0.03
−0.02
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.15, ***p < 0.001
a
Boys below the diagonal; girls above the diagonal
Viol.
0.01
−0.04
−0.04
Pub.
0.05*
−0.04
−0.02
−0.09***
Drug
−0.01
−0.10***
−0.09***
−0.07**
0.01
−0.03
−0.04
−0.03
−0.04
−0.03
−0.05
−0.04
2896
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:2891–2900
Table 4 Hierarchical multiple regression of externalizing and
internalizing on predictor variables
Externalizing
beta
a
Internalizing
ΔR
2
beta
ΔR2
Child gender
−0.017
0.000
−0.006
0.000
Socioeconomic status
−0.065
0.004**
−0.001
0.013***
Prop./Pub. Ord. crimes
0.010
0.000
Father involvement
−0.002
0.002*
SES × crimes
−0.009
0.000
SES × father inv.
0.057*
−0.072
0.116**
0.001
0.003**
0.003**
−0.017
0.000
−0.067
0.001
Crimes × father inv.
0.050
0.001
−0.013
0.000
SES × crimes × inv.
−0.013
0.006
−0.038
0.000
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
a
Beta for full model
by father property or public order crime, and a nearsignificant (p = 0.099) interaction of SES by father
involvement.
The interaction of SES by father property or public order
crime was due to father crime effects on internalizing only
being significant for the second highest SES group (rs from
the lowest to the highest SES groups were 0.01, 0.01, 0.06,
0.21, and 0.06, respectively). The interaction of SES by
father involvement was due to father involvement effects on
internalizing only being significant for the highest SES
group (rs from the lowest to the highest SES groups were
−0.01, −0.06, −0.04, −0.06, and −0.15, respectively).
Discussion
Prior research concludes that father involvement and father
presence make a difference in child wellbeing. Further,
research indicates that father absence through incarceration
is an adverse childhood experience and contributes to
decreased father involvement. The goal of this research was
to use the Fragile Families Study to evaluate the impact of
father incarceration on father involvement and child’s
behavior, while also considering the moderating effects of
gender, offense type, and socioeconomic status.
The variable “father ever in jail” was not found to impact
child behavior at age nine nor to be associated with father
involvement. Previous research using these data found that
paternal incarceration did not impact child behavior, but
paternal incarceration did impact paternal involvement at
age five (Perry and Bright 2012). Although 13% of fathers
responded to having been detained or incarcerated for some
time during their child’s life, we were not able to measure
the length of time the father was incarcerated. Thus, short
incarcerations would likely not have had as large an effect
on child behavior. Further, children may not even be aware
that their father was incarcerated, if the incarceration was of
short duration and the child was young when it occurred.
As Wildeman et al. (2013) indicate, the relationship
between incarceration, involvement, and behavior is complicated. Factors other than those studied here are important
to fully understand this relationship. As these researchers
found, residence of father prior to incarceration makes a
difference. Only six percent of respondents included in this
study reported living with the mother. If father was not
living with the child at time of incarceration, the impact of
incarceration is likely reduced. Future studies that continue
to explore these variables, including duration of incarceration and complexities of the living situation, are important
to better understand the impact of father incarceration on
involvement and behavior.
The existing body of research indicates that father
involvement is associated with reduced child externalizing
(Flouri and Buchanan 2002; King and Sobolewski 2006;
Mosley and Thomson 1995) and internalizing behaviors
(Carlson 2006; Chang et al. 2007; Parke et al. 2004). The
present analyses also support the importance of father
involvement on child behavior. Father involvement was
found to be correlated with reduced child externalizing and
internalizing behaviors at age nine, with father involvement
in this case assessed through the child’s perception of father
engagement and closeness. Waldfogel et al. (2010) found
that, regarding behavior and parenting, stability matters.
Therefore, if a child perceives his/her father as involved in
activities, decisions, and value his/her opinion, physical
absence in the home may have less influence on behavior.
An initial comparison of means indicates that boys
exhibited more externalizing behaviors when compared to
girls. This finding is unsurprising and supportive of the
previous literature (Craigie 2011; Geller et al. 2011; Malone
et al. 2004; Murray and Farrington 2008; Wildeman and
Western 2010).
The current finding that higher SES is associated with
lower externalizing and internalizing behaviors is also
consistent with the previous literature (Adler and Snibbe
2003; Reiss 2013; Repetti et al. 2002; Singh and Ghandour
2012; Tremblay 1999; Vine et al. 2012). The mixed findings of the interactions between SES and involvement and
SES and criminality are less clearly understood. Previous
research (Conger et al. 2010; Kaiser 2016; Roy and Kwon
2007; Ravanera and Rajulton 2000; Seward et al. 2006) has
linked lower SES with environmental conditions that have
correlated with reduced father involvement. The present
analyses provide some evidence that SES may, in fact,
moderate the effects of both father involvement and father
incarceration on child behavioral outcomes.
Father incarceration for property/public order crimes was
found to be associated with greater child internalizing only for
the second-highest SES group, perhaps because of the greater
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:2891–2900
relative loss of family income for this group. The lack of
effect for the highest SES group, however, is puzzling (it
should be noted that the distribution of families across the 5
SES categories was fairly even). Meanwhile, father involvement effects in reducing child internalizing were particularly
apparent for the highest SES group, perhaps due to the greater
resources for good parenting available to fathers in this group.
These explanations are speculative and need to be followed
up in future research.
The purpose of the Fragile Families Study was to better
understand outcomes for children born to unmarried parents. The study was designed to underscore the fragility of
these families at risk of “breaking up and living in poverty”
(CRCW). By design unwed mothers were oversampled
(75% of participants were not married), however,
economically-advantaged unwed mothers were less likely to
be included and those in marital relationships, which were
less likely to be socially and financially disadvantaged
(Wagmiller et al. 2010). Given the goals of the study, it is
not surprising to find that children who perceive their father
to be involved display fewer negative behaviors.
Turney and Wildeman (2015) found that maternal
incarceration is more deleterious for children who did not
anticipate their mother to be incarcerated. For those children
with experiences of maternal separation and extensive
kinship care, maternal incarceration played little role in their
outcomes. The findings from the current study are similar.
Paternal incarceration may not be unexpected in this group
but if a father stays involved and the family has more
resources, the incarceration effect can be attenuated.
Limitations
Limitations of the study include the sample and self-report
measures. The sampling design resulted in a sample that
was disproportionately African American and drawn from
only certain regions of the US, which limits generalizability.
The children reporting on father involvement may have
been too young to give accurate reports over time or could
fall victim to telescoping (recalling events that occurred at
another time) (Brutus et al. 2012).
Self-presentation concerns may have caused mothers to
under-report child behavioral problems and fathers to
under-report incarcerations or incarceration type (e.g.,
property and public order offenses which are far less serious
than drug and violent offenses). Furthermore, without
criminal records to corroborate offense type, the study was
fully dependent on the accuracy of incarceration reporting
by fathers.
Our study findings continue to capture the need for
greater father involvement in the lives of their children. As
expected, greater father involvement and higher SES was
2897
significantly correlated with lower externalizing and internalizing behaviors in both boys and girls. Exploring paternal incarceration, we found an interesting concept; whether
the father ever spent time in jail, drug crimes, and violent
crimes were not significantly correlated with child externalizing nor internalizing behaviors, but property and public
order crimes were significantly or near-significantly correlated with the child variables. Lesser offending fathers may
be more active in the daily routine of their children than
more egregious offenders, and thereby forced separation
caused by incarceration causes greater harm in their children. Our findings suggest it would be useful to consider
alternatives to incarceration for low-level offenders.
Acknowledgements Research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of
Health under award numbers R01HD36916, R01HD39135, and
R01HD40421, as well as a consortium of private foundations. The
content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not
necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of
Health.
Author Contributions J.S. designed and executed the study, assisted
with the data analyses, and wrote the paper. J.B.D. collaborated with
the design and writing of the study. C.N. analyzed the data and wrote
the results. J.S., C.N., and J.B.D. collaborated in the writing and
editing of the final manuscript.
Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding
agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical Approval This article does not contain any studies with human
participants performed by any of the authors.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
Aaron, L., & Dallaire, D. H. (2009). Parental incarceration and multiple risk experiences: effects on family dynamics and children’s
delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(12),
1471–1484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9458-0.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA
school-age forms & profiles (4). Retrieved from Research Center
for Children, Youth & Families, University of Vermont website:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281315372_Manual_
for_the_ASEBA_School-age_Forms_Profiles_Burlington_VT_
University_of_Vermont.
Adler, N. E., & Snibbe, A. C. (2003). The role of psychosocial processes in explaining the gradient between socioeconomic status
and health. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4),
119–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.01245.
2898
Ahmeduzzaman, M., & Roopnarine, J. L. (1992). Sociodemographic
factors, functioning style, social support, and fathers’ involvement with preschoolers in African American families. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 54(3), 699. https://doi.org/10.2307/
353255.
Amato, P. R., & Rivera, F. (1999). Paternal involvement and children’s behavior problems. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
61(2), 375. https://doi.org/10.2307/353755.
Arditti, J., Smock, S., & Parkman, T. (2005). “It’s been hard to be a
father”: a qualitative exploration of incarcerated fatherhood.
Fathering A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about
Men as Fathers, 3(3), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0303.
267.
Argys, L. M., & Peters, H. E. (2001). Interactions between unmarried
fathers and their children: the role of paternity establishment and
child-support policies. American Economic Review, 91(2),
125–129. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.2.125.
Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K. A., & Carrano, J. (2006). The fatherchild relationship, parenting styles, and adolescent risk behaviors
in intact families. Journal of Family Issues, 27(6), 850–881.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x05285296.
Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. (2012). Self-reported limitations and future directions in scholarly reports. Journal of Management, 39(1), 48–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312
455245.
Burt, K. B., Obradović, J., Long, J. D., & Masten, A. S. (2008). The
interplay of social competence and psychopathology over 20
years: testing transactional and cascade models. Child Development, 79(2), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.
01130.x.
Cabrera, N., Fitzgerald, H. E., Bradley, R. H., & Roggman, L. (2007).
Modeling the dynamics of paternal influences on children over
the life course. Applied Developmental Science, 11(4), 185–189.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690701762027.
Cabrera, N. J., Fitzgerald, H. E., Bradley, R. H., & Roggman, L.
(2014). The ecology of father-child relationships: an expanded
model. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(4), 336–354.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12054.
Carlson, M. J. (2006). Family structure, father involvement, and
adolescent behavioral outcomes. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 68(1), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.
2006.00239.x.
Chang, J. J., Halpern, C. T., & Kaufman, J. S. (2007). Maternal
depressive symptoms, father’s involvement, and the trajectories
of child problem behaviors in a U.S. national sample. Archives of
Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161(7), 697. https://doi.org/
10.1001/archpedi.161.7.697.
Center for Research on Child Wellbeing. (2011). Data for the nineyear follow-up wave of the fragile families and child wellbeing
study. Princeton University Bendheim-Thoman Center for
Research on Child Wellbeing. https://fragilefamilies.princeton.
edu/documentation/year9. Accessed 1 Feb 2015.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic
status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 72(3), 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1741-3737.2010.00725.x.
Copeland, W. E., Shanahan, L., Costello, E. J., & Angold, A. (2009).
Childhood and adolescent psychiatric disorders as predictors of
young adult disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66(7), 764
https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.85.
Craigie, T. L. (2011). The effect of paternal incarceration on early
child behavioral problems: a racial comparison. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 9(3), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15377938.2011.594349.
Dallaire, D. H., & Wilson, L. C. (2009). The relation of exposure to
parental criminal activity, arrest, and sentencing to children’s
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:2891–2900
maladjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(4),
404–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-009-9311-9.
Day, R., Acock, A., Bahr, S., & Arditti, J. (2005). Incarcerated fathers
returning home to children and families: introduction to the
special issue and a primer on doing research with men in prison.
Fathering A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about
Men as Fathers, 3(3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0303.
183.
Dooley, M., & Stewart, J. (2006). Family income, parenting styles and
child behavioural-emotional outcomes. Health Economics, 16(2),
145–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1142.
Egeland, B., Jacobvitz, D., & Sroufe, L. A. (1988). Breaking the cycle
of abuse. Child Development, 59(4), 1080. https://doi.org/10.
2307/1130274.
Flouri, E. (2005). Fathering and child outcome. 8th ed. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.10.1002/978047071322.
Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2002). Life satisfaction in teenage boys:
the moderating role of father involvement and bullying.
Aggressive Behavior, 28(2), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.
90014.
Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2013). Maternal and paternal imprisonment in
the stress process. Social Science Research, 42(3), 650–669.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.01.008.
Geller, A., Cooper, C. E., Garfinkel, I., Schwartz-Soicher, O., &
Mincy, R. B. (2011). Beyond absenteeism: father incarceration
and child development. Demography, 49(1), 49–76. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13524-011-0081-9.
Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., Cooper, C. E., & Mincy, R. B. (2009). Parental incarceration and child well-being: implications for urban
families. Social Science Quarterly, 90(5), 1186–1202. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00653.x.
Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Parents in prison and their
minor children (NCJ 222984). Office of Justice Programs, Bureau
of Justice. Washington, D.C. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/
pdf/pptmc.pdf.
Hairston, C. F. (1995). Fathers in prison. In K. E. Gabel & D. E.
Johnston (Eds), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 31–40).
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Hairston, C. F. (2007). Focus on children with incarcerated parents:
an overview of the research literature. Annie E. Casey Foundation. Baltimore, MD. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/
handle/2152/15158/AECasey_Children_IncParents.pdf?
sequence=2.
Hairston, C. F., & Hess, P. M. (1989). Family ties: maintaining childparent bonds is important. Corrections Today, 51(2), 102–106.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=
116794.
Hay, D. F., Payne, A., & Chadwick, A. (2004). Peer relations in
childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1),
84–108. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0021-9630.2003.00308.x.
Howard, K. S., Lefever, J. E., Borkowski, J. G., & Whitman, T. L.
(2006). Fathers’ influence in the lives of children with adolescent
mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 20(3), 468–476. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.3.468.
Kaiser, T. (2016). Socioeconomic status, parenting and conscientiousness: the unequal development of children’s focus.
Journal of Family Studies, 23(1), 62–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13229400.2016.1152195.
King, V., & Sobolewski, J. M. (2006). Nonresident fathers’ contributions to adolescent well-being. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 68(3), 537–557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.
2006.00274.x.
Lee, R. D., Fang, X., & Luo, F. (2013). The impact of parental
incarceration on the physical and mental health of young adults.
Pediatrics, 131(4), e1188–e1195. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.
2012-0627.
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:2891–2900
Lundberg, S., McLanahan, S., & Rose, E. (2007). Child gender and
father involvement in fragile families. Demography, 44(1),
79–92. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2007.0007.
Malone, P. S., Lansford, J. E., Castellino, D. R., Berlin, L. J., Dodge,
K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Divorce and child
behavior problems: applying latent change score models to life
event data. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 401–423.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_6.
Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 62(4), 1173–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1741-3737.2000.01173.x.
Mazza, C. (2002). And then the world fell apart: the children of
incarcerated fathers. Families in Society The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 83(5), 521–529. https://doi.org/10.
1606/1044-3894.61.
Moore, K. A. (2013, November). What is child well-being? Does it
matter how we measure it? Poster session presented at National
Council on Family Relations Annual Conference. San Antonio,
TX.
Mosley, J., & Thomson, E. (1995). Fathering behavior and child
outcomes: The role of race and poverty. In W. Marsiglio (Ed.),
Fatherhood: Contemporary theory, research, and social policy
(pp. 148–165). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mumola, C. J. (2010). Incarcerated parents and their children (NCJ
182335). U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Washington, D.C. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/iptc.pdf.
Murphey, D., & Cooper, P. M. (2015). Parents behind bars: what
happens to their children? Child Trends. Washington, D.C.
https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/201542ParentsBehindBars.pdf.
Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Parental imprisonment: longlasting effects on boys’ internalizing problems through the life
course. Development and Psychopathology, 20(01), 273–290.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579408000138.
Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., Sekol, I., & Olsen, R. F. (2009). Effects
of parental imprisonment on child antisocial behaviour and
mental health: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic
Reviews 2009:4, 1–105. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2009.4.
Murray, J., Loeber, R., & Pardini, D. (2012). Parental involvement in
the criminal justice system and the development of youth theft,
marijuana use, depression, and poor academic performance.
Criminology, 50(1), 255–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17459125.2011.00257.x.
Nesmith, A., & Ruhland, E. (2008). Children of incarcerated parents:
challenges and resiliency, in their own words. Children and
Youth Services Review, 30(10), 1119–1130. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.childyouth.2008.02.006.
Parke, R., & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2002, January). Effects of parental
incarceration on young children. Paper presented at From Prison
to Home: The Effect of Incarceration on Children, Families and
Communities. Bethesda, MD.
Parke, R. D., Coltrane, S., Duffy, S., Buriel, R., Dennis, J., Powers, J.,
& Widaman, K. F. (2004). Economic stress, parenting, and child
adjustment in Mexican American and European American
families. Child Development, 75(6), 1632–1656. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00807.x.
Perry, A. R., & Bright, M. (2012). African American fathers and
incarceration: paternal involvement and child outcomes. Social
Work in Public Health, 27(1-2), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.
1080/19371918.2011.629856.
Pleck, J. H., & Masciadrelli, B. P. (2004). Paternal involvement by U.
S residential fathers: levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E.
Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development. 4th ed.
(pp. 222–271). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
2899
Poehlmann, J., & Eddy, J. M. (2013). Introduction and conceptual
framework. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 78(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12017.
Ravanera, Z. R., & Rajulton, F. (2000). Variations in the length of
male parenting in Canada. Canadian Studies in Population, 27
(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.25336/p6m01z.
Reichman, N. E., Teitler, J. O., Garfinkel, I., & McLanahan, S. S.
(2001). Fragile Families: sample and design. Children and Youth
Services Review, 23(4–5), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0190-7409(01)00141-4.
Reiss, F. (2013). Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Social
Science & Medicine, 90, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
socscimed.2013.04.026.
Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families:
family social environments and the mental and physical health of
offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128(2), 330–366. https://doi.
org/10.1037//0033-2909.128.2.230.
Roberts, D., Coakley, T. M., Washington, T. J., & Kelley, A. (2014).
Fathers’ perspectives on supports and barriers that affect their
fatherhood role. SAGE Open, 4(1), 215824401452181. https://
doi.org/10.1177/2158244014521818.
Roettger, M. E., & Swisher, R. R. (2009, March). Examining racial
variations in the associations of father’s history of incarceration
with son’s delinquency and arrest in contemporary US society.
Paper presented at National Center for Family and Marriage
Research. Bowling Green, KY.
Roettger, M. E., & Swisher, R. R. (2011). Associations of fathers’
history of incarceration with sons’ delinquency and arrest among
black, white, and hispanic males in the united states. Criminology, 49(4), 1109–1147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.
2011.00253.x.
Roy, K. M., & Kwon, Y. I. (2007). Qualitative insights and methodological challenges: next steps in research on low-income
fathering. Applied Developmental Science, 11(4), 234–238.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690701762142.
Seward, R., Stanley‐Stevens, L., Cready, C., Igoe, D., Richardson, V.,
& Roberts, J. (2006). Explaining fathers’ involvement with
children: theories, models and research concepts. Paper presented
at 101st Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association. Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Singh, G. K., & Ghandour, R. M. (2012). Impact of neighborhood
social conditions and household socioeconomic status on behavioral problems among us children. Maternal and Child Health
Journal, 16(S1), 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-0121005-z.
Swisher, R. R., & Waller, M. R. (2008). Confining fatherhood.
Journal of Family Issues, 29(8), 1067–1088. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0192513x08316273.
Tach, L., Mincy, R., & Edin, K. (2010). Parenting as a “package deal”:
relationships, fertility, and nonresident father involvement among
unmarried parents. Demography, 47(1), 181–204. https://doi.org/
10.1353/dem.0.0096.
Thombre, A., Montague, D., Maher, J., & Zohra, I. (2009). If i could
only say it myself: how to communicate with children of incarcerated parents. Journal of Correctional Education, 60(1),
66–90.1974-.
Tremblay, R. E. (1999). When children’s social development fails. In
D. P. Keating & C. Hertzman (Eds), Developmental health and
the wealth of nations: social, biological, and educational
dynamics (pp. 55–71). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Tripp, B. G. (2001). Incarcerated African American fathers: exploring
changes in family relationships and the father identity. Journal of
African American Men, 6(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12111-001-1011-5.
2900
Turney, K., & Haskins, A. R. (2014). Falling behind? Children’s early
grade retention after paternal incarceration. Sociology of Education, 87(4), 241–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040714547086.
Turney, K., & Wildeman, C. (2015). Detrimental for some? Heterogeneous effects of maternal incarceration on child well-being.
Criminology & Public Policy, 14(1), 125–156.
Vine, M., Stoep, A. V., Bell, J., Rhew, I. C., Gudmundsen, G., &
McCauley, E. (2012). Associations between household and
neighborhood income and anxiety symptoms in young adolescents. Depression and Anxiety, 29(9), 824–832. https://doi.org/
10.1002/da.21948.
Wakefield, S., & Wildeman, C. (2011). Mass imprisonment and racial
disparities in childhood behavioral problems. Criminology &
Public Policy, 10(3), 791–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17459133.2011.00741.x.
Wagmiller, R. L., Gershoff, E., Veliz, P., & Clements, M. (2010).
Does Children’s Academic Achievement Improve when Single
Mothers Marry?. Sociology of Education, 82(3), 201–226.
Journal of Child and Family Studies (2019) 28:2891–2900
Waldfogel, J., Craigie, T. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2010). Fragile
families and child wellbeing. The Future of Children, 20(2),
87–112. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2010.0002.
White, L., & Gilbreth, J. G. (2001). When children have two fathers:
effects of relationships with stepfathers and noncustodial fathers
on adolescent outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1),
155–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00155.x.
Wilbur, M. B., Marani, J. E., Appugliese, D., Woods, R., Siegel, J. A.,
Cabral, H. J., & Frank, D. A. (2007). Socioemotional effects of fathers’
incarceration on low-income, urban, school-aged children. Pediatrics,
120(3), e678–e685. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-2166.
Wildeman, C., Wakefield, S., & Turney, K. (2013). Misidentifying the
effects of parental incarceration? A comment on Johnson and
Easterling (2012). Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(1), 252–258.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01018.x.
Wildeman, C., & Western, B. (2010). Incarceration in fragile families.
The Future of Children, 20(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1353/
foc.2010.0006.
Journal of Child & Family Studies is a copyright of Springer, 2019. All Rights Reserved.
FMST 485
Deliverable
Introduction and Purpose
•
•
Name: __________________
Article Summary II: Grading Sheet
Worth 40 points
Comments
Social problem, importance, and additional
problems addressed (1 points)
Specific purpose/questions/hypothesis (1 point)
Literature Review
• Major focus of literature review (1 point)
•
Critique of literature review (2 points)
Summary
• Program or intervention and research design,
description (2 points)
• Anonymous or confidential and ethical issues with
examples (2 points)
• Participants (1 point)
•
IV and DV identified and defined (1 point)
•
Procedures and data collection (1 point)
•
Summary of findings (1 point)
Strengths and Limitations
• Strengths (1 point)
•
Limitations (1 point)
Discussion and future research
• Questions (1point)
•
Impact on the field (1 point)
•
Suggestions for future research – author’s and
student’s (2 points)
Overall Writing
• Reference page, quotation, paraphrase (3 points)
•
Overall spelling (2 points)
•
Overall grammar and sentence structure
(5 points)
• Use of APA / prof. writing style (8 points)
•
Overall organization of paper (3 points)
Additional Comments / Suggestions:
Grade:
Purchase answer to see full
attachment