About this paper symposium

---

Panel information
Panel 9. Family Context & Processes

Paper #1
Exploring the Prevalence of Children’s Recent Experiences of Household Member Criminal Legal System Events
Author information	Role
Naoka Carey, JD, M.Ed., Lynch School of Education & Human Development, Boston College, United States	Presenting author
Rebekah Levine Coley, PhD, Lynch School of Education & Human Development, Boston College, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
While children’s exposure to a household member’s criminal justice contact (CJC) is common, little research has documented the timing or recency of these events during childhood. This study uses a newly generated, large multi-state data set to estimate the prevalence of recent (within the last 1, 2 or 5 years) household CJC, as recent events are more likely to actively impact household psychological, economic and legal well-being. The study also explores how recent exposure varies across demographic strata, neighborhood context, and household relationships (parent/sibling/other household member). Criminal justice event data were drawn from the Criminal Justice Administrative Record System. These data were linked with household and child data drawn from birth records and Census survey data. Households were also linked to tract level data on poverty and racial composition. Two analytic samples made up of children successfully linked to relationships were created: (1) children living in households in states and years with complete criminal justice court event data (N~35,000,000); and (2) children living in households in states and years with complete post-adjudication incarceration event data (N=44,000,000) The ratio of children experiencing a CJC to the total number of children in each year was estimated, and we assessed how this estimate varied across demographic strata, neighborhood context, and types of relationships: 〖Rate of CJC〗_(category,year)= 〖Count of children with CJC〗_(category,year)/〖Count of all children〗_(category,year) Preliminary findings indicate that 1 in 12 children have been exposed to a household member facing a criminal charge or charges within the preceding five years. In each year, roughly 1 in 30 children will experience a household member’s criminal charge and 1 in 50 will experience a household member’s conviction. Rates of recent household felony convictions or incarceration are lower, but substantial, with approximately 1 in 50 children exposed to a family felony conviction within the last five years and slightly less than 1 in 100 exposed to incarceration. With regard to parent related exposure, specifically, about 1 in 15 children have experienced a parent’s criminal charge, and 1 in 20 have experienced a parent’s criminal conviction. For Black, AIAN and multi-racial children, these rates were significantly higher (Figure 1). 1 in 7 Black and 1 in 8 AIAN children had a household member experience a recent criminal charge, respectively, compared to 1 in 13 White children and about 1 in 20 Asian children. Additional results across child age, gender, time (2001-2020), and neighborhood poverty will also be presented. Children’s experiences of criminal justice system contact through their families and households has become the norm for many U.S. children. Indeed, the majority of Black and AIAN children will experience a parent or household member’s criminal prosecution during childhood. These patterns and inequities will be discussed in the context of evidence concerning how CJC limits families’ economic and social resources and restricts children’s life opportunities.

Paper #2
Types of Contact with Incarcerated Fathers and Child Behavior Problems
Author information	Role
Kaitlyn Pritzl, Human Development & Family Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States	Presenting author
Julie Poehlmann, PhD, Human Development and Family Studies, University of Wisconsin - Madison, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
A growing body of literature documents elevated risk for children who experience parental incarceration–especially paternal incarceration–including behavioral issues, challenges in school, and physical and mental health concerns (Poehlmann-Tynan & Turney, 2021). While more father-child contact is consistently related to positive outcomes for incarcerated fathers, research focusing on children’s contact with incarcerated fathers presents mixed findings in terms of children’s behavior and other outcomes (Muentner, et al., 2023; McClure et al., 2015; Poehlmann-Tynan & Pritzl, 2019). To help explain these mixed findings, applications of the bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007) to families with incarcerated fathers suggests that contextual factors play a role in children’s adjustment, such as the child’s pre-existing relationship with their incarcerated father and support from their at-home caregiver (i.e., child’s mother) at the microsystem, the availability of visits and other forms of contact, carceral facility policies, and security procedures in the exosystem, and cultural attitudes towards incarceration in the macrosystem (Poehlmann et al., 2010). Using data from the Multisite Family Study of Incarceration, Parenting, and Partnering (MFS-IPP; Bir & Lindquist, 2022), this study uses the bioecological model to address the questions: (1) Does the presence or absence of contact (i.e., phone calls, sending and receiving mail, and personal visits) between children and their incarcerated fathers relate to child internalizing and externalizing behaviors?; (2) Is engaging in more types of contact related to child internalizing and externalizing behaviors?; and (3) Do contextual barriers to contact and father-child relationships prior to incarceration moderate these associations? The MFS-IPP collected data from participants residing in five prisons in Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey, New York, and Minnesota, as well as their partners. At baseline, participants include 1,991 incarcerated men, 1,482 of their romantically-involved or coparenting female partners, and 1,685 focal children. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics. Predictor variables include whether or not children had certain types of contact with their incarcerated fathers (i.e, whether or not children and incarcerated fathers (a) talked on the phone, (b) sent mail, (c) received mail, and (d) had personal visits), and the sum of the four different types of contact (ranging from 0 to 4). Output variables include child internalizing and externalizing behaviors using questions from the National Survey of Children’s Health (Zill, 1990). Scores range from 0 to 12, with higher scores indicating more internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Preliminary results suggest that whether or not incarcerated fathers and children talked on the phone predicted lower levels of child internalizing behaviors (β = -0.08, p = 0.04). Additionally, engaging in more types of contact related to lower levels of child internalizing behavior problems (β = -0.91, p = 0.02), but more child externalizing problems (β = 0.9, p = 0.01). Further analyses will explore if barriers to contact and father-child relationships prior to incarceration moderate these associations, controlling for child age and gender.

Paper #3
Resilience in the Context of Parental Incarceration & Youth Mental Health: Relationships at Home and Beyond
Author information	Role
Frederique Corcoran, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, United States	Presenting author
Adrianna N. Bell, School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, United States	Non-presenting author
Elizabeth L. Shaver, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, United States	Non-presenting author
Kathaleen Stone, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, United States	Non-presenting author
Lauren Hindt, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, United States	Non-presenting author
Rebecca J. Shlafer, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Introduction: Recent estimates indicate that 17% of Minnesota (MN) youth report a history of parental incarceration (PI). PI is associated with many adverse outcomes, including mental health concerns. However, limited strength-based research exists that identifies protective factors linked to adaptive outcomes for this population, especially factors outside of the individual context. We used a statewide survey of MN youth with a history of PI to explore subgroups, or profiles, of closeness to different relationship types across contexts, and to examine how depressive and anxiety symptoms might vary by profile. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that there would be distinct profiles of youth based on closeness to different relationship types. Youth in profiles reporting higher levels of closeness to relationships across contexts, particularly in the family, were expected to report lower levels of anxiety and depression. Study Population: We analyzed data from the cross-sectional 2022 MN Student Survey completed by a population-based sample of 8th, 9th, and 11th grade students in MN public schools who reported current or past PI (17%; N = 13,423; M age = 14.74, SD = 1.27). Methods: Youth reported whether a parent or guardian had ever been to prison or jail, as well as symptoms of depression (PHQ-2; ɑ = 0.71 ) and anxiety (GAD-2; ɑ = .86). We conducted Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) to identify profiles of students with patterns of relationship closeness to parents, relatives, friends, teachers, school adults, and community adults. Wald Chi-square tests and regressions were used to examine significant differences in youths’ mental health between profiles, controlling for age, sex, and food and housing insecurity. Results: Youth fell into six profiles and were named according to patterns in their reported average closeness to different relationships across contexts. Profiles ranged from Profile 1: Very High Closeness Across Contexts, to Profile 6: Low Closeness Across Contexts, and also included profiles with more nuanced constellations of close relationships (e.g., Profile 5: Low Closeness to Family, High Average Closeness to School Adults). Significant Wald tests indicated differences in anxiety and depression between youth profiles. In line with our hypotheses, youth in profiles reporting higher levels of closeness across relationships had significantly lower levels of anxiety and depression, especially those who reported feeling very close to their families. Further, it was not only the degree of closeness that was associated with youth mental health, but also the breadth of closeness across multiple relationship contexts. Additional information about the demographic characteristics of youth within each profile will be included in the presentation. Conclusion: Findings reveal bidirectional associations between close relationships across various contexts and reduced anxiety and depression among youth with a history of PI, highlighting the need to provide young people with opportunities to cultivate these relationships in their schools and communities. In particular, family relationships emerge as especially important for youth well-being, highlighting these relationships as a foundational support. Our results reflect the developmental significance of family bonds and point to recommendations for programs and policies that strengthen youth-family relationships during and after PI.

⇦ Back to session