PROTOCOL: The Impact of Parental Incarceration on Families Affected: An Evidence and Gap Map

The Problem, Condition or Issue

A growing literature demonstrates the potentially devastating impact that incarceration can have on entire families. We define the family in an exclusive sense of immediate caregivers, children, and incarcerated parents. The family can be impacted across multiple outcomes for extended periods of time. Social inequities include homelessness and poverty due to loss of income and employment or loss of child support payment (Muentner et al. 2019), or trouble succeeding in school (Cho 2010). Others experience emotional problems connected to low self-esteem, anxiety and depression (Wildeman and Turney 2014; Foster and Hagan 2013; Lee et al. 2013), and many experience future behavioural issues (Besemer et al. 2017). Similarly, the caregivers of children with parents in prison report increased levels of physical and mental health difficulties (Chui 2016; Bradshaw and Muldoon 2020).

Worldwide trends in prison populations have altered the experience of incarceration from a marginal to an ordinary phenomenon (Pattillo et al. 2004). A consequence of this rise is that families are increasingly being impacted, with between 45% and 87% of prisoners reported as being parents (Glaze and Maruschak 2008), with an estimated 7% of children in the US have experienced parental incarceration (Provencher and Conway 2019) and a further 2.1 million children in the council of Europe countries (Philbrick et al. 2014). Additionally, non-incarcerated residents living in communities with high incarceration rates are at an increased risk of negative physical, psychological and educational outcomes (Haskins et al. 2018; Hagan and Foster 2012).

However, it is important to acknowledge that the experience of parental incarceration is not equal (Haskins et al. 2018) or homogeneous (Adalist-Estrin 2018). For example, research demonstrates that in the context of maternal rather than paternal incarceration, children are more likely to be exposed to increased risk of negative outcomes (Dallaire 2007), and school dropout (Cho 2010). Maternal incarceration is usually far more disruptive for children than paternal incarceration. In the United Kingdom, only 9% of children with mothers in prison remain in the home they lived in before their mother's incarceration, compared to 95% remaining in the same home if their father is imprisoned (Home Office 2007). This often results in a change of school and moving away from support networks (Minson 2017), including siblings at the time when they need them and stability the most. Conversely, Poehlmann-Tynan and Turney (2021) suggest that findings are mixed for internalising problems in the context of maternal but not paternal incarceration. This disparity may be related to timing and risk factors associated with the incarcerated mothers themselves (Wildeman and Turney 2014). Relatedly, Murphey and Cooper (2015) found that in the United States, the experience of parental incarceration is highest among young, poor, and rural children. This is reflected in other contexts, for example, Lalor (2017) found that that while the minority ethnic identity of Traveller is estimated to be 0.06% of the general population in an Irish context, 15% of the male and 22% of the female prison population identify as Traveller. Additionally, Johnson et al. (2024) found that while parental incarceration contributed to an increased risk of negative health outcomes among racialised groups, it depended upon the nature of the outcomes and context in which it occurred.

Consequently, it is important to consider the wider aspects of the experience of parental incarceration when exploring the overall effect. For example, previous research highlights the impact of witnessing parent arrest, criminal activity, and sentencing (Metcalfe et al. 2023; Dallaire and Wilson 2010); the frequency and length of incarceration (Andersen 2016); available interventions and support for the impact of incarceration (Eddy and Burraston 2018); subsequent caregiving environment (Arditti and Johnson 2022; Davis and Shlafer 2017); frequency and type of parent-child communication or visits (Poehlmann et al. 2010); re-entry/recidivism issues (Eddy and Burraston 2018). Additionally, the impact of the parental separation will be impacted by the age and developmental profile of the child (Poehlmann et al. 2010).

The Intervention

Why It Is Important to Develop the Evidence and Gap Map (EGM)

In recognition of the various threats to outcomes related to Social, Emotional, and Behavioural outcomes for children and families affected, there are a growing number of initiatives specifically focused on supporting those at risk (Eddy and Burraston 2018). These initiatives use a variety of different approaches, such as enhanced visiting schemes, homework clubs, parenting programmes, and can focus on the individual, family, community or school-based interventions (e.g., McLaughlin et al. 2016; Roberts and Loucks 2015).

However, effective initiatives need to be grounded on evidence and, in particular, on research that is co-built with communities. While there has been a marked increase in research in this area, it covers a wide range of topics in an equally diverse number of jurisdictions and disciplines with little or no links between approaches (Wildeman et al. 2018). Consequently, evidence is often scattered around different databases, websites and the grey literature, and is often presented in inaccessible formats. This can result in agencies and researchers implementing interventions without a sufficient evidence base or duplicating efforts by investing in interventions and studies already developed elsewhere. Lack of overview of the existing evidence undermines the ability of agencies tasked with supporting families to develop evidence-based supports, particularly for agencies with limited funds (Snilstveit et al. 2016). This has resulted in a call for a more coordinated approach between researchers, NGO's and policymakers (Roberts and Loucks 2015).

There are a number of literature and systematic reviews available mainly focusing on intervention studies (e.g., but not limited to; Paynter et al. 2020; Bradshaw and Muldoon 2017; Tremblay and Sutherland 2017; Armstrong et al. 2017; Purvis 2013; Buston et al. 2012; Newman et al. 2011; Loper and Novero 2010), as well as child outcomes such as health and well-being (e.g., but not limited to: Wildeman et al. 2018; Boch and Ford 2018; Turney and Haskins 2019; Whitten et al. 2019; Poehlmann-Tynan and Turney 2021; Austin et al. 2022; Riyantono et al. 2022; Luk et al. 2023), behavioural outcomes such as anti-social behaviour or externalising issues (e.g., but not limited to: Murray et al. 2012; Besemer et al. 2017; Whitten et al. 2019) educational outcomes (e.g., Murray et al. 2012; Luk et al. 2023; Haskins et al. 2018), coping styles (Tremblay and Sutherland 2017), as well as reviews on the wider family (e.g., Wildeman and Lee 2021; Lee and Wildeman 2021).

However, many of these reviews either do not include a systematic approach or include a narrow focus of interest on specific child-related outcomes. With no review capturing the impact on caregiver outcomes or incarcerated parent outcomes. Additionally, these reviews are predominantly focused on US-based samples (see Luk et al. 2023 and Eddy and Burraston 2018 for exceptions) with limited stakeholder involvement.

Taken together, this demonstrates the need to ‘map’ the available evidence and the gaps in evidence in a format that is useful and accessible to the public and particularly agencies tasked with providing support to those in need. An EGM differs to other systematic reviews in a number of ways: (1) It is broader in focus and can include more studies. (2) It provides a visual matrix enabling ease of access for practitioners and researchers. (3) It explicitly collaborates with existing agencies to ensure findings are relevant to practitioners as well as academic needs. (4) There is a specific focus on identifying available research as well as gaps in the evidence base. Finally (5), EGMs are living repositories of evidence more easily accessed by practitioners and are easily revised and updated to accommodate emerging research.

The proposed EGM asks the question, what is the impact of parental incarceration for families affected? We will be looking specifically at the impact of parental incarceration as well as different aspects impacting outcomes. It is being undertaken by the Centre for Social Issues Research at the University of Limerick, together with researchers from the University College Cork and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It has been developed in partnership with key stakeholders, practitioners and academics in the area. The benefits of an EGM include: 1.

Funders can quickly assess the areas where there is already a saturation of evidence, see where the knowledge gaps lie, and direct much-needed resources toward those areas;

While Jackson et al. (2019) conducted an EGM identifying empirical evidence on outcomes of security and justice interventions, the team has been unable to locate any EGMs that focus specifically on the Social, Emotional, and Behavioural Problems in families affected by parental incarceration.

EGM: Definition and Purpose

An EGM is a systematic approach to identify and report on the research activity in a specific domain. It outlines the nature, characteristics and volume of research available. This information can be presented on a graphical display involving a matrix of intervention categories in rows with outcome domains in columns. Additional visual prompts can be then used to indicate further information, such as study design, location, and quality of evidence. Funding and future research can then be directed to areas where they can have the greatest impact.

Drawing on previous EGMs (Cáceres-Escobar et al. 2020), this project will involve seven steps: 1.

Scoping and development of the EGM framework;

Framework Development and Scope

To develop a framework that best represents research on parental incarceration, the framework will be developed in consultation with key stakeholders (see below for list of key stakeholders involved in this project). This framework will form the basis for the systematic search, the screening and data extraction, and visual presentation of the included evidence.

We will follow an EGM framework as a matrix with rows containing population of interest and columns containing the relevant outcomes. The map will also include information filters such as the theoretical perspective, study design, nature of the incarceration (e.g. Jail/prison/open prison), gender (Maternal v paternal incarceration) as well as geographical context.

Stakeholder Engagement

The proposed research has arisen as a consequence of a collaboration between the Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT), the Action for Children and Families of Prisoners Network (CFPN) and researchers from the University of Limerick and the University College Cork.

Together, the IPRT and the CFPN comprise people with experience of familial imprisonment, community-based organisations, researchers, academics and advocacy groups with a strong interest in advancing the rights and needs of children and families with loved ones in prison.1 Their shared aim is to bring about positive, sustained change for children and families affected by imprisonment and advocate for national policy change.

An Advisory Board for the EGM will be established, and membership will be drawn from the stakeholders represented in our national network as well as consultation with the International Coalition of Children with Incarcerated Parents. INCCIP Board and Members, https://inccip.org/about-us/, include researchers, practitioners and advocates across five continents, providing this EGM with a truly global reach. The Advisory Board will meet virtually and will be consulted at all stages of the EGM, contributing to defining its scope and developing the population outcome framework that will be used to construct the map.

This framework will include items such as incarceration characteristics (for example, nature of the incarceration [remand, jail or prison], length of incarceration, dosage, frequency, age, gender, ethnicity, access to visits), availability of prison-related family supports and relevant outcomes. The map will also include information about the theoretical perspective, study design, and geographical/jurisdictional context.

This framework will be finalised in consultation with the stakeholder advisory board.

Conceptual Framework

There are many mechanisms through which disadvantages caused by parental incarceration can be transmitted, including but not limited to attachment or identity perspectives, with stigma being particularly significant.

Poehlmann and Turney (2021) emphasised how developmental perspectives are key to understanding the experience and impact of parental incarceration for both caregivers and children affected, such as timing, duration and frequency of parental incarceration, processes underlining the experience, potential developmental cascades, as well as mediators and moderators of any effects. For example, Haskins (2015) argues that early childhood represents a critical period in a child's emotional, behavioural and social development and can be negatively impacted by PI. Specifically, parental responsivity and sensitivity to a child's needs enhance positive PCG-child relationships (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. 2003). However, as the child develops through adolescence, a different array of needs and outcomes becomes relevant.

Relatedly, Arditti (2016) argues that the impact on the child and their caregivers does not occur in a vacuum and can be understood through a stress-proximal model. Specifically, incarceration impacts the process and relationships between children and other family members. For example, contextual stressors associated with the imprisonment of a partner, such as economic, social and psychological issues, undermine PCG's well-being. Reflecting this, Bradshaw et al. (2020) demonstrate that PI negatively impacts PCG depression which in turn undermines the PCG-child relationship and increases future levels of internalising and externalising difficulties for children who have experienced PI.

Equally, the impact of PI on families affected can be understood using an Identity perspective. Within this context, identity theory has increasingly been recognised as central to understanding the association of PI and family outcomes (Asencio and Burke 2011). Labelling theory suggests that social expectations can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies (Murray et al. 2014). This can have real implications for incarcerated fathers and their families (Besemer et al. 2017). For example, once an individual acquires a particular identity label, such as delinquent, the individual can foster this self-image and amplify identity-conforming anti-social behaviours (Farrington and Murrray 2014; Besemer et al. 2017). This can strengthen social ties with deviant groups (Bernburg et al. 2006).

Goffman (1963) described how discrimination and prejudice harms not only the individual with the stigmatised identity, but also extends to their family and associates. For example, family members of people with stigmatised identities reported experiences of shame and culpability as well as strained and distant relationships with others (Östman and Kjellin 2002; Corrigan and Miller 2004). Codd (2013) describes how incarceration can be understood as a ‘courtesy stigma’ (Goffman 1963), where the family shares the spoiled identity of the inmate. Corrigan et al. (2006) found that families of those with an anti-social behaviour identity, such as drug addiction, faced an increased risk of being blamed and socially shunned. Compounding this, there is converging evidence to suggest that once a family is characterised as a ‘criminal family’, they receive more attention and differential treatment from others (Theobald et al. 2016). For example, families of known offenders are more likely to be processed through the courts after an offence (Besemer et al. 2017), as well as face reduced access to jobs, housing and education (Bernburg et al. 2006; Hagan and Foster 2012). Dallaire et al. (2010) found that teachers expected reduced academic ability in children affected by PI rather than in children from single-parent families not affected by PI. Moreover, this situation is aggravated when the treatment is perceived to be unfair by those affected. This can lead to anger and defiance and can increase anti-social behaviour and mental health difficulties (Giordano 2010). Conversely, Bradshaw et al. (2024) demonstrate that experiences of parental incarceration at the age of 9 can undermine positive social group membership in early adolescence. Reduced social group membership can have a long-term impact on both biomarkers of health in the general population (McMahon et al. 2024) as well as prosocial behaviours in children specifically impacted by parental incarceration (Bradshaw et al. 2024).

Dimensions

To develop a framework that best represents research on parental incarceration, the framework will be developed in consultation with key stakeholders (see Section 3.3 for a list of key stakeholders involved in this project). This framework will form the basis for the systematic search, the screening and data extraction, and the visual presentation of the included evidence.

We will follow a population-by-outcome EGM framework as a matrix with rows containing the population of interest and columns containing the relevant outcomes. The map will also include information filters such as the theoretical perspective, study design and geographical context.

The framework for the EGM informs the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This framework includes primary dimensions of outcomes, broken down by child, parents, caregiver and community context (see Table 1).

Other Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion and exclusion criteria will be determined on three eligibility questions: a.

Does the paper report on any of the following types of designs 1.

Cross-sectional and longitudinal data reporting the prevalence of specified outcomes.

Search Methods and Sources

Search strategy has been developed with the guidance of a Campbell information retrieval specialist (CK) and will be conducted and reported following Campbell Collaboration guidelines (White et al. 2020).

The search strategy has been built around three concepts of (1) setting of interest (terms relating to incarceration such as Prison, incarceration, jail, correctional facility), (2) population of interest (terms relating to children, parents, families and caregivers) and (3) terms relating to outcomes (such as emotional, behavioural and social issues). An example of the search string has been piloted in PsycArticles (Ebsco) (see Table 2).

Analysis and Presentation

Data Collection and Analysis