<%BANNER%>

Record for a UF thesis. Title & abstract won't display until thesis is accessible after 2015-05-31.

DARK ITEM
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0045631/00001

Material Information

Title: Record for a UF thesis. Title & abstract won't display until thesis is accessible after 2015-05-31.
Physical Description: Book
Language: english
Creator: Antle, Kelsey A
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Sociology and Criminology & Law -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Criminology, Law, and Society thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Statement of Responsibility: by Kelsey A Antle.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local: Adviser: Wilson, Jodi Lane.
Electronic Access: INACCESSIBLE UNTIL 2015-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID: UFE0045631:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0045631/00001

Material Information

Title: Record for a UF thesis. Title & abstract won't display until thesis is accessible after 2015-05-31.
Physical Description: Book
Language: english
Creator: Antle, Kelsey A
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Sociology and Criminology & Law -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Criminology, Law, and Society thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Statement of Responsibility: by Kelsey A Antle.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local: Adviser: Wilson, Jodi Lane.
Electronic Access: INACCESSIBLE UNTIL 2015-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID: UFE0045631:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 USING THE DOUBLE ABCX MODEL TO UNDERSTAND THE EXPERIENCE OF INCARCERATED FAMILIES By KELSEY ANTLE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DE GREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Kelsey Antle

PAGE 3

3 To my parents

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the help of t he Alachua County Sheriffs Department. Thank you, Fotina Perry and Eugene Morris, for your input and assistance over the past year. I am incredibly grateful to the twenty women who participated in this study for taking the time to meet with me, and for being honest and transparent throughout the interview process. I also want to thank Michael Barnes, Samyr Qureshi and Erika Tymrak for the time they spent transcribing this data, and I would also like to thank Jessica Crockett and Michael Barnes (again) f or visiting the jail to recruit participants. I would also like to thank Lonn LanzaKaduce and Connie Shehan for their work on my committee, both in helping me create the initial proposal and adapt my project as the research continued. My committee chair Jodi Lane, was invaluable at every stage of the research process, and I am thankful for her support and guidance. Finally, thank you to my friends and family for supporting me throughout this experience.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 10 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 18 Double ABCX Model ............................................................................................... 18 Previous Research in Family Research ............................................................ 18 Components of the Double ABCX Model ......................................................... 18 Critique of the Double ABCX Stress Model ...................................................... 19 Connecting Incarcerated Family Literature and the Double ABCX Model ............... 20 Initial Stressor: Criminality ................................................................................ 20 Perception of Initial Stressor (i.e. Criminal Behavior) ....................................... 21 Familys Initial Resources ................................................................................. 22 Initial strain between family members .............................................................. 24 Crisis (Jail Incarceration) .................................................................................. 25 Pileup ............................................................................................................... 26 Pileup: Transitions in the household .......................................................... 27 Pileup: Financial strain as a direct result of the incarceration .................... 28 Pileup: Ambiguous r oles ............................................................................ 31 Pileup: Social stigma .................................................................................. 34 Pileup: Health issues ........................................................................................ 36 Coping Strategies ............................................................................................. 39 Caregivers Overall Perceptions of Their Position ............................................ 40 New Resources ................................................................................................ 42 Adaptation among Incarcerated Families ......................................................... 42 Emotional problems associated with parental incarceration ............................. 44 Adap tation: Long term effects of parental incarceration ................................... 45 Literature Review: Summary ................................................................................... 48 3 METHODS .............................................................................................................. 50 Context ................................................................................................................... 50 Recruitment ............................................................................................................ 51 Sample .................................................................................................................... 52 Caregivers ........................................................................................................ 54

PAGE 6

6 Children of Incarcerated Parents ...................................................................... 55 Incarcerated Parents ........................................................................................ 55 Procedure ............................................................................................................... 56 Gaining Access ................................................................................................ 56 Scheduling Interviews ...................................................................................... 56 Conducting the Interview .................................................................................. 57 Problems with Recruiting .................................................................................. 58 Demographic Variables .................................................................................... 61 Caregiver demographics .................................................................................. 61 Household characteristics ................................................................................ 62 Family relationship characteristics ............................................................. 63 Incarcerated parent characteristics ............................................................ 64 Double ABCX Variables ................................................................................... 65 Initial criminality (Initial stressor) ................................................................ 65 Perceptions of criminality ........................................................................... 67 Familys existing resources ........................................................................ 69 Crisis (Incarceration) .................................................................................. 70 Pileup of stresses ....................................................................................... 71 New resources ........................................................................................... 72 Coping strategies ....................................................................................... 73 Perception of crisis, pileup, and resources ................................................. 74 Adaptation .................................................................................................. 75 Analysis .................................................................................................................. 76 4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 100 Double ABCX Variables ........................................................................................ 100 Initial Criminality (Initial Stressor) ................................................................... 101 Perception of Criminality ................................................................................. 102 Bad choices ............................................................................................. 102 Environmental causes .............................................................................. 105 Both bad choices and environmental causes ........................................... 108 Familys Existing Resources ........................................................................... 109 Preexisting financial strain ....................................................................... 110 Existing intrafamily conflict ....................................................................... 112 Incarceration (Crisis) ...................................................................................... 114 Pre sentence vs. post sentence ............................................................... 114 Worry over uncertain release t ime ........................................................... 114 Pileup of Stresses .......................................................................................... 116 Residential transition ................................................................................ 116 Financ ial strain ......................................................................................... 119 Ambiguous roles ...................................................................................... 123 Conflict ..................................................................................................... 125 Health issues .................................................................................................. 128 Worry about the inmate ............................................................................ 130 Visitation environment (Glass barrier) ...................................................... 132 New Resources .............................................................................................. 134

PAGE 7

7 Support from friends ................................................................................ 135 Extended family support .......................................................................... 135 Coping Strategies ........................................................................................... 138 Religious faith .......................................................................................... 138 Not thinking about the incarceration ......................................................... 140 Increased social support from incarcerated family member ..................... 141 Social withdrawal ..................................................................................... 143 Incarcerati on as a temporary setback ...................................................... 145 Higher plan. .............................................................................................. 146 Worry about inmate post release ............................................................. 148 Telling the child when the parent is incarcerated ..................................... 150 Adaptation ...................................................................................................... 152 Negative emotional adaptation ................................................................. 152 Child behavior problems .......................................................................... 155 ABCX Relationships Not Supported in the Sample ........................................ 157 Extending the ABCX Model: New Findings .................................................... 159 Incarceration impacted new resources .................................................... 159 Relationship between new resources and coping strategies .................... 161 Summary of Results ....................................................................................... 162 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...................................................................... 169 Applicability of Double ABCX Model ..................................................................... 169 Evidence of PreCrisis Variables .................................................................... 169 Parents initial criminal activity ................................................................. 169 Perceptions of initial criminal activity ........................................................ 170 Familys existing resources ...................................................................... 171 Crisis (Parental Incarceration) ........................................................................ 171 Evidence of Post Incarceration Variables ....................................................... 172 New financial strain .................................................................................. 172 Residential transitions .............................................................................. 173 Health issues ........................................................................................... 174 Worry over incarcerated parents .............................................................. 175 Plexiglass barrier in the visitation room .................................................... 175 Familys New Resources ................................................................................ 176 Coping Strategies ........................................................................................... 177 Family Perceptions of Crisis, Pileup, and Resources ..................................... 179 Families Adaptations to Parental Incarceration ............................................. 181 Double ABCX Models Similarities to Parental Incarceration ................................ 182 Differences between Double ABCX Model and P arental Incarceration ................ 183 Limitations of the Current Study ............................................................................ 184 Implications for Research and Policy .................................................................... 186 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 188 APPENDIX A FLYER .................................................................................................................. 190

PAGE 8

8 B INSTRUMENT ...................................................................................................... 191 C CONSENT FORM ................................................................................................. 241 LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 243 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................... 249

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Tabl e page 3 1 Respondent demographics ................................................................................. 78 3 2 Example quotes .................................................................................................. 81 4 1 Coding structure .............................................................................................. 163

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3 1 Original Double ABCX Model ............................................................................. 99 4 1 Proposed model of parental incarceration ........................................................ 167 4 2 Revised m odel of parental incarceration .......................................................... 168

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts USING THE DOUBLE A BCX MODEL TO UNDERSTAND THE EXPERIENCE OF INCARCERATED FAMILIES By Kelsey Antle May 2013 Chair: Jodi Lane Major: Criminolog y, Law and Society Little is known about how parental incarceration affects inmates children in general, and even less is known about how children are affected by parents short term incarceration. As the incarceration rate increased over the last few decades so d id the number of children affected by the correctional system. Previous res earch has demonstrated that parental incarceration has important financial, emotional, and health impacts for inmates children and their caregivers. This project furthers understanding of parental incarceration by analyzing it using the Double ABCX Model which was created to examine how a family adapts to a major crisis (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). The study examines whether or not the Double ABCX Model applies to parental incarceration, and also examines how the parental incarceration experience differs from McCubbin and Pattersons (1982; 1983) original model.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Researchers and policymakers have historically focused on the task of understanding crime and criminals; however, offenders are not the only people affected by corrections. In 2007, the number of children experiencing parental imprisonment (1.7 million) surpassed the number of people in prison (1.5 million) (Glaze & Maruschak, 2007). The number of minor children with parents in prison has increased 82% since 1991. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has periodically conducted representative surveys of parents in prison, but there has been little attempt to conduct indepth studies of the households from which those parents are removed. Additionally, official stat istics of parental incarceration have solely focus ed on parents in prison, rather than jail. Previous studies have suggested that inmates children are profoundly impacted by incarceration (Foster & Hagan, 2007; Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008). Parental incarcer ation, which can have a wide range of consequences for inmates families, is on the rise (Glaze & Maruschak, 2007). Further, the rise in parental incarceration does not affect all children equally. Wildeman (2009) found that black children are more likel y than white children to experience parental incarceration, and risk for parental incarceration has increased more for black children than white children over the past forty years. It is particularly worrisome that parental incarceration disproportionately affects these at risk children, given that Foster and Hagan (2007) found that children of incarcerated parents embark on a significantly different life trajectory than their peers whose parents were not incarcerated, in terms of both financial disadvant age and long term delinquency. The social exclusion of incarcerated parents was reproduced in the

PAGE 13

13 educational and social detainment of their children over their childrens life course (Foster & Hagan, 2007). The same study found that a fathers incarceration significantly predicted the lower educational attainment, which in turn caused children to be more likely to be homeless, to be more politically disengaged, and to be less likely to have health insurance as adults (Foster & Hagan, 2007). An importa nt public safety issue is that children of incarcerated parents are also more likely than their peers to have issues with mental health, aggression, and delinquency (Aaron & Dallaire, 2009; Phillips, Burns, Wagner, Kramer, & Robbins, 2002; Wildeman, 2010). Hagan and Dinovitz er (1999) argued that the impact of parental incarceration on a childs later delinquency was supported by major criminological theories. Specifically, parental incarceration resulted in economic deprivation, separation from parents, and stigmatization of parents and children, which increase delinquency according to strain theories, socialization theories, and reintegrative shaming theories, These authors argued that the collateral costs of parental incarceration, when accounting for p ossible contributions to intergenerational delinquency, may outweigh the benefits, and called for future research to examine the consequences of having an incarcerated parent. Hagan and Dinovitzers (1999) concern that parental incarceration could increase delinquency may have some empirical support. Murray and Farrington (2005) used longitudinal data to compare boys who lived with their parents during their first 10 years of life to boys who were separated from their fathers due to imprisonment, hospitali zation, death, or other reasons (most often family conflict). Boys whose fathers were imprisoned during their childhood were more likely than all three comparison

PAGE 14

14 groups to be antisocial and delinquent at age 32. This is one of the most important reasons for studying children of incarcerated parents: if the goal of incarceration is to reduce a communitys crime rate, facilitating delinquency in the second generation is a social problem of great concern. Research suggests that the risks associated with parental incarceration often arise in childhood. Families of incarcerated parents face a distinct financial disadvantage, both because incarceration is associated with its own direct costs and because incarcerated families are often already facing economic risk (Arditti, Lambert Shute, & Joest, 2003; Poehlmann, 2005). Fathers who have a history of incarceration also contribute substantially less to their childrens financial wellbeing than fathers who have never been incarcerated (Geller, Garfinkel, & Western, 2008). Children of incarcerated parents have been found to experience more economic strain and family instability (Phillips, Erkanli, Keeler, Costello, & Angold, 2006) and more family conflict (Aaron & Dallaire, 2009) than children with nonincarcerat ed parents. Stigma, social isolation, and emotional strain have been associated with having an incarcerated parent or family member (Fishman, 1988; Comfort, 2002; Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008). Additionally, at least one study suggest ed that children of incar cerated parents and their caregivers experience d more health problems after a family members incarceration (Arditti et al., 2003). The current thesis will contribute to the literature in two ways. First, it will use the Double ABCX Model, commonly used in public health and family literature, to isolate what individual variables change in a household when a parent is incarcerated.

PAGE 15

15 Second, it will focus on children of men and women incarcerated in a county jail rather than prison, where the majority of parental incarceration research is conducted. The Double ABCX Model was developed to examine how a family adapts to and changes during a crisis (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983). This model is especially relevant to families with an incarcerated parent, since jail incarceration precipitates an immediate, potentially dramatic transition in the household. While longitudinal research has thoroughly documented the long term disadvantage stemming from parental incarceration (Foster & Hagan, 2007; Murray & Farring t on, 2005), researchers know less about the individual changes that occur during this experience. The current thesis will help close this gap in research by applying a model primarily used in family and public health studies (Wiggins Frame & Shehan, 1994; Sal oviita, Italina, & Leinonen, 2003) to parental incarceration, and examine whether this model is useful in understanding a familys adaptation to parental incarceration. Second, this project will study parental incarceration in jail, not prison. There are no official estimates of parental incarceration in jails, and relatively few studies of jail inmates families (Arditti & Few, 2006; Arditti et al., 2003; Dallaire, Wilson, & Ciccone, 2009; Dallaire et al., 2010; Swisher & Waller, 2008). The majority of r esearch on inmates families has focused on families of prisoners (Bales & Mears, 2008; Block & Potthast, 1998; Byrne, Goshin, & Joestl, 2010; Comfort, 2002; Comfort, 2003; Enos, 2001; Fishman, 1988; Glaze & Maruschak, 2008; Landreth & Lobaugh, 1998; LaVig ne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005; Poehlmann, 2005; Poehlmann, Shlafer, & Maes, 2006; Roy & Dyson, 2005; Tewksbury & DeMichele, 2005; Trice & Brewster, 2004).

PAGE 16

16 Focusing on prisoners families may give researchers an incomplete picture of parental incarcer ation for a number of reasons. More families are likely to be affected by incarceration in jail than prison. The jail population on a given day is less than half of the prison population; however, shorter sentences mean that many more men and women are c ycling through our nations jails every year. Local jails admitted 12.8 million people between 2009 and 2010, while prisons admitted approximately 730,860 (West, 2010; Minton, 2010). Because more individuals move through the jail system, it is likely th at more children will have dealt with a parent being incarcerated in jail than prison. Even relatively small amounts of contact with the criminal justice system have been shown to be related to family dynamics Woldoff and Washington (2008) found that fa thers who had been booked for a crime (but not convicted) were less engaged with their children. If 1.7 million children experience parental imprisonment, a high number will likely also have experienced parental incarceration at the local jail. Research on families of prisoners reveals how families deal with incarceration in the long term; studying families of jail inmates will show how a familys life changes in the months directly following the arrest. Researchers and policymakers need to understand wh at changes in a childs life when his or her parent is first incarcerated, if there is ever to be a possibility of offsetting this considerable risk through policy change. To understand these points, the current study will use a sample of caregivers of ch ildren of both male and female inmates. The sample mostly focused on caregivers of children of male inmates (N=18; 90%), but two (10%) respondents were caring for children of female inmates. The author is not aware of any other study investigating how incarceration affects families of female jail inmates, with the exception of Sharp

PAGE 17

17 (2011), whose interviews of children of female prisoners sometimes mentioned the incarcerated mothers initial arrest and detention. Although this study just barely touches t his issue, maternal incarceration is an important area for future research because rates of incarceration in local jails are growing more rapidly for women than they are for men. The rate of incarceration in local jails for females grew by approximately 30% between 2000 and 2010, compared to a 19% increase in male inmates at that time (Minton, 2011). Interestingly, previous studies on parental imprisonment have concluded that maternal incarceration contributes to more risk factors than paternal incarcerat ion (Phillips et al., 2006; Dallaire, 2007). This thesis is an exploratory analysis of the issues facing families of parents incarcerated in a local jail in a medium sized southeastern city. The study addresses two main research questions. First, what aspects of the Double ABCX Model apply to the experience of taking care of a child whose parent is in jail? Second, how does experience with parental incarceration at a jail differ from the original Double ABCX Model, which was designed to deal with other types of family crises?

PAGE 18

18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Double ABCX Model Previous Research in Family Research The current project will be the first to examine whether the Double ABCX Model can be used to characterize a familys adaptation to the jail i ncarceration of a parent (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). The Double ABCX Model was initially developed to analyze how a family coped with a family member going missing in action during the Vietnam War. Since then, the model has been used in both publ ic health and family literature. In public health literature, the Double ABCX Model has been shown to represent how families cope d with a family members stroke (Clark, 1999) or intellectual disabilities (Florian & Dangoor, 1994; Saloviita, Italinna, & Leinonen, 2003). The model has also been used in the family literature to examine how children cope d with their parents divorce (Plunkett, Sanchez, Henry, & Robinson, 1997), and how wives of clergy members adapted to frequent residential moves (Wiggins Frame & Shehan, 1994). Components of the Double ABCX Model A familys experience with crisis, according to the Double ABCX Model, is influenced by a variety of factors that occur before the actual crisis takes place (McCubbin, & Patterson, 1983). According to the original model, the initial stressor (i.e. any phenomenon which has the potential to produce change in the family system) interacts with the familys perception of that initial stressor, and the familys initial resources. These variables, in turn influence the way a family adapts to the crisis at hand ( three pre crisis variables on the left hand side of Figure 21 ).

PAGE 19

19 Once the crisis has begun, a number of post crisis variables also impact how a family adapts (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983). Directly after the crisis, families experience a pileup of stresses, resulting from an accumulation of the initial stressor, transitions in norms, preexisting strains, consequences of family coping efforts, and ambiguity, all of which interact wit h coping strategies used by the family. The familys coping strategy, in turn, affects both the resources emerging to help a family deal with the crisis and the familys perception of their experience, culminating in a familys adaptation. According to t he Double ABCX Model, both precrisis and post crisis variables impact whether the family adapts to the crisis in a healthy way (bonadaptation), or an unhealthy way (maladaptation) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Critique of the Double ABCX Stress Mode l While the Double ABCX Model has been used in multiple contexts, there are some key problems with the model. First, in many situations, it is questionable whether the perception of the initial stressor would influence the initial stressor itself or the familys existing resources. Especially in the case of the familys existing resources, it is probable that in many families this concept would be unaffected by the familys perception of the stressor. Further, some pre crisis variables (i.e. existing re sources, perception of stressor, etc.) could potentially impact post crisis concepts (i.e. New Resources, Pileup). Further, within post crisis variables, a familys pileup could potentially impact the strategies they use to cope with the crisis itself. F or these various reasons, it is time to revisit McCubbin and Pattersons (1982; 1983) original model and determine whether and how it can be revised.

PAGE 20

20 Connecting Incarcerated Family Literature and the Double ABCX Model Initial Stressor: Criminality In the Double ABCX Model, the initial stressor is a phenomenon which impacts the family unit, and has the potential for changing the family system ( Figure 21 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). When applying the Double ABCX Model to parental incarceration, this project will examine how the parents initial criminal activity acts as an initial stressor on the family. The initial stressor label is new in the study of incarcerated families, but the idea that a child is affected by his or her parents cr iminal activity is supported by previous literature. For example, living with an antisocial father has been linked to child behavior problems (Jaffee, Moffit, Caspi, & Taylor, 2003), and many jailable crimes (i.e. physical violence, substance abuse, etc.) would be considered antisocial behaviors. Phillips et al. (2006) found that parental substance abuse significantly affected a variety of risk factors for children. The authors used longitudinal data from The Great Smoky Mountain Study, which interviewed students with behavior problems in 11 rural North Carolina counties. Parental substance abuse increased the odds of change to the family structure, such as living in a singlecaregiver household, having a large family (four or more children in the home), or the child being placed in a foster home. Substance abuse also increased the likelihood for family economic strain, in terms of poverty, unemployment, economic crises, and being unable to meet childrens basic needs. Finally, substance abuse significa ntly increased childrens likelihood of receiving inadequate care, which the authors characterized as sexual abuse, inadequate parental supervision, physical abuse of the child by a parent or caregiver, treating the child as a scapegoat, using harsh discipline, and using intrusive parenting. Like the initial stressor

PAGE 21

21 in the Double ABCX Stress Model, criminal behavior has the potential to interact with both the familys perception of that criminal activity and the familys resources before the incarceration takes place, making them especially vulnerable to further strain. Perception of Initial Stressor (i.e. Criminal Behavior) Another precrisis component of the Double ABCX Stress Model is how the family perceives the initial stressor ( Perception of initial stressor in Figure 21 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). According to the model, there are reciprocal relationships between the way the family perceives the initial stressor, the initial stressor itself, and the familys new resources, and these pre crisis variables affect how the family deals with the crisis itself. When a family is dealing with parental incarceration, perception of initial stressor refers to how the family views the parents criminal activity. Previous qualitative research has examined how inmates families talked about the criminal activity of their family members, and how these perceptions contributed to emotional difficulties by the inmates families (Braman, 2004; Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008). Braman (2004) conducted an eth nographic study of a neighborhood in the District of Columbia with a high incarceration rate. The author interviewed family members of prisoners, and found that women often took blame for their partners criminal activity, either because they believed the criminal activity was the result of misguided attempts to offset the financial disadvantage of the offenders household, or because they believed the delinquent behavior was a response to a conflicted home life. In both situations, female family members considered themselves to be partly to blame. Additionally, inmates family members sometimes did not consider the crime itself to be

PAGE 22

22 overly dangerous, and perceive the incarceration as an overreaction of the criminal justice system. Comfort (2008) inter viewed female partners of male inmates in San Quentin Prison, and found a subsection of respondents that were not concerned with their partners criminality. These women were more concerned with what they perceived to be a racist, classist corrections system, and were somewhat insulated by the stigmatizing effect of incarceration due to this belief. As in the Double ABCX Model, this perception could be affected by the crime itself (for example, drug possession may be more easily minimized than a murder). Moreover, as the Double ABCX model indicates, this perception may be affected by the familys resources. For example, if a family member has very low economic resources and a parents criminal activity further drained those resources, the family may see the criminal behavior in a more negative light. Familys Initial Resources The final precrisis variable in the Double ABCX Model is Familys Initial Resources ( Initial Resources in Figure 21 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). These often incl ude the financial and social capital a family has available to meet the crisis, and initial resources have an impact on how well the family handles the crisis (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Resources also can interact with the initial stressor if the stressor is a drain on resources, and the familys perception of the stressor, which may be exacerbated by a familys lack of resources. Families of incarcerated parents have been reported to have limited initial financial resources and high amounts of i nitial strain between family members (Comfort, 2008; Poehlmann, 2005; Roy & Dyson, 2005)

PAGE 23

23 Initial financial resources. Research on parental incarceration has often discussed these families financial struggles before the incarceration takes place. Parent al incarceration primarily affects children who are already coping with financial disadvantage (Foster & Hagan, 2007; Phillips, Erkanli, Keller, Costello, & Angold, 2006). The incarcerated population as a whole often consists disproportionately of people from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Alexander, 2010; Clear, 2007). Additionally, families of incarcerated parents are more likely to use public assistance before the incarceration takes place. Poehlmann (2005) interviewed 94 mothers in state prison who had at least one child between ages 2 and 7, and who identified as being the childs primary caregiver before the incarceration. The author found that mothers reported using public assistance for an average of one year prior to their incarceration, suggest ing that their families were already in an economically disadvantaged position. Population estimates have also suggested that black children are more likely than white children to experience parental incarceration, and this risk has increased more for black children than white children over time (Wildeman, 2009). The rate of parental incarceration rose from 1 in 40 white children born in 19 78 to 1 in 25 white children born in 1990. In contrast, parental incarceration affected 1 in 7 black children born in 19 78, and 1 in 4 black children born in 1990. Children of less educated parents are even more at risk: for black children born to high school dropouts in 1990, the rate of incarceration was 1 in 2. These families already had limited earning power due to their parents educational attainment, which would likely be further compounded by criminal justice involvement. When framed in the context of the Double ABCX Model,

PAGE 24

24 families initial financial disadvantage could impact the resources they have available to cope with a crisis like parental incarceration (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983. Initial strain between family members Another way the experience of incarcerated families resembles the Double ABCX Model variable Existing Resources ( Figure 21 ) is that this population may often have limited interpersonal support due to strain between family members (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Some families are already characterized by intrafamily strain before the incarceration takes place, possibly due to financial strain and an extensive criminal history. According to the literature, while conflicted relationships between family members may not be good for family health in the long run, it can make the transition to incarceration less difficult to handle. Comforts (2008) interviews with female romantic partners of prisoners found that eleven of the fifty respondents relied on the correctional institution to help them manage their unpredictable, addicted, or violent partners. In these cases, preinc arceration relationships were so strained that the incarceration itself actually itself actually offered a kind of reprieve from the inmates initial behavior. While Comforts (2008) respondents had to invest considerable time and money into maintaining a relationship with a partner in prison, incarceration could also provide a positive function as a way to curb unhealthy behavior. E ven if the incarceration had some positive effects, strain between family members can affect the way a family adapts to the crisis. Similarly, Turanovic et al. (2012) interviewed 100 caregivers of children whose mother or father was in prison to determine the effects of incarceration on the caregiver. The authors found that 20 percent of caregivers of prisoners children repor ted that the incarceration had at least some positive effects on their family. Incarceration appeared

PAGE 25

25 to affect families differently depending on the gender of the incarcerated parent. When caregivers were taking care of a child whose mother was incarcer ated, they were more likely to report positive effects of the incarceration (27%) than when a father was incarcerated (15%). Caregivers who reported positive effects often referenced previous conflict, violence, and distrust between themselves and the inc arcerated parent before he or she went to jail, suggesting a strained relationship within the family. In the sample of caregivers of incarcerated parents interviewed by Turanovic et al. (2012) this strain was associated with higher levels of independence among caregivers, resulting in a less abrupt detrimental change to the family when the parent was incarcerated. In the work of both Comfort (2008) and Turanovic et al. (2012) pre incarceration social relationships influenced how the family dealt with the incarceraton. Crisis (Jail Incarceration) The Double ABCX Model focuses on a crisis in the family, which changes the familys patterns of interaction ( Crisis in Figure 2 1 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). In this proj ect, a family members entrance to jail will be evaluated as the crisis to which a family must adapt. As in ABCX Studies focusing on families of soldiers missing in action, research has found that incarcerated parents are removed from the household for an undetermined amount of time, in a dangerous sett ing (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). As in cases of missing soldiers, a parents incarceration at jail can vary in the degree of uncertainty regarding the parents absence, because jail inmates can be held b oth before and after their sentencing. While few studies compare the effect of incarceration on the family before and after sentencing, at least one study has taken into account the individual effects of children experiencing jail related incidents (i.e. criminal activity, arrest, and sentencing).

PAGE 26

26 Dallaire and Wilson (2009) examined emotional maladjustment and behavior problems in 32 children with incarcerated parents. The authors found that children who had been exposed to more events related to their parents criminality (e.g., witnessed parental criminal activity, arrest, or sentencing) experienced more behavior problems. Additionally, children who witnessed more incarcerationrelated events reported worse emotional regulation than their counterparts who had witnessed fewer incarcerationrelated events. It is important to understand how families experiences vary at different points in the criminal justice system. Since witnessing a parents sentencing has negative effects on the children, it is pos sible that there will be fewer behavior problems and less emotional strain before the sentencing takes place. While there may be a unique variation in the way parental incarceration can act as a crisis, a parent going to jail still necessitates his or her removal from the community, which will change the family structure during the incarceration, a key characteristic of the crisis in the Double ABCX Model (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Pileup In the Double ABCX Model, a family going through crisis ex periences a pileup of different stresses, combined with changes and demands by individual family members, the family system as a whole, and the community ( Pileup in Figure 21 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). According to McCubbin and Patterson (1983), pileup has an impact on the familys coping strategies, which in turn affect adaptation to a crisis. In the initial model, this pileup most often comes from the initial stressor, transitions in the family, the familys initial strain, consequences of the familys attempts to cope, and ambiguity among family members and between the family and the community. While previous research has not used the term pileup, studies have found evidence of this

PAGE 27

27 concept when children moved to different households ; the incarceration directly caused financial strain, emotional trauma, and social stigma; caregivers had to fill ambiguous roles ; and the family had to deal with health issues (Arditti et al., 2003; Dallaire & Wilson, 2010; Geller et al., 2011; Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008). Pileup: Transitions in the household According to the Double ABCS Model, n ormative transitions, or changing demands of family members that require the family to shift, can be one of several pileup stressors experienced by families (McCu bbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Incarcerated families research is mixed on whether incarceration leads to a transition in the household. Some studies with caregivers have found that some prisoners had limited involvement with their children before the inc arceration (Turanovic et al., 2012), suggesting that incarceration has little effect on the households family dynamics. However, research has also shown that a parents incarceration can result in a transition in the household. The majority of mothers ( 64.2%) and nearly half of fathers (46.5%) incarcerated in state prisons reported living with their minor children either in the month before their arrest or just prior to their incarceration (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). In these situations, removing a parent from the home is likely to create an immediate, significant change in the familys household, the larger ramifications of which have yet to be fully investigated. Research has suggested that compared with a parent leaving the house due to divorce, death, or being deployed overseas, a parents absence due to incarceration has the greatest long term effects on their offsprings delinquent behavior (Murray & Farrington, 2005). According to work by Turanovic et al. (2012) and Murray and Farrington (2005), p arental incarceration introduces transition to

PAGE 28

28 the family, acting as pileup variable according to the Double ABCX Model ( Figure 21 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Pileup: Financial strain as a direct result of the incarceration Another variabl e associated with the pileup of strains can be the financial resources that must be diverted to address the crisis (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). As in the Double ABCX Model, the financial costs of parental incarceration interact with pre crisis and post crisis variables to put stress on the family One of the clearest ways that incarceration can affect an inmates family is through added financial strain. Research on inmates families has shown that financial strain is a prominent issue associated with a loved ones incarceration (Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2002; Poehlmann, 2005). While parents are incarcerated, they lose their ability to financially contribute to their household. Geller, Garfinkel, and Western ( 2011) found that a history of incarcera tion significantly affected fathers future financial contributions to their families. The authors used propensity score matching with data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCW) to compare fathers with a history of incarceration to fathers who had similar demographic characteristics, but who had never been incarcerated. They found that men with histories of incarceration were significantly less likely to financially contribute to their childrens household than were men who had never been incarcerated. Further, they found that on average previously incarcerated fathers contributed nearly $1,700 less to their children than never incarcerated fathers. The reason behind this difference was that even after release previously incarcerated fathers earned less and were less likely to live with their children than their counterparts.

PAGE 29

29 Geller et al. ( 2011) show ed that a history of incarceration affect ed not only the financial environment in which a child was raised, but the childs physical pr oximity to his or her father once the father was released from prison into the community. The impact of these two issues (paternal joblessness/underemployment and paternal nonresidence) needs to be understood specifically in the context of incarcerated parents. It is possible that paternal joblessness and underemployment could contribute to general family strain, and may be associated with different parenting styles than those in families with non incarcerated parents. These parenting factors could potentially influence the negative effect that parental incarceration has on family outcomes. Financial strain due to incarceration has been found to start as soon as the incarcerated parent is sent to jail. Arditti, Lambert Shute and Joest (2003) conducted a study that limited its sample to caregivers of children of jail inmates. Respondents reported that their jailed family members had been incarcerated for an average of 4.2 months, so the authors were able to study the financial status of inmates families directly following arrest and incarceration. Caregivers financial situations changed in a variety of ways after their family members incarceration. Approximately 25% of respondents had to stop working, many reported work family conflict, and two thir ds of participants reported being financially worse off since the incarceration. Not only did families lose inmates income, but incarceration created its own set of costs including attorney costs, receiving collect calls, visits and sending money directl y to the inmate. Traveling through the criminal justice system, even for offenses settled in lower court, is associated with a wide variety of fees as well as more hidden costs of lost wages, commissions to bail bondsmen, and payments to defense attorney s (Feeley,

PAGE 30

30 1979). However, inmates have no way to pay these fees while incarcerated and often have trouble finding work upon reentry (Petersilia, 2003). I nmates families must absorb these costs, since inmates are literally unable to do so while incapaci tated (Arditti et al., 2003; Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2002, 2003). Studies have not fully examined all aspects of the way incarceration affects families financially. Researchers need to understand the total cost of incarceration, rather than focusing on the cost of visitation or loss of income. Additional costs include decline in family income due to one parents incapacitation, direct costs of sending money to inmates, and indirect costs like family travel to and from jail, collect calls, and court or attorneys fees. By using a qualitative methodological approach, research can clarify the full scope of financial strain placed on inmates families. Another way to understand the financial wellbeing of households taking care of inmates children is through examining how often these families use public aid. Naser and Visher (2006) interviewed 247 family members of returning male prisoners and found that 34% of their sample was receiving food stamps, housing aid, and/or public assistance. Similarly, Arditti et al. (2003) found that not only were half of caregivers of inmates children on public assistance, but that 72% of those on public aid had begun receiving benefits after their family member went to jail. This last finding underscores the social cost of incarcerating parents, as the sharp increase in public assistance will be supported by tax revenues. None of these previously mentioned studies went into detail about which assistance programs were utilized. Given the limited research on financial aid am ong inmates families, it is necessary to identify how prevalent public assistance use is among families of incarcerated parents, which programs are used,

PAGE 31

31 and whether each type of financial aid began before or after the incarceration. This new financial s train could, like other pileup variables in the Double ABCX Model, make it more difficult for families to adapt effectively to a parents incarceration (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Pileup: Ambiguous roles According to the Double ABCX Model one of the major areas of pileup for families going through crisis is ambiguity, both among family members and between the family and the community, which can add on to the effect of other pileup variables (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Prior research has sug gested that incarcerated families experienced this feeling of uncertain or shifting family structure primarily through parents and caregivers filling the parent s roles during the incarceration. Siegel (2011) interviewed children of incarcerated mothers, and found that only 12 percent of children were actually living with their father during their mothers prison stay; the rest were being cared for by nonparental family members. Caregivers, regardless of whether they lived with the child before the incar ceration, must often adjust their relationship due to the parents absence. Arditti et al. (2003) interviewed caregivers of children whose parents were in jail, and found that nearly half (42.3%) felt that their relationships with their children had been affected by their family members incarceration. Caregivers parenting roles parallels the phenomenon of ambiguous loss, in which the loved one is not dead but instead either mentally absent but physically present (i.e. Alzheimers), or mentally presen t but physically absent (i.e. enlisted overseas) (Boss, 2008 ). Incarcerated parents can no longer fully take part in the family structure, although the family often attempts to include them as much as possible.

PAGE 32

32 Bockneck, Sanderson, and Britner IV (2009) examined posttraumatic stress among school age children of prisoners, and found that children were unable to accept their parents physical absence, and these children also exhibited behavior problems similar to post traumatic stress disorder. The authors found that despite the fact that inmates were serving time in state prison, children sometimes rated their incarcerated parent as being as supportive as their full time caregiver. Parental incarceration is often associated with strained relationships and, due to increasingly hectic schedules, caregivers may actually spend less with the children in their care after the incarceration, making it difficult to deal with the many pileup variables. When a parent is incarcerated, the people with whom inmates chil dren spend their time can change. Nearly onethird of participants in interviews by Arditti et al. (2003) reported that they spent more time with their children before the incarceration. The authors noted that 29.8% of respondents reported using child care, nearly half of which was provided by relatives. Caregivers were not asked whether their child care arrangements changed after the incarceration. There are a number of reasons that caregivers might spend less time with their children after a parents incarceration C aregivers may need to spend time dealing with their family members court case, or spend more time working to pay for expenses related to the incarceration or additional child care responsibilities. Regardless of the reason, it is importa nt to identify the adults with whom children of incarcerated parents spend their time. In addition to the quantity of time children spend with caregivers, parental incarceration may lead to a change in the quality of the childcaregiver relationship. Care givers have reported strained relationships with children of incarcerated parents,

PAGE 33

33 especially connected to child behavior issues following the incarceration (Poehlmann, 2005; Poehlmann et al., 2006). Arditti et al. (2003) asked caregivers to compare the w ay they currently interacted with inmates children before and after the incarceration. The authors found that 42.3% of caregivers believed their relationships with their children had been affected by their family member going to jail, although respondent s were not asked to specify whether change was positive or negative. Parental incarceration can also result to the pileup effect by forcing a bottleneck in communication in which caregivers adopt the position of gatekeeper of contact between the chi ld and the incarcerated parent. Research has found that caregivers sometimes acted as gatekeepers between incarcerated parents and their children because of complicated parent caregiver relationships, perceived negative influence of the incarcerated paren t on the child, or distrust in the ability of the inmate to parent effectively (Baker, McHale, Strozier, & Cecil, 2010; Enos, 2001; Roy & Dyson, 2005). Caregivers control when the child can communicate with his or her parent, as well as what the child knows about the incarceration itself; they can choose facilitate or impede the relationship between inmates and their children. Research with imprisoned mothers has found that the mother caregiver relationships characterized by more conflict and less warmth were associated with fewer visits and telephone calls from children (Poehlmann, 2005). Few studies have assessed how the quality of the parent caregiver relationship affects inmates contact with children in a jail setting, but the literature suggests tha t incarcerated families have experiences similar to the shifting family patterns and activity described in the Double ABCX Theory (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983).

PAGE 34

34 Pileup: Social stigma In addition to emotional and behavioral changes, social stigma due t o the incarceration may contribute to the pileup associated with incarcerated families, if it were to add to strain in social relationships for the inmates children and their caregivers (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Research has found that the stig ma of incarceration applies not only to the inmates themselves, but to their families as well (Comfort, 2002; Fishman, 1988; Dallaire, Ciccone, & Wilson, 2010). When Nesmith and Ruhland (2008) interviewed children of imprisoned parents about how incarceration affected their family and peer relationships, respondents reported that they felt anxious and alienated about the incarceration, especially when they had to explain their parents whereabouts to outsiders. Most children reported that they went to great lengths to avoid explaining their incarcerated parents whereabouts to adults or peers. It is unclear whether this secrecy is harmful to children or serves as a useful adaptive strategy. Hagen and Myers (2003) studied the connection between secrecy, s ocial support, and behavioral problems in children of incarcerated mothers. The authors found that when children reported lower social support, they were more selective about who they told about their mothers incarceration were actually emotionally healt hier than children who were less secretive. However, secrecy did not matter when children felt they had a high level of social support. Additionally, at least one experiment has found that teachers who were informed that childrens mothers were incarcerated had lower expectations of competence than when they were told childrens mothers were separated for other reasons (Dallaire et al., 2010). The study suggested that it may be safer for families not to share information about incarceration with a large number of people.

PAGE 35

35 Respondents can also feel stigmatized on behalf of their incarcerated loved ones. One of the earliest studies on the issue of secondary stigmatization was conducted by Laura Fishman (1988) with thirty wives of inmates in state prisons. The author found that these women felt that they were held accountable for their husbands actions. Specifically, during visitation wives experienced extreme suspicion and stigmatization when interacting with prison guards, and were humiliated by strip se arches and interrogations experienced while going through security. Comfort (2003) interviewed female visitors to a male prison facility, and found similar rituals of demoralization in the visitation process. Social stigma may also impact caregivers by influencing how they choose to use social capital. When families of inmates have been interviewed in the past, many referred to feeling socially isolated (Arditti et al., 2003; Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008; Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008; Poehlmann, 2005). The r easons for this varied, but respondents often report ed feeling that no one understood the problems they face d (Arditti et al., Comfort, 2008) and even in communities with high incarceration rates, families often underestimated the number of friends and nei ghbors experiencing the incarceration of a family member (Braman, 2004). Researchers know relatively little about the role stigma plays in the lives of inmates families, and especially how it impacts social support. Shame needs to be placed in the larg er context of issues faced by caregivers of inmates children. Braman (2004) found that families isolated themselves during the incarceration of a family member. The author found that concentrated disadvantage was exacerbated because the incarceration it self created a division from other families. While inmates families

PAGE 36

36 could ask other families for help, they often had neither the time nor money to show reciprocity back to their neighbors, which is one of the building blocks of trust and long term social networks. As a result, incarcerated families were less likely to reach out to others for emotional or financial support. Stigma felt by family members of inmates may make it more difficult to deal with other stresses and demands on the family that have piled up on the family surrounding the crisis (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Pileup: Health issues In addition to financial, social, and emotional risks piling up on families of inmates, health issues could further complicate the pileup of stress es and strains by making family members less able to physically deal with additional responsibilities (Hamilton et al., 1983; McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). There is preliminary evidence suggesting that children of incarcerated parents experience issues wit h their physical health. Arditti et al. (2003) interviewed caregivers of children of parents incarcerated in a local jail, and asked about their familys physical health since their family members incarceration. Over onequarter of respondents reported that their childrens health had declined after their parents incarceration, and nearly half (48%) of caregivers reported that their own health had gotten worse since the incarceration. The authors also found that caregivers who shared biological children with the inmates were more likely to report declining health than other caregivers. Respondents were not asked the nature of these health issues. This wa s the one of the few studies of collateral consequences of incarceration that specifically examined family health in the months following a parents incarceration. Declining health could be particularly relevant to this population because this population may have issues finding health insurance. According to Foster and Hagans

PAGE 37

37 (2007) longitudinal stu dy using The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, parents with a history of incarceration are less likely to have health insurance than their peers who had not been incarcerated. The study also found that this lack of health insurance is intergenerational ; adults whose parents have a history of incarceration are significantly less likely to be insured than adults whose parents never served time. There is a substantial gap in the literature concerning the source of these health problems and the prevalence or lack of treatment. However, any additional health problems faced by inmates families, whether they were directly due to the incarceration or not, would add further strain to the family, contributing to the pileup variable discussed in the Double ABCX Model (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Pileup: Visiting the incarcerated parent The final potential source of pileup for incarcerated families would be the stress associated with actually visiting the incarcerated parent, which could add to the emotional strain and financial strain already experienced by these family members and make it more difficult to successfully adapt to the incarceration (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Parental incarceration, in addition to affecting individuals within an offenders family, may also have strong implications for the way family members interact with one another. Perhaps most intuitively, incarcerating a parent clearly impacts how and when interactions between an incarcerated parent and child can take place. From the moment a parent enters a correctional facility, communication is limited to letters, collect telephone calls, and visitation, the cost of which can be prohibitive for low income families (Arditti et al., 2003; Tewksbury & DeMichele, 2005). Studies on family visitation tend to focus on criminal outcomes, and many of these studies have found that inmates with stronger

PAGE 38

38 family ties are more successful at avoiding reoffending upon reentry (Bale & Mears, 2008; Glaser, 1964; LeClair, 1978 ; Massoglia & Uggen 2007); Toth & Kazura, 2010). Visits from intimate partners have also predicted higher post release relationship quality (as well as emotional and financial support) when prisoners and their partners had a positive relationship prior to incarceration; when the partner inmate relationship was poor prior to incarceration, more visits reported lower post release relationship quality (LaVigne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005). While a great deal of research focuses on offender wellbeing, results have been mixed on how visitation psychologically affects children of incarcerated parents, regardless of the methodological rigor of the study in question ( Poehlmann, Dallaire, Loper, & Shear, 2010 for a review). Visitation appears to have the potential to either mitigate or exacerbate the stress of parental incarceration. Parent child contact has been associated with fewer cases of school suspensions and dropouts, less depression and fewer somatic complaints (Arditti & Few, 2006; Dallaire, Wilso n, & Ciccone. 2010; Trice & Brewster, 2004). However, children who interacted more often with incarcerated parents have also reported more attention problems, and higher levels of both behavioral and emotional problems (Arditti & Few, 2006; Dallaire, Wils on, & Ciccone, 2010). Emotionally draining visits between incarcerated parents could also influence the way the childs family interacts outside the correctional facility. Strain and behavior problems that have been associated with childparent visitation can intensify pre existing conflict between caregivers and children (Arditti & Few, 2006). It remains unclear how child and family outcomes are influenced by unmeasured variance in the actual experience of visiting prison or jail, such as whether facili ties allow contact,

PAGE 39

39 noncontact, or barrier visits, where visitors and inmates are separated by physical barriers (Poehlmann, Dallaire, Loper, & Shear, 2010). If the visitation exacerbates emotional or financial strain experienced by families, this could add on to the pileup of stresses and demands already faced by inmates children and their caregivers in the Double ABCX Model (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Coping Strategies The second post crisis variable in the Double ABCX model is the familys coping strategies (see post crisis variable Coping Strategies in Figure 21 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). The Double ABCX Model suggests that coping strategies influence the pileup of stresses, the familys new resources, the familys perception of their situation, and their eventual adaptation to the crisis. People taking care of children of incarcerated parents react with a variety of different coping strategies, including reliance on a higher power and asking friends and family for support. When Comfort (2008) interviewed current romantic partners of state prisoners, she found the rationalizations used by women for staying with their incarcerated partners to parallel the techniques of neutralization found in classical criminology, which rationalize criminal behavior (Sykes & Matza, 1957). Just as criminals absolve themselves from blame for crimes by arguing that they answer to a higher power (Sykes & Matza, 1957), inmates partners argued that by staying with their men they are fulfilling lar ger goals of marital loyalty or religious faith, even at the expense of trivial social norms concerning privacy or physical proximity (Comfort, 2008). By having faith in their own priorities, caregivers were able to valorize their own involvement with their incarcerated partner. Additionally, partners may rely on social support of friends and family. First, many prisoners come from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Alexander, 2010).

PAGE 40

40 Research on class and families has found that low income families are more likely than their middleclass counterparts to rely on extended families for social support, financial support, and child care (Lareau, 2003). Further, research specifically dealing with taking care of children during a parents incarceration has found s imilar results. Turanovic et al. (2012) interviewed caregivers of prison inmates children, and found that the effect of incarceration on the caregiver was impacted by whether the caregivers had a strong family support system. These family members provided both financial and social support. However, it is possible that this social capital is not fully utilized because families dealing with incarceration are unable to offer any reciprocity (Braman, 2004). While the Double ABCX Model is not mentioned in t hese studies, both Comfort (2008) and Braman (2004) discuss ways in which people cope with having a family member incarcerated, fitting McCubbin and Pattersons (1983) original model. Caregivers Overall Perceptions of Their Position The third post crisi s variable in the Double ABCX Model is the familys perception of the initial stressor, the crisis, the pileup, and the new resources (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). In the original Double ABCX Model, the familys perception of their situation interac ted with t he familys strategies of coping with the crisis. Families going through a crisis could perceive their situation as either a challenge to be overcome, or a catastrophe with no apparent solution (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). Similarly, research has found that inmates families varied in their perceptions of their familys situation, as well as their expectation for what life will be like after the incarceration (Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008). In Comforts (2008) study, prisoners partners have bo th reported seeing the incarceration as a temporary burden that will eventually be overcome, or as one of many interactions their loved one will have with

PAGE 41

41 the criminal justice system. Partners perceiving the incarceration as being temporary created and fr equently thought about a future of domestic stability, in which the inmate would leave their criminal activity behind. By contrast, Braman (2004) found a lack of hope that family members interaction with the criminal justice system would stop after the c urrent incarceration. Additionally, children can vary in how much they know about their parents incarceration. While caregivers may report the behavioral or emotional effects of incarceration children in their care (Arditti et al., 2003; Baker, McHale, Strozier, & Cecil, 2010; Dallaire & Wilson, 2009), it is unclear how often children are actually told about the incarceration itself. Hairston (1991) found that caregivers sometimes told children their incarcerated parent was absent for another reason. F or example, the author found that caregivers often said the incarcerated parent was in the hospital, away at college, or working out of town. While caregivers may mislead children because they do not want the child to face social stigma or worry about their parents safety, it is unclear how often this secrecy happens. Further, it is not clear what effect this omission has on how children emotionally process their experience with parental incarceration. When considering the way families perceive parental incarceration, it is important to remember that childrens perceptions may be very different than that of their caregivers because they have only limited information about the details of the crisis. Both the caregivers and childrens perceptions of the incarceration, available resources, can be represented in the Double ABCX post crisis variable, Perception of Crisis, Pileup, and New Resources, which McCubbin and Patterson (1982; 1983) found to influence coping mechanisms ( Figure 21 ).

PAGE 42

42 New Resource s The fourth post crisis variable is the familys development of new resources to help meet challenges posed by the crisis, which in turn appears to vary along with coping mechanisms ( Figure 21 ; McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1982). According to incarc erated families research, these new resources are likely to come in the form of family social support or public assistance. Several studies have shown that family members often have fewer financial resources and less social capital due to the incarceration itself (Arditti et al., 2003; Braman, 2004; Sharp, 2011). However, in some aspects they may have more social support resources than other families. Lareau (2003) found that lower class and working class families were more likely to have close extended families. Because low income people are more likely than middleor highincome people to be arrested and incarcerated, families experiencing parental incarceration may utilize extended family support more often than other families (Alexander, 2010; Clear 2008). Additionally, Arditti et al. (2003) found that many caregivers took out additional public assistance after the incarceration, which could represent a new form of support available to families. Greater use of public assistance and increased famil y support can both be interpreted as new resources that families utilize to meet the crisis of incarceration, which would fit into the Double ABCX Model (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Adaptation among Incarcerated Families Maldaptation and bonadaptati on among families of inmates Families in the Double ABCX Model either lean toward maladaptation, meaning unhealthy adaptation characterized by family dysfunction such as emotional and behavioral disorders, or bonadaptation, characterized by stronger fam ily bonds, promotion of family member

PAGE 43

43 development, and the familys maintaining autonomy (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Previous literature has found evidence of maladaptation in terms of unhealthy parenting practices, anger, or depression, and has also found signs of bonadaptation (i.e. resiliency). Depression and hopelessness have been referenced by subsamples of children of incarcerated parents (Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008), caregivers of inmates children (Arditti et al., 2003; Turanovic et al., 2012), inmates partners (Comfort, 2008), and incarcerated parents themselves (Poehlmann, 2005) and that depression could, in turn, impact the household environment. Further, there is some evidence that incarceration is associated with a heightened risk for vi olence within the household. For instance, Siegel (2011) interviewed children of imprisoned mothers and found high rates of violence among children, as well as caregiver attitudes that condoned or diminished the importance of violence. The author found t hat teenage children of incarcerated mothers in particular were prone to starting fights among peers and at school, and also faced violence from various family members. Previous research has shown that children of incarcerated parents had more behavior is sues than children whose parents were not incarcerated. Several studies have concluded that differences in delinquency and externalizing behavior begin to manifest in childhood (Aaron & Dallaire, 2009; Wildeman, 2010). Phillips, Burns, Wagner, Kramer and Robbins (2002) sampled adolescents receiving mental health services, and found that children whose parents had been incarcerated were more likely than their counterparts to exhibit symptoms of attentiondeficit/hyperactivity and other conduct disorders, b ut were less likely to show signs of major depression. The authors

PAGE 44

44 also found that children of incarcerated parents were more likely to have been suspended or expelled than children whose parents were not incarcerated. Parental incarceration has also be en associated with aggression during early childhood. Wildeman (2010) used data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a longitudinal birth cohort study targeting urban, low income families that had a relatively high number of respondents af fected by paternal incarceration (nearly 40% of the sample had a father who had ever been incarcerated, and 19% of boys had a father who had been incarcerated recently). The author found that boys whose father has a history of incarceration were more likely to be physically aggressive at age five than boys who had not experienced paternal incarceration, controlling for factors like race, parental age and education, and corporal punishment. Emotional problems associated with parental incarceration Another variable contributing to the pileup of stresses related to parental incarceration is the variety of emotional problems that could be experienced by inmates children. There is evidence that parental incarceration on any level can profoundly affect inmates children emotionally (Arditti et al., 2003; Braman, 2004; Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008). At least one study has found that children of incarcerated parents experience behavior symptoms characterizing post traumatic stress disorder or ambiguous loss, both of which are normally associated with individuals who have lost their loved ones permanently (Bockneck, Sanderson & Britner, 2009). Nesmith and Ruhland (2008) interviewed 34 children of incarcerated parents, and found that their respondents reported feeling isolated from their friends and extended family. In addition to the emotional stress directly related to the incarceration itself, children worried a great deal about how the incarceration affected the adults in their lives, as well as the

PAGE 45

45 relationship b etween their incarcerated parent and caregiver. While the authors found that children showed resilience in dealing with parental incarceration, children still shouldered a considerable emotional burden Finally, Dallaire and Wilson (2009) found more emoti onal maladjustment among children who had been exposed to more events related to their parents criminality (e.g., witnessed parental criminal activity, arrest, or sentencing). Additionally, children who witnessed more incarcerationrelated events reporte d worse emotional regulation than children of incarcerated parents who had witnessed fewer incarcerationrelated events. Few studies have examined the emotional wellbeing of children as reported during their incarceration, with the notable exceptions of N esmith and Ruhland (2008) and Bockneck et al (2009). Both studies suggest that parental incarceration can profoundly impact the emotions of inmates children, which could result in a pileup of additional stress for both the children and the adults taki ng care of them (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Adaptation: Long term effects of parental incarceration The Double ABCXs maladaptation, in terms of reduced wellbeing for individual family members, can be seen in research on the long term effects of parental incarceration (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Parental incarceration can have profound intergenerational effects, well after the parent is released. Research has shown that parental incarceration affects the degree to which children are soci ally excluded from legitimate society, and childrens antisocial behavior. Intergenerational social disadvantage. One of the ways that longitudinal research demonstrates maladaptation of children of incarcerated parents is through social disadvantage of inmates children, which extends well beyond the period of

PAGE 46

46 incarceration. Foster and Hagan (2007) analyzed the way parental social exclusion impacts the long term social exclusion of children whose fathers were incarcerated. The authors analyzed three waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a nationally representative sample that starts following respondents in middle school, to determine if and how children with incarcerated fathers were socially excluded during their transition into adulthood. The authors based their study on cumulative disadvantage theory, which suggests that a variety of life deficits accumulate and lead to a gradual constraining of future options in conventional domains like stable family dynamics, employment and living conditions (Sampson & Laub, 1997). Foster and Hagan (2007) hypothesized that children of incarcerated parents would be more likely than counterparts whose parents had not been incarcerated to experience a variety of risk factors that might compl icate their life course. The authors showed that children of incarcerated fathers faced social exclusion, family stress and financial disability well into adulthood, and found that these families faced disadvantages on multiple fronts. The authors define d social exclusion to be political disengagement, homelessness and not having health insurance in adulthood, meaning those who were socially excluded had fewer ties to conventional society Foster and Hagan (2007) also found evidence that the legal exclus ion of offenders from social services and financial assistance contributed to an unintended social exclusion of the offenders offspring. The authors identified a cumulative process in which fathers educational detainment and incarceration are associated with childrens neglect, socialization issues, and economic strains (low family income and unemployment). P aternal incarceration directly affected childrens ultimate educational

PAGE 47

47 attainment. Fathers incarceration and intergenerational educational detai nment were found to produce significant exclusionary outcomes for children in emerging adulthood, pointing to the intergenerational processes of educational detainment as a primary mediator in the relationship between parental incarceration and social excl usion of their children. Children of incarcerated parents were more likely than peers without incarcerated parents to face cumulative disadvantage, and this risk of alienation from society could be a long term effect of the maladaptation to parental incar ceration, which the Double ABCX Model links to both precrisis and post crisis variables (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Intergenerational delinquency. Another way in which McCubbin and Pattersons (1982; 1983) concept of maladaptation may play out in later years is through the increased likelihood that children of incarcerated parents will maintain antisocial behavior into adulthood, which could be interpreted as the Double ABCX Models maladaptation characteristic, deterioration of family integrity (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983, p. 20). Murray and Farrington (2005) conducted the first prospective longitudinal study to investigate the long term effects of parental imprisonment on the male children of the incarcerated. The authors examined the e ffect of parental incarceration on sons antisocial behavior and delinquency later in life. This study used data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development to compare four groups: boys whose father was incarcerated at some point during the childhood (i.e., their first ten years of life); boys who were separated from their father during childhood due to death or illness; boys whose parents were absent during childhood for some other reason (usually divorce or separation); and boys who lived with bot h parents at least

PAGE 48

48 until age ten. At age ten, individual, parenting and family risk factors were measured. Outcome variables self reported delinquency and violence were measured when respondents reached 14, 18, and 32. The authors found that prisoners children were more at risk of adverse life outcomes than any other group. The impact of parental imprisonment continued to be substantial even when controlling for parent child separation, parental criminality and other childhood risk factors. Murray an d Farringtons (2005) findings that the effects of parental imprisonment could not be explained by parental criminality, separation or other associated risk factors supported previous researchers assertion that parental incarceration creates complications above and beyond the current tools we have to measure them (Arditti et al., 2003). The Double ABCX Model may provide a means by which to explain the varied forms of maladaptation experienced by children of incarcerated parents. The Double ABCX Model examines different preand post crisis variables contributing to a familys adaptation, and has also been used to operationalize how a family might successfully adapt to a crisis ( McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; Saloviita et al., 2003). Literature Review: Summar y In sum, the Double ABCX Model may be a valuable tool in understanding the components that play into a familys adaptation to parental incarceration. Before the incarceration, there is evidence that parental criminal activity affects families even befor e criminal justice involvement, acting as McCubbin and Pattersons (1983) initial stressor (Initial Stressor in Figure 21 ), interacting with both the way the family perceives their loved ones crime ( Perception of Stressor in Figure 2 1 ), an d the familys preexisting financial strain ( Existing Resources in Figure 2 1 ) (Arditti et al., 2003; Phillips et al., 2008). Aspects of the incarceration itself can also contribute to an

PAGE 49

49 immediate shift in family dynamics, posing a crisis accordi ng to the Double ABCX Model (Braman, 2004; Glaze & Maruschak, 2008; McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). Research has shown that after the incarceration occurs families implement a variety of coping strategies to deal with the crisis ( Coping Strategies in Figure 21 ), and experience a variety of stresses and demands ( Pileup in Figure 21 ) (Comfort, 2008; Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008; Turanovic et al., 2008). Also, after the person is incarcerated, the family may develop resources to meet the crisis ( New Resources in Figure 21 ), and may show signs of unhealthy behavior and disadvantage as a result of unhealthy adaptation to the incarceration (Arditti et al., 2003; Foster & Hagan, 2007; Murray & Farrington, 2005).

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Researchers used a mixedmethods instrument that included both a qualitative interview guide and a set of survey items ( Appendix B). This project used conceptual/the matic description, as defined by Sandelowski and Barroso (2003), to orient the experience of fa milial incarceration in the framework of the Double ABCX Model, which has previously been used in family literature (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982, 1983). Context Gainesville is a mid sized Southeastern city with a population of 124,354 ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2 010). The city contains one state university and one community college, so there is a sizable student population. The median household income in 2010 was $30,036. The city is majority white (64.9%), but also includes black (23.0%), and Asian (6.9%) resi dents, as well as American Indian/Alaskan Natives (0.3%). Gainesville is located in Alachua County, which has an annual crime rate of 4,249.7 per 100,000 in the population, which is slightly higher than the state average 4,070.2 per 100,000 (Florida Depar tment of Law Enforcement, 2012a; 2012b). The 2011 arrest rate for Alachua County was 7,608.2 per 100,000, nearly three times the state average of 2,734 per 100,000 (Florida Department of Law Enforcement, 2012c). The Alachua County Sheriffs Office Departm ent of the Jail offers 1,148 beds for male and female offenders, and the Sheriffs office defines the optimal number of inmates to be 975 (Alachua County Sheriffs Office Public Information Bureau, 2010). Inmates can be held at the jail for up to one year The core facility was built in 1994, and in 1998 responsibility for the County Jail was transferred to the Alachua County

PAGE 51

51 Sheriffs Office. The jail consists of the Security Operations Division, Support Services Division, Inmate Programs and Community Outreach Bureau, and the Inmate Services Division (Alachua County Sheriffs Office, 2010). The author primarily worked with personnel in the Inmate Programs and Community Outreach Bureau to obtain access for the research study. Recruitment Respondents wer e recruited in the following three ways. Potential respondents were contacted in person outside the visiting area at Alachua County Jail, and via flyers with the primary researchers contact information posted at the jail and to subsidized housing units. In addition, we asked participants to pass on information about the study to people they thought may be interested. See Appendix A for the flyer. While respondents were solicited in three different ways, all 20 respondents in the study were recruited in person at Alachua County Jail. To recruit in person, the primary researcher and two research assistants waited outside the jail entrance during visitation hours and greeted people entering and leaving the jail. The primary researcher went to the jail to recruit in person 82 times between the dates of February 10, 2012, and November 1, 2012. Two undergraduate research assistants also went to the jail to recruit potential respondents, each visiting the jail twice on their own (4 visits total). Visits to the jail lasted between 1 and 2 hours. Within the first two months of data collection, it became clear that most respondents arrived during the first hour of visitation in order to get a full hour or two hours with the person whom they were visiting. Thi s was particularly true at peak times (when 20 to 30 people were in the waiting room), because there were only five visitation booths (Alachua County Sheriffs Office, 2010). Each visitor could spend up to two hours in visitation per

PAGE 52

52 week, so anyone who c ame after the five booths were taken might have to wait for the person ahead of them to complete a twohour visit, and would not be able to see their incarcerated family member at all. To recruit in person, the researcher and research assistant s identified themselves as conducting a study at the University of Florida, and then asked the potential respondent whether the inmate they were visiting had any children and, if so, whether those children were currently living with the potential respondent. If the potential respondent confirmed that he or she lived with the child of an inmate, we would briefly explain the study and ask for contact information (name, phone number, and best times to call). At the jail, flyers were positioned on a table next to other f orms relate d to visitation (Appendix A). We asked respondents if they currently lived with a child whose mother or father was incarcerated, and then asked if they would be willing to speak about their experience. I also posted flyers up at two subsidized housing units and the downtown library to reach families of incarcerated parents who did not visit the jail, because previous research suggested that visitation could require a large investment of time and energ y (Tewksbury & Demichele, 2005). Subsidized housing units were chosen because caregivers of jail inmates children have been shown to use public assistance (Arditti et al., 2003). Sample To understand the variety of ways incarceration impacts the family, indepth face to face interviews were conducted with 20 individuals who lived with a child whose parent was incarcerated at the jail at the time of recruitment. Caregiver demographics can be found in Table 31. Specifically, the sample included any adult who personally identified as being an adult caregiver In terms of how often children of incarcerated

PAGE 53

53 parents stayed with caregivers, r espondents primarily reported that they were the primary household at which the child stayed (n=12; 60%), or that children stay ed overnight several day s out of the week (n=7; 35%). I chose to include part time caregivers because s haring care giving responsibilities among multiple households fit with previous literature finding that families of lower socioeconomic status were more likely to utilize extended fami ly networks to help wi th child re aring (Lareau, 2003). Additionally, one (5%) respondent had hosted her husbands children every weekend prior to the husbands arrest, but had not lived with them since the incarceration. When this respondent was initiall y recruited at the jail, she identified as a caregiver of her incarcerated husbands children, and later revealed during the full interview that her stepchildren primarily lived with their mother and had not been to her house since her husbands most recent incarceration. We decided to keep her interview in the sample because her husb and was frequently incarcerated and she took care of her stepchildren during other incarcerations, and also because she had talked to her stepchildren about the current incarc eration even though they were not currently living with her. Initially, I intended for the sample to be restricted to people taking care of children whose parent was at the local jail at the time of recruitment, but in one of the target families the incarc erated father had been sentenced and transferred to a prison facility at the time of the interview (n=1; 5%). The respondent was initially contacted visiting her romantic partner at the jail but by the time the interview took place he had been sentenced and transferred to a state prison. Because a substantial proportion of jail

PAGE 54

54 inmates are eventually tried and sentenced to prison (and thus, their families would experience visitation at both jail and prison), we kept this interview in the sample. I chos e to use a convenience sample due to time constraints on recruiting as well as IRB constraints with regard to accessing caregiver s via contact through inmates. Additionally, m ost studies of incarcerated families have focused on prison inmates (Comfort, 20 07; Fishman, 2007), so one of the goals of this study was to contribute to the field by increasing understanding of families of jail inmates. E arly in the research process, I decided not to restrict the sample based on caregiver or inmate gender or the ag e of the inmates children because there are not enough studies on parental incarceration to confidently expect that families would fit any single mold. Caregivers While researchers searched hoped for both male and female caregivers, the sample was all f emale. Seven (35%) of the respondents were mothers of an inmates child, eight (40%) were grandmothers, and two (10%) respondents were other relatives of the incarcerated parent. Additionally, two (10%) respondents were current romantic partners of the i ncarcerated parent, and one (5%) was the stepmother of the incarcerated parents children. Most respondents identified as black/African American (n=15; 75%), and five (25%) described themselves as white. There were no Hispanic or Latino individuals in th e sample. Respondents were between the ages of 22 and 62, with an average age of 39 years old. Two (10%) caregivers had not finished high school thirteen (65%) had a high school diploma or GED and five (25%) had their a ssociates or b achelors degree. Ten (50%) of caregivers were married, four (20%) were divorced, three (15%) were living with a partner, and three (15%) had never been married.

PAGE 55

55 Children of Incarcerated Parents In total, there were 32 children of incarcerated parents who were discussed by caregivers. They were between six weeks old and 17 years old. The average age of children discussed in interviews was 7.2 years old. Half of the children were four years old or younger (n=16; 50%). Nine (45%) of the 20 caregivers were taking care of multiple children of incarcerated parents, and 11 (55%) respondents had multiple children in their household. Two caregivers in the sample (Kaitlin and Stacy) identified as caregivers of the same 4 year old girl ( Table 21 ). Kaitlin, the girls mothe r, was initially recruited at Alachua County Jail. Kaitlin was recruited while being released from Alachua County Jail for a 10day incarceration for a technical probation violation. At the time of recruitment, Kaitlin said that her husband (the childs stepfather) was currently incarcerated at the same jail, and that (as of the point of recruitment) she would resume taking care of her daughter, and would therefore be eligible for the study. During Kaitlins interview, her mother, Stacy, arrived and expr essed interest in participating in the study, since she had legal custody of her granddaughter (Kaitlins daughter) during Kaitlins experiences with bipolar disorder and criminal justice involvement. The two respondents completed the interview together. Kaitlin was asked about taking care of her child while her husband was incarcerated, and Stacy discussed taking care of the child during Kaitlins most recent incarceration. Incarcerated Parents Incarcerated parents ranged in age from 19 to 41, with an av erage age of 28. Sixteen (75%) of incarcerated parents were black, three (15%) were white, and one (5%) was American Indian. Seven (35%) of the incarcerated parents had not graduated

PAGE 56

56 high school or received their GED, eleven (55%) had a high school diploma or GED, and two (10%) had obtained additional education. Procedure Gaining Access To gain approval for this study, I approached the Bureau Chief of Inmate Programs to discuss the project and see if Alachua County Jail would be interested in participating, and submitted my research instr ument for review ( Appendix B ). After reviewing the instrument, the Bureau Chief obtained permission to participate in the study from the sheriff and other administrators. I obtained permission from both Alachua Count y Jail and the UF Institutional Review Board before I began recruiting participants. At the same time I applied for permission for my m asters t hesis I also worked with the Program Coordinator to create a program evaluation plan for the jails parenting class, which engaged incarcerated fathers in learning about child development and parenting strategies, so I was familiar with jail staff and their procedures. Scheduling Interviews Interviews took place between midMarch 2012 and midNovember 2012. A fter the participant was confirmed as living with an inmates child during inperson recruitment at the jail, the graduate researcher or research assistant explained the time commitment for the research study, as well as the types of topics that would be c overed throughout the interview (e.g. financial issues, emotional responses, and child care decisions). Once eligibility was determined and the process was briefly explained, I scheduled an inperson interview at ei ther the respondents home (n=11; 55%) or a public location, such as a public library (n=4; 20%), restaurant (n=3; 15%), park (n=1;

PAGE 57

57 5%), or the caregivers place of work (n=1; 5%). Respondents chose the interview location that was most convenient for them Conducting the Interview At the time of the interview but before the official interview began, I read through the consent form with the respondent, highlighting again the types of questions that would be asked, the time commitment for the interview, confidentiality, and the respondents right t o stop the interview at any time or answer some questions but not others ( Appendix C ). I gave one copy of the consent form to each respondent, and then the respondent signed a second copy and returned it to me. The consent form given to respondents had contact information for the graduate primary investigator, the faculty mentor, and the UF institutional review board. After the consent form was signed, I asked if the respondent consented to turn on the recorder. All respondents agreed to be recorded, so all interviews were later transcribed word for word. All but one of the participants who enrolled completed the entire study (one was interrupted, and the respondent was unable to schedule another interview due to time constraints on the part of the caregiver). Data were collected via indepth semi structured interviews and survey interviews ( Appendix B) We designed interviews to understand how parental incarceration affected the child and the childs caregiver. Th e interview guide consisted of eighteen openended questions. The interview asked what each participant considered to be the effect of incarceration on the family (In general, how do you think your family members incarceration h as affected your family, ) and then specifically asked about the effect of incarceration on the familys finances (Please explain how your family members incarceration has affected your family financially ,) as well as the

PAGE 58

58 incarcerations specific impact on the inmates child ( Since your family member was incarcerated, how has the childs/childrens behavior been? If it has changed, how so, ) and the participant (What do you worry about most as a result of your family members incarceration). Questions were developed by exami ning prior literature on inmates families (Arditti et al., 2003; Fishman, 1988; Comfort, 2007). Additionally, we included questions specific to their visitation experience at the jail (What is the hardest thing about visiting your incarc erated family member to have a better understanding of how participants perceived their faceto face interaction with the criminal justice system, based on prior research suggesting that wives of prisoners experienced a secondary prisonization via visitation (Fishman, 1988; Comfort, 2007; Martone, 2005). After the openended section of the interview, the graduate researcher asked a series of survey questions about the demographics of the incarcerated parent, inmates child, and caregiver. The survey section of the instr ument also asked about the living situation of the children before and since the incarceration, and financial characteristics of the sample, such as What is your relationship to the incarcerated parents child (Biological child; Adopted child; Stepchild; Niece/nephew; Sister/brother; Grandchild; Cousin; Partners child; Other, Please specify .) The survey section also asked about the incarcerated parents charges and the status of his or her case in the court system, including categories that were not mutually exclusive, such as, He/she is waiting to be formally charged, and, He/she is waiting to be tried in front of a jury. Problems with Recruiting Data collection was slower than expected. Part of the issue may have been that visitation times were spread out through the week, so traffic was slow and recruiters could only cont act small numbers of potential participants at a time. I n a twohour

PAGE 59

59 window of recruiting at the jail, the researcher and research assistants contacted between 0 and 6 potenti al participants with an average of 2 phone numbers of interested potential respondents collected per visit Approximately 50 respondents who were approached at the jail and identified as caregivers chose not to give out their contact information at all, sometimes saying they were too busy or, in ten cases, afraid the information would get back to the jail. Additionally, many prospective participants dropped out of the study. Of the eighty two respondents who initially gave their contact information to the researcher and research assistants and indicated they wanted to complete the study, sixty (75%) did not complete a final interview. In some cases, the respondents phone was disconnected before an interview date was finalized or the number given was not a working number (n=19; 23%). Another group expressed interest initially, but later asked not to be called anymore (n=10; 12%). In most cases, however, respondents just stopped answering their phone, which makes it difficult to hypothesize why they chose to leave the study (n=54; 66%) However, research shows a lack of faith in the justice system and a learned fatalism among inmates and at risk populations (Terry, 2003), and there is some evidence that prisoners wives are also disillusioned with insti tutional justice (Comfort, 2008). This belief was echoed by women who were contacted at the jail but who chose not to participate, one of whom said, Its all fine and well that youre passionate about that, but what Im saying is, aint nothing gonna change. Theyre gonna keep treating [inmates] the way they treat them, and treat us the way they been treating us.

PAGE 60

60 Addit i onally, one of the participants who enrolled in the study failed to complete the entire interview. The interview with Ina1, who shared two daughters with her incarcerated husband, was interrupted when the library at which we were interviewing closed. Inas two daughters and their friends were also at the library, so we rescheduled because Ina preferred not to have all four children listen to the interview. I was unable to schedule another interview due to scheduling constraints related to the incarceration. Inas husband entered the jails work study program, and it was his familys responsibility to transport him to and from work five days a week. Every weekday, Ina would transport her two daughters to school, drive twenty minutes to the jail to transport her husband to work, then go to work herself. After transporting her husband from work back to jail Ina typically arrived home around 8:00 PM, after which she cooked dinner for her family. After her initial interview in early June, the graduate researcher tried to connect with her until early September, at which point her husband had been released and she was no longer eligible to c omplete the interview. Similarly, in July an interview with Paula, the grandmother of a child whose father was incarcerated, was interrupted. As a full time worker, with six children and thirty two grandchildren, Paula had too many time commitments to sc hedule a follow up interview by the time data collection ended in November. Both interviews were kept because the analysis primarily focused on the openended questions at the beginning of the interview, and questions that were skipped included survey items and scales not used in the final analysis. 1 Names throughout the thesis have been changed

PAGE 61

61 Demographic Variables Details about family and inmate demographics were recorded after the openended portion of the interview in a survey. I read questions aloud and then recorded the respondents answer on t he survey instrument ( Appendix B) Caregiver d emographics Interviewers asked a set of demographic questions about the respondent (the person taking care of the child/children of incarcerated parents) ( Appendix B) Respondents were be asked the following questions: (a) How old are you (entered as number of years); (b) What is your gender (Male; Female; Other); (c) Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (No; Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano; Yes, Puerto Rican; Yes, Cuban; Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin); (d) What is your race (White; Black or African American; American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian/Pacific Islander; Other race, which the respondent was asked to specify); (e) What is the highest level of education you have obtained (1st8th grade; s ome high school; h igh school diploma or GED; s ome college; v ocational degree; a ssociates degree; b achelors degree; m asters degree; doctorate); and, (f) Are you currently married, divorced, separated, living with a partner, or have you never been married (Married; Divorced; Separated; Living with a partner; Never been married)? Separate answer options for (c) Hispanic or Latino origin and (d) race were modeled after the 2010 United States Census (census.gov, 2010). Answer options for education level were taken from Arditti et al. (2003). In this thesis, respondent s age is reported in years. We coded respondents who answered both NonHispanic and White as White, and coded thos e who answered Non Hispanic and Black as Black. We also coded r espondents into three

PAGE 62

62 categories of education: d id not finish high school if they answered that their highest educational achievement was, f i rst through eighth grade, or some high school ; obtained high school diploma or GED if they answer ed, h igh school diploma or GED ; and o btained higher education degree if they answered, a ssociates degree, or b achelors degree. We coded respondents as Married, Divorced, Sep arated, Living with a Partner, or Never Been Married, according to the res ponse categories recorded on the survey instruments, with no further adjustments. Household c haracteristics We asked respondents about the family and the household in which the target child/children and caregiver lived ( Appendix B) Questions included the following: (a) In total, how many children does your incarcerated family member have (Enter number of children); (b) How many of your family members children are currently living in your household (Enter number of children); (c) How many children in total live in your household (Enter number of children); (d) Please list the gender and age of all the children living in your household (Enter M for male and F for female and number of years of age for each child); and (e) Please list the gender and age of the incarcerated parents children currently living in your household (Enter M for male and F for female and number of years of age for each child). The method of listing gender and age of each child for (d) and (e) were modified from the instrument used by Arditti et al. (2003) The number, age, and gender of children were noted in data analysis ( Figure 21 ). We also created subcategories for families with more than one child, and those with one child to see if there were noticeable differences in issues faced by families with multiple children (the number, age, and gender of children of incarcerated parents is

PAGE 63

63 reported in Appendix C) We also coded childrens ages as infants and toddlers (ages 0 through 4 years old), young children (ages 5 to 12), and adolescents (ages 13 to 18). Households were coded as multiple children of incarcerated parents if the respondent reported that th ey cared for more than one child of an incarcerated, and multiple children in the household, if the respondent reported more than one child living in their household. Family relationship c haracteristics We also asked about the relationships between the respondent, the incarcerated parent, and the target child/children ( Appendix B) Respondents were asked the following questions: (a) What is your relationship to the incarcerated parents child (Biological child; Adopted child; Stepchild ; Niece/nephew; Sister/brother; Grandchild; Cousin; Partners child; Other, which the respondent was asked to specify); (b) What is your relationship to the incarcerated parent (Biological child; Adopted child; Stepchild; Niece/nephew; Grandchild; Father or mother; Grandparent; Father in law or mother in law; Sonin law or daughter in law; Other relative; Husband/wife; Current romantic partner; Former romantic partner; Friend; Other, which the respondent was asked to specify); (c) Do you share any children with your incarcerated family member (Yes; No); (d) How many children do you share with your incarcerated family member (Enter number of children); and (e) Were any of your children born during your family members incarceration (Yes; No)? I coded families into three subcategories: women who share a child with the incarcerated family member [Respondents who answered Yes to the question, Do you share any children with your incarcerated family member?], women who do not share a child with the incarcerated parent but are a current romantic partner of that parent [Respondents who answered No to the

PAGE 64

64 question, Do you share any children with your incarcerated family member? and answered Current romantic partner to the question, What is your relationship to the incarcerated parent?], and women who are nonromantic family members of the incarcerated parent [Respondents who answered, Biological child; Adopted child; Stepchild; Niece/nephew; Grandchild; Father or mother; Grandparent; Father in law or mother in law; Sonin law or daughter in law; Other relative to the question, What is your relationship to the incarcerated parent?]. For the purposes of the thesis, there were four main categories of caregivers. The first group (Mothers) consisted of caregivers who answered B iological child to the question, What is your relationship to the incarcerated parents child? The second group (Grandmothers) consisted of women who answered, Grandchild. The third group (Romantic partner) was made up of women who answered Partners child. Finally, a fourth group (Other relative) consisted of women who answered Niece/nephew or Other Incarcerated parent characteristics Respondents were asked a series of demographic questions about the incarcerate d parent of the child for whom she was caring ( Appendix B) Caregivers were asked the following questions: (a) How old is your incarcerated family member (Enter number of years of age); (b) What gender is your incarcerated family member (Male; Female; Other); (c) Is this person of Hispanic or Latino origin (No; Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano; Yes, Puerto Rican; Yes, Cuban; Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin); (d) What is this persons race (White; Black or African A merican; American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian/Pacific Islander; Other race, which the offender was asked to specify); and (e) What is the highest year of school your

PAGE 65

65 family member has completed (1st8th grade; some high school; h igh school diploma or GED; some college; v ocational degree; a ssociates degree; b achelors degree; m asters degree; doctorate )? In this project, incarcerated parents who were reported as both Not Hispanic and Black/African American were coded as Black, those who were reported as both Not Hispanic and White were coded as White, and those who reported as Native American/American Indian were coded as Native American. We coded incarcerated parents into categories of education: Did not finish high school if th ey answered that their highest educational achievement was, Fi rst through eighth grade, or S ome high school; O btained high school diploma or GED if they answered, High school diploma or GED; and Obtained higher education degree if they answered, a ssociates degree, or b achelors degree. Double ABCX Variables Initial criminality ( In itial stressor) The parents initial criminality was coded because it represented the initial stressor in McCubbin and Pattersons (1982; 1983) Double ABCX Model ( Figure 21). We recorded data on criminal activity through the survey portion of the analysis ( Appendix B ). We asked the respondents to indicate what type of offense his or her family member was currently being held at the jail for, and the interviewer circled Yes, for all offenses that we re mentioned and No, for all offenses that we re not mentioned by the respondent. There were 18 options: (a) Possession or use of drug paraphernalia; (b) Possession or use of narcotic equip ment; (c) Possession of marijuana not more than 20 grams; (d) Alcohol possession by person under 21 years of age; (e) Driving under the influence of alcohol; (f) Driving while license suspended or

PAGE 66

66 revoked; (g) No valid drivers license; (h) Criminal misc hief over 200 dollars under 1000 dollars; (i) Larceny: Petit first degree property 100 to under 300 dollars; (j) Retail theft; (k) Worthless check; (l) Trespassing; (m) Resisting or obstructing officer; (n) Domestic battery: Touch or strike; (o) Probation violation; (p) Other (which the respondent was asked to specify). In the final analysis, incarcerated parents were recoded into four categories. Incarcerated parents were coded as drug offenders (if the caregiver answered that they were incarcerated for Possession or use of drug paraphernalia, Possession of marijuana, Possession or use of narcotic equipment,), nonsexual violent offenders (Domestic battery or Other if the respond ent specified the offense as As sault), sex offenders (Other if t he respondent specified the offense as Sexual contact with a minor), property offenders (Larceny, Retail theft, or Other if the respon dent specified the offense as B urglary), or technical probation violators (Driving on a suspended license if t he license was suspended as a condition of probation, or Other if the answer was Did not commit community service, which was a condition of probation.) We also asked s everal questions to assess the incarcerated parents criminal history ( Appendix B) Respondents were asked whether the incarcerated parent had ever been arrested, convicted, or incarcerated before the current incarceration. Respondents were asked the following questions: (a) Has your family member ever been arrested b efore this most recent incarceration (Yes; No); (b) [If so,] How many times has your family member been arrested before this most recent incarceration (Enter number of arrests); (c) Has your family member ever been convicted of any prior

PAGE 67

67 offenses (Yes; No) ; (d) [If so,] How many times has your family member been convicted before this most recent incarceration (Enter number of convictions); (e) Has your family member been convicted of any prior felonies (Yes; No); (f) [If so,] How many times has your family member been convicted of prior felonies before this most recent incarceration (Enter number of felony convictions); (g) Had your family member been incarcerated at a jail or prison before this most recent incarceration (Yes; No); (h) Was your family member incarcerated at jail, prison, or both (Jail; Prison; Both); (i) and [If Yes to (g)] How many times has your family member been incarcerated in his or her life, before his/her current incarceration (Enter number of convictions)? For the sake of this an alysis, incarcerated parents were considered to be chronic offenders when they had been arrested five or more times in total. I used this code if the offender answered Yes to the question, Has your family member ever been arrested before this most recent incarceration, and indicated the family member had been arrested four or more times, [If so,] How many times has your family member been arrested before this most recent incarceration. This definition of chronic offenders was based off lifecourse trajectory research which considers chronic offending to be more than five offenses (Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972; Conseur, Rivara, & Barnoski, & Emanuel, 1997; McGloin & Stickle, 2011). Perceptions of criminality The concept Perceptions of criminal ity came from the Double ABCX Model concept, Perceptions of initial stressor (Figure 21 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). I coded interviews for discussion of how the respondent perceived the incarcerated parents criminal activity during the q ualitative portion of the interview. See Appendix B for the instrument, and Table 32 for examples of quotes used when coding

PAGE 68

68 individual variables within major concepts. I coded interviews for the way in which caregivers attributed responsibility for the criminal activity ( Table 32 ). After coding for emerging concepts, I found that caregivers who discussed blame for their partners criminal activity generally attributed responsibility to the offenders own Bad Choices, or to Environmental Causes outside the offenders control. Responses were coded, Both bad choices and environmental causes if during the interview, the caregiver mentioned both the offenders personal responsibility and factors that caus ed criminal behavior that were outside of the offenders control. I coded interviews as mentioning Bad Choices if the caregiver discussed how the offender could have prevented the incident, or explicitly referred to criminal activity as the result of t he offenders bad decisions, using words like bad choices, bad decisions, or talked about the incarcerated parent taking responsibility for his or her actions. Within Bad Choices, interviews were coded as mentioning concerns over intergenerational delinquency if they expressed worry that the incarcerated parents children would also make the decision to be delinquent. Example phrases I looked for when coding for intergenerational delinquency include references to the child following in the foots teps of the incarcerated parent, or learning from the mistakes of the incarcerated parent, with regard to criminal behavior. Alternatively, I coded passages as discussing Environmental Causes if the caregiver mentioned something causing the criminal behavior other than the offenders personal decision, like if the offenders were reacting to financial hardship, were providing for their children, or were unjustly treated by the criminal justice system. Phrases that came up when looking or environmental causes often included

PAGE 69

69 references to having a hard life that led to criminal behavior, or doing what anyone would have done if they were faced with antagonistic or extreme circumstances. Within Environmental Causes, I also coded for the variable, Innocence. Innocence was defined as respondents saying their incarcerated family member did not commit the crime with which they were charged, either through coding for the word innocent or looking for any instances where the caregiver mentioned t hat their family member was currently falsely accused of a crime. Familys existing resources I coded interviews for f amilys existing resources based on the concept of familys pre crisis resources in the Double ABCX Model ( Figure 21) (McCubbin & P atterson, 1982; 1983). This concept was primarily analyzed in the quali tative portion of the interview. I coded interviews according to financial and interpersonal conflict that caregivers specifically mentioned having occurred before the incarceration, and therefore indicated the level of resources available to the family before the crisis. The two major variables that emerged were, Preexisting Financial Strain, and, Familys Existing Resources. See Appendix B for the instrument, and Table 32 for examples of quotes used when coding variables. Responses were coded as mentioning Preexisting Financial Strain if the caregiver discussed having a difficult time making ends meet before the incarceration. For instance, I used the concept Preexisting Financial Strain when a caregiver talked about her familys situation before the incarceration as not being able to pay the bills, struggling financially, or having a tough time.

PAGE 70

70 Crisis (Incarceration) Parental incarceration was analyzed as the cri sis based on the original Double ABCX Model ( Figure 2 1) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983), and I analyzed for variables characterizing the incarceration. I determined t he type of incarceration by examining survey data whether or not the incarcer ate d parent had been sentenced ( Appendix B). In the survey portion of the instrument, the interviewer asked respondents to explain at what point his or her family members case is in the criminal justice process and why he/she was being hel d at the county jail. Respondents were asked to answer Yes or No to the following items, and could say Yes to multiple items: (a) He/she is waiting to be formally charged; (b) He/she is in the process of plea bargaining; (c) He/she is waiting to be tried in front of a jury; (d) He/she is waiting to be sentenced; (e) He/she was sentenced and is waiting to be transferred to another facility; (f) He/she was sentenced to serve time at the jail; (g) He/she is here for grand jury or to provide testimony in his/her own case; and (h) He/she is here for grand jury or to provide testimony in someone elses case. If the respondent said the incarcerated parent was sentenced [responses (f) or (g)], he or she was asked to specify the length of sentences in months or years. The incarcerated family member was coded as presentence if the careg iver answered Yes the inmate was waiti ng to be formally charged, was in the process of plea bargaining, was waiting to be t ried in front of a jury, or was waiting to be se ntenced. The family was coded as post sentence if the careg iver answered Yes the incarcerated family member was sentenced and was waiting to be transfer red to another facility, or was sentenced to serve time at the jail. No one was incarcerated for a grand jury, so this category was not coded.

PAGE 71

71 Respondents were also asked several questions related to the length of the incarcerated parents sentence ( Appendix B ). The instrument asked, How long has your family member been incarcerate d at this jail (Enter number of days, weeks, or months). In the analysis, researchers reported the length of time the parent had been incarcerated (in weeks or months) ( Figure 21 ). Pileup of stresses The pileup of strains associated with the incar ceration was coded based on the concept of pileup associated with a family crisis described iin McCubbin and Pattersons (1982; 1983) Double ABCX Model. I coded responses as pileup if they described any financial, emotional, or interpersonal strains dir ectly following the incarceration during the qualitative portion of the incarceration. See Appendix B for the instrument, and Table 32 for examples of quotes used when coding individual variables. For example, I used the concept Pileup when caregivers discussed people transitioning households (for example, if caregivers said the inmates children moved in with them, or they and the children were staying with friend or family), financial strain (for example, if the caregiver said they lost income d ue to the incarceration or they didnt know how they would pay the bills), or tried to fill ambiguous or uncertain roles with the children (for example, if they said they were playing mommys role and daddys role, or if they said they were stressed by trying to fill in for the incarcerated parent). Interviews were also coded for pileup variables related to increased family conflict (if they mentioned fighting more with kids after the incarceration, or the kid being mad at the caregiver or incarc erated parent), worse health (if the caregiver mentioned the hospital, the doctor, or health insurance), and worry about the inmate (if the caregiver mentioned jail food, potential violence in jail, or correctional

PAGE 72

72 officers yelling at the inmat es). Finally, pileup was coded as Plexiglass barrier and the visitation environment if they specifically mentioned the barrier as causing problems (for example, if the child was upset because they couldnt get to t heir incarcerated parent, or i f the c aregiver felt the visit was difficult because they werent able to touch their incarcerated family member). Specifically, financial pileup was doublechecked using survey data on the incarcerated parents former income. Respondents were coded as experiencing pileup if they reported a loss of income in the survey. To examine loss of income, the survey instrument also assessed the loss of household income caused by parental incarceration (Appendix A). The instrument asked, Prior to your family member coming to jail, were you receiving any money from your family member (Yes; No). Families who answered Yes to the question were coded as families who lost parental income, and families who answered No were coded as families who did not lose parental income. All of the respondents who indicated in the survey that they had lost household income when the parent went to jail also discussed loss of income in the qualitative portion of the interview. New r esources I coded interviews for new resources based on McCubbin and Pattersons (1982; 1983) studies, which found that a family developed new resources to meet a crisis. When caregivers discussed new resources that had evolved since the incarceration that helped families deal with the financial or soci al effects, I coded this as New Resources. See Appendix B for the instrument, and Table 32 for examples of quotes used when coding individual variables. Interviews were primarily coded for new resources they used to offset financial difficulties resul ting from the incarceration, and to

PAGE 73

73 help with child care needs created by the incarceration because both of these issues have been found to be important to families of incarcerated parents (Arditti et al., 2003; Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008) I coded int erviews for new resources if caregivers identified sources of financial or emotional support that developed after the incarceration, like when caregivers said they turned to or relied on someone after the incarceration, or if someone helped them out during the incarceration. If caregivers mentioned receiving support, I also coded for problems with support, such as relying on [someone] too much, seeing themselves as a financial burden, or family trying to help them but having difficulty doing so. Coping s trategies Coping Strategies is a concept based on the Double ABCX Model, which indicated that families had various ways of coping with a crisis. I primarily coded the qualitative component of interviews for strategies families used to deal wit h the incarceration. These strategies were mentioned throughout the interviews, but most often came in response to the questions, What do you do to help yourself deal with the incarceration? and What does each child do to help himself/hers elf deal with the incarceration ( Appendix B). I coded a respondent as discussing c oping strategies if the she indicated that a strategy or action helped the caregiver or the child get through the incarceration. Refer to Table 32 for quotes associ ated with variables. Within coping strategies, I coded for four variables. One of the codes was religious faith (for example, if interviews mentioned prayer, going to church, or relying on faith in their interviews), and another was not thinking about the incarceration (if the caregivers discussed not thinking about it, or thinking about other

PAGE 74

74 things to help them deal with the incarceration). I also coded for relying on social support from incarcerated family members (if caregivers talked about calling or writing letters to the inmate) to help the caregiver cope with the incarceration, or socially withdrawing (if the caregiver mentioned that they or the children in their care withdrew or kept to themselves). Perception of crisis, pileup, and resources I also coded interviews for how caregivers or children perceived their familys situation in terms of crisis, pileup, and resources based on the importance of that concept in the Double ABCX Model (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983) Caregivers p erceptions of their familys situation were coded in terms of the caregivers hopes or fears about the future. Because many children were not told about the parents incarceration, I coded childrens perceptions of their familys situation in terms of whe ther or not they actually knew their mother or father was incarcerated. References to childrens perceptions of the incarceration were specifically requested in the question, What has the child been told about his/her parents incarceration ( Appendix B ). See Table 32 for examples of quotes used when coding individual variables. Within the caregivers perception of the crisis, pileup, and resources, I coded for emerging concepts of the incarceration as a temporary setback, worry about the inmate post release, and telling the child about the parents incarceration. I coded caregivers as referring to the incarceration as a temporary setback if they mentioned the word temporary, if they talked about the incarceration as being a part of a higher plan, if they said it was better than being dead, or they were glad [the incarcerated parent] was still here. I coded interviews as worrying about the incarcerated parent if they mentioned being worried that the parent would not be able to get a job, pass a

PAGE 75

75 background test, stay clean, or stay out of trouble after the incarceration. Finally, I coded for the caregiver telling the incarcerated parents child about the incarceration, so if they talked about being honest with the chil d or telling the truth about incarceration. I also coded for whether caregivers said they did not tell the child about the incarceration because they were too young to understand what jail was, or didnt understand the concept of incarceration. Fin ally, interviews were coded as choosing not to tell children about incarceration of they said the child shouldnt hear about that, if they were protect[ing] the child by not telling him or her about the incarceration, or if they said they kept the incarceration a secret from the child. Adaptation Finally, I coded interviews for how the family adapted to the crisis, in terms of how the caregiver saw themselves or their children adapting to the incarceration, because this was the final variable in the original Double ABCX Model (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983) Caregivers discussed their familys adaptation to the incarceration throughout the interview, but this information was specifically requested in the questions, How has the incarceration affect ed you emotionally, and, How has the incarceration affected the child/children you are taking care of emotionall y ( Appendix B ). Specific quotes used in coding variables can be found in Table 32 Within discussions of adaptations, I coded for negative emotional adaptation and child behavior problems. If caregivers mentioned themselves as their children as going through depression, being down, being anxious, or not being able to be left alone, I coded them as having negative emotional adaptations. If caregivers discussed children acting out, being suspended, or going to an incarceration facility, I coded those interviews as mentioning child behavior problems.

PAGE 76

76 Analysis Research assistants and I transcribed interviews verb atim in Microsoft Word. We then imported into NVivo 9 for coding interviews. Each line of the transcript was coded according to major Double ABCX concepts (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983), and then coded according to emerging variables Interviews wer e reviewed and recoded until they reached saturation, meaning that no new concept s or patterns emerged. The interview guide itself was designed based on previous research findings on emotional, financial, and visitation impacts of jail incarceration on fa milies (Arditti et al., 2003; Tewksbury & Demichele, 2005). During data collection (i.e., while interviews were being conducted), I learned of the Double ABCX Stress Model through discussions with qualitative researchers in the public health field. Upon further research, it appeared that the model included many concepts mentioned by my respondents. Therefore, I decided to use McCubbin and Pattersons (1982; 1983) initial pre crisis and post crisis concepts as a sensitizing model for concepts discussed by caregivers in my sample. This project used conceptual/thematic analysis, which is defined in a recent analysis of classifying qualitative findings as, authors importconcepts or themes to reframe a phenomenon, event, or case (Sandelowski & Barroso 2003, p. 913). The framework from which concepts were imported was the Double ABCX Stress Model, which examines how a family adapts to a crisis (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983). According to Sandelowsk and Barroso (2003), in terms of methodology, conceptual/them atic analysis develops more new concepts than content analysis (which codes for specific words/phrases), and, unlike grounded theory, it uses an existing framework to identify key ideas rather than developing a completely new model.

PAGE 77

77 In this particular study, concept s were developed from the Double ABCX Model to understand a family s adaptation to parental incarceration from the perspective of caregivers. Specifically, this study analyzed precrisis and post crisis concepts in McCubbin and Pattersons (1983) model that had primarily been used in families and health research to describe how families cope with the development of an intellectual or physical disability (Saloviita, Italinna, & Leinonen, 2003; Florian & Dangoor, 1994), residential transitions (Fr ame & Shehan, 1994), or divorce (Plunkett, Sanchez, Henry, & Robinson, 1997).

PAGE 78

78 Table 31 Respondent demographics Respondent Pseudonym Age Race Relationship to Children CG Work Yearly Household Income Pre or Post Sentence Parents Offense Type Time Pare nt Spent in Jail Child Age (Gender) Paula (Primary HH) 55 Black Great Aunt Yes (Full time) $30,000 $34,999 Post Violent 1 month 17 years (M) Laura (Primary HH) 22 Black Mother No Under $10,000 Pre Drugs; Property; Probation Violation 1 month Six weeks (M) Elizabeth (Primary HH) 22 Black Mother No Under $10,000 Pre Probation Violation (Technical) 2 months 18 months (F) Tina (Primary HH) 22 Black Mother No Under $10,000 Post Property; Probation Violation 8 months Seven weeks (M) Shawna (Prim ary HH) 39 Black Grandmother Yes (>Full time) $50,000 $59,000 Pre Violent 1.5 months 2 years (F), 1 years(M) Sarah (Primary HH) 37 Black Aunt No $10,000 $14,999 Pre Violent; Probation Violation 1 month 1 year (M) Anne (Primary HH) 22 Black Fathers rom antic partner No $35,999 $40,000 Post Probation Violation (Technical) 1 week 10 years (F), 7 years (M) Sheila (Primary HH) 36 Black Mother No $24,999 $30,000 Pre Property Offense; Probation Violation 2 months 15 (M), 10 (M), 9 (M)

PAGE 79

79 Table 31 Conti nued Respondent Pseudonym Age Race Relationship to Children CG Work Yearly Household Income Pre or Post Sentence Parents Offense Type Time Parent Spent in Jail Child Age (Gender) Ariel (Multiple HH) 36 Black Fathers romantic partner Yes (>Full time) Under $10,000 Post Property; Probation Violation 3 weeks 3 years (F) Lacy (Multiple HH) 62 Black Grandmother Yes (Full time, seaso nal) $25,999 $30,000 Pre Violent 1 month 2 years (M), 6 months (M) Meredith (Multiple HH) 59 Black Grandmother Yes (Part time) $30,000 $34,999 Pre Violent 1 month 15 years (F), 5 years (M) Marni (Formerly Multiple HH1) 32 Black Stepmother Yes (>Full time) $35,000 $39,999 Post Drug 1 month 16, 15, 14, 13, 11 years (All M) Robin (Primary HH) 48 Black Grandmother Yes (Full time) $15,000 $19,999 Pre Probation Violation; Nonviolent Obs truction of Justice 3 weeks 4 years (M) Sasha (Multiple HH) 55 Black Grandmother Yes (Full time, seaso nal) $20,000 $24,999 Pre Drug 1 month 4 years (F), 1 year (M) Brittany (Primary HH) 39 Black Grandmother Yes (Full time) $25,999 $30,000 Pr e Drug 1 month 3 years (F)

PAGE 80

80 Table 31 Continued Respondent Pseudonym Age Race Relationship to Children CG Work Yearly Household Income Pre or Post Sentence Parents Offense Type Time Parent Spent in Jail Child Age (Gender) Ina (Primary HH) 46 White Mother Yes (Full time) $30,000 $34,999 Post Drug offense; Probation Violation 3 months 14 years (F), 11 years (F) Liana (Multiple HH) 52 White Grandmother Yes (Full time) $85,000 $89,999 Post Drug; Probation Violation 2 months 14 years (M), 9 years (F) Amanda (Primary HH) 23 White Mother No Under $10,000 Pre Sex Crime 2 months 2 years (F) Kaitlin (Multip le HH) 22 White Mother No Under $10,000 Pre Sex Crime 3 months 4 years (F)* Stacy (Multiple HH) 48 White Grandmother Yes (Part time) $60,0 00 $74,999 Post Probation Violation (Technical) Out (had been in for 10 days) 4 years (F)* Kaitlin and Stacy were talking about the same 4year old girl, who was Kaitlins daughter and Stacys granddaughter; The two respondents completed the interview together; Kaitlin talked about taking care of the child while her husband was incarcerated, and Stacy talked about taking care of the child during Kaitlins most recent incarceration (Kaitlin had been released one week prior to the interview date)

PAGE 81

81 Table 32 Example quotes Concept Variable Examples from Interviews Perception of parents criminality Bad choices I dont really think a lot about it. I know I cant really do a lot about it, because he made the choices he made. Like, bad choices, and stuff. He did what he wanted to do, and it was hi s choice. Irresponsibility and selfish behavior, is what [my incarcerated daughters problem] is. Concerns over intergenerational delinquency I probably have always been the more strict one, um, so it really hasn't changed that much. I probably a m a little more strict now that he is not here, um, to stress the fact that they probably need to learn from his mistakes as well. Um, so I just make sure that they learn from his mistakes so that they don't end up making the same mistakes that their father made and end up where he is. Or some of the mistakes that I have made. Thats just been my main goal. And [my sons] a, hes a, boy now, but hes going to be a man one day and he need that male figure, you know, in his life in order for him to becom e a better man than his dad isJust, decisionmaking, you know. Yeah, his dad made mistakes, but, you know, hes his own man, he dont have to be the same as his dad. Im sure if he was here hed show him thatyou know, cause he regret it now, not being here. Environmental causes They say that theres no excuses for doing things that you do, but hey, there is! There is some excuses out there for doing things you do or theres some things that make you do things you do. Whether theyre ex cuses or not.

PAGE 82

82 Table 32 Continued Concept Variable Examples from Interviews Perception of parents criminality (contd.) Environmental causes (contd.) I mean, yeah, hes in jail, but I dont know what they [the probation authorities] expected. Hes trying to work to support his two kids, he just didnt have time to do that much community service and keep his job. Yeah, yeah, I won't really.. Because all guys that are in jail are not bad peopleor are all not criminals, per se, but everybody, even m e, I could go out there right now and lose my temper and wind up in the same boat, and I don't consider myself a bad person, I'm not a trouble makerso all people are not bad, but I'm just grateful that he chose to not be that person. But we all can be, y ou know, "I'm just gonna go out her and start all kinda shit", all kind of mess and get in trouble, I'm just gonna be a mess to society, I'm just glad that he stayed, he chose to stay on the right path, and not ya know, but we all get in trouble in our lif e at one point or another so. Innocence [My incarcerated husbands] ex was a minor, and her father told him, Stay away from my daughter. But she kept going after him, and left school and went over to his house. And the cops showed up, and um bo th of them say that nothing happened, but theyre charging him with lewd and lascivious behavior. If he gets charged with that, hell have to register as a sex offender. I believe my brother and he said that hes innocent. I believe him, so he just has to sit and wait for the outcome.

PAGE 83

83 Table 32 Continued Concept Variable Examples from Interviews Perception of parents criminality (contd.) Both bad choices and environmental causes Because [my son who is currently in jail] promised me he wasnt going to get into nothing else when he got out, and, you know. But, like, I understand, everybody going to is not going to let anybody hurt him. And I know my child was trying to protect himself, you know, and Im glad hes still here aliv e. I can say that. I mean, its hard to say what a persons gonna do when they get angry, because I'm human as well, and sometimes anger makes me just wanna pound a personBut other than that I can't say that its a bad thing, because sometimes, you know, some people need to think about their consequencesWhat he did wasn't completed right, although he felt it was, uh, a way of defending himself. You know, nobody wants anything taken from them. SoI guess thats ba sically it. I just hope its a lesson learnednext time hell be able to think about it before he just reacts. Pre incarceration family resources Financial strain before the incarceration [I] Called [the bank] up and arranged everything [to refinance o ur house] and I can afford that, and Im happy, and we can save our home, and me and our children will have a place to live. And [husband] came home [from prison, on a previous charge], and after paying it for a year and a half, um, [the bank] said, We r ejected your modification and now you gotta go. And thats when Ken, [snaps] snapped! You know? Well, were down to one income now M y bills, well we was already behind, but the little amount of money that [my son] was bringi ng was trying to catch up everything.

PAGE 84

84 Table 32 Continued Concept Variable Examples from Interviews Pre incarceration family resources (contd.) Existing intrafamily conflict Its just me and my children. I have my family, too, but I dont. Me and my family, its hard. My sisters, mother, my brother, were not close. There was once a bond, but thats not there. Ive always been the black sheep. So its just me and my children. Well, before he went in, we were actually going through a bit of a rough patch. We were fighting a lot. He would go out with his friends, you know, and Im the type of person where I like to stay home. So if he stayed out late, I would get madder and madder and then would just go off. Crisis Worry over uncertain re lease time I wonder if Im going to be able to we have a new baby coming, and it bothers me because I feel like Im not gonna be able to -you know, provide for the new baby. Hes due next month, we dont have anything for him. And, um, the last two months since [my husbands] been gone, were the ones we were supposed to be putting up stuff for the baby we havent even gotten startedit really makes me worry about my kids. Really, probably, I would say [I worry most] about the time frame of [my incarcerated husband] getting out. Um, thats probably my main concern. Um, if hes gonna be around or miss special events with the kidsthats probably the main thing. And probably eventually income as well. Pileup Residential transition: Caregiver moved into another household I have to take care of my son on my own, and Im really trying to look for a job. Im staying with my parents right now, and Im just trying to find my own place. And its, like, really hard being a single parent with no money at all.

PAGE 85

85 Table 32 Continued Concept Variable Examples from Interviews Pileup (contd.) Residential transition: Caregiver moved into another household Before [my sons] dad, you know, we nt to jail, we were actually staying together in a one bedroom apartment. But because I got really sick, you know, from, you know, pregnancy, first time pregnancy, I end up stopping working and I moved in with my mom. Probably if he was still out, we wou ld have still been in our one bedroom until my lease was up, and then got upgraded to a two. Residential transition: Child moved in with caregiver I have to adjust to getting up and taking care of young children and, um, my children are older. My baby [youngest daughter] is 15 and my oldest daughter is going on 21. So I have older children, so I have to adjust to taking care of toddlers and infants. So thats a big jumpits taking time, but Im adjusting to getting them up, getting them ready, taki ng them to daycare. You know so, you know, getting their clothes up, getting my clothes up. No. Ive always had custody of [my granddaughter], since she was a baby. [Kaitlin] wasnt ready to be a mom, so I had to step in. I was worried [Kaitlin] som ething would go wrong, because [Kaitlin] was running around at the time, and [my granddaughter] has health problems so I didnt want to take any chances. Financial strain: Cost of incarceration The minimum [amount of money you can pay toward collect calls to the jail] being $31, and thats only for like ten calls. But, you know, ten calls is never enough to talk to somebody you love, so.

PAGE 86

86 Table 32 Continued Concept Variable Examples from Interviews Pileup (contd.) Financial strain: Cost of in carceration The biggest the cost thats the biggest is definitely the cost of telephone calls. They add up, and, you know, hes constantly wanting to check in, to talk to someone. And I feel like a bad mom, but I cant answer every time anymore. Ther es just not enough money. So Ive stopped answering when he calls, and I think hes getting the message. Ambiguous roles Its just difficult when I actually have to play mommys role and then have to play daddys role...[like] with eating, he could easily get her to eat. He could easily get her to sit down and know, This is right, this is wrong. And, um, when I try to step in and take his place and do some of the stuff he used to do with her, its just like, she watches me like, This isnt normal, why are you doing that? Horrible. She doesnt listen, she doesnt listen to what I say. Shes getting to the point where she doesnt listen to anybody. Um, she also, like, Ill be talking to her on certain things, and I guess in her mind she think s that shes getting in trouble. So she starts crying, she gets really emotional. Um. She gives me trouble going to bed at night, she um uh well she dont potty in her pants anymore because shes pottytrained now, but that used to be one of her, but she finally completely got over thatyou know, she would listen to Daddy. But she wouldnt listen to Mommy. Child caregiver conflict Um, well they were little spoiled little brats, so they probably not being able to get whatever they want when they want it.

PAGE 87

87 Table 32 Continued Concept Variable Examples from Interviews Pileup (contd.) Child caregiver conflict (contd.) Ive been very short with my daughter a lot of the time. Like, when shell want attention and Ill be focused on something else. Or like sometimes, when Ill be writing him, and I get interrupted, I get like snappy. Inmate child conflict [The incarcerated fathers children is mad. Just mad. Like the fifteen year old and the thirteenyear old, especially. Cause [the father] knew this was coming, and that this would probably be the outcome [of the trial]. They were like, Why do you keep doing this? I try to take [the child] on visits, but as soon as I say, Were visiting your mom, she wont go. But when [the incarcerated mother] gets out, [the daughter] stops being mad. She just doesnt understand what jail is, really, and just thinks her moms being bad. Worse health Oh, my gosh, you know my health has been much worse. Ive just been so anxious, I cant think. I went to the doctor because my psoriasis was flaring up so bad, and I have well I have a UTI, actually, which the doctor said could be caused by stress. Its embarrassing, but worrying about my son really has, it really caused a lot of pr oblems. It has [been hard]. Ive always been emotional [clears throat, crying] but theres some times, like now, where I cant really control itIve lost a lot of weight because of this Si nce the incarceration, Ive been getting sick way more o ften which I cant do, taking care of [my daughter]. Because if I go to the doctor, or go to the hospital, theres nobody here to watch her.

PAGE 88

88 Table 32 Continued Concept Variable Examples from Interviews Pileup (contd.) Health insurance I worry, um, right now [my daughter, the infants mother] was getting public assistance. Um, they was on Medicaid, and I [worry about] their Medicaid being active so that I can take them to the doctor. Because shes in jail and, you know, they probably gonna close her [Medicaid] case [due to the incarceration] my grandson, hes underweight and hes been having problems with weight. So, umthe doctor recommend that he have visits, and keep his appointm ents so that they can monitor his weightThats a concern. [I worry most about] HealthMostly for the kid. Um, not so much for [my incarcerated nephew]. Oh, you know, if [the kid] need to go to the doctor for anything, he be taken care of. Thats my mo st concern, without me coming out of my pocket, which Im going to have to do. Because his dad will be away for like eleven months. So if anything happen in between that, Ill have to be responsible, if he get sick or anything. Worry about inmate: Psy chological impact I worry in particular about [my husband] being okay in there. Because his brother died in jail, so I dont know, like, what hes thinking aboutI dont really worry about much else. I heard in jail that they yell at them, cuss at them, and its pretty much the military old way. And [pause] I dont know if thats healthy and good. And I dont think thats gonna do anything goodAnd I dont know if they probably or what they might do to her, you know so [pause] I worry about that.

PAGE 89

89 Table 32 Continued Concept Variable Examples from Interviews Pileup (contd.) Worry about inmate: Concern over food It just makes me upset that they dont feed them, you know, they just literally dont feed them enough. And I get so mad when I thi nk, Thats what our tax dollars are going for? Ive been a taxpayer my whole life, and they cant even feed my son? Its ridiculous, and then the stuff they feed him you know is like I know that these guys landed themselves here. And the innocent on es, Lord, be with them. You can at least feed these people, you know, not even just the meal but the whole jail system period, you can feed them better than what they, you know its kinda like slop in a setting, its so sad. ButI just don't understand why, you know everybody's not a criminal, and everybody has family members, if you don't want your family members treated like that, how in the world is it okay to treat someone else like that? Visitation environment When youre sitting there with you reighteen month old, and shes trying to get through the glass and she cant, and you have to watch her cry, and...shes like beatin on the windowsYou dont know what to do. You dont know what to sayorhow to handle it. Cause they dont understand. Just me being that Im a parent, I couldnt see myself being away from my kidsand so it gets to me when I take him to go visit his dad. He be trying to unscrew the little thing and he doesnt understand. I see him right here and he try to go to the oth er booth to see around the cornerbecause he tries to figure out, Why cant I go where my daddys at?

PAGE 90

90 Table 32 Continued Concept Variable Examples from Interviews New Resources Support from friends or family [My boyfriends friend] has helped me o ut a lot. [My boyfriend] arranged it before he went in, because [my boyfriend] had done the same for him when he went to jail last year. Theyre like brothers. You know, he helps with spending money and getting food, stuff like that. I dont know what Id do without him. Extended family support Well at one point we were actually gonna move from where we were because I didnt have the money for the rent. And ummy dad stepped in and he actually told me that he would help me out until my husband cam e home. But there was actually a point where we were wondering where were we gonna go. Because I dont work right now, we pretty much depend on my mom, you know. She was really the one who, you know, helped us out as far as diapers, wipes, anything that we need. So financially it has its toll Problems with extended family support My mom doesnt have her own place right now. My sister got a house full and it came down to me. Me and my girls, she has four kids and a toddler herself. It would be too much of a strain [for my sister to have taken my nephew in], plus its just me and my [two] girls. Its kind of hard, because my dad is older. Hes fifty three years old, so its not really that easy when hes trying to help me and then he has to run back and forth to the doctor, and the rest of my family lives in Georgia. My husband doesnt really have any family, you know, he was adopted, so.

PAGE 91

91 Table 32 Continued Concept Variable Examples from Interviews Coping Strategies Religious faith I pr ay. Its all you really can doI always would pray [even before the incarceration]. I think I pray more, I pray harder now. Im sure its been kind of tough, but its more my religion that keep me together. As far as being able to deal with it with a positive attitude. Just try to make the best of it. Not thinking about it I dont really think a lot about it. I know I cant really do a lot about it, because he made the choices he made. Like, bad choices, and stuff. He did what he wanted to do, and it was his choice. I just dont think about it. I just dont think about it. I feel like its going to be a good outcome. I really dont think about it muchBecause its best for me. Like I say, I got his son and I got my kids so if I break downno. So I go on like everything is okay. Social support from incarcerated family member Its been hard at first it was like, you know, really, really, really hard. But going there, and being able to see her, and the only way I cope with it now is well at least saying shes not dead, at least I can see her, at least she can talk to me, at least I can talk to her, and she can respond, you know Im saying? And then every day, [my incarcerated romantic partner] calls meat least two times a daywhenever w e hang up, you know, we say our goodbyes or whatever, I doze off to sleepAnd Ill look at the time and Ill say, Another days gone by, you know And, you know, its a reassuring thing.

PAGE 92

92 Table 32 Continued Conc ept Variable Examples from Interviews Coping Strategies (contd.) Social withdrawal (Caregiver) Oh, yeah, you find out who your real friends are. Because some of them will just listen, and others start to get uncomfortable. Like I have friends who would say, How many times is she going to do this? You know, How can she do this to you? Or, You raised her better than this. But its not anything shes doing to me. Or they just say, Tough love! And I feel like thats saying that people who go to jail werent raised right. Shes not doing anything to me. Because they look at the parents like if something [pause] like if your child do something, they dont look at them like they the individual. They look at it as being something because of your mama or because of your family background. But [it] dont necessarily been like that, cause I never been to jail. My mom never been to jail and I mean peoples are different, and peoples are their own person. Social withdrawal (Child) [The child ] just get real withdrawn sometimes, as far as getting real quiet and like shut down. Um, [my daughters are] not hanging out with their friends as much. You know, when they ask [to hang out with friends], then I, you know, then I let them. Of course, they have a lot of funBut they just dont do a lot of that. Child behavior change [The 17 year old son has] changed a little...hes gotten very -hes became very confrontational at schoolWith the other students.

PAGE 93

93 Table 32 Continued Concept Va riable Examples from Interviews Coping Strategies (contd.) Child behavior change The two year old was sad a lot because she wasnt around. He was used to her being around, so he would ask for her a lot. One time, he wasnt talking at all -he stopped talking, you know, it didnt last but for like 2 days. He didnt talk muchnone other but asking for his mom. [My 18 monthold daughter] would look at a picture on my phoneWell, my phone has a picture of him on the screen. And she knows who her daddy is, shes like, Da da. And shes, she looks for him around the house. When she cant find him, its just like, shell sit by the door, like maybe hell come in or something. Perception of Crisis, Pileup, and Resources Incarceration as temporary beca use of a higher plan I just try to remember that this, all of this with the jail and everything its part of His, Gods, plan. It sure doesnt feel like that now, but it is, and we have to see how the rest of His plan turns out. I think when my son gets out, hes meant to get a job and get his life back on track. I really think that this is a part of Gods plan, and it will teach him to think about consequences. This whole, this incarceration is going to serve a higher purpose, and he just has to g et through it. Contrasting incarceration to death Hearing his voice [for the daughter] is probably, um, better than nothing. Because if he was dead, you know, God forbid or anything happened where she couldn't hear his voice, or, you know. Its bad enough she's not seeing him, but at least she can hear his voice.

PAGE 94

94 Table 32 Continued Concept Variable Examples from Interviews Perception of Crisis, Pileup, and Resources (contd.) Contrasting incarceration to death (contd.) And I know my child was trying to protect himself, you know, and Im glad hes still here alive. Last experience with incarceration [The prosecutor was] trying to give [my incarcerated partner] two years behind it because you know he broke the boys jaw in three different places you know sometimes anger, built up anger, you know, and thats kinda what happened. But, you know, he's, he's learned his lesson. He seems to have really turned a corner, and want to get more involved in his kids lives. I just, I think if he c an just get out of there, he can put this behind him. Worry about inmate finding a job after release And um, when he [my husband] left, it was just like his boss, you know, kind of went from answering the phone tonot answering phone calls, so when he gets home, Im pretty sure hes not gonna have a job. Its not like [my son] would walk into a bank and apply, or walk into GRU [a local utility company] and apply or whatever. Cause I think he thinks his opportunities there are next to nothing, so thats probably whats the hardest. Is to realize youve made these mistakes and youve reached a certain age in your life, and how much permanent damage have you really done? You know, what is your next step? What opportunities will really be there for you now?

PAGE 95

95 Table 32 Continued Concept Variable Examples from Interviews Perception of Crisis, Pileup, and Resources (contd.) Worry about inmate continuing to be criminally active after release [What do I] worry about most right now? About him? Um, that one day hell, you know, stop going, and then be a man. Thats what I want, you know. Because hes already, hes forty, and I want him to be a man to his kids. You know, the first set of kids, he um, he got a first set. He um, he didnt see t hem, he went to prison for fifteen yearsand he did not see them grow up. And now, thats what Im worried about this time. He might do the same thing, he not gonna see his second set grow up. I just, I dont think hes going to have a good relationship if he keeps if hes in and out of jail all the time, and if he doesnt clean up his act. I just dont think theyre going to be as close as they could be. Telling the child about the incarceration [The incarcerated father] wanted to tell [his ch ildren] himself. Hes been in before, we didnt really think about it. Some of them were mad, you know, but its better than lying to them. And anyway, theyre old enough to know whats going on. I don't believe in really hiding anything, I think kids understand more than people think they understand so. I remember growing up, and my mother would lie to me or, um, they would always try and cover stuff up. I didn't know what was going on. And I think thats more difficult and more stressful on the c hild, so I've always been honest with them and explained to them, ya know, whats going on. Um, I ask them what it means to them, and they explain, you know, the process of whatever it is. They catch on pretty quick.

PAGE 96

96 Table 32 Continued Concept Variab le Examples from Interviews Perception of Crisis, Pileup, and Resources (contd.) Kids are too young to understand about the incarceration But I feel like kids this young are not older like my kids [who are six and four years old]. Theyd be able to und erstand, but not a baby that young, you know. Interviewer: Since your sons sort of younger, has he been told anything about where his dad is? Respondent: [Shakes head no] Deciding not to tell kids about incarceration Well actually, I told his oldes t [about the incarceration], I didnt tell his youngest. Cause the older one, she understand more. The younger one, I knew I had, because its already affected him, like not even seeing him. Like, Why he didnt take us out of town? So, thats really like having an effect on him, just him not being around. I, no, I told him his dad was on vacation. Because [my sons] father was in jail, and I think that had something to do with why [ he] got into trouble. I just think its best no t to talk about it. Adaptation Depression Ive been depressed. A lot of days I dont want to get out of bed, I just want to sleep my time away, which is exactly what hes doing in there. Just trying to sleep the days away. I think thats all I want to do, like its hard for me to get up. And its hard for me to get up and go through the day. I just feel, you know, feel down, and I get, you know. And right now just staying in [my house] which, you know, I dont go nowhere anyway. I suppose I just stay in bed. And I try not to let it get me down, but it really kinda, you know, get me down.

PAGE 97

97 Table 32 Continued Concept Variable Examples from Interviews Adaptation (contd.) Anxiety Well I went to my family doctor, um, because it [the incarcerati on] was affecting me physically. So, she knows me pretty well, Ive been seeing her for a while, and she saw my emotions and she said to me, I think youre going to have to start taking something for anxiety. Which I havent done, but, you know, becaus e, she says, she says, Dont hesitate to take something thatll help you get through this. And that was an area where we had broken him out of the attachment to me, because he was truly attached to me at first. Whines and cries when I have to leave hi s presence, because he feels like Im not coming back. He cries and says, Grandma, you coming back? Dont leave me, Grandma, I want to go. And then sometimes he just wont stop crying, I want to go with you, and Im like, No, you cant go with me. Child behavior problems [My great nephews behavior has] changed a little. Um, hes gotten very hes become very confrontational at school With the other students At least once a week, because right now hes home for three days for that reason. Its kid stuff, but still. Hes been getting into fights with the other kids, at least three times now. Im worried, you know, worried that its the beginning of something bigger. New Relationships Found in Sample Incarceration affected new resources: Loss of income Um, just probably bills [are my biggest worry], um you have to cut back on some things, loss of income. Um, loss of parental supervision, and so now have to do, you know, both jobs and so its, its pretty stressful.

PAGE 98

98 Table 32 Contin ued Concept Variable Examples from Interviews New Relationships Found in Sample (contd.) Incarceration affected new resources: Loss of income (contd.) Financially because you're used to, um, half of the bills [being paid by another person], and now it s basically like one income, you know. Not being able to access public assistance Just, if I could have, like, day care or something. So that I could have continued [going to college]. Lower income day care for, you know I wouldnt say we werealway s less fortunate, but right now were less fortunateso[the assistance] is based on income, or what you were making [before the incarceration], or however. And if you make too much, you have to pay for it they have programs where they do have day care, but when you dont have anything, its like so, and theyre still looking at what you did have. Well [my four year old granddaughter] has cerebral palsy, and while I technically have legal custody of her, there are still issues obtaining Medicaid because Kaitlins incarcerated. Sometimes the Medicaid office has it written down that Kaitlins the guardian, and Kaitlin, of course, cant access Medicaid while shes incarceratedT hats been hard, I worry about that. New resources affecting coping strategies Like I say I have support from my family and we all pitch in together. I know that even if it was to come to a longer period, I know that I will be okay. Im gonna go to a family member or something. But he have real close friends, like brot hers and stuff. They usually, theyll probably help him get everything under control. I just hate to even like go to them and ask them.

PAGE 99

99 Figure 31 O riginal Double ABCX Model Pileup New Resources Perception of Crisis, Pileup, Resources Existing Resources Perception of Stressor Crisis Coping Strategy Initial Stressor Pre Crisis Post Crisis Adaptation

PAGE 100

100 CHAPTER 4 RESULT S Double ABCX Variables If the Double ABCX Model applies to parental incarceration, there should be three precrisis variables, all of which interact with one another: (1) The initial stressor (in this case, the p arents criminal behavior), (2) the familys perception of that stressor, and (3) the initial resources available to that family (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). After the crisis occurs (in this model, the parent goes to jail), there should be (1) a pileup o f stresses and strains (including both the preincarceration variables and those directly resulting from the jail stay), (2) new resources available to the family after the incarceration, (3) coping strategies used by family members, (4) the familys perception of the situation, and (5) the familys adaptation to the incarceration. According to the Double ABCX model, the coping strategies should impact the pileup itself, the new resources, the familys perceptions, and the familys adaptation ( Figure 21 ). A visualization of concepts and variables within those concepts found in the s ample can be found in Table 41 First, this section will examine which relationships mentioned in the Double ABCX Model apply to this sample and which do not. Then, we wi ll discuss relationships that extend beyond the original Double ABCX Model. Finally, we will introduce a revised model describing how caregivers of inmates children adapt to the stress of parental incarceration. After each of the nine major concept s dis cussed in the model ( Figure 21 ), similarities or differences will be discussed for the two respondents, Stacy and Shawna. who were caring for children of incarcerated mothers Stacy was a 48year old white grandmother who had taken care of her threeyear old granddaughter

PAGE 101

101 during her daughters multiple jail incarcerations, and Shawna was a 39year old black grandmother taking care of her daughters 2year old daughter and 1year old son. Initial Criminality (Initial Stressor) First, this project exam ined parental criminal behavior as the initial stressor in the Double ABCX Model, which had the potential to cause strain in the family ( See Criminality in pre incarceration variables in Figure 21 ). The interviewees indicated that seven incarcerated parents (35%) were charged with a drug offense, five (30%) were charged with a nonsexual violent offense, and four (20%) were charged with a property offense. Two incarcerated parents (10%) were charged with an offense that was sexual in nature. Additio nally, three parents (15%) were incarcerated for technical probation violations. One parent (5%) was charged with nonviolent obstruction of justice while being taken into jail for violating his probation. Eleven (55%) of the 20 incarcerated parents di scussed in interviews had violated probation, and eight (40%) parents had violated probation with a new offense. For instance, an incarcerated parent could be convicted of both a drug offense and a probation violation ( Figure 21 ). Six ( 30%) of the t wenty incarcerated parents discussed in interviews were considered to be chronic offenders, because they had been arrested more than five times. There were two (10%) caregivers in the sample taking care of children of incarcerated mothers, while the rest w ere caring for children of incarcerated fathers. One of the incarcerated mothers was charged with a technical probation violation, while the other was charged with a violent offense.

PAGE 102

102 Perception of Criminality The second precrisis variable in the Double ABCX Model was the familys perception of the initial stressor (i.e., criminal activity), which should interact with both the initial stressor and the familys initial resources ( Perception of stressor in Figure 32 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 198 3). In the sample, 80% (n = 16) respondents mentioned how they personally perceived the incarcerated parents criminality. The two most common concept s related to perceptions of criminality were that the crime was the result of the offenders bad personal choices or the crime was at least partially not the offenders fault because it was due to someone or something else. These categories were not mutually exclusive: five caregivers (31%) mentioned criminal behavior as both the result of the parents bad choices and external causes Bad choices Eighty one percent (n=13) of the sixteen respondents who discussed their views on the inmates criminal behavior characterized the incarcerated parents initial criminal activity as the result of bad choices on the part of the offender. Among these responses, caregivers often stated explicitly or implicitly that the offender needed to take responsibility for his or her actions. This was often mentioned as a reason for caregivers to avoid dwelling on or worrying about the offender. Laura, a 22year old black woman taking care of an infant whose father was in jail for drug and property offenses, said: I know I cant really do a lot about [the incarceration], because he made the choices he made. Like, bad choices and stuff. He did what he wanted to do, and it was his choice. In this quote, Laura placed the primary responsibility for her boyfriends crime on the boyfriends shoulders. Stacy, a white grandmother who often took care of her

PAGE 103

103 granddaughter when her daughter was incarcerated, felt similarly about her daughters criminal behavior. Stacy had retained custody of her four year old granddaughter during Kaitlins multiple experiences with the criminal justice system and bipolar disorder. Kaitli n had been released from jail a week before the interview, and completed the interview alongside Stacy, as they both talked about taking care of the same child Stacy very adamantly discussed how she perceived Kaitlins criminal activity: St acy: Its not [being a transgender], and its not heroin, and its not she didnt try to kill somebody. Its not, it could be worse. You know, it could be better, I wish it was better, but its all putting it in perspective. Kaitlin: Because mine is all traffic and alcohol related. Stacy: Irresponsibility and selfish behavior, is what hers is. Stacy firmly believed that her daughters criminal behavior was due to her daughters personal choices rather than the influence of her environment. Conc erns over intergenerational delinquency Within respondents who believed crime was the result of bad choices, a subset of four (30.7%) respondents were concerned that inmates children would follow the inmates example and make unhealthy decisions. This happened both with older children and younger children. For example, Sheila, a 36year old black woman woman whose husband was awaiting trial for retail theft and writing a worthless check, wanted to make sure that their three sons (ages 15, 10, and 9) did not follow in their incarcerated fathers footsteps. When discussing how the households parenting had changed since the incarceration, she said, I probably have always been the more strict one, um, so it really hasn't changed that much. I probably am a little more strict now that he is not here, um, to stress the fact that they probably need to learn from his

PAGE 104

104 mistakes as well. Um, so I just make sure that they learn from his mistakes so that they don't end up making the same mistakes that their father made and end up where he is. Or some of the mistakes that I have made. Thats just been my main goal. The fear of intergenerational delinquency was also felt by respondents whose children were not old enough to demonstrate antisocial tendencies. Tina, a 22 year old black woman whose sevenweek old son had been born during his fathers incarceration for burglary, mentioned this issue. In between Tinas recruitment for the research study and the interview itself, Tinas husband was convicted and was transferred to a state prison, and she wanted to make sure her son did not do the same when he grew up. Tina said, Tina: And hes [the baby] a, hes a, boy now, but hes going to be a man one day and he need that male figure, you know, in his life in order f or him to become a better man than his dad is Interviewer: Okay, how do you want him to be a better man? Tina: Just, decision making, you know. Yeah, his dad made mistakes, but, you know, hes his own man, he dont have to be the same as his dad. Im sure if he was here hed show him thatyou know, cause he regret it now, not being here. Robin, a 48year old black woman who was taking care of her four year old grandson while her son was incarcerated for a probation violation and nonviolent obstructi on of justice, also said her incarcerated son also said her sons crime was the result of his own decisions. Her son had warned her grandson not to make those same choices. Robin said: But [my grandsons] dad will tell him, hell say, I made bad choices I dont want you to make bad choices. He say, I want you to be better than your daddy. And that makes me feel good that his daddy has already started himself making good choices, not bad choices.

PAGE 105

105 As these quotes demonstrate, the connection between the offenders bad choices and future choices of offenders sons was not necessarily related to prospects of the children breaking the law in the near future. The children referenced by Tina and Robin were both very young (ages six weeks and four years respectively), but the entire family was already trying to prevent the childrens criminal activity. Even before boys could conceivably show signs of delinquency (as in the case of Tinas sevenweek old son), caregivers were very aware of the threat of intergenerational incarceration ( Foster & Hagan, 2007). One of the incarcerated mothers did not report any perceptions of her daughters criminal behavior, while the other attributed her daughters criminal behavior to bad choices. Shawna, the 39year old black woman who was taking care of her 2year old granddaughter and 1year old grandson while her daughter awaited trial for a violent offense, did not discuss how she had thought of her daughters initial criminal activity. Stacy, the 48 year old white woman who took had taken care of her 4year old granddaughter while her daughter had been in jail, attributed the criminal behavior to bad choices Environmental causes A second major variable related to caregivers perception of incarceration was that, rather than being the responsibility of the offender, the criminal activity was at least partly caused by environmental issues outside of the incarcerated parents control. Environmental causes were mentioned by half (n=8) of t he sixteen respondents who mentioned their perceptions of the criminal behavior, and blame was placed in a variety of different areas.

PAGE 106

106 Causes were perceived as more global in cases like Inas, the 38year old white mother of two girls (ages 14 and 11) who attributed her husbands drug use to their familys financial struggles. Inas family enrolled in a payment plan with a major national bank in order to maintain possession of their home, and then was told the plan would no longer apply and they would lose their house. Ina believed that the stress of the foreclosure had influenced her husbands decision to relapse back into drug use: They say that theres no excuses for doing things that you do, but hey, there is! There is some excuses out there for doing things you do or theres some things that make you do things you do. Whether theyre excuses or not. Ina recognized that the public may attribute her husbands incarceration to bad choices, but believed the criminal activity was largely due to factors outside of his control. Anne, a 22year old black woman, was taking care of her romantic partners 10year old daughter and 7year old son from another relationship while he served jail time for a technical probation violation. Anne also believed her partners criminal activity was due to environmental causes. Her partner had violated probation because he did not fulfill his community service requirements in the specified window of time, and the respondent believed this was because there were schedule conflicts with his job: I mean, yeah, hes in jail, but I dont know what they [the probation authorities] expected. Hes trying to work to support his two kids, he just didnt have time to do that much community service and keep his job. Innocence. Hal f (n=4) of the eight respondents who attributed the crime to environmental causes believed the incarcerated parent was innocent of all charges. Kaitlin, the 22year old white woman whose husband was awaiting trial for having sexual relations with an under age girl, also believed that her incarcerated family member was innocent. Kaitlin was taking care of her four year old daughter while the

PAGE 107

107 childs stepfather (Kaitlins husband) was incarcerated. Kaitlin completed her interview with her mother, Stacy (age 48, another respondent in this sample), who had legal custody of the child and with whom the girl lived when her mother was unavailable to care for her, due to short term incarceration, drinking, or struggles with bipolar disorder. Kaitlin and her mother Stacy, discussed Kaitlins husbands offense: Kaitlin: The new charges, one is the family offense. Something about taking custody away from the, away from a minor. Something like that. Interviewer: Was that [your child]? Kaitlin: No S tacy: He had an underage girlfriend Kaitlin: Ex girlfriend. His ex was a minor, and her father told him, Stay away from my daughter. But she kept going after him, and left school and went over to his house. And the cops showed up, and um both of t hem say that nothing happened, but theyre charging him with lewd and lascivious behavior. If he gets charged with that, hell have to register as a sex offender. During the interview it was clear that Kaitlin believed that her husband had done nothing w rong the day he was arrested. While he may have had relations with an underage girl at another point in time, she believed that her husband was arrested because he had simply been at the wrong place at the wrong time. Sarahs brother was currently awaitin g trial for a violent offense, and she was taking care of his oneyear old son during the incarceration. Sarah, a 37year old black woman, discussed her opinion: I bel i eve my brother and he said that hes innocent. I believe him, so he just has to sit an d wait for the outcome.

PAGE 108

108 Sarah preferred not to talk further about the circumstances of her brothers arrest because her lawyer had asked her not to discuss details of the case, but she maintained that her brother was innocent. Both bad choices and environmental causes Some thought that both personal responsibility and environmental causes were to blame for their family members incarceration. Five of the sixteen respondents (31%) who discussed their own perception of the incarcerated parents criminality mentioned both concept s. These respondents often had mixed feelings about the incarcerated parents criminal activity, trying to defend their incarcerated family members and hold them accountable for the strain their criminal actions had brought on the fa mily ( Comfort, 2008). Lacy a 62year old black grandmother whose son was awaiting trial for a violent offense, and who was helping take care of her twoyear old and oneyear old grandsons, discussed this conflict. In addition to having one son in jai l (on whom the interview was focused), she also two sons were in state prison. When Lacy talked about her jailed son, she felt hurt by her sons alleged violence but she also believed he was reacting to circumstances outside of his control: Because [my s on who is currently in jail] promised me he wasnt going to get into nothing else when he got out, and, you know. But, like, I understand, everybody going to is not going to let anybody hurt him. And I know my child was trying to protect himself, you k now, and Im glad hes still here alive. I can say that. Lacys perception of her sons crime showed a sense of personal betrayal resulting from her sons violent behavior, because she felt he had made a choice to violate her trust and do something that led him to jail. At the same time, she attributed blame to the other person involved in her sons fight, and implied that if her son had not acted in self defense he may not be alive to face his current charges (several respondents

PAGE 109

109 contrasted their family members incarceration with death, which is explored more below in the post crisis concept Perceptions of Crisis, Pileup, and Resources). Similarly, Ariel, a 36 year old black woman who shared child care of her romantic partners threeyear old daughter several days a week with the daughters biological mother, had mixed opinions about her partners current incarceration for a violent offense. When describing her worries about her partners incarceration, she said, I mean, its hard to say what a pers ons gonna do when they get angry, because I'm human as well, and sometimes anger makes me just wanna pound a personBut other than that, the incarceration itself, you know, I can't say that its a bad thing, because sometimes, you know, some people need t o think about their consequencesWhat he did wasn't completed right, although he felt it was, uh, a way of defending himself. You know, nobody wants anything taken from them. SoI guess thats basically it. I just hope its a lesson learnednext time hel l be able to think about it before he just reacts. Ariel believed that part of her partners criminal activity was due to being in a situation that would make any reasonable person angry, and that he reacted rationally to another person attacking him. At the same time, Ariel acknowledged her partners agency in choosing to be violent, and expressed hope that he would be able to control himself more in the future. Familys Existing Resources The Double ABCX Model states that the perception of the initial s tressor (i.e. parental criminal behavior) should interact with both the initial stressor itself and the familys existing resources ( Existing Resources in the precrisis variables in Figure 32 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). During the course of the interview, 65% (n=13) of the 20 respondents discussed their households resources before the incarceration took place. Most often, these conversations revolved around the familys preexisting

PAGE 110

110 financial strain (n=9; 69%), and conflict between famil y members that preceded the parent going to jail (n=8; 61.5%). The two caregivers taking care of children whose mothers were incarcerated did not differ significantly from those taking care of a child whose fathers were incarcerated. One of the caregivers of an incarcerated mothers children (Shawna) mentioned that her family had been financially strained before the incarceration but did not mention intrafamily strain, while the other (Stacy) discussed interpersonal strain between herself and the incarcerated mother before she went to jail, but did not discuss preexisting financial problems. Preexisting financial strain One of the major ways in which families discussed their initial resources was through discussion of financial strain. Nine (69%) of the 13 women who brought up their familys initial resources specifically mentioned their family being in difficult financial times before the incarceration. Half (n=10) of respondents were working at least 40 hours per week at the time of the interview, but even these respondents sometimes struggled financially before losing a family m e m b er to jail ( Table 3 1 ). For example, Ina, the 46year old white woman taking care of two middleschool age daughters, was employed full time. However, when discussing her husbands return to drug use, she mentioned preexisting financial strain and the threat of foreclosure: [I] Called [the bank] up and arranged everything [to refinance our house] and I can afford that, and Im happy, and we can save our home, and me and our children will have a place to live. And [husband] came home [from prison, on a previous charge], and after paying it for a year and a half, um, [the bank] said, We rejected your modification and now you gotta go. And thats when Ken, [snaps] snapped! You know?

PAGE 111

111 Ina attributed her husbands decision to use drugs to their financial difficulty. Robin, the 48year old black woman who was taking care of her 4year old grandson while her son was incarcerated for a drug offense, also said her family was having difficult financial times before the incarceration itself. Robin and her son had been providing for not only Robins four year old grandson, but also Robins disabled son who could not be l eft without supervision, and who could not work. Robin said: Well, were down to one income now. So all my bills, well we was already behind, but the little amount of money that [my incarcerated son] was bringing was trying to catch up everything. Whi le Robins son had been financially contributing to the household before he was incarcerated, they were not collectively making enough money that they were able to pay their bills on time. This family was struggling to make ends meet even before Robins s on went back to jail. Eight caregivers (40%) were completely unemployed before the incarceration, and primarily relied on either the incarcerated family member to help pay the bills ( Braman, 2004). When Anne, the 22year old black woman who was taking care of her romantic partners 10year old daughter and 7 year old son during his incarceration for a technical probation violation, was asked how the incarceration had affected her family, she replied: All the way around. Cause I dont have a job [and go to college full time], so Im not used to going to someone else to get what I need, cause [my partner] always make sure its there. Anne was not the only caregiver in the sample who had been relying on her partner while going to school. Elizabeth, a 21year old black woman, had been going to community college despite being six months pregnant and the mother of an eighteen-

PAGE 112

112 month old daughter, and had relied on her husbands two jobs before he was incarcerated for a technical probation violation. When Elizabeths husband went to jail, she dropped out of school to watch her daughter: Interviewer: Oh, so when you said you went from two incomes to no income, does that mean that you also arent able to work right now? Elizabeth: No! ...[My husband] w as actually working two jobsAnd um, I would just you know, from time to time, if I came across some little jobs I could do, something that I could do, that was simple through my pregnancyI would, you know, gladly do the little job or whatever. Elizabe th later clarified that while she had been willing to work during her pregnancy, she had not been able to find jobs that she could do while she was pregnant, attending college, and caring for her eighteenmonthold daughter. When Elizabeths husband went to jail, her familys sole source of income had been eliminated. Existin g i ntrafamily conflict Another factor related to the initial family resources referred to in the Double ABCX Model was conflict between family members. Of the thirteen who mentioned pre existing resources, eight respondents (61.5%) mentioned conflict that preceded the incarceration. Robin, the 48year old black grandmother who was taking care of her four year old grandson and disabled son while her son was in jail for a probation viol ation and nonviolent obstruction of justice, was unable to continue her second job running errands for people in her neighborhood due to the incarceration. So far, she had been unable to continue this work because that would require her to pay for someone to watch her grandson or stay with her disabled son. When Robin was asked whether she could look to her family for support, she replied, Its just me and my children. I have my family, too, but I dont. Me and my family, its hard. My sisters, mother my brother, were not close. There was once a bond, but thats not there. Ive always been the black sheep.

PAGE 113

113 So its just me and my children. Robin indicated throughout the interview that she was not interested in depending on her family for financial support, and also was also unlikely to call other family members to help take care of her grandson or her disabled son who was also living in her home. Laura, the 22year old black mother of a six week old infant born while her partner was in jail for a property offense, who mentioned earlier that she attributed his criminal activity to bad choices, also reported preincarceration conflict between herself and her partner. She said: Well, you know, I get mad about some things, like [pause] bad stuff [m y incarcerated romantic partner] does. You know, I get really mad about it. And hell try to go behind my back and try to sneak and do stuff. Because hell know I get mad about it. Later in the interview, Laura mentioned that when her relationship with her boyfriend was particularly strained, she would stay at her mothers house. Marni, the 32year old black woman whose time with her five adolescent stepsons (ages 16, 15, 14, 13, and 11) had been reduced when her husband was incarcerated for a drug offe nse, also reported preincarceration strain in her relationships with her partner. Marni said, Well, before he went in, we were actually going through a bit of a rough patch. We were fighting a lot. He would go out with his friends, you know, and Im the type of person where I like to stay home. So if he stayed out late, I would get madder and madder and then would just go off. Marni reported that her preincarceration relationship with her husband had been strained enough that the incarceration itself was in some ways a reprieve. Later in the interview, she mentioned that the incarceration was actually good for their relationship,

PAGE 114

114 because it forced her husband to think about his priorities and establish a thoughtful, verbal connection with her ( Co mfort, 2008). Incarceration (Crisis) This project examined parental incarceration as the crisis in the Double ABCX Model ( Crisis: Jail Incarceration in Figure 32 ). Unlike prisons, jails can hold people who are awaiting trial (preconviction) or who have been sentenced to up to one year of incarceration (post conviction). Pre sentence vs. post sentence Of the twenty incarcerated parents whose child was being taken care of, 60% (n = 12) were incarcerated before his or her trial. The remaining eig ht (40%) incarcerated parents had already been sentenced and were serving out their sentence in jail. One incarcerated father (the romantic partner of Anne, the 22year old black woman taking care of an infant who had been born while her partner was incar cerated for a property crime) had sentenced in between the time I contacted his childs mother and when the actual interview took place. Tinas partner had started serving his sentence at a state prison at the time of the interview, so hers was the only c ase in which parental incarceration did not refer solely to jail incarceration. Both respondents who were taking care of children of incarcerated mothers (Shawna and Stacy) took care of their grandchildren while their daughters were being held prior to t heir sentencing or adjudication. However, Stacys daughter had been released the week before the interview Worry over uncertain release time Of the thirteen respondents whose family members were awaiting trial, seven (53%) mentioned frequent worrying over when the inmate would be released.

PAGE 115

115 Respondents taking care of children whose parents were awaiting their sentencing had a difficult time planning around the incarceration because of the ambiguity regarding the amount of t ime the parent would be incarcerated ( Boss, 2008 ). When Elizabeth, the 22year old black, pregnant woman with an eighteenmonth old daughter whose husband was awaiting sentencing for a technical probation violation, was asked whether she thought her husband would be released before she gave birth, she said: I wonder if Im going to be able to we have a new baby coming, and it bothers me because I feel like Im not gonna be able to [respondent pauses, sighs, starts to cry] you know, provide for the new baby. Hes due next month, we dont have anything for him. And, um, the last two months since [my husbands] been gone, were the ones we were supposed to be putting up stuff for the baby. And we havent even gotten started. And, um, it really makes me worry about my kids. Elizabeth mentioned later in the issue that her husbands court date had been pushed back several times. Uncertainty over release time was especially stressful for caregivers who, like Elizabeth, were unemployed at the time of the interview. The indefinite loss of the incarcerated parent meant an indefinite loss of income or potential income. Similarly, Sheila, a 36 year old black woman who was taking care of her 15year old, 10year old, and 9 year old sons while their father was incarcerated for a property crime, said she worried most about when her husband would be released: Really, probably, I would say [I worry most] about the time frame of him getting out. Um, thats probably my main concern. Um, if hes gonna be aroun d or miss special events with the kidsthats probably the main thing. And probably eventually income as well. For Sheila, the ambiguity surrounding her husbands release time was troubling both because she worried he was missing important milestones wi th his children, and

PAGE 116

116 because the costs would get more difficult to financially sustain the longer the incarceration continued. Pileup of Stresses The first major post crisis concept s in the proposed model is the pileup of strains on the family immediatel y following the crisis ( Pileup in Figure 32 ) ( McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). As in McCubbin and Pattersons (1982) original model, families coping with parental incarceration at a jail faced emotional and financial strain rel ated to transitions caused by the incarceration itself, which could be exacerbated by preincarceration financial and family strain. Pileup concept s included residential transitions (n=10; 50%), financial strain (n=20; 100%), ambiguous roles (n=8; 40%), health issues (n=5; 25%), worry about the incarcerated parent (n=12; 60%), and negative visitation experiences due to the Plexiglass barrier (n=10; 50%). All twenty (100%) respondents mentioned at least one of these pileup variables. Residential transitio n Half of the respondents in the sample (n=10) reported that the inmates child changed residence because of the incarceration. Six (60%) of the ten caregivers who mentioned a residential transition moved in with another family member. Four (40%) of the caregivers discussing residential transitions said the incarcerated parents child had moved in with them after their family member went to jail. These transitions were often explicitly related to the lack of income from the incarcerated parent. Caregiv er moved to another household. Sixty percent of caregivers who discussed residential transitions moved along with their children into someone elses house due to the incarceration, and all were interested in moving out on their own as soon as they were fi nancially ready to do so (n=6). For example, Laura, the 22year old

PAGE 117

117 black respondent who had moved back and forth from her parents house and that of the father of her infant son before her romantic partner had been incarcerated for property and drug char ges, moved back in with her parents due to financial reasons: I have to take care of my son on my own, and Im really trying to look for a job. Im staying with my parents right now, and Im just trying to find my own place. And its, like, really hard b eing a single parent with no money at all. As the Lauras statement shows, caregivers who shared a child with their incarcerated partner could become functionally single parents during the incarceration. In a short period of time, they went from having an independent life in which they were largely in charge of the household to returning to the homes in which they were raised. Tina, the 22 year old black woman whose son had been born while her romantic partner was awaiting trial, also moved in with her mother during her pregnancy: Before [my sons] dad, you know, went to jail, we were actually staying together in a one bedroom apartment. But because I got really sick, you know, from, you know, pregnancy, first time pregnancy, I end up stopping working a nd I moved in with my mom. Probably if he was still out, we would have still been in our one bedroom until my lease was up, and then got upgraded to a two. Child moved in with caregiver. Among those who experienced a residential transition during the in carceration, some (n=4; 40%) took a child or children into their home, and had to adjust their life accordingly. For example, Shawna, the 39year old black grandmother who took in her daughters two children (ages one and two years old) while her daughter was awaiting her sentencing for a violent offense, was not used to taking care of young children. When her grandchildren moved in with her, it disrupted her household routine. Shawna said: I have to adjust to getting up and taking care of young children and, um, my children are older. My baby [youngest daughter] is 15 and my oldest

PAGE 118

118 daughter is going on 21. So I have older children, so I have to adjust to taking care of toddlers and infants. So thats a big jumpits taking time, but Im adjusting to g etting them up, getting them ready, taking them to daycare. You know so, you know, getting their clothes up, getting my clothes up. For Shawna, taking care of young children required a distinctly different routine and time commitment than taking care of adolescents. Stacy, the other respondent caring for an incarcerated mothers child did not experience a transition. Stacy, a 48 year old white grandmother, already had custody of her four year old granddaughter, because her daughter (Kaitlin, another resp ondent in the sample) was in and out of the household due to parent caregiver conflict and the daughters struggles with bipolar disorder. Unlike Shawna, Stacy was living with her granddaughter when Kaitlin was arrested, and had already assumed primary caregiver role. When asked if the childs living arrangement changed, Stacy said she was uncomfortable with giving up custody of her granddaughter because she had cerebral palsy, and Stacy did not want to risk further endangering her health: No. Ive alway s had custody of [my granddaughter], since she was a baby. [Kaitlin] wasnt ready to be a mom, so I had to step in. I was worried [Kaitlin] something would go wrong, because [Kaitlin] was running around at the time, and [my granddaughter] has health problems so I didnt want to take any chances. Brittany, the 39 year old black grandmother whose son was awaiting sentencing for a drug offense, took in her sons threeyear old daughter. Brittany had to shift her work schedule around to accommodate having a young child in the house. Brittany said: Its just been a hard adjustment, not having to take care of a threeyear old for so long. I love [my granddaughter], love her so much. But Im working, trying to get to work at 7:30 in the morning, so to get her up and dressed and to a day care which, you know, I have to pay for and then try to

PAGE 119

119 figure out how to pick her up before the day care closes. I dont always know if I can do it. While Brittany had cared for her own children when they were young, it was a significant challenge to fit a 3year old into her full time job. Paula, on the other side of the age spectrum, took in her nephews 17year old son while her nephew was incarcerated for a violent offense. When the 55year old woman was asked if the incarceration had affected her great nephews living arrangements, Paula said: Well, [the incarceration] really hasnt affected [my great nephews], its just mine. With cooking and cleaning and stuff that I really didnt have to do. Not that often, not often. While Paulas great nephew was a teenager and could take care of himself better than some of the very young children in the sample, Paula had to readjust her home life to account for the additional child. Financial strain By far, the most co mmon element of pileup mentioned by respondents was financial strain. All twenty respondents (100%) discussed dealing with a financial strain. This strain came from a variety of sources, including loss of income (n=10; 50%), and direct costs of the incar ceration (n=12; 60%). Loss of income. In 50% of the interviews (n=10), the incarcerated parent had been working before the incarceration, and the parent was financially contributing to the respondents household, meaning the incarceration directly affecte d their income. There was little opportunity for caregivers to find additional work themselves, with additional household responsibilities None of the caregivers who were unemployed before the incarceration found work after their family member went to jail.

PAGE 120

120 For example, Elizabeth, the 22year old black mother of an eighteenmonth old daughter, was six months pregnant with her and her husbands second child when her husband was arrested for a technical probation violation. Elizabeth had chosen to stop w orking before the incarceration because she was pregnant, going to school full time, and taking care of her young daughter. Her family was affected particularly dramatically by the incarceration, because she had planned had been to rely on her (now incarc erated) husband for financial support during the last few months of her pregnancy. Elizabeths husband had violated probation after being pulled over for a broken tail light while driving Elizabeth to the hospital. As part of his conditions of probation, he was only allowed to drive to or from work, so he had immediately been arrested when the police officer ran his record. At the time of the interview he had been in jail for two months. Elizabeth, now eight months pregnant, described the shock after her husband lost both his jobs: We went from two incomes to no income overnight It was just overnight going, getting arrested[long pause] theres no money, theres just, theres nothing. I its not coming from anywhere, theres no helptheres nothing we can do. While Elizabeths family was the only one in which the incarcerated parent had been working two full time jobs, it was not uncommon for caregivers to report a noticeable loss of income due to the incarceration. This unplanned loss in employm ent could deplete any savings the family was accumulating and made it more difficult to settle monthly expenses. For example, Ina, the 38year old white mother of two daughters, ages 14 and 11, whose house was on the verge of foreclosure, explained how t he incarceration had

PAGE 121

121 affected her family was financially affected when her husband was arrested for violating probation with a drug offense: Just extra, you know, money coming in. Im the only one bringing money in, so its hard to, likeI have to spread out the bills and make sure Im paying on them. And [my incarcerated husband] took care of a lot of them himself, you know, where I didnt. Um, so its new to me paying, you know, bills and stuff. Ive only been working for like three years. Due to the incarceration, Ina had to spread out the bills to make sure she paid all of them. On a similar note, Sheila, the 36year old black mother of three boys (ages 15, 10, and 9) mentioned earlier, discussed how she managed finances after losing a major sourc e of income. Sheila described how her family had been changed when her husband went to jail to await his sentence for a property crime: Well, [my husbands] not here now to help [financially]. You don't pay the whole bill you pay a portion of this, a portion of that you know get extensions on this and try and carry over until you can do whatever it is that you can do. After the incarceration, Sheila was unable to pay all her bills on time. Later in the interview, Sheila said she had used her to saving s to offset some of the cost, but recognized this would not be a long term solution. Cost of incarceration. In addition to loss of income, the incarceration twelve (60%) respondents also mentioned direct costs of incarceration itself. Tina, the 22year old black woman who was financially dependent on her mother because she had given birth seven weeks before the interview, and whose husband had been sentenced and transferred to prison or a property offense, discussed the cost of phone calls in her interv iew. Tina said: The minimum [amount of money you can pay toward collect calls to the jail] being $31, and thats only for like ten calls. But, you know, ten calls is

PAGE 122

122 never enough to talk to somebody you love, so. Brittany, the 39 year old black grandmot her who was taking care of her four year old granddaughter while her son was incarcerated for a drug charge, also discussed the cost of phone calls. Brittany said: The biggest the cost thats the biggest is definitely the cost of telephone calls. They add up, and, you know, hes constantly wanting to check in, to talk to someone. And I feel like a bad mom, but I cant answer every time anymore. Theres just not enough money. So Ive stopped answering when he calls, and I think hes getting the messag e. Brittany identified phone calls as the most expensive part of the incarceration, and also expressed stress over deciding whether or not to speak to her son. Ariel, the 36year old black woman who was taking part time care of her romantic partners 3year old child and was also expecting another child in a few months, discussed how incarcerationrelated costs affected her ability to put money away for the baby: Oh yeah, from here to there [to visit the jail] is a good little distance, um, so you know. And thats two times a week and four times of going back and forth. And um, thats just money we could be saving up or putting towards baby, or anything. So itstaken a toll. But you know, at least I know where its going, its just not totally being wasted. But if he wasn't there, thats money we wouldn't have to be putting there. And theyre charging him four dollars a day to stay [in jail]. For Ariels family, visiting her husband and paying his court costs diminished the capacity to financially prepare for the new baby, and to save money for their future family. Elizabeth, the 22year old black mother of a toddler who was also pregnant, mentioned paying court fees for her husband who was waiting to be sentenced for a technical probation violati on. At the time of the interview, Elizabeth had just finished

PAGE 123

123 paying the court fees for her husbands first incarceration at jail. Although Elizabeth would not get a bill for the current incarceration until after his court date, she described her previous experience with her husband incarcerationrelated expenses: [The last time he was incarcerated] he had to pay, I believe, $480something dollars in court costs and fees. And its like, we dont know when hes coming home, so that has to be paid by some body. Elizabeths comment that the fees have to be paid by somebody highlights the fact that pragmatically many family members feel they have no choice but to pay the incarcerated parents court costs, as the consequences for not paying them could resul t in late fees, lengthened probation, or reincarceration ( Feeley, 1992). Caregivers, despite facing financial strain in their own families, find themselves picking up the slack for the incarcerated parents. For the thirteen (65%) caregivers whose fam ily members were awaiting a sentence, it was impossible to plan for how long they need to budget time and money to deal with incarcerationrelated expenses. Ambiguous roles In addition to filling the financial void left by the incarcerated parents, caregivers were also expected to fill the inmates role as parent, which contributed to the pileup of strains. Eight caregivers (40%) in the sample reported ambiguity relating to their role as the caregiver ( Boss, 2008). Even when neither the caregiver nor the child changed residence, the incarceration still resulted in a transition in family structure and parenting practices. These respondents all had relationships with the children they were caring for before the incarceration took place; however, with one parent gone, some had a difficult time navigating their relationship with the inmates child. Children could reject this change in roles, as in the case of Elizabeth, the 22year old, pregnant black woman whose husb and was incarcerated before his sentencing for a technical probation

PAGE 124

124 violation, and who was taking care of their eighteenmonthold daughter. Elizabeth discussed parenting issues with her daughter while her husband was away: Its just difficult when I act ually have to play mommys role and then have to play daddys role...[like] with eating, he could easily get her to eat. He could easily get her to sit down and know, This is right, this is wrong. And, um, when I try to step in and take his place and d o some of the stuff he used to do with her, its just like, she watches me like, This isnt normal, why are you doing that? Amanda, the 23year old white mother whose husband was awaiting trial for a sex offense, also described more mother child conflic t with her threeyear old daughter. Amanda reported that her daughter was less obedient with her than she was with Amandas boyfriend. Amanda described her daughters behavior as: Horrible. She doesnt listen, she doesnt listen to what I say. Shes getting to the point where she doesnt listen to anybody. Um, she also, like, Ill be talking to her on certain things, and I guess in her mind she thinks that shes getting in trouble. So she starts crying, she gets really emotional. Um. She gives me tr ouble going to bed at night, she um uh well she dont potty in her pants anymore because shes pottytrained now, but that used to be one of her, but she finally completely got over thatyou know, she would listen to Daddy. But she wouldnt listen to M ommy. Elizabeths and Amandas quotes show that when caregivers new parenting responsibilities clashed with child expectations, the mismatch could be emotionally draining as well as timeconsuming. While Elizabeth and Amanda were both mothers of the chi ldren in their care, Sasha, a 55year old black woman, was helping take care of her four year old granddaughter and oneyear old grandson while her son was in jail for a drug offense. Sasha said that as a grandmother, she was having a difficult time assum ing a parental role: I mean, its tough. I was never really a grandma that, like, spoiled them. But its different when theyre staying in your house a couple nights a week, and you have to be the one that does the discipline. All the discipline. They love me, but I think its more like they respect their daddy as the one

PAGE 125

125 who makes the big decisions. Its been hard. Sasha had a difficult time reconciling her new role as a temporary parent with her former role as a grandmother. Ambiguous roles were a source of tension and feelings of inadequacy for caregivers, especially when children were too young to understand of accept the change. The ambiguous roles often accompanied conflict between the caregivers and children in their care. Conflict Another com ponent of the stress pileup was conflict between family members. Eight caregivers (40% of the entire sample) described some level of intrafamily conflict since the incarceration. Six of these eight (75%) focused on conflict between themselves and the inm ates child, and three (37.5%) discussed conflict between the inmate and the inmates child. One respondent discussed both types of intrafamily conflict. Caregiver child conflict. For example, Anne, the 22year old black woman who was taking care of her romantic partners children (ages 10 and 7) while attending college, described conflicts with her boyfriends children. When Anne was asked what about the incarceration affected her boyfriends children the most, she replied, Um, well they were little spoiled little brats, so they probably not being able to get whatever they want when they want it. Later in the interview, Anne specified that her conflicts with the children arose because she was less likely than her partner to allow them to do things that were financially expensive, which they resented (specifically, buying expensive toys and spending hundreds of dollars on hair extensions). Kaitlin, the 22year old white woman whose

PAGE 126

126 husband was currently awaiting trial for a sex offense, described having more fights with her four year old daughter after her husband went to jail: Ive been very short with my daughter a lot of the time. Like, when shell want attention and Ill be focused on something else. Or like sometimes, when Ill be writing him, and I get interrupted, I get like snappy. Conflict was perhaps most evident with one respondent, Amanda, the 23year old white mother of a 2 year old who was living with her daughter in the respondents fathers house, along with other family members and thei r children. During the interview, Amandas daughter stood next to her, shouting and sometimes hitting the respondent, vying for her attention. Throughout the interview, the respondent would stop and refer to the extreme emotional strain caused by her daughters defiant behavior, which she said had developed since the toddlers father had been incarcerated. Amanda repeatedly exclaimed, I cannot stand her sometimes. Regardless of whether this behavior was directly due to the incarceration or the childs developmental age, there appeared to be tension between the mother and daughter. The daughter, in an attempt to get her mothers attention, ran away down the middle of the street in front of their house. Luckily, no vehicles were coming when the girl ran into the road; however, many cars made sharp turns onto the road at other times in the interview, and may have had difficult time seeing the twoyear old had she been there. Inmate child conflict. Three (37.5%) of the eight caregivers who discussed post incarceration conflict mentioned conflict between the children in their care and the incarcerated parent. Liana, a 52year old white grandmother who shared child care responsibilities for her sons 14year old son and 9year old daughter with the childre ns

PAGE 127

127 mother, discussed how the incarceration had resulted in a strained relationship between her grandson and his father, who was incarcerated for a drug crime: Liana: Especially with the oldest one, I see some resentment. You know, he resents his dad, you know, and things like that that I dont really think that I saw before. ..My son is not with the childs mother, so some of that could be coming from the mother, you know. Interviewer: How has how has that resentment kind of come out? Liana: W ell, like I said, its just been pure resentment. Like, My daddys so stupid, why does he do such stupid things? Whens he going to grow up? I mean, a lot of what Ive heard him say, I believe may have been coming from his mother. But you cant say t o a child, You know, if your moms telling you those things, you really shouldnt listen. You know. Liana was concerned that the mother of her grandchildren may be acting as a gatekeeper during the incarceration, but was unclear whether it was her plac e to intervene ( Roy & Dyson, 2005). Marni, the 32year old black woman whose husband was in jail for a drug crime, said two of her five stepsons (ages 16, 15, 14, 13, and 11), were angry with her husband for going to jail again. Marni said: Theyre mad. Just mad. Like the fifteenyear old and the thirteenyear old, especially. Cause he knew this was coming, and that this would probably be the outcome [of the trial]. They were like, Why do you keep doing this? Marnis stepchildren were frustrated with their father for what they perceived to be irresponsible behavior. This anger was also felt by younger children, like the four year old granddaughter of Stacy, the 48year old white woman who conducted the interview alongside her 22year old daught er, Kaitlin, who had recently been released from jail for a technical probation violation. Stacy had custody of her granddaughter, but when Kaitlin was sober and not in jail, Kaitlin would also help raise the child. When the

PAGE 128

128 two discussed Stacys granddaughter (Kaitlins daughter), both respondents acknowledged that the four year old was angry when Kaitlin went to jail: Stacy: Oh, [the four year old] wont visit Kaitlin anymore. Kaitlin: Or talk to me on the phone. She gets mad, and says I have to st op getting in trouble. Stacy: I try to take her on visits, but as soon as I say, Were visiting your mom, she wont go. But when [Kaitlin] gets out, [the four year old] stops being mad. She just doesnt understand what jail is, really, and just thinks her moms being bad. Even at a young age, there is tension between Kaitlin and her four year old daughter due to Kaitlins incarceration. Health issues Caregivers also referenced health issues as a factor contributing to the pileup of strains and deman ds on their family. In total, five (25%) of the caregivers in the sample reported some kind of health issues. Four (20%) of the caregivers reported someone in their family experiencing worse health after the incarceration, and three (15%) respondents rep orted concerns over health insurance. Three (15%) caregivers reported both worse health and concerns over health insurance. Worse health. Four (20%) respondents discussed health problems that had manifested since the incarceration. Liana, the 52year ol d white woman whose son was incarcerated for a drug offense and who was taking care of her 14year old grandson and 9year old granddaughter, said that the incarceration had triggered several health issues for her. Oh, my gosh, you know my health has bee n much worse. Ive just been so anxious, I cant think. I went to the doctor because my psoriasis was flaring up so bad, and I have well I have a UTI, actually, which the doctor said could be caused by stress. Its embarrassing, but worrying about m y son really has, it really caused a lot of problems.

PAGE 129

129 Similarly, Amanda, the 23year old white woman who was taking care of her four year old daughter while her husband (the girls father) was awaiting trial for a sex offense, attributed her health problems to stress about the incarceration. Amanda explained: It has [been hard]. Ive always been emotional [clears throat, crying] but theres some times, like now, where I cant really control itIve lost a lot of weight because of this. And since the inc arceration, Ive been getting sick way more often, which is which I cant do, taking care of [my daughter]. Because if I go to the doctor, or go to the hospital, theres nobody here to watch her. And I cant sleep, which I think is the worst. Health i nsurance. Three (15%) respondents mentioned difficulties with health insurnace, since those children were no longer covered by their parents insurance plan during the incarceration. For instance, Shawna, a 39year old black woman, was taking care of her daughters two children (ages 1 and 2) while the daughter awaited trial. Her oneyear old grandson was underweight, and had been unable to see a doctor for the last month due to his mothers incarceration. When Shawna was asked what she worried about most as a result of her daughters incarceration, and responded, I worry, um, right now [my daughter, the infants mother] was getting public assistance. Um, they was on Medicaid, and I [worry about] their Medicaid being active so that I can take them to t he doctor. Because shes in jail and, you know, they probably gonna close her [Medicaid] case [due to the incarceration] my grandson, hes underweight and hes been having problems with weight. So, umthe doctor recommend that he have visits, and keep hi s appointments so that they can monitor his weightThats a concern. Shawna was particularly stressed because her grandson had been told to visit a doctor regularly to monitor his weight, but had been unable to do so during the incarceration. The respondent mentioned later in the interview that she had filed for power of attorney in order to expedite a resolution to her grandsons health insurance.

PAGE 130

130 Paula, the 55year old black woman who had taken in her nephews 17year old son when her nephew went to jail for a violent offense, also discussed health insurance problems. When Paula was asked what she worried about most in general, she mentioned her great nephews health: [I worry most about] HealthMostly for the kid. Um, not so much for [my incarcerated nephew]. Oh, you know, if [the kid] need to go to the doctor for anything, he be taken care of. Thats my most concern, without me coming out of my pocket, which Im going to have to do. Because his dad will be away for like eleven months. So if anything happen in between that, Ill have to be responsible, if he get sick or anything. Paula was concerned that, in addition to paying for her great nephews food and clothing, she was also financially responsible for any health problems he may have. Worr y about the inmate Another component of the pileup experienced by families during jail incarceration was worry about the incarcerated parent. Caregivers perceived jails as potentially violent, and were also very aware of the potential psychological effects of prisonization. Twelve respondents (60%) reported worrying about the inmate while he or she was incarcerated. Of those twelve respondents, eight (67%) were worried their incarcerated family member would not be able to psychologically cope with the incarceration, and four (33%) were concerned about the food being offered to their family member. Worry over psychological impact. Most of the respondents who worried about the inmate worried about the psychological impact jail would have on the incarcerated parent (n=8; 67%). For example, Marni, the 32year old black woman whose husband was sentenced to jail time for a drug offense, was concerned that the incarceration would impact him emotionally. In her interview, Marni said,

PAGE 131

131 Marni: I worry in partic ular about [my husband] being okay in there. Because his brother died in jail, so I dont know, like, what hes thinking aboutI dont really worry about much else. Interviewer: Has he mentioned that being a problem? Marni: No, he hasnt really brought it up, and I definitely dont want to. Marnis decision to avoid negative subjects fits with the coping mechanisms of social withdrawal that were found among other caregivers (see Coping Mechanisms: Social Withdrawal below). Shawna, the 39year old black woman whose daughter was incarcerated, was also worried. When asked what she worried most about as a result of the incarceration, Shawna, who was taking care of her daughters 2year old daughter and 1year old son, explained: I heard in jail t hat they yell at them, cuss at them, and its pretty much the military old way. And [pause] I dont know if thats healthy and good. And I dont think thats gonna do anything goodAnd I dont know if they probably or what they might do to her, you know so [pause] I worry about that. Concern over food. Another four (20%) respondents were also concerned about their family members not getting nutritious or sufficient meals during jail stays that could last for multiple months ( Comfort, 2008 ). Liana, who helped take care of her sons 14 year old son and 9year old daughter, said, It just makes me upset that they dont feed them, you know, they just literally dont feed them enough. And I get so mad when I think, Thats what our tax dollars are going for? Ive been a taxpayer my whole life, and they cant even feed my son? Ariel, the 36year old black woman whose romantic partner was sentenced to jail time for a violent offense, was concerned about the food available to her romantic

PAGE 132

132 partner while he was in jail. Ariel, who was pregnant and who helped take care of her partners 3year old daughter along with the childs mother and grandmother, said: Its ridiculous, and then the stuff they feed him you know is like I know that these guys landed thems elves here. And the innocent ones, Lord, be with them. You can at least feed these people, you know, not even just the meal but the whole jail system period, you can feed them better than what they, you know its kinda like slop in a setting, its so s ad. ButI just don't understand why, you know everybody's not a criminal, and everybody has family members, if you don't want your family members treated like that, how in the world is it okay to treat someone else like that? Ariels worry about her partners living conditions also applied to other family members. Her comment, If you dont want your family members treated like that, how in the world is it okay to treat someone else like that? indicated that she perceived the way inmates were expected to live as dehumanizing and unjust ( Hagan & Di novitzer, 1999). Visitation environment ( G lass barrier) The final variable compounding the experience of pileup for incarcerated families was the actual experience of visitation. Jail visitors were separated from the inmates they visited by a Plexiglass barrier, and spoke to the inmate via phone ( Dallaire & Wilson, 2010). Half the respondents in the sample (n=10) mentioned the Plexiglass as a problem, saying that this barrier made visitation, already a complicated emotional experience, even less bearable. This was especially an issue for caregivers of young children, because the children were too young to understand the barrier system. When children were brought to visit, the emotions related to being unable to reach their parent were traumatizing to everyone involved. Elizabeth, the black 22 year old mother of an eighteenmonth old girl, described the process of bringing her daughter to see her husband, the childs father:

PAGE 133

133 When youre sitting ther e with youreighteenmonthold, and shes trying to get through the glass and she cant, and you have to watch her cry, and then, you shes like beatin on the windows [laughs, starts to cry] and you know? You dont know what to do. You dont know what to say or what to tell them, or [pause] how to handle it. Cause they dont understand. Elizabeth felt guilty when both when she brought her daughter, because the girl was too young to understand the visitation process, and when she chose to leave her daughter at home because maintaining the father daughter relationship was so important to both herself and her husband. Like Elizabeth, Sarah was caring for an her brothers infant while he awaited trial for a violent offense. When Sarah, the black 37y ear old aunt of her brothers oneyear old, was asked what she worried about most with regard to her nephew, she said the following: Sarah: Just me being that Im a parent, I couldnt see myself being away from my kids, you know a long period of time and so it gets to me when I take him to go visit his dad. He be trying to unscrew the little thing and he doesnt understand. I see him right here and he try to go to the other booth to see around the corner. [Respondent laughs] So it gets me every time I take him out there to see him, because he tries to figure out, Why cant I go where my daddys at? Because he is curious. Interviewer: Does he when that happens when he tries to get over to the other side, what happens when he realizes that he cant do it? Sarah: He starts crying, throws a fit. In the quote above, Sarah expressed how difficult it was for her, her nephew, and her brother to watch her nephew struggle with the concept that his father was behind glass. Tina, the 22 year old black wom an whose husband was serving time in prison, also discussed the glass barrier in the interview. Tina, who was taking care of a seven-

PAGE 134

134 week old son that had been born while the childs father was in jail, said this was the thing she would most like to chang e about the visitation experience. Tina said: Tina: B eing able to touch, you know. Not in a, you know, perverted type way But in a way just to, you know, whether its a pat on the back or a kiss on the forehead, you know. Or just a hug, you know. I nterviewer: Absolutely. What do you think makes that so important? Tina: Cause thats the way, uh humans show, you know, their you know what I mean? Like, comfort, I guess you could say. Because the incarcerated parents were on the other side of the glass, it was entirely up to the caregivers to navigate these difficult situations, try to calm down the child, and deal with the emotional aftermath it may have caused. When deciding whether or not to make the visit, these caregivers had to balance the difficulties of the visitation experience with the disappointment coming from incarcerated parents who have a difficult time not having visitors, or not seeing their child (often for months at a time), contributing to the overall pileup of strains f or the family. New Resources According to the proposed model, new resources could develop to help a family cope with a crisis ( Figure 32 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). These new resources could vary with coping strategies ( New Resources in Figure 32 ). Nine (45%) respondents discussed new, informal resources developing. During the course of the interviews, one (11%) of the nine respondents mentioned new support coming from the inmates friends, and the rest of respondents said these new forms of social support came from family members (n=8; 40%). Four (44%) of the nine caregivers who discussed these new resources mentioned problems that made them think that informal support would not be a sustainable resource.

PAGE 135

135 Support from friends One of the nine caregivers (n=1; 11%) who discussed new resources that were available to her to help deal with the incarceration said this support came from the inmates friends. Anne, the 22year old black woman who became the caregiver of two of her partners children from a previous relationship (a 10year old girl and 7year old boy) while he served time for a technical probation violation, mentioned receiving this support. Anne, who had depended on her partners income while she attended college said her partners friends had stepped in when he went to jail. My interview with Anne took place in the home of one of her boyfriends friends. Anne said: [My boyfriends friend] has helped me out a l ot. [My boyfriend] arranged it before he went in, because [my boyfriend] had done the same for him when he went to jail last year. Theyre like brothers. You know, he helps with spending money and getting food, stuff like that. I dont know what Id do without him. Annes partner had established a relationship of reciprocity with his friends, and was able to make sure his family was taken care of even while he was in jail ( Braman, 2004). Extended family support Most of the nine caregivers who menti oned receiving external support relied on members of the caregivers family (n=8; 89%). Tina, the 22year old black woman whose sevenweek old son had been born during her romantic partners incarceration, and whose partner had been sentenced to state pri son by the time of the interview, turned to her mother for support. Tina said: Because I dont work right now, we pretty much depend on my mom, you know. She was really the one who, you know, helped us out as far as diapers, wipes, anything that we need.

PAGE 136

136 Sarah, the 37year old black woman who was taking care of her brothers infant son as well as her own two daughters, also relied on her family financially. She explained how their family dealt with the additional financial burden while her brother awai ted trial for a violent offense: My mom and my sister, theyll help me out and stuff like that but, you know, I have to make sure that he has stuff like Pampers and he drinks out a sippy cup, he dont drink out a bottle. But it hasnt really did, like a l ot of effect because, like I said, my mom, shell help because sometimes. I may not have no money for Pampers but Ill call my mom or my sister and theyll get him some. One of the caregivers of a child whose mother was incarcerated differed slightly f rom the rest of the sample. Stacy, the 48year old white grandmother did not mention any new resources. Stacy had a conflicted relationship with her recently incarcerated daughter, Kaitlin, and also mentioned conflict with others due to the incarceration Shawna, the 39year old black grandmother who had taken in her oneyear old grandson and twoyear old granddaughter while her daughter awaited trial for a violent offense, mentioned her family providing support. Shawna said: Everything is covered, they have child day care, um [pause] and then other family members have been pitching in, helping out. So its been going smoothly. Problems with extended family support. Support from extended family and family friends, however, sometimes came at a price. Four (44%) of the nine women who mentioned extended family support mentioned problems with their arrangement. When extended family we re financially strained themselves, it was difficult to sustain this support for a long period of time. For example, Sarah, the 37year old black woman who was taking care of her brothers oneyear old son while he was waiting to be tried for a violent of fense, was helped by her mother and sister. Sarahs family supported her

PAGE 137

137 while she looked for work, but Sarahs sister was also supporting her own five children, and was living with Sarahs mother. When Sarah was asked how she had become her nephews car egiver, Sarah said: My mom doesnt have her own place right now. My sister got a house full and it came down to me. Me and my girls, she has four kids and a toddler herself. It would be too much of a strain [for my sister to have taken my nephew in], plus its just me and my [two] girls. Sarahs livelihood was contingent on her mother and sisters ability to financially support eight children (Sarahs two children, her sisters five children, and her brothers child). Additionally, it could be logistical ly difficult to offer the necessary immediate support. In the case of Elizabeth, the pregnant 22year old black mother of an eighteenmonth old child, whose husband was awaiting trial for a technical probation violation, it was difficult for her family to offer help. Elizabeth, who was quoted earlier saying her husband had worked two jobs said her father had to put his job on hold and move down from Georgia to help take care of her during her pregnancy. Elizabeth said her fathers age was a problem, and he was the only family member available to help: Elizabeth: Actually, my dad is helping me. I had to turn back to my family. So my fathers helping me out as much as he can. Interviewer: Hows that going? Elizabeth: Its kind of hard, because my dad is older. Hes fifty three years old, so its not really that easy when hes trying to help me and then he has to run back and forth to the doctor, and the rest of my family lives in Georgia. My husband doesnt really have any family, you know, he was adopted, so. Elizabeths family demonstrated the difficulty experienced by families that required grandparents to actively fill in for the incarcerated parent ( Engstrom, 2008). In addition to giving up well established family routines, taking care of sall childrenis physically

PAGE 138

138 arduous and, in the case of this caregivers father, more difficult for older family members. Coping Strategies The third post crisis variable in the proposed model is the family s strategies of coping with the crisis, which the model suggested would vary along with pileup, familys new resources, family perceptions, and the familys adaptation ( Coping Strategies in Figure 32 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). Sixteen (80%) respondents mentioned how their family coped with the incarceration. Caregivers coped with parental incarceration in a variety of ways. The most common methods of coping were relying more on religious faith (n=10; 62.5%), staying busy and not thinking about the incarceration (n=7; 44%), increasing communication with the incarcerated family member (n=7; 44%), and withdrawing from social activities (n=7; 44%). Religious faith The most common method of coping with the incarceration was draw ing upon religious faith. Of the sixteen caregivers who mentioned a coping mechanism, ten (62.5%) mentioned using religious faith as a coping mechanism. Religious faith was generally discussed as a solitary activity, and none of the respondents reported sharing thoughts or feelings about the incarceration with members of their religious organization. Elizabeth, the 22year old black mother who was eight months pregnant and taking care of her 18monthold daughter while her husband awaited trial for viola ting probation, mentioned prayer as a coping strategy. Elizabeth, who was quoted earlier as saying her father had moved in with her to help with child care and doctor visits, said her prayer increased after the incarceration: Elizabeth: I always would pray. I think I pray more, I pray harder now, so.

PAGE 139

139 Interviewer: How does it make you feel when you pray? How does it help you? Elizabeth: Sometimes it makes me feel a lot better. Sometimes I feel like everythings going to be okay. And sometimes I f eel like [nervous laugh, starts to cry] maybe Im praying for no reason. For Elizabeth, prayer did not completely alleviate the worry about her family, but it did offer her a source of emotional support when thinking about the future. Sasha, the 55 year old black grandmother who was helping take care of her 4year old granddaughter and 1year old grandson while her son awaited trial for a drug offense, also said she prayed to help herself deal with the incarceration. Sasha, who had mentioned having a di fficult time adjusting to a more parental role said: Sasha: I pray for him [my son] every night. Interviewer: Do you think you pray more now after this started happening? Sasha: I always prayed, especially for my family. I always pray. Like personal prayer, when caregivers reported attending church to help deal with the incarceration, which helped them feel more in control. Attending church was also a way of exposing children to what caregivers thought of as helping their children stay out of trouble. For example, Tina, the 22 year old black respondent whose 7week old son had been born while her husband awaited trial, and whose husband had since been sentenced to state prison, both prayed and went to church more often since the incarceration. Tina said, Oh yes, honey, I pray, honey, all the time. You know, and me and my son, I take him to church when we we go Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. You know. I keep him in church, cause the how can I say thi s? The path I dont want my son to go on the same path as his dad, so what Im doing is implanting, cause kids are like... You can brainwash your kids, because theyre like computers. Theyre not really set. You do the setting. You know. So by me t aking him to church, Im giving him a positive outlook on

PAGE 140

140 life. You know, something that he can look forward to other than just crying and, you know? Just giving him a positive light. For Tina, faith was a way to deal with the stress of the incarcerati on, and to connect her son to a nondelinquent pathway. It was a way to give her son a positive light to help him deal with problems experienced in his life. Not thinking about the incarceration Caregivers also reported that their coping strategy was t o stay busy to avoid thinking about the parents incarceration. The strategy of trying not to focus or dwell on the incarceration was referenced by 44% (n = 7) of respondents who discussed some kind of coping strategy. Sarah, the 37year old black respondent who was taking care of her brothers infant while he waited to be tried for a violent offense, chose not to think about her brothers incarceration because she felt she had to be strong for the children in her household. Sarah said: I just dont thin k about it. I just dont think about it. I feel like its going to be a good outcome. I really dont think about it muchbecause its best for me. Like I say, I got his son and I got my kids so if I break down no. So I go on like everything is okay. B ecause this respondent was the major source of support for her own children, her nephew and her incarcerated brother, she simply could not afford to allow herself to process the incarceration, because she felt she might fall apart. Ariel, the 36year old b lack respondent who was helping take care of her romantic partners 3year old from a previous relationship, also discussed staying busy while he served his sentence for a violent offense: I stay active, stay positive, you know, stay around family members Um, you know, before you came, I was cleaning. Im usually at work on the weekendsfortunately, I just happen to have this weekend offI just kinda keep busy and stay positive, as long as I stay positive, and encourage

PAGE 141

141 myself, okay, hell be here short ly, time will fly by. Ina, the 46year old white woman whose husband was serving time for a drug offense, also said that her 14year old and 11 year old daughters stayed busy to help themselves deal with the incarceration. Ina, the respondent who had previously mentioned her house being on the verge of foreclosure, said her daughters relied on after school activities to deal with the incarceration. Ina said: You know, they hav e their band. You know, they play their music. Um, they just keep themselves busy with homework and the computer. Similarly, Sheila, the 36 year old black respondent whose husband was awaiting trial for a property offense, said it was important to her t hat her three sons (ages 15, 10, and 9) stayed busy to help themselves deal with the incarceration: I do try to keep them busy between sports and activities, chores, you know I try to keep them busy so that they don't get to bored. For Sheilas family, t he easiest way to deal with the incarceration was to focus on other, potentially less strained, parts of their lives. Increased social support from incarcerated family member I n addition to receiving additional support from family members outside the household, seven (44%) of the sixteen caregivers who mentioned a coping strategy said their incarcerated family member offered them emotional support. While the cost of maintaining contact could be financially prohibitive, these caregivers felt the emotiona l support was worthwhile. Ariel, the 36year old black woman who was pregnant and helping take care of her husbands 3year old daughter from a previous relationship, described how contact with her husband helps her get through the incarceration:

PAGE 142

142 [My inca rcerated partner] calls me every day, at least two times a day. So when we talk at night, their phone is cut off about ten o clock at night, so whenever we hang up, you know we say our goodbyes or whatever, I doze off to sleep or whatever. And me being pregnant, I get up periodically during the night and Ill look at the time and Ill say, Another days gone by, you know. And I can kind of count down like that. And, you know, its a reassuring thing. Caregivers communicated by phone and by mail, updating their incarcerated family member about their familys daily lives and offering them emotional support. When Shawna, the 39year old grandmother taking care of her daughters two young children (ages 1 and 2 years old), was asked if she did anything t o help herself deal with the incarceration, she said: I write. I write her as much as I can I just tell her that I love her, and tell her how her children doing and I just I just encourage her a lot, and that I love her and shes good no matter if shes there. Shes still important, and special, and good and you know I tell her that. Ina, the 46year old white woman whose husband was serving time for a drug offense, communicated with her husband because she missed having her husband around to help make coparenting decisions with her 11year old and 14year old daughters, and wanted him to be involved with family life. This was particularly important to Ina because her older daughter the 14year old recently began dating. Ina explained: You know, [I need him to offer] guidance. Parental guidance. My 14 year old, shes just getting to where boys are getting in the picture, you know. And theres a few things that he needed to address recently and he wasnt there So she breaks up with one little boy an d she likes another one, you know. And then the one little boy, of course, hes jealous, and he goes around saying that she, you know, shes a [whispers] slut! You know, stuff like this. Ina, unsure or whether or how to intervene, consulted with her hus band the next time she had a chance:

PAGE 143

143 I did get to talk to [my husband] about it, you know, and he says, Maybe you should talk to his mom, you know? Im like, Okay, well maybe I should do that. And then I, I didnt talk to her. I put it off for a couple days. And its good that I did, because then two days later he [the boy] apologized. While Ina did not use her husbands advice in that scenario, she was able to use him as a sounding board, in an area where she felt a father should have influence. Social withdrawal Another common coping strategy for caregivers and children was socially withdrawing from family and friends. Seven (44%) of the sixteen caregivers said members of their family used that strategy. Reasons for choosing to socially withdraw varied for each respondent. One cause was fear of judgment from others, or experiences of rejection or criticism of the incarcerated parent. Stacy, the white 48year old who took care of her four year old granddaughter, and who had legal custody of her granddaughter due to her daughters various issues with mental health and the criminal justice system, said her daughters incarceration affected her relationships with friends. Stacy said: Oh, yeah, you find out who your real friends are. Because s ome of them will just listen, and others start to get uncomfortable. Like I have friends who would say, How many times is she going to do this? You know, How can she do this to you? Or, You raised her better than this. But its not anything shes doing to me. Or they just say, Tough love! And I feel like thats saying that people who go to jail werent raised right. Shes not doing anything to me. Stacy said later in the interview that she chose to distance herself from people whom she did not consider to be real friends. Shawna, the black 39year old respondent who was also taking care of her grandchildren (ages 1 and 2 years old) while her daughter was in jail, also mentioned stigma. Shawna said:

PAGE 144

144 Because they look at the parents like if something [pause] like if your child do something, they dont look at them like they the individual. They look at it as being something because of your mama or because of your family background. But [it] dont necessarily been like that, cause I never been to jail. My mom never been to jail and I mean peoples are different, and peoples are their own person. When faced with this kind of reaction, caregivers chose to be more selective with whom they shared information about their family members incarceration ( Hagen & Myers, 2003). When Laura, the 22year old black mother of an infant born during her husbands incarceration, was asked if she did anything to help herself deal with the incarceration, said: I try to just stay to myself. I mean, Im sad anyway, andstay to myself. Dont really do nothing, just take care of myself. Children as socially withdrawn. Additionally, two (30%) of the respondents mentioned that their children had also become socially withdrawn as a coping strategy. Paula, the 55 year old black woman who was taking care of her nephews 17year old son while he was serving jail time for a violent offense, said the teenager kept to himself: Paula: He starts getting withdrawn sometimes, as far as getting real quiet and like shut down. Interviewer: Is that in particular situations or is he just Paula: No, thats just the way he is. I guess he be thinking, you know. Like Paula, Ina, the 46 year old white respondent whose husband was serving time for a drug crime, reported that her 14year old and 11year old daughters were more withdrawn. Ina said that since the incarceration: Um, theyre not hanging out with their friends as much. You know, when they ask, then I, you know, then I let them. Of course, they have a lot of fun But they just dont do a lot of that.

PAGE 145

145 Perception of Crisis, Pileup, and Resources The fourth component of the Double ABCX model includes the familys perception of the initial incarceration and the pileup, as well as the perception of initial and new resources ( Perception of Crisis, Pileup, and Resources in Figure 32 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). According to McCubbin and Patterson (1982), these perceptions are impacted by the caregivers coping strategies. The two most common variables among caregivers were perceiving the incarceration as a temporary setback (n=9; 45%), and worrying about the inmate after release (n=12; 60%). All respondents (n=20) mentioned at least one of these variables and three (n=3; 15%) mentioned bot h. Additionally, the way children perceived their situation varied largely by whether their parents decided to share information about the incarceration (n=8; 40%), or withhold information (n=5; 25%). Incarceration as a temporary setback In total, 55% of respondents (n = 11) perceived the incarceration as a temporary setback and were consciously thinking of how the family would move forward. Their optimism stemmed from the belief that a higher power was in control (n=6; 67%), consolation that the incarcer ated parent was still alive (n=4; 44%). Two (10%) respondents specifically mentioned that they believed this would be their incarcerated family members last experience with incarceration. Shawna and Stacy, the two caregivers of children of incarcerated m others, differed from caregivers of children of incarcerated fathers, in that neither of them reported seeing the incarceration as a temporary setback.

PAGE 146

146 Higher plan. Six (67%) of the nine respondents mentioned that they believed this was a temporary step that was part of a larger plan for their family. Liana, the 52year old white respondent who was helping take care of her sons 14year old son and 9year old daughter while the son served time for a drug offense, talked said she thought of her situation as part of a higher powers plan: I just try to remember that this, all of this with the jail and everything its part of His, Gods, plan. It sure doesnt feel like that now, but it is, and we have to see how the rest of His plan turns out. I think when my son gets out, hes meant to get a job and get his life back on track. Meredith, the 59year old black woman who was taking care of her sons 2year old and 6month old sons while he awaited trial for a drug offense, also mentioned her belief that her childs incarceration was a temporary part of a larger plan. I really think that this is a part of Gods plan, and it will teach him to think about consequences. This whole, this incarceration is going to serve a higher purpose, and he just has to get t hrough it. Tina, the 22 year old black mother whose sevenweek old son had been born during her partners incarceration for a property crime, mentioned both her belief in a higher power and gratitude that her incarcerated family member was still alive. Tina said: I could just tell you what you could write on that piece of paper right now is, G. O. D. in capital letters, honey, because thats the only way that Im like, you know, still standing, smiling. Cause its just temporary. Its not like he di ed, you know. Hes still in our lives, hes just hes not here right now. Glad hes still alive. Four (44%) of the respondents who discussed the incarceration as a temporary subject compared being in jail with being deceased. Faith in a higher purpose helped caregivers cope with an incarceration process that was outside of their control.. Like Tina, Brittany, the 39year old black grandmother who was

PAGE 147

147 taking care of her 4year old granddaughter while her son awaited trial for a drug offense, said she was grateful her son was still alive. Brittany said she was happy her granddaughter could at least talk to her son on the phone: Hearing his voice [for the daughter] is probably, um, better than nothing. Because if he was dead, you know, God forbid or a nything happened where she couldn't hear his voice, or, you know. Its bad enough she's not seeing him, but at least she can hear his voice. Lacy, the 62year old black woman whose son was facing charges for a violent offense, leaving behind a twoyear o ld son and a 6monthold son, also expressed gratitude that her son was not killed in the altercation that led to his arrest. Liana said: And I know my child was trying to protect himself, you know, and Im glad hes still here alive. Last experience w ith incarceration. A third situation in which caregivers saw the incarceration as a temporary setback was when they believed that this was their incarcerated loved ones final experience with the criminal justice system (n=2; 10%). Ariel, the 36year old black woman who was helping take care of her partners threeyear old daughter while dealing with her own pregnancy, had some reservations about whether her partner would learn his lesson but ultimately believed her partner would stay out of trouble: [The prosecutor was] trying to give [my incarcerated partner] two years behind it because you know he broke the boys jaw in three different places you know sometimes anger, built up anger, you know, and thats kinda what happened. But, you know, he's, he's learned his lesson. Sasha, the 55 year old black woman whose son was awaiting trial for a drug offense, also thought of the incarceration as a temporary setback because she did not foresee her son going back to jail. When discussing her son, whose 4year old daughter and 1year old son were in her care, she was hopeful. Sasha said:

PAGE 148

148 He seems to have really turned a corner, and want to get more involved in his kids lives. I just, I think if he can just get out of there, he can put this behind him. Worry about inmate post release While many caregivers perceived the incarceration as temporary, twelve respondents (60%) mentioned being worried about the incarcerated parent after his or her release. Reason for this worry varied, but most often centered around whether the inmate would be able to rejoin the work force once he or she was released from prison (n=9; 75%), or whether he would continue committing criminal activity (n=3; 25%). Worry over inmate finding a job upon release. Nine (75%) respondents who mentioned worrying about their incarcerated family members were concerned the inmates would not find jobs after they were released. Elizabeth, the black 22year old who was eight months pregnant while her husband was awaiting trial for violating p robation, had been relying on her husbands two jobs while she went to college, and took care of their eighteenmonth old daughter. Her husbands trial had been delayed twice since his arrest two months earlier, and she was uncertain whether his job would be waiting for him when he returned: And um, when he [my husband] left, it was just like his boss, you know, kind of went from answering the phone tonot answering phone calls, so when he gets home, Im pretty sure hes not gonna have a job. Liana, th e 52 year old white grandmother who was helping take care of her sons 14year old son and 9year old daughter while he served time for a drug offense, was also unsure whether her incarcerated family member would find legitimate employment. Liana explained: Its not like [my son] would walk into a bank and apply, or walk into GRU [a local utility company] and apply or whatever. Cause I think he thinks his opportunities there are next to nothing, so thats probably whats the

PAGE 149

149 hardest. Is to realize youv e made these mistakes and youve reached a certain age in your life, and how much permanent damage have you really done? You know, what is your next step? What opportunities will really be there for you now? With Lianas son facing potential stigma of a criminal record and a significant gap in his employment history, Liana was concerned that he would have a difficult time supporting himself financially. Worry over inmate continuing criminal activity. Of the twelve caregivers who were worried about how their incarcerated family member would do post release, three (25%) were concerned that family members would continue their involvement with crime and the criminal justice system. Lacy, the 62year old black respondent who was helping take care of her sons two boys (ages 1 and 2) while he awaited trial for a violent offense, was worried that her incarcerated son would continue his involvement with the criminal justice system and not see his young children grow up: [What do I] worry about most right now? About him? Um, that one day hell, you know, stop going, and then be a man. Thats what I want, you know. Because hes already, hes forty, and I want him to be a man to his kids. You know, the first set of kids, he um, he got a first set. He um, he didnt see them, he went to prison for fifteen yearsand he did not see them grow up. And now, thats what Im worried about this time. He might do the same thing, he not gonna see his second set grow up. Meredith, the 59year old black woman whose son was incarcerated for a drug offense, was taking care of her 10year old granddaughter and 8year old grandson, and was also worried that her son would miss his childrens lives: I just, I dont think hes going to have a good relationship if he keeps if hes in and out of jail all the time, and if he doesnt clean up his act. I just dont think theyre going to be as close as they could be.

PAGE 150

150 Meredith was concerned not only that her son would miss certain milestones, but that missing those life events would have long lasting effects on his relationship with his children. Telling the child when the parent is incarcerated Caregivers varied widely on whether they chose to tell the children in their care about the incarceration. Eight respondents (40%) chose to tell the child or children they were taking care of about the incarceration, while four (20%) decided not to disclose the information, and eight (40%) believed the children in their care were too young to understand the concept of jail. Told children a bout the incarceration. Marni, the 32year old woman whose husband was serving time at the jail after his sentencing, said her husband had told his sons (who were 16, 15, 14, 13, and 11 years old) about the incarceration when he was out on bond after the initial arrest. At the time, Marnis husband was fairly certain that he would be sentenced to jail incarceration, since his new drug charge had violated his probation. Marni said they had not considered withholding the information: Marni: Oh, they [his children] all know. He told them himself. Interviewer: Who made the decision to tell them? Marni: He wanted to tell them himself. Hes been in before, we didnt really think about it. Some of them were mad, you know, but its better than lying to them. And anyway, theyre old enough to know whats going on. Like Marni, Sheila and her husband decided to tell their three boys (ages 15, 10, and 9) about the incarceration. Sheila, the 36 year old black woman whose husband was awaiting trial for a pr operty offense, said that she and her husband both believed telling their sons was the right thing to do. She said:

PAGE 151

151 I don't believe in really hiding anything, I think kids understand more than people think they understand so. I remember growing up, and m y mother would lie to me or, um, they would always try and cover stuff up. I didn't know what was going on. And I think thats more difficult and more stressful on the child, so I've always been honest with them and explained to them, ya know, whats goi ng on. Um, I ask them what it means to them, and they explain, you know, the process of whatever it is. They catch on pretty quick. Too young. Seven respondents (35%) were caring for children that were under the age of three, and were uncertain whether t he child fully understood what incarceration meant. Sarah, the 37year old black woman who was taking care of her brothers 1year old son while her brother awaited trial for a violent offense, explained: But I feel like kids this young are not older like my kids [who are six and four years old]. Theyd be able to understand, but not a baby that young, you know. Similarly, Laura, the 22 year old black woman who lived with her parents and cared for her infant son while her romantic partner awaited trial for drug and property offenses, indicated that she had not tried to tell her child where his father was: Interviewer: Okay, umand since your sons sort of younger, has he been told anything about where his dad is? Laura: [Shakes head no] Not acknowledgi ng the incarceration. The remaining five respondents (25%) consciously chose not to tell the child or children about the incarceration, and instead said that the incarcerated parent was away for another reason in order to protect the inmates children fro m the truth. Anne, the 22 year old black woman who was taking care of her boyfriends two children from a previous relationship while he served time for a technical probation violation, said she had told the 10year old daughter about the fathers incarc eration, but

PAGE 152

152 told the 7year old son that his father was away on vacation. Anne first said she said neither of the children knew about the incarceration but then corrected herself: Well actually, I told his oldest [about the incarceration], I didnt tel l his youngest. Cause the older one, she understand more. The younger one, I knew I had, because its already affected him, like not even seeing him. Like, Why he didnt take us out of town? So, thats really like having an effect on him, just him not being around. In Annes family, the younger son appeared to be more upset about the fathers absence than the older daughter, who knew about the incarceration. Robin, a 48year old grandmother who was caring for her 4year old grandson while her son w as incarcerated for violating probation and a nonviolent obstruction of justice, also told the child his father was on vacation: I, no, I told him his dad was on vacation. Because [my sons] father was in jail, and I think that had something to do with w hy [my incarcerated son] got into trouble. I just think its best not to talk about it. Later in the interview, Robin said that her grandson had asked why his dad was in jail, indicating that he was aware of his fathers location, but Robin still chose t o tell her grandson that his father was on vacation. Adaptation According to McCubbin and Pattersons (1983) Double ABCX Model, family coping strategies affect the ways in which they adapt ( Adaptation in Figure 32 ). Sixteen respondents (80%) mentioned different types of adaptation. The most common forms of adaptation were unhealthy emotional adaptation (n=13; 81%) and behavior problems (n=10; 62.5%). Negative emotional adaptation Some families showed signs of unhealthy emotional coping on behalf of either the child or the caregiver. In total, thirteen of these sixteen respondents (81%) reported

PAGE 153

153 their family showing symptoms of negative emotional responses, such as depression (n=10; 62.5%), or anxiety (n=4; 25%). One respondent (Kaitlin) mentioned both depression and anxiety at different points in the interview. Depression. Ten (62.5%) of the sixteen respondents who discussed negative emotional responses mentioned depression in their interviews. Kaitlin, the 22year old white woman whose husband was awaiting trial for a sex offense, mentioned depression as a result of the incarceration. Kaitlins four year old daughter was legally in the custody of her mother (Sheila, another respondent in the sample) due to Kaitlins mental health problems, mos t often with bipolar disorder. Kaitlin said the incarceration had affected her mental health: Ive been depressed. A lot of days I dont want to get out of bed, I just want to sleep my time away, which is exactly what hes doing in there. Just trying to sleep the days away. I think thats all I want to do, like its hard for me to get up. And its hard for me to get up and go through the day. Like Kaitlin, Lacy, the 62year old black respondent who helped take care of her sons two year old and six mo nth old children, also described a depression that made it difficult for her to leave the house since her son went to jail to await sentencing for a violent crime. Lacy explained: I just feel, you know, feel down, and I get, you know. And right now just staying in [my house] which, you know, I dont go nowhere anyway. I suppose I just stay in bed. And I try not to let it get me down, but it really kinda, you know, get me down. Marni, the 32year old black woman whose husband was incarcerated, said tw o of her stepsons (ages 16, 15, 14, 13, and 11) had been sad after he started serving his sentence for a drug offense:

PAGE 154

154 Theyre just down. Like, not doing anything, sad all the time. I try to talk to them, but they dont really want to talk to the stepmom you know? Anxiety. Four (19%) of the respondents who discussed negative emotional adaptations described anxiety (one mentioned it in relation to the caregiver, while three described the children in their care as becoming overly attached to the caregiver or images of the incarcerated parent). Liana, the 52year old white grandmother who helped take care of her 14year old grandson and 9year old granddaughter while her son served time for a drug offense, said she was diagnosed as anxious: Well I went to my family doctor, um, because it [the incarceration] was affecting me physically. So, she knows me pretty well, Ive been seeing her for a while, and she saw my emotions and she said to me, I think youre going to have to start taking something for anxi ety. Which I havent done, but, you know, because, she says, she says, Dont hesitate to take something thatll help you get through this. While Liana chose not to be treated for the anxiety her doctor diagnosed, she was at least able to consider medi cal attention as an option. Two children of incarcerated parents (Robin and Shawna) also showed anxiety in the form of additional emotional attachment to caregivers. Shawna, the 39year old black woman who was taking care of her twoyear old granddaughter and infant grandson while her daughter awaited trial for a violent offense, said that her grandson had been unable to leave her side for the month since his mother was incarcerated. After his mother went to jail, her grandson became increasingly attac hed to the respondent, to the point where he could not be left alone. Shawna said: When I took him to his appointment on Tuesday, um, I had to leave him with the nurse to go downstairs to get something I left in the car [pause] and umm when I left she sai d that he would smile but he wouldnt go anywhere with her. He would stay by the door and wait for me to come, before hed leave. So he pretty much got an attachment when hes scared when people

PAGE 155

155 are out of sight, cause he feel like they aint gonna come back around. Robin, the 48year old black woman caring for her 4year old grandson while her son was charged with probation violation and nonviolent obstruction of justice, said her grandson would not be left alone. And that was an area where we had broke n him out of the attachment to me, because he was truly attached to me at first. Whines and cries when I have to leave his presence, because he feels like Im not coming back. He cries and says, Grandma, you coming back? Dont leave me, Grandma, I want to go. And then sometimes he just wont stop crying, I want to go with you, and Im like, No, you cant go with me. Similarly, Elizabeth, the 22year old black woman whose husband had been incarcerated for a probation violation and who was pregnant with their second child, described how her eighteenmonthold daughter responded to her fathers incarceration. According to the Elizabeth, I couldnt get [my daughter] to eat for maybe three days, I would say. She would only drink. She refused food, s he sucks her two fingers so she would just do that and [pause] that was it. She was always kind of upset, and she just wanted to sleep. And have her cup. And that was it. Elizabeths daughters choice not to eat was particularly distressing for the res pondent because the child was so young. The respondent mentioned that while her daughter had started eating again, she still cried and carried around Elizabeths phone to look at pictures of her father on the phones screen. Child behavior problems Half ( n = 10) of the respondents also reported child behavior problems that often extended beyond the caregiver child relationships since the incarceration. These behavior problems were most serious for older children of incarcerated parents

PAGE 156

156 Paula, the 55year old black woman whose seventeenyear old great nephew had recently moved in with her, describes the teenagers behavior after his fathers incarceration for a violent offense: Paula: [My great nephews behavior has] changed a little. Um, hes gotten very hes become very confrontational at school. Interviewer: Can you tell me a little more about how hes been confrontational? Paula: With the other students. Interviewer: How often do you think that happens? Paula: At least once a week, because right now hes home for three days for that reason. Paulas great nephew was not only getting into fights at school, but he was doing so on a weekly basis. Meredith, the 59year old black woman who was taking car e of her sons 10 year old daughter and 5year old son while he awaited trial for a violent offense, also mentioned that the 5year old son had been acting up in school. Its kid stuff, but still. Hes been getting into fights with the other kids, at leas t three times now. Im worried, you know, worried that its the beginning of something bigger. Marni, the 32year old black stepmother of her husbands five adolescent boys (ages 16, 15, 14, and 13, also said one of her husbands sons had gone to a juvenile detention facility since his father went to jail for a drug offense. Marni said: Well [the 15year old], hes been in and out of [a juvenile justice facility] for fighting, so I worry about how hes taking this. Both respondents taking care of childr en of incarcerated mothers, were taking care of very young children (Shawna was taking care of a 2year old girl and 1year old boy, and Stacy was taking care of a 4year old girl). While both Shawna and Stacy

PAGE 157

157 mentioned unhealthy emotional adaptation, the children in their care were unable to be delinquent in a way that would flag police attention. ABCX Relationships Not Supported in the Sample Two relationships in the original Double ABC X Sample were not supported by this project. These relationships both occurred in the precrisis stage (i.e., before the parent was incarcerated). First, the Double ABCX Model suggests that there should be a reciprocal relationship between the initial st ressor of criminal behavior and the familys perception of that stressor ( Initial Criminality and Perception of Criminality in Figure 3 2 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). No such relationship existed in this study. T he caregivers perception of the incarcerated parents criminal behavior did not appear to change along with the criminal behavior itself, at least from the perspective of the caregiver. Second, the Double ABCX Model would suggest that there be a reciprocal relationship between the preincarceration variables of the familys perception of the initial stressor and the familys initial resources ( Figure 32 ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). Contrary to what the theory would argue, this relationship only operated in one direction. The familys perception of the criminal behavior had no effect on their existing resources. However, the familys existing resources varied with the caregivers perception of the initial criminal behavior in the expected manner. If the incarcerated family members crimes significantly impacted the familys resources before the incarceration (i.e. if a drug habit caused the parent to s pend the familys money), caregivers tended to attribute more blame for the criminal behavior to the incarcerated parent.

PAGE 158

158 For example, Ina, the 46year old white woman who was taking care of her 14year old and 11year old daughters while her husband ser ved time for violating probation with another drug offense, described how she increasingly saw her husbands criminal activity as a personal choice that endangered her family financially. Ina described how her husbands drug use affected her familys resources: That was why I got out and got work. Because problems started happening. Extra money being gone[pause, laughs] The criminal activity resulted in Ina filing for a divorce, although she later reconciled with her husband: [My job at the time] didn t pay but sevenfifty an hour. And my husband being gone during that time. We were, um, I had broke up and filed for a divorce, told him, I am not putting up with your crap. [laugh] You know? Kind of like, kick you out of the house situation, you know. Like, You wanna do your stuff, you can go do it somewhere else. Stacy, the 48 year old white grandmother who had custody of her 4year old granddaughter, also believed her family resources were affected by her daughter, Kaitlins, criminal activity. Stacy and Kaitlin (age 22) completed the interview together, as they both shared caregiving duties for Kaitlins 4year old daughter. When Stacy discussed her daughter Kaitlins underage drinking, she said: Financially, Kaitlin was a drain anyways, and she didnt have a job or contribute to the household [due to her drinking]. Kaitlin was 22 years old at the time of the interview, but her underage drinking in past years had caused financial problems for both her parents.

PAGE 159

159 Extending the ABCX Model: New F indings This study also established two relationships that were not present in the original Double ABCX Model (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; Hamilton et al., 1983). The incarceration itself affected familys new resources in twelve (60%) cases, and new reso urces had a reciprocal rel ationship with coping strategies in seven ( 35 %) of the twenty interviews. Incarceration impacted new resources First, the crisis itself (i.e., the jail incarceration) directly impacted the familys new resources ( Figure 32 ). Ten (50%) respondents said that the incarceration resulted in the loss of income from the incarcerated parent, and four (20%) said they were unable to get public assistance because of the incarceration. Loss of income. Half of the respondents in the sample reported a loss of income due to the incarceration (n=10; 50%). For example, Sheila, the 36year old black woman who was taking care of the three sons (ages 15, 10, and 9) that she shared with her incarcerated husband while he awaited trial for a property offense, said his loss of income affected her household. Sheila said: Um, just probably bills [are my biggest worry], um you have to cut back on some things, loss of income. Um, loss of parental supervision, and so now have to do, you know, both jobs and so its, its pretty stressful. Ariel, the 36year old black woman who was pregnant and helping take care of her husbands threeyear old daughter from another relationship, also mentioned the loss of income: Financially because you're used to, um, half of the bills [being paid by another person], and now its basically like one income, you know.

PAGE 160

160 Public assistance and incarceration. For some respondents, incarceration made it more difficult for the family to get public assistance. Four respondents (20%) had tried but been unable to receive public assistance due to the incarceration. The reason for this denial seemed to be that many types of public assistance depended on the household income f or the previous tax year, so they could not report an income low enough to receive social services reserved for low income families. Elizabeth, the pregnant, 22year old black mother of an eighteenmonthold whose father was awaiting trial, mentioned this issue. When Elizabeth was asked what she felt would help her family during the incarceration, she said: Just, if I could have, like, day care or something. So that I could have continued doing what I was doing [going to college]. Lower income day care for, you know I wouldnt say we werealways less fortunate, but right now were less fortunate [Laugh] so[the assistance] is based on income, or what you were making [before the incarceration], or however. And if you make too much, you have to pay for it they have programs where they do have day care, but when you dont have anything, its like so, and theyre still looking at what you did have. While Elizabeth had fewer resources and more costs than she had before the incarceration and was unsure of how long the incarceration would last, she could not provide officially relevant evidence of their familys financial strain. Similarly, Stacy, the 48 year old white woman who took care of her four year old granddaughter while Kaitlin, the childs mot her, awaited trial for a probation violation, reported difficulties with receiving Medicaid for her granddaughter. Stacy said: Well [my four year old granddaughter] has cerebral palsy, and while I technically have legal custody of her, there are still iss ues obtaining Medicaid because Kaitlins incarcerated. Sometimes the Medicaid office has it written down that Kaitlins the guardian, and Kaitlin, of course, cant access Medicaid while shes incarcerated. So thats been hard, I worry about that.

PAGE 161

161 Relat ionship between new resources and coping strategies Second, the familys new resources appeared to have a reciprocal relationship with the coping strategy used by the respondent This contrasted with the Double ABCX Model, in which the relationship between resources and coping strategy was unilateral, with the coping strategy affecting the familys new resources ( Fig ure 21 ). For example, seven ( 78%) of the nine respondents who reported family or friends offering them support (i.e., new resources) did not report withdrawing as a coping mechanism. Sarah, the 37year old black woman who was taking care of her brother s one year old son while her brother awaited trial for a violent offense, did not mention social withdrawal as a coping mechanism at any point in her interview. Sarah also discussed her familys support: Like I say I have support from my family and we all pitch in together. I know that even if it was to come to a longer period, I know that I will be okay. Anne, the 22 year old black woman who was caring for her romantic partners 10year old daughter and 7year old son from another relationship, also did not use withdrawal as a coping mechanism. When discussing her romantic partner serving time for a technical probation violation, Anne mentioned support both from family and from her boyfriends social network: Im gonna go to a family member or something. But he have real close friends, like brothers and stuff. They usually, theyll probably help him get everything under control. I just hate to even like go to them and ask them. Regardless of whether or not Anne used the help available to her, sher bel ieved her family or friends would support her if she needed the help.

PAGE 162

162 Summary of Results The sample found support for all three precrisis variables in Figure 32 (Initial Criminality, Perception of Initial Criminality, and Familys Initial Resources ) (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). The crisis of parental incarceration itself varied in terms of whether or not the incarcerated parent had been sentenced. The five post crisis variables in Figure 32 (Pileup, New Resources, Coping Strategies, Perceptions of crisis, pileup, and resources, and Adaptation) were also supported by the data. Two relationships in the proposed model ( Figure 32 ) were not supported by the sample. Respondents did not report that their perceptions of their family members criminal activity had any connection with the initial criminal behavior, nor did they discuss the familys perception of their stressor when talking about the familys initial resources. The proposed model ( Figure 32 ) included reciprocal relationships between Initial Criminality and Perceptions of Initial Criminality, as well as between Perceptions of Initial Criminality and Existing Resources.

PAGE 163

163 Table 41 Coding structure Variable Type Major Concept Variable Minor variation Pre Incar ceration Variables Criminality (Initial Stressor) Perception of Criminality Bad choices Concerns over intergenerational delinquency Environmental causes Innocence Both bad choices and environmental Causes Familys Existing Resources Pree xisting financial strain Intrafamily conflict Crisis Incarceration Worry over release time Post Incarceration Variables Pileup of Stresses Residential transitions Caregiver moved to another household Child moved in with caregiver Fina ncial strain Loss of income Cost of incarceration Ambiguous roles Conflict Caregiver child conflict

PAGE 164

164 Table 41 Continued Variable Type Major Concept Variable Minor variation Post Incarceration Variables (contd. ) Pileup of Stresses (contd.) Health issues Worse health Health issues Health insurance Worry about Inmate Worry over psychological impact Concern over food Visitation environment (glass barrier) New Resources Support from friends Extended family support Problems with extended family support Coping Strategies Religious faith Not thinking about it Increased social support from incarcerated family member Social withdrawal Childrens social withdrawal Per ceptions of Crisis, Pileup, and Resource s Incarceration as a temporary setback Higher powers plan

PAGE 165

165 Table 41 Continued Variable Type Major Concept Variable Minor variation Post Incarceration Variables (contd.) Perceptions of Crisis, Pileup, and Res ources (contd.) Incarceration as a temporary setback (contd.) Glad hes still alive Parents last experience with incarceration Worry about inmate post release Worry over inmate finding a job upon release Worry over inmate continuing crimin al activity Telling the child that the parent is incarcerated Told children about the incarceration Children too young Not acknowledging the incarceration Adaptation Negative emotional adaptation Depression Anxiety Child behavior problems Comparisons to the Original Double ABCX Model ABCX Relationships Not Supported in the Sample Parental criminality and perceptions of parental criminalit y

PAGE 166

166 Table 41 Continued Variable Type Major Concept Variable Minor variation Compari sons to the Original Double ABCX Model (contd.) Extending the ABCX Model: New Relationships Incarceration and new resources Comparisons to the Original Double ABCX Model Extending the ABCX Model: New Relationships Loss of income and coping strategies

PAGE 167

167 Figure 41 Proposed model of parental incarceration (New Resources) Family involvement Church P ublic aid (Pileup) Combination of Stresses: Parental absence Financial cost Ambiguous roles (Existing Resources) Financial Stability (employment, savings) Social Wellbeing (nuclear/extended family, community involvement) (Crisis) Jail Incarceratio n (Initial Stressor) Parental Criminal Activity More negative adapted bhi Pre Crisis Post Crisis (Perception of Stressor) Belief that criminality is: The offenders fault, or The result of outside causes (Coping Strategy) Withdraw al Avoiding the subject Renewed religious Adaptation Fewer negative adapted behaviors (Perception of Crisis, Pileup, Resources) Expectations for the future Perceptions of setbacks as temporary/permanent

PAGE 168

168 Figure 42 Revised model of parental incarceration (Pileup) Combination of Stresses: Parental absence Financial cost Ambiguous roles (Existing Resources) Financial Stability (employment, savings) Social Wellbeing (nuclear/extended family, c ommunity involvement) (Crisis) Jail Incarceratio n (Perception of Crisis, Pileup, Resources) Expectations for the future Perceptions of setbacks as temporary/permanent Fewer negative adapted behaviors Adaptation (New Resources) Family involvement Church Public aid (Perception of Stressor) Belief that criminality is: The offenders fault, or The result of outside causes Post Crisis Pre Crisis More negative adapted bhi (Coping Strategy) Withdraw al Avoiding the subject Renewed religious (Initial Stressor) Parental Criminal Activity

PAGE 169

169 CHAPTER 5 D ISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION When a parent is first arrested and incarcerated, the familys adaptation to that transition varies in several core ways Women caring for inmates children are affected both by the familys context before the incarceration, and details of the incarceration itself. This study found that when parents are incarcerated at a county jail children and their caregivers experience preexisting financial strain, abrupt and severe financial change, conflicted relationships between family members, and changes of residence. Further, results show that McCubbin and Pattersons (1982) Double ABCX model is an appropriate tool in understanding how a family adapts to the arrest and initial incarceration of a parent, with several key differences. The purpose of the study was to explore the impact of jail incarceration on the family and understand how a familys proc ess of adapting to parental incarceration fit with the Double ABCX Model. Applicability of Double ABCX Model Evidence of Pre Crisis Variables First, we find that the Double ABCX Model is a useful sensitizing agent in understanding the various changes to a family during parental incarceration (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982 1983 ). Interviewees mentioned the three precrisis concepts discussed in the Double ABCX Model: The initial stressor, perception of that stressor, and resources available to meet the crisis Parents initial criminal activity Specifically, we found that the parents initial criminal activity acted as an initial stressor ( Initial Criminality in Figure 32 ) which, as in the original Double ABCX Model, could be perceived in diff erent ways, and also interacted with the familys

PAGE 170

170 resources even before the actual incarceration (Crisis: Jail Incarceration in Figure 32, p. 139). Parents were most often being incarcerated for drug or violent offenses. These results suggest that chi ldren of incarcerated parents may be particularly at risk for negative behavior and emotional outcomes, as previous literature has demonstrated. That is, children exposed to parental drug use or violence face a variety of different life stressors, aside f rom criminal justice involvement (Jaffee et al., 2003; Phillips et al., 2006). Perceptions of initial criminal activity In addition to parents differing in terms of criminal activity, families also varied in how they perceived the parents crime ( Perc eption of Initial Stressor in Figure 32, p. 139), which supports previous work in the Double ABCX Model showing that families varied in how they perceived the initial stressor (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; Saloviita et al., 2003). Some respondents minimi zed the incarcerated parents role in his or her own criminal activity, a phenomenon which Comfort (2008) found in her interviews with romantic partners of male prisoners. This group of respondents saw their loved ones crimes as the result of either extenuating circumstances or the actions of others. Alternatively, some caregivers in the sample perceived the incarcerated parents crime as the result of bad choices on behalf of that parent. Related to this, respondents worried that inmates children (s pecifically, sons of incarcerated fathers) would make those same bad choices. This concern was evident, for example, when the son was 17 years old and becoming interested in criminal activity, and also when the son was an infant who could not demonstrate criminal or conventional tendencies. These results suggest that caregivers are very aware of their childrens risk for intergenerational

PAGE 171

171 aggression and delinquency, as has been demonstrated in studies by Murray and Farrington (2005) and Wildeman (2010). F amilys existing resources The project also found that most respondents discussed their familys resources before the incarceration, many of whom described financial problems or strain that preceded their family member going to jail ( Existing Resources in Figure 32, p. 139). Like the sample of caregivers interviewed by Arditti et al. (2003) and Bramans (2004) interviews with inm ates families in an impoverished area in Washington, DC, the people in this study were struggling before the criminal justice system became involved. This finding also supports previous researchers proposals that incarcerated families experience risks above and beyond those imposed by the corrections system (Aaron & Dallaire, 2010). Intrafamily conflict discussed by the sample also supported Roy and Dysons (2005) findings of gatekeeping behavior and conflict between incarcerated fathers and the mothers of their children Crisis (Parental Incarceration) Respondents also discussed aspects of the incarceration itself (Crisis: Incarceration in Figure 32, p. 139), and primarily focused their attention on how long the inmate would be incarcerated. Caregiv ers whose family member was awaiting his or her sentence were uncertain of how long the incarcerated parent would be removed from the community, and had a difficult time financially or emotionally preparing for the incarceration. Few studies of incarcerated families that specifically examine the difference between parental incarceration before and after sentencing, and the current project examined worry that was specific to families awaiting sentence Dallaire and Wilson

PAGE 172

172 (2010) examined childrens exposure to various stages of the criminal justice system, including sentencing, and found that children who were present for their parents sentencing were more likely to show signs of emotional maladjustment than children who did not witness incarcerationrelated experiences such as criminal behavior, arrest, and sentencing. These findings suggest that even if witnessing the sentencing damages a childs emotional wellbeing, the lack of sentencing may also cause stress on the childs caregiver. Evidence of Post Incarceration Variables This study also found evidence of post crisis variables in the original Double ABCX Model, including a pileup of strains associated with the incarceration. As in the original model, the pileup of stressors (i.e. a combination of the initial stressor, initial family resources, and strains as a direct result of the incarceration), interacted with the familys coping strategy, which in turn affected the familys new resources, t heir perceptions of the familys situation, and the familys adaptation to the incarceration. Some aspect of the pileup of stressors described in the original model ( Pileup in Figure 32 ) was discussed by every respondent in the study. New financial strain The most common discussion of pileup, by far, involved costs of the incarceration itself and the combination of financial costs with preexisting financial strain. While financial strain has been cited in many studies of inmates families (Arditti et al., 2003; Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008), this study also finds that caregivers were stressed due to trying to fill ambiguous roles. Specifically, our findings support research on coparenting relationships between incarcerated mothers and the grandmothers caring for their children, which have been characterized as strained, which in turn led to

PAGE 173

173 antagonistic feelings between the two adults trying to coparent (Baker, McHale, Strozier, & Cecil, 2010; Strozier, Armstrong, Skuza, Cecil, & McHale, 2011). Additionally, strain associated with the incarcerations uncertain time frame resembled the sample of families of soldiers in action studied in the original Double ABCX study, who were also unsure when if and when their family member would return (Mc Cubbin & Patterson, 1982; 1983). This uncertainty also supported work by Bockneck et al. (2009) finding that children of incarcerated parents experienced ambiguous loss, and found it difficult to psychologically adjust to an incarcerated parent being absent from daily family life. This study also found an important caveat to various pileup variables: while incarceration (without fail) had direct and indirect financial costs for family members, respondents sometimes were unable to receive financial assistance. This happened because financial assistance depends on a familys taxable income in the previous fiscal year, so if the incarcerated parent was employed at a full time job it was often difficult for the family to qualify for low income programs, even i f they now made well below the poverty line. This impediment contrasts with previous research showing that caregivers of jail inmates children often take out additional public assistance (Arditti et al., 2003). There is little research on how many famil ies of jail inmates technically make below poverty wages and are unable to qualify for public assistance, but this could easily represent a significant financial problem for family members of the 12.8 million adults admitted to county jails every year (Wes t, 2010). Residential transitions In this sample, transitions in living arrangements also contributed to the pileup of issues associated with the incarceration for many respondents. At least one study has

PAGE 174

174 discussed transition as a crisis in the Double A BCX Model. Frame and Shehan (1994) examined how clergy members wives adjusted to relocating due to their husbands job, analyzing the transition itself as the crisis. The current project examined residential transitions as a pileup variable which is often precipitated by the incarceration, and in turn contributed to strain among family members. This finding of residential mobility fit previous research on stress associated with finding homes for children when their parents were incarcerated (Sharp, 2011), and also supported Glaze and Maruschaks (2008) finding that about half of parents in prison lived with their minor children in the month before the arrest or just prior to the incarceration. The transition element may be particularly important in s amples of jailincarcerated parents, since the transition is often unexpected and can therefore result in more uncertainty and stress for families. Siegel (2011) found that kids changes in residence were even more abrupt when the child was already with an adult at the time of the arrest, when the parent was being held at the county jail. This finding also supported the study by Turanovic et al. (2012) regarding parental imprisonment, in which the authors found that most caregivers who reported the incarceration having a negative effect on the family also reported that the incarcerated parent had been closely involved with their childrens lives. Health issues Another contributing pileup component included health issues among children of incarcer ated parents and their caregivers, which has been largely unexplored by previous literature. The notable exception to this is the study of caregivers of jail inmates children by Arditti et al. (2003) which found that most caregivers reported worse health for themselves and their children since the incarceration. This study did not find that a majority of families experienced health problems, but the project did

PAGE 175

175 uncover some problems with obtaining health i nsurance for inmates children due to the incarceration. Issues with health insurance support research by Foster and Hagan (2007), which found that lack of health insurance was often intergenerational in incarcerated families, specifically that children w hose parents had been incarcerated were less likely to have health insurance throughout adulthood than were their peers whose parents had never been incarcerated. Worry over incarcerated parents More than half of caregivers in the sample discussed worrying about how jail would affect the incarcerated parent of the child in their care, because jails were perceived as both physically and psychologically dangerous. These findings that family members worried a great deal about how their family member would get through the incarceration safely support previous findings showing similar results (Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008; Fishman, 1988). Plexiglass barrier in the visitation room Caregivers, in addition to worrying about how their inmates would fare in jail, had to navigate the correctional system during visitation. Half of the sample specifically mentioned the Plexiglass barrier as being a problem during visitation. This posed a problem both for caregivers and children of a variety of ages, but seemed to be particularly problematic when young children went to visit. This finding supports a metaanalysis by Poehlmann et al. (2010), which found that jail visitation had mixed effects on child wellbeing and pointed to the possibility that visitations positive or negative effect was tied to how family friendly the visitation area was. The authors mentioned barriers between the visitor and the inmate as one of several factors contributing to trauma or secondary prisonization for visitors.

PAGE 176

176 Familys New Resources One important variable in the original Double ABCX Model was the new resources that emerged to help a family deal with the crisis at hand, and many respondents discussed these new resources during the interviews (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). As other stu dies have found (Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008; Engstrom, 2008; Turanovic et al., 2012), families varied in the new resources available to them, both in terms of financial and social capital. Nearly half of all respondents depended on informal financial support from family members, friends, and acquaintances during the incarceration because public assistance or their own income was inadequate. Braman (2004) extensively discussed problems that arose for incarcerated families when seeking out support from inf ormal social networks for financial loans or child care. The issue that Braman found was that families of inmates had less social capital than others. This was because social capital stems largely from the concept of reciprocity, or the ability to offer something in exchange for assistance. Braman found that because inmates families had so few resources, they knew they would not be able to pay back any favors they asked from their friends and neighbors. Because of this, these family members often chose not to ask for help. The lack of reciprocity, if it grows over time, might become particularly problematic for families like those in the current study, who relied so heavily on help from their social networks. Since the current project investigated t he short term effects of incarceration in the jail stage of the criminal justice process while Braman (2004) focused on long term imprisonment, it would be interesting to investigate how feelings of reciprocity changed at different stages of the incarcerat ion process (i.e., presentencing, jail, prison, reentry).

PAGE 177

177 Coping Strategies Due to a perceived lack of reciprocity, respondents in Bramans (2004) sample often chose to socially withdraw, which was one of the primary coping strategies mentioned by people interviewed here. Respondents chose to spend more time by themselves, and avoid talking to both distant acquaintances and close family and friends. Reasons for using this coping strategy varied, but did not directly mention the reciprocity principle found by Braman (2004). Primarily, respondents in this study wanted to avoid questions about the incarcerated parent, and spend time regrouping. Stigma has been repeatedly experienced by family members of inmates (Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008; Fishman, 1988; Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008). As a coping strategy, the respondents choice to limit social interaction may not be entirely irrational. While no other research has specifically studied withdrawal as a coping mechanism, at least one study with children of inc arcerated parents has shown that children who chose to discuss their parents incarceration with fewer people fared better emotionally than those who told more people about the issue (Hagen & Myers, 2003). More research is needed to understand when and how withdrawal impacts inmates family members, to determine the healthiest choice of action for these individuals. Another coping strategy discussed by caregivers was reliance on religious faith, either through prayer or attending church. While caregivers who mentioned church did not discuss their family members incarceration with other church members, they were comforted by being in a religious environment. Few studies have discussed religious faith as a primary coping mechanism of families of incarcerat ed parents, but some show that at least among older adults, sense of divine control (i.e., the idea that ones fate is in the hands of a higher power) is more common among low SES African Americans,

PAGE 178

178 and most of the sample was both low SES and African Ameri can (Schieman, Pudrovska, Pearlin, & Ellison, 2006). This sense of a higher power had a strong impact on respondents in the current study, and in some cases was mentioned as the only way caregivers could emotionally handle the uncertainty surrounding thei r loved ones incarceration. Future research with incarcerated parents should consider the role faith plays in the lives of many individuals dealing with a loved ones detainment. In addition to relying on religious faith, many respondents reported that t heir primary coping mechanism was simply repressing thoughts of the incarceration and focusing on other things. Thought suppression is rarely as a coping strategy for dealing with parental incarceration. This may not be a counterproductive coping strateg y, as thought suppression in general has been found to result in thinking more about whatever subject one is trying to suppress (Wegner, Schneider, Carter III, & White, 1987). The final coping strategy discussed by respondents was seeking social support fr om the incarcerated parent himself or herself. While some respondents, like those in previous literature (Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008; Roy & Dyson, 2005; Turanovic et al., 2012), had conflicted relationships with incarcerated parents, inmates were also listed as an important point of emotional support during hard times. This could be for a variety of reasons. As previously mentioned, there can often be a great deal of stigma, both real and perceived, toward inmates families (Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008; Nes mith & Ruhland, 2008), so the incarcerated parent may be one of few adults to whom the caregiver can open up without judgment. Further, this could directly mitigate some concerns related to worrying about the inmates wellbeing, which took place during th e

PAGE 179

179 incarcerationrelated pileup. For inmates romantic partners the communication may help achieve a sense of familial normalcy, something that respondents in Comforts (2008) study of female partners of prisoners found to be very important. Family Perceptions of Crisis, Pileup, and Resources The fourth post crisis variable in the Double ABCX Model is the familys perception of their situation, meaning how the family viewed the initial stressor, the crisis, the pileup, and new resources. As in the original Double ABCX study, a significant subset of the sample viewed the incarceration as a temporary setback (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). These respondents were able to avoid worrying, grief, and a sense of loss through focusing on what life would be like once the inmate was released from prison. While this was a popular coping mechanism for these women, research suggests that an inmates actual homecoming is often more complicated than most families expect. Research has found that households are characteri zed by conflict, additional financial strain, and imbalanced power dynamics when dealing with the reentry of an incarcerated parent, suggesting that incarceration was more of a long term rather than temporary strain on the family (Arditti & Few, 2006; Brow n & Bloom, 2009; Naser & Visher, 2006). It is unclear what additional stress reentry might hold for family members whose main coping mechanism was looking forward to a happy reunion. As opposed to perceiving the crisis as temporary, some respondents also worried about how the incarcerated parent would fare after he or she was released and perceive lifetime success (in terms of stable income) as unlikely. Respondents worried about the ability of incarcerated parents to emotionally and financially recover from their time at jail. Research has shown that caregivers are not wrong to be concerned.

PAGE 180

180 Former offenders can face a variety of financial, psychological, and interpersonal challenges when returning from prison (Clear, 2009; Pager, 2003; Petersilia, 2003), making it difficult to avoid poverty and reoffending. Respondents in this study could be demonstrating realistic concerns based on academic studies. While caregivers perceptions were generally either optimistic (expectation that the incarceration was a temporary setback) or pessimistic (concern that the incarceration would affect their family member for years to come), this project found that many children had no perception of their familys situation at all. Some caregivers had never discussed the in carceration with the inmates children. The literature on this subject is sparse. Research studies with caregivers (Arditti et al., 2003; Strozier et al., 2011; Turanovic et al., 2012) tend not to ask the extent to which children know about parental incarceration, while interviews with children (Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008; Sharp, 2012) only sample children who understand that their parent is in prison. Sharp (2012) explored the extent to which children really understand the causes and consequences of incarc eration and found that they often misunderstand key facts about imprisonment, but her sample only included children who knew their mother was incarcerated. It was unclear how children in the current study were affected by secrecy surrounding the incarceration, and it was also unclear whether caregivers attempts at secrecy were successful. For example, Anne told the older of her boyfriends two children about the incarceration, but not the younger one. It is unclear whether the children talked about the incarceration themselves. Regardless, the caregivers choice not to discuss imprisonment because she feared the child would be stigmatized is relevant, because prior studies have shown that childrens teachers (Dallaire et al., 2010) and peers

PAGE 181

181 (Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008) sometimes do so. Moreover, the choice of so many caregivers not to discuss the imprisonment with the children could suggest acute shame associated with parental incarceration, which Braman (2004) also found when interviewing family members of prisoners. While caregivers may have been trying to protect children, the secrecy could contribute to further shame if the child perceives that even the caregiver is ashamed of the parents incarceration. Families Adaptations to Parental Incarceratio n The culmination of the Double ABCX Model is adaptation, describing how well or poorly the family deals with the crisis. The current sample showed signs of maladaptation (or unhealthy adaptation) to the crisis, in terms of unhealthy emotional coping an d child behavior problems. Caregivers reported feeling depressed, despondent, and angry, supporting previous literature on prisoners family members (Braman, 2004), including those suggesting that high rates of depression found in incarcerated mothers may also apply to women taking care of other inmates children (Poehlmann, 2005). Additionally, the reports of child behavioral problems and emotional insecurity reported by caregivers here supports previous findings regarding children of incarcerated parents. Some of the older children in this study apparently showed signs of delinquency and aggression themselves, which is similar to the findings of Sharp (2011) who found that some children of imprisoned mothers readily admitted to getting into physical fi ghts with peers. This finding also supports the results of previous quantitative work finding that children of incarcerated parents are more likely to be aggressive in early childhood (Wildeman, 2010), and delinquent in late childhood and adulthood (Aaron & Dallaire, 2010; Murray & Farrington, 2005; Phillips et al., 2002)

PAGE 182

182 when compared to children whose parents were never incarcerated. While caregivers of younger children (i.e., under three years old) did not report delinquency among the children in their care, they cited negative emotional adaptation such as defiance, refusing to eat, and being overly attached to caregivers. The emotional issues mentioned here support previous research which found that children of incarcerated parents show signs of depression and post traumatic stress disorder (Bockneck et al., 2009; Hagen & Myers, 2003; Jones & Beck, 2007), and anxiety (Dallaire & Wilson, 2010). Double ABCX Models Similarities to Parental Incarceration This project concludes that the Double ABCX Model, primarily used in families and public health literature, can be a useful tool in understanding how a family changes when a parent is initially incarcerated. The Double ABCX Model fit the experience of parental incarceration well, showing itself to be an appropriate tool for understanding the experience. The model also helped isolate individual components of the crisis above and beyond the traditional approach of viewing problems experienced by inmates children and their caregivers as either the direct ef fect of incarceration, or the result of risks the family experienced before the incarceration. The strength of the Double ABCX Model is that it draws out important key variables within the process of parental incarceration, and differentiates between precrisis and post crisis trends in these families. In addition to improving researchers overall understanding of how families cope with taking care of the child of an incarcerated parent, this detailed operationalization may make it easier to tailor interv entions that meet the needs of families going through this unique phenomenon.

PAGE 183

183 Differences between Double ABCX Model and Parental Incarceration While most relationships mentioned in the original Double ABCX Model were found to apply to caregivers of inmates children, there were several key differences. First, contrary to the original Double ABCX Model, which would suggest a reciprocal relationship between the parents initial criminal behavior and perception of the parents criminality, as well as a recipr ocal relationship between perception of criminality and the familys initial resources, these relationships only went one way for caregivers in the study. Caregivers perceptions of the offending parents criminality did not affect the criminality itself, nor the familys initial resources. In addition to finding that some confirmation of the relationships in the original Double ABCX Model, the current study built upon the initial model and found two new relationships. The first new relationship is between the crisis itself and the familys initial resources. According to the original model, the crisis contributes to pileup, which impacts coping strategies, which in turn affects the familys new resources (Hamilton et al., 1983; McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). However, the current study found that the crisis itself (parental incarceration at the jail) directly affected the familys resources through loss of income and an inability to receive public assistance due to changes resulting from the incarceration. The second new connection is that the relationship between coping strategies and new resources, which only goes one way in the original model, was reciprocal in this sample. Respondents who reported being offered support by family or friends were less li kely to use social withdrawal as a coping mechanism. These new theoretical connections suggest that while the Double ABCX Model fits the current sample in many ways, families dealing with parental incarceration are going through a unique experience. This should not be surprising, since parental

PAGE 184

184 incarceration has the risk of stigma for both the offender and his or her family (Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008; Fishman, 1988; Sharp, 2011), which sets them apart from Double ABCX samples whose family member was miss ing in action while serving in the military (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). Also, unlike health studies applying the Double ABCX Model to families of individuals with intellectual disabilities (Saloviita et al., 2003), physical disabilities (Florian & Dangoor, 1994), and stroke (Clark, 1999), incarcerated families adjust to the absence of a family member rather than the presence of a family member going through a developmental change. Finally, unlike Double ABCX studies focusing on divorce (Plunkett et al., 1997) or changes in residence (Frame & Shehan, 1994), but similar to McCubbin and Pattersons (1982; 1983) study of families of soldiers who were missing in action, the transition to which incarcerated families adapt may not be permanent. Incarcerated families may not be able to move on entirely (Bockneck et al., 2009). Thus, while the Double ABCX Model is important in developing a structure, parental incarceration is a unique enough phenomenon to which researchers must to adapt a model that fits as clos ely as possible. Limitations of the Current Study This project had several key limitations. First, sampling bias is likely, given the use of a convenience sample of jail visitors who were caring for an inmates child. Due to limited resources, researchers were not available to recruit respondents every day during each of the four or five visitation time slots. As a result, some visitors would not have been contacted face to face, and would only have known about the study via flyer. Since all respondents were recruited inperson, it is likely that the flyers had little impact in recruitment. In addition, researchers only contacted caregivers who visited their family member in jail, which necessarily eliminated from the sample people who did not

PAGE 185

185 have the financial means, transportation, or desire to visit the person in jail. Research has shown inmates partners sometimes exercise power in their relationships with inmates by choosing whether to visit (Comfort, 2008) and whether to bring children along on visits (Roy & Dyson, 2005). Children likely would be impacted by caregivers decisions, and families may have a very different incarceration experience if they were unable or unwilling to maintain a relationship with an incarcerated parent. Because ther e were no interviews with people who did not visit, it is difficult to know whether or not their feelings, caregiver experiences, and the childrens responses were different from those discussed by the current respondents. Another major limitation for the study was the small number of caregivers who participated (n = 20). Some mentioned that they did not have time, while others contacted just chose not to participate because they were worried their interview information would get out to the jail, or they doubted the study would result in any change to the system. Other potential respondents refused without giving a reason. It would have been better to have a larger sample size, which would have allowed for statistical analysis on some of the survey items. While some primary research with incarcerated families has used larger sample sizes of fifty (Arditti et al., 2003; Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008; Sharp, 2005) or even one hundred (Hagen & Myers, 2003; Turanovic et al., 2012), some studies have also had smaller samples. Specifically, research including interviews with children of incarcerated parents and their caregivers have had sample sizes in the twenties (Jones & Beck, 2007; Strozier et al., 2011) and thirties (Bockneck et al., 2009; Dallaire & Wilson, 2010). This particular study confirms

PAGE 186

186 that this group of people (families of incarcerated people) are a hard target population to reach. A final limitation of this study is that only caregivers were interviewed, so the accounts paint an incomplete pict ure of childrens experience with their parents criminality. Caregivers have a great deal of power over what children know about their parents criminal justice involvement and how they process emotions associated with the incarceration (Braman, 2004; Roy & Dyson, 2005). It would be preferable to interview both caregivers and children to see how caregivers impacted childrens perceptions of the incarceration. However, in the case of children who are three years old or younger (who make up half of the sa mple), it may not be feasible or ethical to conduct a full interview. In these instances caregivers may be the best way to determine child behavior patterns. The voice of the incarcerated parent was also absent from this project. The incarcerated parent may be the only common thread between two or three caregivers who have limited communication with each other and, without interviewing the offender, this project may have missed details about the experiences of children of incarcerated parents. Implications for Research and Policy Future research should further examine how children of incarcerated parents and their caregivers interact with the social service system during a parents jail incarceration, and how often caregivers were unable to access servic es. Qualitative work would also benefit from interviewing dyads (i.e., both caregivers and incarcerated parents, children and caregivers, caregivers and social workers, etc.) to get more than one perspective on how incarceration affects the family. Final ly, researchers should also explore the differences between having a jailed parent and having an imprisoned

PAGE 187

187 parent, to see how families of jailed parents might benefit from unique programming or social services. This line of research would also benefit fro m state or national level data on the prevalence of parental incarceration at a jail. This studys results suggest that families of jail inmates face psychological and financial issues similar to those of prisoners, but without more data it is impossible to understand the issues breadth. A step in the right direction would be documenting how many people moving in and out of jails are parents and how many of those parents lived with their children before the incarceration and after ( Glaze and Maruschak, 2008). It would be premature to make definite policy recommendations based on a single study. However, this project has found that familys initial risks in terms of finances, interpersonal relationships, and parental substance abuse contribute to a significant pileup of strains for the inmates family. This supports a recent call by Comfort, Nurse, McKay, and Kramer (2011) to take steps to address disadvantages and risks for children of incarcerated parents. Additionally, repeated problems with vi sitation barriers and signs of negative emotional adaptation by both caregivers and children support the suggestions made by Poehlmann et al. (2011) that efforts should be made to ensure visitation is as painless as possible. In addition to improving the visitation experience and investing in social programs general, one important implication suggested by this study is to rethink the way social services are made available to children of jailed parents. This study found a small but important trend: when someone with a jailed family member applies for public assistance, they may be unable to qualify for low income assistance because their

PAGE 188

188 household income is artificially high. This is especially relevant to families of jail inmates, because jails are designed to hold people in the short term (i.e., prior to trial, or when the sentence is less than one year). When the inmate was employed, and especially when he or she was a primary source of income, the familys financial concerns upon incar ceration are immediate and can be critical. Policymakers need to examine short term public assistance options for jailed parents that keep these families from facing further disadvantage. Conclusions This project found that families of jailed parents experience a range of serious challenges, and the way they adapt to this crisis is accurately summarized by the Double ABCX Model. While there were several key differences between families coping with parental incarceration and other samples typically used wi th the Double ABCX Model, the similarities suggest that this paradigm provides an important structure that researchers can use to understand the effects of incarceration on families. One of the strengths of using the Double ABCX Model is that it allows f or discussion about which area (or areas) would benefit most from immediate help during the initial transition to parental incarceration. The model also recognizes that parental incarceration does not occur in a vacuum, but rather a range of preincarceration variables have a role in how a family adapts to the incarceration. In addition to determining the applicability of the Double ABCX Model, this work confirms that while studies of parental incarceration often focus on children of parents in prison, p utting people in jail also impacts the family (Bales & Mears, 2008; Block & Potthast, 1998; Byrne, Goshin, & Joestl, 2010; Comfort, 2002; Comfort, 2003; Enos, 2001; Fishman, 1988; Glaze & Maruschak, 2008; Landreth & Lobaugh, 1998; LaVigne,

PAGE 189

189 Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005; Poehlmann, 2005; Poehlmann, Shlafer, & Maes, 2006; Roy & Dyson, 2005; Tewksbury & DeMichele, 2005; Trice & Brewster, 2004). According to caregivers interviews, families experienced similar strained relationships (Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008; R oy & Dyson, 2005), child behavior problems (Phillips et al., 2002; Wildeman, 2010), and financial difficulties (Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008). Further, they were expected to do so with less access to public assistance. This is an important avenue for future policy and collateral consequences research.

PAGE 190

190 Department of Sociology, Criminology & Law University of Florida We are interested in interviewing individuals taking ca re of a child (or children) whose parent is currently incarcerated at Alachua County Jail. Participants will be asked to share their experiences confidentially as part of a Masters thesis study at the University of Florida. Interview Study on the Effect of Incarceration on Families For more information, please contact: Kelsey Antle University of Florida Masters Degree student Phone: (847) 7156683 E mail Address: antle7@ufl.edu APPENDIX A FLYER

PAGE 191

191 APPENDIX B INSTRUMENT Screening Form Subject ID Number (enter study ID number): Date of Interview (mm/dd/yy): Gender Male Female.1 Are you biologically related to the inmates child/children that you are taking care of? Yes...1 No Did you live with the child before the incarceration? Yes (If yes, fo r how long?) No.0 Are any of the children under the age of 2? Yes (If yes, how many?) No.0 What is your relationship to the inmates child/children? Mother ..0 Father Grandmother Grandfather..3 Aunt..4 Uncle.5 Other family member...6 (Please Specify _____________________________ ______) Inmates partner Friend of the family..8 Other..9

PAGE 192

192 Incarceration and the Family Interview Coversheet Subject ID Number (enter study ID number): Date of Interview: (mm/dd/yy): Tim e Start: (enter time) Time Stop: (enter time) City of Residence: (circle one) Gainesville, FL....0 Other .....1 (Please specify _________________________________) Location of Interview: (circle one) Respondents Home Jail...... 1 Library Restaurant.......... .3 Open public space (e.g., park, outside seating area)..4 Other... 5 (Please specify __________________________________) Met hod of Recruitment: (circle one) Contacted by researcher at jail visitation area Professional gatekeeper (staff at jail) Word of mouth.2 Snowball sampling/referral from another subject Posted flyer....4 Refe rral from inmate...5 Other... 6 (Please specify_______________________________)

PAGE 193

193 Thank you for participating in my research project to better understand how incarceration affects families. Im going to begin by asking s everal open ended questions about your experience since your family members most recent arrest and incarceration. If its alright with you, Ill turn on a tape recorder. [If R consents to have his/her answers recorded, turn on recorder now.] Question Res ponse 1. In general, how do you think your family members incarceration has affected your family? [Code for financial, social, and emotional effects of incarceration, based on findings in Arditti et al., 2003] 2. What do you worry most about in general (e. g., money, health, family)? [Code for financial, social, and emotional effects of incarceration, based on themes found in Arditti et al., 2003] 3. What do you worry most about as a result of your family members incarceration? [Code for financial, social, and emotional effects of incarceration, based on themes found in Arditti et al., 2003] 4. Since your family member was incarcerated, how has the childs/childrens behavior been? If it has changed, how so? [Code for changes aggression and withdrawal at h ome, at school, and in the community, based on themes found in Arditti et al., 2003, and Dallaire & Wilson, 2010]

PAGE 194

194 Question Response 5. What about the parents incarceration do you think has affected the child the most? What part about the incarceration has affected you the most? [open coding] 6. Please explain how your family members incarceration has affected your family financially. [Code for changes in inmate financial contribution, caregiver employment issues, incarceration fees, visitation, and chil d care costs, based on themes found in Arditti et al., 2003 and T ewksbury & Demichele, 2005] 7. Please explain how your family members incarceration has affected you emotionally. [Code for depression, anxiety, anger, based on themes found in Braman, 2004] 8. What do you do to help yourself deal with the incarceration? [Code for withdrawal, seeking support, renewed interest in personal faith, and focusing on keeping busy, based on themes found in Braman, 2004]

PAGE 195

195 Question Response 9. How has your family members incarceration affected each of his/her children emotionally? Please explain for any of your family members children in your household. [Code for isolation, anger, disappointment, and sorry, based on themes found in Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008] 10. What does each child do to help himself/herself deal with the incarceration? Please answer for each of your family members children that are living in your household. [code for support from others, involvement in activities, withdrawal, based on themes found in Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008 and Hagen & Myers, 2003] 11. Do you think your family members incarceration has influenced the way their child/children is/are parented? How so? Please answer for each of your family members children that are living in your household. [code for child care arrangements, parenting styles, and sources of conflict, based on themes found in Arditti et al., 2003, and Modecki & Wilson, 2009]

PAGE 196

196 Question Response 12. Has the incarceration affected you or the childrens living arrangements? If yes, howso? [code for no moves, caregiver moving into childs home, child moving into caregivers home, caregiver and child moving into another home] 13. What has the child been told about where his or her incarcerated parent is? [ If more than one child] Please answer separately for each child. [code for not being told about the incarceration at all, being told some information about the incarceration, being told everything] 14. What is the hardest thing about visiting your incarcerat ed family member? [code for comfort of visiting area, security, friendliness of staff, reasonableness of rules, length of hours, vending selection, distance from home, scheduling with work, based on themes found in Tewksbury & DeMichele, 2005] 15. If you cou ld change one thing about the visitation program at this jail, what would it be? (Tewksbury & Demichele Instrument, 2005, #31) (My question, exploratory)

PAGE 197

197 Question Response 16. In general, what do you feel would help you deal with your family members inc arceration? 17. In general, what do you feel would help you deal with taking care of your incarcerated family members child/children? 18. How did you become the caregiver of your incarcerated family members child/children?

PAGE 198

198 Part of my project consists o f asking what services you think you might need to help deal with your family members incarceration. After each question, please tell me whether you think there is anything that particular agency could do to help your family deal with the incarceration. If the answer is Yes, please explain what you think would most help your family. Yes Please explain (ask of each one coded 1) No 19. Is there anything that social services could do to help your family deal with the incarceration? 1 0 20. Is there anythin g that schools could do to help your family deal with the incarceration? 1 0 21. Is there anything the jail could do to help? 1 0 22. Is there anything the police could do to help? 1 0 23. Is there anything someone else could do to help? 1 0

PAGE 199

199 Part 2. S tructured Interview Questions Now I would like to ask you more specific questions about yourself and your family to help me better understand your familys experience. 24. How old are you? (enter number, in years) ____________ (years old) Dont know 98 Refuse d 99 25. What is your gender? (circle one, do not read answer options) Male 0 Female 1 Other 2 DK 98 RF 99 26. Are you of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin? (circle one, do not read answer options) (2010 Census) No.. Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano.1 Yes, Puerto Rican..2 Yes, Cuban.....................3 Yes, another Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin...........4 Dont know98 Refused..99 27. What is your race? (circle one, do not read answer options) (2010 Census) White...... 0 Black or African American....1 American Indian or Alaska Native........2 Asian/Pacific Islander....3 Other race...4 a. _______________________ (enter other race) Dont know..98 Refused..99 28. What is the highest level of education you have obtained? (circle one, do not read answer options) (Arditti et al., 2003) 1 st 8 th grade..................0 Some high school...1 High school diploma or GED....2 Some college..3 Vocational degree..4 Associates degree.....5 b achelors degree..6 m asters

PAGE 200

200 degree..7 doctorate ...8 Dont know98 Refused99 29. Are you currently: (circle one, read answer options) Married 0 Never been married 4 Divorced 1 Dont know 98 Separated 2 Refused 99 Living with a partner 3 30. In total, how many children does your incarc erated family member have? (enter number, do not read answer options) (my own question to understand whether children of IPs are split up) ____________ __ (enter # of children) Dont know 98 Refused 99 31. How many of your family members children are curre ntly living in your household? (enter number, do not read answer options) (my own question to understand burden on caregivers) ____________ (enter # of children) Dont know 98 Refused 99 32. How many children in total live in your household? (enter number, do not read answer options) (my own question to understand burden on caregivers) ____________ (enter # of children) Dont know 98 Refused 99 33. Please list the gender and age of all the children currently living in your household: (enter gender and age in years for each child living in Rs household) (Arditti et al., 2003) Gender _________ _________ _________ Dont know 98 Age _________ _________ _________ Gender _________ _________ _________ Refused 99 Age _________ _________ _________

PAGE 201

201 34. Please list the gender and age of the incarcerated parents children currently living in your household: (enter gender and age in years for each child living in Rs HH) (Based on Arditti et al., 2003) Gender _________ _________ _________ Dont know 98 Age _________ _________ _________ Gender _________ _________ _________ Refused 99 Age _________ _________ _________ 35. What is your relationship to the incarcerated parents child? (circle one, do not read answer options) (Categories from Braman, 2004) (IF R IS TAKING CARE OF MORE THAN ONE CHILD, MOVE TO SUPPLEMENT A FOR EACH CHILD) Biological child....0 Adopted child...1 Stepchild... 2 Niece/nephew... 3 Sister/brother 4 Grandchil d Cousin... 6 Partners child... Other.. 8 (Please specify _________________________________) Dont know98 Refused9 36. What is your relationship to the incarcerated parent? (ci rcle one, do not read answer options) (The incarcerated parent is the respondents.) (Categories from Census 2010) Biological child...................0 Skip to Q. 38 Adopted child..1 Skip to Q. 38 Stepchild.. 2 Skip to Q. 38 Nie ce/nephew. .3 Skip to Q. 38 Grandchild... 4 Skip to Q. 38 Father or mother..5 Skip to Q. 38 Grandparent .6 Skip to Q. 38 Father in law or mother in law...7 Skip to Q. 38 Son in law or daughter in law Skip to Q. 3 8

PAGE 202

202 Other relative...........9 Skip to Q. 38 Husband/wife 0 Go to Q. 36 Current romantic partner...11 Go to Q. 36 Former romantic partner2 Go to Q. 36 Friend 3 Go to Q. 36 Other..1 4 (Please explain ____ ____________) Go to Q. 36 Dont know....98 Refused..9 9 Go to Q. 36 37. Do you share any children with your incarcerated family member? (i.e., you are both biological parents?) (circle one, do not read answer options) (Arditti Instrument II #1) Yes 1 (Go to Q.37) No 0 (Skip to Q.38) Dont know 98 Refuse d 99 38. How many children do you share with your incarcerated family member? (enter number, do not read answer options ) (my own question to understand how multiple partner fertility affects in carcerated families) ____________ (enter # of children) Dont know 98 Refused 99 39. Where do you currently live? (Read options & circle one) (Ferraro, 1995) Single family house... An apartment.....1 A duplex.2 A condominium.............3 A trailer house....4 A rooming house Other......

PAGE 203

203 6 (Specify ___________________________________) Dont know98 Refused..99 40. Did you ever share a residence w ith your incarcerated family member? (circle one, do not read answer options) (my own question) Yes 1 (Go to Q.40) No 0 (Skip to Q.41) DK 98 RF 99 41. In total, how long have you lived with this person? (enter number and circle) ___________ days/mos/yrs Dont know 98 Refused 99 42. Were you living with this person when he/she was arrested? (circle one, do not read answer options) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 43. Were any of your children born during your family members incarceration? (circle one, do not read options) (AI II, #3) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 44. Do you plan to live with your family member after he/she is released? (circle one, do not read options) (TDI 2005) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99

PAGE 204

204 Child Residence Questions (If more than one child: The first set of items is about your oldest child, then move on to SUPPLEMENT B for each additional child) 44. Before the incarceration, did your family member and his/her child ever live together? (circle one, do not read answer options) Yes 1 (Go to Q.45) No 0 (Skip to Q.46) DK 98 RF 99 45. In total, how long have your family member and his/her child lived together? (enter number and circle years or months, do not read answer options) __________ years/months Dont know 98 Refused 99 Refused 99 46. Was the child living with your family member when he/she was arrested? (circle one, do not read answer options) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 Refused 99 47. Before the incarceration, did your family members child ever live with you? (Modified from Arditti Instrument 2003 I #7) Yes 1 (Go to Q.48) No 0 (Skip to Q. 49) DK 98 Refused 99 48. In total, how long did you and your family members child live together? (enter number, circle weeks, months or years) ___________ (weeks/month s/years) Dont know 98 Refused 99 [IF MO RE THAN ONE TARGET CHILD, MOVE TO SUPPLEMENTS B FOR ADDITIONAL CHILDREN]

PAGE 205

205 Next, Im going to ask some questions about the behavior of your incarcerated family members child/children before and after the incarceration. In each situation, please tell me whe ther the childs behavior was excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor. [HAND RED CARD TO RESPONDENT] [If more than one, ask first set of questions about OLDEST CHILD and then move on to SUPPLEMENTS C and D for each additional child] Excellen t Very goo d Good Fair Poo r DK RF 49. How was the childs behavior at home before the parent was incarcerated? (circle one, do not read options) (Murray & Farrington, 2005) 4 3 2 1 0 98 99 50. How is the childs behavior at home now?(circle one, do not read options) (Murray & Farrington, 2005) 4 3 2 1 0 98 99 51. How was the childs behavior at school before the parent was incarcerated? (circle one, do not read options) (Hanlon et al., 2005) 4 3 2 1 0 98 99 52. How is the childs behavior at school now? (circle one, do not read opt ions) (Handlon et al., 2005) 4 3 2 1 0 98 99 53. How was the childs academic performance (by which I mean grades and standardized test scores) before the parent was incarcerated? (circle one, do not read options) (Poehlmann, 2005) 4 3 2 1 0 98 99 54. How is the childs academic performance now? (circle one, do not read options) (Poehlmann, 2005) 4 3 2 1 0 98 99 [TAKE RED CARD FROM RESPONDENT] Yes No DK RF 55. Had the child ever been suspended before the parent was incarcerated? (circle one, do not read options) (based on findings from Aaron & Dallaire, 2010) 1 0 98 99 56. Has the child been suspended since the parent was incarcerated? (circle one, do not read options) (based on findings from Aaron & Dallaire, 2010) 1 0 98 99 57. Had the child ever been arrested before the parent was incarcerated? (circle one, do not read options) (based on Aaron & Dallaire, 2010) 1 0 98 99 58. Has the child been arrested since the parent was 1 0 98 99

PAGE 206

206 incarcerated? (circle one, do not read options) (Aaron & Dallaire, 2010) [IF MORE THAN ONE TARGET CHILD, MOVE TO SUPPLEMENTS C AND D FOR ADDITIONAL CHILDREN]

PAGE 207

207 The next section is about behavioral problems your family members children may have experienced. For each item that describes the child since his or her parent was incarce rated, please say is very true of the child, somewhat or sometimes true of the child, or not true of the child, as far as you know. Please answer all items as well as you can even if some do not seem to apply to the child. [INTERVIEWER: HAND GREEN CARD TO RESPONDENT]

PAGE 208

208 f more than one child: The first set of items is about your oldest child, then move on to SUPPLEMENT E for each additional child) Child Behavior Checklist Not true (as far as you know) True every once in a while Somewhat or sometimes tru e Mostly true Very true DK RF Delinquent Subscale 59. Doesnt seem to feel guilty after misbehaving 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 60. Hangs around with others who get in trouble 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 61. Lies or cheats 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 62. Prefers being with older kids 0 1 2 3 4 9 8 99 63. Runs away from home 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 64. Sets fires 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 65. Steals at home 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 66. Steals outside the home 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 67. Swears or uses obscene language 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 68. Thinks about sex too much 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 69. Is truant, skips sch ool 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 70. Uses alcohol or drugs for nonmedical purposes Describe: __________________ 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 71. Vandalizes 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 72. Argues a lot 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 73. Brags, boasts 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 74. Displays cruelty, bullying or meanness to others 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 75. Demands a lot of attention 0 1 2 3 4 98 99

PAGE 209

209 76. Destroys his/her own things 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 Aggressive Subscale Not true True every once in a while Somewhat or sometimes true Mostly true Very true DK RF 77. Destroys things belonging to his/her famil y or others 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 78. Is disobedient at home 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 79. Is disobedient at school 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 80. Is easily jealous 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 81. Gets in many fights 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 82. Physically attacks people 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 83. Screams a lot 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 84. Shows off or clowns 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 85. Is stubborn, sullen or irritable 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 86. Has sudden changes in mood or feelings 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 87. Talks too much 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 88. Teases a lot 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 89. Has temper tantrums or hot temper 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 90. Threatens people 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 91. Is unusually loud 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 [IF MORE THAN ONE TARGET CHILD, MOVE TO SUPPLEMENT E FOR ADDITIONAL CHILDREN] [TAKE GREEN CARD FROM RESPONDENT ]

PAGE 210

210 Now Im going to ask some questions about your childs social relationshi ps. [If more than one target child, start with the oldest and then move to SUPPLEMENT F] CHILD SOCIAL 92. Would you say the child is most stressed by news of the parents incarceration being brought up(circle one, read answer options) (categories from Bram an 2004) With friends......0 With teachers....1 With extended family...2 Or, somewhere else?. Specify (___________________________) Not stressed at all..4 Dont know .98 Refused..99 93. Would you say that since the parents incarceration, your family members child (circle one, read answer options) (Braman 2004) Has grown much farther apart from their friends.0 Has grown a little farther apart from their friends ............1 Has stayed the same..2 Has grown a little closer to their friends...3 Or has grown much closer to their friends Dont know.98 Refused..99 94. Since the parents incarceration, would you say the number of people your family members child considers to be close friends has gotten (circle one, read answer options) (Braman 2004) Smaller.. 0 Stayed the same........1 Or gotten larger?......2 Dont know.98 R efused..99 [If more than one child, move on to SUPPLEMENT F for each child] Now I have a few questions about your familys health. [If more than one target child, start with the oldest and then move to SUPPLEMENT G] HEALTH 95. Since your family member has been incarcerated, would you say their child Has been much less healthy ..... Has been somewhat less healthy...

PAGE 211

211 (circle one, read all answer options) (modified from Arditti Instrument, 2003) Has had about the same health.. 2 Has been somewhat healthier...3 Or has been much healthier than before the incarceration4 Dont know.98 Refused..99 96. If there has been any difference in your childs health, can you tell me what changed? (record respondents answers) (extended from Arditti Instrument, 2003) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 Refused 97. Is this child currently covered by health insurance? (circle one, do not read answer options) (Foster & Hagan, 2007) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 Refused 99 [If more than one target child, move to SUPPLEME NT F] 98. Since your family member has been incarcerated, would you say that you (circle one, read all answer options) (modified from Arditti Instrument, 2003) Have been much less healthy .. Have been somewhat less healthy Have had about the same health..2 Have been somewhat healthier....3 Or have been much healthier than before the incarceration. 4 Dont know.98 Refused..99 99. If there has been any difference in your health, can you tell me what changed? (record respondents answers) (extended from Arditti Instrument, 2003) ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ _________________________ Dont know.98 Refused.99 100. Are you currently covered by health insurance? Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 Refused 99 The next questions are about your familys financial wellbeing before and since the incarceration.

PAGE 212

212 FINANCIAL 101. Do you currently work? (circle one, do not read options) (AI 2003 IV, #1) Yes 1 (Go to Q.102) No 0 (Skip to Q.103) DK 98 Refused 99 102. Approximately how many hours do you work per week? (enter number) (own question) __________ (hours per week) Dont know 98 Refused 99

PAGE 213

213 103. Approximately what was your household income before your family member was incarcerated? (circle one, do not read options) (Categories from the American Community Survey (20052009) Under $10,000...0 $10, 000 to $14,999....1 $15,000 to $19,999....2 $20,000 to $24,999....3 $25,000 to $29,999....4 $30,0000 to $34,999..5 $35,0000 to $39,999.. $40,000 to $44,999....7 $45,000 to $49,999....8 $50,000 to $59,999....9 $60,000 to $74,999......0 $75,000 to $84,999......11 $85,000 to $99,999..2 $100,000 to $149,999..13 $150,000 to $199,999. .....14 $200,000 to $249,999..15 $250,000 and above.....16 Dont know98 Refused.99 104. What would you consider your yearly household income to be since your family member has been incarcerated? (circle one, do not read options) (Categories from the American Community Survey (20052009) Under $10,000.......0 $10,000 to $14,999....1 $15,000 to $19,999....2 $20,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $29,999 $30, 0000 to $34,999..

PAGE 214

214 $35,0000 to $39,999..6 $40,000 to $44,999 $45,000 to $49,999....8 $50,000 to $59,999....9 $60,000 to $74,999..0 $75,000 to $84,999..1 $ 85,000 to $99,999..2 $100,000 to $149,999..13 $150,000 to $199,999..4 $200,000 to $249,999..15 $250,000 and above.....16 Dont know98 Refused.99 105. Did you receive any form of public assis tance before your family member was incarcerated? (circle one) (AI 2003, #3) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 106. Are you currently on public assistance? (circle one) (AI 2003, #3) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 107. Did you receive any aid from Housin g and Urban Development before the incarceration? (circle one) (extended from AI 2003) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 108. Do you receive any aid from Housing and Urban Development? (circle one) (extended from AI 2003) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 109. Did you receive any aid from the Florida WIC program offering good nutrition for women, infants and children before the incarceration? (circle Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99

PAGE 215

215 one) (extended from AI 2003) 110. Do you receive any aid from the Florida WIC pr ogram offering good nutrition for women, infants and children now? (circle one) (extended from AI 2003) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 111. Did you receive any food stamps before the incarceration? (circle one) (extended from AI 2003) Yes 1 No 0 Dont kno w 98 Refused 99 112. Do you receive any food stamps now? (circle one) (extended from AI 2003) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 113. Did you receive any Temporary Cash Assistance before the incarceration? (circle one) (extended from AI 2003) Yes 1 No 0 Dont kn ow 98 Refused 99 114. Do you receive any Temporary Cash Assistance now? (circle one) (extended from AI 2003) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 115. Did you receive any assistance from Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) before the incarceration? (circle one) (extended from AI 2003) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 116. Do you receive any assistance from Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) now? (circle one) (extended from AI 2003) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 117. Did you receive any assistance from Medi caid before the incarceration? (circle one) (extended from AI 2003) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 118. Do you receive any assistance from Medicaid now? (circle one) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99

PAGE 216

216 (extended from AI 2003) 119. Did you receive any other ty pes of financial help before your family member was incarcerated (from religious organizations, church, private charities, neighbors, friends, relatives, or another private agency)? (circle one) (Based on AI 2003, IV, #4a, changed wording) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 120. Do you receive any other types of financial help now? (circle one) (AI 2003, IV, #4) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 121. Prior to your family member coming to jail, were you receiving any money from your family member? (circle one) ( AI 2003, IV, #5) Yes 1 (Go to Q.122) No 0 (Skip to Q.123) Dont know 98 Refuse d 99 122. How much money did your family member contribute to your household per month? (enter number) (AI 2003 IV, #5) $___________ (dollars per month) Dont know 98 Refused 99 123. Do you receive any money from your family member now? (circle one) (extension of AI 2003 IV, #5) Yes 1 (Go to Q.124) No 0 (Skip to Q.125) Dont know 98 Refuse d 99 124. How much money does your family member currently contribute to your household per month? (enter number) (extension of AI 2003 IV, #5) $___________ (dollars per month) Dont know 98 Refused 99 125. Prior to his/her incarceration, did your family member work? (circle one) (Concept from Smeeding et al., 2011 on underemployment) Yes 1 (Go to Q.126) No 0 (Skip to Q.127) Dont know 98 Refused 99 126. Before he/she was Dont know Refused

PAGE 217

217 incarcerated, how many hours per week did your family member work? (enter number) (Concept from Smeeding et al., 2011 on unemployment) ___________ (hours per week) 98 99 127. D oes your family member work while in jail? (i.e.. in a work study program)? (circle one) (Concept from Smeeding et al., 2011 and AI, 2003, #10 about job programs in prison) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 128. Does your family member know where he/she will work when he/she is released from jail? (circle one) (own question) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 129. Since the incarceration, would you say that financially you are (circle one, read answer options) (AI 2003 IV, #11) (interviewer: READ response opt ions) Much better0 Somewhat better About the same......2 Somewhat worse Much worse.......4 Dont know98 Refused..99 130. Please indicate how financially strained you felt befo re your family members incarceration? (circle one, read answer options) (AI 2003 IV, #17) Not at all financially strained.....0 A little strained...1 Somewhat strained.....2 Very strained.. Extrem ely financially strained...4 Dont know98 Refused99 131. How much financial strain do you feel now? (circle one, read answer options) (AI 2003 IV, #18) Not at all financially strained.....0 A little strained.......1

PAGE 218

218 Some what strained.....2 Very strained.. Extremely financially strained...4 Dont know98 Refused99 132. Do you send your family member any money while he or she is in jail? (circle one) (AI 2003 IV, #7) Yes 1 (Go to Q. 133) No 0 (Skip to Q.134) DK 98 RF 99 133. Approximately how much money do you send to your family member in a typical month? (enter number) (AI 2003, IV, #8) $___________ (dollars per month) Dont know 98 Refused 99 134. How much additional money per month would you say that you spend on your family member now that he/she is incarcerated (i.e., court costs, lawyers fees, etc.)? (enter number of dollar spent per month) (extension of AI 2003 IV, #8) $___________ (dollars per month) Dont know 98 Refused 99

PAGE 219

219 T he next few questions are about how your family members most recent incarceration has affected you. [HAND PURPLE CARD TO RESPONDENT] Not at all A little bit A medium amount A lot DK RF 135. How much have you been stressed by the financial aspects of your fa mily members incarceration? (circle one, read answer options) (based on themes found in Arditti et al, 2003) 0 1 2 3 98 99 136. How much have you been stressed by the emotional aspects of your family members incarceration? (circle one, read answer options) (Arditti et al., 2003) 0 1 2 3 98 99 137. How much have you been stressed by social stigma associated with your family members incarceration? (circle one, read answer options) (Arditti et al., 2003) 0 1 2 3 98 99 138. How much have you been stressed by additional child care responsibilities associated with your family members incarceration? (circle one, read answer options) (Arditti et al., 2003) 0 1 2 3 98 99 [TAKE PURPLE CARD FROM RESPONDENT]

PAGE 220

220 The next questions are about your relationship with your incarcera ted family member. Then I will ask a set of questions about your relationship with the incarcerated family members child or children that you are taking care of. [HAND YELLOW CARD TO RESPONDENT] These statements are about how one member of a family mig ht feel toward another member. Think about each item and decide if you mostly feel the same way as the item toward your incarcerated family member, then tell me whether you agree or disagree. If you do not feel one way or another toward this person, or i f you feel both ways to an equal degree, say that you are neutral. There are no right or wrong answers. Try to answer in terms of how you are feeling toward this person right now. It is usually best to give your first impression rather than thinking about each item a great deal before answering. Please give a response for every item using Yellow Card. [Interviewer: circle one, do not read answer options] Inventory of Family Feelings (Lowman, 1980) Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agre e DK RF 139. I feel close to this family member. 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 140. I admire a lot of the things about this person. 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 141. I feel a lot of love for this family member. 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 142. I feel this family member likes me very much 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 143. I like a lot of the things this family member does 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 144. This family member doesnt pay a lot of attention to me (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 145. I feel a lot of affection for this family member 0 1 2 3 4 98 99

PAGE 221

221 Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Str ongly disagree DK RF 146. I dont enjoy being with this family member (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 147. I feel wanted by this family member 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 148. I am not very thankful to have this person in my family (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 149. This family member is usually genero us to me 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 150. This person has a hard time showing love for me (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 151. This family member makes me feel very secure 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 152. This person rarely encourages me (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 153. I feel like this family member sometimes uses me to get what he/she wants (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 154. I usually feel kindly toward this family member 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 155. I could get along alright without this family member (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 156. I dont feel very loyal towards this person 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 157. I feel this person doesnt appreciate things I do for him /her (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 158. I value this person highly 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 159. This family member doesnt show a lot of consideration toward me (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 160. I feel this person has a lot of love f or me 0 1 2 3 4 98 99

PAGE 222

222 Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree DK RF 161. I dont enjoy talking with this person (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 162. I dont enjoy listening when this family member is talking (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 163. I miss this person a lot w hen I dont see him or her as much as usual 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 164. I usually feel very generous toward this person 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 165. This person doesnt have many qualities I would like to have (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 166. This person is not usually kind to me 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 167. I dont have a great deal of respect for this person 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 168. I seldom feel very friendly toward this family member (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 169. I feel this person often acts in a selfish way towards me (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 170. I dont feel this pe rson is willing to help me in any way he (/she) can 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 171. I am seldom proud of this person (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 172. I often feel very cold toward this family member (R) 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 173. This person doesnt do a lot to make me happy (R) 0 1 2 3 4 9 8 99 174. I am very fond of this person 0 1 2 3 4 98 99

PAGE 223

223 There is a shorter set of questions that I wanted to ask about your relationship with your incarcerated family members child or children. Again, these statements are about how one member of a famil y might feel toward another member. Think about each item and decide if you mostly feel the same way as the item toward the child, then tell me whether you agree or disagree. If you do not feel one way or another toward this person, or if you feel both w ays to an equal degree, say that you are neutral. There are no right or wrong answers. Try to answer in terms of how you are feeling toward this person right now. It is usually best to give your first impression rather than thinking about each item a gre at deal before answering. Please give a response for every item using Yellow Card. [Interviewer: If there are multiple children, say, The first set of questions will be about the oldest child of your incarcerated family member that you are currently taking care of, then move on to SUPPLEMENT H for each additional child] Strongly disagree Disagre e Neutral Agree Strongly agree DK RF 175. I feel close to this family member. 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 176. I feel a lot of love for this family member. 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 177. I fe el this family member likes me very much 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 178. I like a lot of the things this family member does 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 179. I dont enjoy being with this family member 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 180. I am not very thankful to have this person in my family 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 181. This person has a hard time showing love for me 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 182. I feel like this family member sometimes uses me to get what he/she wants 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 183. I usually feel kindly toward this family member 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 184. I dont feel very loyal towards this person 0 1 2 3 4 98 99

PAGE 224

224 Strongly disagree Disagre e Neutral Agree Strongly agree DK RF 185. I feel this person doesnt appreciate the things I do for him/her 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 186. I feel this person has a lot of love for me 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 187. I miss t his person a lot when I dont see him or her as much as usual 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 188. I usually feel very generous toward this person 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 189. This person is not usually kind to me 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 190. I seldom feel very friendly toward this family member 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 191. I feel this person often acts in a selfish way towards me 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 192. I am seldom proud of this person 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 193. I often feel very cold toward this family member 0 1 2 3 4 98 99 194. I am very fond of this person 0 1 2 3 4 98 9 9 [MOVE TO SUPPLEMENT H FOR EACH CHILD] [TAKE YELLOW CARD FROM RESPONDENT]

PAGE 225

225 [HAND ORANGE CARD TO RESPONDENT] Now, Im going to ask you some questions about your views on parenting. I will list several situations that families sometimes have to deal with After each scenario, please tell me whether you would take away a privilege, ground the child, assign an additional chore, send them to their room, reason with the child, yell at the child, physically punish the child (by hitting or spanking them), or i gnore the child. You can choose any combination of response options. [Interviewer: If there are multiple children, say, The first set of questions will be about the oldest child of your incarcerated family member that you are currently taking care of, Then proceed to SUPPLEMENT I for each child] [circle all that apply] Parental Dimensions Inventory Take away a privilege Ground the child Assign an additional chore Send to room Reason with child Yell at child Physically punish (e.g., hit or spank) Ignore the child 195. After arguing over toys, your child strikes a playmate. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 196. Your child has gone outside without picking up his or her toys as you requested. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 197. Your child becomes sassy while you discipline him or her. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 198. You see your child playing at a busy street which you have forbidden 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

PAGE 226

226 him or her to go near for safety reasons. Take away a privilege Ground the child Assign an additional chore Sen d to room Reason with child Yell at child Physically punish (e.g., hit or spank) Ignore the child 199. You receive a note from your childs teacher that your child has been disruptive at school. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 200. You catch your child lying a bout something he or she has done that you would not approve of. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 [MOVE TO SUPPLEMENT I FOR ANY ADDITIONAL CHILDREN] [TAKE ORANGE CARD FROM RESPONDENT ALL SUPPLEMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED]

PAGE 227

227 Child Care Questions 201. Did you use any form of child care prior to your family members incarceration? (circle one) (AI 2003, III, #4) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 202. Do you currently use child care for any of your children? (circle one) (AI 2003, III, #5) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 203. In a typical week before your family members incarceration, did you spend much less time, a little less time, the same amount of time, a little more time, or much more time with your incarcerated family members child/children? (circle one, do not re ad answer options) (AI 2003, III, #1) [If there are additional children, continue to SUPPLEMENT J for each child] Much less time.0 A little less time...1 The same amount of time.2 A little more time.3 Or much more time.. Dont know98 Refused.99 The next set of questions is about how often you use different kinds of child care arrangements. Please tell me how often you used each type of child care before the incarceration, and how often you use each type now. For each type of child care I will ask how many days in a typical week you use that service, and then on average how much time the child/children spent with that child care provider when it was used. (HAND BLUE CARD TO RESPONDENT) Before incarceration After incarceration Yes Times per week Average time spent No DK RF Yes Times per week Average time spent No DK RF 204. Relative 1 (per week) (minutes/ hours) 0 98 99 1 (per week) (minutes / hours) 0 98 99 205. Friend 1 ________ (per week) (minutes/ hours) 0 98 99 1 (per week) (minutes / hours) 0 98 99 Before incarceration After incarceration

PAGE 228

228 Yes Times per week Average time spent No DK RF Yes Times per week Average time spent No DK RF 206. In home provider (someone elses home) 1 ________ (per week) (minutes/ hours) 0 98 99 1 (per week) (minutes / hours) 0 98 99 207. Headstart 1 ________ (per week) (minutes/ hours) 0 98 99 1 (per week) (minutes / hours) 0 98 99 208. Day care agency 1 ________ (per week) (minutes/ hours) 0 9 8 99 1 (per week) (minutes / hours) 0 98 99 209. Babysitter (your home) 1 ________ (per week) (minutes/ hours) 0 98 99 1 (per week) (minutes / hours) 0 98 99 210. Other 1 ________ (per week) (minutes/ hours) 0 98 99 1 (per week) (minutes / hours) 0 98 99 (TAKE BLUE CARD FROM RESPONDENT) The following questions are about how often you and your family communicate with your incarcerated family member. Please tell me whether each type of contact happens more than once per week, once per week, 2 or 3 tim es per month, once per month, less than once per month, or never. [GIVE GRAY CARD TO RESPONDENT] More than once per Once per week 2 or 3 times per Once per month Less than once per Neve r DK RF

PAGE 229

229 week month month 211. How often since the incarceration do you rec eive mail from your family member? (circle one, do not read options) (Tewksbury & Demichele Instrument, 2005, #16, adding More than 2 or 3 times per month as a response choice) 5 4 3 2 1 0 98 99 212. How often since the incarceration do you send mail to your family member? (circle one, do not read options) (TDI 2005, #17) 5 4 3 2 1 0 98 99 213. How often since the incarceration do you talk on the phone to your family member? (circle one, do not read options) (TDI 2005, #18) 5 4 3 2 1 0 98 99 214. How often since the incarceration does your family members child receive mail from his/her parent? (circle one, do not read options) (My own question, based on TDI) [Interviewer: If there are multiple children, add, Starting with the oldest child, then proceed to SUPPLEMENT I for each child] 5 4 3 2 1 0 98 99 215. How often since the incarceration does your family members child send mail to his/her parent? (circle one, do not read options) (My own question, based on TDI) [Interviewer: If there are multiple children, add, Starting with the oldest child, then proceed to SUPPLEMENT I for each child] 5 4 3 2 1 0 98 99 216. How often does your family members child talk on the phone to his/her parent? (circle one, do not read options) (My ow n question, based on TDI) 5 4 3 2 1 0 98 99

PAGE 230

230 [Interviewer: If there are multiple children, add, Starting with the oldest child, then proceed to SUPPLEMENT I for each child]

PAGE 231

231 [TAKE GRAY CARD FROM RESPONDENT]Visitation The next questions are about visitation to your family during this most recent incarceration. 217. How many times have you visited your family member in jail during this current incarceration? (enter number) (TDI #27, changed from categorical response) (total visits) Dont know 98 Refuse d 99 218. How often do you usually visit your family member in jail without bringing one of your family members children during this current incarceration?? (enter number, circle week/month) (my own question, extended from TDI #27) (per week/month) Dont k now Refused 219. How many times has the family members child visited him/her in jail during this current incarceration? (enter number, do not read response options) (modified from TDI 2005 #27) [Interviewer: If multiple children, ask about oldest child first and then move on to SUPPLEMENT J for additional children] (total visits) Dont know 98 Refused 99 220. How often does your family members child usually visit him/her during this most recent incarceration? (enter number, circle week/month) (my own question, extended from TDI #27) [Interviewer: If multiple children, ask about oldest child first and then move on to SUPPLEMENT J for additional children] (per week/month) Dont know 98 Refused 99 221. How long does it usually take you to travel to the jail? (enter number in terms of minutes) (Based on TDI 2005 #7) (minutes) Dont know 98 Refused 99 222. Approximately how far from the jail do you live? (enter number, in miles) (Based on TDI #8) (miles) Dont know 98 Refused 99

PAGE 232

232 223. Does a jail visit usually require yo u to spend the night away from home? (circle one) (Based on TDI #14) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 The final section of the interview is about your incarcerated family member. All of the information you share with me will be kept completely confidential, and will never be used to identify yourself or your family member. 224. How old is your incarcerated family member? (enter number, in years old) ______________ (years old) Dont know 98 Refused 99 225. What gender is your incarcerated family member? (circ le one) Male 0 Female 1 Other 2 DK 98 RF 99 226. Is this person of Hispanic or Latino origin? (circle one, do not read response options unless prompted) (Census 2010) No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin...0 Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano..1 Yes, Puerto Rican...2 Yes, Cuban..3 Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin...4 (list type of origin _____________________________) Dont know.98 Refused.99 227. What is this persons race? (circle one) (Census 2010) White... 0 Black or African American.....1 American Indian or Alaska Native.................2 Asian/Pacific Islander.............3 Other race4 a. _______________________ (enter other race) Dont know..98 Refused..99

PAGE 233

233 228. What is the highest year of school your family member has completed? (circle one, do not read response options) (AI 2003 VI, #4) 1 st 8 th grade.0 Some high school High school diploma or GED. Some college... Vocational degree...4 Associates degree..................5 Bachelors degree...............6 Masters degree...7 Other... 8 (_____________________________________) (list other education) Dont know.98 Refused.99 229. How long has your family member been incarcerated at this jail? (enter number, circle days, weeks or months) (AI 2003, VI, #5) _________________ (days /weeks/months) DK 98 RF 99 230. Was your family member eligible to post bond? (circle one) (AI 2003 VI, #6) Yes 1 (Skip to Q.232) No 0 (Go to Q.231) DK 98 RF 99 231. Is your family member being held because he/she could not afford to post bond? (circle one) (AI 2003 VI, #6a) Yes 1 No 0 DK 98 RF 99

PAGE 234

234 Offense type What type of offense is your family member currently being held at the jail for? (circle one, do not read answer options) (AI 2003 (VI, #7) Yes No 232. Possession or use of drug paraphernalia 1 0 233. Poss ession or use of narcotic equipment 1 0 234. Possession of marijuana not more than 20 grams 1 0 235. Alcohol possession by person under 21 years of age 1 0 236. Driving under the influence of alcohol 1 0 237. Driving while license suspended or revoked 1 0 238. No valid drivers license 1 0 239. Criminal mischief over 200 dollars under 1000 dollars 1 0 240. Larceny: petit first degree property 100 to under 300 dollars 1 0 241. Retail theft 1 0 242. Worthless check 1 0 243. Trespassing 1 0 244. Resisting or obstructing officer 1 0 245. Batter y: touch or strike 1 0 246. Domestic battery: touch or strike 1 0 247. Probation violation 248. Other (specify __________________) 1 0 249. Other (specify ___________________) 1 0 250. Other (specify ___________________) 1 0

PAGE 235

235 251. Is your family members current charg e for a felony offense? (circle one, do not read answer options) (extension of AI 2003 VI, #9) Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 252. Has your family member ever been arrested before this most recent incarceration? Yes 1 (Go to Q. 253) No 0 Skip to Q. 254) D ont know 98 Refused 99 253. How many times has your family member been arrested before this most recent incarceration? (enter number of previous arrests) (number of arrests) Dont know 98 Refused 99 254. Has your family member ever been convicted of any pri or offenses? Yes 1 (Go to Q. 255) No 0 (Skip to Q. 256) Dont know 98 Refused 99 255. How many times has your family member been convicted before this most recent incarceration? (enter number of previous convictions) (number of convictions) Dont know 98 Ref used 99 256. Has your family member been convicted of any prior felonies? (circle one, do not read answer options) (AI 2003, VI, #9) Yes 1 (Go to Q. 257) No 0 (Skip to Q. 258) Dont know 98 Refused 99 257. How many times has your family member been convicted of pr ior felonies before this most recent incarceration? (enter number of prior felony convictions) (number of prior felony convictions) Dont know 98 Refused 99 258. Had your family member been incarcerated at a jail or prison before this most recent incarcer ation? Yes 1 No 0 Dont know 98 Refused 99 259. Was your family member incarcerated at jail, prison, or both? Jail 0 Prison 1 Both 2 DK 98 RF 99 260. How many times has your DK RF

PAGE 236

236 family member been incarcerated in his or her life, before his/her current incarceration? (times incarcerate d) 98 99 261. Does your family member have a private attorney or a public defender? (circle one, do not read answer options) (AI 2003, VI, #13) Private attorney (Go to Q. 262) Public defende r (Go to Q. 262) No a ttorney (Skip to Q. 263) Dont know 98 Refused 262. How satisfied are you with the job your family members lawyer is doing? (circle one, read answer options) (AI 2003, VI, #15) Very satisfied..4 Somewhat satisfied.3 Neither sati sfied nor dissatisfied.2 Somewhat dissatisfied. Very dissatisfied.0 Dont know98 Refused..99 I would like to ask you some questions concerning at what point your family members case is in the criminal justice pro cess and why he/she is being held at the county jail. Ill go down a list, and please let me know which classifications apply to your family member. (circle one, do not read answer options) (List and prompt from AI 2003, VI, #10) Yes Specify No DK RF 263. He/she was recently arrested 1 0 98 99 264. He/she is waiting to be formally charged 1 0 98 99 265. He/she is in the process of plea bargaining 1 0 98 99 266. He/she is waiting to be tried in front of a jury 1 0 98 99 267. He/she is waiting to be sentenced 1 0 98 99 268. He/she was sentenced and is waiting to be transferred to another facility [enter number, select years or months] 1 (length of sentence, months/year s) 0 98 99 269. He/she was sentenced to serve time at the jail [enter number, select years or months] 1 (lengt h of sentence, 0 98 99

PAGE 237

237 months/year s) 270. He/she is here for grand jury or to provide testimony in his/her own case 1 0 98 99 271. He/she is here for grand jury or to provide testimony in someone elses case 1 0 98 99

PAGE 238

238 Were going to finish the interview by asking you about various kinds of assistance you feel your family might need. Please indicate whether you need each type of assistance by answering yes or no. Yes Specify (ask of each one coded 1) No DK RF 272. Medical assistance 1 0 98 99 273. Individual couns eling 1 0 98 99 274. Family counseling 1 0 98 99 275. Housing assistance 1 0 98 99 276. Educational assistance 1 0 98 99 277. Child care assistance 1 0 98 99 278. Transportation assistance 1 0 98 99 Interviewer: Thank you for your time. I really appreciate you talki ng with me. Is there anything else you would like to share with me? If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me now or to contact me later. Final comments from Respondent: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ __________

PAGE 239

239 [INTERVIEWER: COMPLETE THI S SECTION AFTER THE INTERVIEW HAS ENDED] 1. How would you rate the answers given to you? Very reliable....1 Reliable...2 Marginally reliable..3 Unreliable Very unreliable 2. Overall, how attentive was the respondent during the interview? Attentive..1 Somewhat inattentive or uninvolved...2 Easily distracted, needed urging to pay attention, or often required repetition of questions.3 3. Did respondent get less attentive as the interview proceeded? Not at all 1 A little less. 2 A lot less. 4. Do you think the respondent understood the questions? All of them.1 Most of them..2 About half of them.3 Some of them.4 None of them..5 5. Desc ribe the interview setting in terms of level of privacy, distractions, comfort, etc. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

PAGE 240

240 Follow Up Information This interview was a part of Kelsey Antles Masters Thesis at the University of Florida. If you would like a copy of the final thesis, please fill out your contact information below and a copy will be mailed to you. (Name) (Address) (House or Apt. No.) (City) (State) (Zip code) (Phone number) (Email address)

PAGE 241

241 APPENDIX C CONSENT FORM Title : The Effect of I ncarceration on Families of Incarcerated Parents Purpose of the research study: I am Kelsey Antle, and I am currently a student in the University of Floridas Criminology, Law and Society Graduate Program. I am working on a project that will examine ways that families are affected by incarceration. Specifically, Im interested in hearing from households that are currently taking care of one or more children of a person incarcerated at the local jail. I will be interviewing approximately 40 adults taking care of children of incarcerated parents. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to answer a series of questions about your experiences since your family member was incarcerated. Questions will cover a range of subjects including yo ur familys financial and health characteristics, in addition to how you and your incarcerated family members child have been emotionally affected by the incarceration. At the end, some questions will be asked about the offense that your family member is currently incarcerated for, and at what stage the case is in the justice system. For many of the questions, the researcher will present you with a card with the answer options and you will be asked to pick which option best fits your answer. The researc her will then record the option you selected on the survey. You will be asked whether you are willing to have your responses tape recorded. Unless you object, the researcher will turn on the taperecorder at the beginning of the interview and turn off th e taperecorder when the interview has finished. Please note that during the interview the researcher will not place your name on the survey or anything that could be used to figure out who you are. You are asked to please not say your name/nickname or talk about specific things that could be used to identify you or anyone else while you are being taperecorded. If you do say anything that can be used to identify you, it will be left out during transcription. Please remember that there are no right ans wers. The researchers are interested in understanding your experience of having an incarcerated family member. If you agree to let us interview you, please sign this consent form and return it to the researcher. Time required: It should take between 45 m inutes to an hour but could be longer depending on the length of your answers. Benefits: The University of Florida does not intend to pay participants for taking part in this research study. However, your feedback will help the researchers understand how incarceration affects families and could be used to inform policy makers when they are considering how to serve families of incarcerated parents. Risks and confidentiality: Taking part in this study will create very little risk to you. Your responses will be kept private to the extent provided by law. The researchers in this study are not associated with the jail or social services. No one other than those working on this study will know your responses. We will not put your name or other identifiers on any of the responses you give. Rather, the survey will have a subject number attached to it. We will keep a

PAGE 242

242 list of names and subject numbers separate to make sure that if someone reads your survey answers, he or she will not be able to determine that they are yours. The list will be kept so the researchers can contact participants if their answers need to be clarified, or if they are willing to be contacted for possible follow up interviews. The list will be kept in a locked filing drawer to which only the researcher has access. Your recorded answers will be transcribed using only the subject number, and any identifying information recorded (i.e., names) will be left out of the transcription. The tapes will be transcribed word for word as soon as poss ible; the tapes will then be destroyed/erased afterward so your voice cannot be recognized later. Your name will not be used in any report. Instead, we will only report answers for the group as a whole (for example, how many individuals answered in each response category). Voluntary participation: You do not have to answer the questions or be recorded. Your participation is completely voluntary. Nothing will happen if you do not want to join the study; it will not affect you or your incarcerated family member in any way. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to leave the study and stop the interview at any time. You can answer some questions and not answer other questions. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Kelsey Antl e, Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, 3323 Turlington Hall, P.O. Box 117330, Gainesville, FL, 326117330, Cell phone(847) 7156683, fax (352) 3926568 Jodi Lane, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, 3332 Turlington Hall, P.O. Box 117330, Gainesville, FL 32611 7330, telephone (352) 3920265 x212, fax (352) 3926568 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in this study: If you have concerns, complaints, suggestions, or questions about being involved in this research, you may contact the IRB coordinator: telephone (352) 3920433; address UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 326112250 Agreement: I have read this consent form. I voluntarily AGREE to answ er the questions for this study and I have received a copy of this form. ____________________________________________ ___________________ Sign your name above if you agree to participate Date ____________________________________________ Print your name above __________________________________________ _____________ Principle investigator Date

PAGE 243

243 LIST OF REFERENCES Aaron, L., & Dallaire, D. H. (2010). Parental incarceration and multiple risk experiences: Effects o n family dynamics and childrens delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 39(12), 14711484. doi:10.1007/s109640099458 0 Alachua County Sheriffs Office Public Information Bureau. (2010). Alachua County Sheriffs Office. Retrieved from http://www.a lachuasheriff.org/ Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow. New York: The New Press. Arditti, J., & Few, A. (2006). Mothers reentry into family life following incarceration. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17 : 103 123. Arditti, J. A., LambertShute, J., & Joest, K. (2003). Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of incarceration for families and children. Family Relations, 52, 195 204. Baker, J., Mchale, J., Strozier, A., & Cecil, D. (2010). Mother grandmother coparenting relationships in families with incarcerated mothers: A pilot investigation. Family Process, 49(2), 165184. Bales, W, & Mears, D. (2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 45, 287 321. Block, K., & Potthast, M. (1998). Girl Scouts beyond bars: Facilitating parent child contact in correctional settings Child Welfare, 77, 561 578. Bockneck, E. L., Sanderson, J., & Britner IV, P. (2009). Ambiguous loss and posttraumatic stress in school age children of prisoners. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18: 323333. Braman, D. (2004). Doing time on the outsi de: Incarceration and family life in urban America University of Michigan Press. Brondolo, E., ver Halen, N., Pencille, M., Beatty, D., & Contrada, R. J. (2009). Coping with racism: A selective review of the literature and a theoretical and methodological critique. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 32(1), 6488. Byrne, M. W., Goshin, L. S., & Joestl, S. S. (2010). Intergenerational transmission of attachment for infants raised in a prison nursery. Attachment & Human Development, 12, 375 393. Clark, M. S. (19 99). The double ABCX model of family crisis as a representation of family functioning after rehabilitation from stroke. Psychology, health & medicine, 4 (2), 203 220.

PAGE 244

244 Comfort, M. (2002). Papas house: The prison as domestic and social satellite. Ethnograp hy 3 (4): 467 499. Comfort, M. L. (2003). In The Tube At San Quentin The Secondary Prisonization of Women Visiting Inmates. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 32 (1), 77 107. Comfort, M. (2008). Doing time together: Love and family in the shadow of the prison University of Chicago Press. Dallaire, D.H. (2007). Children with incarcerated mothers: Developmental outcomes, special challenges and recommendations. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 28: 1524. Dallaire, D., Ciccone, A. & Wilson, L. (2010). Teachers' experiences with and expectations of children with incarcerated parents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 31: 281290. Dallaire, D. & Wilson, L. (2010). The relation of exposure to parental criminal activity, arrest, and sentencing to children's maladjustment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 404418. Enos, S. (2001). Mothering from the inside: Parenting in a womens prison. Albany NY: State University of New York Press. Feeley, M. (1992). The process is the punishment: Handling cases in a lower criminal court. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Finch, B., Kolody, B., & Vega, W. (2000). Perceived discrimination and depression among Mexicanorigin adults in California. Journal of Health and Science Behavior, 41 : 295 313. Fisher, J., & Crawford, D. (1992). Codependency and parenting styles. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7: 352 363. Fishman, Laura T. (1988). Stigmatization and prisoners wives feelings of shame. Deviant Behavior, 9: 169 192. Florian, V., & Dangoor, N. (1994). Personal and familial adaptation of women with severe physical disabilities: A further validation of the double ABCX model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 56(3 ): 735 746. Florida Department of Law Enforcement (2012a). Crime in Florida Alachua County. Retrieved January 3, 2013 from http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/content/getdoc/8a4eb90a373a40a8838a f9c2651fc9ba/Alachua.aspx.

PAGE 245

245 Florida Department of Law Enforcement (2012b). Crime in Florida. Retrieved January 3, 2013 from http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/594fa00a35bb4e79ad95ba8bb0fc67f5/CIF_Annual11.aspx. Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2007). Incarceration and intergenerational social exclusion. Social Pro blems 54(4), 399433. doi:10.1525/sp.2007.54.4.399 Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., & Western, B. (2008). Incarceration and support for fragile families. Columbia Population Research Center Working Paper No. 0908. Accessed via . Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., & Western, B. (2011). Paternal incarceration and support for children in fragile families. Demography 48(1), 2547. Glaser, D. (1954). A Reformulation and Testing of Parole Prediction Factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago. Glaze, L., & Maruschak, L. (2008). Parents in prison and their minor children. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Hagan, J., & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral consequences of imprisonment for children, communities, and prisoners. Crime and Justice, 121162. Hagen, K., & Myers, B. (2003). The effect of secrecy and social support on behavioral problems in children of incarcerated women. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 229242. Harrell, J., Hall, S., & Taliaferro, J. (2003). Psychological responses to racism and discrimination: An assessment of the evidence. American Journal of Public Health, 93: 243 248. Jaffee, S. R., Mo ffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Taylor, A. (2003). Life with (or without) father: The benefits of living with two biological parents depend on the father's antisocial behavior. Child development 74(1), 109 126. Landreth, G. & Lobaugh, A. (1998). Filial therapy with incarcerated fathers: Effects on parental acceptance of child, parental stress, and child adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 157 165. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. LaVigne, N. Naser, R, Brooks, L., & Castro, J. (2005). Examining the effect of incarceration and inprison family contact on prisoners family relationships. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 314 355.

PAGE 246

246 LeClair, D. (1978). Home furlough program effects on rates of recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior 5 : 249 258. Massoglia, M. & Uggen, C. (2007). Subjective desistance and the transition to adulthood. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(1): 90 103. McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1982 ). Fam ily Stress and Adaptation to Crises: A Double ABCX Model of Family Behavior. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Family Relations (Milwaukee, WI, October 1317, 1981. McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The family st ress process. Marriage & Family Review 6 (1 2), 7 37. Minton, T. (2010). Jail inmates at midyear 2009 Statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Modecki, K. & Wilson, M. (2009). Associat ions between individual and family level characteristics and parenting practices in incarcerated African American fathers. Journal of Child and Family Studies 18: 530540. Mumola, C. J. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children. Bureau of Justice Sta tistics Special Report Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Parental imprisonment: Effects on boys antisocial behaviour and delinquency through the lifecourse. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1269 1278. Murray, J., Janson, C., & Farrington, D. (2007). Crime in adult offspring of prisoners: A crossnational comparison of two longitudinal samples. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34 : 133 149. Naser, R., & Visher, C. (2006). Family members experiences with incarceration and reentry. Western Criminology Review, 7(2): 20 31. Nesmith, A., & Ruhland, E. (2008). Children of incarcerated parents: Challenges and resiliency, in their own words. Children and Youth Services Review 30(10), 11191130. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.02.006 Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillips, S. D., Burns, B. J., Wagner, H. R., Kramer, T. L., & Robbins, J. M. (2002). Parental incarceration am ong adolescents receiving mental health services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11, 385 399.

PAGE 247

247 Phillips, S., Erkanli, A., Keeler, G., Costello, E., & Angold, A. (2006). Disentangling the risks: Parent criminal justice involvement and childrens exposure to family risks. Criminology & Public Policy, 5 : 677702. Poehlmann, J. (2005). Incarcerated mothers' contact with children, perceived family relationships, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 350357. Poehlmann, J., Dallaire, D., Loper, A. B., Shear, L. (2010). Children's contact with their incarcerated parents. American Psychologist 65(6): 575598. Poehlmann, J., Shlafer, R., & Maes, E. (2006, August). Parent child relationships in families of incarcerated mothers. Symposium presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, Louisiana. Roettg er, M., Swisher, R., Kuhl, D., & Chavez, J. (2011). Paternal incarceration and trajectories of marijuana and other illegal drug use from adolescence into young adulthood: Evidence from longitudinal panels of males and females in the United States. Addictio n, 106: 121132. Roy, K., & Dyson, O. (2005). Gatekeeping in context: Babymama drama and the involvement of incarcerated fathers. Fathering, 3, 289310. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A lifecourse theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. Developmental theories of crime and delinquency 7 133 61. Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2003). Classifying the findings in qualitative studies. Qualitative health research, 13(7), 905 923. Saloviita, T., Italinna, M., & Leinonen, E. (2 003). Explaining the parental stress of fathers and mothers caring for a child with intellectual disability: A double ABCX model. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47(4 5), 300312. Schirmer, S., Nellis, A., & Mauer, M. (2009). Incarcerated parents and their children: Trends 19912007. The Sentencing Project. . Schwartz Soicher, Ofira, Amanda Geller, and Irwin Garfinkel. 2011. The effect of paternal incarc eration on material hardship. Social Service Review 85:447 73. Siegel, J. (2011). Disrupted childhoods: children of women in prison. Rutgers University Press. Steinberg, L., Dornbusch, S., & Brown, B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: A n ecological perspective. The American Psychologist, 47: 723 729.

PAGE 248

248 Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American sociological review 22 (6), 664 670. Tewksbury, R., & DeMichele, M. (2005). Going to prison: A prison visitation proram. The Prison Journal, 85(3): 292310. Toth, K., & Kazura, K. (2010). Building partnerships to strengthen families: Intervention programs and recommendations. In Y. R. Harris, J. A. Graham, G. Carpenter, Y. R. Harris, J. A. Graham G. Carpenter (Eds.) Children of incarcerated parents: Theoretical, development, and clinical issues (pp. 161186). New York, NY US: Springer Publishing Co. Trice, A., & Brester, J. (2004). The effects of maternal incarceration on adolescent children. J ournal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 19(1): 27 35. Turanovic, J, Rodriguez, N., & Pratt, T. (2012). The collateral conequences of incarceration revisited: A qualitative analysis of the effects on caregivers of children of incarcerated parents. Crimin ology 50(4): 913 959. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). State and county quickfacts: Gainesville, FL. Retrieved January 3, 2013, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1225175.html. West, H. (2010). Prison inmates at midyear 2009 Statistical tables. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Wildeman, C. (2009). Parental imprisonment, the prison boom, and the concentration of childhood disadvantage. Demography 46(2): 265280. Wildeman, C. (2010). Paternal incarceration and children's physically aggressive behaviors: Evidence from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Social Forces 89 (1), 285 309. Woldoff, R., & Washington, H. (2008). Arrested contact: The criminal justice system, race, and fath er engagement. The Prison Journal, 88 : 179 206.

PAGE 249

249 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kelsey Antle is from Peoria, Illinois. She received her BA in Sociology from the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign in 2010. She currently works at the University of Florida as a graduate assistant in the Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law. Her research interests include the collateral consequences of corrections in the United States.