Parental Incarceration and the Family: Psychological and Social Effects of Imprisonment on Children, Parents, and Caregivers

The United States is in the middle of a mass incarceration era, prompting a strong multidisciplinary body of literature that explores its collateral consequences for individuals, families, communities, and society (see, for example, Clear and Frost 2013; Travis and Waul 2003). Contributing to this literature, psychologist Joyce Arditti has explored families’ visiting practices, incarcerated individuals’ parenting, and parents’ reintegration into family life (Arditti 2005; Arditti and Few 2008; Arditti, Lambert-Shute, and Joest 2003). In her new book, Parental Incarceration and the Family: Psychological and Social Effects of Imprisonment on Children, Parents, and Caregivers, she engages in a theory-driven review of the literature on parental incarceration, untangling its complexities and impacts on parents, children, and caregivers. In doing so, Arditti produces a piece of great utility, from introducing the novice scholar to this area of research to directing evidence-based policies and future research. I will briefly review this book, including a summary of Arditti’s argument, a synthesis of her calls for research, and an exploration of this book’s meaning in light of emerging correctional patterns. Grounded in the parental incarceration literature, Arditti argues for research and evidence-based reforms that take into account the cyclical relationships among contexts, processes, and outcomes for families and children. Parental incarceration occurs in a correctional context characterized by an unequal distribution of punishment, an overt focus on individuals experiencing cumulative disadvantage, and a spectrum of social and institutional practices that hinder family processes. In this multifaceted context, incarceration interrupts parenthood and shapes the lives of mothers, fathers, caregivers, and children. The war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing laws has led to the rapid growth of the female prison population. Arditti argues that incarcerated mothers are ‘‘the most vulnerable women’’ in the United States, with lives that tend to be shadowed by intergenerational and cumulative disadvantage even before prison (p. 55). They experience intense maternal stress and are extremely vulnerable to the social and legal loss of their parental rights. While incarcerated motherhood is perceived as an individual’s failure to achieve womanhood, incarcerated fatherhood is constructed as an optional element of manhood. Although over half of incarcerated fathers did not reside with their children prior to incarceration, over half were the primary financial providers for their children. However, being sent to prison strips men of their ‘‘fathering identity,’’ producing ‘‘distress, helplessness, and a profound lack of control’’ and an internalization of the inmate identity over fatherhood (p. 76). Varying in their fathering identities, incarcerated men navigate institutional practices and negotiate with caregivers for opportunities to practice fatherhood during incarceration. The children of incarcerated mothers and fathers are under the care of the children’s other parent, grandparents, other relatives, or foster parents. Childhood outcomes for children of incarcerated parents are still unclear, but they include boys’ externalizing behavioral problems and children’s lower educational performances. These problems occur in the context of children and caregivers navigating a loss that society neglects to acknowledge and of the deeply rooted stigma against incarcerated individuals and their families. Under such tremendous pressure, caregivers struggle with the loss of parental resources, a reduction of their own resources due to childcare and offenders’ needs, and the lack of financial and social support, all putting their ability to provide quality parenting at risk. In response, Arditti makes a strong argument for evidence-based correctional reform that ‘‘focuses on social justice, risk reduction, and enhancing opportunity’’ (p. 143). Specifically, the correctional reform needs to restrain institutional and social practices that hinder self-development and individual 138 Reviews