on a scale of 1 for “strongly disagree” to 5 for “strongly agree”. Five of six items were reverse coded. Other family background exclusion – Four variables were included: A dummy variable that equals one if the respondent did not have both biological parents while growing up. A scale that summed ten negative life events questions related to the family: friends/family getting into gangs; family members getting on drugs; family having money problems; family members getting killed; arguing with family members; a parent dying; a sibling dying; parents getting divorced or separated; family member having trouble with alcohol; parent or relative getting very sick. Although a few items in the family negative life events might overlap with other variables included in the cluster analysis, it was felt that as a scale, the items would capture the cumulative effects of negative family events, and not one particular event. A dummy variable that equals one if respondents’ parents were too drunk or high to take care of the family. A dummy variable coded as one for ever being in foster care while growing up. Besides proxying for a factor in pre-existing exclusion, foster care can also proxy for the effects in Murray’s framework where children are placed in foster care due to a parent’s incarceration. Stigma – We took the sum of nine questions that were answered are on a scale of 1 for “never” to 5 for “very often”. The questions included: treated with less courtesy; treated with less respect; received poorer service; called names or insulted; threatened or harassed; and people
% whose family was on PA while growing up* 71.67% 43 45.45% 15 Social capital exclusion “I spent time out of the house and no one knew where I was” 3.93 1.28 33 59 3.82 1.38 33 % who moved quite often or at almost once a year 41.94% 26 35.43% 11 Neighbourhood quality 14.69 4.58 59 13.48 4.31 33 Other family background exclusion % who grew up without both biological parents 88.52% 54 78.79% 26 Family negative life events scale ** 6.01 1.81 60 4.30 1.92 33 “My parents were too drunk or high to take care of my family” ** 2.14 1.5 59 1.27 .76 33 % ever been in foster care* 48.33% 29 24.24% 8 Stigma Discrimination scale 23.93 7.04 59 21.59 7.84 32 Linguistic exclusion Extent did not understand legal rights 2.82 1.64 51 2.26 1.63 31 Court fairness scale (1-25) 15.70 5.67 57 18.20 1.04 30 Dynamic exclusion % who had dropped out of high school* 40% 22 67.86% 19 % who have a child** 31.67% 19 31.25% 10 Self and friends negative life events 7.8 2.62 60 6.52 3.00 33 Grade in school 3.16 1.19 58 3.0 1.4 33 % who abused substances 61.67% 37 74.19% 23 % who are depressed 51.61% 32 48.48% 16 Demographic characteristics % in incarceration** 38.71% 24 75.76% 25 % who are white* 33.87% 21 59.38% 19 % who are from Wayne county 24.19% 15 21.21% 7 % who are female 11.29% 7 15.15% 5 Differences between those with at least one parent incarcerated and those with no incarcerated parent statistically significant at * 5%, ** 1%.
Table 3 (cont’d). Clusters with 12 variables, with and without imputation No imputation Imputed (1) Cluster 1: Low parental incarceration (N=27) (2) Cluster 2: Medium parental incarceration (N=32) (3) Cluster 3: High parental incarceration (N=13) (4) p-value (5) Not clustered (N=23) (6) Cluster 1: low parental incarceration (N=34) (7) Cluster 2: Medium parental incarceration (N=38) (8) Cluster 3: High parental incarceration (N=20) (9) p-value Demographic % in adult incarceration 59.26% (50.07) 62.50% (49.19) 53.85% (51.89) .86 26.09% (44.90) 51.35% (50.67) 57.89% (50.04) 40% (50.26) .43 % who are 50% (50.99) 37.50% (49.19) 76.92% (43.85) .06 26.09% (44.90) 47.22% (50.63) 28.95% (45.96) 65% (48.94) .027* % who are from county 22.22% (42.37) 21.88% (42.00) 7.69% (27.74) .50 30.43% (47.05) 21.62% (41.73) 26.32% (44.63) 15% (36.63) .61 % who are female 11.11% (32.03) 9.38% (29.61) 0 .47 21.74% (42.74) 10.81% (31.48) 15.79% (36.95) 5% (22.36) .47