Resilience processes in the lives of families impacted by Parental - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Resilience processes in the lives of families impacted by Parental Incarceration: Implications for intervention and policy

Keynote Presentation for Griffith University Joyce A. Arditti, Ph.D. Virginia Tech October 19, 2017

Parental Incarceration as a “Risk” to Children

Burgeoning literature has documented Parental

Incarceration as a unique risk to children’s development

In general risk factors are those features or

characteristic that contribute to vulnerability, or maladaptive psychopathological outcomes

Risks often co-occur: e.g. mental illness and drug use, and these characteristics are together overrepresented among incarcerated populations presenting a cumulative risk for maladjustment and reentry difficulties.

Child Effects

Examples of these effects include: children’s antisocial behavior (Murray, Farrington, & Sekol, 2012); psychological and behavioral difficulties (Dallaire, Zeman, &

Thrash, 2015; Midgely & Lo, 2013; Wakefield & Wildeman, 2014),

traumatic symptomology (Arditti & Salva, 2013) health vulnerabilities (Lee, Fang, & Luo, 2013; Mitchell, McLanahan,

Schneper, Garfinkel, Brooks-Gunn, & Notterman, 2017; Turney, 2014).

Resilience Research: The Next Wave?

Fundamental applications of resilience frameworks

include (Masten, 2007) :

Descriptive research which identifies characteristics of children’s environments that matter Uncovering processes that account for correlates of resilience RCT’s that test prevention and intervention program’s aimed at promoting competence Multilevel analysis: examination of the ways in which resilience shaped by interactions across systemic levels

Ecological Contexts

Risk and Protective Factors can be “multisystemic” in

that they can occur within more than one ecological context (or systemic level).

These levels are: Individual Interpersonal/Familial Interpersonal/Social Environmental/Macrosystem Risks and Assets may be proximal or distal and indirect—

Dynamic Systems

Risk and protective factors operate dynamically in shaping

human development, at each level of the ecology (i.e. micro to macro/proximal to distal), and in tandem, “transacting with the features of the individual…and the external world (Cicchetti, p.10).”

Includes gene-environment interaction, social interactions,

and coregulation among individuals in relationships, social networks, person-media interactions etc. (Masten, 2007).

Systemic Levels and Protective Factors Related to Parental Incarceration (Arditti, 2005)

A Family Perspective

Resilience inherent to a family perspective (Arditti, 2012) which draws attention to how widespread incarceration impacts family life with particular emphasis on the experiences of nonincarcerated caregivers and their children.

Parenting implicated in studies examining childhood resilience Involves the consideration of the context and proximal processes associated with parenting and caregiving in families with a parent in prison Variation in these processes a major source of heterogeneous effects

Moves beyond documenting negative child outcomes and is concerned with the “how and why” of these effects

Resilience: Prevailing Over Adversity

The term “resilience” refers to “patterns of positive adaptation in the context of significant risk or adversity” (Masten & Powell, 2003 p. 4) Multidimensional-functioning and adaptive processes can differ across domains and over time Resilience represents two judgments about an individual

• 1. The first judgment is an inference that a person is doing

“OK”.

• 2. The second is that there is or has been significant adversity

A family perspective on parental incarceration extends these judgments from the individual to the family and suggests that even under extreme hardship and duress, adaptive processes and positive family outcomes are possible.

The Two Questions: What do We Know?

Question 1: What does competence look like among

children and families impacted by parental incarceration? (are the kids ok?)

• a. what processes promote positive youth outcomes?
• b. what key protective factors moderate the harms

typically associated with parental incarceration? Question 2: What adversities do children experience as

a result of parental incarceration? (is there significant adversity?)

Let’s start with Question 2: (We know a lot about Adversity)

The Context of Mass Incarceration in the US

Racial Disparity

Material Hardship

Children in families most likely to experience incarceration often display behavior problems and developmental shortfalls that are broadly connected to disadvantaged environments and exposure to additional adverse events (Murphey & Cooper, 2015; Wakefield & Wildeman, 2014). Most prisoners in the US come from histories of disadvantage characterized by:

low education, unemployment, neighborhood and early family life disadvantage, mental health challenges and substance abuse, and intergenerational criminality (Phillips, Erkanli, Keeler, Costello, & Angold, 2006; Uggen, Wakefield, &

Western, 2005).

These disadvantages extend to the children of the incarcerated who are at risk of experiencing homelessness and food insecurity (Wakefield &

Wildeman, 2014), housing instability (Cox & Wallace, 2013), and other forms of

disadvantage such as low educational achievement (Foster & Hagan, 2009; Haskins,

2014).

Youth Experience Material Hardship: Add Health Data

Parental Incarceration Intensifies Material Hardship

Disadvantage is compounded by parental incarceration:

Many parents (particularly fathers) were primary breadwinners prior to confinement 54% of fathers and 52% of mothers in state prison reported that they were the primary source of financial support for their children (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008) Lost child support funds are not easily recovered even if parents go into arrears during their incarceration (Brito, 2012). Confinement is associated with significant financial costs such as legal fees, fines, costs associated with maintaining contact, and the provision of financial support to the incarcerated person. These debts are significant and reproduce hardship among the most disadvantaged families (deVuono-powell et al., 2015; Harris, Evans, & Beckett, 2010). Nonincarcerated caregivers may experience financial shortfalls, unemployment (Arditti et

al., 2003), and other strains that come with economic hardship-particularly in

conjunction with inadequate state safety net expenditures (Adams et al., 2016). E.g. mothers who share children with recently incarcerated men have a significantly lower likelihood of asset ownership, compared to their counterparts, such as vehicle, bank account, and home ownership (Turney & Schneider, 2016).

Parental Incarceration and Children’s Exposure to Adversity

Children with a parent in prison exposed to traumatic

incarceration-related risks such as parental arrest, difficult prison visit experiences

Children with a parent in prison also exposed to more

ACE’s (adverse childhood experiences)

ACE’s compromise development

Children of Incarcerated Parents and ACE’s

What About Question 1….?

Ok, so we have established that children with an

incarcerated parent experience adversity (Question 2)….

In order to make a judgement of resilience, we must

consider evidence of children’s competence and family strengths….. (Question 1).

Evidence of Resilience among Children of the Incarcerated

Sources: 1) “null” or heterogeneous effects 2) evidence of competence 3) adaptive family processes; mediating and moderating

effects

Null and Heterogeneous Effects

Recent analyses examining the impact of maternal incarceration have shown “null effects” Average effects on children with mothers’ who were most likely to incarcerated were “null” (Turney & Wildeman, 2015) School achievement, drop out unaffected by mothers’ incarceration (Cho, 2009a &

b)

Majority of children aged 9-14 with incarcerated mothers (N=88) seemed “well adjusted” and avoided substance abuse and deviant behavior (Hanlon, Blatchley et

al., 2005).

Studies that move beyond “average effects” reveal variation in child outcomes depending on the context of incarceration or social location of children. Racial and gendered disparities among children with incarcerated fathers re: school readiness (Haskins, 2014); The least disadvantaged children most likely to be negatively affected by maternal incarceration (Turney & Wildeman, 2015) and paternal incarceration (Turney, 2017).

Evidence of Youth Competence

Qualitative studies examining coping of youth with a parent in prison suggest competence via: Creative and resourceful coping strategies (Berman et. al., 2012; Nesmith & Ruhland,

2008).

Most children “doing ok” or excelling at school displayed positive outlook and engaged in prosocial activities (Nesmith & Ruhland,

2008; Sands et al., 2009);

Deidentification (distancing) and “strength through control” (Johnson & Easterling, 2014) ¼ of children experiencing parental incarceration (N=18) could be categorized as “thriving” or “adjusted” based on balance of life stressors, behavior problems, and competence measures

At or above the mean on competence scores per the

CBCL (Johnson, Arditti, & McGregor, 2017).

Other Youth Protective Factors

Family and School Connectedness (Nichols, Loper, & Meyer, 2016) Emotional regulation of children with incarcerated

mothers; young children’s effective anger regulation associated with less internalizing and externalizing (Zeman et al.,

2017)

Adaptive Proximal Processes

These include:

Caregiver and Family

stability

Caregiving Quality Positive family

contact experiences, particularly visitation

Caregiving Contexts

Caregiving arrangements determined by whether it is a mother

• r father in prison:

A closer look: Family Stability

Instability not “inherently bad”-exists on a continuum Focus often is on frequent changes in nonincarcerated mothers’ intimate relationships in context of paternal incarceration Evidence of caregiver stability in homes affected by parental incarceration “no change” or “positive changes” in caregivers’ lives since maternal incarceration (Turney, 2012) 80% of children living in “peaceful caring home atmosphere” (Hanlon et

al., 2005).

1/3 of Australian children remained in “same placement” (Trotter et al., 2017). Repartnering within context of paternal incarceration can lead to greater stability (Comfort, 2008; Turney & Wildeman, 2013). Caregiver stability more likely when IP involved in care decision, children with other biological parent, and co-caregiving positive (Poehlmann, Shlafer, Maes, & Hanneman,

2008).

A closer look: Quality of Care

Research suggests PI associated with “Caregiver Risks” E.g. mental health problems, high stress, substance abuse, and victimization histories (Aaron & Dallaire, 2010; Mackintosh, Myers, & Kennon, 2006; Phillips,

Burns, Wagner, & Barth, 2004; Phillips et al., 2006).

These risks confer disadvantages to children Quantitative studies suggest children with an incarcerated parent may experience harsh discipline, less parental supervision, maternal neglect (Phillips et al., 2006; Turney 2014) and maltreatment (Berger, Cancian, Cuesta, &

Noyes, 2016; Hines, Lemon, Wyatt, & Merdinger, 2004; Phillips et al, 2004),

The mechanism driving these associations are unclear and could reflect race and class disparities in CPS involvement Grandmothers caring for grandchildren face particular risks such as poor health or resource shortfalls “Survival strategies” ensuring children’s care and upbringing may come at the cost of women’s own health and well being (Thomas et al., 2016).

Evidence of Resilient Caregiving

Research for youth development and research on economic hardship point to the importance of quality caregiving as a “resilience process.” Paternal incarceration was associated with positive changes for nonincarcerated mothers in the form of increased parenting engagement (Turney & Wildeman, 2013) Arditti et al. (2003) found that after a parent went to jail (typically fathers), caregivers (typically mothers) reported spending more time with their children, Qualitative studies reveal evidence of positive parenting strategies on the part of solo mothers and caregivers of children with histories of parental incarceration.

These strategies include advocacy and care for children (even in conjunction with harsh discipline; Arditti et al., 2010) as well as positive expressiveness about children, closeness with children, teaching children through struggle, optimism, and empathy (Johnson, Arditti, &

McGregor, 2017).

Stimulating, learning-focused and structured home environments connected to more secure attachments for young children with jailed fathers (Poehlmann-Tynan et al. 2017). Responsive, sensitive and positive interactions with caregiver connected with more secure attachments for young children with jailed fathers (Poehlmann-Tynan et al. 2017).

A closer look: Contact and Visitation

• Prison visitation represents the most

proximal form of contact; therefore it has the most impact on parent and child

• utcomes
• Most incarcerated parents report some

form of contact; however at least 1/2 of parents do not receive any visits. Mothers receive more visits than fathers

• In general, most incarcerated parents

seem to benefit from visitation and want to have contact with their children

• Australian fathers report “high quality,

meaningful contact” with children (Dennison

et al, 2017).

• Visitation is a “paradox” which can

help and hurt children: it is a source of connection and traumatic separation.

• Noncontact visits can be particularly

stressful (Arditti, 2003; Poehlmann-Tynan, 2017).

Putting it All Together: Family Stress Proximal Process Model

Based on evidence associated with the “resilience questions”-there is hope. The FSPP model helps put the pieces together. Parental Incarceration is a stressor

Sets in motion “stressful sequelae” Direct and indirect effects

Highlights intervening psychological and relational processes as “mechanisms of effect”

Includes “meaning making” about the experience

Highlights protective factors Resilience as a process and outcome

Contextual Variables

Pre-Incarceration Contributions Pre-existing Disadvantage Social Inequality/Safety Net Expenditures

Parental Incarceration Family Stability

Protective Factors: Youth Social Support; Emotional Reg. School & Leisure activities

Child Adjustment Material Hardship Positive Contact, Visiting Experiences Parental Incarceration Caregiver Parenting Quality

Application of Stress Process Model: Parental Incarceration and Child Trauma

Mediation Model Findings

Implications for Policy

Mass Incarceration Policy: “The Elephant in the

Room”

Pyramid of Principles

Promote Human Development

Do No Harm

Advance Social Justice

Implications for Intervention

Families’ experiences connected to incarceration occur in a nested system with many potential sources of intervention. Strengths based interventions emphasize the importance of not blaming families and the use

• f nonthreatening therapeutic approaches.

Timing of interventions is important: Intervention opportunities for families at the time of “crisis” (i.e. arrest, sentencing, reentry) or developmental transitions (i.e. adolescence) may be warranted. Formal and informal efforts to empower caregivers and foster resilience represent the most proximal form of intervention; many caregivers are unprepared to raise the incarcerated parents’ children, or parenting may already be troubled in the home. Visiting a parent in prison may serve as a “traumatic reminder”, compound the depletion of family resources, and intensify parental distress. Visitation may also enhance family ties. Less restrictive,“family friendly” visiting programs hold promise, and should be thoughtfully

• implemented. On site, therapeautic support would be useful for many families.

Collaborations between correctional staff with child welfare/human services practitioners seem to be particularly important. Justice involved families are overrepresented in the child welfare system. Substance abuse and mental health treatment: critical not just for incarcerated parents but for family members. Often these are shared and intergenerational phenomena that pose tremendous barriers for jobs as well as healthy family life

Implications for Research

Moving beyond the “deficit”: Resilience is more than a lack of problem behavior

Resilience built into families, schools, and communities

Modeling adaptive family processes

How best to “capture” process?

Observational and and naturalistic strategies Interviews that go “beyond survey measures” (E. g. 5 minute speech) Mixed methods Intersectional/culturally competent research

Examining youth experience “meaning making”- stigma and loss

Stigma may be differentially part of the story depending on race, gender, class

Longitudinal and person centered analyses which examine families over time and various trajectories Modeling protective factors (moderated mediation)

Coping Emotional Regulation Support

Acknolwedgements

Thanks to: Dr. Danielle Dallaire (William & Mary);

• Dr. Rebecca Shlafer (University of Minnesota); Dr.

Anna Haskins (Cornell University); and Dr. Kristen Turney (University of California-Irvine) for their comments regarding how best to study resilience and provide meaningful interventions among families of the incarcerated.