Generations Through Prison

Experiences of Intergenerational Incarceration

Mark Halsey, Melissa de Vel-Palumbo

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781351240550
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Around one in five prisoners report the previous or current incarceration of a parent. Many such prisoners attest to the long-term negative effects of parental incarceration on one's own sense of self and on the range and quality of opportunities for building a conventional life. And yet, the problem of intergenerational incarceration has received only passing attention from academics, and virtually little if any consideration from policy makers and correctional officials.

This book – the first of its kind – offers an in-depth examination of the causes, experiences and consequences of intergenerational incarceration. It draws extensively from surveys and interviews with second-, third-, fourth- and fifth-generation prisoners to explicate the personal, familial and socio-economic contexts typically associated with incarceration across generations. The book examines 1) the emergence of the prison as a dominant if not life-defining institution for some families, 2) the link between intergenerational trauma, crime and intergenerational incarceration, 3) the role of police, courts, and corrections in amplifying or ameliorating such problems, and 4) the possible means for preventing intergenerational incarceration. This is undeniably a book that bears witness to many tragic and traumatic stories. But it is also a work premised on the idea that knowing these stories – knowing that they often resist alignment with pre-conceived ideas about who prisoners are or who they might become – is part and parcel of advancing critical debate and, more importantly, of creating real change.

Written in a clear and direct style, this book will appeal to students and scholars in criminology, sociology, cultural studies, social theory and those interested in learning about more about families in prison.

1 Intergenerational incarceration in context

While crime trends have fluctuated over the last 50 years, one thing has remained constant: the steady rise of the prison population. In Australia and in other Western democracies, increasing numbers of people are being locked up as a response to crime. In the last decade alone, the average daily number of persons in custody in Australia has increased by 61 per cent, now at a historical high of around 43,000 persons. There have been sharper increases for some subgroups, such as women – though most prisoners are still men (ABS 2008, 2018a). And the prison population is not simply rising in line with population growth; the current Australian rate of imprisonment per capita is more than double what it was 30 years ago (Carcach and Grant 1999). However, these statistics tell us nothing about the churn of prisoners through the system. Those data are similarly staggering. In the first six months of 2018 alone, there were around 34,000 prisoner receptions in Australia, three-quarters of which were unsentenced (ABS 2018a). Similar trends have been noted in the UK, US, and to some extent in Canada (Carson 2018; Sturge 2018; Institute for Criminal Policy Research n.d.). It is easy to see how the notion that we are living in ‘an era of mass incarceration’ has become such a well-worn trope (Simon 2014: 5).

But as alluded to in the Introduction, very little is known about the extent of intergenerational incarceration; that is, to what extent does the prison population draw from the same or similar groups of families across generations? Small-scale studies have found that around 30–60 per cent of prisoners are children of former prisoners (Tomaino et al. 2005; Novero et al. 2011; Ng et al. 2013). A more comprehensive survey of almost 15,000 US state prisoners found a lower, but similarly alarming, figure of approximately 20 per cent having at least one parent with a history of incarceration (Glaze and Maruschak 2009; Light 2018). Comparable rates have been observed in Australia (18 per cent; AIHW 2019a) and the UK (14 per cent; Walmsley et al. 1992). These should all be considered minimum values (underestimates of intergenerational incarceration), as it is likely some prisoners may be unaware of or unwilling to admit to their parents’ prison histories.

Even the lowest of these estimates is a cause for concern. The apparent pervasiveness of intergenerational incarceration suggests there is a link between a parent’s time in prison and their children’s’ own criminal careers. Indeed, there is a large research literature finding parental incarceration is associated with offspring antisocial behaviour (for reviews see Murray and Farrington 2008; Murray et al. 2012). More broadly, recent work has chronicled the complex and myriad ways that effects of imprisonment extend beyond an offender to family members (Condry and Smith 2018). Given the increasingly large number of people being imprisoned (most of whom have or will have children), the potential unintended consequences of incarceration on subsequent generations carries an enormous social cost. But the precise ways in which parental imprisonment affects their offspring’s adjustment and imprisonment are poorly understood, making the cycle of intergenerational incarceration difficult to break. We draw heavily on the literature on parental incarceration as a starting point to understand the potential consequences of intergenerational incarceration, though it is possible that intergenerational incarceration (i.e. imprisonment spanning multiple generations) confers effects beyond what can be explained by parental incarceration alone. We leave this issue aside for the moment, although these are precisely the types of distinctions explored in subsequent chapters.

Are the effects of intergenerational incarceration causal?

In this book we are fundamentally interested in the potential consequences of a forbearer’s incarceration on subsequent generation members’ pathways into crime and imprisonment. To some extent, there is a causal assumption made here about the nature of intergenerational incarceration – namely, that incarceration causes incarceration. We are, on that basis, investigating the ways an earlier generation’s incarceration functions as a risk mechanism (causal effect) rather than a risk marker (spurious effect) for a subsequent generation’s incarceration – by exploring prisoners’ subjective experiences of incarceration and the circumstances surrounding it (see our approach to interview data in Chapter 2). There are a number of potential mechanisms for a causal effect, which are outlined in the next section. But first, it is worth examining the logic and evidence for alternate explanations (non-causal effects), and how these might be disentangled from the types of effects explored in this book.

As a starting point, risk factors for incarceration could, according to some theories, be passed on from generation to generation, rather than being causal in nature. In other words, parental incarceration could be simply a risk marker for conditions that increase the risks of both a child and their parent being incarcerated. Heredity is one potential (non-causal) explanation for intergenerational incarceration. Traits such as impulsivity have been posited as being transmitted between parent and child (e.g. Bevilacqua and Goldman 2013). Genes have also been argued to play a role in the transmission of criminality across generations (Rhee and Waldman 2002). However, genetic risk is thought to be overwhelmingly moderated (i.e. activated) by environmental factors. Indeed, Moffitt (2015: 121) concluded that ‘the most remarkable contribution of behavioral genetic studies to science is the robust and compelling evidence base documenting environmental causes of behavior, especially social causes of antisocial and criminal behaviors’. Some have gone so far as to say that genetic and environmental causes are conceptually inseparable (Burt and Simons, 2014; see also Joseph 2001). Any attempt to understand and prevent intergenerational incarceration must therefore place social conditions centre stage.

The existence of non-causal effects, however, does not preclude causal mechanisms from also contributing to intergenerational incarceration. In reality, intergenerational incarceration is likely the result of bidirectional and interactional relationships among biological risks, environmental risks (pre- and post-incarceration specific risks), and incarceration-specific risks. The prevailing hypothesis is that parental incarceration exacerbates pre-existing and socially induced behavioural problems among children in such families (Murray and Farrington 2005; Wakefield and Wildeman 2011; see also Moffitt 2005). That is, parental incarceration is both a risk marker, and risk mechanism, for later generations’ incarceration. This perspective – which drives many of the themes in this book – allows for the possibility that parental incarceration does have a direct effect on offspring incarceration, at least in some circumstances.

Similarly, we take the view that parental incarceration is distinct from parental offending more generally. Research on intergenerational offending asks questions primarily about the causes of crime and the criminogenic nature of particular families. By contrast, research on intergenerational incarceration critically explores the meanings and effects of incarceration itself from multiple generational perspectives. As such, it is the criminogenic nature of the prison and related social and cultural contexts – not just of families – that is of central concern. This connects with attempts to balance the ‘social ledger’ of incarceration through examination of how the prison casts its shadow on individuals, families and communities over many decades (Turanovic et al. 2012: 913). Though there is good evidence to suggest that parental criminality can have a detrimental effect on children’s antisocial outcomes, parental incarceration has a unique and independent effect on such (Murray and Farrington 2005; Huebner and Gustafson 2007; Johnson 2009; van der Rakt et al. 2012). In other words, there seems to be something special about what incarceration does to families, beyond being a mere risk marker for other issues.

It is, though, exceptionally difficult to establish a categorical causal link in this area. This is in large part due to ethical and practical issues restricting researchers’ ability to randomly allocate individuals to a ‘prison’ condition in a causal test of its effects. The bulk of intergenerational incarceration scholars have attempted to circumvent this problem by controlling for covariates that could plausibly confound a direct relationship. Despite researchers’ best efforts, however, the dominant model is a relatively weak design for proving a causal relationship. Only a handful of studies have applied more sophisticated techniques (e.g. Wakefield and Wildeman 2011; Geller et al. 2012). The key problem is that there are a number of ways in which children with incarcerated parents are likely to differ from those without incarcerated parents, and these characteristics are likely to be instrumental in determining the offspring criminality and imprisonment. These types of models are therefore only as good as the variables controlled for. It is impossible, of course, for any researcher to reliably measure every conceivable variable on which incarcerated and non-incarcerated families might differ. In addition, there are a number of other difficulties that make disentangling the causes of intergenerational incarceration a challenging task, including the dynamic and interactive nature of effects (Parke and Clarke-Stewart 2003).

Fortunately, momentum is starting to build in the field, and researchers are breaking new ground in the search for more robust data. One innovative recent study provides strong evidence for a causal link between parental incarceration and children’s criminal trajectories. Wildeman and Andersen (2017) capitalised on a legislative change in Denmark that replaced many custodial sentences with community service or probation orders. This allowed the researchers to explore the effect of the reform on children’s chances of becoming incarcerated themselves. Consistent with predictions, boys whose fathers received a custodial sentence were more likely to be imprisoned by 22–28 years of age, relative to boys whose fathers received a non-custodial sentence. It should be noted that the same effect was not observed for daughters. Essentially, the study indicates that the prison time done by parents directly influences the life course of their children (at least, for sons).

One other study is worth highlighting here. In an attempt to eliminate the unobserved variable problem, Porter and King (2015) made use of longitudinal data to compare children of incarcerated fathers to children who will have a father incarcerated in the future (i.e. children whose fathers were incarcerated only after the measurement point for child outcomes). Though this strategy goes some way to reducing differences between the two groups (the key variable on which they differ is the point at which their fathers were incarcerated), this approach, as the authors note, is not completely without its problems. A father incarcerated when his child is two years old might well be dealing with different issues to a father who is incarcerated when his child is 15 years old. In any case, the data provide further support for a direct link between parental incarceration and antisocial behaviour – at least, for some types of crime.

It is also worth mentioning that researchers have examined whether associations between parental incarceration and children’s outcomes are moderated by factors such as the child’s sex or the timing of parental incarceration. That is, researchers have considered whether childrens’ reactions might vary according to various factors. However, the only existing meta-analysis on this topic (Murray et al. 2012) pooled various studies to generate overall effect estimates and found no evidence for the role of moderators (child’s sex, sex of incarcerated parent, child age at parental imprisonment, child age at outcome, and country of study). This suggests that that the effects of parental incarceration are similar across a range of different circumstances. It is likely that there are factors not included in the meta-analysis that could play an important role in determining outcomes, but rather than speculate on these possibilities, exploration of these factors are, with a few notable exceptions, set aside for now.

We consider there to be good evidence that child outcomes vary according to the quality of the relationship between the incarcerated parent and his/her family members before the incarceration episode. Removal of a particularly violent or abusive parent is likely to have positive effects on those left behind. This is borne out in recent research by Wakefield and Wildeman (2014; see also Hagan and Dinovitzer 1999; Wildeman 2010; Granja 2016). Nevertheless, the main effects found in the overall literature suggest that, on most occasions, parental incarceration does more harm than good.

Other work conducted since Murray and colleagues’ meta-analysis provides some (tentative) evidence that sons’ risk of conviction increases as a function of the number and length of parental imprisonment episodes (Besemer et al. 2011). This finding – a dose-response relationship – provides stronger evidence that the relationship between parental incarceration and offspring outcomes is ‘real’. That is, the event of parental imprisonment appears to have a causal effect on children, and the more often this happens and the longer the event, the larger the impact on children. There is, however, some evidence that the dose-response relationship is not necessarily linear. Mears et al. (2016) found that short periods of incarceration increased recidivism, but terms between one to two years reduced risk, with terms longer than two years exerting no appreciable effect (more on this in Chapter 3). This reminds that we should tread carefully in making categorical claims – any effects of incarceration on crime are likely more complex than first appear.

Possible mechanisms of intergenerational incarceration

What processes might best account for the effect of prior generational incarceration on later generations’ involvement with the criminal justice system? Though little is known about the mechanisms underlying such an effect, there is a large literature detailing the challenges faced during and following the incarceration of a family member (Travis and Waul 2003; Woodward 2003; Dennison et al. 2005; King 2005; Mills and Codd 2007; Arditti 2012). Particular attention has been given to children of incarcerated parents (Larman and Aungles 1993; Gabel and Johnston 1995; Mumola 2000; Boswell and Wedge 2002; Harris et al. 2010; Wildeman and Western 2010; Comfort et al. 2011; Wakefield and Wildeman 2014), problems specific to being an incarcerated father (Arditti et al. 2005; Dyer 2005; Maldonado 2006; Fairchild 2009) or incarcerated mother (Browne 1989; Greene et al. 2000; Poehlmann 2005; Dallaire 2007; Michalsen et al. 2010), and to problems related to commencing or resuming the role of a parent post-release (Nurse 2000; Foster and Hagan 2009). This literature provides clues as to how one generation’s imprisonment might influence subsequent generations’ opportunities and incarceration episodes. It is beyond the scope of this book to thoroughly describe and assess these various theories, but below we provide a very brief summary of the primary mechanisms (for a detailed review, see Murray and Farrington 2008).

To begin, there is a wealth of evidence pointing to the trauma and loss suffered as a result of parental separation. Parent–child attachment can be severely disrupted through incarceration (Porter and King 2015), and its effects appear to be qualitatively different to those caused by other forms of parental separation – such as divorce or even death (Murray and Farrington 2005; Geller et al. 2012). Based on their review of 45 samples, Murray and colleagues (2012: 191) concluded ‘it is clear that parent-child separation per se is not the main factor explaining children’s outcomes after parental incarceration’. Rather, separation from a parent through incarceration is particularly detrimental for a number of reasons.

First, parental imprisonment brings children in contact with the prison, which can be distressing and humiliating, sometimes resulting in the curtailment of a parent–child relationship by caregivers (Arditti 2012; Flynn 2014; Hutton 2018). Second, unlike some other separations, most prisoners will re-enter society and will need to resume their role as parent in some capacity, which carries its own difficulties in the longer term. Third, and perhaps most importantly, because parents and caregivers find it difficult to discuss and give explanations for the absence of an incarcerated parent, the separation may be particularly confusing or conflicting for children (Nesmith and Ruhland 2008) – for this reason parental incarceration has been called an ‘ambiguous loss’ (Bocknek et al. 2009). Children may find it difficult to make sense of what has happened (and are often left to do so on their own). They may feel angry, shameful, guilty, or anxious, and develop problematic coping strategies (e.g. social withdrawal, denial, aggression) that can put them at risk of antisocial behaviour. In ‘crime-prone’ families, these traumas are possibly compounded when a parent experiences multiple episodes of incarceration or when multiple family members are incarcerated.

A second perspective proposes that incarceration puts certain ‘strains’ on families (loss of economic and social capital) that can lead to adverse outcomes for children. For example, financial strain (e.g. as a result of reduced income, and costs associated with supporting an incarcerated family member), could motivate family members – and in particular, males – to engage in criminal activities to restore financial security. This may come at the cost of education or legitimate employment, further compounding difficulties. Similarly, imprisonment of a parent can place stress on caregivers who are left behind, disturbing critical parenting processes and family functioning (Arditti 2016). The loss of familial capital through parental incarceration can make children vulnerable to other forms of disadvantage and risk, such as homelessness, abuse, and entry into the foster system (see Halsey and Deegan 2015a).

Another explanation for intergenerational incarceration points to the stigmatising effects of parental incarceration. In the short-term, children of incarcerated parents face bullying and rejection from peers, leading to distress and social withdrawal. Moreover, ostracism from peers can lead children to seek friendships with others who have had similar experiences, drawing them into contact with delinquent peers. In the longer-term, parental incarceration can result in ongoing (even intergenerational) exclusion from key sites of social activity necessary for physical, psychological and economic security (Foster and Hagan 2007; Murray 2007; Dennison and Besemer 2018). Furthermore, it is possi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Intergenerational incarceration in context
• 2 Getting and analysing the data
• 3 The ubiquity of trauma and loss
• 4 Three generations through prison
• 5 Prison as homecoming
• 6 Prison as criminogenic event
• 7 The fortunate few: evading intergenerational incarceration
• 8 Concluding remarks
• Appendix: interviewee sample characteristics
• References
• Index