Although contact between parents and children during incarceration may be important for the well-being of both children and parents, findings have been not entirely consistent across studies. Moreover, most studies of parent–child contact in the context of parental incarceration have been conducted using data from one timepoint, and studies have almost exclusively relied upon reports of frequency or type of contact rather than quality, with a few exceptions (e.g., Arditti & Savla, 2013). Although personal visits have been occasionally studied separately from letter-writing and telephone calls, many studies have combined these types of contact. Prison and jail samples are often combined (e.g., Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study; Murray, Farrington, & Sekol, 2012) and family, relational, and physiological processes potentially linking the experience of parental incarceration with children’s and incarcerated parents’ outcomes have rarely been examined (Eddy & Poehlmann, 2010; Poehlmann & Eddy, 2013).

In this monograph, new studies are presented that address some, but not all, of these limitations. Two of the studies focused on jail samples and one focused on a prison sample. Children’s age ranges were specified and narrower than in some previous studies and measures of child functioning were developmentally appropriate. Innovative multi-method approaches were employed across the studies, including reliance on multiple reporters of children’s behaviors, observational methods, and analysis of physiological stress processes. Moreover, the McClure et al. (2015) study presented longitudinal data, following families into the reunification period. Dallaire, Zeman, and Thrash (2015) analyzed letter-writing and telephone calls separately from personal visits, although McClure et al. did not, and Poehlmann-Tynan et al. (2015) further examined the processes that occur during different types of visits.

Because of their relatively large sample size, Dallaire et al. (2015) were able to test a structural equation model, which indicated a better fit for combining alternate forms of contact (letter-writing and telephone calls) yet separating them from visits. The relation between parent–child contact and child behavior problems varied as a function of type of contact, underscoring the importance of their modeling procedures. This result is not surprising, as children’s proximal experiences of in-person barrier visits vastly differ from their experiences talking with a parent on the telephone or reading and writing letters. To further understand the processes that occur during barrier visits and other non-contact visitation procedures, Poehlmann-Tynan et al. (2015) used observational methods in the jail setting. The study highlighted the importance of child-caregiver relationships and supports for young children during the visit process, as well as the tendency for children to become more behaviorally dysregulated during non-contact visits compared to their home environments. Use of observational methods in corrections settings is unique and can help us understand how children react to aspects of visitation, including security and screening procedures, waiting in the corrections setting, and visiting with parents. Although some authors have suggested that certain experiences that occur during visits with parents in corrections facilities may be difficult or even traumatizing for children, few data have been available to verify or refute these speculations. Yet because the study relied on a small sample and used innovative, newly-developed methods, replication is needed, especially for wider age groups.

McClure et al. (2015) presented longitudinal data about contact and maternal adjustment at three timepoints, including data after the mother’s release from prison. Following families during the reunification period is a rarity in the literature focusing on parental incarceration and an important step in documenting the longer-term implications of parent–child contact for maternal and family functioning. Importantly, more parent–child contact over time related to lower recidivism rates for mothers at 6 months post-release. More contact also related to more internalizing symptoms in children, although because of the way the data were collected, it was not possible to disaggregate frequency of face-to-face visits from telephone calls.

Moreover, the addition of assessing cortisol levels via hair samples in the McClure et al. (2015) study allowed for unique insights into relations among incarcerated mothers’ contact with children, maternal stress, and maternal and child adjustment, with implications for improved practices and policies. More high quality studies are needed that bring together multiple methodologies, including biological measures, on the phenomena of stress and coping for incarcerated parents and their children and families during and following prison. Such basic research is needed to inform the development of effective interventions that assist families as they raise their children in the face of incarceration, that help incarcerated parents exit criminal lifestyles and avoid future incarceration, and that ultimately keep future generations out of prison or jail and living constructive and fulfilling lives in the community.