© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
Julie Poehlmann-Tynan (ed.)Children’s Contact with Incarcerated ParentsSpringerBriefs in Psychology10.1007/978-3-319-16625-4_66. Policy Commentary: The Research Evidence Policymakers Need to Build Better Public Policy for Children of Incarcerated Parents
(1)
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 4109 Nancy Nicholas Hall, 1300 Linden Drive, Madison, WI, USA
Keywords
ChildrenCorrectionsEvidence–based policy • Families • Family impact lens • IncarcerationJailParent–child contactPrisonPolicyThis monograph should be commended for taking on the iron law of incarceration—nearly all prisoners come back to their families, neighborhoods, and communities (Travis, 2005). The United States is one of the only countries in the world without a mention of the word family in its constitution, so it should come as no surprise that the typical default is to look at policy issues through the lens of the individual with little acknowledgment of the families to which most individuals belong (Bogenschneider, 2014). Political discourse on incarceration is no exception. Attention has focused primarily on the prisoner as an individual without considering the ripple effects that incarceration has on family earnings, family relationships, parenting practices, and child well-being. This collection of papers zeroes in on what may be incarceration’s longest-lasting legacy—its impact on the next generation (Kruttschnitt, 2011).
Incarceration rates in the United States have increased sevenfold between the early 1970s and 2010 with an estimated 3 % of the adult population under correctional supervision (Wakefield & Wildeman, 2011). Between 2007 and 2012, prison populations were still increasing in some states, but dropping in others (Arditti, 2014; The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2014). In 2008, inmates confined in county and city jails peaked with a significant decline by 2013 (Golinelli & Minton, 2014). The pendulum of incarceration may have reached its apex, according to Steinberg (2008), as politicians and the public have come to regret the high costs and harshness of penal policy and the ineffectiveness of punitive reforms. Yet the pendulum is likely to move slowly and the effects will not abate any time soon (Wakefield & Wildeman, 2011). Even if incarceration rates returned to 1970 levels, its aftermath will linger on in the lives of the 2.7 million children outside the prison and jail walls, who are progeny of parents locked inside those walls (Harris & Kearney, 2014). This monograph sheds a bright light on these children—some of society’s most vulnerable members—who too often are invisible to those who study and enact incarceration policies.
These comments are targeted to researchers to help clarify what kind of research is most relevant and useful to policymakers, in general, and what evidence is needed to move parental incarceration policy forward, in particular. Too often, policy considerations come up at the back end of a study when researchers are writing their implications. I will suggest here that research could be more policy relevant if policy implications were discussed at the front end of a study when research questions are being formulated, samples selected, measures identified, and analysis designed (Tseng, 2012). I draw on my experience as a knowledge broker connecting policymakers with research knowledge and researchers with policy knowledge on a number of the most important issues of our time. Over the last two decades, my team and I have conducted 33 Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars—a series of presentations, discussion sessions, and briefing reports that communicate high-quality, objective research to state policymakers on topics they identify (see Bogenschneider, 2014). For 15 years, I directed the Family Impact Institute—a network of 26 sites that have convened over 190 Family Impact Seminars for state policymakers across the country, 16 that focused on juvenile or adult crime and 4 that focused specifically on incarceration’s impact on children. Not only do I “do” family policy but I “study” it. I have conducted dozens of interviews of state policymakers on what kinds of information they find most useful in their discourse and decisionmaking (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010).
Drawing on theory and practice, I drill down on how researchers can become more policy-minded. For policy-informed evidence, I contend that researchers need to understand the policymakers who will be using the information and the environment in which they operate. For evidence-informed policy, I propose that what policymakers need to build better public policy for children of incarcerated parents is evidence that is research-based and family-focused.
6.1 The Political Context in Which Research Is Used
The Family Impact Seminars are built on community dissonance theory, which posits that the underutilization of research in policymaking is due, in large part, to a lack of communication and trust between knowledge producers and knowledge consumers. Researchers and policymakers come from a number of disparate communities that engage in distinct core technologies and operate in diverse professional and institutional cultures with different goals, information needs, languages, and reward systems. Researchers serious about having the findings of their studies used in policy decisions need an understanding of the differences in the institutional cultures in which researchers and policymakers operate (e.g., the pace at which business is conducted, the predominant influences on decisionmaking) and the professional cultures into which they are socialized (e.g., the content that is valued, the vocabulary that is used). Because these cultures shape the way that researchers and policymakers think, act, and perceive the world, they are pervasive, undeniable forces that can facilitate or impede the flow of communication across the research/policy divide. This commentary introduces what the job of policymakers is like and how their work is affected by characteristics of the contemporary lawmaking environment—the partisanship and polarization of policymaking, political support for people in need, and political support for families. Implications are drawn for what each mean for those interested in generating and disseminating policy relevant research on children of incarcerated parents.
6.1.1 The Job of a Policymaker
The core technology of a policymaker is to make laws. Policymaking bodies, like most institutions, have long-standing operational procedures and rules that set powerful constraints on what can and cannot be done (Weiss, 1999). Operating within these institutional parameters, policymakers often use a sifting and winnowing process in order to sort out and make sense of the multitude of ideas that cross their desks. One calculus policymakers apply during this sorting process is what economic benefits will accrue to society for any investments taxpayers make.
What does the nature of a policymaker’s job mean for research on parental incarceration? When targeting the information needs of policymakers, it is important to emphasize the outcomes that matter most to them. For example, researchers tend to be more interested in the private value of policies and programs for the individuals and families who participate in them. In contrast, policymakers are more interested in the public value that individuals and families perform for the larger economic and social goals of society. For example, policymakers may be less interested in whether or not ex-offenders reunite with their family, and more interested in how reuniting with their family influences the odds of finding a job or staying off drugs (Kruttschnitt, 2011; Travis, McBride, & Solomon, 2005). Also, if ex-offenders are to reunite with their families and children or successfully reintegrate into society, policymakers will want to know how the costs of rehabilitation and welfare compare to incarceration and foster care (Kruttschnitt, 2011).
Including in research studies outcomes of interest to policymakers is vital. Equally important is understanding how the contemporary lawmaking environment shapes the way research evidence is used.
6.1.2 The Partisanship and Polarization of Policymaking
Amidst questions of how united the United States really is, recent data indicate how far the nation has come apart (Haidt & Hetherington, 2012). Drawing on studies that track Congress over time, partisan polarization was at an all-time low in the 1940s and 1950s; the distance between the parties began to grow in the 1960s and 1970s to the unprecedented divide that exists today. Based on the most current data from 2009, social scientists conclude “it is mathematically impossible for Congress to get much more polarized” (Haidt & Hetherington, 2012, p. 2).
What does this partisan polarization mean for research on parental incarceration? Imagine how the nature of a work environment would change in the face of an opposition whose full-time job it is “to make you look bad” (Levin, 2003, p. 15). Opponents take it upon themselves to closely monitor their colleagues and to meticulously point out any mistakes or misjudgments that can be used against them for political gain in the next election campaign (Levin, 2005). In particular, policymakers’ voting records on penal policy may be scrupulously screened for any indication that an opponent is “soft on crime” (Scott & Steinberg, 2008). Given this high level of scrutiny, policymakers will want to know, not only what the research says, but also how much confidence they can have in it. Are these well-accepted, frequently-reported findings or promising new results that need replication? Basically, will the research hold up to the attacks that are sure to come from the other side? For policymakers, it is critical to have information that they can count on to be correct and complete before they present their ideas to colleagues, constituents, and the media. Having the facts right means they are more apt to be re-elected by their constituents and respected by their colleagues in a system that operates on the basis of trust (Bogenschneider & Corbett, 2010).
In the academic culture, the rewards are greater for publishing innovative findings than for replicating findings previously published by others. In the policy culture, innovative findings are of interest, particularly to the most research-minded policymakers (Bogenschneider, Little, & Johnson, 2013) but, in general, policymakers are more apt to value rigorous findings that have been well replicated. For the purposes of this paper, policymakers will need clear and convincing evidence that children benefit or, at a minimum, are not harmed by contacts with incarcerated parents.
As important as understanding how lawmaking bodies operate is recognizing that laws are debated and decided in the midst of a milieu of beliefs and values. Those of particular importance to policy decisions for children of incarcerated parents are political support for people in need and for families.
6.1.3 Political Support for People in Need
In recent polls, Americans’ support for government programs to help the poor was close to a 25-year low that occurred in 1994. In 2012, only 43 % of Americans believed that government should help more needy people if it meant going deeper into debt, down from 53 % in 1987 and 54 % in 2007. Views on government support for the poor diverge sharply according to political party. Democrats have continued to support government assistance for the poor and needy over the last 25 years, but Republican support has declined significantly since 2007. In 2012, a minority of Republicans (40 %) agreed that government should take care of people who can’t take care of themselves (Pew Research Center, 2012).
What does declining support for people in need mean for research on parental incarceration? These findings imply that it may be difficult to generate bipartisan interest for policies that support those in need, particularly for a group as stigmatized as those ever locked behind bars. However, data that raise the specter of incarceration’s impact on children may pique the interest of policymakers, irrespective of their political persuasion. Children are perceived as being placed at-risk because they were thrust into a situation they did not cause and are not responsible for. Beyond the impacts on children, researchers also can factor into their studies the political support that exists for families. Families have proven to be politically popular across the ideological spectrum.
6.1.4 Political Support for Families
Families are considered the cornerstone of a sound economy and a strong society among policymakers, professionals, and the public alike. Policymakers often invoke the language and symbol of family because it appeals to common values with the potential to rise above politics (Strach, 2007). For example, a review of the Congressional Record revealed that across a decade, except for 2 weeks, family-oriented words appeared every single week Congress was in session. Importantly, this concern for families did not vary by gender or political party, so the family “brand” has not been captured by the right or left (Strach, 2007). What’s more, professionals who educate, administer, or deliver services to families have issued over 50 reports in the last quarter century, calling for family-focused policies, programs, and practices in fields ranging from child care to welfare, from elder care to children of incarcerated parents (see Bogenschneider, 2014; Dunst, Trivette, & Hamby, 2007; Spoth, Kavanagh, & Dishion, 2002). In addition, support for families is widespread among the public, whose views matter to policymakers because it is their constituents who elect and re-elect them to office. The public’s near-universal endorsement of families as very important to them (94 %; Pew Research Center, 2010) is more than just hollow words. In the 2008 election, the presidential candidates’ position on family values were extremely or very important to how the vast majority of Americans voted—86 % of Republicans, 72 % of Democrats, and 71 % of Independents (Carroll, 2007).
What does political support for families mean for research on parental incarceration? As previously proposed, interest may be piqued in incarceration policy by documenting the problem with data regarding impacts on children, who are seen as deserving recipients of a policy response. However, when it comes to addressing the problem, policymakers will want to know if using family approaches is more effective and cost-efficient than individual approaches as has been widely demonstrated in early childhood education and care, health care, long term care, juvenile crime, substance use, and welfare reform (see Bogenschneider, 2014). For example, studies of foster care placements have compared the effectiveness of a family-focused versus a group-based treatment for delinquent youth. Compared to traditional group care, trained and supported foster parents who recreated the powerful socialization forces of functional family life were much more effective in reducing delinquent acts and serious crimes among even chronic juvenile offenders. In independent analyses, the benefits of the program substantially outweighed the costs (Chamberlain & Reid, 1991).
Building on this background on the context in which policy decisions are made, this commentary turns to what I argue policymakers need to design better incarceration policy—evidence that is research-based and family-focused. Each is discussed in turn below.
6.2 What Research Evidence Policymakers Need for Decisions on Incarceration Policy
As aptly put by Massoglia and Warner, “Effective policy recommendations must flow from scientifically informed and methodologically rigorous research” (2011, p. 856). Incarceration research, which is burdened by the added constraints of studying vulnerable populations in closed environments, suffers from some of the usual shortcomings—biased samples (Arditti, 2012; Wakefield & Wildeman, 2011), nonrandom assignment of individuals to confinement (Kruttschnitt, 2011), lack of intergenerational data (Wakefield & Wildeman, 2011), self-report measures (McClure et al., in this volume), and so forth. In addition, studies of incarcerated parents suffer from other shortcomings such as the failure to disentangle differences based on the type of contact (e.g., written, phone, video, plexiglass), the source of contacts (e.g., spouses, children, unmarried partners, friends; Holt & Miller, 1972), the confinement sentence and setting (e.g., jail, prison; Poehlmann, Dallaire, Booker Loper, & Shear, 2010); and the intense emotions that can arise when studying families experiencing challenging circumstances (Arditti, Joest, Lambert-Shute, & Walker, 2010). Given these limitations, the literature is plagued with inconsistent findings with research needed on several fronts to provide a “more precise estimate of all the moving parts” (Massoglia & Warner, 2011, p. 823).
Those who study parental incarceration know what rigorous research is and are familiar with the field, so the focus of this section is not to review the literature or the findings reported in this monograph. Instead, this section will identify three research directions that would be useful to policymakers when making decisions on incarceration policy: how children’s well-being is influenced by contact with incarcerated parents, which conditions moderate the impact, what mediating pathways influence children for better or worse, and what the cost/benefits might be of intervening in ways that will benefit children.
6.2.1 How Children’s Well-Being Is Influenced by Contact with Incarcerated Parents
One of the first questions policymakers are likely to ask is this: Why should children of incarcerated parents be a top policy priority on their legislative agenda amongst the hundreds of issues they are lobbied to take up, often by loud and powerful voices? To exemplify the volume of issues that cross policymakers’ desks, in a typical biennium in Wisconsin, there are 1,200 bill requests in the Assembly and 600 in the Senate. With a legislative agenda so crowded, policymakers may be inclined to take notice when confronted with the cost of the U.S. penal system—growing from $7 billion in 1980 to $70 billion in 2007 (Arditti, 2012) and its reach—releasing as many men each year as graduate from college (exactly the type of “social math” that policymakers find useful; Massoglia & Warner, 2011). Before this issue gets any traction though, policymakers will want clear and convincing evidence of whether children are harmed by contact with incarcerated parents, and if so, how serious the harm is. Intuitively, some policymakers are likely to be skeptical, questioning whether some children might actually benefit when an abusive or violent parent is removed from the home.
Wakefield and Wildeman (2011) do not dispute that some children will benefit from the incarceration of their parent, yet provide more precise estimates of child impacts, writ large, using two representative longitudinal data sets with high-quality measurement and several waves of data collection. Multiple modeling strategies allow them to tease apart whether any negative effects on children stem from other sources of childhood disadvantage, in general, or from parent incarceration, in particular. Across all models and data sources, fathers’ incarceration appears to increase both externalizing problems (e.g., aggression, delinquency) and internalizing problems (e.g., anxiety, depression) by about one third to one half of a standard deviation. After preexisting disadvantages are accounted for, this translates into approximately a 4–6 % increase in mental health and behavioral problems. A more substantial effect was noted in one data set where levels of physical aggression increased between 19 and 33 %. With this one exception, most of these reported effects are not large, which makes it even more difficult to build the case for lawmakers’ attention and action.
A related question is whether these effects are magnified or mitigated when children have contact with parents while they are in prison. One extensive literature review of 36 studies conducted after 1998 concluded that the impact of visitation on parents (with few exceptions) was beneficial. However, the impact on children was mixed with 58 % of studies showing benefits for children and 42 % that did not (Poehlmann et al., 2010). Emerging evidence suggests that an important consideration may be the quality of the contact. In one study, the trauma that children experienced in their visit with incarcerated parents was completely mediated by how problematic and distressing the contact was (Arditti & Savla, 2013). Paralleling this study, the findings reported in this monograph appear to be conditional. It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions across studies that vary in how old the child is, whether the parents are confined in a jail or prison, what type of contact occurred, and so forth.
In sum, the mixed findings suggest that the question may be more complicated than whether or not contact with incarcerated parents affects children’s well-being. If policymakers are going to take action, researchers will need to provide more conclusive data on increasingly nuanced questions such as which children are most likely to be affected and under what conditions. The next section examines the value to policymakers of knowing which conditions moderate child impacts.
6.2.2 Which Conditions Moderate the Impact of Children’s Contact with Parents
Existing research suggests that child impacts may be conditional depending on the developmental stage of the child (Kruttschnitt, 2011), characteristics of the incarcerated parent (Arditti, 2012; Edin & Nelson, 2013; McKay, Bir, & Lindquist, 2014), the type of contact (Arditti, 2012; Poehlmann et al., 2010), the quality of the contact (Arditti & Savla, 2013), the confinement sentence and setting (Poehlmann et al., 2010), and so forth. For other policy issues, policymakers have found research on moderators to provide useful guidance for policy decisions. As an example, one paper that laid out moderators to consider when developing poverty policy, was almost instantly picked up and used by policymakers. To explain how policymakers could design policies targeted to the disparate needs of diverse segments of the poverty population, Corbett (1993) used an onion analogy. The outer layer of the onion represents those who are plunged into poverty by a discrete event such as divorce or the loss of a job. This subgroup already possesses the skills and motivation to achieve economic self-sufficiency, but may need time-limited and short-term help into the labor market through policies like affordable child care and the Earned Income Tax Credit. The middle layer of the onion represents those with limited options and low earnings capacity. This subgroup has reasonable levels of basic skills and education, but their preparation for the workforce may not match available employment opportunities. To lift this group out of poverty, policies are needed that provide specialized training and vocational education.
Another example of the usefulness of moderators is the differential response approach recently adopted in child protective services. Case workers, sometimes in teams, evaluate reports of maltreatment on a case-by-case basis and typically assign them into one of two or more categories based on imminent danger and risk to a child. The “investigation” category, generally reserved for reports of the most severe types of maltreatment or those that are potentially criminal, require a formal determination or substantiation of child abuse or neglect. The “assessment” category, usually applied in low- and moderate-risk cases, entails a review of the family’s strengths and stressors to determine how to address needs and support positive parenting without a formal determination of child abuse or neglect (Abner & Gordon, 2012; Child Welfare Information Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2008).
Researchers have also used statistical techniques like latent class analysis to identify policy-relevant moderators. For example, Courtney and colleagues developed four distinct profiles of young people transitioning from foster care into young adulthood (Courtney, Hook, & Lee, 2010). To respond to each profile’s distinct characteristics and needs, specific policies were suggested that could support a successful transition into adulthood.
Related posts:
Children’s Contact with Incarcerated Parents: Summary and Recommendations
Introduction and Literature Review: Is Parent–Child Contact During Parental Incarceration Beneficial?
Associations Among Mother–Child Contact, Parenting Stress, and Mother and Child Adjustment Related to Incarceration
Young Children’s Behavioral and Emotional Reactions to Plexiglas and Video Visits with Jailed Parents
Differential Effects of Type of Children’s Contact with Their Jailed Mothers and Children’s Behavior Problems
Mainstream Education for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
