International  Journal  of
Environmental Research
and Public Health
Article
Against the Odds: A Structural Equation Analysis of Family
Resilience Processes during Paternal Incarceration
Amy A. Morgan 1,* , Joyce A. Arditti 2, Susan Dennison 3 and Signe Frederiksen 4
1 Department of Family Science, School of Public Health, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742, USA
2 Department of Human Development and Family Science, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, VA 24061, USA; jarditti@vt.edu
3 School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University,
Brisbane, QLD 4111, Australia; susan.dennison@griffith.edu.au
4 Children and Education Department, VIVE Danish Center for Social Science Research,
1052 Copenhagen, Denmark; signefred78@gmail.com
* Correspondence: aamorgan@umd.edu
Abstract: On any given day, approximately 2.1 million children in Europe have an incarcerated
parent. Although research indicates that material hardship is associated with parental incarceration,
and particularly paternal incarceration, little is known about family processes that may mitigate the





 harmful effects of such hardship on children with an incarcerated parent. Guided by a resilience
Citation: Morgan, A.A.; Arditti, J.A.; framework, this study examined how family processes mediate the effects of material hardship on
Dennison, S.; Frederiksen, S. Against youth academic adjustment within the context of paternal incarceration. Using Danish data that
the Odds: A Structural Equation assessed key family constructs, structural equation modeling was used to perform a mediational
Analysis of Family Resilience within-group analysis of primary caregivers (n = 727) to children with an incarcerated father. Results
Processes during Paternal indicate that although social support and parenting skills did not yield mediating effects, caregiver
Incarceration. Int. J. Environ. Res. mental health strongly mediated the effects of material hardship on youth academic adjustment
Public Health 2021, 18, 11592. during paternal incarceration. Findings suggest that economic conditions, as well as caregiver mental
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph
health symptoms, are important areas of intervention that may promote family-level resilience for
182111592
youth of an imprisoned father. We conclude with research and practice recommendations to advance
Academic Editors: Daniel Perlman, our understanding of resilience among families with an incarcerated parent.
Julie Poehlmann-Tynan,
Noelia Fern?ndez-Rouco and Rodrigo Keywords: parental incarceration; paternal incarceration; family processes; family resilience; struc-
J. Carcedo Gonz?lez tural equation modeling; mass incarceration; Danish families
Received: 5 August 2021
Accepted: 13 October 2021
Published: 4 November 2021 1. Introduction
Although the rising global incarceration rate has remained fairly commensurate with
Publisher?s Note: MDPI stays neutral rising population rates (i.e., 24%), changes in prison population rates since 2000 vary
with regard to jurisdictional claims in considerably across countries [1]. The United States (U.S.) still maintains the highest prison
published maps and institutional affil- population rate (i.e., 655 per 100,000), but as incarceration rates begin to slow in the Amer-
iations. icas, Europe?s prison population rate has slightly increased (i.e., by 3%; 192 per 100,000)
since 2000 [1]. Across Europe, the number of estimated children (i.e., 2.1 million) with an in-
carcerated parent is equivalent to that of a small country [2]. Rising and maintained rates of
prison populations, and the sheer number of children experiencing parental incarceration
Copyright: ? 2021 by the authors. (PI), warrant consideration of the many families impacted globally by carceral practices.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Nevertheless, empirically examining the effects of PI on the family has been historically
This article is an open access article challenging due to a general lack of family level PI data, as well as methodological barriers
distributed under the terms and to conducting research with incarcerated persons, and by extension their families [3?5].
conditions of the Creative Commons Although much remains to be known about the effects of PI, existing research clearly shows
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// that PI broadly generates adverse outcomes for youth and families [2,3]. Furthermore, the
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
negative effects of having an incarcerated parent, and in particular paternal incarceration,
4.0/).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111592 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 2 of 21
are fairly consistent across many Westernized nations including the U.S., United Kingdom,
Norway, the Netherlands, and Denmark, despite differing sociopolitical contexts (e.g.,
social welfare, access to healthcare, ?tough on crime? policies, etc.) and criminal justice
practices (e.g., sentence length, prison conditions, rehabilitation approaches, day or week-
end release practices, etc.) [6]. As new theories and data emerge, opportunities to test them
must be seized to advance our understanding of how PI shapes youth and families. Given
the abundance of risks and adverse outcomes experienced by families with an incarcerated
parent, it is imperative that we focus on understanding protective factors and processes
that mediate against negative outcomes and that possibly promote resilience.
In this paper, we present compelling findings that highlight possible mechanisms of
family resilience in the context of paternal incarceration. Our findings provide meaningful
contributions to the PI literature in several distinct ways. First, our data contained a focus on
family process perspectives. Family-level data examining the effects of PI remain relatively
rare, rendering our research a unique opportunity to consider paternal incarceration in a
family context. Second, our data were collected in Denmark. PI research among Danish
families is still developing, and existing literature indicates that PI data from Denmark offer
comparative insights to other Westernized countries [6]. Finally, this study was among the
first to concurrently examine both risk and resilience in a robust manner using family-level
data, offering promising theoretical and intervention-based possibilities for families with
an incarcerated parent. To best situate our findings, we first provide an overview of the
Danish context.
2. Danish Context
At present, approximately 5144 Danish children (i.e., about 6%) have an imprisoned
father [2,7]. Youth and family experiences of paternal incarceration differ greatly based
on existing risk and protective factors (e.g., socioeconomic status, family stability, social
safety net, etc.), as well as criminal justice trends and practices (e.g., frequency, duration,
and location of paternal incarceration) [6?9]. In Denmark, rates of serious criminal activity
and convictions are relatively low compared with other Westernized nations, such as
the U.S., which serves as a comparison of extreme incarceration trends [7]. For example,
the homicide rate in the U.S. (3.8 per 100,000) is 54 times higher than that of Denmark
(0.7 per 100,000) [7]. However, rates of ?less serious crimes? (e.g., traffic violations) do not
vary greatly between these two countries [7].
The justice systems between Denmark and the U.S. are distinct in six ways, as sum-
marized by Wildeman and Andersen (2017), and contribute to our understanding of how
these countries differ [9]. First, Denmark generally has harsher sentences than the U.S.
for serious traffic violations (e.g., driving under the influence) [9]. Second, carceral sen-
tences are generally much shorter in Denmark across all crimes [9]. Third, individuals
incarcerated in Denmark are eligible for parole after two-thirds of their sentence has been
served, whereas Americans tend to serve higher proportions of their sentences [9]. Fourth,
Denmark uses non-custodial alternatives to traditional incarceration, such as community
service and electronic monitoring, at much higher rates than other countries [9]. Fifth,
and perhaps most notably, about one-third of Danish prisons are ?open? [8], in which
incarcerated persons can leave for skill promoting opportunities such as employment and
work. Finally, the practice of incarcerating people in local jails (i.e., closer to home) for
shorter sentences does not occur in Denmark. Indeed, Danish incarcerated persons with
short sentences may serve time in carceral settings that are very far from home [9]. Even
when contact and visiting experiences are possible, experiences vary greatly in quality [8].
Crime rates are only part of the whole incarceration picture. In addition to lower rates
of imprisonment and generally humane prison conditions, Denmark also has an extensive
welfare system fostering robust safety nets that might compensate for the effects of PI
on children and families [6?9]. Nonetheless, emerging research suggests that despite an
expansive welfare system, PI may still adversely impact Danish children?s education and
other developmental outcomes. In this way, if PI is a mechanism of risk for families with
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 3 of 21
significant social welfare resources, it is likely we would find the same outcomes, if not
worse, in countries with less socialized resources such as the U.S. Regardless of differences
across countries, PI research outcomes (i.e., foster care placement and youth well-being)
have been remarkably consistent across transnational criminal justice contexts [8], including
the U.S. and Denmark. Danish studies may also offer useful insights for jail/pre-trial
sentences in other countries, as the average duration of prison sentences in Denmark are
shorter in nature [9]. Given that the present study is not examining predictors or outcomes
of incarceration, but rather family resilience processes during incarceration, we argue that
findings from this research may inform our general understanding of family resilience
processes when a parent is incarcerated. Indeed, PI scholars assert that Danish studies
examining processes present during PI can provide important comparative insights that
are relevant and applicable to other jurisdictions and may point to even greater effects in
countries with less social welfare resources [6?9].
3. Risk and Resilience during Parental Incarceration
The era of mass incarceration has generated a destructive wake of consequences
for youth and families [10?16]. Children of incarcerated parents often face unique risk
factors that their age-matched counterparts do not. For example, many children with
an incarcerated parent will enter the criminal justice system, suggesting a systemic and
intergenerational pattern of incarceration [16]. Furthermore, children with an incarcerated
parent also tend to have higher rates of mental illness, trauma, antisocial behavior, academic
challenges, poor physical health, profound poverty, parental substance use, stigma-laden
interactions, and homelessness [10,17?22]. Research highlighting poor outcomes among
families experiencing PI are consistent across developed countries, particularly the United
States and Europe [7,16,23?25]. PI often equates with significant alterations in family
roles and responsibilities, particularly if the incarcerated parent provided meaningful
contributions to the family prior to confinement [14]. Paternal incarceration has been linked
to an increase in single parent households [26] and can have profound implications for those
remaining caregivers [17]. The non-incarcerated caregiver (e.g., biological parent, extended
family, foster parent, etc.) may experience psychological and financial distress, role strain as
a caregiver, and overall family instability [15,19,27]. Consequently, negative child outcomes
may be a function of family-level processes during PI, and especially maternal caregiving
during paternal incarceration [27,28]. For example, research indicates that children with
incarcerated parents are more likely to experience socioemotional problems, including
internalizing disorders such as depression and anxiety [16,20] and externalizing disorders
such as such as delinquent conduct [29]. However, findings vary by child gender and the
type of crime associated with the parent?s sentencing [30]. Furthermore, families with an
incarcerated parent are often caught in an impossible cycle where cumulative disadvantage
predicts carceral involvement [8,30], and carceral involvement worsens economic and
family well-being over time [14,18?22].
Historically, much of the PI literature has highlighted risks and determinants of pathol-
ogy (e.g., mental health and substance use problems, risks for offending, etc.) for youth
with an incarcerated parent [19,22]. Based on the extant literature, we can reasonably
conclude that PI overwhelmingly produces increased risks for youth and families across
the world [12?33], even among countries with extensive social safety nets [6?9,25,28]. Nev-
ertheless, there is a significant lack of research that uses a resilience framework to examine
family resilience processes in the context of PI [31,33]. Here, we define family resilience as
the process by which families withstand and rebound from serious life challenges [34?36].
To assess the degree of family system resilience, Patterson (2002) stated that the empir-
ical method must involve at least two family members, with a specific focus on family
relationships (i.e., linkages and processes between family members) [37,38]. Masten and
Coatsworth (1998) provided further family resilience research criteria: (1) the presence
of a contextual risk (e.g., material hardship) that we would expect to cause family crisis
and (2) a need to understand protective processes that prevent otherwise expected poor
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 4 of 21
outcomes [39]. The lack of PI research on family resilience processes may be, in part, due
to a lack of within-group resilience research, which may be better suited to identify specific
resilience processes and attributes than comparative between-groups research (i.e., control
or comparative group) [31,33].
Family resilience process research broadly provides an opportunity to examine the
systemic interdependence of family members in shaping one another?s experiences and is
crucial to better understanding the effects of PI on the family as a whole [15]. Advancing
this line of research is imperative to our understanding of how youth and families may
fare well, or even excel, in the context of PI [31,33,35]. Indeed, PI scholars have identified
an urgent need for understanding resilience processes among families with an incarcer-
ated parent [31,33]. Resilience research findings have the potential to inform intervention
programs just as much, if not more, than pathology-based research of youth experiencing
PI [31,33,35]. However, resilience research within contexts of PI researchers may be lim-
ited by a general lack of data containing key family-level constructs central to resilience
frameworks, such as parenting quality and practices associated with the nonincarcerated
caregiver. As new family-level PI data emerge, we must leverage opportunities to better
understand family resilience mechanisms among families with an incarcerated parent.
Toward that end, this paper presents findings from a within-group analysis examining
mediating resilience processes of Danish families impacted by paternal incarceration. We
use a risk and resilience framework (i.e., the Family Inequality Framework; [35]) to advance
our understanding of how these families fare well despite significant adversity.
4. Family Inequality Framework
Informed by Family Stress and Resilience Theory [36?38], the Family Inequality
Framework (FIF) [35] conceptualizes PI as an ongoing stressor that influences critical
family processes such as parenting and youth academic adjustment. Within the FIF, material
hardship (i.e., economic hardship) is a key mechanism of stress [35]. Family coping (e.g.,
social support, positive parenting, and stable caregiver mental health) acts as resilience
processes that buffer the impact of these stressors in families experiencing PI [35]. Although
the risks inherent in PI have been documented extensively, less is known about the degree
to which family processes represented in the FIF broadly promote family resilience during
PI and specifically mediate the effect on youth academic adjustment [15]. Investigating
mechanisms of risk and resilience in a family context may promote positive youth and
family outcomes despite material hardship during PI [31,33]. In this paper we present an
empirical test of the theoretical FIF by examining how family processes, such as caregiver
mental health, positive parenting, and social support, mediate the effects of material
hardship on youth outcomes during paternal incarceration. These processes are visually
represented in the conceptual model (Figure 1).
4.1. Material Hardship
Incarcerated persons are more likely to experience poverty, reside in low socioeco-
nomic status neighborhoods, and hold low-wage positions before and after incarcera-
tion [40,41]. Children of incarcerated parents are significantly less likely to have financial
support (e.g., child support and general financial assistance) than children who have not
experienced PI [19]. Incarceration can further exacerbate material hardship through loss
of income, legal fees, and/or barriers to re-entering the labor market with a criminal
record [42], perpetuating existing economic inequities and resulting in cumulative disad-
vantage. The relationship between PI and cumulative disadvantage may be especially true
in countries with less robust social safety nets (e.g., social welfare and healthcare) [43].
These findings suggest that incarcerated individuals likely experience significant material
hardship, which may have profound direct and indirect implications for their families and
children. Conger and colleagues (2010) proposed that economic (i.e., material) hardship
acts as a conduit for risk factors in family relationships; material hardship not only affects
child development directly but also transmits effects of material hardship through parental
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 5 of 21
Int.?J.?Environ.?Res.?Public?Health?2021e,?1? x
8p,?ex?riences (i.e., parenting, coping, stress etc.) [44]. The FIF indicates possible protec5t?oivf?2e2?
processes (e.g., social support, parenting, and caregiver mental health) that may mediate
the effects of material hardship and contribute to resilience processes [35].
?
FFiigguurree1?1. .C?CoonncceeppttuuaallM?Mooddeel.l.?
44..21..?FMamatielryiaRl?eHsialirednscheipP?rocesses
4.2.1. Social Support
Incarcerated?persons?are?more?likely?to?experience?poverty,?reside?in?low?socioeco?
nomSico?sctiaatlussu?npepiogrhtbcoarnhoacotdass,?aanpdr?ohtoelcdt?ilvoewf?awctaogred?puorsiintgiotnism?beesfoorfes?tarnedss?aaftnedr?icnacnarmceerdaitaioten?
t[h4e0,h41a]r.m?Cfhuillderffeenc?tosf?oinfceacrocneroamteidc?apnadrenptssy?acrheo?sloiggnicifailcadnistltyre?lsesssd?luikrienlyg?tPoI?h[a4v3,e4?f5i?n4a8n]c. iaSlo?scuiapl?
spuoprpt?o(er.tgm.,?cahyilbde?suexpppeorrite?anncedd?geansefiranla?fninciaanl,cieaml?aostsioisntaanl,ceo)r?tihnasntr?cuhmilednretanl?whehlop?hbayvef?rnieont?desx,?
fpaemriielyn,caendd?PcIo?[m19m].u?Innictayrcmereamtiboenr?sca[4n8?f]u. rFtohrerm?eaxnaycefrabmaitlei?ems,aitnecraiarlc?ehraartdiosnhimp?ethanrosuagnha?lborsusp?otf?
cihnaconmgee,i?nlegfianla?fneceisa,?la,nhdo/uosre?bhaorlrdie, rasn?tdo?rpea?erenntetirninggr?tehsep?olanbsoibr?imlitaierske[t4?6w,4it7h,4?a9?]c.rimOtihnearl?rteycpoersd?
o[4f2f]a,m?peilrypelotussat(ien.gg?.e, xdiestpinlogy?emcoennot,mdieca?itnhe,qeutict.i,e)sare usually accompanied by support andsympathy for the involuntary nature of the str?uacntdu?rraelsufaltminigly?inch?caunmguel[a1t4iv].e?Idnicsaardcvearanttiaogne,.?
hTohwe?erveleart,idoonesshinpo?btetetwndeetno?PdIr?aawndt?hcuemsaumlaetitvyep?de iosfadsovcainaltasguep?mpoaryt;?bien?desepedec, itahlelys?torcuiae?linst?cigomuna?
sturirerso?uwnidthin? lgesisn?craorbcuesrta?tsioocniaml?asyafiemtyp?endetes?a(efa.gm.,?ilsyo?csiaalb?iwliteylfatore[?oapnedn?lhye, apluthbclaicrley)]? [g4r3i]e.v?Tehtehsee?
afminbdiignugos?ususglogsessto?tfhtaetn?inincharecreernatteind?iPnId. iAvisdAuarldsi?tlitki e(2ly0?1e2x)pestraietensc,e??sTighneirfeicaanret?mnoatcearsiasle?rhoalreds?
bsrhoipu,g?hwthtiochth?me ahyo?uhsaevfeo?rprtohfeo?upnrdis?odnirwecitd?aonwd?? iannddirheecrt? icmhipldlirceanti.oTnhs?efroer?itshneoir?gfaomveirlinems?eanntd?
acshsiilsdtarennc.e?Coornfogremr?aalnrde?ccoogllneiatgiounesth?(a2t0a10s)i?gpnriofipcoasnetdlo?tshsaht?aescoonccoumrrice?d(i.ien.,t?hmeaftaemriailly)?hthaartdwshiilpl ?
baecatsr?ahse?aav?ciolyndounict?hfoilrd?rriesnk??sfawcteolrfsa?rien??fa(pm. i1ly1?2r)el[a1t5i]o.nMshoitphse;?rms aatreermialo?hstabrdusrhdiepn?nedotb?oynplya?taefrfencatls?
icnhcialdrc?dereavteiolonp,myeetnmt?daiyrehctalvye?bluimt?ailtseod?taracncessmsittos?,eoffrecotfsf?eorfs?moaf,tesruiaplp?hoarrtd[s5h0i]p. ?tFhrroomugahf?pamarielny?
sttarle?essxppeerrisepneccetsi?v(ie.e, .r,e?psoaruerncteisnagr,?econpeiendge,d?stirnestism?eetcs.)o?[f4s4t]r.a?Tinheto?FpIFr?oinmdoitceatfeasm?piolyssaidblaep?ptartoitoenc.?
Otinvee?pstruodceyswseist?h(ei.ngc.,a?srocceiraalt?esudpppaorretn,?tpsadreenmtionngs,t?arantde?dcatrheagtivsoecr?imalesnutpalp?hoertalhthad)?tahamt?emdaiayt?imnge?
edffiaetcet?othnet?ehfefepcatsr?eonft?m?saptseyricahlo?hsaorcdiaslhfiupn?acntdio?cnoinngtraibnudted?teop?rreessisliiveencsey?mprpotcoemssses[5?[13]5.]H.? owever,
Turney and Wildeman?s (2013) findings demonstrate a ?double strike? within the context
o4f.2p.?aFtaemrnilayl?Rinescialirecnecrea?Ptiroonceisnsetsh? at the availability of instrumental support may decrease
w4.h2i.l1e.?tShoecinael?eSdufpoprosrut?pport increases [47]. However, further research is needed to examine
the roSloecsioalc?isaulpspuoprpt?ocratnm?aacyt?apsl?aay?pirnomtecetdiviaet?ifnagctothr?edeufrfeincgts?toimf mesa?otef?rsiatrlehssa?radnsdh?icpano?nmyeoduiathte?
othuetc?ohmaremsfduul?reinffgecPtsI.?of?economic?and?psychological?distress?during?PI? [43,45?48].?Social?
support?may?be?experienced?as?financial,?emotional,?or?instrumental?help?by?friends,?fam?
4il.2y.,2? .anCda?rceogmivmeruMnietnyt?aml Hemeablethrs? [48].? For?many? families,? incarceration?means? an? abrupt?
chanPgoeo?irnc?fairneagnicviearl,?mhoenutsaelhhoelda,l?tahnids?cpoanresinsttienngt?lryeslipnoknesdibwiliittihesn?[e4g6a,t4i7v,e49c]h.?iOldthaenrd?tyfapmesi?loyf?
ofuamtcoilmy?elossasc?(reo.sgs.,a?dveaprlioetyymoefndto,?mdeaainths,[?e4t1c].,a)n?adrem?uasyubaellya?sapccilolomvperanefifeedc?tbfyro?smupspoocirot?eacnodn?osmymic?
pathy?for?the?involuntary?nature?of?the?structural?family?change?[14].?Incarceration,?how?
ever,?does?not? tend? to?draw? the?same? type?of?social?support;? indeed,? the?social?stigma?
surrounding?incarceration?may?impede?a?family?s?ability?to?[openly,?publicly]?grieve?the?
?
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 6 of 21
struggles related to paternal incarceration [52]. Conversely, research suggests that the
mental well-being of the non-incarcerated parent/caregiver may mitigate adverse outcomes
during PI [27,53]. The hypothesized relationship between the mental well-being of PI
caregivers and consequences for youth is evident in studies that demonstrate positive
prosocial and well-being outcomes for children of parents with little or well-managed
stress [54]. For example, Dallaire and Aaron (2010) reported that children?s responses
to PI were influenced by the mental well-being of their caregivers [55]. Although this
area of research requires further advancement, scholars agree that the importance of the
caregiving context (i.e., caregiver mental health) is imperative to the well-being of children
with an incarcerated parent [53,54]. Consequently, caregiver mental health may serve as a
family resilience process in which child well-being is a function of parental wellness despite
other contextual stressors such as material hardship [26,49]. Although previous research
has indicated the general importance of having a stable caregiver during PI [52,53,56,57],
further research is needed to examine caregiver mental health as a specific mediating
resilience process with families experiencing PI.
4.2.3. Positive Parenting
High quality parenting has begun to be conceptualized as a resilience process that
mediates the potential effects of PI [14,35,53,58,59]. However, due to a dearth of empirical
research about positive parenting behaviors of the nonincarcerated caregiver in contexts of
PI, we must extrapolate the importance of positive parenting by considering its opposite?
that is, studies that examine parenting stress and less optimal parenting strategies. For
example, research suggests an association between paternal imprisonment and high ma-
ternal parenting stress [52,59]. A recent examination of heterogeneity in maternal stress
during paternal incarceration found that experiencing material hardship and poorer well-
being prior to incarceration was associated with no apparent change in parenting stress,
yet if parenting stress was high before incarceration it remained high during incarcera-
tion [45]. Further, research by Wildeman and colleagues (2012) suggested that changes in
material hardship were associated with increased parenting stress and worsened mental
health, suggesting overall negative spillover effects across financial and socioemotional
domains [52]. Scholars have hypothesized that PI may impede effective parenting skills
for the non-incarcerated parent because of economic strain and psychological distress [20].
For example, research suggests that paternal incarceration is associated with maternal
authoritarian parenting practices and neglect [20]. Additionally, these mothers tended
to report increased experiences of material hardship as well as family instability [20].
Turney (2014) also found child neglect and maternal physical aggression to be positively
associated with paternal incarceration [20], which may be explained, in part, by caregiver
mental health and material hardship [20,45]. Within the FIF, material hardship during PI
could exacerbate strain in the family relationships and on the caregiving parent, and result
in collateral harm to the child through the primary caregiver?s parenting. Findings by
Besemer and Dennison (2018) support this notion, indicating that parenting stress is likely
a mediating factor in child adjustment during paternal incarceration [59]. Conversely, if
parenting stress mediates hardship and child outcomes, the presence of positive (i.e., warm
and authoritative) parenting practices could foster positive outcomes for youth with an
incarcerated parent. Indeed, findings suggest that positive parenting experiences may be
among the most important parental processes for families with an incarcerated parent,
even in the context of material hardship [52]. Nevertheless, further research is needed to
examine the nuances of parenting effects within families experiencing PI. For example, the
presence of positive parenting (i.e., a family strength) is not the same as the absence of
pathology [31] and thus warrants further examination.
4.3. Youth Academic Adjustment
Although primarily deficit-focused, an emerging literature is beginning to document
evidence of children?s competence in contexts of PI [33]. These competencies are develop-
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 7 of 21
mentally specific and linked to age salient tasks such as attachment and school success [57].
Therefore, for school-aged youth, academic adjustment is a critical area of concern [60]. PI
has been associated with poor functioning across multiple academic domains, including
class ranking, truancy, class failure/pass rates, education incompletion, and failure to com-
plete standardized exams [61]. College graduation rates were also found to be significantly
lower for children of incarcerated parents than children with parents who were never in-
carcerated [61]. While academic performance appears to be consistently lower for children
of incarcerated parents, findings on school dropout are mixed. Research by Cho (2011)
indicated that adolescents are at a significantly higher risk for dropping out of school
in the year that PI began [62]. Furthermore, consistent with Hagan and Foster?s (2012)
findings, adolescents with an incarcerated parent are neither more nor less likely to drop
out of school when attending school in an area of high rates of PI [60?62]. One potential
explanation for this finding is that teachers may increase sympathy and lower expectations
for children and adolescents experiencing PI more than other common reasons for poor aca-
demic performance [62]. Still, findings examining the association between PI and academic
adjustment remain mixed [61], and scholars suggest that this may be a result of age, with
academic failure compounding over time [60]. Examining youth academic adjustment in re-
lation to PI makes sense, as it is generally understood to be a reliable indicator of well-being
in later life [63] and may provide a multidimensional perspective on child development,
as it examines skills across social, behavioral, and learning domains [61]. Consequently,
we incorporated an under-researched developmental outcome that represents both child
functioning and serves as a potential indicator of future adjustment.
5. Current Study
The present research examines the effects of PI on youth academic adjustment in an
effort to model how family resilience processes may mitigate negative youth outcomes
of paternal incarceration [31,33,35]. Furthermore, parental incarceration data containing
family-level variables are uncommon. Existing data with a focus on family process perspec-
tives are particularly attractive due to the historic methodological barriers to data collection
with the incarcerated population [64]. The present study advances the PI literature in
several ways. First, we explore youth academic adjustment in the context of paternal
incarceration. Second, we shift the PI literature from a deficit-focus to a strengths-based
focus by examining mediating resilience processes of families with an incarcerated father.
At present, both youth academic adjustment and family resilience are underdeveloped
research foci within the PI literature. Furthermore, our study presents findings from Danish
families, which may address important questions about PI in Denmark and potentially
provide comparative insights for other geographic contexts [65]. Finally, in examining
the first two aims we provide an empirical test of the FIF [35], which theoretically sit-
uates resilience processes as a potential mediating effect of PI on youth outcomes. We
employed a cross-sectional structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis to examine the
degree to which family resilience processes mediated the effects of material hardship on
youth school adjustment during paternal incarceration. Based on the extant literature
and theory, we hypothesized the following: (H1; direct effect) material hardship will be
negatively associated with youth academic adjustment, and (H2; indirect effect) the effects
of material hardship on youth academic adjustment will be mediated (either partially or
fully) by family resilience processes (i.e., positive parenting, parental mental health, and
social support). It is our hope that findings from this study can inform the development of
much needed family-level interventions aimed at mitigating risks and promoting resilience
among families facing PI [54].
6. Method
6.1. Data Source
To test the proposed model (Figure 1), we conducted a secondary analysis of data
from surveys randomly mailed to Danish families with an incarcerated father in 2015.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 8 of 21
Original data collection was conducted by the Danish Center for Social Science Research
(VIVE) [66]. The survey used in this study contained caregiver-completed items about
family stress, resilience processes, and youth academic adjustment outcomes. These items
were instrumental in testing the influence of family resilience processes in youth adjustment.
All respondents (n = 727) experienced incarceration of the child?s father within the three
years prior to data collection. Length of sentence and type of carceral setting were unknown.
6.2. Sample Characteristics
Although demographic information collected about survey participants was limited,
basic sample parameters were as follows. Most respondent caregivers were female (n = 678;
93.3%), and nearly half (n = 366; 50.3%) of the children were female. In order of frequency,
children were aged: 11 (n = 238; 32.7%); 13 (n = 204; 28.1%), 15 (n = 147; 20.2%), and
17 (n = 138; 19.0%). Most caregiver respondents identified as the child?s biological mother
(n = 602; 82.8%). The remaining respondents identified as a foster-mom (n = 66; 9.1%),
biological father (i.e., previously incarcerated within the prior three years) (n = 23; 3.2%),
paternal grandmother (n = 6; 0.8%), maternal grandmother (n = 5; 0.7%), other caregiver
type (n = 2; 0.3%), and step-mom (n = 1; 0.1%).
6.3. Measurement and Construct Development
Decisions about construct development and measurement were informed by the re-
search team?s preliminary inspection of the Danish survey and existing descriptive data [65]
in collaboration with VIVE. Description of the data can be found in Table 1. Internal reli-
ability consistency analysis was performed to examine the indicators of each respective
latent construct. Initial factor analyses were examined by each construct using a principal
component analysis with varimax rotation. McDonald?s omega (?), which is considered
a more robust measure of reliability than Cronbach?s alpha (?) [66], was calculated to
examine the reliability among construct indicators. Omega values indicated moderate to
strong reliability (reported below within each corresponding construct), which was again
confirmed in the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). A CFA was conducted to examine
how well each construct was measured by its respective manifest indicator. Mplus [67] was
used to test the CFA. The measurement model demonstrated an overall good fit to the data
based on the model fit indices. Specifically, the chi-square value (?2 = 264.026, p = 0.0000,
df = 109; [68]), RMSEA (0.04; [69,70]), CFI (0.94; [68]), TLI (0.92; [68]), and SRMR (0.04; [68])
were all within acceptable ranges, indicating that the hypothesized model was measured
adequately. However, modification indices did indicate minor issues with the measurement
of two constructs. Two of the original caregiver mental health items (i.e., chest pain and
body aches) did not add to the overall measurement of the construct and were removed.
Further, modification indices indicated that the construct social support would be better
measured if items were not summed as one indicator. Consequently, the summed indi-
cators were ungrouped and re-organized as five stand-alone items?specifically, support
from respondents? parents, siblings, general relatives, friends, and neighbors. Each of
these indicators was represented by a single item inquiring about the frequency in which
respondents were able to receive support from these individuals. The remainder of the
hypothesized model stayed in its original form. After making adjustments informed by
the CFA, all factor loadings were significant at the p < 0.001 level, indicating strong con-
vergent validity [71]. Furthermore, all correlations were less than 1.0 among the factors,
demonstrating evidence of discriminant validity [71]. The final SEM model, informed by
measurement model modification indices, is represented in Figure 1.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 9 of 21
Table 1. Description of Data.
N Mean St. Dev Skewness Kurtosis Min. Max.
Material Hardship
Financial Problems 685 1.50 2.143 1.253 0.292 0 7
Basic Needs 690 0.63 1.044 1.485 0.927 0 4
Overall Finances 682 2.62 0.883 0.006 ?0.480 1 5
Positive Parenting
Notice Behavior 719 4.44 0.591 ?0.741 1.154 1 5
Praise Task 719 4.56 0.587 ?1.190 1.956 1 5
Praise Behavior 719 4.43 0.694 ?1.005 0.639 1 5
Caregiver Mental Health
Anxiety 703 0.26 0.437 1.118 ?0.750 0 1
Insomnia 702 0.46 0.499 0.154 ?1.976 0 1
Overwhelmed 701 0.30 0.458 0.875 ?1.234 0 1
Social Support
Parents 696 3.26 1.618 ?0.218 ?1.563 1 5
Siblings 696 3.15 1.396 0.003 ?1.315 1 5
Relatives 696 2.91 1.365 0.195 ?1.209 1 5
Friends 696 3.59 1.209 ?0.411 ?0.885 1 5
Neighbors 696 2.69 1.185 0.562 ?0.611 1 5
Youth Academic
Adjustment
Adjustment 689 8.40 1.829 ?1.413 1.667 2 10
Concentration 712 2.19 0.701 ?0.273 ?0.956 1 3
Social Inclusion 712 5.30 1.114 ?1.531 1.390 2 6
6.3.1. Material Hardship
Material hardship was constructed by four survey items representing financial prob-
lems, basic needs, and overall finances. Items were then summed to better estimate the
material hardship construct given the sample size. Example questions included, ?Have
you or your family struggled with the following due to financial problems?: Paying rent
on time, paying bills on time, heating your home, etc.? Responses were either ?yes? or
?no?. Higher scores on material hardship equated with higher severity of financial burden,
economic hardship, and difficulty meeting basic needs. Internal consistency reliability of
material hardship items was excellent (? = 0.93).
6.3.2. Resilience Processes
Guided by the FIF, family resilience processes were conceptualized as mediators and
were represented by three latent constructs in the conceptual analytic model (Figure 1).
Factor analyses were conducted with each construct to assess validity and ensure that the
constructs were measured appropriately. Positive parenting was measured by three 5-point
Likert scale items asking participants the degree to which s/he ?notices when their child
does well?, ?praises the child after she or he does a task well?, and ?praises the child when
s/he behaves well?. Higher scores equated with higher frequency of employing warm,
authoritative parenting. Internal consistency reliability of the items within this construct
was strong (? = 0.82). Caregiver mental health was measured by five 3-point Likert scale
items inquiring about the extent of participants? mental health-related symptoms. Items
in this construct asked participants if they experienced anxiety, insomnia, and a general
feeling of being overwhelmed in the last year. Lower values indicated an absence or
low prevalence of symptomology, while a higher value indicated a presence of troubling
symptomology. Lower totaled scores equated with a positive caregiver mental health.
Internal consistency reliability within this construct was moderate (? = 0.66). To measure
social support, participants were prompted with ?If you need help with practical things,
you can expect support from?, followed by response options: parents, siblings, general
relatives, friends, and neighbors. Participants responded based on a 5-point Likert scale
(i.e., ?never? to ?always?). A higher overall value represented a higher degree of support
within the respective social support indicator. Internal consistency reliability of the items
within the social support construct was moderate (? = 0.68).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 10 of 21
6.3.3. Youth Academic Adjustment
The endogenous variable was represented by three items: social inclusion, ability to
concentrate, and doing well at school overall. Each indicator was measured by 5-point
Likert scale items assessing the caregiver?s perception of the youth?s academic experiences.
Higher scores equated with a stronger degree of youth academic adjustment. Internal
consistency reliability of the items within this construct was strong (? = 0.71).
6.4. Data Analysis
SEM via MPlus [67] was used to test the theoretical model (Figure 1) using maximum
likelihood (ML) estimation. SEM accounted for measurement error, thereby increasing
power and reducing the potential for biased effects [72,73]. Consistent with the SEM
mediation analysis procedures described by Preacher et al. (2007), we used bootstrapping
to test specific mediation effects (i.e., caregiver mental health, parenting quality, and social
support) within the model [74]. Using Monte Carlo simulation, a priori and post hoc power
analyses were conducted to ensure sufficient statistical power. Fit indices were used to
determine how well the model fit the data.
7. Results
A total of four cases were deleted listwise, as all four participants opted out at the
beginning of the survey, leaving the remainder of items unanswered. After the exclusion
of these cases, the total sample size was n = 723. All variables had less than 10% of missing
data, justifying the use of the maximum likelihood estimation method [75]. Bivariate corre-
lations of variables and indicators were calculated prior to model specification (Table 2).
The majority of the correlation coefficients were statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level.
A confirmatory factor analysis established that latent constructs were measured well by
their corresponding indicators. Univariate and multivariate data normality were confirmed
for the remaining variables and the overall model, as indicated by skewness and kurtosis
values falling within normal ranges (Table 1). Results were interpreted using parameter
estimates for the final model (Table 3) and structural model standardized coefficients
(Table 4). The causal SEM model demonstrated an overall good, consistent fit to the data
based on the model fit indices. The chi-square value (?2 = 266.652, p = 0.000, df = 109; [68]),
RMSEA (0.04; [69,70]), CFI (0.94; [68]), TLI (0.92; [68]), and SRMR (0.04; [68]) were all within
acceptable ranges.
Table 2. Variable Correlation Matrix.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
Material Hardship 1.00
Positive Parenting 0.637 ** 1.00
Caregiver Mental Health 0.644 ** 0.564 ** 1.00
Social Support 0.566 ** 0.500 ** 0.902 ** 1.00
Academic Adjustment 0.491 ** 0.44 ** 0.794 ** 0.880 ** 1.00
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
7.1. Power Analyses
Monto Carlo simulations were employed in Mplus [67] statistical software to examine
statistical power. Power is considered acceptable at the value of 0.80 and above [70]. A
priori power results indicated that the statistical power for the study sample size (n = 723)
would be 1.00 for detecting direct effects and associated indirect effects for both large
main effect sizes (0.50) and medium main effect sizes (0.30). However, for small main
effect sizes (0.1), there would be insufficient power to detect direct effects (0.65?0.60) and
associated indirect effects (0.19?0.16). Post hoc power analyses indicated strong statistical
power for all non-zero direct effects (1.00?0.94), except for the direct effect between positive
parenting and academic adjustment (0.69). Furthermore, results for the full structural
model indicated strong statistical power for both the sum of indirect effects (0.99) and
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 11 of 21
indirect effects of caregiver mental health (0.99); statistical power for the indirect effects of
positive parenting (0.01) and social support (0.07) were very low, which can be explained
by the indirect effect sizes being zero.
Table 3. Parameter Estimates for the Final Model.
Variable Maximum Likelihood Estimates t-Score Value * SE Standardized Estimates ? R2 ?
Material Hardship
Financial Problems 1.000 ? ? 0.830 0.689
Basic Needs 0.348 13.136 *** 0.027 0.593 0.351
Overall Finances 0.318 11.321 *** 0.028 0.640 0.409
Positive Parenting
Notice Behavior 1.00 ? ? 0.638 0.407
Praise Task 1.374 13.997 *** 0.098 0.883 0.779
Praise Behavior 1.481 13.706 *** 0.108 0.805 0.647
Caregiver Mental Health
Anxiety 1.000 ? ? 0.607 0.368
Insomnia 1.088 9.862 *** 0.110 0.578 0.334
Overwhelmed 1.216 9.569 *** 0.127 0.703 0.494
Social Support
Parents 1.000 ? ? 0.451 0.204
Siblings 1.036 10.611 *** 0.098 0.542 0.293
Relatives 1.090 7.677 *** 0.142 0.583 0.340
Friends 1.078 5.394 *** 0.200 0.651 0.424
Neighbors 0.874 4.879 *** 0.179 0.539 0.290
Youth Academic Adjustment
Adjustment 1.000 ? ? 0.748 0.559
Concentration 0.349 8.913 *** 0.039 0.680 0.463
Social Inclusion 0.415 9.097 *** 0.046 0.510 0.260
? Standardized estimates closer to 0.9 are better. ? R2 estimates above 0.3 are preferred. * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
*** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).
Table 4. Structural Model Standardized Coefficients.
Variable R2 (Structural) Direct Coefficients Direct t-Score * Indirect Coefficients Indirect t-Score
Material Hardship
Positive Parenting 0.003 ?0.195 0.000 0.055
Caregiver Mental Health 0.544 10.622 *** ?0.164 ?3.082 **
Social Support ?0.178 ?3.365 ** ?0.009 ?0.808
Youth Academic Adjustment ?0.014 ?0.175
Positive Parenting 0.000
Material Hardship
Caregiver Mental Health
Social Support
Youth Academic Adjust. 0.115 2.277 *
Caregiver Mental Health 0.296
Material Hardship
Positive Parenting
Social Support
Youth Academic Adjustment ?0.301 ?3.458 **
Social Support 0.032
Material Hardship
Positive Parenting
Caregiver Mental Health
Youth Academic Adjustment 0.051 0.852
Youth Academic
Adjustment 0.123
Positive Parenting
Caregiver Mental Health
Social Support
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *** Correlation is significant at
the 0.001 level (2-tailed).
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 12 of 21
7.2. Structural Model Results
7.2.1. Direct Effects
The final model indicated several significant pathways among latent constructs, pre-
sented in Figure 2, as well as in Tables 2 and 3. Standardized coefficients were used to
scale construct values using a metric that is more easily interpreted. Material hardship
yielded direct positive effects on caregiver mental health (? = 0.54, p < 0.001), with higher
levels of material hardship resulting in increased levels of mental health symptomology
issues for caregivers. Furthermore, material hardship had direct negative effects on social
support (? = ?0.178, p < 0.001), indicating that a more severe degree of material hardship
predicted lower overall social support from respondents? parents, siblings, other relatives,
friends, and neighbors. Conversely, material hardship did not have a significant effect
on either youth academic adjustment (? = ?0.014, p = 0.861) or respondents? positive
parenting (? = 0.003, p = 0.952). Caregiver mental health symptomology had a significant
direct negative effect (?= ?0.301, p < 0.001) on youth academic adjustment, indicating
that higher levels of poor caregiver mental health symptomology were associated with
lower levels of academic adjustment. Furthermore, positive parenting had a significant
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Healtdh i2r0e2c1t, 1p8o, xs itive effect (? = 0.115, p < 0.05) on youth academic adjustment, suggesting that13 of 22 
 
parenting practices of noticing, encouraging, and praising good behavior predicted better
overall academic adjustment. Respondent social support did not have a significant direct
effect (? = 0.051, p = 0.394) on youth academic adjustment. Caregiver mental health was the
only variable to have a significant direct effect between both the exogenous (i.e., material
hardship) and the endogenous (i.e., youth academic adjustment) variables.
 
Figure 2. StructuraFligEuqruea t2i.o SntrAuncatulyrtailc aElqMuaotdioenl  RAensaullytst.ic*aCl Mororedlaetl iRonesiuslstisg. n* iCfiocarnretlaattitohne i0s. 0s5iglneivfeicla(n2-tt aatil tehde) .0*.*05C loervreella (t2io-tnailed). 
is significant at th*e*0 C.0o1rrleevlaetlio(2n- tias isleigdn).if*i*c*anCto artr etlhaet i0o.n01is lesvigenl i(fi2c-taanilteadt)t. h*e**0 C.0o0r1relelavteiol n(2 i-sta siilgedni)f.icant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed). 
7.2.2. 7In.2d.2ir. eIcntdEirfefecct tEsffects 
Of theOft hthreee thmreeed miaetidnigatvinagri vaabrleiasb(lie.es .(,i.peo., spitoisvietivpea rpeanrteinntgin, gca, creagreivgeivremr menetnatlahl heaelatlhth, , and 
and ssoocciaialls suuppppoorrt)t,),t htheerreew waassc coonnssidideerraabblelev vaarriaiattioionni nint htheed deeggrereeet otow whhicichht htheesesev vaarir-iables 
ables iinntteerraacctteedd wwiitthh tthhee ddiirreecctt eeffffeecctt ooff mmaatteerriiaall hhaarrddsshhiipp oonn yyoouutthh aaccaaddeemmiicc aaddjjuussttmmeenntt,, lend-
lendininggp paartritaial lc oconnfifrimrmaatitoionnt otoo ouur rs esceoconnddh hyyppooththeseissis( H(H2)2.).A Altlhthoouugghhp poosistiitviveep paraernentitningg (? =  
(? = 00.0.00000, ,p p= =0 .09.5965)6a)n adnsdo csioaclisaul pspuoprpto(?rt =(?? =0 .?000.90,0p9=, p0 .=4 109.)4y19ie)l dyeiedldneodm neod imateindgiaetfifnegc tes,ffects, 
caregicvaerergmiveenrt malehnetaallt hhesatlrtohn sgtrloynmgleyd miaeteddiatthede trhelea rteiolantsihonipshbiept wbeetewnemena mtearitaelrihaal rhdasrhdisphip on 
on yoyuothutahc aadcaedmeimc aicd ajudsjutmstemnet.nItn. dInedeede,dth, ethme omsot snto nteowteowrtohrythfiyn fdinindginwg awsatsh ethseig snigifincifaincatnt in-
direct negative effect (? = ?0.164, p < 0.01) that caregiver mental health symptomology had 
on the relationship between material hardship and youth academic adjustment. Despite 
an insignificant direct effect of material hardship on youth academic adjustment, results 
demonstrate that this relationship became significant to the degree that respondents en-
dorsed mental health symptoms such as anxiety, insomnia, and a general feeling of being 
overwhelmed. 
8. Discussion 
Given evidence of the adverse impact of PI on children worldwide, it is critical that 
we examine both risk and resilience processes of families impacted by incarceration. 
While much of the existing PI research focuses on risks, the present study examined the 
mediating role of family resilience processes, advancing the PI literature from deficit-
based between-groups comparisons to resiliency-based within-groups analyses [33]. Our 
findings suggest that, for Danish families with an incarcerated father, stronger caregiver 
mental health mediates the otherwise adverse effects of material hardship on youth aca-
demic adjustment. Our findings are especially notable given Denmark?s expansive social 
welfare system and its potential to mitigate adverse outcomes for families with an incar-
cerated parent [6?8].  It is possible that the impact of caregiver mental health as a mecha-
nism in promoting family-level resilience during PI is even more pronounced in countries 
 
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 13 of 21
indirect negative effect (? = ?0.164, p < 0.01) that caregiver mental health symptomol-
ogy had on the relationship between material hardship and youth academic adjustment.
Despite an insignificant direct effect of material hardship on youth academic adjustment,
results demonstrate that this relationship became significant to the degree that respondents
endorsed mental health symptoms such as anxiety, insomnia, and a general feeling of
being overwhelmed.
8. Discussion
Given evidence of the adverse impact of PI on children worldwide, it is critical that
we examine both risk and resilience processes of families impacted by incarceration. While
much of the existing PI research focuses on risks, the present study examined the mediating
role of family resilience processes, advancing the PI literature from deficit-based between-
groups comparisons to resiliency-based within-groups analyses [33]. Our findings suggest
that, for Danish families with an incarcerated father, stronger caregiver mental health
mediates the otherwise adverse effects of material hardship on youth academic adjustment.
Our findings are especially notable given Denmark?s expansive social welfare system and
its potential to mitigate adverse outcomes for families with an incarcerated parent [6?8].
It is possible that the impact of caregiver mental health as a mechanism in promoting
family-level resilience during PI is even more pronounced in countries with less robust
social welfare systems. Findings from this study offer intriguing opportunities for future
research, as well as implications for both family-level prevention and interventions.
8.1. Economic Inequities
Empirical research has clearly documented how the adversities for children with
a parent in prison stem from intensified economic hardship and consequent family dif-
ficulties [26?33]. Consistent with the FIF, findings from the present study support the
idea that existing stressors such as material hardship predict family level outcomes. For
justice-involved families, material hardship is often a pre-existing condition that both
predicts and is worsened by PI [35]. A direct effect was detected between material hardship
and youth academic adjustment in preliminary regression analyses (supporting our first
hypothesis [H1]), yet the effect was not significant in the SEM analysis. This suggests that
psychological well-being of the caregivers mitigates the effects that material hardship oth-
erwise has on youth academic adjustment, lending support for our second hypothesis (H2).
The significance of material hardship within this population is consistent with the social
causation perspective, in that health and well-being outcomes are dependent on social
and economic conditions [44]. Consequently, material hardship may chip away at family
resources and resilience, ultimately resulting in poor outcomes. Findings from this study
demonstrate that material hardship does negatively impact family resilience processes (i.e.,
caregiver mental health and social support) as well as youth academic adjustment (H1), yet
greater psychological well-being of caregivers may mediate negative outcomes by fostering
resilience in these families (H2). The combination of (1) significant indirect effects (i.e.,
caregiver mental health as a mediating resilience process) and (2) insignificant direct effects
between material hardship and youth academic adjustment suggest what Zhao and col-
leagues (2010) refer to as ?indirect-only? mediation [76]. Indirect-only mediation indicates
two crucial aspects that lend strength and credibility to our study: (1) the mediator (i.e.,
caregiver mental health) is consistent with the hypothesized theoretical framework, and
(2) it is unlikely that there is an omitted mediator within the model [76]. Taken together,
our findings from this study support the FIF in that material hardship appears to be the
main conduit to worsening outcomes and that family processes such as sound caregiver
mental health likely promote family-level resilience by interrupting the negative pathway
of material hardship.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 14 of 21
8.2. Pathways of Resilience
8.2.1. Positive Parenting
Results indicate that the quality of caregiver parenting skills did not mediate the
relationship between material hardship and youth academic adjustment. Interestingly,
despite a lack of mediation, there was a significant direct effect in that higher levels
of positive parenting skills significantly predicted better overall academic adjustment.
Previous research has indicated that, in the context of PI, material hardship is related to
more harmful forms of parenting that rely on authoritarian practices [20]. Consistent with
Conger?s (2010) work on economic hardship impacting children through parents, this
finding may be due to higher levels of economic and psychological stress when one parent
is suddenly incarcerated [44] and the parent-at-home adjusts to increased responsibilities
with less support [20]. However, a lack of significance between material hardship and
positive parenting may indeed still be a sign of resilience. Although it is logical that
stress associated with material hardship and cumulative disadvantage might inform the
quality of one?s parenting [77], a lack of causal significance may indicate that some parents
are able to maintain positive parenting skills despite added contextual stressors. For
example, using a within-group analysis, Turney and Wildeman (2013) found that paternal
incarceration was associated with increased engagement (i.e., positive parenting) between
mothers and their children [47]. It may be too simplistic to categorize parenting practices
as ?good? or ?bad? during PI. In reality, parenting practices are likely far more complex
and nuanced. For example, Arditti et al. (2010) found that while more than half of justice-
involved mothers in a qualitative study displayed harsh parenting practices, many also
demonstrated care and advocacy practices [77]. Together, research on parenting among
families experiencing PI suggests that positive parenting scenarios may be possible in
conjunction with material hardship experiences that often plague justice-involved families.
Findings indicate that parenting practices may indeed remain unchanged, or may even
improve, in spite of material hardship conditions. Although this study does not confirm
this link, we must conduct further family resilience research with lower socioeconomic
status families to continue identifying strengths, with a particular focus on the cultural
context of parenting practices.
8.2.2. Social Support
Social support did not appear to yield any mediation effects on the relationship
between material hardship and academic adjustment. Nonetheless, analyses did yield
noteworthy direct effects. A significant negative relationship was found between material
hardship and social support. Indeed, it appears that higher degrees of material hardship
significantly predict lower levels of social support. Stack?s (1974) work on kinship networks
and social support is helpful in situating the findings from our study [78]. In particular,
Stack (1974) emphasizes that networks of social support are not meant to escape poverty
per se, as this is considered near impossible on welfare benefits alone, but are meant to
help one another survive in the face of material hardship [78]. Furthermore, social support
is conceptualized as available only in a quid pro quo state?to the degree that the receiving
party also has something to give either immediately or later on [78]. In this way, material
hardship may reduce a caregivers? ability to ?give? support, thereby isolating caregivers
and limiting the degree to which they are able to receive social support. Meanwhile, an
incarcerated parent may incur further loss in material resources (i.e., income) and social
commodities. Indeed, findings by Besemer and Dennison (2017) indicate that caregivers of
children with an incarcerated parent experienced more social exclusion than the general
population and that financial hardship may mediate this relationship [79]. It may be
that material hardship prevents social participation broadly, resulting in overall reduced
social support. Considering the Danish sociopolitical context may help situate this finding
as well. In particular, the Danish welfare and healthcare system is far more generous,
accessible, and widespread than that in other Westernized countries [6?9], potentially
rendering social support as a less critical component of safety nets than other parts of the
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 15 of 21
world where welfare resources are scarce. Taken together, previous research and theory
may help frame why, in the present study, material hardship was found to predict lower
levels of social support. Furthermore, the results from this study highlight how a crisis (i.e.,
PI) in low-resource (i.e., material hardship) families may interact to result in even lower
social support.
The negative association between material hardship and social support found in this
study inspires the question: How do families manage to persevere despite diminished social
support? It is noteworthy that despite the significant negative effect material hardship
had on social support, there was no significant effect of caregivers? social support on
youth academic adjustment. The lack of association between social support and youth
academic adjustment warrants further exploration and may be an indicator of resilience if
caregivers are able to prevent social support status from impacting adjustment in school.
Although not statistically explanatory of academic adjustment, the relationship between
material hardship and social support is concerning, given the stigma and challenges
typically associated with justice involvement (i.e., social exclusion), and warrants further
empirical exploration to better understand how these constructs contribute to child and
family inequality.
8.2.3. Caregiver Mental Health
Perhaps the most noteworthy finding in the present study is both the direct effects,
as well as the mediating role, of caregiver mental health symptoms in the relationship
between material hardship and youth academic adjustment. It is important to note that
caregiver mental health (i.e., symptomology) was not measured using a methodological
?gold standard? assessment (e.g., Beck Depression Inventory) but instead relied on self-
report of general symptoms (e.g., anxiety) that are indicative of mental health problems.
Regardless, results indicate that caregiver mental health was measured well by corre-
sponding indicators. Material hardship significantly predicted caregiver mental health
symptoms, indicating that higher levels of material hardship yielded a higher prevalence
of mental health symptomology for caregiver respondents. The significant relationship
between material hardship and caregiver mental health found in our study is consistent
with Conger?s (2010) work in which material hardship is seen as a predictor of stress
and poor health outcomes [44]. Furthermore, caregiver mental health symptomology
had a significant negative relationship with youth academic adjustment, indicating that
higher levels of caregiver-respondent mental health symptoms significantly predicted
worse youth academic adjustment. Caregiver mental health symptomology also strongly
mediated the effects of material hardship on youth academic adjustment. Considering that
the direct effect of material hardship on youth academic adjustment was not significant
within the overall model, it is a critical finding that this relationship became significant as
a result of the mediating influence of caregiver mental health symptomology. Caregiver
mental health as a significant mediating resilience process suggests that material hardship
negatively impacts youth academic adjustment through caregiver mental health symp-
tomology. Conversely, caregiver psychological well-being may promote positive youth
academic outcomes and may mitigate the effects of material hardship. The mediating
influence of caregiver mental health in the present study is consistent with the FIF, in which
material hardship is a key stress mechanism that yields a more significant effect on youth
academic adjustment when resources and resilience processes are lacking. Furthermore,
identifying caregiver mental health as a mediating process highlights an important area of
intervention?namely, identifying and addressing both economic stressors, in conjunction
with caregiver mental health symptoms, may indeed promote family-level resilience and
mitigate academic maladjustment for youth experiencing paternal incarceration.
8.3. Implications
Academic adjustment is an understudied area of focus among youth with an incarcer-
ated parent. Interestingly, our findings indicate that two caregiver factors are significantly
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 16 of 21
associated with youth academic adjustment: (1) positive parenting and (2) sound caregiver
mental health. It may be that the common denominator across positive parenting skills
and caregiver mental health is the ability to be present and positively engaged with a
child?s academic adjustment and progress. Indeed, previous research has demonstrated
that the stress of PI on the remaining, non-incarcerated parent can lead to higher stress,
increased use of harsh parenting, and role modeling of more antisocial than prosocial
behaviors [79?81]. Consistent with our findings, positive parenting may be a critical mech-
anism of promoting positive youth academic adjustment scenarios. Future research should
more closely examine the link between the caregiver-at-home, in terms of parenting skills
and mental health, and youth academic adjustment. To better understand the nuances of
youth academic adjustment, we recommend researchers employ robust measures, such
as the Student Engagement in School Four-Dimensional Scale (SES-4DS) [82]. Based on
our findings and previous research, we strongly recommend that practitioners, policymak-
ers, and educators consider the primary caregiver of youth with an incarcerated parent.
In particular, it may be useful to provide resources (e.g., family therapy, parenting pro-
grams, etc.) that promote positive parenting and bolster the mental well-being of the
remaining, non-incarcerated caregiver. Furthermore, because youth experiencing PI can
feel isolated and require higher levels of support, we recommend that interventions be
systemic in nature to address not only the needs of the youth but also the needs of the
non-incarcerated caregiver (e.g., mental health and parenting) as an indirect conduit for
promoting positive youth academic adjustment and overall family well-being. We further
implore researchers and educators to consider specific academic engagement strategies,
such as cooperative learning methods [83], that may promote better academic adjustment
scenarios and mitigate the school-based vulnerabilities inherent in experiencing PI.
The most noteworthy implication inherent in our findings is related to the mental
health of the non-incarcerated, primary caregiver at home. An abundance of research has
demonstrated that the caregivers remaining at home, most often biological mothers in the
context of paternal incarceration, experience elevated mental health symptoms [84] and
overall increased stress. Indeed, prior research has identified a direct association between
caregiver anxiety, depression, and poor youth outcomes during PI [84,85]. Our study adds
to this literature and, to the best of our knowledge, is the first to demonstrate that stable
caregiver mental health strongly mediates how youth with an imprisoned father fare in
school. Furthermore, our findings are in line with other PI scholars who have identified an
interactional association between parenting, caregiver mental health, and youth outcomes.
We recommend that researchers, policymakers, and practitioners provide direct support
(i.e., resources, therapy, etc.) to primary caregivers of youth experiencing PI, based on our
findings that, within the context of paternal incarceration, material hardship appears to
(1) directly diminish the mental wellbeing (e.g., anxiety, depression, isolation, etc.) and
parenting abilities (e.g., fatigue, resorting to harsh parenting, etc.) of caregivers at home
and (2) indirectly impact youth academic adjustment through the primary caregiver. In this
way, we implore PI scholars and practitioners not only to look at the youth impacted but
also to consider the many systems (e.g., school, home, family, etc.) that indirectly shape the
experiences and well-being of youth with an imprisoned father. Attending to the well-being
of the youth alone will likely only help so much if the primary caregiver is not supported as
well. Indeed, supporting the primary caregiver at home may be one of the most important
and encompassing interventions for mitigating the effects of PI on families. Nevertheless,
specific interventions for caregivers of youth with an incarcerated parent have yet to be
extensively researched and implemented. We join other PI scholars [84] in recommending
that future research and practice focus on identifying, developing, and testing intervention
strategies that support primary caregivers of youth impacted by PI, and particularly focus
on mental health and parenting to promote positive family adjustment scenarios.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 17 of 21
8.4. Limitations and Future Research
The primary limitation in the present study was its reliance on secondary data analysis.
While the analytic model was informed by extant theory and literature, the model was
somewhat constrained by the items available in the original survey data source. Because
this study aimed to provide a preliminary empirical testing of the FIF, it would have been
ideal to include variables such as family instability and protective factors, as well as more
comprehensive parenting, mental health, and youth outcome measures. Similarly, many
survey items were dichotomous (i.e., ?yes?/?no? answers), constraining the degree of
variability in the analysis. Future research would benefit from increased variability (i.e.,
Likert-scale responses) as well as qualitative data to better capture the nuances of these
variables. Additionally, we were unable to consider certain demographic information,
such as income level, employment status of the caregiver respondent, paternal carceral
sentence length, type of incarceration, etc., that might have provided important group-level
information. Furthermore, the survey relied on self-report as the primary method of data
collection. Although this gave voice to respondents, relying solely on self-report indicators
may compromise internal validity. Future research should expand on the present study
by incorporating data triangulation methods such as ?gold standard? assessments (e.g.,
Beck Depression Inventory) as well as in-depth qualitative interviews to produce thick
descriptions of these phenomena.
The original survey was constructed in Danish. Prior to data analysis, the survey was
translated from Danish to English by a bilingual researcher employed by the primary data
source (i.e., VIVE). It is possible that slight dialectical translation errors occurred and/or
were not identified and resolved. While we attempted to resolve these translation errors
to the best of our ability, it is possible that discrepancies were missed as a result of dialect
nuances. Despite these limitations, data of these kind rarely exist, and the results from
this study are an important first step in the next wave of PI research using a resilience
framework for examining family processes. Multiple directions for future research exist.
First, although the indirect effect was approaching significance, it was surprising to find
that social support was not identified as a mediating resilience process. Future research
should examine this relationship more closely, perhaps identifying better ways to measure
social support as a construct and examining social support within sociopolitical contexts
(e.g., social welfare policies). Additionally, caregiver mental health was identified as a
critical resilience process. Future research should attempt to expand on the findings from
this study?identifying precise ways in which caregiver mental health can promote risk
and/or resilience in families impacted by paternal incarceration. Similarly, we recommend
future research examine whether this mediating relationship holds across other data sets,
particularly in countries where material hardship may be more severe and mental health
support, among other social safety net resources, may be lacking. Furthermore, it is possible
that a few non-significant direct effects are representative of resilience, highlighting the
potential for caregivers to prevent adverse experiences from impacting youth academic
adjustment. It is unclear the degree to which these relationships are, or are not, indicative
of resilience processes.
The results that were found in this study are inextricable from the sociopolitical
context in Denmark. Nonetheless, we contend that significant findings from a country
with robust socialized resources are likely to hold true in countries with worse conditions
and less socialized support, such as the U.S., and may well inform future research in other
developed countries [6?9]. Future research should examine these effects more closely to
identify how components of the FIF manifest under paternal incarceration conditions.
While scholars have recently called for increased use of within-group analyses when
examining family resilience processes in PI [31,33], future research may also benefit from
a between-groups moderated-mediation analysis that examines how resilience processes
compare with families unaffected by PI. Finally, although this research highlights risk and
resilience processes for families while a parent is incarcerated, a critical area for future
research is examining how risk and resilience processes change as incarcerated parents
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 18 of 21
find their way home, and the process by which formerly incarcerated parents navigate
community reentry and family reunification.
9. Conclusions
Although carceral confinement is best understood in the context of a country?s socio-
cultural factors, criminal justice policies, and carceral practices, research indicates that PI
yields an abundance of risks for families globally. Our study adds to a burgeoning body
of international research examining potential resilience processes of families impacted by
incarceration. Of note, our findings suggest that stable caregiver mental health plays an
important role for overall family wellness by mitigating the effects of material hardship
and promoting positive youth academic scenarios. Our findings robustly advance our
understanding of what may help families rise above the challenges of PI. As incarceration
practices continue to plague families around the world, we implore the many interdisci-
plinary scholars examining the broad effects of PI to continue identifying and honoring the
strengths and resilience factors that families with an imprisoned parent may leverage to
fare well when a loved one is incarcerated.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, all authors; methodology, A.A.M.; formal analysis,
A.A.M.; writing?original draft preparation, A.A.M., and J.A.A.; writing?review and editing, all au-
thors in order of contribution: A.A.M., J.A.A., S.D., and S.F.; supervision, J.A.A.; funding acquisition,
A.A.M. and J.A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Virginia Tech College of Liberal Arts and Human Sciences
Global Partnership in Sustainability, as well as by the Virginia Tech Graduate Research Develop-
ment Program.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki, and the study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Virginia
Tech (protocol code 19-349, approved 12 May 2019).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the
original data collection. Informed consent was waived for the analysis presented in this article, as it
was a secondary analysis of existing data.
Data Availability Statement: Restrictions apply to the availability of these data. Data were obtained
from VIVE, the Danish Center for Social Science Research and are only available at vive.dk/en/welcome/
with the permission of VIVE and the Danish Ministry of the Interior and Housing.
Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge and thank our research partners at VIVE, the
Danish Center for Social Science Research, who invited us to collaborate on this important work. It is
collaborations such as ours that will hopefully make a difference for families with an incarcerated
parent, and we are profoundly grateful to VIVE for our partnership in this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Walmsley, R. World Prison Population List, 12th ed.; Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research; World Prison Brief: London,
UK, 2018.
2. Children of Prisoners Europe (COPE). Facts and Figures. 2021. Available online: https://childrenofprisoners.eu/the-issues/
facts-and-figures/ (accessed on 29 September 2021).
3. Arditti, J. Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of incarceration for families and children. Fam. Relat. 2003, 52, 195?204.
[CrossRef]
4. Cislo, A.M.; Trestman, R. Challenges and solutions for conducting research in correctional settings: The U.S. experience. Int. J.
Law Psychiatry 2013, 36, 304?310. [CrossRef]
5. Murray, J.; Loeber, R.; Pardini, D. Parental involvement in the criminal justice system and the development of youth theft,
marijuana use, depression, and poor academic performance. Criminology 2012, 50, 255?302. [CrossRef]
6. Olsen, R. Invisible Consequences of Punishment: Parental Imprisonment and Child Outcomes. Ph.D. Thesis, Aarhus University,
Aarhus, Denmark, 2013.
7. Andersen, L.H. How children?s educational outcomes and criminality vary by duration and frequency of paternal incarceration.
Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 2016, 655, 149?170. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 19 of 21
8. Smith, P.S. Children of imprisoned parents in Scandinavia: Their problems, treatment, and the role of Scandinavian penal culture.
Law Context Socio. Leg. J. 2015, 147?168. [CrossRef]
9. Wildeman, C.; Andersen, S.H. Paternal incarceration and children?s risk of being charged by early adulthood: Evidence from a
Danish policy shock. Criminology 2017, 55, 32?58. [CrossRef]
10. Garland, D. Mass Imprisonment: Social Causes and Consequences; Sage Publishing: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001.
11. NAACP. Criminal Justice Fact Sheet; NAACP: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
12. Glaze, L.; Maruschak, L. Parents in Prison and their Minor Children; Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (NCJ 222984); United
States Department of Justice; Office of Justice Programs: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
13. Sentencing Project. Fact Sheet: Parents in Prison; Sentencing Project: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
14. Murphey, D.; Cooper, P. Parents Behind Bars: What Happens to Their Children? Child Trends, Inc.: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2015.
15. Arditti, J.A. Child trauma within the context of parental incarceration: A family process perspective. J. Fam. Theory Rev. 2012, 4,
181?219. [CrossRef]
16. Murray, J.; Farrington, D.P. Parental imprisonment: Effect on boys antisocial behavior and delinquency through the life-course. J.
Child Psych. Psychiatry 2005, 46, 1269?1278. [CrossRef]
17. Dallaire, D.H.; Zeman, J.L.; Thrash, T.M. Children?s experiences of maternal incarceration-specific risks: Predictions to psycholog-
ical maladaption. J. Clin. Child Adol. Psych. 2015, 44, 102?122. [CrossRef]
18. Arditti, J.A.; Savla, J. Parental incarceration and child trauma symptoms in single caregiver homes. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2013, 24,
551?561. [CrossRef]
19. Geller, A.; Garfinkel, I.; Western, B. Parental incarceration for children in fragile families. Demography 2011, 48, 25?48. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
20. Turney, K. The consequences of paternal incarceration for maternal neglect and harsh parenting. Soc. Forces 2014, 92, 1607?1636.
[CrossRef]
21. Lee, R.D.; Fang, X.; Luo, F. The impact of parental incarceration on the physical and mental health of young adults. Pediatrics
2013, 131, 1188?1195. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Wakefield, S.; Wildeman, C. Children of the Prison Boom: Mass Incarceration and the Future of American Inequality; Oxford University
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2013.
23. Besemer, S.; van der Geest, V.; Murray, J.; Bijleveld, C.C.J.H.; Farrington, D.P. The relationship between parental imprisonment
and offspring offending in England and the Netherlands. Brit. J. Criminol. 2011, 51, 413?437. [CrossRef]
24. Murray, J.; Janson, C.G.; Farrington, D. Crime in adult offspring of prisoners: A cross-national comparison of two longitudinal
samples. Crim. Justice Behav. 2007, 34, 133?149. [CrossRef]
25. Wildeman, C.; Andersen, S.H.; Lee, H.; Karlson, K.B. Parental incarceration and child mortality in Denmark. Am. J. Public Health
2014, 104, 428?433. [CrossRef]
26. Western, B. Punishment and Inequality in Americal; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
27. Wildeman, C. Parental incarceration, child homelessness, and the invisible consequences of mass imprisonment. Am. Ann. Ad.
2014, 651, 74?96. [CrossRef]
28. Dobbie, W.; Gr?nqvist, H.; Niknami, S.; M?rten, P.; Priks, M. The Intergenerational Effects of Parental Incarceration; Working Paper
No. 24186; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018. [CrossRef]
29. Porter, L.C.; King, R.D. Absent fathers or absent variables? A new look at paternal incarceration and delinquency. J. Res. Crime
Delinq. 2015, 52, 414?443. [CrossRef]
30. Wildeman, C. Paternal incarceration and children?s physically aggressive behaviors: Evidence from the Fragile Families and
Child Well-being Study. Soc. Forces 2010, 89, 285?309. [CrossRef]
31. Morgan, A.A.; Molloy, S.; Arditti, J.A.; Levine, S. Innocent victims: Family relationships in the era of mass incarceration. Fam.
Focus 2021, FF87, F21?F23.
32. Poehlmann-Tynan, J.; Turney, K. A developmental perspective on children with incarcerated parents. Child Dev. Perspect. 2021, 15,
3?11. [CrossRef]
33. Arditti, J.A.; Johnson, E. A resilience agenda for understanding and responding to parental incarceration. Am. Psychol. 2020.
Advance online publication. [CrossRef]
34. Walsh, F. Family resilience: A developmental systems framework. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 13, 313?324. [CrossRef]
35. Arditti, J.A. Parental incarceration and family inequality in the United States. In Prison, Punishment, and the Family: Towards a New
Sociology of Punishment; Condry, P., Schaarf-Smith, P., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018.
36. Hill, R. Families Under Stress; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 1949.
37. Patterson, J.M. Families experiencing stress. Fam. Syst. Med. 1988, 6, 202?237. [CrossRef]
38. Patterson, J.M. Integrating family resilience and Family Stress Theory. J. Marriage Fam. 2002, 64, 349?360. [CrossRef]
39. Masten, A.S.; Coatsworth, J.D. The development of competence in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from
research on successful children. Am. Psychol. 1998, 53, 205?220. [CrossRef]
40. Ng IY, H.; Sarri, R.C.; Stoffregen, E. Intergenerational incarceration: Risk factors and social exclusion. J. Poverty 2013, 17, 437?459.
[CrossRef]
41. Noyes, J.L.; Paul, J.C.; Berger, L.M. Should we be intervening solely (or even mostly) on the basis of parental incarceration? In
When Parents Are Incarcerated; Wildeman, C., Haskins, A.R., Poehlmann-Tynan, J., Eds.; APA: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 20 of 21
42. Holzer, H.J. Collateral costs: Effects of incarceration on employment and earnings among young workers. In Do Prisons Make Us
Safer? The benefits and Costs of the Prison Boom; Raphael, S., Stoll, M.A., Eds.; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
43. Hagen, K.A.; Myers, B.J. The effect of secrecy and social support on behavioral problems in children of incarcerated women. J.
Child Fam. Stud. 2003, 12, 229?242. [CrossRef]
44. Conger, R.D.; Conger, K.J.; Martin, M.J. Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. J. Marriage Fam.
2010, 72, 685?704. [CrossRef]
45. Dennison, S.; Besemer, K.L.; Low-Choy, S. Maternal parenting stress following paternal or close family incarceration: Bayesian
model-based profiling using the HILDA longitudinal survey. J. Quant. Criminol. 2019, 36, 753?778. [CrossRef]
46. Turney, K.; Schnittker, J.; Wildeman, C.; Schnittker, J.; Wildeman, C. Those they leave behind: Paternal incarceration and maternal
instrumental support. J. Marriage Fam. 2012, 74, 1149?1165. [CrossRef]
47. Turney, K.; Wildeman, C. Redefining relationships: Explaining the countervailing consequences of paternal incarceration for
parenting. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2013, 78, 949?979. [CrossRef]
48. Dumont, M.; Provost, M.A. Resilience in adolescents: Protective role of social support, coping strategies, self-esteem, and social
activities on experience of stress and depression. J. Youth Adolesc. 1999, 28, 343?363. [CrossRef]
49. Lowenstein, A. Temporary single parenthood: The case of prisoners? families. Fam. Relat. 1986, 35, 79?85. [CrossRef]
50. Christian, J.; Thomas, S. Examining the intersections of race, gender, and mass imprisonment. J. Ethn. Crim. Justice 2009, 36,
513?521. [CrossRef]
51. Cassidy, J.; Ziv, Y.; Stupica, B.; Sherman, L.J.; Butler, H.; Karfgin, A.; Powell, B. Enhancing attachment security in the infants of
women in a jail-diversion program. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2010, 12, 333?353. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Wildeman, C.; Schnittker, J.; Turney, K. Despair by association? The mental health of mothers with children by recently
incarcerated fathers. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2012, 77, 216?243. [CrossRef]
53. Dallaire, D.H. Incarcerated mothers and fathers: A comparison of risks for children and families. Fam. Relat. 2007, 56, 440?453.
[CrossRef]
54. Burnson, C. Resilience in Young Children of Jailed Parents. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA,
2016, (unpublished).
55. Dallaire, D.H.; Aaron, L. Middle childhood: Family, school, and peer contexts for children affected by parental incarceration. In
Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners; Poehlmann, J., Eddy, M., Eds.; Urban Institute Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 2010; pp. 101?119.
56. Poehlmann-Tynan, J. Reuniting young children with their incarcerated parents. Zero Three 2020, 30?39.
57. Poehlmann-Tynan, J.; Eddy, J.M. A research and intervention agenda for children with incarcerated parents and their families.
In Handbook on Children with Incarcerated Parents, 2nd ed.; Eddy, J.M., Poehlmann-Tynan, J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2019; pp. 353?371.
58. Geller, A.; Cooper, C.E.; Garfinkel, I.; Schwartz-Soicher, O.; Mincy, R.B. Beyond absenteeism: Father incarceration and child
development. Demography 2012, 49, 49?76. [CrossRef]
59. Besemer, K.L.; Dennison, S.M. Family imprisonment, maternal parenting stress, and its impact on mother-child relationship
satisfaction. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2018, 27, 3897?3908. [CrossRef]
60. Hagan, J.; Foster, H. Children of the American prison generation: Student and school spillover effects of incarcerating mothers.
Law Soc. Rev. 2012, 46, 37?69. [CrossRef]
61. Morales-Vives, F.; Camps, E.; Manuel-Duenas, J. Predicting academic achievement in adolescents: The role of maturity, intelligence,
and personality. Psicothema 2020, 32, 84?91. [PubMed]
62. Cho, R.M. Understanding the mechanism behind maternal imprisonment and adolescent school dropout. Fam. Relat. Interdiscip.
J. Appl. Fam. Stud. 2011, 60, 272?289. [CrossRef]
63. Turney, K.; Goodsell, R. Parental incarceration and children?s well-being. Future Child. 2018, 28, 147?164. [CrossRef]
64. Reagan, L.; Shelton, D. Methodological factors conducting research with incarcerated persons with diabetes. Appl. Nurs. Res.
2015, 29, 163?167. [CrossRef]
65. Oldrup, H.; Frederiksen, S. Are the children of prisoners socially excluded? A child-centered perspective. In Prison, Punishment,
and the Family: Towards a New Sociology of Punishment; Condry, R., Schaarf-Smith, P., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK,
2018.
66. Hayes, A.F.; Coutts, J.J. Use omega rather than cronbach?s alpha for estimating reliability. But . . . . Commun. Methods Meas. 2020,
14, 1?24. [CrossRef]
67. Muth?n, L.K.; Muth?n, B.O. Mplus (Version 8.0): Statistical Analysis with Latent Class Variables User?s Guide; Muth?n & Muth?n: Los
Angeles, CA, USA, 2019.
68. Hu, L.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Stuctural Equ. Modeling A Multidiscip. J. 1999, 6, 1?55. [CrossRef]
69. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
70. MacCallum, R.C.; Browne, M.W.; Sugawara, H.M. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure
modeling. Psychol. Methods 1996, 1, 130?149. [CrossRef]
71. Zinbarg, R.E.; Pinsof, W.; Quirk, K.; Kendall, A.; Goldsmith, J.; Hardy, N.; He, Y.; Sabey, A.; Latta, T. Testing the convergent and
discriminant validity of the systemic therapy inventory of change initial scales. Psychother. Res. 2018, 28, 734?749. [CrossRef]
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 11592 21 of 21
72. Breitsohl, H. Beyond ANOVA: An introduction to structural equation models for experimental designs. Organ. Res. Methods 2018,
22, 649?677. [CrossRef]
73. Newsom, J.T. Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling: A Comprehensive Introduction; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2015.
74. Preacher, K.J.; Rucker, D.D.; Hayes, A.F. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions.
Multivar. Behav. Res. 2007, 42, 185?227. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
75. Bennett, D.A. How do I deal with missing data in my study? Aust. New Zealand J. Public Health 2001, 25, 464?469. [CrossRef]
76. Zhao, X.; Lynch, J.G.; Chen, Q. Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. J. Consum. Res. 2010,
37, 197?206. [CrossRef]
77. Arditti, J.; Burton, L.; Neeves-Botelho, S. Maternal distress and parenting in the context of cumulative disadvantage. Fam. Process.
2010, 49, 142?164. [CrossRef]
78. Stack, C. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community; H & R: New York, NY, USA, 1974.
79. Besemer, K.L.; Dennison, S.M. Social exclusion in families affected by paternal imprisonment. Aust. New Zealand J. Criminol. 2017,
51, 1?18. [CrossRef]
80. Cochran, J.C.; Siennick, S.E.; Mears, D.P. Social exclusion and parental incarceration impacts on adolescents? networks and school
engagement. J. Marriage Fam. 2018, 80, 478?498. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
81. Dallaire, D.H.; Zeman, J.L. Empathy as a protective factor for children with incarcerated parents. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev.
2013, 78, 7?25. [CrossRef]
82. Veiga, F.H. Assessing student engagement in school: Development and validation of a four-dimensional scale. Procedia Soc. Behav.
Sci. 2016, 217, 813?819. [CrossRef]
83. Prata, M.J.; Festas, I.; Oliveira, A.L.; Veiga, F.H. The impact of a cooperative method embedded in a writing strategy instructional
program on student engagement in school. Rev. De Psicodid?ctica 2019, 24, 145?153. [CrossRef]
84. Tadros, E.; Fanning, K.; Jensen, S.; Poehlmann-Tynan, J. Coparenting and mental health in families with jailed parents. Int. J.
Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8705. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Kinner, S.A.; Alati, R.; Najman, J.M.; Williams, G.M. Do paternal arrest and imprisonment lead to child behaviour problems and
substance use?: A longitudinal analysis. J. Child. Psychol. Psychiatry 2007, 48, 1148?1156. [CrossRef] [PubMed]