Challenges Associated with Parenting While Incarcerated: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this chapter.  I hope my comments will be useful to the authors.  Overall it is a solid chapter that would benefit from further development.  In advancing the literature on the mental health and parenting needs of incarcerated parents, the authors could more visibly bring in theory to help situate their focus on the implications of incarceration and any resultant separation from children and family members.  Theory could help focus the review-e.g. the use of attachment theory might yield a focus on separation distress.  The use of family stress/proximal process theory might yield a focus on ambiguous loss and how parenting might change.  In other words the review in its current form lacks a strong structure for considering the research…

In sum, I suggest more precision in organizing and summarizing the literature to map onto key theoretical issues.  I also appreciated the authors acknowledgement of gender-and encourage them to pull that thread through more coherently.

Again, a solid chapter that could go deeper in order to move the field forward.  Utilizing theory would also help inform discussion on what kinds of programs are needed (e.g. holistic, trauma informed programming).  

My specific comments are throughout the pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Below, find the reviewers suggestions in normal font, followed by our responses in bold. All changes have been tracked in the manuscript.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this chapter.  I hope my comments will be useful to the authors.  Overall it is a solid chapter that would benefit from further development.  In advancing the literature on the mental health and parenting needs of incarcerated parents, the authors could more visibly bring in theory to help situate their focus on the implications of incarceration and any resultant separation from children and family members.  Theory could help focus the review-e.g. the use of attachment theory might yield a focus on separation distress.  The use of family stress/proximal process theory might yield a focus on ambiguous loss and how parenting might change.  In other words the review in its current form lacks a strong structure for considering the research…

In sum, I suggest more precision in organizing and summarizing the literature to map onto key theoretical issues.  I also appreciated the authors acknowledgement of gender-and encourage them to pull that thread through more coherently.

Again, a solid chapter that could go deeper in order to move the field forward.  Utilizing theory would also help inform discussion on what kinds of programs are needed (e.g. holistic, trauma informed programming).  

My specific comments are throughout the pdf file.

for an abstract...recommend: "a substantial number are parents" or "over half are parents"

rather than 52-63%

Thank you-we have updated the abstract accordingly.

anything more recent? E.g. Wagner & Rabuy (2017)

We appreciate this suggestion and have updated the citation accordingly.

prefer:
"Scholars have.." (rather than "it")

The phrasing of this sentence has been updated per your suggestion.

which parents? incarcerated ones? or nonincarcerated caregiver.  Specify

We agree that this was not clear and have updated phrasing to specify.

I'd like to see theoretical and substantive framing for a focus on separation distress...
first- specify and cite research suggesting many incarcerated parents lived with their child or were connected to them..second theorize about what is at the heart of this disruption (i.e. separation distress).

Thank you for these suggestions. We agree that including more a more substantive, theoretical discussion for the present manuscript would enhance the contribution of the manuscript. We additionally agree that focusing on the attachment literature more overtly would be a nice addition to the paper. We have contextualized the paper accordingly to attachment theory in the revised manuscript, including specific treatment recommendations and future directions related to attachment.

 I would tone this down.. there is a body of literature on incarcerated parents...and the impact on their health and well-being.  I agree that more focus has been on children on the incarcerated.  I believe you can frame this review without arguing that there is "little" research on it.  Perhaps take a theoretical, systemic lens that highlights the importance of considering all members of the family.

The reviewer makes a good point, and we have accordingly adjusted the language in this section so as not to overlook the body of research that does exist on the topic of parental incarceration through the lens of the parents.

and of course, the nature of the relationship prior to incarceration.  See also: Arditti, 2016 "A family stress-proximal process model"-discussion of separation and ambiguous loss-

Thank you for this suggestion-we have included this citation.

specify more precisely...E.g.-
are you suggesting it might be harder on incarcerated mothers re: adjustment and distress? There is research suggesting it is quite difficult for them..why not cite it?

Thank you for this point-we have clarified this somewhat vague statement and cited the relevant research.

Additionally you could more carefully situate gender in the ensuring sections.  See my comments.

We appreciate this point, and according to a later suggestion made by this reviewer, we have included gender earlier in the manuscript to better contextualize the other findings.

specify..."prior to incarceration"

We have specified this.

ok- but keep focus on the experience of the incarcerated parent.  For example some incarcerated parents do not want their children to see them "this way" -or find it stressful.  See Arditti 2012.  Can you build on this literature in a new way?

Thank you for this point. We have included additional information from the perspective of the incarcerated parent regarding visitation issues.

it probably makes sense to early on distinguish between jails and prisons.

Great point-we agree and have done so.

since you are relying on one study, can you describe the sample so that the reader can contextualize the findings?

We have included additional citations regarding this point.

all studies on incarcerated mothers- I think you could more carefully pull the "gender" thread through here.

yes! should come earlier

We have now mentioned this point earlier in the manuscript.

1. good. but...it may make sense to reorganize a bit...to help situate the preceeding findings..

Thank you for these points-we have re-ordered accordingly.

women also have higher rates of substance use disorder/comorbidity

Yes, we have included this in the revised manuscript.

for clarity:
"fathers' viewing their incarceration as a form of child neglect or abandonment."

Thank you-this has been revised.

again, there are stats.  Perhaps when you start your discussion of gender, or mention the issue first, you can specify these numbers...

We have now included specific numbers to make this point.

yep.  many incarcerated fathers provided financial support prior to their confinement...

1. I haven't read this...but would tone down the causal language.  Maybe: "appears to have improved..."
   I'm guessing many of the studies reviewed were not RCT's....
   And again, your focus is on the parents mental health correct? Or is it on improving their parenting? What do these programs do for parents?  Loper had discussed that often they are informational and do not give parents much opportunity to practice skills (i.e. "time on the floor").  Additionally, do parenting programs address urgent mental health and substance use needs?

Thank you for this suggestion-we did not intend to suggest a causal relationship but realize the language used did just that. We have adjusted the language accordingly, and specified the exact “improvements” observed in these studies.

a theoretical framework for this review could help you make a case for holistic trauma informed programs and policies aimed at incarcerated parents.

Thank you- we agree and have included a more theoretical framework in the revised manuscript.

i think you could enhance research coverage and specify this more clearly earlier in the paper if it is a "key point."

We have adjusted language accordingly so as not to overemphasize this point.

Reviewer 2 Report

Brief Summary

This review described challenges faced by parents who are incarcerated. Discussion of barriers to parenting, the psychological impact of parenting while incarcerated, and programs for parents who are incarcerated was included. The authors offered suggestions for future areas of research (e.g., intergenerational experiences of parenting and incarceration) and program development (e.g., culturally appropriate programming). Particular challenges related to parenting while incarcerated during the COVID-19 pandemic were outlined.

Broad Comments

This manuscript has a number of strengths. Much of the previous work on this topic focuses on children, and these authors highlight the importance of also understanding parents who are incarcerated. Relatedly, the authors outline important considerations and offer suggestions for future directions and programming. The paper is well-written.

However, areas of weakness should be addressed. Of note, this is a review paper and lacks the rigor and thoroughness of a systematic review. The authors need to further expand on various topics throughout. In particular, more information about parents who are incarcerated is needed in the beginning. Correctional facilities and variability in contact with children/families should be further defined. Other topics (e.g., positive and negative outcomes associated with children visiting parents) require further discussion of nuances to avoid generalizations and potentially harmful conclusions that are not based in evidence. Throughout the manuscript, the authors should consider revising language to be person-first.

Specific Comments

Abstract

Estimates of parents who are incarcerated (in jails, prisons, etc.) in the United States exceed 52-63%; for examples, please see the following:

Shlafer, R., Duwe, G., & Hindt, L. (2019). Parents in prison and their minor children: Comparisons between state and national estimates. The Prison Journal, 99(3), 310-328.

Shlafer, R. & Saunders, J.B. (2017). Parents in Minnesota jails and their minor children. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/12ZyZTjfLuLY0eRpBJpKq2UCHTKkHigbF/view

New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. (2013). Children of incarcerated parents in New York state. Retrieved from http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/pio/2013-children-with-inarcerated-parents-report.pdf

Nutt, L. M., Deaton, D., & Hutchinson, T. (2008). Children and families of incarcerated parents: A demographic status report and survey. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Correction Policy, Planning and Research Unit.

Introduction

An updated citation is recommended for the first sentence.

The discussion about cultural considerations on page 6, lines 264-274 is appreciated. It is recommended that earlier in the paper, the authors offer further demographics and information (e.g., age, race, employment status prior to incarceration, how many parents lived with children prior to incarceration, experiences with the incarcerations of other family members, etc.) about parents who are incarcerated. Racial disparities due to racism and systematic oppression in various communities should also be described when discussing incarceration.

On page 2, line 47, please expand further on the findings of Burgess-Proctor and colleagues (2016). It is unclear what is meant by same-sex parent-child dyads having the largest impact on children’s future involvement in the criminal justice system. Also in this paragraph, the authors use “gender” and “sex” interchangeably. Consistency and/or clarification about whether the studies explore gender and/or sex differences is recommended.

On page 2, lines 53-57, please address a grammatical error; a word seems to be missing.

Barriers to parenting while incarcerated

Define jail and prisons. Further discussion about differences (e.g., location, jurisdiction, sentence lengths, offense types) between correctional settings (e.g., jails, prisons), along with variability in contact/visit types (e.g., phone, letters, contact visits, barrier visits, video/virtual visits, extended visits) is needed. The statement that settings “typically allow for telephone calls, written correspondence, and in-person visitations” may be viewed as an oversimplification. In particular, more detail about what in-person visits look like is important; jails infrequently offer contact visits (but may offer barrier or virtual/video), in part given they confine people who are awaiting sentencing for varying levels of crimes. Further, thorough discussion of differences in correctional settings will be important later in the manuscript when the authors discuss parenting support programs; correctional settings will have varying capabilities based on the aforementioned differences in facilities and who is confined there. All of these factors are important to expand upon given the impact on parents who are incarcerated. The authors may find the following helpful in expanding this section:

Shlafer, R. J., Loper, A. B., & Schillmoeller, L. (2015). Introduction and literature review: Is parent–child contact during parental incarceration beneficial? Children’s contact with incarcerated parents, 1-21.

This section may be strengthened by also noting the high cost of various forms of contact (e.g., phone calls, virtual/video visits) for multiple parties (e.g., person who is incarcerated, families, facilities) as a barrier to parenting while incarcerated.

Consider using the terms visits and/or visiting (instead of visitation) throughout. See Parent-Child Visiting Practices in Prisons and Jails (Cramer et al., 2017) by the Urban Institute for more information about these terms (https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/89601/parent-child_visiting_practices_in_prisons_and_jails.pdf). Also consider using person-first language throughout (e.g., person who is incarcerated rather than incarcerated individual, inmate, jailed parent, imprisoned parent, etc.).

Consider adding a citation for the claim that proximity to family may be considered in some cases but is not often a priority on page 2, line 82.

On page 2, lines 94-95, please add a citation and further explain why incarcerated fathers have more caregiver conflict given their children are often with their mother, or consider deleting this sentence.

I am concerned about the claim that Plexiglas visits relate to the development of attachment insecurity; please revisit the initial citation, describe further, and avoid causal language.

Please add citations for the recommendations on page 3 lines 124-218.

Please revisit the paragraph on page 3, lines 105-128. A more nuanced conversation about the positive and negative aspects of visiting is warranted. It is important to add caveats that quality of visits is difficult to measure and may vary depending on the outcome that you are considering. Further, whether or not visits are helpful will vary dramatically across families. Given these nuances and the available research, I would advise against making recommendations about whether or not children should visit, and instead suggest that decisions would need to be made based on each family’s unique circumstances.

Psychological impact of incarceration on parenting

Consider broadly discussing the high rates of mental health concerns and etiology (e.g., poverty, homelessness, substance use, rates of trauma, genetics, racism, systematic oppression, etc.) among people who are incarcerated. The authors include a nice description about parent-specific stressors (e.g., lack of control, custody, etc.) in the context of incarceration.

 Please add a citation for the sentence on page 3, line 132-133.

Gender differences between incarcerated mothers and fathers

The authors include a nice discussion about trauma and the exacerbation of posttraumatic stress symptoms during incarceration.

Consider also noting that while mental health screenings and intake procedures should consider women’s motherhood status, mothers may also be hesitant to share this information with correctional staff due to various concerns (e.g., child protection involvement, children’s or their own safety, etc.) on page 4, line 176.

Consider deleting the beginning of page 4, line 189; we would not expect that because mothers experience stress, fathers do not have stressors as well.

Add citations for pages 5-6, lines 201-205.

Stigma is referenced on page 5, line 205 but not discussed prior; consider expanding further on this concept.

Programs for incarcerated parents

The authors do a nice job presenting a thorough discussion of the positive and negative aspects of current parenting programs.

Given high rates of mental health concerns among parents who are incarcerated, the authors may consider including discussion of mental health programming in this section.

The authors may consider adding a section/information on re-entry and re-entry programs. The authors may add information about parents who lived with their children prior to the incarceration and plans for parenting upon re-entry.

Discussion

Again, discussion about parent’s potential hesitance to disclose their parenting status may be added when describing programming/mental health screenings.

The discussion could be strengthened with clearer suggestions for parenting programs and future research based on the review of literature. For example, it seems that peer-led programs may be helpful; what specific topics have been most helpful, per the literature? The authors later mention more success when parents are actively communicating with their children; how could this be tied into programming recommendations? The authors describe the importance of mental health screening and mention treatment, but more discussion about mental health treatment is warranted given the rates of mental health concerns among this population.

The addition of COVID-19 considerations is appreciated.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Below, find the reviewers suggestions in normal font, followed by our responses in bold. All changes have been tracked in the manuscript.

Broad Comments

This manuscript has a number of strengths. Much of the previous work on this topic focuses on children, and these authors highlight the importance of also understanding parents who are incarcerated. Relatedly, the authors outline important considerations and offer suggestions for future directions and programming. The paper is well-written.

However, areas of weakness should be addressed. Of note, this is a review paper and lacks the rigor and thoroughness of a systematic review. The authors need to further expand on various topics throughout. In particular, more information about parents who are incarcerated is needed in the beginning. Correctional facilities and variability in contact with children/families should be further defined. Other topics (e.g., positive and negative outcomes associated with children visiting parents) require further discussion of nuances to avoid generalizations and potentially harmful conclusions that are not based in evidence. Throughout the manuscript, the authors should consider revising language to be person-first.

Specific Comments

Abstract

Estimates of parents who are incarcerated (in jails, prisons, etc.) in the United States exceed 52-63%; for examples, please see the following:

Shlafer, R., Duwe, G., & Hindt, L. (2019). Parents in prison and their minor children: Comparisons between state and national estimates. The Prison Journal, 99(3), 310-328.

Shlafer, R. & Saunders, J.B. (2017). Parents in Minnesota jails and their minor children. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/12ZyZTjfLuLY0eRpBJpKq2UCHTKkHigbF/view

New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. (2013). Children of incarcerated parents in New York state. Retrieved from http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/pio/2013-children-with-inarcerated-parents-report.pdf

Nutt, L. M., Deaton, D., & Hutchinson, T. (2008). Children and families of incarcerated parents: A demographic status report and survey. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Correction Policy, Planning and Research Unit.

 Thank you for these citations. We have updated this citation accordingly.

Introduction

An updated citation is recommended for the first sentence.

 We have updated this citation accordingly.

The discussion about cultural considerations on page 6, lines 264-274 is appreciated. It is recommended that earlier in the paper, the authors offer further demographics and information (e.g., age, race, employment status prior to incarceration, how many parents lived with children prior to incarceration, experiences with the incarcerations of other family members, etc.) about parents who are incarcerated. Racial disparities due to racism and systematic oppression in various communities should also be described when discussing incarceration.

 Thank you for these suggestions. We agree that it would be very helpful to include a more thorough picture of the individuals affected by the topic at hand, and have included a section on this in the revised manuscript.

On page 2, line 47, please expand further on the findings of Burgess-Proctor and colleagues (2016). It is unclear what is meant by same-sex parent-child dyads having the largest impact on children’s future involvement in the criminal justice system. Also in this paragraph, the authors use “gender” and “sex” interchangeably. Consistency and/or clarification about whether the studies explore gender and/or sex differences is recommended.

 We have clarified these findings, and ensured that our use of terminology is consistent throughout the manuscript.

On page 2, lines 53-57, please address a grammatical error; a word seems to be missing.

 Thank you for your attention to this detail.

Barriers to parenting while incarcerated

Define jail and prisons. Further discussion about differences (e.g., location, jurisdiction, sentence lengths, offense types) between correctional settings (e.g., jails, prisons), along with variability in contact/visit types (e.g., phone, letters, contact visits, barrier visits, video/virtual visits, extended visits) is needed. The statement that settings “typically allow for telephone calls, written correspondence, and in-person visitations” may be viewed as an oversimplification. In particular, more detail about what in-person visits look like is important; jails infrequently offer contact visits (but may offer barrier or virtual/video), in part given they confine people who are awaiting sentencing for varying levels of crimes. Further, thorough discussion of differences in correctional settings will be important later in the manuscript when the authors discuss parenting support programs; correctional settings will have varying capabilities based on the aforementioned differences in facilities and who is confined there. All of these factors are important to expand upon given the impact on parents who are incarcerated. The authors may find the following helpful in expanding this section:

Shlafer, R. J., Loper, A. B., & Schillmoeller, L. (2015). Introduction and literature review: Is parent–child contact during parental incarceration beneficial? Children’s contact with incarcerated parents, 1-21.

 Thank you for this citation. We have included more specific differentiation on jails and prisons, including more detail on what in-person visits are like and if/when they are offered.

This section may be strengthened by also noting the high cost of various forms of contact (e.g., phone calls, virtual/video visits) for multiple parties (e.g., person who is incarcerated, families, facilities) as a barrier to parenting while incarcerated.

Thank you-this is a very important point and overlooked on our part. We have included this in the revision.

Consider using the terms visits and/or visiting (instead of visitation) throughout. See Parent-Child Visiting Practices in Prisons and Jails (Cramer et al., 2017) by the Urban Institute for more information about these terms (https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/89601/parent-child_visiting_practices_in_prisons_and_jails.pdf). Also consider using person-first language throughout (e.g., person who is incarcerated rather than incarcerated individual, inmate, jailed parent, imprisoned parent, etc.

Thank you for these suggestions. We have adjusted the language throughout.

Consider adding a citation for the claim that proximity to family may be considered in some cases but is not often a priority on page 2, line 82.

 Thank you- we intended to cite this initially but evidently it was not included. We have updated accordingly.

On page 2, lines 94-95, please add a citation and further explain why incarcerated fathers have more caregiver conflict given their children are often with their mother, or consider deleting this sentence.

 We recognize the ambiguity in this statement, and have elaborated on these findings to ensure clarity.

I am concerned about the claim that Plexiglas visits relate to the development of attachment insecurity; please revisit the initial citation, describe further, and avoid causal language.

 We agree with your concern and did not intent to suggest causality, though our language used did just that. We have elaborated on the findings from the initial citation and adjusted our language appropriately.

Please add citations for the recommendations on page 3 lines 124-218.

 These citations have been included.

Please revisit the paragraph on page 3, lines 105-128. A more nuanced conversation about the positive and negative aspects of visiting is warranted. It is important to add caveats that quality of visits is difficult to measure and may vary depending on the outcome that you are considering. Further, whether or not visits are helpful will vary dramatically across families. Given these nuances and the available research, I would advise against making recommendations about whether or not children should visit, and instead suggest that decisions would need to be made based on each family’s unique circumstances.

 Thank you for this suggestion. We have removed any suggestions regarding the appropriateness of visits for families.

Psychological impact of incarceration on parenting

Consider broadly discussing the high rates of mental health concerns and etiology (e.g., poverty, homelessness, substance use, rates of trauma, genetics, racism, systematic oppression, etc.) among people who are incarcerated. The authors include a nice description about parent-specific stressors (e.g., lack of control, custody, etc.) in the context of incarceration.

 These are important factors to include and have now been added to this section.

 Please add a citation for the sentence on page 3, line 132-133.

 We have included a citation here.

Gender differences between incarcerated mothers and fathers

The authors include a nice discussion about trauma and the exacerbation of posttraumatic stress symptoms during incarceration.

 Thank you!

Consider also noting that while mental health screenings and intake procedures should consider women’s motherhood status, mothers may also be hesitant to share this information with correctional staff due to various concerns (e.g., child protection involvement, children’s or their own safety, etc.) on page 4, line 176.

This is a very good point. We have included this in the revision.

Consider deleting the beginning of page 4, line 189; we would not expect that because mothers experience stress, fathers do not have stressors as well.

 We have deleted this statement.

Add citations for pages 5-6, lines 201-205.

 We have included citations here.

Stigma is referenced on page 5, line 205 but not discussed prior; consider expanding further on this concept.

 We agree that this is an important point and have expanded on it in the revised manuscript.

Programs for incarcerated parents

The authors do a nice job presenting a thorough discussion of the positive and negative aspects of current parenting programs.

 Thank you!

Given high rates of mental health concerns among parents who are incarcerated, the authors may consider including discussion of mental health programming in this section.

 Thank you for this suggestion-we have included additional information about mental health treatment.

The authors may consider adding a section/information on re-entry and re-entry programs. The authors may add information about parents who lived with their children prior to the incarceration and plans for parenting upon re-entry.

 We appreciate this suggestion and have included more information about re-entry and programming available for parents in the revised manuscript.

Discussion

Again, discussion about parent’s potential hesitance to disclose their parenting status may be added when describing programming/mental health screenings.

 Thank you-this has been added.

The discussion could be strengthened with clearer suggestions for parenting programs and future research based on the review of literature. For example, it seems that peer-led programs may be helpful; what specific topics have been most helpful, per the literature? The authors later mention more success when parents are actively communicating with their children; how could this be tied into programming recommendations? The authors describe the importance of mental health screening and mention treatment, but more discussion about mental health treatment is warranted given the rates of mental health concerns among this population.

 We agree that this section could be elaborated on to provide clearer suggestions for programming. We have adjusted accordingly.

The addition of COVID-19 considerations is appreciated.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors were responsive to both reviewers and the manuscript is much improved. I have reviewed the revision and am satisfied. I recommend "accept."

Author Response

Thank you!

Reviewer 2 Report

Broad Comments

This is a revised manuscript that reviews challenges faced by parents who are incarcerated (i.e., parenting, the psychological impact of parenting while incarcerated, and programs for parents who are incarcerated was included). While the authors have addressed the majority of my concerns, there are still some areas that I believe require further clarification/modification.

Specific Comments

1. A read-through to address grammatical and syntactical errors is recommended.
2. The current organization of the manuscript can be difficult to follow. Consider the organization of sections, along with paragraphs within sections (e.g., consider placing gender differences section after the psychological impact section; consider moving the paragraph about the prevalence of mental health problems among individuals who are incarcerated to the characteristics of incarcerated parents section).
3. There are still a number of places (e.g., line 8, 35, 69, etc.) where person-first language (g., person who is incarcerated, rather than incarcerated individual, inmate, jailed parent, imprisoned parent, etc.) is not used. In addition, “visitation” is still used rather than visits or visiting (e.g., 128, 132, etc.; see Cramer et al., 2017). Revisions to this language or justification for the current language in the manuscript would be appreciated.
4. I’m not sure what is meant by “institutional misconduct” in line 36.

Characteristics of incarcerated parents

5. Thank you for adding this section. However, it appears that characteristics of only parents in prison are discussed; it would be helpful to also discuss those in jail. A citation is missing for lines 72-77. The percentages in lines 72-73 seem to be underestimates per more recent research. The percentages do not add up in lines 76-77. A citation is also missing for lines 79-80. More recent estimates suggest that over 5 million children have had a parent who is incarcerated (Murphey & Cooper, 2015).

Barriers to parenting while incarcerated

6. Thank you for adding more details about jails and prisons. The authors do a nice job of discussing differences in contact between jails and prisons in the beginning of this section in lines 85-99. However, the next two paragraphs on lines 100-137 are difficult to follow and may need to be reorganized. Further, I recommend revisiting the literature when describing forms of contact. For example, jails and prisons both often offer in-person visits. The difference is that jails often offer Plexiglas/barrier and/or video visits. Prisons often offer contact, Plexiglas/barrier, and/or video visits. Both jails and prisons often allow phone calls and written correspondence. Prisons tend to pose a particular challenge in terms of being further away from families than jails.
7. Please add citations for lines 165-166.
8. There is a paragraph about why visits could be detrimental to children and parents (lines 159-182), and then a paragraph about why visits can be helpful for parents (183-203). What seems to be missing is reference to the literature highlighting the benefit of visits for children, which is important given the available evidence supporting visits and the policy implications.

Author Response

Specific Comments

1. A read-through to address grammatical and syntactical errors is recommended.

We appreciate your attention to detail, and have addressed remaining grammatical errors.

1. The current organization of the manuscript can be difficult to follow. Consider the organization of sections, along with paragraphs within sections (e.g., consider placing gender differences section after the psychological impact section; consider moving the paragraph about the prevalence of mental health problems among individuals who are incarcerated to the characteristics of incarcerated parents section).

Thank you for these suggestions-we re-ordered the manuscript during the initial revision at the request of another reviewer, however, we agree that additional re-structuring would facilitate ease of reading. Accordingly, we have made several changes to structure/organization that we feel have accomplished this goal. For example, per this reviewer’s suggestion, we moved a portion of the mental health section to the characteristics of incarcerated parents section. Additionally, we moved the gender differences section back to its original order, after mental health concerns.

1. There are still a number of places (e.g., line 8, 35, 69, etc.) where person-first language (g., person who is incarcerated, rather than incarcerated individual, inmate, jailed parent, imprisoned parent, etc.) is not used. In addition, “visitation” is still used rather than visits or visiting (e.g., 128, 132, etc.; see Cramer et al., 2017). Revisions to this language or justification for the current language in the manuscript would be appreciated.

We apologize for this initial oversight, and have updated terminology accordingly.

1. I’m not sure what is meant by “institutional misconduct” in line 36.

We have clarified the meaning of this phrase in the updated manuscript.

Characteristics of incarcerated parents

1. Thank you for adding this section. However, it appears that characteristics of only parents in prison are discussed; it would be helpful to also discuss those in jail. A citation is missing for lines 72-77. The percentages in lines 72-73 seem to be underestimates per more recent research. The percentages do not add up in lines 76-77. A citation is also missing for lines 79-80. More recent estimates suggest that over 5 million children have had a parent who is incarcerated (Murphey & Cooper, 2015).

We have included additional characteristics of parents in jail. We included your suggested citation (thank you!), and clarified that the citation we provided was estimating the number of children who currently have parents incarcerated, whereas Murphey & Cooper estimated the number of children who have experienced parental incarceration in their lives. We have also added a citation for lines 79-80. Regarding the percentages, we have clarified that these numbers also include individuals who identify as biracial, and therefore the total percentages do not add up to 100%, as some respondents indicated more than one race.

Barriers to parenting while incarcerated

1. Thank you for adding more details about jails and prisons. The authors do a nice job of discussing differences in contact between jails and prisons in the beginning of this section in lines 85-99. However, the next two paragraphs on lines 100-137 are difficult to follow and may need to be reorganized. Further, I recommend revisiting the literature when describing forms of contact. For example, jails and prisons both often offer in-person visits. The difference is that jails often offer Plexiglas/barrier and/or video visits. Prisons often offer contact, Plexiglas/barrier, and/or video visits. Both jails and prisons often allow phone calls and written correspondence. Prisons tend to pose a particular challenge in terms of being further away from families than jails.

We have updated this section to ensure our description of forms of contact is accurate. We have also re-worded and re-organized this section in several places to make sure it is easy to follow.

1. Please add citations for lines 165-166.

We have included the appropriate citation.

1. There is a paragraph about why visits could be detrimental to children and parents (lines 159-182), and then a paragraph about why visits can be helpful for parents (183-203). What seems to be missing is reference to the literature highlighting the benefit of visits for children, which is important given the available evidence supporting visits and the policy implications.

Thank you for pointing out this oversight-we have included information regarding the benefits of visitation for children.