Incarceration-induced separation is challenging for families. However, the family reunification process can be just as challenging. This chapter is divided into two primary sections exploring parallel processes both during incarceration and after reentry into society through the lens of the family stress-proximal processes model. The authors present commonly faced hardships such as financial insecurity, housing insecurity, and difficulty finding work after release. Additionally, discussion of challenges to parent-child and partner relationships is provided, both during and after incarceration. A case example is provided throughout the chapter to illustrate the concepts presented, and suggestions for mental health providers are offered.
TopFamily Systems Theory
Murray Bowen (1966, 1978) introduced one of the first comprehensive theories of family systems functioning. Bowen’s systems theory continues to be a foundational theory in the conceptualization of families and the practice of family therapy in the U.S. Bowen suggested that families develop patterns of functioning that help to diffuse feelings of stress or anxiety, which often develop from feeling either too close or too distant from others in the system. The degree of anxiety in any particular family system is determined by external stressors and sensitivity to transgenerational themes within relationships, such as roles, expectations, and ways of relating to one another. This systems approach led to the eventual development of the family stress model, which examines the impact of external stressors on children by way of caregiver interpersonal conflict.
Family Stress Model
Rueben Hill (1958) developed the foundational framework for studying family stress called the ABC-X Model. Hill posited that family stress is distinguished by three factors: (A) the provoking event or stressor, (B) the family’s resources at the time of event, and (C) the meaning attached to the event – individually by family members and collectively as a unit. The ABC-X family stress model was first established to indicate the relational process of stress on individuals moving through a family system. Hill’s model demonstrates that the initiating stressor originates with a parent or caregiver, spreads to interpersonal conflict with a partner, and in turn results in negative impact on the child(ren) by way of parental stress and conflict. Based on Hill’s previous work, Boss’s (2002) adaptation, the contextual family stress model, posits that families and the individuals within them are more likely to demonstrate resilience to adversity when they have access to both external and internal resources for coping, as family stress is influenced by both external and internal contexts. External contexts are often environmental issues that are out of the family’s control, and internal contexts include family dynamics (boundaries, rules, roles) and the experience of loss (Boss, 2002).
Family Stress-Proximal Process Model for Incarceration
Joyce Arditti (2016) developed a family stress-proximal process model for better understanding the impact of incarceration on families and children. Arditti added to the original family stress model by specifying the initial stressor as parental incarceration, and, much like Boss’s contextual model, included the consideration of person-environment interactions that may contribute to emotional distress and alter family and individual functioning. The term proximal processes was coined by Urie Bronfenbrenner for use in his bioecological model, and refers to the enduring interactions between object or caregiver and child (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Critical proximal processes when considering incarceration involve the nature of loss and who is considered to be included with or excluded from the family. Ambiguous losses, where levels of uncertainty are high, are thought to be harder to resolve and more difficult to find effective resources to cope with, often causing more negative effects for the family.
Arditti’s family stress-proximal processes model connects both developmental and sociological lenses by situating psychological and family processes within a broader context of social inequality. As seen in Figure 1, the model demonstrates the influence of contextual factors on incarceration and the family system, viewing parental incarceration as both a result of and contributor to disadvantage. Additionally, bidirectional lines are seen between psychological distress and relational processes, reflecting the dynamic nature of family systems.
Figure 1. A family stress-proximal process model of incarceration demonstrates the impacts on both non-incarcerated caregivers and children