Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Paternal Incarceration and Adolescent Social Network Disadvantage

  • Published:
Demography

Abstract

Previous research has suggested that adolescent peers influence behavior and provide social support during a critical developmental period, but few studies have addressed the antecedents of adolescent social networks. Research on the collateral consequences of incarceration has explored the implications of parental incarceration for children’s behavioral problems, academic achievement, health, and housing stability, but not their social networks. Using network data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, I find that adolescents with recently incarcerated fathers are in socially marginal positions in their schools and befriend more-marginal peers than other adolescents: their friends are less advantaged, less academically successful, and more delinquent than other adolescents’ friends. Differences in network outcomes are robust to a variety of specifications and are consistent across race and gender subgroups. This study advances the social networks literature by exploring how familial characteristics can shape adolescent social networks and contributes to the collateral consequences of incarceration literature by using network analysis to consider how mass incarceration may promote intergenerational social marginalization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Approximately one-half of respondents nominated the maximum of five male or five female friends, and 39 % nominated five of each. Therefore, friend count may be truncated for a sizable share of respondents. Because respondents were asked to nominate friends in order of closeness, however, ties who could not be nominated should constitute less-influential and important friends. Moreover, previous research has suggested close friend groups have about five or six members (Cotterell 1996; Dunphy 1963).

  2. I focus on paternal incarceration because few respondents experienced maternal incarceration prior to Wave I (N = 232), and previous research has suggested that maternal and paternal incarceration affect children differently (Lee et al. 2013; Wildeman and Turney 2014).

  3. Network location measures (nominations received, centrality, and reach in three steps) are calculated using ties only within the respondent’s school, excluding nominations sent to and received from students in the sister school (when applicable). Consequently, these measures are calculated separately at the middle and high school level for paired sister schools but jointly for combined middle and high schools. Findings are substantively consistent when combined middle and high schools are excluded from analyses.

  4. Centrality tends to be highly correlated with network size measures because centrality is partly premised on network size. Correlations between standardized Bonacich centrality and network size measures are as follows: total friends nominated (.65), nominations received (.41), and reach in three steps (.67). These moderately high correlations reflect that these measures are conceptually related but distinct (Valente et al. 2008).

  5. The Add Health restricted access network data file includes reach in three steps. Therefore, it is easily replicable and has already been used in other publications (e.g., Gallupe and Bouchard 2015; Hatzenbuehler et al. 2012; Mundt and Zakletskaia 2014). Moreover, three steps is an appealing distance because it should be large enough to extend beyond clique members to capture liaisons and adjacent cliques (Ennett and Bauman 1993) but small enough that peers at that distance could still be reasonably expected to have some influence over the respondent (Payne and Cornwell 2007).

  6. Average friend characteristics are calculated using all nominations that could be linked to friends’ in-school surveys, including friends in the sister school. Most identifiable friend nominations (98 %) are sent to students in the respondent’s own school, however.

  7. To ensure reliability, number of nominations received, Bonacich centrality, and reach in three steps are constructed for only those students in schools with response rates of 50 % or higher (121 schools) and for friendship nominations in which both the sender and the receiver are uniquely identifiable students in the same school.

  8. For friend characteristics analyses, I limit the sample to respondents who nominated at least one identifiable friend (N = 10,146) in her school or sister school so that friends’ characteristics can be measured from in-school survey responses. Approximately 11 % of nominations were to friends not in the respondent’s school pair; another 8 % were to students whose names were not on the roster (Carolina Population Center 2001). Adolescents with recently incarcerated fathers were only marginally more likely to nominate individuals not on school rosters as friends.

  9. Network data are collected again at Wave II for all respondents in 16 schools, but only nine respondents in these schools experienced paternal incarceration in the year between Waves I and II, preventing meaningful pre- and posttreatment comparison.

  10. I also used within-school nearest neighbor propensity score matching to restrict comparison to more-similar respondents, but lack of pretreatment observation of respondent characteristics and behavior pose significant challenges to credible propensity score model specification. Results are similar and available upon request.

  11. I also tried clustered standard errors and generalized estimating equation (GEE) models with exchangeable working correlation structures to account for error nonindependence within schools and found consistent results across models.

  12. Because paternal incarceration is respondent-reported, the restricted comparison group may exclude respondents who fail to report paternal incarceration at or before age 5 because they do not recall or are unaware of it. However, because respondents are presumably more likely to know about early-life paternal incarceration that was consequential for the family or long in duration, respondents inappropriately excluded from the comparison group because of incomplete information are likely less similar to the treatment group—and more similar to respondents with never-incarcerated fathers—than respondents who are aware of early-life paternal incarceration. Consequently, this potential exclusion of relevant comparison group members likely means that I underestimate differences in social network outcomes between respondents who experienced paternal incarceration shortly before Wave I and those who did not experience it after age 5.

  13. This is about twice as large as point-in-time estimates of parental incarceration in the late 1990s (Mumola 2000), which is reasonable given that I consider paternal incarceration over a three-year period.

  14. For ease of interpretation, I report linear probability model regression coefficients for isolate status. Logistic regression results are consistent.

  15. The estimated difference in number of friends nominated is likely to be biased toward 0 because of the five-person-per-gender limit on friend nominations.

  16. I tested whether the discrepancy between number of friend nominations sent and number received could be explained by depression or time spent in household and/or paid labor, in case adolescents withdraw from friendships because of increased housework or financial demands in the absence of a parent. However, adding these potential mechanisms did not change results for these or any other outcomes.

  17. In general, the magnitudes of differences in network characteristics are larger for more recent paternal incarceration and for longer duration of incarceration. The only exception is for the relationship between paternal incarceration and friends’ delinquency, which appears to be largest for respondents who experience paternal incarceration between ages 4 and 8.

References

  • Aaron, L., & Dallaire, D. H. (2010). Parental incarceration and multiple risk experiences: Effects on family dynamics and children’s delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1471–1484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

  • Battin-Pearson, S., Newcomb, M. D., Abbott, R. D., Hill, K. G., Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (2000). Predictors of early high school dropout: A test of five theories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 568–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bearman, P. S., & Moody, J. (2004). Suicide and friendships among American adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 89–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bearman, P. S., Moody, J., & Stovel, K. (2004). Chains of affection: The structure of adolescent romantic and sexual networks. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 44–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, N. (2007). All alone in the world: Children of the incarcerated. New York, NY: The New Press.

  • Besemer, S., van der Geest, V., Murray, J., Bijleveld, C. C. J. H., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). The relationship between parental imprisonment and offspring offending in England and The Netherlands. British Journal of Criminology, 51, 413–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1170–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braman, D. (2004). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family life in urban America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14, 128–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns, R. B., Cairns, B. D., Neckerman, H. J., Gest, S. D., & Gariépy, J.-L. (1988). Social networks and aggressive behavior: Peer support or peer rejection? Developmental Psychology, 24, 815–823.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvó-Armengol, A., Patacchini, E., & Zenou, Y. (2009). Peer effects and social networks in education. Review of Economic Studies, 76, 1239–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carolina Population Center. (2001). National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Network variables codebook. Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/codebooks/wave1

  • Carolina Population Center. (2008). National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Parental questionnaire codebook. Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/codebooks/wave1/parent.zip

  • Carolina Population Center. (n.d.). Questions about data—Add Health. Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/faqs/aboutdata/index.html

  • Cho, R. M. (2011). Understanding the mechanism behind maternal imprisonment and adolescent school dropout. Family Relations, 60, 272–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. E., & Lohéac, Y. (2007). “It wasn’t me, it was them!” Social influence in risky behavior by adolescents. Journal of Health Economics, 26, 763–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society. New York, NY: The Free Press.

  • Cotterell, J. (1996). Social networks and social influences in adolescence (1st ed.). London, UK: Routledge.

  • Dallaire, D. H., Ciccone, A., & Wilson, L. C. (2010). Teachers’ experiences with and expectations of children with incarcerated parents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 281–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M., & Kandel, D. B. (1981). Parental and peer influences on adolescents’ educational plans: Some further evidence. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 363–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmond, M. (2012). Disposable ties and the urban poor. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 1295–1335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunphy, D. C. (1963). The social structure of urban adolescent peer groups. Sociometry, 26, 230–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennett, S. T., & Bauman, K. E. (1993). Peer group structure and adolescent cigarette smoking: A social network analysis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 34, 226–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., Hussong, A., Faris, R., Foshee, V. A., Cai, L., & DuRant, R. H. (2006). The peer context of adolescent substance use: Findings from social network analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 159–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flashman, J. (2014). Friend effects and racial disparities in academic achievement. Sociological Science, 1, 260–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2007). Incarceration and intergenerational social exclusion. Social Problems, 54, 399–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2013). Maternal and paternal imprisonment in the stress process. Social Science Research, 42, 650–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2015a). Maternal and paternal imprisonment and children’s social exclusion in young adulthood criminology. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 105, 387–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2015b). Punishment regimes and the multilevel effects of parental incarceration: Intergenerational, intersectional, and interinstitutional models of social inequality and systemic exclusion. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 135–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabel, S. (1992). Behavioral problems in sons of incarcerated or otherwise absent fathers: The issue of separation. Family Process, 31, 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe, O., & Bouchard, M. (2015). The influence of positional and experienced social benefits on the relationship between peers and alcohol use. Rationality and Society, 27, 40–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., Cooper, C. E., & Mincy, R. B. (2009). Parental incarceration and child well-being: Implications for urban families. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 1186–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., Schwartz-Soicher, O., & Mincy, R. B. (2012). Beyond absenteeism: Father incarceration and child development. Demography, 49, 49–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., & Western, B. (2011). Paternal incarceration and support for children in fragile families. Demography, 48, 25–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giordano, P. C. (2003). Relationships in adolescence. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 257–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  • Goodreau, S. M., Kitts, J. A., & Morris, M. (2009). Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? Using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks. Demography, 46, 103–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, S. A., Schaefer, D. R., & Kornienko, O. (2010). Health and the structure of adolescent social networks. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51, 424–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagan, J., & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral consequences of imprisonment for children, communities, and prisoners. Crime and Justice, 26, 121–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagan, J., & Foster, H. (2012). Intergenerational educational effects of mass imprisonment in America. Sociology of Education, 85, 259–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, D. J. (2008). Neighborhood violence and adolescent friendships. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 2, 28–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, K. M. (2013). The Add Health Study: Design and accomplishments (Add Health/Carolina Population Center report). Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/data/guides/DesignPaperWIIV.pdf

  • Hatzenbuehler, M. L., McLaughlin, K. A., & Xuan, Z. (2012). Social networks and risk for depressive symptoms in a national sample of sexual minority youth. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 1184–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynie, D. L. (2002). Friendship networks and delinquency: The relative nature of peer delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 99–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haynie, D. L., & Osgood, D. W. (2005). Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers matter? Social Forces, 84, 1109–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, J. R., Patchin, J. W., Huebner, B. M., McCluskey, J. D., & Bynum, T. S. (2007). Parents, friends, and serious delinquency: An examination of direct and indirect effects among at-risk early adolescents. Criminal Justice Review, 32, 380–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. I., & Easterling, B. (2012). Understanding unique effects of parental incarceration on children: Challenges, progress, and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 342–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandel, D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 427–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaLonde, R. J. (1986). Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. American Economic Review, 76, 604–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, B., Bukowski, W. M., Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2007). Friendship moderates prospective associations between social isolation and adjustment problems in young children. Child Development, 78, 1395–1404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. D., Fang, X., & Luo, F. (2013). The impact of parental incarceration on the physical and mental health of young adults. Pediatrics, 131, e1188–e1195. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0627

  • Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 785–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, P. V. (1987). Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological Review, 52, 122–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review, 71, 353–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moses, T. (2010). Being treated differently: Stigma experiences with family, peers, and school staff among adolescents with mental health disorders. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 985–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumola, C. J. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/?id=ED448903

    Google Scholar 

  • Mundt, M. P., & Zakletskaia, L. I. (2014). That’s what friends are for: Adolescent peer social status, health-related quality of life and healthcare costs. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 12, 191–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. (2007). The cycle of punishment: Social exclusion of prisoners and their children. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 7, 55–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Parental imprisonment: Effects on boys’ antisocial behaviour and delinquency through the life-course. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1269–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Parental imprisonment: Long-lasting effects on boys’ internalizing problems through the life course. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., & Sekol, I. (2012). Children’s antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 175–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J., & Murray, L. (2010). Parental incarceration, attachment and child psychopathology. Attachment & Human Development, 12, 289–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences (Report). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesmith, A., & Ruhland, E. (2008). Children of incarcerated parents: Challenges and resiliency, in their own words. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1119–1130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ollendick, T. H., Weist, M. D., Borden, M. C., & Greene, R. W. (1992). Sociometric status and academic, behavioral, and psychological adjustment: A five-year longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 80–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, D. C., & Cornwell, B. (2007). Reconsidering peer influences on delinquency: Do less proximate contacts matter? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 127–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, S. D., & Gates, T. (2011). A conceptual framework for understanding the stigmatization of children of incarcerated parents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 286–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, L. C., & King, R. D. (2015). Absent fathers or absent variables? A new look at paternal incarceration and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 414–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roettger, M. E., & Boardman, J. D. (2012). Parental incarceration and gender-based risks for increased body mass index: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health in the United States. American Journal of Epidemiology, 175, 636–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roettger, M. E., & Swisher, R. R. (2011). Associations of fathers’ history of incarceration with sons’ delinquency and arrest among black, white, and Hispanic males in the United States. Criminology, 49, 1109–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. M. (2001). The peer group as a context for the development of young adolescent motivation and achievement. Child Development, 72, 1135–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sack, W. H., Seidler, J., & Thomas, S. (1976). The children of imprisoned parents: A psychosocial exploration. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 618–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, M. H., & Vargas, N. (2016). The dynamics of social support inequality: Maintenance gaps by socioeconomic status and race? Social Forces, 94, 1795–1822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. S. (2007). Lone pursuit: Distrust and defensive individualism among the black poor. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

  • Strauss, R. S., & Pollack, H. A. (2003). Social marginalization of overweight children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 157, 746–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1955). Principles of criminology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.

  • Sykes, B. L., & Pettit, B. (2014). Mass incarceration, family complexity, and the reproduction of childhood disadvantage. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654, 127–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tasca, M., Rodriguez, N., & Zatz, M. S. (2011). Family and residential instability in the context of paternal and maternal incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 231–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J. (2002). Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney-Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 15–36). New York, NY: New Press.

  • Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Thompson, M. (2006). Citizenship, democracy, and the civic reintegration of criminal offenders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605, 281–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valente, T. W., Coronges, K., Lakon, C., & Costenbader, E. (2008). How correlated are network centrality measures? Connections, 28(1), 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2000). Influence of deviant friends on delinquency: Searching for moderator variables. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 313–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R. E., Kerr, M., Pagani, L., & Bukowski, W. M. (1997). Disruptiveness, friends’ characteristics, and delinquency in early adolescence: A test of two competing models of development. Child Development, 68, 676–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, S., & Wildeman, C. (2011). Mass imprisonment and racial disparities in childhood behavioral problems. Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 793–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warr, M., & Stafford, M. (1991). The influence of delinquent peers: What they think or what they do? Criminology, 29, 851–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weerman, F. M., & Smeenk, W. H. (2005). Peer similarity in delinquency for different types of friends: A comparison using two measurement methods. Criminology, 43, 499–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Western, B. (2002). The impact of incarceration on wage mobility and inequality. American Sociological Review, 67, 526–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010). Incarceration and social inequality. Daedalus, 139(3), 8–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Western, B., & Wildeman, C. (2009). The black family and mass incarceration. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 621, 221–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildeman, C. (2009). Parental imprisonment, the prison boom, and the concentration of childhood disadvantage. Demography, 46, 265–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildeman, C. (2010). Paternal incarceration and children’s physically aggressive behaviors: Evidence from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Social Forces, 89, 285–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildeman, C. (2014). Parental incarceration, child homelessness, and the invisible consequences of mass imprisonment. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 651, 74–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildeman, C., & Turney, K. (2014). Positive, negative, or null? The effects of maternal incarceration on children’s behavioral problems. Demography, 51, 1041–1068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildeman, C., & Western, B. (2010). Incarceration in fragile families. Future of Children, 20(2), 157–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, G. M., & Messner, S. F. (2010). Neighborhood context and the gender gap in adolescent violent crime. American Sociological Review, 75, 958–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am incredibly grateful to Bruce Western and Alexandra Killewald for their patient guidance and thoughtful feedback throughout the course of this project. I also thank Christopher Jencks, Christopher Wildeman, Dana Rotz, Steven Raphael, Becky Pettit, and participants in the Quantitative Sociology workshop, Inequality and Social Policy proseminar, and Justice and Inequality reading group at Harvard University for their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier drafts of this article. This research uses data from Add Health, a program project directed by Kathleen Mullan Harris and designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and funded by grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. Special acknowledgment is due to Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Information on how to obtain the Add Health data files is available on the Add Health website (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth). No direct support was received from Grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Harvard University, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

    Brielle Bryan

Authors
  1. Brielle Bryan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brielle Bryan.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 86 kb)

Appendix

Table 3 Variable coding
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bryan, B. Paternal Incarceration and Adolescent Social Network Disadvantage. Demography 54, 1477–1501 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-0589-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-0589-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation