text:
Incarceration Effects on Families
Summary and Keywords
The rapid rise in the incarceration rate, most notably in the United States over the last four decades, has drawn greater attention to the disabilities imposed by incarceration experiences and the spillover of these complications to the families of inmates. Prisons have always disproportionately drawn upon the disadvantaged, but research today details how imprisonment creates new harms for inmates as well as for those who are connected to them but were never incarcerated. In this contribution, the effects of incarceration on the family are briefly described across several domains. First, the social patterning of incarceration effects are described, for inmates and for their families, showing that imprisonment effects are both widespread and overwhelmingly repressive for some groups. Next, the effects of incarceration on the families of inmates are described, focusing on the partners and children of inmates, and differentiating between maternal and paternal incarceration. Incarceration is broadly harmful for families, but there is a significant gender gap in knowledge—research on paternal incarceration and the romantic partners of male inmates is much more common, rigorous, and uniform in findings. Where findings are mixed, scholarship is reviewed on how examining incarceration and family life has expanded across varying fields that often differ in their research approach, emphasis, and methodology. Finally, the discussion ends with the most pressing challenges for researchers going forward, suggesting that studies interrogating heterogeneity and leveraging new data sources offer the most fruitful path. This review is focused largely on the United States. First, and most practically, much of our knowledge about the effects of incarceration on the family is based on U.S.-based samples. Second, the effects of incarceration on the family have worsened significantly as a result of the prison boom in the United States. It remains to be seen how such effects translate to different contexts; some research suggests similar process at much lower incarceration rates, while others show less harm in other contexts.
Keywords: mass incarceration, family, racial disparities, gender, policy
Incarceration Effects on Families
The Ubiquity, Social Patterning, and Costs of Incarceration Experiences
Experiencing the incarceration of a family member would be difficult in any era, but such experiences have grown ever more common in the United States. In 1980, about 1.8 million people were under the control of the criminal justice system in some fashion, but only about 520,000 were incarcerated in prisons or jails, and the rest were under probation supervision. By 2007, more than 2.3 million people were serving time in prisons or jails, and more than 5 million were under probation or parole supervision (Glaze & Kaebel, 2014; Kyckelhahn, 2011; Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2014). While narratives of "criminal others" often focus on the differences between the incarcerated and the free, contact with the criminal justice system today is quite common. A recent national estimate suggests that at least a third of all people in the United States are arrested prior to the age of 23 (Brame, Turner, Paternoster, & Bushway, 2011) and about 1 in 110 are currently incarcerated (Glaze & Kaebel, 2014). Moreover, nearly all of the imprisoned are connected to family in some way—as sons and daughters, as parents, and as siblings—and researchers have only begun to describe the effects of such a large-scale expansion of the criminal justice system on family relationships.
Contact with the criminal justice system is much more common today than it was in decades past, but the aggregate statistics presented above obscure substantial variation in the likelihood of doing time. The risk of arrest and imprisonment is substantially higher for black men relative to white men (Brame et al., 2014; Western & Pettit, 2010); for example, about 27% of black men who came of age during the prison boom were incarcerated relative to 5% of white men (Western & Pettit, 2010, p.11). If ones takes into account the intersection of race and class, incarceration is more common than not for black men without a high school degree (Western, 2006). Such high rates of incarceration in some communities relative to others translate to substantial disparities in the likelihood of experiencing the incarceration of a family member—one recent estimate finds that 44% of black women and 32% of black men have a family member incarcerated compared to only 12% of white women and 6% of white men (Lee, McCormick, Hicken, & Wildeman, 2015). Racial disparities are evident in patterns of female incarceration as well, albeit at lower rates. Women still comprise a relatively small proportion of the prison population (~9%), but their incarceration rate increased at twice the rate of men during the prison boom and the United States leads most European nations in the incarceration of women (Foster & Hagan, 2015; Kruttschnitt, 2010; Myers & Wakefield, 2014).
Estimates of the number and risk of experiencing parental incarceration vary widely. An estimate based on currently incarcerated parents found that about 1.9 million children under the age of 18 had a parent incarcerated (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008) and a more recent estimate suggests that about 5 million children, or 7% of all children, experienced the incarceration of a residential parent at some point in their lives (Murphey & Cooper, 2015). Both estimates are most certainly undercounts—the former only includes currently incarcerated parents, and the latter only children who were living with their parent at the time of prison or jail confinement. We know that, like incarceration among adults, experiencing the incarceration of a parent is increasingly common and affects a large number of children. Also, as with adults, there are large race and class disparities associated with parental incarceration risk. Wildeman (2009) finds that about a quarter of all African American children will experience the incarceration of a parent before their 14th birthday, relative to just under 5% for white children, and other estimates suggest similarly disparate risks (Geller, Garfinkel, Cooper, & Mincy, 2009; Johnson, 2009; Pettit, Sykes, & Western, 2009; Sykes & Pettit, 2014).
The social patterning of incarceration in the United States is such that many more people are incarcerated overall, but such experiences are heavily concentrated in some communities. The implications of this are somewhat perverse—the effects of incarceration are sufficiently widespread to contribute to aggregate-level shifts in inequality and are overwhelmingly repressive, yet such effects are invisible to large swaths of the population (Alexander, 2010; Pettit, 2012; Wacquant, 2000; Western, 2006).
The family members of inmates may be burdened before incarceration through instability related to criminal involvement, substance use, or mental health problems. Imprisonment brings little respite, as families navigate arrest, court processing, and eventual sentencing. While incarceration is intended as a punitive response to individuals charged and/or convicted of offending behaviors, family members are often exposed to the same pains of imprisonment while attempting to provide social support for incarcerated kin. Comfort (2003) describes family members caught up in the criminal justice system as "legal bystanders" who, though free, may still be subjected to treatment similar to that experienced by their incarcerated kin through a form of "secondary prisonization" (Comfort, 2008). As Comfort summarizes so articulately:
Through their association with someone convicted of a crime, legally innocent people have firsthand and often intense contact with criminal justice authorities and correctional facilities, they experience variants of the direct and indirect consequences of incarceration, and they are confronted by the paradox of a penal state.
(Comfort, 2003, p. 271)
Much of the cost of contact with the criminal justice system is transferred to the family members of inmates. Family members must often replace the earnings, childcare, and household labor of an incarcerated family member as well as assume costs related to legal debt and maintaining contact with incarcerated kin (Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008; Grinstead, Faigeles, Bancroft, & Zack, 2001; Harris, Evans, & Beckett, 2010). Because inmates are often incarcerated far from home, visitation is costly in both monetary and time commitment terms (Christian, 2005; Mumola, 2000). In order to visit their kin, family must first abide by strict clothing restrictions that forbids particular colors (Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008), prohibits revealing clothing like sleeveless shirts, shorts, and skirts above the knees (Girshick, 1996), requires women to avoid bras with an underwire (Comfort, 2008), and exposes them to additional pat down or strip searches (Fishman, 1990; Girshick, 1996). Visitation also requires the availability of reliable transportation options, food for children during travel, and gas or bus tickets to the prison (Christian, 2005; Christian, Mellow, & Thomas, 2006; Fishman, 1990).
Even for those who do not visit regularly, the costs of sending packages, gifts, letters, and receiving phone calls are substantial; one study found that the poorest women spent almost one third of their income maintaining contact with an incarcerated family member (Grinstead et al., 2001). In addition to economic costs and prison-like experiences while visiting, the family members of inmates may face social stigma and judgment from peers/colleagues, teachers, and other members of the public once they are aware of the incarcerated family member (see Braman, 2002; Dallaire, Ciccone, & Wilson, 2010; Siegel, 2011). Moreover, a host of studies have examined the effects of family incarceration for two groups in particular—their partners and their children—and it is to these groups that we now turn.
Incarceration Effects on Children
Though there are numerous studies on incarcerated parents and the impact on children, there are substantial differences in the pattern of results for maternal incarceration relative to paternal incarceration; therefore the results of each are discussed separately below.
Paternal Incarceration
Existing research on incarcerated fathers is fairly consistent in demonstrating harmful effects of paternal incarceration on children across a host of important developmental outcomes. These effects are typically modest in size, though for some outcomes paternal incarceration appears to do substantial harm (Wakefield & Wildeman, 2013). Studies of paternal incarceration have become increasingly rigorous recently because several large nationally representative datasets began to include blunt measures of paternal incarceration, allowing for robust quasi-experimental designs. Paternal incarceration is harmful for children's wellbeing, mental health, behavioral problems, levels of aggression, risks of homelessness, and school readiness and performance, even when researchers account for a robust set of background characteristics in their modeling strategies. Thus, paternal incarceration appears to be a unique harm imposed on children and adds to [often substantial] preexisting disadvantages.
Research on paternal incarceration is especially robust with respect to mental health and behavioral problems. Numerous studies link paternal incarceration experiences to increases in aggression, externalizing behavioral problems, and internalizing behavioral problems; these appear to lead to higher rates of delinquency and criminal justice involvement among the their children (Geller, Cooper, Garfinkel, Schwartz-Soicher, & Mincy, 2012; Geller et al., 2009; Murray & Farrington, 2005; Murray, Farrington, & Sekol, 2012; Roettger & Swisher, 2011; Wakefield & Wildeman, 2013; Wildeman, 2010). Mental health and behavioral problems that result from paternal incarceration have implications for other domains as well, most notably school performance, special education placement, and early grade retention (Haskins, 2014; Turney & Haskins, 2014).
Paternal incarceration is linked to material hardship in several studies, and through this pathway, severe harms with long-lasting consequences. Schwartz-Soicher, Geller, and Garfinkel (2011) show that paternal incarceration causes a sharp increase in material hardships (for example, difficulty paying rent or paying utility bills) and Sugie (2012) shows how this leads to increases in public assistance receipt for families and children left behind. It is likely that the more severe harms of paternal incarceration for children operate through a material hardship pathway; several studies show increases in infant mortality (Wakefield & Wildeman, 2013), homelessness (Wildeman, 2014), and poor birth outcomes (Dumont, Wildeman, Lee,Gjelsvik, Valera, & Clarke, 2014) following paternal incarceration.
The effects of paternal incarceration are broadly harmful, but recent work suggests important contingencies (and there are surely more to discover). The harmful effect of paternal incarceration on children's aggression, for example, is strongest when fathers lived with their children prior to incarceration (Geller, Cooper, Garfinkel, Schwartz-Soicher, & Mincy, 2012). Yet, fathers often do not reside with their children pre-incarceration and are seldom the primary caretakers of their children (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Geller and colleagues (2012, p. 72) suggest that, for children with incarcerated fathers who were nonresidential pre-incarceration, aggression effects may "operate at least partially through channels unrelated to father-child contact (e.g., maternal mental health, family economic well-being, or genetic transmission)." Two recent studies suggest a pathway through maternal neglect; Turney (2014) and Wakefield (2015) find that paternal incarceration is associated with an increase in the risk of abuse, aggression, and neglect by mothers or primary caregivers. Owing to the harms it imposes and large racial disparities in imprisonment, paternal incarceration is an important explanation for rising racial disparities in childhood wellbeing during the prison boom (Wakefield & Wildeman, 2013). Finally, children of violent fathers may be less harmed by paternal incarceration (Wakefield & Wildeman, 2013; but see Wakefield & Powell, 2016).
Maternal Incarceration
The evidence base related to maternal incarceration is substantially different from that of paternal incarceration. In a recent report to the National Academy of Sciences, the Committee on the Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration in the United States described the research evidence on maternal incarceration as deeply troubling, but lamented the small number of rigorous studies on the topic (National Research Council, 2014). In the words of the committee,
The few studies that have examined the consequences for children of incarcerated mothers tend to focus on separation from children and housing stability. These studies often find persistent disadvantage in terms of poor education and financial circumstances, substance abuse, mental illness, domestic abuse, or a combination of these. At this time, findings on the effects of maternal incarceration on child well-being are mixed.
(National Research Council, 2014, pp. 262–263)
Properly summarizing the effects of maternal incarceration on children is difficult for a variety of reasons. First, available evidence suggests relatively more heterogeneity and instability in the experiences of children of incarcerated mothers relative to those of incarcerated fathers prior to incarceration. Second, the literature on incarcerated mothers is much narrower with respect to outcomes of interest, often focusing on mother-child separation, mental health, behavioral problems, and housing instability to the exclusion of other outcomes. It is therefore difficult to make definitive statements about maternal incarceration because research is limited and often unable to disentangle causal effects from selection processes.
The results of the small number of studies on incarcerated mothers are highly variable. Some studies show harms associated with maternal incarceration that are broadly in line with those found for paternal incarceration (e.g., Arditti, 2012; Hagan & Foster, 2012; Huebner & Gustafson, 2007); but beneficial, null, or countervailing effects are also common (Giordano, 2010; Poehlmann, 2005; Siegel, 2011; Turanovic et al., 2012; Turney & Wildeman, 2015; Wildeman & Turney, 2014). Studies with more rigorous quasi-experimental research designs tend to find null effects (e.g., Cho, 2009a, 2009b; Wildeman & Turney, 2014) but the number of incarcerated mothers in most surveys and administrative datasets is typically very small. As a result of constraints brought on by small cell sizes, most of the quantitative work on maternal incarceration is unable to test the multitude of potential contingencies, moderators, or mediators that are readily apparent in qualitative work (Arditti, 2012; Poehlmann, 2005; Siegel, 2011; Turanovic et al., 2012; but see Turney & Wildeman, 2015). Given the landscape of completed research, it is difficult to conclude that either the "broad harms" or "mostly null" position on maternal incarceration is correct, though this represents the most contentious area of research on family incarceration effects. With the exception of entry into the foster care (certainly among the most severe of harms) (Johnson & Waldfogel, 2004; Swann & Sylvester, 2006), the full array of consequences related to maternal incarceration remains unclear in the existing research literature.
Several works point to important pathways to pursue, however. The pattern of results points to substantial differences in the backgrounds of incarcerated mothers relative to incarcerated fathers, especially as they relate to the pre-incarceration experiences and circumstances of their children. Among the most studied of maternal incarceration effects is its relationship to housing instability, for example. Unlike fathers, mothers are more likely to live with their children just prior to their incarceration and tend to be primary caretakers of their children pre-incarceration (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008; Mumola, 2000; Snell & Morton, 1994). Mothers are also more likely than fathers to live with their children in a single-parent household (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Maternal incarceration, rather than paternal incarceration, is therefore more likely to create housing instability for children and studies show significant overlap with the child welfare system (Swann & Sylvester, 2006).
Incarcerated mothers may also have more severe substance abuse problems, mental health problems, and trauma histories (Myers & Wakefield, 2014). The instability present for the children of incarcerated mothers before imprisonment may be more severe relative to that imposed by incarcerated fathers (Giordano, 2010; Siegel, 2011) and such instability may have important implications for maternal incarceration effects. Residential parents have greater direct impacts on their children, irrespective of the nature of that influence. Put simply, the variability between maternal versus paternal incarceration effects may simply reflect the fact that parents who live with their children have more opportunities to improve the wellbeing of their children as well as opportunities to do harm.
Existing research suggests that pre-prison circumstances drive many observed outcomes but hint at a more complicated story of heterogeneity. In a study showing mostly null average effects of maternal incarceration on child wellbeing for example, Wildeman and Turney find that effects on child wellbeing are accounted for by disadvantages "preceding maternal incarceration rather than incarceration itself" (Wildeman & Turney, 2014, p. 1041; see also Shlafer, Poehlmann, & Donelan-McCall, 2012). Related work by the same set of authors finds that children who are less disadvantaged (and therefore less likely to experience maternal incarceration) may experience more harmful consequences of maternal incarceration. For other children, especially those exposed to severe disadvantage and trauma, maternal incarceration may be null or even beneficial (Turney & Wildeman, 2015).
Maternal incarceration effects depend also on whether or not incarceration results in added difficulty or introduces greater household stability. Qualitative studies detail the intense anguish associated with mother-child separation yet many of the same studies show that some children may end up in more stable homes (see, e.g., Siegel, 2011). Importantly, histories of trauma, substance use, and mental health problems loom especially large for women during the reentry process as well as for child outcomes (Arditti, 2012). Recent research also emphasizes the importance of those who care for children while their mothers are incarcerated; primary caregivers of incarcerated parents face numerous burdens and are often critical to the success or failure of the mother's reentry process (Turanovic, Rodriguez, & Pratt, 2012; Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008).
Finally, incarceration is broadly stigmatizing and this stigma spills over onto children and caregivers (Schnittker & Bacak, 2013). At least one study suggests that stigma may be more substantial for children of incarcerated mothers, owing to broad gender-based expectations of mothers relative to fathers (Siegel, 2011, pp. 148–149), and several additional studies describe stigma imposed on primary caregivers of children of incarcerated parents (Turanovic et al., 2012; Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008). Stigma imposed by parental incarceration is consequential beyond the psychic or emotional damage; Dallaire and colleagues (2010) provide experimental evidence showing that teachers view children of incarcerated mothers as less academically prepared then their peers.
Whether the effects of maternal incarceration are broadly harmful or mostly null remains an unanswerable question in the research literature. The balance of research suggests a great deal of heterogeneity among mothers and their children, and the pursuit of a "general" story may not be a fruitful one. Maternal incarceration likely exerts large effects in both directions (harmful and beneficial). The challenge for research in this area is figuring out how and for whom maternal incarceration is most consequential, what conditions are most proximal to harm or stability, and how to make sense of widely disparate findings.
Incarceration Effects on Romantic Partners
Like children, current and former romantic partners of inmates experience the spillover effects of incarceration. Research on the incarceration of a partner has developed along several lines. First, as noted in the introductory comments, incarceration of a partner typically comes with increased economic and emotional costs, especially for those who wish to remain in contact with their incarcerated partners (Braman, 2002; Christian, 2005; Christian et al., 2006; Comfort, 2008; Fishman, 1990; Girshick, 1996). Second, several qualitative studies show that incarceration of a partner may yield positive benefits if the relationship was abusive or severely dysfunctional (Turanovic et al., 2012). As with the discussion of parental incarceration, the influence of prison on romantic relationships is complex and multi-faceted. Finally, much of the research on incarceration and romantic relationships is concerned with its contribution of incarceration to family dissolution and its influence on the health and wellbeing of partners who remain free. Both are discussed in greater detail below.
Before reviewing the research on incarceration and romantic partners, note that much of the research on the consequences of incarceration for partnerships refers to incarcerated men and female partners (but see Apel, 2016; Einat, Harel-Aviram, & Rabinovitz, 2015). This is partially explained by the greater representation and data availability of men in the "inmate" category and women and children as the referent. It may also reflect differences in the partnering histories of incarcerated men and women. Incarcerated women are less often involved in stable, supportive relationships prior to imprisonment (see Nuytiens & Christiaens, 2015; Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). A very large literature describes gender differences in "pathways to prison," showing that women are much more likely to have significant histories of trauma, abusive relationships, and sexual assault (Gilfus, 1993; Messina, Grella, Burdon, & Prendergast, 2007; Myers & Wakefield, 2014; Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). Given the small number of incarcerated women in large surveys and the decreased likelihood of stable partnering among incarcerated women, there is much less research linking imprisonment with later relationship outcomes for incarcerated women.
Research on incarceration and family dissolution is inspired by a longer history in criminology linking marriage to desistance from crime (Laub & Sampson, 2003), at least among men. With respect to incarceration, there is better evidence that incarceration causes partner dissolution/divorce and less evidence showing that incarceration histories alone reduce the "marriageability" of former inmates. Research consistently demonstrates that incarceration during marriage is associated with marital dissolution later on (see Apel et al., 2010; Lopoo & Western, 2005; Massoglia et al., 2011; Siennick et al., 2014). For instance, an analysis of first-time incarceration of married men in the Netherlands showed long-term impacts on divorce, evident even five years after release (Apel, Blokland, Nieuwbeerta, & van Schellen, 2010). In the U.S. context, both Apel (2016) and Turney (2015) find that incarceration contributes to partner dissolution and that these effects tend to happen rather quickly. Marital dissolution is more likely with longer terms of confinement (Massoglia, Remster, & King, 2011; Turney, 2015) but also evident for short sentences (Siennick, Stewart, & Staff, 2014). The mechanisms that explain divorce effects are multifaceted, but the role of re-partnering is clear (Turney & Wildeman, 2013). In one of the few studies devoted to causal mechanisms, Siennick and her colleagues (2014) found that less marital love, more relationship violence, household economic strains, and re-partnering accounted for approximately 40% of the effect of incarceration on marital dissolution.
Evidence on marriageability is more complex and mixed. Several studies suggest a negative effect of incarceration on the likelihood of later marriage (Huebner, 2005, 2007; Lopoo & Western, 2005), albeit with some nuances to this effect. For instance, Lopoo and Western (2005) found that the likelihood of a first marriage is diminished during incarceration compared to others who are not incarcerated, but there is no effect on marriageability after release. Apel et al. (2010) finds little evidence for a marriageability hypothesis as well, showing that marriageability effects disappear within a year of release and likely reflect an incapacitation influence: "Simply put, imprisoned offenders are temporarily restrained from participation in the marriage market, and therefore require some time (but no more than 1 year) to 'get back into the game,' as it were" (Apel et al., 2010, p. 290).
As with maternal incarceration, marriageability is another instance where the quantitative and qualitative evidence tend to differ in emphasis and result. While there is little evidence supporting the hypothesis in rigorous quantitative analyses, qualitative research often highlights the diminished marriageability of black and disadvantaged men as a result of their disproportionate involvement in the criminal justice system. Scholars suggest that incarceration results in a "marriage squeeze" because of shifts in the gender ratio of available partners (Bennett, Bloom, & Craig, 1989). Through his ethnographic work, Braman (2002, p. 123) found that the skewed gender ratios in high incarceration contexts encourage women to "enter into relationships with men who are already attached" and encourages men to "enter relationships with multiple women."
Finally, a related line of research examines the influence of incarceration on the health and wellbeing of partners. Again, much of this research is focused on the health consequences for women when their male partner is incarcerated. In contrast, health research on incarcerated women is more firmly focused on the mental health and traumas they bring with them to prison. With respect to the former, incarceration of a male partner is associated with maternal depression (Wildeman, Schnittker, & Turney, 2012), substantial material hardship (Schwartz-Soicher, Geller, & Garfinkel 2011), and intense stress. The consequences for physical health are no less severe. Lee, Wildeman, Wang, Matusko, and Jackson (2014) link paternal incarceration to physical health deficits in their partners. More troubling, incarceration effects such as these may partially explain racial disparities in infant mortality rates in the United States (Wakefield & Wildeman, 2013). Similar inequality effects are apparent with HIV infection—Johnson and Raphael (2009) find that racial disparities in incarceration wholly explain growing gaps in rates of HIV infection between white women and black women.
Overall, the evidence is clear that incarceration weakens families and causes mental and physical health problems in the partners and children left behind. There is less evidence showing that incarceration histories reduce the attractiveness of potential partners in marriage markets (and what evidence exists tends to use very different methods and samples to arrive at an answer). Note, however, that much of this research is focused on incarcerated men and their female partners and children. In the next section, the challenges and complications of research on family life and incarceration are explored and suggestions are offered for moving the field forward.
Review of Literature and Future Directions
Despite greater interest in incarceration effects on family life, our review suggests that the literature is somewhat fractured and often not in conversation across disciplines or methods. Some of this disconnection results from the widely varying fields that have examined incarceration and family life. Early works on the effects of parental incarceration largely began in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and social work (see Sack & Seidler, 1978; Sack, Seidler, & Thomas, 1976). This work often examined the emotional and behavioral problems associated with the incarceration of a family member, often focused on offering advice for practitioners (see, e.g., Cummings, 1978). Research on family incarceration is also intellectually linked to a long history in criminology on the transmission of crime from parent to child. In recent years, scholarship on family life and incarceration has expanded to developmental psychology, sociology, family demography, and criminology or criminal justice, even biology, among others—all fields that approach their scholarly project differently, prioritize different outcomes, and employ varying methods.
Work on incarceration and family life by psychologists has tended to adopt family process theories and focus on stress at the level of the family. This work is more often focused on mothers and the psychological impacts of incarceration for themselves and others. Sociological research has emphasized material disadvantage, and demographic work is more focused on family structure, health, and racial inequality. These scholarly foci likely explain the relative emphasis among sociologists and family demographers on paternal incarceration. Such disciplinary differences in emphasis are exacerbated by gaps in results between quasi-experimental survey research and inductive interview designs.
Gaps related to method employed are particularly evident in maternal incarceration research. A significant portion of the literature on maternal incarceration is devoted to the estimation of causal effects, disagreement about the role of effect heterogeneity, and the relative importance of "average" effects. Such debates highlight important tradeoffs between the pursuit of broadly representative results that may drive policy and deep knowledge that can tell us where policy interventions may fail or who best to target. We take no position on these debates here, except to say that efforts to bring together diverse scholars with varying perspectives would be a welcome foundation for the next generation of incarceration and family life research.
More broadly, we offer several suggestions for future researchers to pursue. First, research on incarceration and family life is fundamentally constrained by a lack of high quality data. Most large surveys do not allow researchers to reliably distinguish between a few days in jail from a long prison term, limit analyses of maternal incarceration, and offer no information on the conditions of confinement. Intensive interview studies are limited by small sample sizes and offer depth at the cost of representativeness. None of this is new, of course, but it is difficult to imagine our current sources of data offering many new examples of causal effects while also accounting for the widespread effect of heterogeneity that is readily implied in qualitative studies. As the first author has argued in more detail elsewhere (Wakefield, 2016; Wakefield, Lee, & Wildeman, 2016), the absence of detailed information on the wide variety of incarceration experiences makes little sense in an era of mass incarceration and known social harms to families.
Second, related to the last point, we ought to expand our examination of family life effects to other family members. With few exceptions (but see Comfort, 2016; Turney, 2014; Wildeman & Wakefield, 2014), much of our research is focused only on partners and children. Little research examines the incarceration of other family members or the concentration of incarceration in families—yet research on the concentration of incarceration in neighborhoods shows just how important these effects should be for families and children (Clear, 2007). Along the same lines, sustained examination of the concentration of crime and punishment in kinship networks would offer useful information on the cumulative disadvantages imposed by mass incarceration.
Third, knowledge would be gained by more comparative work across penal cultures. In a cross-national comparison of incarceration effects, Murray, Bijleveld, Farrington, and Loeber (2014) suggest that more rehabilitative criminal justice systems moderate the destructive effects of parental incarceration on children. For instance, Sweden is characterized by its reintegrative criminal justice system. in which incarcerated individuals are to be "treated with consideration for their human dignity" (Pratt, 2008, p. 130), catering to the best interests of incarcerated individuals and their families (Murray et al., 2014; Pratt, 2008). In the United States, higher risks of offending for sons are associated with parental incarceration (compared to convicted and not incarcerated), but this is not the case for sons in Sweden (Murray et al., 2014). In contrast, in the Netherlands more harmful effects of incarceration were associated with the transition from a rehabilitative emphasis in the 1960s and 1970s to a more punitive penal system in the 1970s and 1980s (Murray et al., 2014). Work on family life and incarceration has benefited from comparisons to England (Murray et al., 2014; Murray & Farrington, 2005), the Netherlands (Apel et al., 2010), and Denmark (Andersen, 2016), among others, but more comparisons are needed. The harmful effects of incarceration for family life might not be as severe (and perhaps even in the direction of benefit) in contexts where imprisonment is confined to persistent or violent offenders, in contexts with healthier social safety nets, or in less retributive contexts. Comparisons of the sort described above would advance basic science considerably, as well as aid criminal justice reform efforts in the United States.
Finally, research must be attentive to how familial relations and circumstances prior to the incarceration are carried through arrest, conviction, sentencing, incarceration, and reentry. This includes, for example, the duration and extent of prior offending behaviors, as well as the degree and quality of familial contact and communication prior to and during the family member's incarceration (see Mowen & Visher, 2016). Many studies on family life and incarceration conflate pre-prison instability with incarceration effects. Still others are unable to differentiate effects due to pre-trial detention, conviction, and imprisonment. Incarceration experiences and the conditions of confinement also remain a [very large] black box. We have written of "incarceration effects" throughout this review, but this language obscures substantial variation in incarceration experiences. While most observers acknowledge that short periods of confinement in a jail differ from long sentences to state or federal prison, we would argue that even inmates in the same unit, prison, or state carceral regime may have very different experiences. These differences are likely to have important implications for inmates' partners and children.
Work on family life and incarceration is at a crossroads. It is clear that incarceration imposes substantial burdens on families, especially in an era of mass incarceration. Creative researchers have linked incarceration to a host of outcomes and detailed the great variety of ways incarceration may change, worsen, or complicate family life. The next steps will be more difficult. Despite substantial research efforts and many studies, relatively few of them are easily translated into actionable policy guidance. Many questions remain—most related to heterogeneity and variation—and they are more easily asked than answered with available resources and data sources. Happily, both government agencies and private foundations are leveraging significant resources to the task, and criminal justice reform is a central feature of public discussion after decades of limited attention. The central challenge for researchers going forward will be how to best leverage new sources of information and innovative methods to synthesize and add to the results presented here.
Digital Materials
Wildeman, C. (2014). Parental incarceration and child wellbeing: An annotated bibliography.
Further Reading
Condry, R. (2007). Families shamed: The consequences of crime for relatives of serious offenders. Portland, OR: Willan.Find this resource:
Comfort, M. (2008). Doing time together: Love and family in the shadow of the prison. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:
Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2015). 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.Find this resource:
Giordano, P. C. (2010). Legacies of crime: A follow-up of children of highly delinquent girls and boys. New York: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Hagan, J., & Foster, H. (2012). Intergenerational educational effects of mass imprisonment. Sociology of Education, 83(3), 259–286.Find this resource:
Harris, A., Evans, H., & Beckett, K. (2010). Drawing blood from stones: Legal debt and social inequality in the contemporary United States. American Journal of Sociology, 115(6), 1753–1799.Find this resource:
Kruttschnitt, C. (2010). The paradox of women's imprisonment. Daedalus, 139(3), 32–42.Find this resource:
Lageson, S. (2016). Found out and opting out: The consequences of online criminal records for families. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665(1), 127–141.Find this resource:
Lee, H., McCormick, T., Hicken, M., & Wildeman, C. (2015). Racial inequalities and connectedness to imprisoned individuals in the United States. Du Bois Review, 12(2), 269–282.Find this resource:
Massoglia, M., Remster, B., & King, R. D. (2011). Stigma or separation? Understanding the incarceration-divorce relationship. Social Forces, 90, 133–155.Find this resource:
Murray, J., Bijleveld, C., Farrington, D., & Loeber, R. (2014). Effects of parental imprisonment on children: Cross-national comparative studies. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Find this resource:
Siegel, J. (2011). Disrupted childhoods: Children of women in prison. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Find this resource:
Turney, K. (2015). Liminal men: Incarceration and relationship dissolution. Social Problems, 62, 499–528.Find this resource:
Wakefield, S., & Wildeman, C. (2013). Children of the prison boom: Mass incarceration and the future of American inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Wildeman, C., Wakefield, S., & Lee, H. (2016). Tough on crime, tough on families? Criminal justice and family life in America. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665(1), 8–21.Find this resource:
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness. New York: The New Press.Find this resource:
Andersen, L. H. (2016). How children's educational outcomes and crimininality vary by duration and frequency of paternal incarceration. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665(1), 149–170.Find this resource:
Apel, R. (2016). The effects of jail and prison confinement on cohabitation and marriage. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665(1), 103–126.Find this resource:
Apel, R., Blokland, A. A., Nieuwbeerta, P., & van Schellen, M. (2010). The impact of imprisonment on marriage and divorce: A risk set matching approach. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(2), 269–300.Find this resource:
Arditti, J. A. (2012). Child trauma within the context of parental incarceration: A family process perspective. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 4(3), 181–219.Find this resource:
Bennett, N. G., Bloom, D. E., & Craig, P. H. (1989). The emergence of black and white marriage patterns. American Journal of Sociology, 95(3), 692–722.Find this resource:
Braman, D. (2002). Families and incarceration. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney-Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 117–135). New York: The New Press.Find this resource:
Braman, D. (2004). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family life in urban America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Find this resource:
Brame, R., Bushway, S., Paternoster, R., & Turner, M. G. (2014). Demographic patterns of cumulative arrest prevalence by ages 18 and 23. Crime and Delinquency, 60, 471–486.Find this resource:
Brame, R., Turner, M. G., Paternoster, R., & Bushway, S. D. (2011). Cumulative prevalence of arrest from ages 8 to 23 in a national sample. Pediatrics, 129(1), 21–27.Find this resource:
Bryant, P. T., & Morris, E. (1998). What does the public really think? Corrections Today, 59(1), 26–28.Find this resource:
Cho, R. M. (2009a). The impact of maternal imprisonment on children's probability of grade retention: Results from Chicago public schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 65, 11–23.Find this resource:
Cho, R. M. (2009b). The impact of maternal incarceration on children's educational achievement: Results from Chicago public schools. Journal of Human Resources, 44, 772–797.Find this resource:
Christian, J. (2005). Riding the bus: Barriers to prison visitation and family management strategies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21(1), 31–48.Find this resource:
Christian, J., Mellow, J., & Thomas, S. (2006). Social and economic implications of family connections to prisoners. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(4), 443–452.Find this resource:
Clear, T. R. (2002). The problem with "addition by subtraction": The prison-crime relationship in low-income communities. In M. Mauer & M. Chesney-Lind (Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 181–193). New York: The New Press.Find this resource:
Clear, T. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Comfort, M. (2008). Doing time together: Love and family in the shadow of the Prison. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:
Comfort, M. L. (2003). In the tube at San Quentin: The "secondary prisonization" of women visiting inmates. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32(1), 77–107.Find this resource:
Comfort, M. (2016). "A Twenty Hour a Day Job": The repercussive effects of frequent low-level criminal justice involvement on family life. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665 (May 2016), 63–79.Find this resource:
Cummings, P. (1978). The single mother as criminal defendant: A practitioner's guide to the consequences of incarceration. Golden Gate University Law Review, 9(2), 507–552.Find this resource:
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(4), 281–290.Find this resource:
Dumont, D. M., Wildeman, C., Lee. H., Gjelsvik, A., Valera, P., & Clarke, J. G. (2014). Incarceration, maternal hardship, and perinatal health behaviors. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 18, 2179–2187.Find this resource:
Einat, T., Harel-Aviram, I., & Rabinovitz, S. (2015). Barred from each other: Why normative husbands remain married to incarcerated wives: An exploratory study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59(6), 654–679.Find this resource:
Fishman, L. T. (1990). Women at the wall: A study of prisoners' wives doing time on the outside. New York: State University of New York Press.Find this resource:
Foster, H., & Hagan, J. (2015). 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.Find this resource:
Geller, A., Cooper, C. E., Garfinkel, I., Schwartz-Soicher, O., & Mincy, R. B. (2012). Beyond absenteeism: Father incarceration and child development. Demography, 49(1), 49–76.Find this resource:
Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., Cooper, C., & Mincy, R. (2009). Parental incarceration and childhood wellbeing: Implications for urban families. Social Science Quarterly, 90, 1186–1202.Find this resource:
Glaze, L. E., & Kaebel, D. (2014). Correctional populations in the United States, 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Find this resource:
Gilfus, M. E. (1993). From victims to survivors to offenders: Women's routes of entry and immersion into street crime. Women & Criminal Justice, 4(1), 63–89.Find this resource:
Giordano, P. C. (2010). Legacies of crime: A follow-up of the children of highly delinquent girls and boys. New York: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Girshick, L. B. (1996). Soledad women: Wives of prisoners speak out. Westport, CT: Praeger.Find this resource:
Glaze, L. E., & Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Parents in prison and their minor children. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Find this resource:
Grinstead, O., Faigeles, B., Bancroft, C., & Zack, B. (2001). The financial costs of maintaining relationships with incarcerated African American men: A survey of women prison visitors. Journal of African American Men, 6(1), 59–69.Find this resource:
Hagan, J., & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral consequences of imprisonment for children, communities, and prisoners. In M. Tonry & Petersilia (Eds.), Prisons (pp. 121–162). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Find this resource:
Harris, A., Evans, H., & Beckett, K. (2010). Drawing blood from stones: Legal debt and social inequality in the contemporary United States. American Journal of Sociology, 115(6), 1753–1799.Find this resource:
Haskins, A. R. (2014). Unintended consequences: Effects of paternal incarceration on school readiness and later special education placement. Sociological Science, 1, 141–158.Find this resource:
Huebner, B. M. (2005). The effect of incarceration on marriage and work over the life course. Justice Quarterly, 22(3), 281–303.Find this resource:
Huebner, B. M. (2007). Racial and ethnic differences in the likelihood of marriage: The effect of incarceration. Justice Quarterly, 24(1), 156–183.Find this resource:
Huebner, B. M., & Gustafson, R. (2007). The effect of maternal incarceration on offspring involvement in the criminal justice system. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 283–296.Find this resource:
Johnson, R., & Raphael, S. (2009). The effects of male incarceration dynamics on acquired immune deficiency syndrome infection rates among African American women and men. Journal of Law and Economics, 52, 251–293.Find this resource:
Johnson, E., & Waldfogel, J. (2004). Children of incarcerated parents: Multiple risks and children's living arrangements. In M. E. Patillo, D. F. Weiman, & B. Western (Eds.), Imprisoning America: The social effects of mass incarceration (pp. 97–131). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Find this resource:
Johnson, R. C. (2009). Ever-increasing levels of parental incarceration: The consequences for children. In S. Raphael & M. A. Stoll (Eds.), Do prisons make us safer? The benefits and costs of the prison boom (pp. 177–206). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Find this resource:
Kruttschnitt, C. (2010). The paradox of women's imprisonment. Daedalus, 139(3), 32–42.Find this resource:
Kyckelhahn, T. (2011). Justice expenditures and employment, FY 1982–2007: Statistical tables. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Find this resource:
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Find this resource:
Lee, H., McCormick, T., Hicken, M., & Wildeman, C. (2015). Racial inequalities and connectedness to imprisoned individuals in the United States. Du Bois Review, 12(2), 269–282.Find this resource:
Lee, H., Wildeman, C., Wang, E., Matusko, N., & Jackson, J. S. (2014). A heavy burden? The health consequences of having a family member incarcerated. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 421–427.Find this resource:
Lopoo, L. M., & Western, B. (2005). Incarceration and the formation and stability of marital unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(3), 721–734.Find this resource:
Massoglia, M., Remster, B., & King, R. D. (2011). Stigma or separation? Understanding the incarceration-divorce relationship. Social Forces, 90, 133–155.Find this resource:
Messina, N., Grella, C., Burdon, W., & Prendergast, M. (2007). Childhood adverse events and current traumatic distress: A comparison of men and women drug-dependent prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(11), 1385–1401.Find this resource:
Mowen, T. J., & Visher, C. A. (2016). Changing the ties that bind: How incarceration impacts family relationships. Criminology & Public Policy, 15(2), 503–528.Find this resource:
Mumola, C. J. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children. Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office.Find this resource:
Murphey, D., & Cooper, P. M. (2015). Parents behind bars: What happens to their children Washington, DC: Child Trends.Find this resource:
Murray, J., Bijleveld, C. A. A. T., Farrington, D., & Loeber, R. (2014). Effects of parental imprisonment on children: Cross-national comparative studies. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Find this resource:
Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Parental imprisonment: Effects on boys' antisocial behavior and delinquency throughout the life-course. Journal of Children Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1269–1278.Find this resource:
Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., & Sekol, I. (2012). Children's anti-social behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 175–210.Find this resource:
Myers, R. R., & Wakefield, S. (2014). Sex, gender, and imprisonment: Rates, reforms, and lived realities. In R. Gartner & B. McCarthy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of gender, sex, and crime (pp. 572–593). New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
National Research Council. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Find this resource:
Nesmith, A., & Ruhland, E. (2008). Children of incarcerated parents: Challenges and resiliency, in their words. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1119–1130.Find this resource:
Nuytiens, A., & Christiaens, J. (2015). It all has to do with men: How abusive romantic relationships impact on female pathways to prison. In C. Kruttschnitt & C. Bijleveld (Eds.), Lives of incarcerated women: An international perspective (pp. 32–46). New York: Routledge.Find this resource:
Pettit, B. (2012). Invisible men: Mass incarceration and the myth of black progress. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Find this resource:
Pettit, B., Sykes, B., & Western, B. (2009). Technical report on revised population estimates and NLSY-79 analysis tables for the Pew Public Safety and Mobility Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Find this resource:
Poehlmann, J. (2005). Children's family environments and intellectual outcomes during maternal incarceration. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1275–1285.Find this resource:
Pratt, J. (2008). Scandinavian exceptionalism in an era of penal excess. Part I: The nature and roots of Scandinavian exceptionalism. British Journal of Criminology, 48(2), 119–137.Find this resource:
Roettger, M. E., & Swisher, R. R. (2011). Associations of father's history of incarceration with delinquency and arrest among black, white, and Hispanic males in the U.S. Criminology, 49(4), 1109–1147.Find this resource:
Sack, W. H., & Seidler, J. (1978). Should children visit their parents in prison? Law and Human Behavior, 2(3), 261–266.Find this resource:
Sack, W. H., Seidler, J., & Thomas, S. (1976). The children of imprisoned parents: A psychosocial exploration. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46(4), 618–628.Find this resource:
Schnittker, J., & Bacak, V. (2013). A mark of disgrace or a badge of honor? Subjective status among former inmates. Social Problems, 60(2), 234–254.Find this resource:
Schwartz-Soicher, O., Geller, A., & Garfinkel, I. (2011). The effect of paternal incarceration on material hardship. Social Service Review, 3, 447–473.Find this resource:
Shlafer, R. J., Poehlmann, J., & Donelan-McCall, N. (2012). Maternal jail time, conviction, and arrest as predictors of children's 15-year antisocial outcomes in the context of a nurse home visiting program. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 41(1), 38–52.Find this resource:
Siegel, J, A. (2011). Disrupted childhoods: Children of women in prison. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Find this resource:
Siennick, S. E., Stewart, E. A., & Staff, J. (2014). Explaining the association between incarceration and divorce. Criminology, 52(3), 371–398.Find this resource:
Skardhamar, T., Savolainen, J., Aase, K. N., & Lyngstad, T. H. (2015). Does marriage reduce crime? Crime & Justice, 44, 385–557.Find this resource:
Snell, T. L., & Morton, D. C. (1994). Survey of state prison inmates, 1991: Women in prison. Bureau of Justice statistics special report (NCJ 145321). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Find this resource:
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. (2014). Number and rate (per 100,000 resident population in each group) of sentenced prisoners under jurisdiction of State and Federal correctional authorities on December 31. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Find this resource:
Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459–487.Find this resource:
Sugie, N. F. (2012). Punishment and welfare: Paternal incarceration and families' receipt of public assistance. Social Forces, 90, 1403–1427.Find this resource:
Swann, C., & Sylvester, M. S. (2006). The foster care crisis: What caused caseloads to grow? Demography, 43(2), 309–335.Find this resource:
Sykes, B. L., & Pettit, B. (2014). Mass incarceration, family complexity, and the reproduction of childhood disadvantage. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654(1), 127–149.Find this resource:
Turanovic, J. J., Rodriguez, N., & Pratt, T. C. (2012). The collateral consequences of incarceration revisited: A qualitative analysis of the effects on caregivers of children of incarcerated parents. Criminology, 50(4), 913–959.Find this resource:
Turney, K. (2014). The consequences of paternal incarceration for maternal neglect and harsh parenting. Social Forces, 92, 1607–1636.Find this resource:
Turney, K. (2014). The intergenerational consequences of mass incarceration: Implications for children's co-residence and contact with grandparents. Social Forces, 93(1), 299–327.Find this resource:
Turney, K., & Haskins, A. R. (2014). Falling behind? Children's early grade retention after paternal incarceration. Sociology of Education, 87(4), 241–258.Find this resource:
Turney, K., & Wildeman, C. (2013). Redefining relationships: Explaining the countervailing consequences of paternal incarceration for parenting. American Sociological Review, 78(6), 949–979.Find this resource:
Turney, K., & Wildeman, C. (2015). Detrimental for some? Heterogeneous effects of maternal incarceration on child wellbeing. Criminology and Public Policy, 14(1), 125–156.Find this resource:
Van de Rakt, M., Murray, J., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2012). The long-term effects of paternal imprisonment on criminal trajectories of children. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49(1), 81–108.Find this resource:
Wacquant, L. (2000). The new "peculiar institution": On the prison as surrogate ghetto. Theoretical Criminology, 4(3), 377–389.Find this resource:
Wakefield, S. (2015). Accentuating the positive or eliminating the negative? Father incarceration and caregiver-child relationship quality. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 104(4), 925–928.Find this resource:
Wakefield, S., & Powell, K. (2016). Distinguishing "petty" offenders from "serious" criminals in the estimation of family life effects. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665, 195–212.Find this resource:
Wakefield, S., & Wildeman, C. (2013). Children of the prison boom: Mass incarceration and the future of American inequality. New York: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Wakefield, S. (2016). Changing the ties that bind: Distinguishing the connected from the disconnected and accounting for the burdensome. Criminology and Public Policy, 15(2), 543–549.Find this resource:
Wakefield, S., Lee, H., & Wildeman, C. (2016). Tough on crime, tough on families? Criminal justice and family life in America. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665, 8–21.Find this resource:
Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Find this resource:
Western, B., & Pettit, B. (2010). Incarceration & social inequality. Daedalus, 139(3), 8–19.Find this resource:
Wildeman, C. (2009). Parental imprisonment, the prison boom, and the concentration of childhood advantage. Demography, 46, 265–280.Find this resource:
Wildeman, C. (2010). Parental incarceration and children's physically aggressive behaviors: Evidence from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Social Forces, 89, 285–310.Find this resource:
Wildeman, C. (2014). Parental incarceration, child homelessness, and the invisible consequences of mass imprisonment. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 651, 74–96.Find this resource:
Wildeman, C., Schnittker, J., & Turney, K. (2012). Despair by association? The mental health of mothers with children by recently incarcerated fathers. American Sociological Review, 77(2), 216–243.Find this resource:
Wildeman, C., & Turney, K. (2014). Positive, negative, or null? The effects of maternal incarceration on children's behavioral problems. Demography, 3(51), 1041–1068.Find this resource:
Wildeman, C., & Wakefield, S. (2014). The long arm of the law: The concentration of incarceration in families in the era of mass incarceration. The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 17(2), 367–389.Find this resource:
Zavaleta, D., Samuel, K., & Mills, C. (2014). Social isolation: A conceptual and measurement proposal (Vol. 67). OPHI Working Papers.Find this resource:


text:
2018 5th Annual Cover Guy Scholarship Winners Have Been Selected
The 2018 5th Annual Cover Guy Scholarship Winners have been selected and notified. This was by far the hardest year to choose and the committee has done an incredible job of selections. In the coming days we will announce the recipients to everyone. The 2019 6th Annual Cover Guy Scholarship is now open for application. We wish all the applicants and our recipients, the best for the coming school year.
2019 6th Annual Cover Guy Scholarship is now Open
The Cover Guy 6th Annual Scholarship is now open for entries. Please follow the instructions below to enter your application for the Scholarship. The Cover Guy Scholarship is an award of finances towards your educational pursuits and also an acknowledgement of your hard work and dedication both in your community and studies. The students and community leaders that have won the award before you speak volumes of the Character of the people that are recipients of this award yearly. The Cover Guy Scholarship recipients is also a small community and you will be in great company if chosen for this award. It has been a wonderful experience giving back to our communities and helping a few of our future leaders in their educational pursuits. Again this year the award will go to a student or students that represent the Qualities of The Cover Guy and our Employees.
2017 4th Annual Cover Guy Scholarship Winners Kaia Arthur and Emily Sams!
We are happy to announce The Cover Guy 2017 4th Annual Scholarship Has been awarded to Kaia Arthur (University of Minnesota) and also Emily Sams (University of Ottawa)! We would like to thank all of our worthy applicants this year and also encourage you to apply for the 5th Annual Scholarship which is now open for applications. It is always hard to make our choice from such wonderful students. Again this year the selection committee has done a wonderful job of selecting a student that represents the quality of people that come before them. It has been a wonderful experience giving back to our communities, and also helping a few of our future leaders in their educational pursuits.
About The Cover Guy
The Cover Guy is an established quality supplier of hot tub covers in North America. TCG has also forged a strong online business model using state of the art technology to help customers. Servicing over 30,000 customers a year in Canada and the United States with custom replacement hot tub covers. TCG strives to offer the very best products, at the very best prices in a timely manner.
The Cover Guy has enjoyed great success and looks for opportunities to give back to the communities in which it serves. The Cover Guy sponsors sports teams, charity events, and now offers an annual scholarship.
The 6th Annual Cover Guy Scholarship Eligibility Requirements:
- The student must be currently enrolled, or going to be enrolled in a program at a university, college or trade school in the United States or Canada for the upcoming school year.
- The applicant must submit an article consisting of 500-1000 words.
- The article must be in and around the applicants experience with hot tubs, backyard experiences, how hot tubs improve life, etc…
- One submission per applicant. And should be sent by email only. Please include name, phone number, address, school name, program. Give an explanation of why you should be considered for the award (grades, volunteer work, etc..), student ID number, and the article.
Scholarship Award: $500.00
Submission Deadline: July 1st 2019
Award Date: August 1st 2019
Please email your essay to: email@example.com
Past Recipients of The Cover Guy Scholarship:
2017 Kaia Arthur
2017 Emily Sams
2016 Esther Watt Mount Royal University
2016 Sydney Morgan Oglethorpe University
2015 Alison Conrad University of Kentucky
2015 Emily Rodford Western University
2014 Alana Babers Columbia University 2016 Public Health Masters
Alana Babers set the bar very high in our first year, and has been instrumental in choosing the following years recipients. In 2015 with Ms. Babers we decided on two very deserving students. Both Emily Rodford & Alison Conrad shared the academic pursuits along with the community involvement that we look for also when awarding our Academic Scholarship. Esther Watts and Sydney Morgan were awarded the Scholarship in 2016. Chosen by past winners Alana Babers, Emily Rodford, Alison Conrad and our staff.
The Cover Guy Scholarship
Our first five years of offering this award has been rewarding for The Cover Guy. We have met and heard of so many deserving hard working young people in our communities. It gives us great hope for the future.
"Thank you so much for awarding me with this scholarship! This award will also have a major impact on me as I work to pay off my loans for tuition. I'm also excited that I get to be involved in judging the entries for next year. "
Kaia Arthur
University of Minnesota
"This is incredible news. Thank you so much. I am very honoured to be chosen as the recipient of the scholarship."
Emily Sams
University of Ottawa
"A big thank you to The Cover Guy! I appreciate receiving this award as I begin my new adventure in university. I'm also excited to be putting these funds to great use on books as I start my first year in food and nutrition at Western University."
Emily Rodford
Western University
"Thanks to the Cover Guy Scholarship, I am able to research and educate myself to be the best teacher and advocate for children with disabilities. Thank you for everything!!"
Alison Conrad
University of Kentucky, MSD Special Education
"Thank you to the Cover Guy Team for supporting me in my educational goals this fall semester. Funds received from this scholarship are going towards paying for my undergraduate degree tuition and are also a massive blessing. I am also completely stoked for the support in my studies and getting me started on a successful path to my career."
Esther Watt
Mount Royal University
*All articles will become property of The Cover Guy.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
For outraged commentary by friends and foes of bad biker Joe Silver who caused Harley rider Sam terrible fractures and other personal injuries, and caused the wrongful death of Ronda Anaya, check the link above. Our motorcycle accident attorneys represent the injured Harley rider Sam, and I can tell you that Sam is in agony both physically and emotionally every day. Whether he ever recovers enough to resume his profession is still up in the air, although it is certain that he will never walk normally or without pain. The heated debate referred to above revolves around how harshly the law should treat the rider who killed Ronda and injured Sam.
While many people do not like attorneys, and have very little respect for the civil justice system, it is clear that the criminal system is inadequate to change bad behavior by itself. Only if we make wrongdoers, both individual and corporate, 100% accountable for their actions will we ever be able to change bad behavior. I ride and my partner rides and my paralegal rides, and I can say honestly that the debate is not between cruisers or Harley riders and sport bike riders. Calling Joe Silver's actions in crossing over the double yellow line, around a curve at a high rate of speed a "mistake" is minimizing and belittling his bad conduct. Joe Silver made a conscious choice to pass that day, a choice that cost Ronda Anaya her life, and Sam his health and his ability to walk or earn a living. Any time a biker, whether a cruiser or a sport bike rider crosses that double yellow, they know that it is illegal and that it is dangerous. Still bikers pass over the double yellow, for various reasons. Full civil, along with full criminal, accountability is the key to making people responsible for their choices, and the civil justice system is the only system that is in place to help the survivors of motorcycle accidents. The criminal system puts people in jail and levies fines. But does it put food on the table of the survivors? No.
For more information on this subject matter please refer to the section on Car and Motorcycle Accidents.
Claude A. Wyle is a partner of Choulos Choulos, and Wyle, a San Francisco based law firm dedicated to representing clients who have been injured by the wrongful conduct of individuals, corporations, public entities, and businesses. Mr. Wyle also frequently sits as a Judge Pro Tem for the city and county of San Francisco.


text:
2012-02-09 / Front Page
LCTS 4-H Fall Playday Series Results
The LCTS 4-H completed their fall playday series in November and presented awards to qualified riders on January 15 at the Lexington Park. There were 60 riders that qualified for the series and all received buckles, in addition to tack prizes.
Subscription Required!
Subscription Required!
If you are already an online subscriber, please sign in below.


text:
Los Angeles California (PRWEB) October 20, 2013
A recent report released by PositiveSingles.com, a renowned online dating site for singles suffering with STD's including HIV, Herpes and HPV among others, confirms that more than 55 percent of the people suffering with any kind of Sexually Transmitted Disease are not worried about the distance when it comes to finding a match. As a part of the study, members of the platform were asked to select the distance in miles they hope their match are within. Around 32 percent wanted their match be within 100 miles from them.
Experts of the field confirmed that compared to people on other non STD sites, a higher percentage of masses on PositivesSingles.com are willing to be in a relationship irrespective of the problems long distances can create. This can simply be judged to the fact that those suffering from STD do not wish to narrow their search and decrease the chances of finding their match.
When contacted, Jeffery Z, the Marketing Manager of PositiveSingles.com said, "Because it is pretty hard for STD infected people to find love. They do not want to miss any chance of seeking love because of the distance or other reasons." He further added, "We are providing them the opportunity to get true love without minding the distance. We understand the situation when a person who is suffering with HSV-1, HSV-2, HPV, HIV or any other kind of diseases, feels lonely and depressed. He or she needs love and support in these conditions, he needs a person who listens to him and understands him. We are offering these people a place where they can get their love without the fear of getting rejected."
For those who are looking for somebody within 100 miles, the reasons may include affection with the place where they are residing for years, feeling of safety in the area and the need to be taken care of. Close proximity to the relatives make them feel secure and is the reason they are not willing to search for a partner over the 100 miles mark.
PositiveSingles.com offers an easy way for singles to get their love by only filling the form on their website. The site includes 20,000+ conversations per day and 15,000+ active users. The website also has above 500 blog posts about dating tips and safety tips.


text:
Scottish canal towpath network receives £1.3m upgrade
A new towpath leading to the Kelpies sculptures off the Forth and Clyde Canal has been unveiled.
A partnership led by Scottish Canals has invested £1.3m in upgrading the towpath network across the country.
Towpaths connect to more than 250 miles (400km) of cycle paths across the country that have seen an upsurge in usage in recent years.
Transport minister Keith Brown said the investment would boost cycling and walking and link rural communities.
Towpaths at seven locations across Scotland have been upgraded to an all-weather surface over the last year, the latest step in a five-year, £5m programme led by Scottish Canals to upgrade the pathways.
And the new route leading to the Kelpies, the towering horse-head sculptures opened this year as part of the £43m Helix project, links more than 16 miles of pathway in the 350 hectare parkland near Falkirk.
Use of cycle paths in Scotland has increased 300% over the last eight years.
Mr Brown hoped the new towpath would encourage more people to walk and cycle along the country's canal network.
"I also welcome the £1.3m investment by Scottish Canals and partners over the last 12 months for the upgrading of Scotland's towpaths network, which will provide active travel routes and help to link rural communities," he said.
Sustainable transport charity Sustrans has invested £700,000 in the project, while Falkirk Council invested £240,000, Glasgow City Council contributed £175,000 and West Lothian Land Trust invested about £90,000.
The Helix and Scottish Canals also contributed about £130,000 to the project.
Scottish Canals chief executive Steve Dunlop said the new Helix path was "a fantastic addition to Scotland's canal system".
"The nation's towpaths are busier than ever and, as well as being important destinations for leisure, tourism and commuting, they play a vital role in the communities they run through," he added.
"By working with our partners to improve our towpaths, we hope to encourage even more people to explore Scotland's canals by boot, boat and bike."


text:
University CommunicationsMinot State fall enrollment numbers up
Official fall 2016 enrollment numbers at Minot State University show a two percent increase compared to official numbers last year. The number reported to the North Dakota University System is 3,412 students, an increase of 64 students. This is the first increase the university has experienced in six years and the largest overall enrollment since 2013.
The total number of new students, including freshmen, transfers and new graduate students is currently 801, up 11 percent over last year's official fourth week figures and the second highest in six years. Included in these new student numbers is the largest number of new transfer students in a decade. Additionally, the number of new freshmen increased for the second straight year, and after a five-year decline, the number of students from Ward County increased by four percent. Final figures also show a 16 percent increase in the number of MSU students taking classes at the Minot Air Force Base.
"It is certainly exciting this fall to have our first increase in overall student enrollment at Minot State University since 2010," said Steven Shirley, Minot State University president. "We have put a number of new initiatives in place during the past couple of years to attract and retain students, and it is wonderful seeing these efforts now coming to fruition. We have seen back-to-back increases in our freshmen classes the past two years along with this year's large jump in new transfer students and new graduate students. Minot State delivers a terrific education for a great value, and it is heartening to see these student enrollment increases."
As Sept. 20 represented the fourth full week of classes, enrollment numbers at Minot State are now official and reported to NDUS.
Published: 09/20/16


text:
"I can write wherever I'm at," Michael Connelly says, "but I get my best groove in my home in Tampa."
Speaking by phone from Los Angeles recently, Connelly was on his way back to Tampa, not only to finish his new novel, The Late Show — one of two he'll publish this year — but to appear at a screening on Feb. 19 of The Lincoln Lawyer, based on his 2005 book, at Tampa Theatre.
The internationally bestselling author is a busy man these days. In addition to writing two novels this year instead of his usual one, he's deeply involved in the early stages of Season 4 of Bosch, the Amazon TV series based on his 19 novels about Los Angeles police detective Harry Bosch, with its third season set to drop on April 21. He's seeing the DVD release on Feb. 28 of Sound of Redemption, a documentary about jazz saxophonist Frank Morgan that he produced.
And he's hosting The Lincoln Lawyer. The 2011 movie, starring Matthew McConaughey as the title character, LA. lawyer Mickey Haller, "still holds up," Connelly says. He's hosting the showing, part of the theater's "Bestsellers on the Big Screen" series, because a neighbor who is on its board asked him to and, he says, "I love Tampa Theatre."
The Q&A afterward will be a "grand reunion" with local lawyers Dan Daly and Roger Mills, who were among his main sources for Haller's character.
The Lincoln Lawyer was the first book in a series of five novels (so far) about Haller, who is Harry Bosch's half brother. The Late Show, to be published in July, will be Connelly's first new series since then. "It's a new character. It's been a really cool writing experience."
That new character is Renée Ballard, an LAPD detective who has been demoted to the night shift in Hollywood after filing sexual harassment charges against a supervisor.
"She works the midnight shift, not always with a partner," Connelly says. "I like the loner detective, male or female. I like following them from case to case. It's a great way of adding dimension to a new character."
Will Bosch, now retired from the LAPD, show up in Ballard's world? "So far, I would say no. She knows of him, but he's out of the department, and she's much younger. She knows about the TV show."
That would be Bosch, the successful Amazon TV series starring Titus Welliver as Connelly's original loner detective. To ensure its accuracy and keep it true to the books, it's filmed on location, mostly in Los Angeles. "We try to use as many real cops as we can," Connelly says, in the background and as consultants.
One episode in the upcoming Season 3 involves a sniper attack and rescue. He says, "We used the real LAPD intrusion team, their real methods and protocols. That way we get all the little details, like when they park their vehicles, they take the extra bulletproof vests and hang them over the windows. We wouldn't have thought of that. It gives us that higher value of accuracy."
One of the police consultants on the show, an LAPD cold-case detective named Mitzi Roberts, was one of Connelly's inspirations for Ballard. "I'm using some of her experiences as a woman in a male-dominated world, a male-dominated profession, trying to capture that."
Connelly says he expects to finish writing The Late Show in about a month. He'll then turn to working on Season 4 of Bosch — and writing the next Bosch novel.
"I haven't written one page of it," he says, nor does it have a title, but he's confident of making the November publication date. "It will be a continuation of him working as a volunteer for the San Fernando Police Department on cold cases," as he did in Connelly's 2016 novel, The Wrong Side of Goodbye.
"I came up with this idea (for The Late Show) and said, well, I could do two books this year, and my publisher jumped on it.
"In terms of the TV show, it will never be on autopilot, but I have people I trust. So I'll do it this year, but not every year."
Contact Colette Bancroft at [email protected] or (727) 893-8435. Follow @colettemb.


text:
Joined: 02 June 2007
Posts: 22768
Its time for a new beginning '.
Not just of a new FC '
Not only of a New Channel'
Not only of a New Show '.
Sach ke saath hi ek nayi shuruaat...
Rajghat ki Bhoomi se bola ek Fakir...
Teri Hasti Utni Hi Jitna Tera Zameer
A whole new Journey of Change with Rajeev Khandelwal.
Change is said to be the only constant thing in Life & Change is always starting of a new beginning '.& Ofcourse Change is always for Better'.In this case its Change is for the Bestest'...
But to begin the change...its first we have to change
"Be the Change u want to SEE"
Or as our hero says "Waqt Badal Raha hai'Mahaul badal raha hai'.Waqt hai ek nayi shuruaat ka'Sach ke saath'
Guess we FC members are following it literally beginning a
New FC 'where it will be journey of being with Rajeev '.Falling in love with
him all over again' for the next 26-28 days where he will be back again in our
drawing rooms.
Its once again time to Face the truth with the charming Host Rajeev Khandelwal'who once again will give a whole new definition to "Sach" ...
"Sach " which will bring in a change we want to see in our
lives as individuals & also as citizens of a Country.
As Hero says... Waqt Hai Sach bolne ka ...
Kisme Kitna Khot Hai...Aage badhkar Bol..Par Usse Pehle Sach ke Tarazu pe Khudko Tol
Come 18th December & Life will not just be OK...But Best for Rajeevians
Here's wishing the host & whole team of Sach Ka Samna all the best for this season of Sach ka Samna ofcourse with no controversies this time...
Expecting the show to be more Rocking , Successful, than last season.
Njoy ur stay in the Fanclub .Have a wonderful time with Rajeev...
Njoy Drooling the charming Host of Sach Ka Samna...
The following 9 member(s) liked the above post:
pooja3, golu_1677, Innocent_eyes, waniya_fatima, monika21, Illumination, Amor., MysticRiver, spvd,
Joined: 02 June 2007
Posts: 22768
Rajeev Khandelwal needs no introduction to ardent TV viewers who have loved him from his first show'.& still continuing loving him '
An actor who is adored by his fans for his work, wit & wisdom'..a perfect combination of good looks & equally good acting talent'..has been wooing us since his first performance on screen' An Actor who potrays every character with equal ease '..& made every character tailor made for him''
Rajeev came to Mumbai to sell his pilot episode based on the
Indian army'.but destiny had different plans for him. From being a documentary film maker .destiny
brought him in front of camera as he modelled for various brands like Green
label whiskey, LML Videocon, etc'& rest as they say is History ..
His first stint of acting started when he auditioned for
Balaji Telefilms '.& played Raj in the inaugural series of Kya Hadsaa Kya
Haqeqat '.
But Fame came with his portrayal of arrogant businessman & intense lover Sujal Garewal of Kahin To Hoga'which made him household name & made him popular with teen girls to oldies'equally'.. Mothers wanted son like him''& girls lover like him'.He wooed one & all '..
After playing a romantic character for 1 & years '.he came back as RAW officer Varun awasthi in Time Bomb 9/11 ..a complete action packed role ''a 25 episode series by Ketan Mehta '.Rajeev also palyed cameo in the weekly crime thriller serial CID as ACP prithviraj'
Rajeev also featured in the music Video by Sairu Maini Jhoon jhoom,
& Disang Nadi , & Mirey Tharain
After transition from lover boy to action hero'to present the real Rajeev Khandelwal instead of just any other character '..came the charming host of DYND season 3''
who made contestants make the difficult choices b/w the suitcases & prize money '..
Rajeev again came back in a daily soap Left Right Left as the dashing
& brave Capt Rajveer Singh Shekhawat '.. who was the perfect mentor, guide
& inspiration for the 6 dis-oriented cadets '.
With end of Capt. Rajveer's character in Left Right Left''started Rajeev's Journey from Small screen to Big screen'..& he achieved appreciation for his brilliant acting performance in critically accalaimed Aamir '..which became successful on Box office in competition with Sarkar Raj ''.
After Aamir, Rajeev was back again on TV as the brilliant host controversial show Sach
Ka Samna '& proved his capability as entertaining host '.he is back again
this year with SKS season 2'..
On personal front Rajeev got married to his Girlfriend Manjiri ..early this year on 7 feb in jodhpur .in a simple & private affair'..
Man who makes girls week on knees & boys envious.with
looks to kill & smile to make evry women drool'..his fan following as been
constantly increasing'''..
Wishing this fabulous actor with enormous talent '''all the best for future '.& hoping he get the best of the best characters to potray on screen'''.wishing him all the success professionally & all happiness personally''.
Wishing him all the luck '.& hope his fan following grows by leaps & bounds''.
Feel Lucky & Proud to be his Fan '''
ALL the Best Rajeev !!
Keep Rocking & Smiling
Have a pleasant stay in the FC ...
The following 10 member(s) liked the above post:
pooja3, swathipatil, Innocent_eyes, golu_1677, suhana.dixit, rajeevkiijann, waniya_fatima, monika21, spvd, MysticRiver,
Joined: 02 June 2007
Posts: 22768
'Shaitan' is the story is about Amy ' She is a 17 year old and has all the teenage angst and rebel attitude that go with that age. Amy makes some new friends in Bombay- the ultra rich KC and gang. One night of living on the edge ends up with them brushing against the law. A cop blackmails them to cover up the case. In order to pay up Amy stages her own kidnap with help from KC and gang. A simple plan which goes completely haywire forms the rest of the story. Intertwined with this we have a story of a cop ' Arvind Mathur ; who is put on the case to track Amy and the others. The cop is forced to deal with a personal crisis while he is on the case. How he manages to resolve it and simultaneously crack the case carries the story forward.
This sounds just like a rehashed version of Anurag's controversial thriller, Paanch. Old wine in a new bottle? There's also an unofficial trailer of 'Shaitan' doing the rounds on the internet.
Directed by Bijoy Nambiar, 'Shaitan' stars Arshad Warsi, Kalki Koechlin, Jackie Shroff, Shiv Pandit, Rajeev Khandelwal, Simran Sawhney, Shelly Skandrani and Rajat Barmecha.
Rajeev Khandelwal, a 26 years old from small town in India comes to Maximum City Mumbai carrying just three things- a guitar, a pair of head phones and a dream.
With the help of his late father's friend, played by Yatin Karekar he lands a job at "Tango Charlie"- the city's most rocking night club. Mohan Kapoor, the owner of the club promises and makes him the most indispensable DJ in town based on his prodigious talent. Saturday nights now have a whole new meaning. His world is now one big drink all you can, party all you can to the hardest, with the hottest girl at the nightclub- Mrinalini Sharma. He is living his dream- a flashy lifestyle, a bunch of friends as close as family, and the coolest DJ in town. It is really his life, his friends ' HIS MIX.
Rajeev is, however made for bigger stuff-he isn't going to settle for being only a DJ. His dream is to be a composer for main stream Indian movies. Celebrated film maker Anurag Kashyap gives him the break to compose music in his forthcoming film and Rajeev gives it his best.
But life has other cards to hand him, and it does deal him an unplayable hand. Tinnitus coupled with an over exposure to loud noise takes away - his hearing. With him going deaf, his dreams are shattered- and he ends up going into a very dark and lonely place.
In this depressed state and battling internal demons he meets his anti thesis Soha Ali Khan, a beautiful free spirited, bohemian, speech therapist for whom life is treasure, and every minute is worth living to the fullest.
Rajeev and Soha come together with just one common thread- both of them can't hear a thing.
Soha coaches Rajeev to get started with his communication and helps him pick the pieces in his life. The fact that he can't hear music still cuts into his soul. In his new found love for life, Rajeev chances upon a kathak performance, which makes him, feel the vibrations of music. His body slowly but surely starts begins to do what no other musician can do. Rajeev now begins to feel the music but still can't hear. It sets off a whole chain reaction to his life, and now, he feels music everywhere.
Will Rajeev, now get his chance to get people to hear what he has for them, and compose his masterpiece?
Soundtrack is based on a true story.
The following 9 member(s) liked the above post:
pooja3, luvraj4ever, golu_1677, suhana.dixit, Innocent_eyes, waniya_fatima, monika21, spvd, MysticRiver,
Joined: 02 June 2007
Posts: 22768
7.angelic eyes(yojnaa)
9.ANKESH --> (bravehearted)
11.kiran_sherry(kiran dii)
12.S a r a h
13.NidaRajeev (nida)
14.lrl rocks(vaishu)
22.vivacious virgo
23. pinka_anshu(priyanka)
27.togepe30 (Vandana)
28. nazrinkhan (nazu)
41. riya_03
42. Rajeev Aamna<33
43. surbhi 01
44. soniya_1010
45. 4ever urs
46. sunaina02
47. divyalrl
48. riya_03
49. rajeev-bigfan(Neha)
50. Binky
51. .sriti
52. bhaktikaushal
53. **maham**
54. NaVy1985
55. ranjitha
56. violence_peace
57. Souma.N
58. Asha_36
59. iqjaz
60. Uudee(Chandni)
61. dramaholic(Dilbagh)
62. rajeev_deewani
63. Barnali di
64. Trups di
65. me2kool
66. captain_ranveer
67. cool_subha2006
68. komalsirwani
69. salluranifan
70. violence_peace
71. Sweet_sujal
72. rakshi_sweety
73. cutykoo20
74. gktrina(Trina)
75. Ritika
76. Kanak
77. *sowmya*
78. mz.jess
79. Voldemort (Ajay)
80. sweety_rajveer
81. Naina
82. Sarah khan
83. rajnaina
84. Nadia
85. Thaakur Saab
86. moreremix(Sam)
87. Sai-licious
88. lrllover(Nishant)
89. advil
91. SarraCOMB
92. Stargold
93. Eyescandy
94. Nez-wek.
95. Gorgeouss(rajeev)
96. Sim38
97. Zermina
98. Master_blaster(Mannu)
99. crazyfanar(Fatima)
100. soulfry
101. friend forever
102. kiruti
104. cherishlove
105. xxp2xx
106. maria_srk
107. -skylark-
108. Cool_Dipti
109. pihu
110. RAdabest
111. angel16
112. royal prince
118. shruti_gauri1(shruti)
120. tanisha.g
121. tulika_rajeev
122. k\lavenyu
123. ramsha
124. -chitra
125. -seher
126. Neha_K (Neha)
127. mystified (Sofia)
130. dost4ever
133. arsalan
134. pgsks
135. jessica18
136. Henna66
137. Crazy_4_RA
138. goodkashish
140. sknra
144. Puri_2711
146. princess199
147. -Lennie-
148.Natlu S
149. Sonamlicious (Alinaa)
150. Risal
151. Sumi_162710(sumaiya)
152. CaughtYourHeart
The following 8 member(s) liked the above post:
pooja3, suhana.dixit, golu_1677, rajeevkiijann, ronojoy_ria, waniya_fatima, monika21, spvd,
Joined: 02 June 2007
Posts: 22768
Fresh new face - Indian Telly Awards (2004)
Best TV Personality - Indian Telly Awards (2004)
The following 7 member(s) liked the above post:
pooja3, Innocent_eyes, suhana.dixit, waniya_fatima, monika21, spvd, MysticRiver,
Joined: 02 June 2007
Posts: 22768
The following 6 member(s) liked the above post:
Innocent_eyes, waniya_fatima, monika21, Amor., MysticRiver, spvd,
Joined: 02 June 2007
Posts: 22768
The following 9 member(s) liked the above post:
akkiiiii, Innocent_eyes, suhana.dixit, waniya_fatima, monika21, Illumination, Amor., MysticRiver, spvd,
Joined: 02 June 2007
Posts: 22768
1. Please avoid double or triple quoting say it like
@ Nram
@ nidhi
Members can quote thrice but more than thrice quoting is not allowed
2. Please only one person write the captions for any pic
3. Please avoid repetition of pics for Caption
4. Please avoid saying hello or welcome posts
5. Please discuss Rajeev in every of ur replies
6.Discussion about SK can be done but plzz do avoid discussing RA in the FC
7. Similarly,do discuss RN but do avoid topics related to RP
If there is any disagreement regarding any post of any member in the FC
then the members should first bring the matter to the RKFC Management
Team before reporting the post to the moderators. Unnecessary warnings
in the fc are not wanted.
9. No one should open new RK FC or any Fc relating to Rajeev Khandelwal without informing the Management team and getting a yes form them. this is to avoid multiplicity of FCs and clash between members regarding the new Fc.
Plzz keep the Fc clean and a warning free Fc.
This measures are just to avoid unexpected fights and chaos and warnings over here...ur co-operation is sincerely expected
RegardsRKFC management team
The following 8 member(s) liked the above post:
akkiiiii, Innocent_eyes, suhana.dixit, rajeevkiijann, waniya_fatima, monika21, spvd, MysticRiver,
|Last Post
Naksh FC A New Beginning In Our lyf contest pg 100
Author: Ishradivanluver Replies: 1101 Views: 40853
|08 November 2011 at 12:25pm by Ishradivanluver
A New Beginning
Author: rvp534 Replies: 0 Views: 382
|27 January 2011 at 8:10am by rvp534
~:Harshad Chopda FC:~Spring:A New Beginning #pg 96
Author: Iriss Replies: 1188 Views: 52389
|10 March 2010 at 8:52am by Soaps1
$SHAKIRA$/ Soni Singh FC (The Beginning)
Author: Ultimate_Shadow Replies: 899 Views: 26506
|09 March 2008 at 2:43pm by Ultimate_Shadow
~ Harshad Chopda's FC ~...A new beginning
Author: delo Replies: 1190 Views: 30635
|21 January 2008 at 5:37am by -Preeti-
Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.
Popular Channels :
Quick Links :


text:
TBS Cancels Lopez Tonight — Is Conan to Blame?
Tomorrow will be the last episode.
TBS's George Lopez late-night show Lopez Tonight has just two more tomorrows left: The network just announced it's canceled the low-rated talker after two seasons and its final broadcast will be Thursday. A network spokesman called the move a "difficult decision," but really, it shouldn't have been: Ratings for Lopez were awful. How bad? So bad that reruns of nineties sitcoms on teeny-tiny Teen Nick drew nearly twice as many viewers as Lopez in key demos a few weeks ago (Lopez generally hovers around 250,000 viewers in the adults 18 to 49 demo TBS targets). Of course, Lopez didn't get much help from his lead-in, Conan, which has also been turning in soft ratings (around 700,000 adults 18 to 49 viewers, not counting DVR viewership and repeats). So did Coco kill Lopez by pushing him out of the marquee 11 p.m. slot?
Hardly. Fact is, while some pundits tried to spin Conan O'Brien's bumping of Lopez Tonight to midnight a little under a year ago as a demotion for Lopez, if anything, it was a life preserver. Lopez Tonight was turning in mediocre numbers when it aired at 11 p.m. and its renewal for a season two was hardly assured before O'Brien entered the picture. It's possible TBS might have given the show another season — it costs less to produce that O'Brien's show — but, most likely, Lopez would've almost certainly ended up where it is today: canceled.
As for O'Brien, today's Lopez news will likely turn a renewed spotlight on his ratings, which have undeniably faded in recent months as the media buzz over his move to cable has worn off. Rivals such as Comedy Central have been unrelenting in their attack on O'Brien, issuing press releases randomly calling out Coco's numbers in a bid to point out the show isn't doing that well. But two points of defense here for O'Brien. First, his TBS lead-ins have been pretty dreadful. (Quick: Name an original series you watch on TBS. Didn't think so.) Secondly, it was a given the ratings for Conan would drift downward as the novelty of a big-time network star on cable died down. The challenge now for O'Brien, his producers and TBS is to find a way to generate buzz and excitement around the show, in order to remind folks he's still slinging laughs at 11 p.m. Might we suggest enlisting Justin Timberlake to team up with Coco for a history of Irish drinking songs?


text:
Dunham Associates CPAs, Inc.
1884 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
(408) 260-9600
Mon - Fri: 9:00AM - 5:00PM
Sat - Sun: Closed
- Accounting Services
- Audits
- Consulting Services
- Financial Planning
- Financial Planning
- IRS Representation
- Quickbooks
- Small Business Accounting
- Tax Planning
- Tax Preparation
- Tax Problems
- Wealth Accumulation
- English
- Cash
- Check
- Mastercard
- Visa
Rick Dunham
Certifications & Memberships
5 stars DON G Featured review
I have never been disappointed. The staff from Rick down has been awesome and attentive. I am a long time client and plan to be longer.
5 stars MICHAEL M S Customer since 2016
Dunham Associates did an outstanding job for us. We had sold the home we owned for 25 years and downsized. While we did very well on the sales of the home, the tax implications were horrendous. The Dunham Team really helped us minimize the impact by advising us on the deductions and home cost basis we submitted to the IRS.
5 stars JOSEPH P. P Customer since 2014
Really enjoy working with Howell. He is very efficient, reliable and trustworthy.
5 stars Richard E M Verified customer
Dunham Associates has again (almost) made the Federal and California income tax procedures a pleasure. The prompts given, the reminders sent, the ease of the entire process from the client's view, and the professionalism of ALL the staff in handling verbal, electronic, and in person contacts is simply results exceeding expectations. Thank you.
5 stars Anonymous Verified customer
Taxes prepared in a timely fashion. Staff very knowlegable about questions involving taxes. If they do not have an answer for a question, they will find the answer and advise you of steps to follow. My husband and I have been working with Rick for several years. We have had issues with the IRS that he has successfully resolved. We highly recommend Dunham and Associates.
4 stars JEFF A Customer since 2015
It sometimes difficult to get a timely response via email.
5 stars ERIC A. G Customer since 2002
I have received many years of outstanding service and would never want to trust my affairs to anyone else.
5 stars Anonymous Customer since 2003
Always outstanding service with attention to detail and personal involvement. Highly recommended.
5 stars Anonymous Verified customer
My experiences at Dunham and Ass. has always been very good. they are professional, thorough and efficient. Love having them as my DPA
5 stars JOHN M. B Verified customer
Always well taken care of!
5 stars DONALD L. G Verified customer
Still there after 10+ years!
Also in San Jose
Crest Optometry
Michael & Company
Heating and Air
Air Quality Heating and Air Conditioning
Big O Tires San Jose
Jojo Hair Studio
Gregory R. Abate D.D.S.
Real Estate
Property Inspection Service
Serenity Dental Group