19
A RT I C L E S
Far Apart, Close in Heart:
Exploring Representations
of Familial Incarceration
in Children’s Picturebooks
R H I A N N O N M . M ATO N , B R E E A N N A D E X T E R , N I C O L E T T E M c K E O N ,
E M I LY U R I A S -V E L A S Q U E Z , & B R E A N N A WA S H I N G TO N
We examine how selected texts depict the racial identities of family
members who are incarcerated, issues and circumstances surrounding
the theme of breaking the law, modes of communication used by
children to stay in touch with family members who are incarcerated,
and the various socioemotional support systems available for children.
CHILDREN’S PICTUREBOOKS hold noteworthy
potential for reducing shame and stigma around penal
incarceration and supporting some of our most vulnerable
student populations—those who are personally affected
by the U.S. incarceration system. Nationally, one in 100
adults is currently incarcerated. Meanwhile, more than
2.7 million U.S. children—or one in 28 children (The Pew
Charitable Trusts, 2010)—currently have a parent who
is incarcerated, and many more U.S. children face the
daily effects of familial incarceration due to past parental
incarceration or the incarceration of other family members
and loved ones. For the purpose of this article, familial
incarceration refers to the penal imprisonment of a child’s
close family member(s), including parents, siblings,
grandparents, guardians or close caregivers, or others
recognized by a child to be a member of their immediate family. Previous research has shown that children
with loved ones who are incarcerated often have unique
emotional, relational, and educational needs (Bernstein,
2005; L. Davis & Shlafer, 2017) and can face persistent barriers to school success (Haskins, 2014; Haskins
& Jacobsen, 2017; Haskins & McCauley, 2019). Parents
and guardians, teachers, social workers, counselors, and
Journal of Children’s Literature, 48(2), pp. 19–32, 2022.
others are often the primary people charged with providing responsive information and support to this group of
children, yet they frequently have not received training on
their unique experiences and needs.
Meanwhile, researchers embracing critical multicultural approaches have long advocated for the use of picturebooks in supporting and reflecting the experiences of
children with diverse identities and life experiences (see
Crawley, 2017; Crisp et al., 2016; Lester, 2014; Skrlac Lo,
2019; Sullivan & Urraro, 2019; Thomas, 2016; Uliassi &
Czirr, 2018; Wargo & Coleman, 2021; Wiseman, 2013). In
recent years there has been a steady increase in the number
of published children’s picturebooks addressing the topic
of familial incarceration. Such texts present opportunities for children to see reflections of their own experiences,
learn about families who are similar to and different from
their own, and challenge the stigma often associated with
incarceration. While this growing body of children’s literature has been featured in published book lists (see Maton
et al., n.d.; New York Initiative for Children of Incarcerated Parents, n.d.), to date there is no published research
examining the range of topics and content explored in this
body of literature. There is a need to carefully examine
©Children’s Literature Assembly ISSN 1521-7779
20
A RT ICL E S
and chronicle the ways in which children’s picturebooks
represent incarceration and the experiences of children with
loved ones who are incarcerated.
This article strives to fill this gap by using a penal
abolitionist frame to conduct a critical content analysis of
children’s picturebooks that address the topic of familial
incarceration. Penal abolitionism points to the criminal
legal system as crucial in maintaining ongoing social
and economic oppression and critiques the systems and
structures maintaining historicized oppression while calling
for alternative, nonpenal regulatory legal approaches (e.g.,
Coyle & Nagel, 2022; A. Davis et al., 2022). As such, it offers
a critical lens through which to read textual representations of the criminal legal system and its effects in children’s
picturebooks. The research question guiding our work is
this: How is familial incarceration represented in contemporary English-language children’s picturebooks? To answer
this question, we conducted a critical content analysis
(Beach et al., 2009) of 19 picturebooks published between
1990 and 2019 that feature children who have a parent or
other loved one who is incarcerated. We were particularly
interested in how the books depicted the racial identities of
characters, breaking the law, how children communicate
with their loved one who is incarcerated, and the support
systems available for children.
We noticed that schools tend to fail
to acknowledge or meet the needs
of children with loved ones who are
incarcerated. In response, we decided to
closely examine a range of picturebooks
with the intention of integrating them
into our teaching in order to support
both destigmatizing incarceration as
well as providing an entryway to more
responsive relationships with our
students who are experiencing familial
incarceration.
We initially embarked on this work because four of
us are either practicing or preservice elementary school
teachers, and in our jobs and field placements, we noticed
that schools tend to fail to acknowledge or meet the needs of
children with loved ones who are incarcerated. In response,
we decided to closely examine a range of picturebooks with
the intention of integrating them into our teaching in order
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE
to support both destigmatizing incarceration as well as
providing an entryway to more responsive relationships
with our students who are experiencing familial incarceration. Our intended readership for this article is children’s
literature scholars and practitioners working directly with
children experiencing familial incarceration, with a particular focus on teachers and social workers.
Literature Review
Our analysis of this body of children’s picturebooks on
incarceration draws upon literature in two areas. First,
we ground our work in a penal abolitionist theoretical
framework. Next, we draw upon the work of scholars and
practitioners who have examined the effects of familial
incarceration and offer insight into the provision of support
to children.
PENAL ABOLITIONISM AS A THEORETICAL FRAME
Notable critical scholars and social movement activists have
brought public attention to the systemic and structural
inequities embedded in the criminal legal system. Peter
Enns (2016) highlighted the exorbitantly high rates of
criminalization in the United States: “The United States
hands down longer sentences, spends more money on
prisons, and executes more of its citizens than every other
advanced industrial democracy” (p. 3). Meanwhile, activists
and scholars point to the ubiquity of lawbreaking within
human behavior broadly, and the selective response by
the criminal legal system, leading to the criminalization
of some populations (e.g., those who are racialized and/
or economically insecure) over others (e.g., those who are
racially privileged and/or economically secure) (Coyle &
Schept, 2017; A. Davis, 2003). Prison abolition activist
Mariame Kaba (2020), who also authored the picturebook
Missing Daddy (2018), argued that the only just solution to
such ongoing systemic inequity embedded within the social
order and established legal system is abolishment of the
current criminal legal system itself.
Coyle and Nagel (2022) argued that a carceral logic
underlies most aspects of modern life. This carceral logic
consists of “the control and punishment mindset that
suggests criminalization is the best paradigm to organize
human life and to solve social problems besetting the
99%” (p. 1). This punitive and control-oriented approach
infuses the ideology, ethics, and practices of nearly all
social institutions, including the criminal legal system
and mainstream schools (Coyle & Nagel, 2022). Such
an orientation is contrasted with a penal abolitionalist
framework, which involves countering historicized oppression through critiquing ideologies and policies supporting
socioeconomic and racialized oppression, while envisioning and implementing new regulatory frameworks. Angela
VOL 48 NO 2 FALL 2022
Rhiannon M. Maton, Breeanna Dexter, Nicolette McKeon, Emily Urias-Velasquez, & Breanna Washington Far Apart, Close in Heart
Davis (1983, 2003; Davis et al., 2022), a longtime advocate
of penal abolitionism through her activism and scholarship, has pointed to the ways in which historicized class,
race, and gender-based oppression are implicated in, and
maintained through, the U.S. penal system. Alexander
(2010) built on Davis’s work to argue that mass incarceration replaces slavery as the “new racial caste system” (p.
3) and documented how the carceral system continues to
perpetuate the historically situated U.S. racial hierarchy. Economically insecure white people are shown to be
disproportionately targeted by the criminal legal system
(Hayes & Barnhorst, 2020) alongside those who are Black,
Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) (Alexander, 2010;
A. Davis, 1983, 2003). Meanwhile, McLeod (2015) pointed
to the ethical dimensions of a penal abolitionist stance:
Prison abolition seeks to end the use of punitive
policing and imprisonment as the primary means of
addressing what are essentially social, economic, and
political problems.… Abolition is not a simple call for an
immediate opening or tearing down of all prison walls,
but entails an array of alternative nonpenal regulatory
frameworks and an ethic that recognizes the violence,
dehumanization, and moral wrong inherent in any
act of caging or chaining—or otherwise confining and
controlling by penal force—human beings. (p. 1172)
Penal abolitionist logic is in opposition to the carceral
logic that positions carceral punishment as the just
and necessary response to lawbreaking and currently
dominates intellectual and policy circles (Coyle & Nagel,
2022). A penal abolitionist logic instead advocates for a
long-term project of decarceration that advances radically
new approaches to ensuring public safety and well-being
(A. Davis, 2003; A. Davis et al., 2022; McLeod, 2015).
CHILDREN AND FAMILIAL INCARCERATION
Researchers have noted that children with family members
who are incarcerated are more susceptible to a range of
specific challenges within and beyond schools. Parental
incarceration is listed as one form of what is known as
adverse childhood experiences, which on their own, and
when combined with other adverse childhood experiences,
can increase the development of risk factors affecting
disease and well-being throughout the life course (Souers
& Hall, 2016). Children may at times face upheaval in
family dynamics and support systems (Dallaire, 2007),
higher than usual risk for mental health challenges and
sadness (L. Davis & Shlafer, 2017; Thurman et al., 2018),
some risk of social isolation (Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008),
and challenges in maintaining focused attention on and in
school (Geller et al., 2012). Further, it is well known that
rates of early school leaving escalate for children affected
VOL 48 NO 2 FALL 2022
21
by familial incarceration (Dallaire et al., 2010). While it
is true that familial incarceration inflicts negative effects
on children (e.g., what are often termed “risks” or “risk
factors” in the scholarly and practitioner literature), we,
alongside others (e.g., see Gadsden et al., 2009), wish to
emphasize that these challenges are the result of external
systemic and structural factors, rather than the individualized characteristics of children or families.
And yet, even as we reject the assumption of individual or familial culpability for the harmful effects of familial
incarceration on children, in the short term it is necessary to
provide responsive support for children and families affected
by incarceration. Some of these methods involve creating
more responsive structural supports for families, while
others offer methods for practitioners to provide one-on-one
support to children within established social institutions
such as schools. Naser and Visher (2006) pointed out that
there are many relational, economic, and time-related costs
associated with familial incarceration and recommended the
implementation of a range of individualized and structural
supports for children and other family members, including
efforts to reduce the economic burden on family members,
employment supports for family members and those who are
formerly incarcerated, family counseling, training programs,
housing support, and more. Bernstein (2005) presented
a range of proposals for improving structural supports,
including reformed community policing and more humane
approaches to visiting parents in prisons.
Scholars and practitioners have offered a range of
approaches that can guide caregivers, educators, and others
to recognize and respond to the needs of children experiencing familial incarceration, while simultaneously countering
the negative stigma associated with incarceration. Such
supports should be driven by an educated understanding
of the common experiences and needs of children who have
loved ones who are incarcerated. In this effort, the San
Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership
(see Newby et al., 2005) published an eight-point Bill of
Rights, which is used to guide many institutional responses
to children. Among them are the rights “to support as I
face my parent’s incarceration”; “not to be judged, blamed
or labeled”; and “to speak with, see and touch my parent.”
It has been found that while contact and communication
between children and parents who are incarcerated is of
high importance for child well-being, it is often irregular
or nonexistent (L. Davis & Shlafer, 2017). Professional
counseling (Lopez & Bhat, 2007; Warren et al., 2019) and
connection with teachers (Cavanagh, 2016; Naquin-Eason,
2018; Project Avary, n.d.; Thurman et al., 2018; Youth.gov,
n.d.) are shown to provide children with some necessary
support. Throughout these various relationships, traumainformed approaches and pedagogies provide a useful
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE
22
A RT ICL E S
tool (Souers & Hall, 2016), and picturebooks can act as a
resource that might supportively reflect a reader’s experience and provide space for engaging in meaningful and
supportive conversations (New York Initiative for Children
of Incarcerated Parents, n.d.; Wiseman et al., 2019).
Meanwhile, it is important to bear in mind what is
already well known within many communities experiencing racialization and/or economic insecurity: Policing and
surveillance take place in realms extending well beyond
prisons, leading state institutions like child protective
services and schools to conduct surveillance on families
and young people, and direct racially and economically
marginalized people toward institutionalized penalties
across the life course (Haskins & Jacobsen, 2017; Nagel,
2018). Thus, it is necessary for teachers, social workers,
foster parents, and others to retain a critical lens on their
own role, even if often inadvertent, in guiding racialized
and/or economically insecure children toward institutionalization in the criminal legal system.
A Note on Researcher Positionality
As researchers, we bring specific points of personal connection to the topic at hand that shape the lenses through
which we read and analyze the texts. While conducting the
research for this article, Rhiannon Maton taught preservice
and practicing teachers at the university level, Breeanna
Dexter was completing a graduate degree in inclusive
childhood education, and Nicolette McKeon, Emily UriasVelasquez, and Breanna Washington were undergraduate preservice teachers. All of us have had a range of
experiences teaching and working across various age and
grade groups in public K–12 schools. We are all cisgender
women who consistently strive to raise our consciousness
of systems of gendered, racial, and economic violence and
how these systems shape our personal experiences in the
world. One of us is African American, one is Latinx, and
three of us are white. We hold a variety of class identities, ranging from personal backgrounds with significant
economic insecurity to middle class. One of us has personal
experience of parental incarceration, and several of us
have taught students with loved ones who are incarcerated.
These various identities and experiences provide us with
a range of lenses that inform how we read, analyze, and
interpret data, and we believe that our diversity in perspective strengthens our collaborative analysis.
Methodology
Critical content analysis is the primary methodological
approach employed in our research. Krippendorff (2019)
stated that content analysis is an empirically grounded
method that is inferential or predictive in intent as it
seeks to identify implicit messages embedded within texts.
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE
Further scholarship argues that critical content analysis
involves drawing upon critical theories while analyzing texts, with particular attention to power relations,
representational issues, and use of language (Beach et al.,
2009). Critical content analysis thus involves examining
how explicit and implicit messages within text reinforce
particular messages to readers and interact with existing
power structures and hierarchies.
TEXT SELECTION
For this critical content analysis of picturebooks addressing familial incarceration, we studied all contemporary
English-language picturebooks focused on incarceration that we could physically locate, published 1990
through 2019. We only located and examined books that
were picturebooks and addressed the topic of familial
incarceration either explicitly in the text and pictures or in
strongly suggestive ways. We limited our search to books
published in English, whether initially written in English
or translated into English. All of the books that we located
were published in the United States, with the exception of
Mlinac’s (2019) Stardust: We Always Share the Same Sky,
which was published in New Zealand.
In locating books, we first searched for compiled lists
of books on familial incarceration that were published by
online resources and organizations. Next, we searched
Google, Amazon, and the university library online catalog.
Our searches used combinations of the following terms:
“picturebook,” “picture book,” “children,” “children’s literature,” “jail,” “prison,” and “incarceration.” We searched
for books published from 1990 to 2019 and for ages birth
through 10. We located around 25 books in total but were
not always able to obtain a copy of books that were reportedly published despite our, and our university library’s,
best efforts. In total, we were able to physically obtain 19
picturebooks. These books were located either through the
university library or the book publisher or were purchased
used or new online (see Table 1 for a list of the books
examined in this study).
CODING
After locating a physical copy of the 19 picturebooks, we
proceeded to critically read and code each book. In the
initial stage of our research, all members of the research
team read each book and noted demographic information about the child protagonist and the family member
who is incarcerated (e.g., gender identity, race, social
class, family members) (see Table 1). Next, we engaged
in critical content analysis, which facilitated our exploration of incarceration and its depiction through language
and visual images. At this stage, we considered words and
illustrations as we explored explicit and implicit messages
VOL 48 NO 2 FALL 2022
Rhiannon M. Maton, Breeanna Dexter, Nicolette McKeon, Emily Urias-Velasquez, & Breanna Washington Far Apart, Close in Heart
conveyed about incarceration, who is incarcerated and why,
children’s emotional responses and interactions surrounding issues of familial incarceration, and effects of familial
incarceration on the child’s life across multiple contexts
(e.g., school, home, trips to prison, playground).
Following our individual reading of each book, we
then worked together to develop an initial set of a priori
codes. At first, these codes emerged from our understanding of the scholarship on penal abolitionism and the impact
23
of incarceration on children. Then, we coded three books
individually and met as a team to compare coding results,
resulting in the development of a second draft of codes that
emerged from both observations of trends in the literature
combined with our understanding of theory and scholarship. Finally, we each individually read and coded all 19
picturebooks, and then met as a group to collaboratively
develop a master code sheet. We engaged in ongoing critical
and recursive conversation about the themes that we
TABLE 1
Characteristics of the Text Set
Title
Author (Illustrator)
Almost Like Visiting
Shannon Ellis (Katrina Tapper)
Boy
Girl
Black (2)
Man
Black
Deena Misses Her Mom
Jonae Haynesworth, Jesse
Holmes, Layonnie Jones, Kahliya
Ruffin (Leslie Jindalay Pyo)
Girl
Black
Woman
Black
Doogie’s Dad
Richard Dyches (Edwin Garcia)
Boy
White
Man
White
Far Apart, Close in Heart
Becky Birtha (Maja Kastelic)
Boys (5)
Girls (4)
Black (5), white (1),
Asian (1), Latinx (2)
Woman (3)
Man (4)
Not disclosed (2)
Black, white,
Asian, Latinx
Kennedy’s Big Visit
Daphne Brooks
Girl
Black
Man
Black
Knock Knock: My Dad’s Dream
for Me
Daniel Beaty (Bryan Collier)
Boy
Black
Man
Black
Kofi’s Mom
Richard Dyches (Edwin Garcia,
Roger Sheffer)
Boy
Black
Woman
Black
Missing Daddy
Mariame Kaba (bria royal)
Girl
Black
Man
Black
My Daddy’s in Jail
Anthony Curcio
(Anthony Curcio)
Boy
Neither (animals)
Man
Neither (animals)
The Night Dad Went to
Jail:What to Expect When
Someone You Love Goes to Jail
Melissa Higgins
(Wednesday Kirwan)
Boy
Neither (animals)
Man
Neither (animals)
Our Moms
Q. Futrell
(Clarissa A. Ferguson)
Boys (2)
Girls (2)
Black (1), white (1),
Asian (1), Latinx (1)
Woman
Black, white,
Asian, Latinx
Stardust: We Always Share
the Same Sky
Ivana Mlinac (Porsche Tiavale)
Girl
White
Woman
White
Visiting Day
Jacqueline Woodson
(James E. Ransome)
Girl
Black
Man
Black
A Visit to the Big House
Oliver Butterworth
(Susan Avishai)
Boy
Girl
White (2)
Man
White
Waiting for Daddy
Jennie Harriman, Kylie Ann Flye
(Jennie Harriman)
Girl
White
Man
White
Welcome Home: Mommy Gets
Out Today
Jamantha Williams Watson
Girl
Black
Woman
Black
What Do I Say About That?:
Coping With an Incarcerated
Parent
Julia Cook (Anita DuFalla)
Boy
White
Man
White
What Is Jail, Mommy?
Jackie A. Stanglin
(Cierra Jade McGuckie)
Girl
White
Man
White
When Dad Was Away
Liz Weir (Karin Littlewood)
Girl
White
Man
White
VOL 48 NO 2 FALL 2022
Gender/
Racial
Gender Identity
Identity/ies of
Identity/ies of
of Loved One
Child Protagonist(s) Child Protagonist(s)
Incarcerated
Racial Identity
of Loved One
Incarcerated
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE
24
A RT ICL E S
observed, and continued to refine our coding list throughout the data analysis process. Over time, our codes became
more specific and tended to point to consistently recurring
themes observed across the texts. At times we went back
to refine the codes attributed to previous books in order to
ensure that they were consistent with the most updated
draft of the master coding sheet. All members of the team
read each book at least twice; however, typically we read
each book three to six times. We met five times to collectively discuss the books and record our consensus regarding codes for each book on the master code sheet. Following
our agreement on codes for the full text set, we organized
the codes within overall categories. This article examines
the following four categories that emerged from our coding
processes: depictions of racial identities of loved ones who
are incarcerated, depictions of breaking the law, textual
representation of communication modes with family
members who are incarcerated, and the range of support
systems depicted as available for children. Each category is
discussed in depth below.
Findings
Since the scholarly literature points to the significance
of race in incarceration trends (see Alexander, 2010;
A. Davis, 2003; Maynard, 2017), we begin by critically
examining representations of race among the family
members incarcerated in this set of picturebooks. Next,
we explore how the texts depict breaking the law and
the extent to which such depictions might invite a
critical lens on mass incarceration. Following this, we
explore what modes of communication used for staying
in touch are portrayed in the texts, and then end by
examining the range of socioemotional support systems
available for children.
members who were incarcerated: Of these, 43% were Black
and/or African American, 39% were white, 9% were Asian,
and 9% were Latinx. There were no explicit representations of family members incarcerated who were Indigenous
(see Figure 1). These numbers are disproportionate with
current U.S. incarceration statistics, which indicate that of
those currently imprisoned, 38% are Black, 58% are white,
31% are Latinx, under 2% are Asian, and 2% are Indigenous (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2020a, 2020b). Thus, we
found that this body of U.S. literature underrepresents
incarceration among people who are white, Indigenous, and
Latinx, while overrepresenting incarceration among people
who are Black/African American and Asian.
At times, the picturebooks’ textual and visual
representations of race and culture serve to reinforce
existing stereotypes. We observed this phenomenon in
several of the books, but found it most explicit and concerning in My Daddy’s in Jail (Curcio, 2015). The author/
illustrator, Anthony Curcio, who is white and spent five
years in prison, illustrates stereotypical clothing emulating what is perceived as raced “hood” or “street” clothing:
Several of the imprisoned characters, who are presumably
Black, are dressed in baggy jeans and loose shirts, wearing
bandanas around foreheads and flamboyant jewelry. We
believe that this representation portrays an overgeneralized notion that this is typical outer presentation for
Black prisoners, and the fact that they are imprisoned can
reinforce children’s stereotypes about people who are Black.
FIGURE 1
Depictions of Racial Identity of Family Members
Incarcerated (N = 16)
RACIAL IDENTITIES OF LOVED ONES
WHO ARE INCARCERATED
We found that the majority of the examined picturebooks
tend to represent characters in ways that strongly suggest
their racial identities. Because we are interested in reflections of race particularly within the U.S. context, where
research has shown that disproportionate numbers of
African American and Latinx people are incarcerated (for
example, see Alexander, 2010; A. Davis, 2003), we decided
to only study books published in the United States in
relation to this theme, and thus for this aspect of the study
excluded Stardust, which was published in New Zealand.
We also excluded two picturebooks that featured nonracialized animal characters (My Daddy’s in Jail [Curcio, 2015]
and The Night Dad Went to Jail [Higgins, 2013]), leaving
16 picturebooks for this portion of the study. Across the
16 books, we found 21 raced representations of family
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE
BLACK 43%
WHITE 39%
ASIAN 9%
LATINX 9%
INDIGENOUS 0%
VOL 48 NO 2 FALL 2022
Rhiannon M. Maton, Breeanna Dexter, Nicolette McKeon, Emily Urias-Velasquez, & Breanna Washington Far Apart, Close in Heart
DEPICTIONS OF BREAKING THE LAW
The literature ranged in representations of breaking the
law, including who they implied is “at fault” for imprisonment (see Figure 2). Of the 19 picturebooks, we found that
three (16%) represented breaking the law as always bad
and deserving of punishment; 12 (63%) portrayed breaking
the law as an intentional choice that people make; six (32%)
books did not address breaking the law; and just one (5%)
book created space for the idea that breaking the law is
more complex than an issue of choice or being “bad.” Note
that three books represented breaking the law as both
always bad and a choice.
FIGURE 2
Depictions of Breaking the Law (N = 19)
NUMBER OF BOOKS
12
6
3
1
ALWAYS BAD
AND
DESERVING
OF PUNISHMENT
A CHOICE
NOT
ADDRESSED
COMPLEX
DEPICTION OF CRIME
Among the books depicting breaking the law as an
action that is always bad, we identified an implicit underlying message that lawbreaking is a “bad action” conducted
by a “bad” person who is thus deserving of punishment.
This message is most explicit in What Do I Say About That?
(Cook, 2015), where the narrative sets up a contrast between
family love versus breaking the law. In discussing the
father’s lawbreaking, the text reads: “Why didn’t he love us
enough to say NO? Aren’t we worth it to him?” (p. 7). This
implies that the father is a bad person because he pursued
personal gratification over family love and obligations. We
appreciate that some of the books, like Stardust (Mlinac,
2019), push back on such narratives by emphasizing that
mutual love is far more important than external negative
judgments about a family member who is incarcerated.
We found that the majority of books advance the
idea that breaking the law is an individual choice resulting from poor decision-making. Our Moms (Futrell, 2015)
narrates that the mothers of the children in the book may
have associated themselves with the wrong people or made
a “bad” choice leading to their incarceration. Meanwhile,
this notion is juxtaposed with the idea that even though
the mothers may have made “bad choices,” the mothers do
not love their children any less. Illustrations in What Do
I Say About That? (Cook, 2015) graphically portray two
VOL 48 NO 2 FALL 2022
25
life paths for the protagonist child: one path labeled the
“right way” that is directed toward a graduation cap and
what appears to be a factory, and a second path labeled the
“wrong way” toward handcuffs, pills, and a bottle of beer.
Here, the reader might discern that the child is charged
with making individual decisions that will lead to predictable life results. While this contrast was set up most explicitly in this text, across the body of texts we found that
breaking the law is most frequently associated with choice
and individual decision-making.
A few books did not explicitly discuss reasons for the
family member’s incarceration. In some of this literature,
such as Knock Knock: My Dad’s Dream for Me (Beaty,
2013), familial incarceration is inferred rather than explicitly mentioned (for more on incarceration inferences in this
text, see Bird, 2013; Smith, 2013). Here, a boy misses his
father and reflects upon the things he is missing out on
due to his father being “away.” However, the book is not
transparent with the readers as to why the father is not
with the child. The son receives a letter from his father that
states, “As long as you become your best, the best of me
still lives in you” (Beaty, 2013). The reader can infer that
the father is perhaps incarcerated. Visiting Day (Woodson,
2015) similarly does not address reasons for incarceration, and the author’s decision not to discuss lawbreaking
appears to be an intentional one that enables the book
to sidestep questions about whether the parent has done
something “wrong”—or not. Books that lack discussion of
breaking the law may leave it up to the reader to interpret
why a family member is incarcerated and allow them
to focus on other aspects associated with incarceration
instead, such as a child’s emotions or experiences in school.
Breaking the law was represented in complex ways
in just one book in this body of literature. To our research
team, complexity meant that there was some implication or space for the idea that the reasons for incarceration may be complex, rather than a simplistic issue of
“choice” or the narrative that prison is a “bad place” for
“bad people.” While some of the 19 books, including Almost
Like Visiting (Ellis, 2016) and Far Apart, Close in Heart
(Birtha, 2017), did not directly assign blame, they still
implied that lawbreaking is a choice and did not necessarily create space for deep consideration of the idea that there
are systemic issues at play. The book that creates the most
room for critical thinking about reasons for incarceration
is penal abolition activist Mariame Kaba’s Missing Daddy
(2018). Here, a young child asks her grandmother why
her father is incarcerated, and the grandmother responds,
“Baby, the reasons are many.” We believe that this picturebook creates space for readers to critically inquire into,
and make sense of, the complex network of systemic and
structural factors surrounding penal imprisonment.
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE
26
A RT ICL E S
COMMUNICATION WITH FAMILY MEMBERS
WHO ARE INCARCERATED
Maintaining contact with a family member who is incarcerated is often a major concern for children (Bernstein,
2005), and we observed that this body of picturebooks
portrays a range of communication modes through which
children might connect with their loved one who is
incarcerated. In general, we found that the picturebooks
tended to represent communication between children and
their family member who is incarcerated as a given, albeit
an action that can take varied forms (see Figure 3). Of
the picturebooks under study, 14 (78%) showed children
visiting the family member in prison, 13 (72%) addressed
communication through mail via letters or hand-drawn
pictures, and six (33%) showed children using technologies
like telephones or videos. None addressed the experiences
of children who are unable to communicate with family
members who are incarcerated. Note that we calculated
these statistics based on 18 books rather than the full 19
examined in this study because Welcome Home: Mommy
Gets out Today (Watson, 2015) portrays a mother reentering society rather than the challenges experienced during
incarceration. Further note that individual books often
mentioned more than one method of communication, and
this is reflected in our statistics.
FIGURE 3
Depictions of Communication With
Family Members Incarcerated (N = 18)
13
NUMBER OF BOOKS
14
6
0
IN-PERSON
VISITS
MAIL
PHONE/VIDEO
INABILITY TO
COMMUNICATE
COMMUNICATION TYPE
We found that a strong majority of the books depict
writing letters and mailing hand-drawn pictures as a
method of staying in touch. In Doogie’s Dad (Dyches,
2016), the child protagonist’s father, who is incarcerated,
asks his son to draw and mail a picture so he could “put
it by his new bed” (p. 14). In response, Doogie draws a
euphoric picture of himself holding hands with his parents
and sister on a sunny day. Several books also encourage
older children to write letters to their parents. In Deena
Misses Her Mom (Haynesworth et al., 2017), Deena reveals
a great deal of anger and sadness connected with her
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE
mom’s incarceration, but when she talks with her mother
via video chat, her mother asks her to write letters to stay
in touch. The story ends with Deena writing a letter to her
mother to express the love that she feels.
Almost Like Visiting (Ellis, 2016) pays concerted
attention to a range of communication modes between
children and their loved ones. It is also one of only two books
that depict video communication, with the child saying:
“We go to the video visiting building one time a month to
see him. Sometimes we see him in person but it is really
far. I love in person visits, but video visiting is a great
way to see my Dad in between” (p. 18). Deena Misses Her
Mom (Haynesworth et al., 2017) similarly pays significant
attention to the experiences of children who communicate
with their loved ones through phone or video chat because
they are too young to write a letter or the jail is far away.
Many of the picturebooks discuss visitation as a
central topic and seek to prepare children for what to expect
when visiting their loved one in prison. Most of the books
in our study address visitation in some capacity, although
they tend to vary in their focus. Representations of physical
touch exist in a range in such depictions: Some picturebooks show a sense of freedom and choice while a child
visits their loved one, while others make it clear that visitation only occurs within one room of the prison, and within
the parameters of strict rules. Almost Like Visiting (Ellis,
2016) and The Night Dad Went to Jail (Higgins, 2013) are
the only books that feature glass barriers during in-person
visits at the prison. Kennedy’s Big Visit (Brooks, 2015)
and Far Apart, Close in Heart (Birtha, 2017) illustrate the
possibility of cuddling, singing, and playing together. In
What Is Jail, Mommy? (Stanglin, 2006), the mother and
daughter sit in a brick room with tables, waiting for the
father: “You can sit at the little table until our visiting time
is up. Remember the rules allow us a thirty minute visit.”
Because interactions between the individual who is
incarcerated and children vary depending on the prison,
sentence, and other factors, we believe it is positive that a
range of communication possibilities are presented across
the texts. However, none of the books allude to a complete
lack of contact or communication between children and a
loved one who is incarcerated. In fact, at times the books
explicitly assert that all children have the opportunity to
see their family member while incarcerated. In Almost
Like Visiting (Ellis, 2016), the young child Jeremiah states,
“Not all of us with parents in prison get to see them on the
computer, but we all get to see them.”
Lastly, it is worth noting that some children choose
not to communicate with their loved one at all, and the
books in our study fail to represent the experiences and
emotions of these children. There are some books, like
Welcome Home (Watson, 2015), that depict children who
VOL 48 NO 2 FALL 2022
Rhiannon M. Maton, Breeanna Dexter, Nicolette McKeon, Emily Urias-Velasquez, & Breanna Washington Far Apart, Close in Heart
have hesitations about communicating with their family
member who is or has been incarcerated, yet in these books
we found that the child characters always experience a
sense of “forgiveness” for the family member and eventually choose to communicate.
REPRESENTATIONS OF SUPPORT SYSTEMS FOR CHILDREN
The picturebooks consistently portray positive available
support systems for children with a loved one who is
incarcerated. We define a support system as a network
of people who provide emotional, social, and/or practical
support that can help children understand their experiences
and work through emotions, provide access to resources,
and let children know they are loved and not alone.
Depictions of diverse arrangements of support systems
can assist readers in becoming aware of those available to
them. Among the picturebooks, parents are represented
as a source of support in 19 (100%); family members who
are not parents (e.g., aunts, siblings, grandparents) are
represented as a significant source of support in 11 (58%);
school staff such as teachers, counselors, or social workers
are represented as a source of support in six (32%); and
community members or neighbors are shown to be of
support to children in four (21%) (see Figure 4). Note that
some picturebooks include two or more support systems,
and this is reflected in the statistics above and in Figure 4.
FIGURE 4
Depictions of Support Systems for Children (N = 19)
19
NUMBER OF BOOKS
11
6
4
PARENTS
FAMILY MEMBERS
(NONPARENTAL)
SCHOOL STAFF
COMMUNITY
MEMBERS
COMMUNICATION TYPE
It is notable that birth parents appear as a source
of support in all of the picturebooks. Many of the books
feature a parent who lives with the child and who offers
support by answering questions, helping them visit their
parent who is incarcerated, and making the child feel more
comfortable with their new family dynamic. In What Is
Jail, Mommy? (Stanglin, 2006), a little girl asks her mother
questions about jail and how it works. Her mother supports
her by answering the questions and providing a clear
VOL 48 NO 2 FALL 2022
27
explanation of jail. At times, parents provide some degree
of support while they are themselves incarcerated, such as
in the case of Knock Knock (Beaty, 2013), Stardust (Mlinac,
2019), and Waiting for Daddy (Harriman & Flye, 2011).
Relatives who are not parents also play occasional
roles as support systems in the books. In Waiting for
Daddy (Harriman & Flye, 2011), Ann plays with her aunt:
“They put on puppet shows, practiced yoga, played instruments, and wrote stories.” In Visiting Day (Woodson,
2015), the child protagonist lives, and presumably has a
close relationship, with her grandmother.
In many cases, children are placed with guardians
while experiencing familial incarceration, yet this experience is largely underrepresented in the literature. Far
Apart, Close in Heart (Birtha, 2017) is the only text that
portrays a foster family dynamic. Here, experiences in the
foster care system are acknowledged as follows: “Juana
tells her foster mother how upset she is with her family
scattered all over. Her foster mother lets Juana call each of
her siblings.” We were surprised at this general underrepresentation, given the frequency of foster care placement in
the lives of many children with parents who are incarcerated. Similarly, there was little representation of diverse
family structures in the picturebooks, including only
occasional implied references to LGBTQ+ families.
There was some representation of school in the
texts, with teachers, school social workers and counselors, and peers/friends at times positioned as members
of children’s support systems. For example, in Missing
Daddy (Kaba, 2018), school staff are portrayed as playing
an active role in supporting the young girl: “At school, I
talk to the counselor, Ms. Parker. I guess it helps me to
feel a little bit better. She asks me a lot of questions about
my Daddy in prison. Sometimes I don’t want to speak, so
I talk about my ballet lesson.” Here the child interprets
her school counselor as supportive, and the counselor
provides space for her to speak—or not—about her
concerns regarding her parent who is incarcerated. Peers
and friends were also positioned as a source of emotional
support in many of the books.
Community members and neighbors were shown to
provide meaningful support to children in a small number
of the books. In Welcome Home (Watson, 2015), the family’s
pastor attends the family celebrations for the return of a
mother from prison. We were particularly drawn to the
beautiful illustrations and text of Visiting Day (Woodson,
2015), which presents a moving portrayal of how people
can come together when facing high rates of incarceration within a given community or neighborhood. Here, the
child and her grandmother bring gifts to prison on behalf
of a neighbor whose child has also been incarcerated. And
while on the bus traveling to the prison, the community is
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE
28
A RT ICL E S
shown as bonding tightly together through sharing food:
“And we’re all passing around fried chicken, cornbread,
and thick slices of sweet potato pie” (Woodson, 2015).
We believe that such positive portrayals of community
bonding can serve to nurture a feeling that “we are all in
this together” and create a sense of belonging for children
as they make sense of, and live through, experiences of
familial incarceration.
Discussion
In our examination of this body of picturebooks through a
penal abolitionist lens, we find that it presents a mixture
of what we view as positive and problematic characteristics. Positive characteristics tend to center on predicting,
portraying, and educating readers about what experiences
children might encounter when a loved one is incarcerated.
As a whole, the body of literature takes care to depict what
support systems a child might draw upon for socioemotional support, and what communication with a loved one
might look and feel like through various modes, including
visitation in prison. In our view, this body of picturebooks
offers sound reflection of children’s common experiences
with communication and available support systems.
We believe that the books may act as a good resource
for parents or guardians, grandparents, social workers,
teachers, and others to use when talking with children
about what they can expect when visiting a loved one in
prison, staying in touch, or seeking socioemotional support
from peers and/or adults.
We have several concerns about this body of literature. We are concerned that it advances racist ideological trends. As a reminder, across the text set 43% of the
family members who were depicted as imprisoned in the
books were Black, compared with just 38% of the actual
U.S. prison population. On the one hand, while we appreciate that the body of literature has sought to represent
African Americans’ experiences with the criminal legal
system, on the other hand we are concerned that raced
overrepresentation can guide readers toward harmful
stereotypes about who is imprisoned and why. We also
observed that the body of literature does not acknowledge
that the reason why African Americans have disproportionate interaction with the U.S. criminal legal system
is because laws are written and enforced in ways that
lead Black people to be policed at higher rates than white
people (Alexander, 2010; A. Davis, 2003). Meanwhile, it
was concerning to us that there was insufficient representation of Latinx and Indigenous family members experiencing incarceration, as these are populations that are
incarcerated at disproportionate rates in traditional
prisons as well as U.S. detention camps.
The picturebooks tend to point fingers at people
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE
who are incarcerated for their own incarceration
without nurturing questions about, or advancing critical
understanding of, the systemic factors leading to mass
incarceration. In the U.S. context, where there are scarce
resources publicly distributed through a social safety net,
it is not reasonable to claim that crime committed due to
economic insecurity is always a “choice” (A. Davis, 2003;
McLeod, 2015). There is little space in this body of books
for children and their caregivers to raise questions or think
together about the broader raced and classed manifestations of policy, and the extent to which the “justice system”
is—or is not—in fact just. Taken as a whole, this body
of literature lacks the important structural critiques
advanced by current critical scholars and the Black Lives
Matter (Taylor, 2016) and penal abolitionist movements
(see Alexander, 2010; Coyle & Nagel, 2022; A. Davis, 2003;
Kaba, 2020; McLeod, 2015). We are concerned that when
books explicitly or implicitly depict breaking the law as
a poor individual choice that is ultimately deserving of
punishment and divorced from systemic factors, children
may internalize these same feelings and project them
toward themselves and/or their loved one(s). Further, the
books miss an opportunity for guiding important inquiry
and critical analysis.
Picturebook illustrations and text at times perpetuate negative stereotypes about particular racial and
cultural groups. At times, the texts overgeneralize groups
of people, which creates stereotypes and conditions
readers to make quick judgments about the character and
competence of people in particular racial groups (Rosbach,
2020). Alongside Toni Morrison (1992), we believe that
such portrayals serve to limit the literary imagination in
service of broader hegemonic power structures. Further,
such portrayals advance a false perception of reality among
young readers. We are also concerned that some groups
were chronically underrepresented across this body of
literature, as noted in the findings section, and are particularly concerned about the general lack of representation of
foster parents and families.
We had four main concerns regarding the depiction
of communication across the texts. First, while we
appreciated that there were thoughtful portrayals of a
range of communication modes utilized by children to
communicate with a loved one who is incarcerated, we
observed that there was an assumption across the texts
that children always have the opportunity to communicate with a loved one who is incarcerated. Unfortunately,
we are all too aware that not every child has the ability
to communicate with a loved one who is incarcerated
due to a range of possible reasons, and we are concerned
that the books fail to reflect the experiences of many
children. Second, this body of texts largely excludes the
VOL 48 NO 2 FALL 2022
Rhiannon M. Maton, Breeanna Dexter, Nicolette McKeon, Emily Urias-Velasquez, & Breanna Washington Far Apart, Close in Heart
experiences of children who are not documented citizens.
Children who are undocumented may experience an
inability to visit in person or otherwise communicate
with a family member who is incarcerated due to the
lack of documentation among children or their caregivers, fear of surveillance, and/or the forced surrender
of documents to prison officials. Third, we know from
personal experience that not all children always desire to
communicate with a family member who is incarcerated.
We are concerned that for the books to display otherwise
may invalidate the emotions of some young readers.
Finally, depictions of children “forgiving” their parent
for incarceration tend to locate the fault of incarceration
squarely in the hands of the person who is incarcerated
while failing to draw critical attention to the systemic
factors at play that led to imprisonment.
As mentioned previously, we believe that the texts
largely did a thoughtful job of depicting children’s experience accessing support systems among peers and adults.
However, we simultaneously implore readers to consider
Nagel’s (2018) assertion that social welfare institutions
(including public schools) can at times act as gatekeepers to
broader systems of policing and surveillance over children
and their families. In other words, not all school personnel necessarily have children’s best interests at heart,
consciously or otherwise. And, while we think that picturebooks should not serve to incite fear among children, we
simultaneously encourage adult readers to maintain a
critical eye on the systemic inequities often embedded
within schools and other institutions.
In a nation where one in 28 children
currently has a parent who is imprisoned,
combined with countless additional
children facing the incarceration of other
family members, we believe it vital that
the canon of picturebooks depicts the
experiences of those with parents and
other loved ones who are incarcerated.
Conclusion
In a nation where one in 28 children currently has a
parent who is imprisoned, combined with countless
additional children facing the incarceration of other family
members, we believe it vital that the canon of picturebooks
depicts the experiences of those with parents and other
loved ones who are incarcerated. Children with loved ones
VOL 48 NO 2 FALL 2022
29
who are incarcerated can face myriad challenges in their
home and school lives, and picturebooks offer necessary
windows and doors (Bishop, 1990) through which such
experiences might be reflected, altered, and repositioned, and through which new insights might emerge.
We examined this body of picturebooks through a penal
abolitionist lens, and our analysis finds that this body
of books presents a mixture of positive and problematic
trends in its depictions of familial incarceration.
Taken as a whole, the body of literature offers
helpful insight into the daily lives and experiences of
children with loved ones who are incarcerated. Many of
the books present useful perspectives on how children
might expect to communicate with their loved one,
common experiences encountered during visitation at a
prison, and reminders about the importance of love for a
family member who is incarcerated and from whom one
might seek care and support. Meanwhile, and especially
when read through a penal abolitionist lens, we have
significant concern that, taken as a whole, the picturebooks support a problematic “carceral logic” (Coyle &
Nagel, 2022) that positions punishment as a “just” and
“natural” response to lawbreaking without acknowledging the ubiquity of lawbreaking in human behavior, the
exorbitantly and unnecessary high rates of criminalization
in the United States (Alexander, 2010; Enns, 2016), or the
ways in which the criminal legal system targets particular
populations of people, including BIPOC and people experiencing economic insecurity (Alexander, 2010; A. Davis,
2003). Our investigation reveals that this body of literature must continue to grow in order to represent the full
breadth of common experiences among children with loved
ones who are incarcerated.
Despite these critiques, we would like to restate the
importance of the themes that are represented in this body
of literature. Bishop (1990) pointed out: “When children
cannot find themselves reflected in the books they read,
or when the images they see are distorted, negative, or
laughable, they learn a powerful lesson about how they are
devalued in the society of which they are a part” (p. ix).
Children with loved ones who are incarcerated can benefit
from windows and mirrors presenting reflections and new
images of themselves and the world. Such picturebooks
provide a good launching point for discussing what visitation with a family member at a prison will look and feel like,
the sometimes difficult range of emotions they might feel in
response to incarceration, or the economic and emotional
difficulties that their caregivers experience as a result of
the incarceration. We believe there is great value in readers
seeing their lived experiences reflected in the literature and
strongly encourage both the continued development
of this body of literature in moving forward and the
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE
30
A RT ICL E S
informed use of such literature when reading and connecting with young people who have been personally affected by
familial incarceration.
We encourage educators, librarians, and social
workers to carefully review and assess books prior to
sharing them with children. They should assess whether
the books are a good match for the particular populations of young readers that they serve, with attentive
consideration to their lived experiences, their level of
consciousness and maturity, and their current knowledge
about and exposure to what incarceration is and the
effects it may have. We recommend that professionals
might prompt children to read critically through posing
questions such as these: Which races are represented,
and among which characters? Is breaking the law
always a choice? What is the purpose of punishment? Do
children always have the chance to visit with their family
members in prison? Is it fair that this child is so far away
from their mom? These and other questions can help to
encourage children to build more compassion toward
their peers and families with members who are incarcerated, while also serving to educate children about the
real impact of prisons on their peers and society. �
students facing social and economic marginalization, and she has published
her research in a range of books and journals, including Curriculum Inquiry,
Journal of Educational Change, and Gender, Work and Organization.
Email: rhiannon.maton@cortland.edu
Breeanna Dexter is a special education teacher in the Rush-Henrietta Central School
District. She teaches a life skills curriculum to students with severe and multiple
disabilities. She advocates for the supports and services students need to receive
their education within their home district. Email: breeanna.dexter@gmail.com
Nicolette McKeon is a teacher assistant in a special education classroom in
the Commack School District. She has worked in a variety of special education
settings and is passionate about teaching diverse student populations, as well
as fostering their love of learning. Email: nmckeon2467@gmail.com
Emily Urias-Velasquez is a 2022 State University of New York at Cortland
graduate, where she studied early childhood / childhood education and Spanish.
Her passion is to advocate for those who are unable to find their voice. Email:
emilyvelasquez@icloud.com
Breanna Washington is a general education teacher in the Elmont Union Free
School District. She teaches all comprehensive subjects, such as math, English
language arts, science, and social studies. As a teacher of color in a Title I
school district, she strives to represent the diversity and funds of knowledge
Rhiannon M. Maton, PhD, is an associate professor at the State University
that all students contribute to academic and nonacademic spaces. Email:
of New York at Cortland. Her research examines how educators can support
breanna.washington78@gmail.com
References
Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in
the age of colorblindness. The New Press.
Coyle, M. J., & Schept, J. (2017). Penal abolition and the state:
Colonial, racial and gender violences. Contemporary Justice
Beach, R., Enciso, P., Harste, J., Jenkins, C., Raina, S. A., Rogers,
Review: Issues in Criminal, Social, and Restorative Justice,
R., Short, K. G., Sung, Y. K., Wilson, M., Yenika-Agbaw, V.
20(4), 399–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2017.1386
(2009). Exploring the “critical” in critical content analysis of
children’s literature. National Reading Conference Yearbook,
58, 129–143.
Bernstein, N. (2005). All alone in the world: Children of the
incarcerated. The New Press.
Bird, B. (2013, October 9). Review of the day: Knock Knock by
065
Crawley, S. A. (2017). Be who you are: Exploring representations
of transgender children in picturebooks. Journal of Children’s
Literature, 4(2), 28–41.
Crisp, T., Knezek, S. M., Quinn, M., Bingham, G. E., Girardeau,
K., & Starks, F. (2016). What’s on our bookshelves? The
Daniel Beaty. School Library Journal. https://blogs.slj.com
diversity of children’s literature in early childhood classroom
/afuse8production/2013/10/09/review-of-the-day-knock-knock
libraries. Journal of Children’s Literature, 42(2), 29–42.
-by-daniel-beaty/
Bishop, R. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors.
Dallaire, D. H. (2007). Children with incarcerated mothers:
Developmental outcomes, special challenges and
Perspectives: Choosing and Using Books for the Classroom,
recommendations. Journal of Applied Developmental
6(3), ix–xi.
Psychology, 28(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev
Cavanagh, L. (2016). From silence to collaboration: Supporting
children with incarcerated parents in the classroom. Bank
.2006.10.003
Dallaire, D. H., Ciccone, A., & Wilson, L. C. (2010). Teachers’
Street College of Education. http://educate.bankstreet.edu
experiences with and expectations of children with
/independent-studies/169
incarcerated parents. Journal of Applied Developmental
Coyle, M., & Nagel, M. (Eds.). (2022). Contesting carceral logic:
Towards abolitionist futures. Routledge.
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE
Psychology, 31(4), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.appdev.2010.04.001
VOL 48 NO 2 FALL 2022
Rhiannon M. Maton, Breeanna Dexter, Nicolette McKeon, Emily Urias-Velasquez, & Breanna Washington Far Apart, Close in Heart
31
References cont.
Davis, A. Y. (1983). Women, race, and class. Vintage Books.
of LGBT Youth, 11(3), 244–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/193616
Davis, A. Y. (2003). Are prisons obsolete? AK Press.
53.2013.879465
Davis, A. Y., Dent, G., Meiners, E. R., & Richie, B. E. (2022).
Abolition. Feminism. Now. Haymarket Books.
Davis, L., & Shlafer, R. J. (2017). Mental health of adolescents
with currently and formerly incarcerated parents. Journal
of Adolescence, 54, 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.adolescence.2016.10.006
Enns, P. K. (2016). Incarceration nation: How the United States
became the most punitive democracy in the world. Cambridge
University Press.
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2020a). Statistics: Inmate ethnicity.
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate
_ethnicity.jsp
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2020b). Statistics: Inmate race.
https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp
Gadsden, V. L., Davis, J. E., & Artiles, A. J. (2009). Introduction:
Risk, equity, and schooling: Transforming the discourse.
Review of Research in Education, 33(1), vii–xi.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-011-0081-9
Haskins, A. R. (2014). Unintended consequences: Effects of
Lopez, C., & Bhat, C. S. (2007). Supporting students with
incarcerated parents in schools: A group intervention.
Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 32(2), 139–153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01933920701227125
Maton, R., Urias-Velasquez, E., Dexter, B., McKeon, N., & Washington,
B. (n.d.). Best picture books for children with loved ones incarcerated.
SUNY Cortland. https://www2.cortland.edu/departments/fandsa
/research/best-picture-books-about-incarceration
Maynard, R. (2017). Policing Black lives: State violence in Canada
from slavery to the present. Fernwood Publishing.
McLeod, A. M. (2015). Prison abolition and grounded justice.
UCLA Law Review, 62, 1156–1239.
Morrison, T. (1992). Playing in the dark: Whiteness and the
literary imagination. Vintage Books.
Nagel, M. (2018). Policing families: The many-headed hydra of
surveillance. Feminism and Philosophy, 17, 2–11.
Naquin-Eason, A. (2018). Teacher support, parental incarceration,
and low academic achievement in justice-involved youth. The
Measure: An Undergraduate Research Journal, 2, 85–96.
Naser, R. L., & Visher, C. A. (2006). Family members’ experiences with
incarceration and reentry. Western Criminology Review, 7(2), 20–31.
Nesmith, A., & Ruhland, E. (2008). Children of incarcerated
paternal incarceration on child school readiness and later
parents: Challenges and resiliency, in their own words.
special education placement. Sociological Science, 1, 141–158.
Children and Youth Services Review, 30(10), 1119–1130.
https://doi.org/10.15195/v1.a11
Haskins, A. R., & Jacobsen, W. C. (2017). Schools as
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.02.006
Newby, G., Bernstein, N., Simmons, C., & Breen, P. (2005).
surveilling institutions? Paternal incarceration, system
The bill of rights for children of incarcerated parents. San Francisco
avoidance, and parental involvement in schooling.
Children of Incarcerated Parents Partnership. https://inccip.org
American Sociological Review, 82(4), 657–684. https://doi
.org/10.1177/0003122417709294
Haskins, A. R., & McCauley, E. J. (2019). Casualties of context?
Risk of cognitive, behavioral and physical health difficulties
among children living in high-incarceration neighborhoods.
Journal of Public Health, 27, 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s10389-018-0942-4
Hayes, T. O., & Barnhorst, M. (2020, June 30). Incarceration
and poverty in the United States. American Action Forum.
https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/incarceration
-and-poverty-in-the-united-states/
Kaba, M. (2020, June 12). Yes, we mean literally abolish the
police: Because reform won’t happen. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opinion/sunday/floyd
-abolish-defund-police.html
Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its
methodology (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Lester, J. Z. (2014). Homonormativity in children’s literature: An
intersectional analysis of queer-themed picture books. Journal
VOL 48 NO 2 FALL 2022
/the-bill-of-rights-for-children-of-incarcerated-parents/
New York Initiative for Children of Incarcerated Parents. (n.d.).
Recommended books for and about children of incarcerated
parents. https://www.osborneny.org/assets/files/2020_10_2
_NYCIP-Book-List.pdf
The Pew Charitable Trusts. (2010). Collateral costs:
Incarceration’s effect on economic mobility.
Project Avary. (n.d.). Top ten things you should know.
http://www.projectavary.org/top-ten
Rosbach, M. (2020, July 13). Study finds clothing-based
racist stereotypes persist against Black men. Oregon State
University. https://today.oregonstate.edu/news/study-finds
-clothing-based-racist-stereotypes-persist-against-black-men
Skrlac Lo, R. (2019). Resisting gentle bias: A critical content
analysis of family diversity in picturebooks. Journal of
Children’s Literature, 45(2), 16–30.
Smith, R. (2013, November 13). Daniel Beaty on Knock Knock.
The Horn Book Inc. https://www.hbook.com/?detailStory
=daniel-beaty-knock-knock
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE
32
A RT ICL E S
References cont.
Souers, K., & Hall, P. (2016). Fostering resilient learners:
Strategies for creating a trauma-sensitive classroom. ASCD.
Sullivan, A. L., & Urraro, L. L. (2019). The hegemony of
transition and transgender counternarratives in children’s
picture books. In A. D. Martin & K. J. Strom (Eds.), Exploring
gender and LGBTQ issues in K–12 and teacher education: A
rainbow assemblage (pp. 29–52). Information Age Publishing.
Taylor, K.-Y. (2016). From #BlackLivesMatter to Black liberation.
Haymarket Books.
Thomas, E. E. (2016). Stories still matter: Rethinking the role
Warren, J. M., Coker, G. L., & Collins, M. L. (2019). Children of
incarcerated parents: Considerations for professional school
counselors. Professional Counselor, 9(3), 185–199. https://files
.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1232218.pdf
Wargo, J. M. & Coleman, J. J. (2021). Speculating the queer
(in)human: A critical, reparative reading of contemporary
LGBTQ+ picturebooks. Journal of Children’s Literature, 47(1),
84–96.
Wiseman, A. M. (2013). Summer’s end and sad goodbyes:
Children’s picturebooks about death and dying. Children’s
of diverse children’s literature today. Language Arts, 94(2),
Literature in Education, 44(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007
112–119.
/s10583-012-9174-3
Thurman, W., Johnson, K., Gonzalez, D. P., & Sales, A. (2018).
Wiseman, A. M., Atkinson, A. A., & Vehabovic, N. (2019). “Mom,
Teacher support as a protective factor against sadness
when are you coming home?”: Family literacy for parents who
and hopelessness for adolescents experiencing parental
are addicted, incarcerated, and/or homeless. Language Arts,
incarceration: Findings from the 2015 Texas Alternative
97(1), 36–41.
School Survey. Children and Youth Services Review, 88,
558–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.04.004
Uliassi, C., & Czirr, L. (2018). The new American family: A
critical analysis of children’s picturebooks [Unpublished
Youth.gov. (n.d.). Tip sheet for teachers (pre-K through 12):
Supporting children who have an incarcerated parent.
https://youth.gov/youth-topics/children-of-incarcerated
-parents/federal-tools-resources/tip-sheet-teachers
manuscript]. English Language and Literature Department,
National Institute of Education, Singapore.
Children’s Literature Cited
Beaty, D. (2013). Knock knock: My dad’s dream for me (B. Collier,
Illus.). Little, Brown Books for Young Readers.
Birtha, B. (2017). Far apart, close in heart (M. Kastelic, Illus.).
Albert Whitman & Company.
Brooks, D. (2015). Kennedy’s big visit. Archway Publishing.
Cook, J. (2015). What do I say about that?: Coping with an
incarcerated parent (A. DuFalla, Illus.). National Center for
Youth Issues.
Curcio, A. (2015). My daddy’s in jail. ICG Children’s.
Dyches, R. (2016). Doogie’s dad (E. Garcia, Illus.). Children Left
Behind.
Ellis, S. (2016). Almost like visiting (K. Tapper, Illus.).
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Futrell, Q. (2015). Our moms (C. A. Ferguson, Illus.). Quniana
Futrell.
Haynesworth, J., Holmes, J., Jones, L., & Ruffin, K. (2017).
Deena misses her mom (L. J. Pyo, Illus.). Shout Mouse Press.
Higgins, M. (2013). The night Dad went to jail: What to expect
when someone you love goes to jail (W. Kirwan, Illus.). Picture
Window Books.
Kaba, M. (2018). Missing Daddy. (b. royal, Illus.). Haymarket
Books.
Mlinac, I. (2019). Stardust: We always share the same sky (P.
Tiavale, Illus.). Mary Egan Publishing.
Stanglin, J. A. (2006). What is jail, Mommy? (C. J. McGuckie,
Illus.). Lifevest Publishing.
Watson, J. W. (2015). Welcome home: Mommy gets out today.
CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform
Woodson, J. (2015). Visiting day (J. E. Ransome, Illus.). Puffin
Books.
Harriman, J. L., & Flye, K. A. (2011). Waiting for Daddy (J. L.
Harriman, Illus.). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S LITERATURE
VOL 48 NO 2 FALL 2022