Estimating the number and percentage of children who experience parental incarceration in Canada using whole population administrative and vital statistics data

Fiona G. Kouyoumdjian; Martha Paynter; Else Marie Knudsen; Ruth Croxford; Susan J. Bondy; Lindsay Jennings; Nancy Russell; Raya Semeniuk; Christine Bentley-Wang; Amanda Butler; Tenzin Butsang; Nicole L.A. Catherine; Alice Cavanagh; Jennifer Leason; Jessica Liauw; Kate McLeod; Natalie Owl; Akwasi Owusu-Bempah; Salony Sharma

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0344941

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 30, 2025
30 Dec 2025 Decision Letter - Andrea K. Knittel, Editor Dear Dr. Paynter, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The reviewers expressed many reservations about both the specifics of the data source and the presentation of the linkage and analysis. I am requesting that you address wholly each of the concerns that were raised in the review, in order to meet the PLOS ONE publication criteria. I am very enthusiastic about this topic, but want to ensure that the final paper is as rigorous as it can possibly be. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 13 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Andrea K. Knittel Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf . 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. 4. Please be informed that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript. 5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: I appreciate what the authors are seeking to do in this study by pulling together multiple data sources and use that to estimate exposure to parental incarceration. However, understanding how reliable (or unreliable) the estimate generated from this study is requires a better understanding of and description of these data sources used. Unfortunately, in the current study, the description of the key data sources used is quite thin and is therefore hard to evaluate what these data sources are, what information they cover, and what information they do not cover. Additional information is also needed regarding the successful or unsuccessful nature of linking these data sources. For example, one sentence is provided: "Canadian Correctional Services Survey data were previously linked in the Social Data Linkage Environment with a linkage rate of 97%." However, there is no detail, for instance, on how these data were linked, and what identifiers would have been used to link these data, including to incarcerated persons and their children. 2. Prior criminal justice work has described challenges in linking across administrative datasets and potential implications for analysis based on assumptions of how linking was performed: Tahamont, S., Jelveh, Z., McNeill, M., Yan, S., Chalfin, A., & Hansen, B. (2023). No ground truth? No problem: Improving administrative data linking using active learning and a little bit of guile. PloS one, 18(4), e0283811. Tahamont, S., Jelveh, Z., Chalfin, A., Yan, S., & Hansen, B. (2021). Dude, where’s my treatment effect? Errors in administrative data linking and the destruction of statistical power in randomized experiments. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 37(3), 715-749. 3. Can more detail be provided on why the 11,260 people who could not be linked to the data set were excluded: Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The authors use newly available linked data from Statistics Canada to present a descriptive portrait of how many children experience parental incarceration in Canada. This is an interesting paper, and one that capitalizes on unique and new data, that documents the scope of parental incarceration in Canada. The authors explain their data and measures well. They also outline their limitations appropriately. I have some suggestions for the authors’ consideration as they move forward with this work. First, and perhaps most importantly, the paper currently documents the number of children who experience parental incarceration but, without more consideration of the denominator (the number of children at risk of experiencing parental incarceration), it’s difficult for me to know what to make of these numbers. I understand that there are data limitations—in this case, the numbers are only applicable for five provinces in Canada, so perhaps that is why the authors don’t want to present percentages that include the whole population of Canadian children as the denominator. But why not present the percentage of children who experience parental incarceration (with the number exposed as the numerator and the number of children in the five provinces as the denominator)? That would be accurate (or as accurate as possible given the other data limitations) and allow for more context. The paper, as it stands, only begins to delve into this important “context” on page 19. My sense is that the authors would like the data to be comprehensive and representative of the population. Given that cannot be the case, it seems that being more clear about the sampling frame—the five provinces—is the way to go. There are a few places where more details would be helpful: • The authors write the following: “Other datasets are linked to the DRD deterministically or probabilistically based on names, sex, date of birth, and postal code.” This is a big undertaking and there can be big differences in deterministic and probabilistic matching. More details here would be helpful. • The authors note the following: “…data on parent and child death were available only until December 31, 2021.” It is unclear to me why death data is necessary. I initially thought that it was relevant for the denominator (number of parents at risk of being incarcerated) but I don’t think that is the case. • There are some results that don’t appear to be in a table (unless I missed something!). It would be helpful if all findings that appear in the Results section were also presented in a table. There are some places in the manuscript that could use some editing and/or precision. The last sentence of the first paragraph, for example, is nine lines long and difficult to read. Given there is so much important information included in this sentence, the authors might consider breaking it up when possible. Similarly, there are places in the manuscript where the authors may consider more precision. For example, the abstract notes “For children, 87.4% had one and 12.0% had two parents who experienced incarceration…” This reads like 87.4% of all children had one parent incarcerated but, instead, the denominator here is “children with any incarcerated parent.” There are places like this throughout the manuscript that could use some clarity. The takeaways and policy/practice implications of the paper could use some more clarity. The authors note, for example, that “study findings should be used urgently to prevent parental incarceration and mitigate harms for children and families.” How so? It would be helpful if the authors could note how their findings, specifically, should be used to prevent parental incarceration? The authors are upfront about the limitations of the data and, therefore the conclusions they can draw. For example, they write the following: “As a result, we are not able to determine the true number of children who experienced parental incarceration in Canada, nor the total amount of time children were exposed to parental incarceration.” I wonder if they might consider providing an upper-bound and a lower-bound estimate of the parental incarceration for the country (using information they have to expand beyond the five provinces)? I don’t think the authors have to make this change, but it’s an idea if they wish to make it nationally representative. ****** what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344941.r001
Revision 1
5 Feb 2026 Author Response Response to reviewers We thank the reviewers for their helpful comments. We have indicated the reviewers’ comments in italics and our responses in normal text. Reviewer #1: I appreciate what the authors are seeking to do in this study by pulling together multiple data sources and use that to estimate exposure to parental incarceration. However, understanding how reliable (or unreliable) the estimate generated from this study is requires a better understanding of and description of these data sources used. Unfortunately, in the current study, the description of the key data sources used is quite thin and is therefore hard to evaluate what these data sources are, what information they cover, and what information they do not cover. Additional information is also needed regarding the successful or unsuccessful nature of linking these data sources. For example, one sentence is provided: "Canadian Correctional Services Survey data were previously linked in the Social Data Linkage Environment with a linkage rate of 97%." However, there is no detail, for instance, on how these data were linked, and what identifiers would have been used to link these data, including to incarcerated persons and their children. We have added and clarified information regarding the details of the linkage process, and we created a new section in the Methods called Data environment and linkage to make this information more easily accessible. The data linkage was conducted by the Canadian national statistics agency Statistics Canada as part of an ongoing national initiative to integrate health, justice, education, and income data sources (the Social Data Linkage Environment) rather than for this study in particular. We have included information on the type of linkage and variables used to link the data from the Canadian Correctional Services Survey in particular. 2. Prior criminal justice work has described challenges in linking across administrative datasets and potential implications for analysis based on assumptions of how linking was performed: Tahamont, S., Jelveh, Z., McNeill, M., Yan, S., Chalfin, A., & Hansen, B. (2023). No ground truth? No problem: Improving administrative data linking using active learning and a little bit of guile. PloS one, 18(4), e0283811. Tahamont, S., Jelveh, Z., Chalfin, A., Yan, S., & Hansen, B. (2021). Dude, where’s my treatment effect? Errors in administrative data linking and the destruction of statistical power in randomized experiments. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 37(3), 715-749. Thank you for pointing to these papers. We have elaborated on relevant issues in the third paragraph of the Limitations, and we have added a reference in that section to the 2021 publication by Tahamont et al. 3. Can more detail be provided on why the 11,260 people who could not be linked to the data set were excluded. We have added further information on the procedures (including requirements) for linkage to the Social Data Linkage Environment in the Methods section (first paragraph in the Data environment and linkage section), as well as relevant content in the Limitations paragraph of the Discussion (as noted above). Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The authors use newly available linked data from Statistics Canada to present a descriptive portrait of how many children experience parental incarceration in Canada. This is an interesting paper, and one that capitalizes on unique and new data, that documents the scope of parental incarceration in Canada. The authors explain their data and measures well. They also outline their limitations appropriately. We appreciate this positive feedback. I have some suggestions for the authors’ consideration as they move forward with this work. First, and perhaps most importantly, the paper currently documents the number of children who experience parental incarceration but, without more consideration of the denominator (the number of children at risk of experiencing parental incarceration), it’s difficult for me to know what to make of these numbers. I understand that there are data limitations—in this case, the numbers are only applicable for five provinces in Canada, so perhaps that is why the authors don’t want to present percentages that include the whole population of Canadian children as the denominator. But why not present the percentage of children who experience parental incarceration (with the number exposed as the numerator and the number of children in the five provinces as the denominator)? That would be accurate (or as accurate as possible given the other data limitations) and allow for more context. The paper, as it stands, only begins to delve into this important “context” on page 19. My sense is that the authors would like the data to be comprehensive and representative of the population. Given that cannot be the case, it seems that being more clear about the sampling frame—the five provinces—is the way to go. Thank you for this suggestion, and we agree that data on percentages would support interpretability. We have added information for relevant time periods on the percentage of children who experienced incarceration and the rate of children who experienced parental incarceration per 100,000 population to the Results section (Table 1 and related text in the Results section), and we have provided related content in the Methods. There are a few places where more details would be helpful: • The authors write the following: “Other datasets are linked to the DRD deterministically or probabilistically based on names, sex, date of birth, and postal code.” This is a big undertaking and there can be big differences in deterministic and probabilistic matching. More details here would be helpful. As described above, we have added further details regarding how Statistics Canada linked these data. • The authors note the following: “…data on parent and child death were available only until December 31, 2021.” It is unclear to me why death data is necessary. I initially thought that it was relevant for the denominator (number of parents at risk of being incarcerated) but I don’t think that is the case. We used data on deaths in two ways. First, we identified the number of parent deaths, recognizing that parental death is another adverse childhood experience. Second, we examined time at risk of parental incarceration and the percent of childhood with a parent incarcerated for children, for which we right censored the follow up period when children turned 18 or if children died. • There are some results that don’t appear to be in a table (unless I missed something!). It would be helpful if all findings that appear in the Results section were also presented in a table. We have created two additional tables in the Results to show the findings in that format. There are some places in the manuscript that could use some editing and/or precision. The last sentence of the first paragraph, for example, is nine lines long and difficult to read. Given there is so much important information included in this sentence, the authors might consider breaking it up when possible. Similarly, there are places in the manuscript where the authors may consider more precision. For example, the abstract notes “For children, 87.4% had one and 12.0% had two parents who experienced incarceration…” This reads like 87.4% of all children had one parent incarcerated but, instead, the denominator here is “children with any incarcerated parent.” There are places like this throughout the manuscript that could use some clarity. Thank you for these suggestions. We have revised those specific sections of the text to improve clarity and readability. In addition, we have carefully reviewed the full text and made revisions throughout to simplify and clarify the content wherever possible. The takeaways and policy/practice implications of the paper could use some more clarity. The authors note, for example, that “study findings should be used urgently to prevent parental incarceration and mitigate harms for children and families.” How so? It would be helpful if the authors could note how their findings, specifically, should be used to prevent parental incarceration? We have revised this content in the Significance section of the Abstract and elaborated on the implications of the study in the final paragraph of the Discussion. The authors are upfront about the limitations of the data and, therefore the conclusions they can draw. For example, they write the following: “As a result, we are not able to determine the true number of children who experienced parental incarceration in Canada, nor the total amount of time children were exposed to parental incarceration.” I wonder if they might consider providing an upper-bound and a lower-bound estimate of the parental incarceration for the country (using information they have to expand beyond the five provinces)? I don’t think the authors have to make this change, but it’s an idea if they wish to make it nationally representative. We have undertaken work to develop national estimates based on extrapolation of the study data to demographic and correctional data for the whole population, and we have provided information about these estimates in the Discussion and in an Appendix. Given the substantial limitations of the data and uncertainties inherent in these estimates, we think it is more appropriate to include this information in the Discussion only, rather than as part of the study Methods and Results, and as noted in the Discussion, we have not provided confidence intervals. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344941.r002
20 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Andrea K. Knittel, Editor Dear Dr. Paynter, Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 06 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Andrea K. Knittel Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: 1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments: I am so enthusiastic about this paper and am eager to see it go to "print." I appreciate your detailed responses to the reviewers comments. I have identified one instance where I believe that the text that is in that response would additionally strengthen the manuscript, and one potential typographical error. Once these can be addressed, I look forward to accepting the manuscript. 1. In the response to reviewers, you mention using the death data to calculate time at risk of parental incarceration and the percent of childhood with a parent incarcerated for children. Please include this detail in the methods section around line 205 when the descriptive analysis is mentioned. 2. Should line 270 read "<18 years old" instead of "≥18 years old"? I'm not certain, but I can't make sense of it as written. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation. NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344941.r003
Revision 2
24 Feb 2026 Author Response We appreciate these positive comments. We have added this content as requested. Thank you for catching this error, and we have corrected the text to say <18 years old. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_auresp_2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344941.r004
26 Feb 2026 Decision Letter - Andrea K. Knittel, Editor Estimating the number and percentage of children who experience parental incarceration in Canada using whole population administrative and vital statistics data PONE-D-25-56138R2 Dear Dr. Paynter, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Andrea K. Knittel Academic Editor PLOS One Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344941.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Andrea K. Knittel, Editor PONE-D-25-56138R2 PLOS One Dear Dr. Paynter, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Andrea K. Knittel Academic Editor PLOS One https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344941.r006

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .