Fatherhood, Community Reintegration, and Successful Outcomes

This article was downloaded by: [Nicholas Bakken]On: 23 September 2013, At: 18:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Offender RehabilitationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjor20

Fatherhood, Community Reintegration,and Successful OutcomesChristy A. Visher a , Nicholas W. Bakken b & Whitney D. Gunter ca Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice , University ofDelaware , Newark , Delaware , USAb Department of Sociology and Archaeology , University ofWisconsin-La Crosse , La Crosse , Wisconsin , USAc Department of Sociology , Western Michigan University ,Kalamazoo , Michigan , USA

To cite this article: Christy A. Visher , Nicholas W. Bakken & Whitney D. Gunter (2013) Fatherhood,Community Reintegration, and Successful Outcomes, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52:7,451-469, DOI: 10.1080/10509674.2013.829899

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2013.829899

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjor20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10509674.2013.829899

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2013.829899

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

451

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52:451–469, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1050-9674 print/1540-8558 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10509674.2013.829899

Fatherhood, Community Reintegration, and Successful Outcomes

CHRISTY A. VISHER

Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, USA

NICHOLAS W. BAKKEN

Department of Sociology and Archaeology, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA

WHITNEY D. GUNTER

Department of Sociology, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA

Prior research indicates that assuming family roles, such as parent or spouse, can aid in the transition from prison to the community and has been linked to positive outcomes after a period of confine-ment. Using data from a longitudinal study of men returning to the community after incarceration, this study examines how the rela-tionship between fathers and their children immediately after release may impact aspects of fathers’ lives that are important to a successful reentry transition in the first year, such as employment, abstinence from substance abuse, and mental health. Analyses show that fathers who lived with children before incarceration and

This article stems from a larger research effort at The Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center. The authors would like to thank Nancy La Vigne and Jennifer Yahner for their long-standing involvement in the project. The data used in this analysis were collected by Research Support Services directed by Alisu Schoua-Glusberg (Ohio) and NuStats directed by Robert Santos (Texas).

This research was funded through the generous support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, JEHT Foundation, Cleveland Foundation, Houston Endowment, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, George Gund Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services, and The Urban Institute. Lastly, the authors would like to thank the fathers who shared their experiences, opinions, and expecta-tions with us. Without their willingness to share the details of their lives, this study would not have been possible.

Address correspondence to Christy A. Visher, University of Delaware, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, 77 E. Main St., Newark, DE 19716, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

452 C. A. Visher et al.

had regular contact with their children during their incarceration were more likely to be involved with their children after release. Moreover, fathers who were more involved with their children in the first few months after release, when interviewed again at 8 months out, worked more hours per week, were less likely to use illicit drugs, and were less likely to commit crime, get arrested, or violate condi-tions of their supervision.

KEYWORDS crime, employment, fathers, incarceration, substance use

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, in response to record prison populations and high recidi-vism rates in the United States, research efforts have begun to focus more intently on prisoner reentry. In an effort to go beyond the somewhat narrow focus on recidivism, researchers and practitioners are beginning to view reentry to the community from prison as a process, with multiple interacting pathways that can often have positive and negative effects on reentering individuals, their families, and communities. Research indicates that strong family connections and support can play an important role in helping men and women transition from prison to home and can actually reduce the likelihood of recidivism (e.g., Bahr et al., 2005; Berg & Huebner, 2011; La Vigne, Visher, & Castro, 2004). Assuming family roles, such as parent or spouse, can also aid in the reentry transition process and has been linked to positive outcomes after release (Hairston, 2002; Sampson & Laub, 1993; Uggen, Wakefield, & Western, 2005).

The connection between incarcerated parents and their children is one family relationship in need of further investigation as the number of parents in prison and their children has increased dramatically since the early 1990s. In 2007, there were an estimated 809,800 parents of minor children in state and federal prisons in the United States—with over half of state and federal prisoners having a minor child (Glaze & Marushak, 2008; see also Allard & Greene, 2011). In the same year, 1.7 million minor children—2.3% of all minor children—had a parent in state or federal prison (Glaze & Marushak, 2008). The vast majority of incarcerated parents are fathers. Ninety-two per-cent of incarcerated parents are men, most of whom (89%) are incarcerated in state prisons. In 2007, there were 744,200 fathers with minor children in prison, up from 386,500 in 1991 (Glaze & Marushak, 2008).

The goal of this study was to develop a better understanding of how the role of father may affect the transition from prison to the community. Specifically, this study extends research on incarcerated fathers’ involvement with their children and examines how the relationship between fathers and their children may impact aspects of recently released fathers’ lives that are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Fatherhood and Community Reintegration 453

important to a successful reentry transition, such as employment, abstinence from substance abuse, and mental health.

This study begins with an overview of the theoretical approach used to frame the current research of fatherhood with a review of what is known about incarcerated fathers and their children. This review also includes a description of the characteristics of incarcerated fathers, the kinds and fre-quency of contact they have with their children while they are incarcerated, and obstacles to maintaining such contact. Then, the Returning Home study, a longitudinal study of former prisoners and the source of the data included in this analysis, is briefly described. Data and analyses are then presented about the characteristics of the men included in the analysis sample, the fac-tors that predict these fathers’ involvement with their children after release from prison, and the impact this involvement with their children has on other positive and negative post-release outcomes for the men in their first year after release. This research concludes with a discussion of the implica-tions for policy, practice, and future exploration.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: INCARCERATION AND FATHERHOOD INVOLVEMENT

Before exploring the role of fatherhood in understanding the reintegration process, the conceptual differences between fatherhood and father involve-ment must be acknowledged. Fatherhood refers to men’s motivations relative to the fathering role, the nature of the man’s behavior, and the role identity that is situated in being a father. Father involvement refers to the man’s behavior as he enacts the paternal role (Arditti, 2012; Day, Lewis, O’Brien, & Lamb, 2005). In this study, we consider how fatherhood and involvement are interconnected and more specifically, how a father’s involvement with his child(ren) while incarcerated and immediately after release can differentially affect his reintegration experiences and outcomes. The nature of father involvement within prison is highly constrained and limited by what can be experienced during personal visits, phone calls, or letters (Arditti et al., 2005; Nurse, 2002). Qualitative studies have found little evidence that fathers have the opportunity to appropriately display either affectional or behavioral aspects of involvement, and often report being unable to carry out what they see as essential functions associated with their fathering role (e.g., protec-tion, support, guidance, and discipline; Arditti et al., 2005; Nurse, 2002). Studies have suggested that incarcerated men who receive more frequent visits report feeling closer and more appreciated by their children (Day et al., 2001), but are similarly aware of the negative impact these visitation may have on them as well (Edin, Nelson, & Paranal, 2004).

To address the multiple contexts that need to be considered when examining the role of fatherhood and the complex reentry process, this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


study utilizes a context-process-outcome framework as articulated by Arditti (2012) that consists of a developmental ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) integrated with attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982). The ecological approach is used to understand the dynamic interrelationships between a changing individual and environment over the life course (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), whereas attachment theory focuses on the quality of the parent-child interactions that may contribute to successful reentry experiences for incarcerated fathers (Bowlby, 1982). This mixed theoretical approach has been applied to parental incarceration (see Arditti, 2012; Murray & Murray, 2010; Poehlmann, Dallaire, Loper, & Shear, 2010) and allows for those salient contextual and family process variables to be identified that have the greatest bearing on fatherhood and reintegration from prison.

INCARCERATED FATHERS AND THEIR CHILDREN

For men held in state prison, the likelihood of being a father varies by race and ethnic categories. Hispanic (57%) and Black (54%) men are more likely than White (45%) men to report being a father (Glaze & Marushak, 2008). Most fathers in state prisons are 25 to 34 years of age, and 53% have a crimi-nal history. Most have a high school diploma or GED (62%), and around half (45%) have never been married. In comparing the characteristics of incarcer-ated fathers with those of mothers one difference stands out: fathers are less likely to have lived with their children prior to incarceration than are mothers (46% vs. 64%). Having lived with their children before incarceration turns out to be an important factor in whether fathers are able to reconnect with their children after release (Edin et al., 2004).

Antecedents to Father Involvement After Release

For incarcerated fathers attempting to reunite with their children after release, both the incarceration context and other family processes may be influential (Arditti, 2012). Incarceration can profoundly change the relationships and dynamic within a family. Incarceration often impedes communication, parental and caretaking responsibilities, and often results in the parent missing important developmental milestones in their child’s life that may weaken the parent/child relationship (Edin et al., 2004). Studies have found empirical links between visitation, family ties, and better reentry outcomes among offenders, underlining the importance of the processes involved in family contact for incarcerated offenders. In general, most incarcerated parents have benefited from visitation and seek to have contact with their children (see Nurse, 2002; Swisher & Waller, 2008; Tuerk & Loper, 2006), which can include phone calls, in-person visits, and written letters.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


Much of the literature on incarcerated parents has focused broadly on the issue of contact with their children. During incarceration, contact between parents and their children is complicated by a variety of factors, the most obvious of which is distance. Nationally, 62% of state prisoners and 84% of federal prisoners are incarcerated more than 100 miles away from their last places of residence (Mumola, 2000). In a recent survey of over 200 family members of Chicago prisoners, Naser and Visher (2006) found that distance was the most often cited obstacle to maintaining contact with incarcerated family members, followed by the costs and logistics of visiting. Seventy-five percent of respondents indicated that distance was a challenge to maintain-ing contact with incarcerated family members. Life histories of young fathers with incarceration histories also revealed that the location of the prison pre-vented visits from their children (Edin et al., 2004).

For fathers, personal visits from their children are particularly difficult to maintain during incarceration. In a 1997 survey of prisoners, over half of fathers (57%) reported they had not had a personal visit from their children since being admitted to prison (Mumola, 2000). Hairston (1995) found that incarcerated fathers identified several obstacles to visitation with their children: 42% of the men indicated that there was no one to bring their children to visit them, and 22% indicated that the mothers of their children did not want them to visit. Only 5% of fathers believed that their children did not want to visit them. Not surprisingly, fathers who are married to the mothers of their children are more likely to receive visits from their children while in prison than are single fathers (Hairston, 1989). The willingness of moth-ers to facilitate visitation between incarcerated fathers and their children appears to be an important factor (Edin et al., 2004; Lanier, 1987; Loper, Carlson, Levitt, & Scheffel, 2009). Despite the many obstacles to maintaining contact while in prison, most incarcerated fathers manage to maintain some form of contact with their children with mostly beneficial effects. Poehlmann and her colleagues (2010) reviewed 36 quantitative and qualitative studies on relationships between incarcerated parents (both mothers and fathers) and their children, concluding that contact between parents and children benefits the parents (e.g., less emotional distress, positive perceptions of relationship), though impacts on the children are mixed (but see Yocum & Nath, 2011).

Other possible antecedents to father involvement after release include general relationships within the family (e.g., conflict and support), atti-tudes towards fatherhood, and various demographic and broader attitudi-nal factors that have been shown to predict successful reintegration. Prior research has indicated that former prisoners with close relationships with family have lower rates of recidivism than those without similar attach-ments (Arditti, 2012; La Vigne et al., 2004; Sullivan, Mino, Nelson, & Pope, 2002), and has also demonstrated a link between family support upon release and positive post-release outcomes such as employment success,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


substance use avoidance, and reduced rates of post-release depression (Berg & Huebner, 2011; Duwe, 2011; Ekland-Olson, Supancic, Campbell, & Lenihan, 1983; Nelson, Deess, & Allen, 1999; Visher, Kachnowski, La Vigne, & Travis, 2004). Studies have also found that assuming and being motivated to reclaim traditional roles, such as parent, spouse, or partner, aids in the development of prosocial identities (Hairston, 2002; Sampson & Laub, 1993; Uggen, Manza, & Behrens, 2004). Thus, a variety of family attachments may serve as antecedents to family involvement and also lessen potentially nega-tive reentry outcomes.

Fatherhood and Recidivism

Research on men’s offending and desistance patterns routinely considers men’s ties to employment, marriage, neighborhood, or the military. Much less attention has been devoted to the experience of fatherhood as a poten-tial turning point in the lives of men released from confinement. In one older, Canadian study, men in contact with their children after release were less likely to be rearrested at 6, 12, and 24 months than men not seeing their children (Waller, 1974). In a study of about 50 parolees, Bahr and his associ-ates (2005) found that fathers who rated their relationship with their children as “excellent” were less likely to be reincarcerated 6 months later. Simply being a parent was not associated with the likelihood of returning to prison. Other studies have found that incarcerated fathers typically want to be good role models for their children and be involved in their lives after release (Arditti, Smock, & Parkman, 2005; Lanier, 1991; Shapiro & Schwartz, 2001). In a larger study of low-income fathers, Edin and her colleagues (2004) found that reuniting with their children after incarceration can be a turning point in their lives, especially for older fathers. Finally, the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is an ongoing study of unmarried parents and their children beginning with the child’s birth (McLanahan et al., 2001); many of the fathers in the sample are involved in the criminal justice system. In this study, fathers who experience incarceration after the child’s birth are less likely to marry the child’s mother, but say that they intend to stay involved in their child’s lives no matter what happens between themselves and the child’s mother (Western, Lopoo, & McLanahan, 2004). Understanding the connection between contact and recidivism is somewhat complicated by the multiple ways that recidivism is measured in these studies. However, empirical find-ings indicate that father-child involvement may be an important factor in understanding desistance and reintegration among men who are released from prison.

In summary, studies of postrelease outcomes for men released from prison have focused primarily on recidivism and have not explored the other ways in which parent-child relationships for men who are fathers may influ-ence their reentry trajectories. Lanier (2003) urges researchers to focus

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


attention on the effect of the parent-child relationship on other indicators of reentry success such as securing regular employment, stable housing, and avoiding substance use.

This study attempts to fill some of the gaps in the literature on incarcerated fathers and their relationships with their children, both while incarcerated and after their release from prison, using the context-process-outcome model formulated by Arditti (2012). Specifically, we examine how a father’s involvement with his children in the immediate postrelease period differentially affects various reentry outcomes in the year after release. First, characteristics of over 300 fathers from a larger sample of men being released from prison in three states are presented. Then, using a measure of involve-ment with children developed from several questions about specific partici-pation in their children’s lives, analyses identify the antecedent factors that predict father’s strong or weak involvement with their children in the initial months after release. Finally, the relationship between involvement with chil-dren and post-release indicators of successful and unsuccessful reintegra-tion, including employment, criminal activity, mental health and illegal drug use is examined. Thus the two primary research questions are: (a) What are the antecedents to father-child involvement immediately after release from incarceration? (b) Does greater father-child involvement in the first month after release lead to more successful reintegration outcomes, and are there indirect effects between the antecedents of father-child involvement and successful reintegration? This research concludes with a discussion of the implications of the findings for developing in-prison and community parenting programs.

METHODS

The data used in the present study come from the Returning Home: Under-standing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry project by The Urban Institute. The data were collected between 2002 and 2005 from prisoners who had served at least one year in a state prison and were returning to the cities and counties of Chicago, Cleveland, and Houston. More than four fifths of those asked to participate did so and completed a self-administered questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete follow-up interviews up to three addi-tional times within the first 15 months following their release, and were paid $25 for their participation. The present study uses a similar subset to that of a previous study (Visher, 2011). In order to be included in these analyses, participants had to have at least one child under the age of 18 and have completed the prerelease survey and two postrelease interviews (immediately after release and about eight months after release). Of the 740 participants who completed multiple interviews, 319 also reported having children, and thus form the sample used here.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


Data

A simplified version of the model used is presented in Figure 1. The endog-enous variables used in the analysis include four measures that tap both posi-tive and negative outcomes. First, employment is measured using the average number of hours worked per week. Second, mental health is measured using the 20-item National Institute of Mental Health Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (Radloff, 1991), which is a self-report multi-item measure1 of depressive symptomatology, set to a 0 to 3 scale with strong reli-ability (α = .88). Third, crime is measured using a dichotomous indicator of any reports of crimes committed, arrests, or violations of supervision condi-tions. Fourth, drug use is measured by reports of any illegal drug use in the past 30 days. An examination of the correlations among these reentry outcomes shows modest relationships with the strongest correlation (.341) between drug use and depression. Finally, father-child involvement is measured using several indicators of involvement with children, such as playing, spending time with, listening to, helping with schoolwork, participating in school activities, and placing limits on their children. This involvement scale is set to a 0 to 2 metric with moderately strong reliability (α = .79). While the first four of these variables are fully endogenous, the involvement scale (measured at the first postrelease interview) will also serve as a predictor of the other four (measured at the second postrelease interview), making it a mediating variable in the model. In the model, father-child involvement is conceptualized as a mediating family process (see Arditti, 2012).

FIGURE 1 Simplified conceptual model.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


The exogenous variables (measured at the prerelease survey) are con-ceptualized as antecedents to father-child involvement and represent both contextual and family process constructs. In the Figure, only the conceptual categories of variables are displayed rather than the individual variables included in the category. Fatherhood is measured with four variables: lived with child(ren) prior to imprisonment, responsible for child support, received visits and/or mail from child(ren) (0 = received neither visits nor mail, 1 = received visits, mail, or both), and plans to renew relationship with child after release. In Arditti’s (2012) context-process-outcome framework, some of these variables could be considered process antecedents of father-child involvement. The second exogenous category is family with two multi-item scales: family sup-port (feeling close to your family, wanting family to be involved in your life, considering yourself a source of support for family, and considering family a source of support) and family conflict (fighting a lot, disappointing family, being criticized a lot). The third exogenous category is criminal history, mea-sured by number of prior convictions and length of sentence (in months). The fourth category is attitudes, which includes several multi-item scales measuring control over life (various statements about having control over one’s life and future), spirituality (praying, reading religious literature, find-ing strength in religion/spirituality, feeling guided, relating faith to morality, and using beliefs in setting goals), and intentions to commit crime or use drugs after release. All scales have moderately strong reliability (α > .7). Finally, the demographics category includes the following variables: cohabi-tated with partner prior to prison, age (in years), Hispanic, White, other race (Black is the reference category for race/ethnicity), Texas, and Illinois (Ohio is the reference category). Descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table 1.

Analytic Strategy

The data will be analyzed using path analysis. Because some cases are miss-ing data for some variables, imputation is incorporated using the MI proce-dure in SAS. This procedure is used only on the exogenous variables, as cases that are missing responses for endogenous variables can be included pairwise and because imputing data for the dependent variables would generally be unwise. In the analyses and results, each variable is treated distinctly despite the grouping used for aesthetic purposes in Figure 1. As seen in Table 2, the exogenous variables are used to predict all the endog-enous variables, while father-child involvement is also used to predict the other endogenous variables. This analytic strategy will identify the effect of involvement on the outcomes while controlling for other factors and indicate the indirect effect of exogenous variables on the outcomes through involve-ment. Due to the large number of variables in the model, only the fatherhood and family variables (i.e., those overtly connected with involvement) are

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


displayed in the indirect results in Table 3. Indirect effects are estimated for other predictors even though they are not displayed.

RESULTS

The analysis of the path model indicates that the model has an overall good fit with the data.2 Specifically, the model resulted in an RMSEA of .04 and a WRMR of .62, which both indicate acceptable fit. The CFI was somewhat less supportive of the fit, with a value of .92, just below the usual .95 cut value. However, given that two of these three indicators support the model and the other is close, it is reasonable to use the model without further modifica-tions. The results from the path model will be presented in two parts: the direct effects and the indirect effects. The direct effects estimated in the path model are presented in Table 2.3

Beginning first with the estimates for predictors of father’s involvement with his child(ren) immediately after release, two of the four predictors had significant effects on involvement. Imprisoned fathers who had lived with their child(ren) before imprisonment have significantly higher levels of parental involvement in comparison to those who did not. Similarly, those who receive mail or visits from their child(ren) while in prison also tend to

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics

Variables M SD Min Max

Endogenous variablesEmployment 19.56 23.37 0.00 100.00Depression 0.48 0.51 0.00 2.68Crime 0.15 0.35 0.00 1.00Drug use 0.17 0.38 0.00 1.00Involvement 1.04 0.56 0.00 2.00

Exogenous variablesLived w/kids 0.55 0.50 0.00 1.00Child support 0.86 0.35 0.00 1.00Visit/mail 0.58 0.49 0.00 1.00Renew 0.85 0.36 0.00 1.00Family support 3.34 0.60 1.00 4.00Family conflict 2.18 0.67 1.00 4.00Cohabitate 0.36 0.48 0.00 1.00Convictions 3.04 3.34 0.00 20.00Sentence 29.81 34.70 0.00 198.00Control over life 3.15 0.50 1.67 4.00Spirituality 3.28 0.69 1.00 4.00Intentions 1.43 0.61 1.00 4.00Age 34.44 8.17 20.00 58.00Hispanic 0.09 0.28 0.00 1.00White 0.09 0.28 0.00 1.00Black 0.79 0.41 0.00 1.00Other race 0.04 0.19 0.00 1.00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

461

TAB

LE 2

Direc

t Effec

ts o

f Pre

dic

tors

on I

nvo

lvem

ent,

Em

plo

ymen

t, D

epre

ssio

n, Crim

e, a

nd D

rug

Use

Dep

enden

t Var

iable

Fath

er invo

lvem

ent

Em

plo

ymen

tD

epre

ssio

nCrim

eD

rug

use

bSE

bSE

bSE

bSE

bSE

Live

d w

/kid

s0.

174

0.07

0*—

——

——

——

—Child

support

−0.0

420.

091

——

——

——

——

Vis

it/m

ail

0.25

20.

061*

*—

——

——

——

—Ren

ew0.

121

0.08

0—

——

——

——

—Fa

mily

support

0.07

60.

053

——

——

——

——

Fam

ily c

onflic

t−0

.061

0.04

5—

——

——

——

—Cohab

itate

0.13

50.

066†

——

——

——

——

Invo

lvem

ent

——

5.70

62.

130*

*−0

.059

0.04

6−0

.331

0.16

8*−0

.288

0.15

3†Convi

ctio

ns

−0.0

240.

009*

*0.

460

0.38

8−0

.003

0.00

90.

037

0.03

30.

058

0.03

0†Se

nte

nce

−0.0

030.

001*

*0.

063

0.03

4†0.

000

0.00

1−0

.005

0.00

5−0

.004

0.00

5Control ove

r lif

e0.

087

0.06

98.

361

3.46

8*−0

.075

0.07

10.

020

0.24

7−0

.346

0.28

7Sp

iritu

ality

0.00

20.

048

3.06

62.

189

0.13

00.

052*

0.26

00.

217

0.29

70.

189

Inte

ntio

ns

−0.0

300.

055

−1.8

162.

688

0.05

40.

054

0.10

50.

207

−0.0

450.

206

Age

−0.0

050.

004

−0.2

000.

165

−0.0

060.

004

−0.0

420.

016*

*−0

.041

0.01

4**

His

pan

ic−0

.016

0.10

00.

316

4.27

10.

275

0.09

6**

0.04

30.

467

0.06

30.

420

White

−0.0

660.

101

8.39

64.

694†

−0.1

150.

127

−0.4

170.

418

−0.3

020.

362

Oth

er r

ace

−0.0

640.

145

7.83

15.

877

0.12

60.

151

0.02

30.

527

0.10

70.

455

Texa

s−0

.215

0.07

0**

−8.6

303.

268*

*−0

.302

0.06

9**

−0.1

970.

238

−0.7

930.

268*

*Illin

ois

0.00

80.

089

7.53

53.

210*

0.15

00.

075*

0.17

90.

292

0.05

60.

276

R2

.265

.196

.192

.174

.231

*p <

.05.

**p

< .0

1. †

p <

.10.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


have significantly higher levels of involvement. Providing child support and believing that renewing their relationship after prison would be easy do not have a significant effect on involvement.

Other family-related variables are largely noninfluential. Family support and family conflict are both non-significant in the model, while cohabitating with a significant other is marginally significant (p < .10). Those who did cohabitate with their significant other have higher levels of involvement to their children. Among the control variables, age, race, spirituality, and intentions to use drugs do not have significant effects on involvement. However, more convictions and longer sentences do predict less involve-ment. Additionally, fathers in Texas are predicted to have lower levels of involvement.

For paths predicting employment, involvement with children is a sig-nificant predictor of hours spent working at eight months after release. Specifically, the stronger the involvement, the more hours typically worked even after controlling for other predictors. Among the control variables, those with a longer sentence length and those who report feeling like they had more control other their lives tend to work more hours. Similarly, white fathers and those in Illinois worked more hours, while those in Texas worked fewer hours. Each of these relationships are significant, though sentence length and being White only trend at significant (p < .10).

Unlike with the other outcome variables, involvement does not have a significant effect on postrelease depression. A few control variables, how-ever, do have significant effects. Somewhat surprisingly, those with higher levels of spirituality tend to report higher levels of depression. Fathers who are Hispanic and those in Illinois also report higher levels of depression. Texan fathers, however, had lower levels of depression.

Overall, there are few significant predictors of postrelease criminal activity (which includes self-reports of arrest and supervision violations). Involvement with children does have a significant effect, with higher levels of involvement decreasing the probability of criminal behavior. Additionally, older fathers are also significantly less likely to report committing crimes, getting arrested, or violating supervision conditions. In terms of illegal drug use, involvement is also a predictor of substance use (though only at p < .10), with higher levels of involvement corresponding to a decreased probability of drug use. Being older and being in Texas also are significantly predictive of lower probabilities of drug involvement, while more convictions corre-spond to increased risk of substance use (at p < .10).

The results of indirect effects from fatherhood variables, as mediated through involvement, on the outcome variables, are presented in Table 3. Because child support and the belief that it would be easy to renew rela-tionships are already nonsignificant predictors of involvement, it is unlikely that they would have an effect on the outcome variables, which these results confirm. For the same reason (i.e., nonsignificance of direct effects), it is not

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


surprising that there are no indirect effects on depression. This, however, leaves several potential paths for indirect effects. Living with children does have a significant indirect effect on employment, with those living with their children before incarceration ultimately working more hours after release. However, there are no observable indirect effects on crime or drug use. In regards to the impact of child visitations and mail, there are significant effects on all three outcomes. Specifically, those who receive mail or visits from their children tend to work more hours after release and are less likely to report criminal activity or substance use. It should be noted that of these four indirect effects, three trend toward significant (p < .10), so caution is advised in interpreting these findings until other studies can examine these relationships.

DISCUSSION

Existing research suggests that having a meaningful relationship with family members is an important component in the reintegration process for reentering offenders. Although criminological research has examined the relationship between one’s involvement with their children and subsequent postrelease outcomes, these studies have primarily examined this relation-ship in the context of female offenders (see Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002; O’Brien, 2001). Of the estimated 809,800 parents of minor children in state and federal prisons in the United States in 2007, 92% of these incarcerated parents are men (Glaze & Marushak, 2008). It is therefore imperative to more clearly understand the relationship and importance of incarcerated fathers’ involvement with their children to their reintegration process.

The current study attempts to fill in some of these empirical gaps by examining incarcerated fathers, their relationships with their children, and several postrelease outcomes. Following Arditti (2012), we conceptualized father-child involvement as a mediating family process that is hypothesized to influence reentry outcomes. The analyses uncovered multiple important

TABLE 3 Indirect Effects (Mediated Through Involvement)

Dependent Variable

Employment Depression Crime Drug use

b SE b SE b SE b SE

Lived with kids 0.995 0.551† −0.010 0.009 −0.058 0.037 −0.050 0.033Child support −0.241 0.530 0.002 0.006 0.014 0.031 0.012 0.027Visit/mail 1.437 0.647* −0.015 0.012 −0.083 0.046† −0.073 0.043†Renew 0.688 0.528 −0.007 0.007 −0.040 0.033 −0.035 0.030

*p < .05. **p < .01. †p < .10.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


findings that have implications for current criminal justice programs and policies, as well as for theory and future research on prisoner reentry and recidivism. These findings identify an array of correlates associated with sev-eral outcomes concerning an offender’s involvement with his children, postrelease employment, depression, criminal recidivism and substance use. Likely the most salient and consistent finding in this analysis was the impact of having increased involvement with their child or children on postrelease outcomes.

First, the significant antecedents to father-child involvement immediately after release included living with their children prior to being incarcerated, receiving mail or visits from their children, and cohabitating with a signifi-cant other. Thus, proximal family relationships, including those maintained while incarcerated, appear important in strengthening postrelease father involvement. Fathers with more convictions and a longer prison sentence (which could also reduce ties to family) had less involvement. Second, strong father-child involvement immediately after release was significantly related to successful postrelease employment (working more hours per week), as well as lower levels of criminal recidivism (self-reported crime, arrests, and supervision violations) and substance use. Contrary to our hypothesis, father-child involvement was not related to post-release depression. Postrelease depression may involve different mechanisms that would benefit from further study.

The findings concerning the indirect effects of our fatherhood variables, as mediated through involvement, also yielded significant results. Fathers that lived with their children prior to their incarceration ultimately worked more hours after their release. Also similar to prior studies (see Casey-Acevedo & Bakken, 2002; Holt & Miller, 1972), men who received mail or occasional visits from their children were more likely to have better employ-ment outcomes and were less likely to report criminal behavior or substance use. These findings support prior research suggesting that former prisoners with close family ties have lower rates of recidivism (Hairston, 1988, 1991; La Vigne et al., 2004), as well as reduced levels of substance use and better employment outcomes compared to those without similar levels of involve-ment (Berg & Huebner, 2011; Duwe, 2011; Nelson et al., 1999; Sullivan et al., 2002; Visher et al., 2004).

The policy implications of these findings concerning the reentry and reintegration process for incarcerated male offenders are quite striking. Given that greater involvement with one’s children was a significant predic-tor for a variety of postrelease outcomes, including employment, reduced criminal recidivism, and substance use, states should diligently work to develop and implement policies and programs that encourage greater involvement between incarcerated men and their children. Developing and maintaining positive and healthy relationships between these men and their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


children has been shown to result in more successful reentry experiences for the incarcerated individual and their family and friends (LaVigne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005), as well as in the development of prosocial identities after release (diZerega & Verdone, 2011; Edin et al., 2004; Laub & Sampson, 2003; Nurse, 2002; Sampson & Laub, 1993).

Given the many factors that complicate the development and mainte-nance of these relationships, such as distance, cost, lack of transportation, and security restrictions (see Poehlmann et al., 2010), policies aiming to alleviate these barriers should be developed. Caregivers and incarcerated parents have reported the need for improved visitation policies regarding family members (Arditti, 2003; Kazura, 2001; Nurse, 2002), including a more child-friendly atmosphere with age-appropriate toys and games that can facilitate positive interactions and encourage more timely visits. An absence of these cooperative visitation environments could potentially undermine the benefits yielded from such contact. In the absence of face-to-face contact, other forms of communication such as letters and phone calls should be encouraged, particularly when facilitated in an intervention type of frame-work (e.g., Byrne, Goshin, & Joestl, 2010; Landreth & Lobaugh, 1998). As is the case with any decisions regarding contact with any incarcerated parent, it is essential to establish father-child contact, and the potential for a relationship, only when it is in the child’s best interest. The increased implementation of family-based treatment programs may improve parent-child contact, and may also provide more opportunities to develop evidence-based program-ming that could create optimal conditions for this contact (Poehlmann et al., 2010).

As a means to bridge the gap between face-to-face and the more remote forms of contact, states are experimenting with computer video conferencing calls for family members. Video-conferencing has long been used to allow an offender to take part in a court proceeding while remaining in the con-fines of the correctional facility, saving money on transportation costs and additional correctional officers. While there are certain security and techno-logical concerns that must be addressed, this form of communication has the potential to alleviate many of the aforementioned barriers that prevent on-site visitations from family members while still maintaining the ability to create and maintain positive relationships between incarcerated fathers and their children. By improving these family-focused policies and programs, state correctional agencies will have the capacity to improve the reentry and reintegration process for thousands of incarcerated offenders, while simulta-neously reducing the potential negative consequences for children that have an incarcerated father.

Once released, former prisoners who assume the role of an active father may help improve their reentry outcomes. As the results of the current study indicate, about one year after release, men who had a greater involvement

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


with their children and family had more successful outcomes in terms of increased employment stability and reduced crime and drug use. By incar-cerating individuals in closer proximity to their family, implementing policies that make communication more affordable and accessible, and instituting parenting programs for incarcerated fathers, positive relationships can be forged that will be beneficial to all parties involved.

While this study adds to the literature on the role that parenting plays in the reintegration process, it does have important limitations. First, the measure of father involvement used in this study measures father-child contact, which is only one dimension of fatherhood. Measuring other dimensions of the relationship between fathers and their children, such as parental perceptions of the parent-child relationship and the relationship between the incarcerated parent and the child’s caregiver, would enhance our understanding of which aspects of father involvement are most impor-tant to reentry outcomes. Second, future research should examine the long-term effects of parenting on similar reentry outcomes. It is unknown if the difficulties that come with reentry will eventually surpass the benefits derived from a positive relationship with one’s family and children, leading to negative outcomes such as continued crime and drug use. Similarly, future research needs to thoroughly evaluate both the short and long-term benefits of prison programs focused on developing or maintaining relation-ships between incarcerated parents’ and their children. These evaluations should examine the impact these programs and services have not only for incarcerated fathers, but also for incarcerated mothers and ultimately their children. Without the development of rigorous evidence-based programs, we are in jeopardy of wasting limited resources that could better be utilized to reduce recidivism among incarcerated parents and provide better lives and opportunities for their children.

NOTES

1. This scale and all other scales used here are standard Urban Institute composite measures. For parsimony and to remain consistent with other studies (e.g., Visher, 2011), these scales are entered into the model as a single, combined item rather than with their individual components.

2. An alternative model that incorporated case weights to address attrition differences in the sample was also analyzed. Using these case weights did not change the substantive conclusions reached, but did result in a slightly poorer model fit. Because both models reach the same conclusions, the model with the better fit is the one presented here. In neither model were any variables added or removed to trim or otherwise alter the model; the theoretically driven models were tested without postanalysis modifications.

3. Due to the small sample size and the exploratory nature of this area of study, the results presented include effects that are marginally significant, also referred to as trending towards significant, in which the probability of erroneously concluding that there is an effect is larger (p < .10) than usually acceptable (p < .05). Marginal significance is reported here to avoid dismissing potentially important effects simply because of the small sample size, though these effects should not be assumed to be genuinely significant until further research can verify these findings.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


REFERENCES

Allard, P., & Greene, J. (2011). Children on the outside. Brooklyn, NY: Justice Strategies.

Arditti, J. (2003). Locked doors and glass walls: Family visiting at a local jail. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 8, 115–138.

Arditti, J. (2012). Parental incarceration and the family: Psychological and social effects of imprisonment on children, parents, and caregivers. New York, NY: NYU Press.

Arditti, J. A., Smock, S. A., & Parkman, T. S. (2005). “It’s been hard to be a father”: A qualitative exploration of incarcerated fatherhood. Fathering, 3, 267–288.

Bahr, S. J., Armstrong, A. H., Gibbs, B. G., Harris, P. E., & Fisher, J. K. (2005). The reentry process: How parolees adjust to release from prison. Fathering, 3, 243–265.

Berg, M. T., & Huebner, B. M. (2011). Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination of social ties, employment, and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28, 382–410.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1: Attachment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Byrne, M. W., Goshin, L. S., & Joestl, S. S. (2010). Intergenerational transmission of attachment for infants raised in a prison nursery. Attachment & Human Development, 12, 375–393.

Casey-Acevedo, K., & Bakken, T. (2002). Visiting women in prison: Who visits and who cares? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(3), 67–83.

Day, R., Lewis, C., O’Brien, M., & Lamb, M. (2005). Fatherhood and father involve-ment. In V. Bengston, A. Acock, K. Allen, P. Dilworth Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 341–351). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

diZerega, M., & Verdone, J. (2011). Setting an agenda for family-focused justice reform. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

Duwe, G. (2011). Evaluating the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP): Results from a randomized experiment. Justice Quarterly, 11, 1–37.

Edin, K., Nelson, T., & Paranal, R. (2004). Fatherhood and incarceration as potential turning points in the criminal careers of unskilled men. In M. Pattillo, D. Weiman, & B. Western (Eds.), Imprisoning America: The social effects of mass incarceration (pp. 46–75). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

Ekland-Olson, S., Supancic, M., Campbell, J., & Lenihan, K. J. (1983). Postrelease depression and the importance of familial support. Criminology, 21, 253–275.

Giordano, P. C, Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desis-tance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 990–1064.

Glaze, L. E., & Marushak, L. M. (2008). Parents in prison and their minor children (NCJ No. 222984). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hairston, C. F. (1988). Family ties during imprisonment: Do they influence future criminal activity? Federal Probation, 52, 48–52.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


Hairston, C. F. (1989). Men in prison: Family characteristics and parenting views. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 14, 3–30.

Hairston, C. F. (1991). Family ties during imprisonment: Important to whom and for what? Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 18, 87–104.

Hairston, C. F. (1995). Fathers in Prison. In K. Gabel & D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of incarcerated parents (pp. 31–40). New York, NY: Lexington Books.

Hairston, C. F. (2002). The importance of families in prisoners’ community reentry. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections, April, pp. 11–14.

Holt, N., & Miller, D. (1972). Explorations in inmate-family relationships. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Corrections.

Kazura, K. (2001). Family programming for incarcerated parents: A needs assess-ment among inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 32(4), 67–83.

Landreth, G. L., & Lobaugh, A. F. (1998). Filial therapy with incarcerated fathers: Effects on parental acceptance of child, parental stress, and child adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76, 157–165.

Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lanier, C. S. (1987). Fathers in prison: A psychosocial exploration (Master’s thesis). State University of New York, Albany, NY.

Lanier, C. S. (1991). Dimensions of father-child interaction in a New York state prison population. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 16, 27–42.

Lanier, C. S. (2003). “Who’s doing the time here, me or my children?”: Addressing the issues implicated by mounting numbers of fathers in prison. In J. Ross & S. Richards (Eds.), Convict criminology (pp. 170–190). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

La Vigne, N. G., Naser, R. L., Brooks, L. E., & Castro, J. L. (2005). Examining the effects of incarceration and in-prison family contact on prisoners’ family rela-tionships. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 1–22.

La Vigne, N. G., Visher, C., & Castro, J. (2004). Chicago prisoners’ experiences return-ing home. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Loper, A. B., Carlson, L. W., Levitt, L., & Scheffel, K. (2009). Parenting stress, alliance, child contact, and adjustment of imprisoned mothers and fathers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 483–503.

McLanahan, S., Garfinkel, I., Reichman, N. E., Teitler, J., Carlson, M., & Norland, C. (2001). The fragile families and child wellbeing study: National baseline report. Princeton, NJ: Bendheim Thomas Center for Research on Child Wellbeing.

Mumola, C. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their children (NCJ No. 182335). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

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

Naser, R. L., & Visher, C. A. (2006). Family members’ experiences with incarceration and reentry. Western Criminology Review, 7, 20–31.

Nelson, M., Deess, P., & Allen, C. (1999). The first month out: Post incarceration experiences in New York City. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

Nurse, A. M. (2002). Fatherhood arrested: Parenting from within the juvenile justice system. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

O’Brien, P. (2001). Making it in the “free world”: Women in transition from prison. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013


Radloff, L. S. (1991). The use of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies depression scale in adolescents and young adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20, 149–166.

Poehlmann, J., Dallaire, D., Loper, A. B., & Shear, L. D. (2010). Children’s contact with their incarcerated parents. American Psychologist, 65, 575–598.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shapiro, C., & Schwartz, M. (2001). Coming home: Building on family connections. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5, 52–61.

Sullivan, E., Mino, M., Nelson, K., & Pope, J. (2002). Families as a resource in recov-ery from drug abuse: An evaluation of La Bodega de la Familia. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

Swisher, R. R., & Waller, M. (2008). Confining fatherhood: Incarceration and paternal involvement among nonresident White, African American, and Latino fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1067–1088.

Tuerk, E. H., & Loper, A. B. (2006). Contact between incarcerated mothers and their children: Assessing parenting stress. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43, 23–43.

Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Behrens, A. (2004). “Less than the average citizen”: Stigma, role transition and the civic reintegration of convicted felons. In S. Maruna & R. Immarigeon (Eds.), After crime and punishment: Ex-offender reintegration and desistance from crime (pp. 258–290). Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.

Uggen, C., Wakefield, S., & Western, B. (2005). Work and family perspectives on reentry. In J. Travis & C. Visher (Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp. 209–244). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Visher, C. A. (2011). Incarcerated fathers: Pathways from prison to home. Criminal Justice Policy Review (Advance online publication). doi:10.1177/0887403411418105

Visher, C., Kachnowski, V., La Vigne, N. G., & Travis, J. (2004). Baltimore prisoners’ experi ences returning home. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Waller, I. (1974). Men released from prison. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Western, B., Lopoo, L. M., & McLanahan, S. (2004). Incarceration and the bonds between parents in fragile families. In M. Pattillo, D. Weiman, & B. Western (Eds.), Imprisoning America: The social effects of mass incarceration (pp. 21–45). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Yocum, A., & Nath, S. (2011). Anticipating father reentry: A qualitative study of children’s and mother’s experiences. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 286–304.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nic

hola

s B

akke

n] a

t 18:

16 2

3 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Fatherhood, Community Reintegration, and Successful Outcomes

Documents

Transcript of Fatherhood, Community Reintegration, and Successful Outcomes