Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Dec 2.
Published in final edited form as: Child Fam Soc Work. 2019 Dec 13;25(Suppl 1):63–72. doi: 10.1111/cfs.12714

A Qualitative Exploration of Reentry Service Needs: The Case of Fathers Returning From Prison

Luke Muentner 1, Pajarita Charles 2
PMCID: PMC9718570  NIHMSID: NIHMS1064735  PMID: 36467391

Abstract

The challenge of community and family reentry after a parent’s release from prison remains an under-addressed area of collateral damage stemming from high rates of U.S. incarceration. Many fathers released from prison return to living with family, and later attribute family connections and parent–child contact as key factors in their post-release success. However, reentry planning is hampered by a dearth of research on family-focused reentry services, and consequently, often omits attention to resuming family and parenting roles. To address this gap, we conducted 38 semi-structured interviews with 19 previously incarcerated fathers, 9 co-parenting mothers, and 10 relatives to explore service needs of fathers during reentry. Findings suggest programs not only should be multimodal, emphasizing family connections complemented by socioeconomic, self-care, and social support services, but also should be accessible and relatable, offered within the community, and engaging for fathers and family members. Findings reinforce the importance of self-determination and human agency while underscoring the multiple challenges fathers face upon reentry. By including the voices of those most affected by incarceration, this study advances knowledge to shape reentry programs and policies, contributes to efforts addressing criminal justice inequities, and promotes well-being among formerly incarcerated parents and their families.

Keywords: reentry, reentry services, fatherhood, parental incarceration, prison

1. Introduction

The focus within the Grand Challenges of Social Work on smart decarceration calls social workers to work toward reducing prison populations and developing effective strategies to promote and support successful community reentry of persons released from prisons or jails (Epperson & Pettus-Davis, 2017). In response to this call, an increasing number of programs designed to support individuals released from prison have been introduced, many of which have been sparked by the growing recognition of the complex intersection between reentry and other service areas, including health, housing, education, employment, and family domains. However, the effectiveness and reach of many reentry programs remain unclear because of limited replication, lack of rigorous research, and geographic variability of programs. When reentry programs are absent or fail, the costs to individuals and society are high, creating the possibility for reincarceration and community instability. Thus, continued research and informative frameworks are needed to identify effective reentry services.

U.S. incarceration rates have increased 500% since the 1970s, leading to 2016 incarceration figures of 2.2 million individuals held in jail or prison and another 4.6 million people released on community supervision (Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). Incarceration disproportionately affects people of color who are young, economically disadvantaged, and poorly educated (Carson, 2018; Kaeble & Cowhig, 2018). Although the rate of incarcerated women has been on the rise, 92% of those in prison are men, of whom about 1.1 million have minor children and half of which lived with their children before their incarceration (Glaze, Maruschak, & Mumola, 2010).

Nearly 95% of men and women who are imprisoned eventually return to their community (Hughes & Wilson, 2003). For example, in 2016 alone, 626,000 individuals were released from U.S. prisons (Carson, 2018). Given that more than half of all incarcerated men report having a minor child (Glaze et al., 2010), it is reasonable to assume that a large proportion will be released to resume a parenting role. However, most correctional facilities offer only minimal transition planning for those preparing for release, leaving individuals feeling ill-prepared to return to their prior responsibilities. Moreover, the lack of transition planning could potentially increase the risk of recidivism, and in the case of fathers, contribute to a lack of attention to parenting roles. Given the dearth of knowledge about reentry services for fathers, this study sought to fill the knowledge gap regarding service needs of fathers during the reentry period, with the aim of informing the design and provision of programs promoting success after prison.

2. Background

Over the past several decades, society’s understanding of the importance of fathers in children’s lives has expanded beyond a singular focus of a father providing financial support to encompass the father’s emotional and relational bonds with children. While father absence has been associated with poor child outcomes, positive father involvement has been found to mitigate risk and contribute to optimal development (Lamb, 2004). Among fathers with criminal justice involvement, the quality of their parenting has been shown to mediate the association between their criminality and the child’s antisocial outcomes (Thornberry, Freeman-Gallant, & Lovegrove, 2009). Thus, positive parenting practices (e.g., nonviolent discipline, monitoring, and emotional warmth) and father involvement appear to be important leverage points in promoting healthy child development and family relationships. These findings are particularly salient considering children whose parents are incarcerated often experience deleterious outcomes such as poor school readiness, social isolation, and behavior problems (Wildeman, Haskins, & Poehlmann-Tynan, 2017). Children of incarcerated parents are also at elevated risk for cumulative disadvantage, including food insecurity (Gundersen & Ziliak, 2014), residential instability (Muentner et al., 2019), and poverty (Geller, Garfinkel, Cooper, & Mincy, 2009), all of which call attention to the intervening and stabilizing roles of fathers during reentry as a promotive factor of children’s well-being.

Even so, the institutional and social regard for promoting family involvement of men who are incarcerated or recently released from prison is bleak as compared with attitudes toward the family involvement of currently or previously incarcerated women. This misinformed gendered perspective persists despite fathers identifying mending their family relationships as a primary reentry goal (Dill et al., 2016). In part, this institutional misstep within corrections and the social work profession stems from the incongruent expectation that “responsible fathering” requires financial support and active involvement, without accounting for the many ways that incarceration hinders a father’s ability to fulfill such expectations (Washington, Juan, & Haskins, 2018). Indeed, despite evidence of the effectiveness of genderresponsive programming to address the differential needs of men and women in corrections settings (Fedock & Covington, 2017), both groups suffer from a lack of family programming. Even when familyfocused programming is available, such programs typically exclude fathers despite the similarity of their parental status with that of mothers. Instead, effective community reintegration of fathers that capitalizes on the support of their families (Charles et al., 2018) and creates opportunity for child co-residence (Yaros et al., 2018) should be viewed as a potential mechanism to mitigate children’s risk of developmental maladjustments (Geller, Cooper, Garfinkel, SchwartzSoicher, & Mincy, 2012) and intergenerational transmission of justice involvement (Burgess-Proctor, Huebner, & Durso, 2016).

Fathers’ postrelease contributions to their children’s lives are undoubtedly coupled with their own needs, which are often met by family members willing to step up to assist with reentry. For example, the majority of individuals released from prison will initially reside with relatives (La Vigne, Visher, & Castro, 2004), benefitting from their connection with family. Specifically, research has linked strong family relationships with positive reentry outcomes, including reduced use of alcohol and drugs (Sullivan, Mino, Nelson, & Pope, 2002), increased employment (La Vigne et al., 2004), and increased father–child involvement (Ryan, Kalil, & Ziol-Guest, 2008). Indeed, men often use the reentry period to renew and maintain family relationships, to invest in their family roles, and to regain influence in their children’s lives (Charles, Muentner, & Kjellstrand, 2019), all of which are potential buffers to the risk of reoffending and reincarceration (Visher, Bakken, & Gunter, 2013).

The goal of reentry planning is to stabilize individuals on their release from prison; however, services are limited and access to services is inconsistent geographically (Drake & LaFrance, 2007). Typically, reentry-planning focuses on employment, housing, and social support services because financial capital, safe shelter, and pro-social networks are thought to prevent criminal activity. However, these services are usually provided separately, rather than as a coordinated system of care despite the evidence demonstrating a need for wraparound, comprehensive services addressing education, health and mental health, addiction counseling, and welfare receipt (Drake & LaFrance, 2007). Despite demonstrated links between family-focused services and better post-release outcomes (Eddy, Martinez Jr, & Burraston, 2013), fathers trying to rebuild their lives after prison continue to face myriad challenges. These often include a lack of familyfocused services and disregard for structural and relational barriers to father involvement such as child custody arrangements (Berrick & Hernandez, 2016), co-parenting relationships (Comfort et al., 2018), and incongruity in parenting expectations between mothers and fathers (McKay et al., 2018).

One explanation for this gap and disconnect in reentry services stems from lack of input from previously incarcerated individuals and their family members because the people most affected by incarceration and reentry have been largely absent from program planning and evaluation of reentry services (Kendall, Redshaw, Ward, Wayland, & Sullivan, 2018). Thus, we chose to use qualitative inquiry to amplify the voices of fathers and their families during reentry, with the aim of helping to establish a framework for reentry programs to better meet the needs of those they seek to serve. The core focus of this study was to gain insight into the types of programs, programming modifications, delivery options, and anticipated uptake for services that promote father and family well-being during the reentry period after release from prison.

3. Methods

3.1. Sampling Strategies and Participants

The study sample consisted of 38 individuals who participated in semi-structured interviews about fatherhood after the father’s release from prison. Individual interviews were conducted with 19 fathers in the reentry period, nine mothers who were romantically involved or co-parenting with a father in reentry, and 10 relatives of a recently released father. Interviews were supplemented with a background survey. Our sampling strategies included purposive sampling (i.e., posting flyers to attract potential participants meeting study requirements) and snowball sampling (i.e., participants who met inclusion criteria were asked to refer other potential participants). Most fathers had exited prison in the previous 12 months and were living in inner-city neighborhoods of a Midwestern U.S. city. Inclusion criteria for fathers included (a) age 18 years or older, and (b) at least monthly contact with their child who was 12 years or younger. All mothers and relatives of father participants were invited to join the study if they played a role in the father’s reentry life and could speak to his involvement with his child. Prospective participants contacted the research team to confirm eligibility and schedule a time to be consented and interviewed.

The sample’s descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Fathers (n = 19) ranged in age from 18 to 54 years; 18 were Black, and one father was Hispanic. More than half of the fathers reported having at least a high school diploma or GED (General Education Diploma, which is a high school equivalency certificate; n =11) and the remaining eight fathers had less than a high school degree. The vast majority of fathers reported being unemployed (n =15) and four fathers indicated they had part-time employment. Most of the fathers were unmarried and had multiple children (range 1–9 children, M = 3, SD = 2.6). The majority of fathers had been incarcerated more than once (n = 15), with an average of 7.6 months since their most recent release from prison.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Previously Incarcerated Fathers, Their Co-Parenting Mothers, and Extended Relatives

Fathers (n = 19) Mothers (n = 9) Relatives (n = 10)
M(SD), n Range, % M(SD), n Range, % M(SD), n Range, %
Age in years 32.32 (10.45) 18–54 26.33 (5.72) 19–35 46.3 (14.22) 24–69
Gender
  Men 19 100% -- -- 4 40%
  Women -- -- 9 100% 6 60%
Race
  Black 18 94.74% 9 100% 10 100%
  Mixed race 1 5.26% -- -- -- --
Ethnicity
  Hispanic 1 5.26% -- -- -- --
Education
  Some high school or less 8 42.11% 3 33.33% 1 10%
  High school diploma or GED3 9 47.37% 3 33.33% 2 20%
  Technical degree/ certification 2 10.53% 3 33.33% 7 70%
Employment
  Unemployed 15 78.95% 3 33.33% 4 40%
  Employed part-time 4 21.05% 5 55.56% -- --
  Employed full-time -- -- 1 11.11% 6 60%
Marital status1,2
  Never married 15 78.95% 8 88.89% 4 40%
  Married 1 5.26% -- -- 5 50%
  Divorced 1 5.26% -- -- -- --
  Separated 1 5.26% -- -- 1 10%
Number of children1 3 (2.61) 1–9 2.11 (1.45) 1–4 -- --
Number of times in prison 3.47 (2.06) 1–8 -- -- -- --
Length of sentence (in months) 24.18 (15.46) 4.5–60 -- -- -- --
Months since release 7.61 (10.29) .75–34 -- -- -- --
Open in a new tab

Note.

1

Total observations for fathers do not add to the total n = 19 because of missing data.

2

Total observations for mothers do not add to the total n = 9 because of missing data.

3

GED = General Education Diploma, which is a high school equivalency certificate.

The remainder of the sample consisted of nine mothers co-parenting or romantically involved with a father in reentry and ten extended family members of recently released fathers (e.g., parents, grandparents, siblings). The average age of these 19 participants was 37 years, and all 19 identified as Black. Similar to the educational attainment reported by the fathers, the majority of these participants had at least a high school diploma or GED (n = 15) and four had less than a high school education. This subsample was evenly distributed among those who were unemployed (n = 7), employed part-time (n = 5), and employed full-time (n = 7). Mothers had an average of two children (range: 2–4 children). On average, the relatives participating in interviews had known the father for more than 21 years.

3.2. Procedure

The research team developed a semi-structured interview protocol that was pilot tested with a subset of this sample and then refined. Participants were asked about the supports or resources that could help fathers and their families after prison; the interview protocol included probes to elicit opinions and experiences about the ways in which reentry programs could best be administered, modified to meet people’s needs, and made engaging. All interviews were completed between July 2016 and June 2017 by four trained interviewers (two White women, which included the principal investigator who had a familial connection to incarceration and a graduate student; and two Black men, which included one graduate student and one research experienced community member, both of whom were connected to people with criminal justice-system involvement).

Each participant received $40 compensation after completing the consent process and a demographic survey. Interviews were digitally recorded; transcribed verbatim for analysis, but using pseudonyms to ensure anonymity; and verified by the research team. Data for this study were extracted from the set of longer interviews, which averaged 56 min. All study procedures and materials were approved by the University of Chicago’s Institutional Review Board.

3.3. Data Management and Analysis Strategy

Coding and analysis of the interview transcripts were performed by one analyst (a White male graduate student with family history of incarceration), using ATLAS.ti 8 software to manage the data. The principal investigator reviewed the transcripts and coding; any disagreements or inconsistencies were discussed with the analyst until consensus was achieved. Additionally, 20% of transcripts (four fathers, two mothers, and two relatives) were double-coded by a second researcher to assess inter-coder reliability, yielding a Holsti Index score of 87% and a Krippendorff Cu-Alpha coefficient of .848, both of which are acceptable indicators of coding across analysts (Lombard, Snyder-Duch, & Bracken, 2002).

The thematic analysis used in the coding process was informed by aspects of grounded theory. Beginning with a deductive process, a list of sensitizing concepts was derived from a literature review, study aims, interview guide, and initial data memoing. Simultaneously, an inductive approach was used to iteratively examine the data for new codes, previously undiscovered patterns, and emergent understandings (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). Both sets of concepts were compiled into a codebook to articulate code names, descriptions, and examples. Meaningful patterns were identified by aggregating and splitting codes, grouping into subthemes, and linking to broader themes. The coding scheme was applied across all interviews to holistically assess data with a broad family lens and to provide a comprehensive, critical analysis of similarities and divergences among participants involved in children’s lives.

To establish data trustworthiness, the research team uses three validation strategies: (a) reflexivity, (b) peer debriefing, and (c) negative case analysis (Shenton, 2004). Reflexivity refers to the researchers’ disclosing their backgrounds and experiences with the criminal justice system and making the team’s positionality transparent within interviews, coding, and analysis. In the peer debriefing, a qualitative researcher with significant experience designing, implementing, and analyzing qualitative studies provided feedback about the data management, coding, and interpretation processes. For the third strategy, negative case analysis, the analysts identified cases that provided alternative insights. In nearly all instances when these validation strategies were applied, the data demonstrated consistency across demographic groups and incarceration experiences; any instance of discord is discussed within its respective subtheme.

4. Results

The analysis yielded four themes: (a) support type, (b) tailored programming, (c) service provision, and (d) program uptake. The support type theme indicated the kinds of resources needed to support fathers and families following the father’s release from prison. The tailored programming theme addressed the heterogeneity and uniqueness of the needs of families following incarceration. The service provision theme included data addressing not only who or which entity should provide reentry services post-prison but also where such services should be located. The final theme of program uptake identified the likelihood of fathers, mothers, and families actively engaging with services.

4.1. Support Type

Participants identified an array of critical areas for programs to target, expressing a belief that these areas had implications for parenting. This theme identified different types of programs that can promote father–child relationships, including family-focused services, socioeconomic supports, social support, and self-help programs.

4.1.1. Family-focused

Most salient, participants called for family-focused resources that build supports specific to parents, children, and families. Nearly all fathers identified the need to participate in family-focused activities. Programs should “give ‘em vouchers, take ‘em certain places,” such as “barbeques,” “daddy and son barber days,” “craft time,” a chance for “playing ball,” and an opportunity to “read with the kids, learn with the kids.” One father proposed a group aspect to family-focused activities, suggesting “it could be encouraging for each other to see other guys with their kids and be that support for one another because you’re kind of all on the same path.”

In addition to activities, participants also suggested more formal parenting classes and therapeutic sessions help fathers reintegrate into their family roles. Fathers stressed the importance of effective co-parenting and “havin’ a understandin’ with the mother” because “that shit’s the most important thing—having a father and a mother figure around.” Some participants labeled this support as “family counseling” with the “main goal to reunite the whole family… and give potential for a future of family.”

A similar proportion of mothers expressed the need for “more father and [child] activities” such as, “sports,” “daddy-daughter dances,” “movies,” and “Chinese food days.” One mother reflected on the positive benefits of such activities: “My kids just be smiling for no reason… That shows that they’re happy, because we’re having a family night.” The most common suggestions for other support included counseling and parenting classes, with the recognition that “instructions don’t come with children” and “a lot [of fathers] don’t even know how to change Pampers.”

Incarceration adds challenges to individual and family roles “because when they’re incarcerated for periods of time, it’s like your freedom is gone.” To combat these aspects of reintegrating into the family and community, participants suggested co-parenting classes as a means to “bring out a lot of things that maybe the father did not see.” By embracing family diversity and complexity, programs will “help the whole family…work it out so that they could get along better for the child,” which ultimately “makes the child feel happy inside. And you can tell, because … all you see is smiles from ear to ear.”

4.1.2. Socioeconomic Supports

The subtheme of socioeconomic supports captured participants’ perspectives on services that provide the fathers with opportunities to acquire specific skills, knowledge, and experiences as well as instrumental supports that allow the father to invest in himself, his child, and his community. One father reflected on the inherent difficulty in finding employment post-prison given systemic racism and discrimination: “Havin’ jobs. It’s a little hard out here. You can’t even get a job, especially as a felon, let alone the color of your skin, cuz you’re always bein’ judged.” Another father discussed how these challenges in finding employment after release underscored the need for pragmatic and humanizing programs that “assess ‘em [individuals preparing for release from prison] for goals and career objectives” and that manifest in “real job leads to actually talk to an employer.” In addition, participants identified a need for tangible aids and services to help stabilize fathers in order to foster father–child bonds. To fathers, this support meant help with “finances because they would wanna do some things for their child,” “legal aid…helpin’ ‘em maintain the visitation rights,” and, most saliently, advocating to “put the person in a house.”

Mothers and relatives shared similar perspectives on socioeconomic supports, calling for programs geared toward “helping the fathers get some type of employment when they come out because a lot of them want to work but they can’t find work.” Specifically, participants called for programs to work with employers to “accept your background… and take you on full.” This effort to “help find…decent paying jobs” coupled with the need for the fathers to “go to school” and take “GED classes” represent training mechanisms that could enable fathers “to get back in the work game, society, and kind of do better at being a better dad.” In terms of instrumental support, relatives agreed that “they [fathers] can’t find affordable housing” even though “it would be very helpful if they can provide, like, a location that they can live and, you know, find a permanent spot and the child can come actually stay with them.”

4.1.3. Social Support

This subtheme highlighted the role that programs can play in providing social support to promote father–child relationships. Fathers spoke about the need for “mentorship” and “support groups,” especially the unique support that can be provided only by someone with a shared lived experience and the potential impact of that support as they reenter fatherhood. One father’s comment summed up the opinions of many: “Like mentorship…where somebody who’s walked through it already in a different place now is giving insight and support to people that are still in the situation.” The fathers recognized the importance of this type of support because they desired to build pro-social networks, expressing a need for “real people that’s going to help contribute, especially in a successful way. And ain’t like asking to do some illegal things. Like, I really don’t got like no major support.”

Family members also suggested the need for peer support, and they called for more opportunities for mentors to show the fathers the importance of fulfilling their fatherhood role:

More things [fathers and mentors] can do together… that’ll help the father know that even after prison you know, you can still make something of yourself, and still be positive, and show that even through struggles, you can still go where you wanna go.

4.1.4. Self-help

Participants put particular emphasis on the necessity for fathers to focus on themselves and stabilize their lives before taking on parenting roles in full. Fathers called for programs that “help an individual find purpose and meaning in life” and “actually cater to the human being.” These efforts will get fathers to start “rethinkin’, reprogrammin’” and get them to “touch bases with yourself, and really open your eyes to see what sort of person you is so you can work on things.”

Mothers and relatives also identified this type of self-reflective support as beneficial for fathers after release from prison. One mother said:

Let them know like just because you’ve been gone, these are still your children. Because you’ll have some people that will be like “Oh well I’ve been locked up what can I say? What can I do? What can I tell them?” … Just probably, no one ever asked them “Well how do you feel about this?” Like, they should know themselves.

4.2. Tailored programming

Participants’ comments pointed to the importance of tailoring programs to the needs of fathers in the reentry period. This theme highlighted specific modifications regarding the accessibility and content of programs.

4.2.1. Accessibility

The accessibility subtheme captured facets of programming that address the logistics of participation. Fathers stressed the importance of making programs easily accessible, saying “when guys are getting out of prison, they don’t have a car, they don’t have any money [for transportation or program fees].” Given these challenges, participants expressed strong opinions that programs should offer “free transportation,” “bus cards,” “pick ups,” or deals with “Uber or Lyft” and be free or subsidized. In addition, participants noted programs needed to be scheduled at times that would accommodate the fathers’ schedules. One participant commented, saying “The program should have flexibility” so that a broader range of fathers can have “a chance, like I say, that if you want to participate, you can” and be located nearby because “not a lot of fathers have that financial status or that mobility to move around and go somewhere real far.”

Mothers and relatives shared similar perspectives on accessibility, stressing programs needed to be “free and close to transportation,” with the option to “send them bus cards.” Subsidizing the cost of participating in programs is key to program participation because, as one relative reaffirmed, “people don’t have money.” Additionally, a subset of mothers and relatives thought that “child care” was a pivotal support to offer because “some people probably might not have a babysitter at the time.” Notably, however, no fathers mentioned child care.

4.2.2. Engaging and Relatable Programming

The engaging and relatable subtheme addressed the need to ensure programs offered topics, schedules, and activities geared to and appropriate for the population being served, that is, fathers released from prison and members of their family support network. Fathers called for their voices and their children’s voices to be included in the planning process for reentry programs, stating, “Bring the parent and the child together there, and ask both of them what would they like for them… That way, they would know right then and there what would they like.” Programs could also include engaging entertainment, such as a “DJ,” “dancing,” “boxing,” and celebrity “spokespersons” to incentivize participants to come in addition to “money,” “gift cards,” “snacks,” and “meals.” However, participants noted the most important element was that the topics must be relevant to the fathers and the timing flexible “to work with their schedule.”

Similarly, family members discussed the need for programming to be more engaging and relatable for fathers. These participants suggested “entertainment” programming such as “music or some poetry or just something to make them like be more tuned in.” In addition, family members suggested offering participation incentives such as “food,” “little refreshments,” “clothing drives,” “money,” “a $10 gift card,” “raffles,” and “phone privileges.” Again, echoing needs identified by the fathers, the family members emphasized flexibility in scheduling programs, such as offering programs at multiple times, to better accommodate the people the program was trying to serve. Participant comments on scheduling noted flexibility was key “cuz some people work mornings; some people work nights” and “the topics they discuss and all” need to be relatable, informative, and delivered in an inclusive, culturally relevant, and interactive format because the participants “just don’t want to be like lectured.”

4.3. Service Provision

The service provision theme captured participants’ perspectives regarding the location of reentry programs and who should provide them. While some participants suggested community organizations or members of local neighborhoods with lived experience should offer reentry programs, other participants indicated that providing effective reentry programs was the responsibility of the criminal justice system.

4.3.1. Community

The subtheme of community encompassed the idea that programs designed to foster positive father–child relationships should be offered within the community where “you feel comfortable going.” Suggested community locations included non-profit organizations, “library,” “schools,” “community centers,” or “churches.” A few participants also suggested home visiting programs. Recognizing the overall lack of services and infrastructure within low-income neighborhoods with a majority of people of color, fathers identified a need for reentry programs to be accessible in “urban communities” because “everything be so, like, scattered from us.” Specifically noting disparities in incarceration rates, other fathers stated, “we gotta put something in the hood [in neighborhoods], man,” “where most of the prisons are filled with Black and Latino men.” Fathers identified a range of potential providers, including “social workers,” those with “master’s degree in child development,” “fathers,” “mentors,” or those with lived experiences of incarceration. Most important, the individual delivering the program must be “genuine” and “understand the struggle and what [the fathers] are trying to build.”

Mothers and relatives agreed that “the community could probably get together… to offer assistance to people,” and in venues such as “libraries,” “the YMCAs,” “community groups,” “schools,” “doctors’ visits” or at “home.” However, rather than providing programs in one setting, relatives expressed a desire for these services to be offered at “more locations” and at multiple times (i.e., “duplicated”). Participants’ perspectives on the needed breadth and depth of services were best characterized by an uncle who said his ideal program would be “the Walmart of reentry.” Moreover, family members commented that program providers should be “people in the community,” specifically “mentors,” “a person who has been in prison,” or a collaborative effort between these individuals and professionals to create “a better world” for men to learn fathering skills.

4.3.2. Criminal Justice System

A small subset of participants recommended that services should be provided by government entities or within the criminal justice system. These participants suggested the program providers should work with fathers while they are still incarcerated and post-release while they transition to the community. One father added, “I’d say the government provided the service to put us in jail, so they should provide the service to help us to get back on our feet.”

Mothers and relatives agreed that the criminal justice system could play a role in transition planning “durin’ prison to translate to when they get outta prison.” One mother put added pressure on the system, saying,

You just sat me down for 6 or 7 years. You just put me in a corner for a long time. What did I learn in the corner? Not tools on how to divert my life to other ways to go better. After that, where are you gonna send them?

4.4. Program Uptake

A key concern in any program or service is participant uptake. This theme highlights participants’ thoughts regarding whether fathers, mothers, and relatives would actively participate in supports that promote positive family and father–child relationships during reentry.

4.4.1. Father Engagement

The fathers were overwhelmingly confident that others similar to themselves would engage in programs for formerly incarcerated parents. However, one father recognized some formerly incarcerated fathers might be hesitant to take part in these programs, saying “some fathers would and some fathers wouldn’t. If you don’t care about your child, you wouldn’t,” but this same father went on to say, “But if you care, you would go. You really would go.” The comments of one father summed up the comments of the other father participants:

See, what I’ve come to learn and realize is that everybody need help but you’ve got to want the help… And so, if I can seek out that help and it’s conducive to a lifestyle change for me, then why not? See, because I’m all-in when it comes to establishing and maintaining a relationship with my daughter, man. Because I’ve missed out on her life and, although she’s only 7 years old, she still was affected by my absence. I can’t make up that time so anything that can help me further help us, I’m all-in.

The majority of mothers and relatives agreed that fathers would likely engage in programs to help them rebuild family connections. Although some relatives provided a cautious endorsement, “it depends on their mindset,” the majority reported thinking that “if it was offered, most people [would participate]. If you’re offering me a chance to change my life, why wouldn’t I take it?”

4.4.2. Mother and Relative Engagement

The subtheme of mother and relative engagement referred to the inclusion and involvement of mothers and relatives in family-focused programming for fathers after their release from prison. All fathers in our sample expressed the belief that programs should “be for families—just families, period. Because everybody need help.” Many fathers’ concepts of ideal programming were described with statements, such as, “Yes, I’m including mothers because they are very important. You know, ain’t nothing like a love of a mother… And, we just want to get [fathers] a new perspective.”

Although the majority of relatives were optimistic about mothers’ and family members’ engagement in the programs for fathers in reentry, some of the relatives noted family members might be “getting to the point where they don’t care no more.” However, most relatives expressed feelings that family “should be open to that [program participation] because it is about the child.” In addition, most relatives recognized the reality that “families and the mothers normally take on the role of kind of taking care of these dudes”; therefore, in this sense, most relatives reported thinking “mothers really should be 100%, grandparents and other relatives they should be behind them, too.”

5. Discussion

This study used a qualitative approach to examine the perspectives of fathers and family members directly affected by the fathers’ incarceration, and aimed to provide practitioners and program developers with key considerations to be responsive to the heterogeneity of needs for fathers reentering the community and family following release from prison. Our analysis of interviews with formerly incarcerated fathers, co-parenting and romantically involved mothers, and family members of fathers in the reentry period yielded four major areas that should be addressed in reentry programming: (a) service or support type, (b) tailored programming, (c) service provision, and (d) program uptake.

Regarding service type, all participant groups identified the need for multifaceted supports to promote father involvement in the reentry period, including programs that not only help provide socioeconomic, social, and self-care supports but also have a family focus. Termed multimodal (Eddy, Kjellstrand, Martinez, & Newton, 2010), interventions that provide a suite of services across these domains address the development of parenting skills and the mitigation of the contextual challenges most likely to disrupt parenting. This multimodal approach includes offering family-focused programming complemented by employment training, educational opportunities, housing support, legal advocacy, support groups, and case management.

Restoring the parent–child relationship following incarceration can be particularly complex, yet addressing a father’s larger needs can also reduce his risk of recidivism (Visher et al., 2013) and help disrupt the mechanisms that lead to deleterious outcomes for children. Intervention programs that recognize the complex interactions of this larger set of needs will be more likely to strengthen the family across all spheres, improve a returning father’s chance of success, and meet the needs of the entire family unit. Indeed, despite the myriad specificities regarding father–child relationships that interact with larger systems, intervention models that promote stronger family bonds and sustained relationships have been shown to be effective in promoting and maintaining family well-being (Charles, Jones, & Guo, 2014).

Simply providing a service to address reentry needs is not enough; programs must encompass a host of modifications to tailor programs to local contexts. Broad-stroke social service programming offered to those being released from incarceration is often misaligned with the unique demands of reentry processes (Travis, Cincotta McBride, & Solomon, 2005). Modifications to increase accessibility have been found to work with other populations, including program proximity (Gucciardi, Cameron, Di Liao, Palmer, & Stewart, 2007) and flexibility in scheduling (Hooven, Walsh, Willgerodt, & Salazar, 2011) as well as offering pragmatic supports such as transportation (Blumenberg & Pierce, 2016), and child care (Ingoldsby, 2010). Adaptations to reentry programming should be informed by participants to make the programs relevant to their specific needs and location. Indeed, enhancements are most effective when they are spearheaded by group members themselves (Bonevski et al., 2014).

A key piece of the reentry service puzzle involves provision options. Our study findings identify the community as the setting best suited for offering reentry services, including providing reentry programs at schools, churches, community centers, libraries, and nonprofits within urban areas. Communities with high incarceration rates have a vested interest in the outcomes of those who are returning to the community from prison, and therefore, locating services within these communities is sensible. Both fathers who had experienced incarceration and their family members suggested appropriate service providers would be individuals with lived experience related to incarceration because they would share an understanding of the barriers and facilitators to reentry (Gagne, Finch, Myrick, & Davis, 2018). Other suggestions of program providers included trained professionals (Franke, Treglia, & Cnaan, 2017) and mentors (Umez, Cruz, Richey, & Albis, 2017). Although less salient, participants suggested that the criminal justice system should be involved in reentry services, perhaps most readily by preparing incarcerated individuals for the complex transition back to families and communities. Specifically, preparing individuals for reentry should include comprehensive and ongoing services that address substance use, mental health, education, job training, housing, and family-focused needs.

Program uptake is a critical consideration for any program. Although aspirations of engagement were high, pragmatically, participant involvement in communities is more difficult than in institutions. In light of this reality, tailoring programs to a specific target audience (e.g., deciding on appropriate dosage, offering incentives, and being flexible with scheduling conflicts) can minimize attrition, increase engagement, and make content more appealing (as evidenced by the eagerness we found when recruiting participants to our study). Overall, participants expressed a common perspective that an opportune design for programs to help fathers rebuild their family connections would be one that engages mothers and extended family members in the program. However, challenges exist in incorporating family members in reentry programs, including working with couples who are no longer romantically involved, have no contact, or have hostile relationships; fathers who do not want family included; and instances when the father committed a crime against the family. However, when interested and welcomed, the incorporation of co-parents and relatives appears worthwhile, perhaps filling important roles in giving and receiving encouragement and co-learning parenting skills.

5.1. Limitations

Although this study provides new insights into reentry services, several study limitations must be considered. First, the sample likely reflected self-selection biases of those who were more successful in reentering the community or those mothers and relatives who have positive relationships with the father. In addition, by focusing the sampling frame on fathers who have maintained at least monthly contact with their child, our design might have biased the study toward fathers who were more engaged with their child and family, and thus, would take a more active parenting role with their children during reentry. In addition, having members of the research team without direct lived experience of incarceration might also have biased the study design, data collection, and interpretation processes. Although qualitative work is not meant to be generalizable, we note that the experiences of those in this sample might not reflect the experiences of others affected by incarceration or reentry because the information was drawn from cross-sectional interviews with a racially and geographically homogenous sample. Finally, due to data limitations, the study could not address specific nuances in father–child relationships (e.g., biological relation, age of children, marital status) that affect relationship quality and influence the need for tailored programming in different systems (e.g., within prisons and jails, under community supervision). This limitation restricted our discussion of how service design and uptake might differ between groups and across settings, which remains a point for future research.

5.2. Implications

This study’s findings have direct implications for social work practice. First, designing the study to be tailored toward the self-identified needs of previously incarcerated individuals and their families adheres to the values of social justice, self-determination, and the dignity and worth of the individual. In using a qualitative approach, this study sought to engage those with lived experience to identify, address, and inform the design and provision of reentry services. Taking a person-centered approach enables participants to find a purposeful outlet to restore and enhance the well-being of themselves, their families, and their communities. Future reentry services that adhere to similar strategies in expressing human agency and integrity of clients are imperative in ensuring equitable access to opportunity and decision-making.

Next, the findings reaffirm the systems approach of social work, emphasizing that individuals are influenced by a variety of factors (e. g., family, employment, housing, criminal history). Social workers providing reentry services must think of their programs using a systems mindset and intervene in ways that support an individual’s goals within the larger context. Social work practitioners could play a pivotal role in the development and delivery of family-focused reentry services for parents by drawing from the profession’s history of promoting family and child well-being in diverse contexts.

This study points to the critical importance of acknowledging the complexity of reentry from prison and of addressing challenges through a strengths-based, needs-focused, and multimodal approach. Ideally, reentry strategies should enable a father to begin building a strong support system and creating a stable base through rehabilitative services followed by a continuum of linked services, thereby ultimately providing a fresh start to focus on themselves and their child’s well-being. In short, this study provides insight into how previously incarcerated fathers and their families envision reentry services. Creating comprehensive strategies to mitigate the harmful effects of incarceration for fathers and their families is complex. However, our study findings help to inform future reentry services by enhancing the relevance and effectiveness of services while promoting self-determination for the families these programs seek to serve.

Contributor Information

Luke Muentner, School of Social Work, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Pajarita Charles, School of Social Work, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

References

  1. Berrick JD, & Hernandez J. (2016). ‘Developing consistent and transparent kinship care policy and practice: state mandated, mediated, and independent care.’ Children and Youth Services Review, 68, 24–33. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.06.025 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Blumenberg E, & Pierce G. (2016). ‘A driving factor in moving to opportunity’. ACCESS Magazine, 1(48). Available at: http://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2016/a-driving-factor-in-moving-to-opportunity/ [Google Scholar]
  3. Bonevski B, Randell M, Paul C, Chapman K, Twyman L, Bryant J, Brozek I, & Hughes C. (2014). ‘Reaching the hard-to-reach: a systematic review of strategies for improving health and medical research with socially disadvantaged groups’. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), 42. 10.1186/1471-2288-14-42 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Burgess-Proctor A, Huebner BM, & Durso JM (2016). ‘Comparing the effects of maternal and paternal incarceration on adult daughters’ and sons’ criminal justice system involvement: a gendered pathways analysis’. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(8), 1034–1055. 10.1177/0093854816643122 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carson EA (2018). Prisoners in 2016 (NCJ 251149). Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC. Available at: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p16.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  6. Charles P, Gorman-Smith D, Schoeny M, Sudec L, Tolan P, & Henry D. (2018). ‘Fathers’ criminal behavior and involvement with children: the moderating role of family relationships’. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 9(1), 131–157. 10.1086/695386 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Charles P, Jones A, & Guo S. (2014). ‘Treatment effects of a relationship-strengthening intervention for economically disadvantaged new parents’. Research on Social Work Practice, 24(3),.321–338. 10.1177/1049731513497803 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Charles P, Muentner L. and Kjellstrand J, (2019). Parenting and Incarceration: Perspectives on Father-Child Involvement during Reentry from Prison. Social Service Review, 93(2), 218–261. 10.1086/703446 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Comfort M, Krieger KE, Landwehr J, McKay T, Lindquist CH, Feinberg R, Kennedy EK,& Bir A. (2018). Partnership after prison: Couple relationships during reentry.Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 57(2), 188–205. 10.1080/10509674.2018.1441208 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dill LJ, Mahaffey C, Mosley T, Treadwell H, Barkwell F, & Barnhill S. (2016). ‘ “I Want a Second Chance” experiences of African American fathers in reentry’. American Journal of Men’s Health, 10(6), 459–465. 10.1177/1557988315569593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Drake EB, & LaFrance S. (2007). Findings on best practices of community re-entry programs for previously incarcerated persons. LaFrance Associates, San Francisco. Available at: http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/docs/Ex-Offender%20Best%20Practices.pdf [Google Scholar]
  12. Eddy JM, Kjellstrand J, Martinez CR, & Newton R. (2010). ‘Theory-based multimodal parenting intervention for incarcerated parents and their children.’ In: Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners (eds. Eddy JM & Poehlmann J), pp. 237–261. Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  13. Eddy JM, Martinez CR Jr, & Burraston B. (2013). ‘A randomized controlled trial of a parent management training program for incarcerated parents: proximal impacts.’ Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78(3),.75–93. 10.1111/mono.12022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Epperson M, & Pettus-Davis C. (eds.). (2017). Smart Decarceration: Achieving Criminal Justice Transformation in the 21st Century. Oxford University Press, New York. 10.1093/oso/9780190858988.003.0010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fedock G, & Covington SS (2017). Correctional programming and gender. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (editor in chief Pontell H), pp. 1–30. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.89 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fereday J, & Muir-Cochrane E. (2006). ‘Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development.’ International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. 10.1177/160940690600500107 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Franke ND, Treglia D, & Cnaan RA (2017). ‘Reentry program and social work education: training the next generation of criminal justice social workers’. Journal of Evidence-Informed Social Work, 14(6), 409–420. 10.1080/23761407.2017.1367345 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gagne CA, Finch WL, Myrick KJ, & Davis LM (2018). ‘Peer workers in the behavioral and integrated health workforce: opportunities and future directions’. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 54(6), S258–S266. 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.03.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Geller A, Cooper CE, Garfinkel I, Schwartz-Soicher O, & Mincy RB (2012). ‘Beyond absenteeism: father incarceration and child development’. Demography, 49(1), 49–76. 10.1007/s13524-011-0081-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Geller A, Garfinkel I, Cooper CE, & Mincy RB (2009). ‘Parental incarceration and child well-being: implications for urban families’. Social Science Quarterly, 90(5), 1186–1202. 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00653.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Glaze LE, Maruschak LM, & Mumola CJ (2010). Incarcerated parents and their children: findings from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In: Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners (eds. Eddy JM & Poehlmann J), pp. 33–54. Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC.,. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gucciardi E, Cameron JI, Di Liao C, Palmer A, & Stewart DE (2007). ‘Program design features that can improve participation in health education interventions’. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7(1), 47. 10.1186/1471-2288-7-47 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gundersen C, & Ziliak JP (2014). Childhood food insecurity in the US: trends, causes, and policy options. The Future of Children, 1–19. 10.1353/foc.2014.0007 [DOI]
  24. Hooven C, Walsh E, Willgerodt M, & Salazar A. (2011). ‘Increasing participation in prevention research: strategies for youths, parents, and schools’. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 24(3), 137–149. 10.1111/j.1744-6171.2011.00288.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ingoldsby EM (2010). ‘Review of interventions to improve family engagement and retention in parent and child mental health programs’. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(5), 629–645. 10.1007/s10826-009-9350-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hughes TA, & Wilson DJ (2003). Reentry Trends in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kaeble D, & Cowhig M. (2018). Correctional Populations in the United States, 2016 (NCJ 251211). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC. Available at: https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6226 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kendall S, Redshaw S, Ward S, Wayland S, & Sullivan E. (2018). ‘Systematic review of qualitative evaluations of reentry programs addressing problematic drug use and mental health disorders amongst people transitioning from prison to communities’. Health & Justice, 6(1), 4. 10.1186/s40352-018-0063-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lamb ME (ed.). (2004). The Role of the Father in Child Development. John Wiley & Sons, New York. [Google Scholar]
  30. La Vigne NG, Visher C, & Castro J. (2004). Chicago Prisoners’ Reflections on Returning Home. Urban Institute, Washington, DC. 10.1037/e720002011-001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lombard M, Snyder-Duch J, & Bracken CC (2002). ‘Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability’. Human Communication Research, 28(4),. 587–604. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. McKay T, Lindquist C, Feinberg R, Steffey D, Landwehr J, & Bir A. (2018). ‘Family life before and during incarceration’. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 57(2), 96–114. 10.1080/10509674.2018.1441209 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Muentner L, Holder N, Burnson C, Runion H, Weymouth L, & Poehlmann-Tynan J. (2019). ‘Jailed parents and their young children: residential instability, homelessness, and behavior problems’. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(2), 370–386. 10.1007/s10826-018-1265-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ryan RM, Kalil A, & Ziol-Guest KM (2008). ‘Longitudinal patterns of nonresident fathers’ involvement: the role of resources and relations’. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70(4), 962–977. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00539.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Shenton AK (2004).’ Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects’. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. 10.3233/EFI-2004-22201 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Sullivan E, Mino M, Nelson K, & Pope J. (2002). Families as a Resource in Recovery from Drug Abuse: An Evaluation of La Bodega de la Familia. Vera Institute of Justice, New York. 10.1037/e513882006-001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Thornberry TP, Freeman-Gallant A, & Lovegrove PJ (2009). ‘The impact of parental stressors on the intergenerational transmission of antisocial behavior’. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(3), 312. 10.1007/s10964-008-9337-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Travis J, Cincotta McBride E, & Solomon AL (2005). Families Left Behind: The Hidden Costs of Incarceration and Reentry. Urban Institute, Washington, DC. 10.1037/e688572011-001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Umez C, De la Cruz J, Richey M, & Albis K. (2017). Mentoring as a Component of Reentry: Practical Considerations from the Field. Council of State Governments Justice Center, National Reentry Resource Center, New York, NY. Available at: https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/6.27.17_Mentoring-as-a-Component-of-Reentry.pdf [Google Scholar]
  40. Visher CA, Bakken NW, & Gunter WD (2013). ‘Fatherhood, community reintegration, and successful outcomes’. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52(7), 451–469. 10.1080/10509674.2013.829899 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Washington HM, Juan SC, & Haskins AR (2018). ‘Incapacitated involvement: incarceration and fatherhood in fragile families at age 9’. Journal of Family Issues, 39(13), 3463–3486. 10.1177/0192513X18783225 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Wildeman C, Haskins AR, & Poehlmann-Tynan J (eds). (2017). When Parents are Incarcerated: Interdisciplinary Research and Interventions to Support Children. APA Bronfenbrenner Series on the Ecology of Human Development. Washington, DC, APA Books. 10.1037/0000062-000 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Yaros A, Ramirez D, Tueller S, McKay T, Lindquist CH, Helburn A, Feinberg R, & Bir A. (2018). ‘Child well-being when fathers return from prison’. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 57(2), 144–161. 10.1080/10509674.2018.1441204 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES