Meet Them Where They Are: The Importance of Contextual Relevance in Prison-Based Parenting Programs

Abstract

Parenting from prison is dramatically different than parenting in the community. The removal from home and redefinition of self that occurs within the carceral setting often leads incarcerated parents to feel anxious and inadequate in their parental role. While some prison-based parenting programs (PBPPs) can assuage these issues, they often lack contextual relevance, which can make participants frustrated and dissatisfied. Using an example of a prison-based fatherhood program, this article argues that in order for PBPPs to have sustained positive outcomes, they must also address the issues enmeshed in parenting from prison.

Keywords

corrections parenting carceral context

Introduction

Parenting is one of the most influential factors for a child’s psychosocial adjustment (Newman et al., 2011). The ways in which parents engage with their children can serve as either a risk factor or a protective factor for children’s developmental outcomes (Gilbert et al., 2009; Hildyard & Wolfe, 2002; Luby et al., 2013; McLeod & Shanahan, 1993; Morris et al., 2017; Norman et al., 2012; Odgers et al., 2012). For example, the extant literature finds that parenting practices with high levels of stability and nurturance can decrease children’s antisocial behaviors, depression, anxiety, and stress (Luby et al., 2013; McLeod & Shanahan, 1993; Odgers et al., 2012). Parenting practices with low levels of stability and nurturance, on the contrary, increase children’s suicidality, depression, drug use, and criminal behavior (Gilbert et al., 2009; Hildyard & Wolfe, 2002; Norman et al., 2012).

Children of incarcerated parents are especially at risk of experiencing problematic parenting. Over the last several decades, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of individuals housed in American prisons and jails, in large part due to the implementation of “tough on crime” policies (Roberts, 2003; Tonry & Melewski, 2008). As a result, more than 2.7 million children have an incarcerated parent in the United States (National Resource Center on Children of the Incarcerated, 2014). Children who experience parental incarceration are at higher risk of negative social and academic outcomes, substance abuse, mental health problems, delinquency, adult offending, and incarceration (The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2012; Makariev & Shaver, 2010; Murray & Farrington, 2005, 2006; Poehlmann et al., 2010; Travis et al., 2005; Wakefield & Wildeman, 2014). These findings support the implementation of prison-based parenting interventions that attempt to enhance parental knowledge, sensitivity, and responsivity; decrease parental stress; improve parenting practices; and, overall, improve children’s emotional and behavioral outcomes (Troy et al., 2018).

There are several different styles of parenting interventions that have been implemented in prisons nationally, with most involving weekly group sessions that teach parents about child development, stress management, and communication skills (Hoffman et al., 2010; Newman et al., 2011). Some programs include enhanced visitation (Block & Potthast, 1998; Henson, 2018) while other prisons are home to a prison-nursery program that allows incarcerated mothers to live with their newborns for a certain period of time to cultivate secure attachments early in the child’s life (Byrne et al., 2010).

A review of prison-based parenting programs (PBPPs) conducted by Purvis (2013) found that, for children, PBPPs improved self-esteem, mental health, well-being, and academic performance and decreased truancy and delinquency (Hoffman et al., 2010; Miller, 2006; Poehlmann et al., 2010; Purvis, 2013; Wilson et al., 2010). For incarcerated parents, parenting programs improved bonding with and empathy toward their child, enhanced knowledge of child development, and enhanced behavior management (Hoffman et al., 2010; LaRosa & Rank, 2001; Wilson et al., 2010). In addition, participating in PBPPs is linked with employment attainment and retention upon release and reductions in recidivism (Casey-Acevedo & Bakken, 2002; Visher et al., 2013). Therefore, as Troy and colleagues (2018) assert, investing in PBPPs is beneficial not only for children of incarcerated parents and incarcerated parents themselves, but also for society more broadly.

An issue remains, however, that many of these parenting programs are not contextually relevant, are not created by individuals who have experienced incarceration, and thus do not address the unique needs of incarcerated parents (Loper & Tuerk, 2006; Troy et al., 2018). Troy and colleagues (2018) found that most PBPP research focuses on whether the program goals are achieved, as shown above, rather than whether the program curriculum is relevant to the carceral setting or perceived as positive and useful by participating parents. Both the program appropriateness and meaningfulness have significant implications for improving implementation and outcomes (Troy et al., 2018). In their review, Troy and colleagues (2018) report that the most frequent program goal was improving child–parent relationships by increasing general parent knowledge and skills, and the most recurrent topics covered in the classes were on discipline and general positive parenting concepts. Very few of these programs took into consideration the carceral context or specifically addressed how to navigate prison-based barriers to parenting (Troy et al., 2018). Without these elements, participants may have a difficult time identifying with the program, which can lead to frustration and dissatisfaction (Henson, 2018).

Historically, parenting programs in general have ignored the broader ecology of parenting, implying that all parents, despite their culture and social contexts, have the same needs and require the same skill sets. Most parenting programs have been created for and tested on predominantly European American middle-class samples (Yasui & Dishion, 2007). Therefore, parenting programs that are considered “evidence-based” and implemented in diverse settings often have difficulty with recruitment and experience high levels of attrition due to the mismatch between the curriculum and cultural norms and contextual needs (Anderson et al., 2002; Kumpfer et al., 2002; Yasui & Dishion, 2007). As Brodsky (1999) explained, parenting cannot be viewed as occurring “in a vacuum.” Without incorporating the needs, structures, and strengths of specific contexts in the program curriculum, diverse populations do not benefit from effective and supportive parent programming and may ultimately feel stigmatized because their family practices and values do not align with the program’s principles.

In a meta-review of PBPPs, Loper and Tuerk (2006) found that the ideal PBPP should include parenting-from-prison-specific problem-solving. It is widely understood that the experience of parenting from behind the walls of prison is drastically different than the experience of parenting in the community (Arditti, 2016; Purvis, 2013; Wakefield & Wildeman, 2014). Therefore, PBPPs need to be contextually relevant and thus sensitive to the unique barriers that incarcerated parents and children of incarcerated experience.

Roadmap

This article provides a case study of a prison-based fatherhood program to demonstrate that, in order for PBPPs to have sustained positive outcomes and increased participant retention rates and buy-in, the program must locate parenting within carceral structures and systems and thus acknowledge the broader ecology of parenting. By addressing contextual concerns, such as distance, limited resources, and financial constraints, in addition to general parenting lessons, parents will not only be provided an education on child development and various parenting skills, but also will gain assistance in navigating the prison-specific barriers they perceive to negatively impact their parenting.

The article first describes the data collection methods, PBPP site, and implementation structure. It then details the level of contextual relevance and impact of the program. The article concludes with a synthesis of the findings and a call for the implementation of contextually relevant parent programming.

Method

This study draws on data collected for a larger evaluability assessment (EA) that was conducted on a PBPP located in Pennsylvania. The purpose of an EA, as stated by Henson (2018), is to “determine, prior to an evaluation, whether a program is in fact implemented as designed, and whether that design is evaluable” (p. 3186). The research questions thus focused primarily on program structure and definitions of programmatic success and asked participants, facilitators, and program staff how the curriculum was constructed? What activities are implemented to achieve program objectives? And how do you know when the program has succeeded?

The EA was requested by the prison-based fatherhood program, Fathers and Children Together (FACT), as a first step toward a full program evaluation. Henson (2018) describes the EA process and methodological findings in detail. Although the current article draws from the same data, its purpose is not to discuss FACT’s evaluability, but rather to use FACT as an example of how contextual relevance bolsters program legitimacy and success.

Four forms of data collection were used for the EA: field observations, document analysis, focus groups, and semi-structured one-on-one interviews. To gain a broader perspective of the program, the author engaged in 40 hr of participant observation¹ of program activity, including board meetings, FACT sessions, father–child visits, graduation ceremonies, and alumni events. The document analysis consisted of the author scanning all relevant program materials, such as pamphlets and curriculum guides to understand the goals and content of the program. Focus groups were conducted with incarcerated program graduates (n = 23), reentered program graduates (n = 7), incarcerated program founders (n = 6), external board members (n = 5), and external staff members (n = 3), and lasted around 120 min each. Individual interviews were conducted over the phone with three caregivers, and in-person with the prison program director. Prison security restrictions prohibited recording devices. Thus, copious notes were taken during the focus groups with program founders and incarcerated graduates and during the interview with the prison program director. These handwritten notes were later transcribed. The focus groups with reentered program graduates, external board members, and external staff members, along with the individual caregiver phone interviews, were audio-recorded and later transcribed.

The author analyzed all of the transcripts, field notes, and documents using ATLAS.ti 1.0.48, a qualitative analysis software that allows researchers to explore, index, and organize data in an inductive fashion (for more information on the author’s coding process, please see Henson, 2018). Ultimately, after multiple coding iterations, the higher level codes were entered into a codebook that included the name of the code, the “groundedness” or frequency in which the code showed up across all transcripts, the definition of the code, the summary finding, and an example of the coded text (see Table 1; Thornberg & Charmaz, 2014). The completed codebook was used to collapse codes through axial coding to identify major themes and thus develop a comprehensive yet simple logic model (see Online Appendix A).

Table 1.

Code Book Example.

Name	Groundedness	Definition	Summary finding	Example
Father vs. Provider	23	Comments made about the learned differences between what it is to be financially supportive to a child and what it is to be a responsible and present father	One of the most consistent themes was the newfound understanding by participants on the difference between being a father and being a provider. Often on the streets they viewed themselves as responsible fathers because they would provide for their children by buying them gifts and supporting them financially; however, through the program they learned the true responsibilities of fatherhood and the need for quality time	“Learn the difference between a ‘dad’ and a ‘father’ a dad is a provider, is there financially, but a father is there morally and provides intellectual support, as a father you are able to pick up the child when they fall, pick them up and truly teach them to pick themselves up while you’re there to encourage them” R: “Hood rich, but mentally broke”

The FACT Program

FACT was founded, constructed, and facilitated by a group of incarcerated individuals at a maximum-security prison located 36 miles outside of Philadelphia. FACT demonstrates a bottom-up approach, as the program originated from a grassroots effort exerted by a group of “lifers.” Although the program is widely accepted by its home prison, the program is not state funded. Therefore, all program expenses are paid through fundraisers held by the founders within the facility who refer to the program as a “labor of love.” The incarcerated men bake and sell cakes within the prison to fund the activities held for the caregivers and the food provided during father–child visits. The Department of Corrections (DOC) does not mandate the program; therefore, the founders and incarcerated graduates who facilitate the program are not compensated, and the fathers who attend the program do so voluntarily.

Because a group of incarcerated men developed FACT, the program is attentive and responsive to the carceral setting. The curriculum is not only informed by the founders’ own experiences in prison, but it is also guided by data drawn from qualitative interviews between the founders and other incarcerated fathers to identify the most prevalent parenting needs behind bars. Based on these interviews, reviews of the literature, and discussions with community-based mental health professionals, the founders put together a curriculum that involves traditional parenting lessons, such as behavior management and child development, as well as teaches skills that allow participants to navigate the unique barriers of the carceral setting. The 6 weeks of program sessions are entitled: (1) the Impact of a Fatherless Household, (2) Accountability and Responsibility, (3) Attachment and Bonding, (4) the Importance of Education, (5) Self-Love and Self-Worth, and (6) Positive and Negative Reinforcement.

Findings

Grounding the Curriculum in the Carceral Setting

The six sessions address four specific prison-based barriers to parenting: isolation, financial restrictions, limited forms of child engagement, and adversarial relationships between co-parents.

Isolation

Like many incarcerated individuals (Rabuy & Kopf, 2015), the founders experience prison as an extremely isolating, alienating setting, and see those around them similarly affected. The physical removal from the home, loss of autonomy, and redefinition of self that occurs within this setting often leads incarcerated fathers to feel anxious, out of control, and inadequate in their paternal role (Dyer, 2005; Lewis, 2015; Roy & Dyson, 2010; Tripp, 2001). Therefore, the founders aimed to create instead a program that would combat this isolation and build systems of support for incarcerated fathers.

During the focus group, the founders explained their ability over other programs to create a comfortable environment because they are from the “same subculture in prison,” and so they can “relate best to the men compared to people from the community or psychologists.” The fatherhood sessions take place in a prison classroom that is surprisingly bright and cheerful with windows and plants. The chairs are arranged in a circle so that all of the men can look at each other when speaking and feel more connected. The founders explained in the first session that there is a strict confidentiality agreement among the participants and that what is said in the classroom stays in the classroom, providing an element of safety among the men.

Because of this sense of safety, many in the group allowed themselves to speak up and express vulnerability. Field notes demonstrate a profound degree of engagement and respect provided to each individual during the sessions. The fathers raised their hands and listened intently to each other, with many nodding and making sounds of agreement to show support for the speaking father. The pedagogical approach of FACT emphasizes facilitation and discussion rather than lecture-based teaching to empower members to teach and learn from each other through interaction and group work. Because of this, the men quickly got to know each other and the hierarchical power structure, typically found in a classroom and inherent to the carceral setting, was removed to make facilitators and participants equal learners, listeners, and teachers.

Financial Restrictions

As fellow imprisoned fathers, many of the founders had to come to terms with their inability to provide financially for their children while incarcerated. Historically, successful fatherhood has been defined in media and research through images of “typically white forms of masculinity” that include independence, provision, and self-sufficiency (Roy & Dyson, 2010). Prior to entering the program, many of the FACT participants, regardless of race, accepted this narrow definition of father as solely a provider and defined their masculinity by the ability to financially support their families. However, often the role of provider cannot be fulfilled while incarcerated due to an average compensation rate of US$0.30/h (DOC, 2008). Thus, to feel like a father in prison, FACT was designed to show the men how to approach masculinity in an alternate way, emphasizing the role of caretaker and teacher.

One of the founders explained that a goal of the program is to teach the men that being a father is “sharing things, grooming, directing, guiding—not just being a provider.” They ask the fathers in one of the first sessions what it is to be a father and many, in response, shared stories of solely providing money to their children. During The Effects of a Fatherless Household and Accountability and Responsibility sessions, the facilitators discuss with fathers how being an involved father is more than just “buying them sneakers and giving them money.” They speak about the positive impact of quality time and have reentered graduates come back to debrief with the class on their experiences with their children on the outside, emphasizing how FACT lessons positively impacted the ways they engage with their children, discussing their children’s encouraging feedback in response to this change.

Limited Forms of Child Engagement

To supplement the expanded definition of fatherhood, the FACT program teaches the men how to navigate the restricted access to their children and utilize the available tools to continue to cultivate and strengthen the father–child bond. The founders explained how many fathers, because of the distance and recodification of identity from father to inmate, feel helpless in cultivating or maintaining a connection to their family. Because the founders themselves have experienced and overcome these feelings, they are able to show participants ways to use phone calls, letters, and visits to remain present in their children’s daily lives.

One founder, Ben, a tall Black man in his 60s with a bald head, glaucoma, and endless stories about his grandchildren’s track and field trophies, explained that when his son first visited him in prison several decades ago, his son told him “I need you here.” This was the first time Ben realized that being in prison put his children at a disadvantage; the visit allowed him to see the reach of his actions’ consequences. The importance of this visit and the subsequent contact with his children emphasized the importance of consistency and face-to-face contact in addition to letters and calls. This is why the founders are steadfast in having visitation be a component of the program.

Once the 6 weeks of fathering sessions conclude, there are six subsequent weeks of father–child visits. These visits are a prominent lure for many of the program’s voluntary participants. They occur once a week in a classroom-like setting and allow the fathers to directly apply the lessons and skills gained through the sessions. During the visits, fathers are able to share a meal with their children and show their love physically by hugging, sitting next to, and holding hands with their children. This is a very rare experience, as most conventional prison visits only allow parents to sit across from their children and have one hug during the greeting and one hug goodbye (Beckmeyer & Arditti, 2014; Casey-Acevedo & Bakken, 2002).

FACT collaborates with a local community-based arts organization and has artists join the first several weeks of visits to lead activities and help break the ice. During a later visit, once the father–child bond has been cultivated and/or strengthened, the fathers host an “air it out” session and have the children speak openly and honestly to the group about their feelings toward their father and about his incarceration, which is quite powerful for the fathers and cathartic for the children.

Once the six visits conclude, there is a graduation ceremony at the prison the following week that includes the children, fathers, and caregivers. Field notes written in the prison parking lot following the graduation ceremony describe the joy in the air with children and fathers hugging, laughing, and taking pictures in front of the FACT banner. It also speaks to the sadness in response to the program’s conclusion, with both fathers and children crying as they hugged their children goodbye.

It was very powerful for the caregivers to see these emotional exchanges between fathers and children. At one point in the ceremony the fathers lined up across from the children and one by one made a pledge to always be there for their child and expressed how much their child meant to them. Many of the caregivers teared up during this exchange, although there were some caregivers who you could tell felt hesitant to believe the men’s words by the hard look on their faces and crossed arms.

Adversarial Co-Parenting Relationships

As a result of living on the block with other incarcerated fathers, the founders understand that co-parenting issues are some of the most significant barriers for fathers trying to engage with their children. In fact, during the focus groups with incarcerated graduates, maternal gatekeeping² was the most frequently raised issue among the men. The founders decided to approach this issue with teaching both fathers and mothers’ compassion and empathy. They teach the fathers to “never talk bad about the mom,” be patient, and take accountability for their actions. Many fathers feel frustrated because they feel as though they are exhibiting change through the program; however, the mother is unable to appreciate the change. One of the founders, Mikey, a fit bald Black man in his 40s with a PhD, a deep knowledge of the law, and an assertive presence stated, “The mothers have their own trauma from their upbringing as well—they come from broken homes and have been abused and misused by guys and so they don’t have that trust for change.” To build trust, they teach the fathers how to more openly communicate, show responsibility, and defuse emotionally heightened conversations.

However, because of the lack of trust, some mothers will not allow their children to attend the FACT visits. One founder nicknamed “Tada,” a middle-aged Black man with rose-colored glasses who speaks about FACT as if it is his child, explained,

The mother only knows the guy as he’s been out in the streets. For some, the guys have done so much damage to the mothers that the way to get back at the fathers is to deny them of FACT, but they do this without thinking about the child.

In response to this issue, one of the goals of the program is to educate the mothers on the benefits of the program for the entire family. The program hosts community-based dinners and activities for caregivers during the father–child visits to build a support network of similarly situated women who commiserate about their personal experiences with paternal incarceration. The facilitators of the caregiver events provide support and resources and educate the women on similar topics to the fatherhood classes, such as self-love, the importance of education, the impact of a fatherless household, and compassion, empathy, and trust.

Programmatic Impact on Participants

FACT participants were adamant that the program had a lasting, positive impact. They spoke glowingly about FACT calling it “the best program I took while I was in here” and saying, “I wish it never ended” (John, 35, incarcerated FACT graduate). Many graduates expressed a desire for the program to be required. One reentered graduate exclaimed, “After these [FACT] sessions was done, I felt like, ‘wow, man, this is a program the DOC should have sent me to!’ This should have been something that should have been mandatory.” The bottom-up approach and evidence-based curriculum contributed to many of the participants citing the program as relatable, effective, and beneficial. Ultimately, the program graduates identified three specific ways that the program affected them: (a) the program created a support system for fathers in prison, (b) it encouraged participants to reframe what it means to be a father, and (c) it heightened familial engagement and understanding. These impacts directly reflect the four prison-specific barriers that the program addresses, thus highlighting the importance of contextual relevance for positive participant experiences and outcomes.

Creating a Support System

During the focus groups, program graduates noted how quickly a trusting community could be formed due to the comfort in knowing that each man, including the session facilitators, was going through the same thing. An incarcerated graduate explained, “You realize the things that you’ve been stressing about- the next man is dealing with” (Tarrell, 31, incarcerated FACT graduate). To know that they were not alone in their parenting issues allowed them to feel connected and enabled them to safely express vulnerability.

The feelings of safety and support extended beyond the FACT classroom and followed the men as they moved through the prison. As one incarcerated graduate explained, after the first couple of sessions, the group became a “family of men” who continued the conversation outside of the classroom. Another reentered graduate explained,

You know, the fathers is starting to interact more cause a lot of the time we be on the same blocks, we come back, we start to talk more now, we starting to compare notes, we starting to interact more, we starting to talk about things we noticed last night at the visit, we start having focus groups before the visit. (Kahlil, 32, incarcerated FACT graduate)

This sort of on-going interaction with similarly situated men allowed them to not only cement their friendships, but to also continue to discuss and think critically about the lessons they learned through FACT.

Reframing Fatherhood

One of the incarcerated graduates explained,

Through the program you learn the difference between a “dad” and a “father”—a dad is a provider, is there financially, but a father is there morally and provides intellectual support. As a father, you are able to pick up the child when they fall, pick them up and truly teach them to pick themselves up while you’re there to encourage them. (Rodney, 40, incarcerated FACT graduate)

Instead of defining a father as someone who provides for their child, FACT participants learned the value of supporting and caregiving and the importance of being emotionally available to their children. A reentered graduate elaborated on his newly expanded definition of fatherhood,

I considered myself at one point in time “hood rich but mentally broke’ cause you know you can have all the money in the world and take care of them kids all you want financially but when you ain’t doing all those things and all that other stuff [spending time with the children and emotionally supporting them] you mentally broke . . . you not fulfilling their needs besides a pair of sneakers . . . their financial needs. (Rich, 35, reentered FACT graduate)

“Hood rich” was defined by this father as an attempt to fulfill a masculine identity as someone who can financially provide for their family while in an environment that lacks a sense of safety and security. However, this father realized that this attempt leaves the child with much to be desired and does not actually fulfill the child’s needs. Another reentered father similarly explained,

And the program teaches you . . . out here in society, right, we feel as though as long as we giving our child any and everything that we want that that’s cool, they taken care of and this is the mentality that even most women have when it comes to supporting their child. In supporting a child it’s not all about finances, because, at the end of the day, I would sit down I would ask my children, if you could have anything that you want from me what would it be? And they’d just say, “look, I just want to spend time with you” . . . at the end of the day I didn’t have to spend no money, all she wanted was the time to say “yo I’m with my dad, as long as I’m with my dad, as long I’m spending time with him I’m cool, I’m good.” So you know, the program teaches you about quality time, what it is, the importance of having quality time with your child. (Kyrie, 33, reentered FACT graduate)

By expanding the roles within the paternal identity beyond provider, the incarcerated fathers were able to be more self-reflective and critical of who they were as fathers prior to entering prison. One reentered graduate stated,

So when the workshops actually came before the visits . . . after I went to that first workshop which was the effects of a fatherless household I came back to the cell that afternoon and I knew, I said to myself, “damn, yo, you really f-ed up” you know, cause you left your son and your daughters out there all alone and I felt as though like that was kind of hard too, you know, I wasn’t giving up or nothing, I was going back [to the FACT sessions]- I was in, I was all the way in, but I really checked myself and I really said to myself like “yo, you really messed up and for real for real you got all this built up hate, anger, and frustration towards your father for not being there and you turned right around and did the same thing and for years and years and years” I would always “well it ain’t like I left, I came to jail. I was out doing what I was supposed to do.” (Zachary, 29, reentered FACT graduate)

Many of the men felt as though they were out doing what they were “supposed to be doing” by making money to provide for their children. However, FACT’s emphasis on quality time and the emotional role of a father allowed members to find ways to fulfill their paternal identity by engaging more with their children both while incarcerated and upon release.

Heightened Familial Engagement and Understanding

Both incarcerated and reentered program graduates expressed increased communication with and sensitivity to their children since participating in FACT. Kyrie stated,

Imagine from after the program how it is now—now I know more of how to interact with my children, I know what needs to be done when it comes to them having problems. I know what needs to be said, and this is what the program is about, this is what the program helps you move forward to do, to really participate in your child’s life. (Kyrie, 33, reentered FACT graduate)

Rich similarly explained,

FACT makes you open doors that you probably wouldn’t know how to open, you know what I mean, as far as getting to know the child, getting to know the child inside and out-things as small as a color, favorite TV show, favorite food. (Rich, 35, reentered FACT graduate)

Many of the men felt the program visits enabled them to learn about their children and be mindful of their children’s feelings in ways they hadn’t when they were out in the community because of their primary focus on provision. One of the incarcerated graduates stated, “I learned [during the visits] how they felt at the first day of school without me being there, so now I call every morning as he’s walking to school and I think he appreciates that.” Another reentered graduate explained,

FACT gave the opportunity of getting a better bond, the child now wants to sit right next to me in the visiting room. Before FACT, my child didn’t really know me and when she and her mother would come up to visit she would sit next to her mother and not interact with me, but now, after the program, any time they come up for a visit she sits right up next to me, even sharing the same seat and her mother isn’t even allowed to touch my hand, my child wants it to be all about her and her dad. (Dawud, 28, reentered FACT graduate)

The strengthened bond and increased communication was noted by the children’s caregivers as well. A mother, in response to a question on whether the relationship between her child and child’s incarcerated father had changed since his participation in FACT, stated, “Oh yeah, absolutely. Their relationship is totally different from what it was. Even when he was at home. They just talk more.” The importance of communication was not just emphasized during the program sessions in relation to the children, but also in relation to the children’s caregivers.

Prior to the visits, the program facilitators discuss the need for compassion and understanding when it comes to the issues fathers may have with their children’s mothers. The fathers are taught about the impact of a fatherless household, the importance of co-parenting, and its positive effect on the child. By strengthening a sense of compassion and accountability, many men discussed a newfound understanding and respect for their children’s caregivers. One incarcerated program graduate stated, “I always knew what I was missing when I left, but through the visits I was able to see [through conversations with the child and mother] how it affected the family that I was gone” (Hassan, 38, incarcerated FACT graduate). Kyrie explained, “On the streets you fail to realize your impact on the community and the burden you leave the mothers with upon your incarceration. Through the program you learn accountability and can ‘check yourself’” (Kyrie, 33, reentered FACT graduate). Many fathers did not realize or were in denial about the reach of the consequences of their actions, particularly because of the normalization of incarceration in their communities (see Anderson, 1999; Rios, 2011; Roberts, 2003). The program, however, shows them how their incarceration impacts their families and their communities.

An incarcerated graduate, who had attended the FACT sessions but had never been provided the opportunity to have FACT visits because of issues with the mother, discussed how his strengthened communication skills enabled him and his child’s mother to, for the first time, work as a team for the betterment of their child. He explained,

It’s been hard with the mother and for the first time I learned what anxiety is because my daughter had it at her school because she was being bullied, but her mother and I came to a conclusion about getting her into a charter school to alleviate the anxiety and that kind of communication is key from the program. (Josh, 36, incarcerated FACT graduate)

Although some of the graduates still lamented issues with their children’s mothers and identified this as the key barrier to the program’s success, others truly believed that FACT greatly benefited their relationships with others in general and empowered them to be a better partner, father, and friend. Time does not stand still while individuals are in prison. FACT understood that there are opportunities to cultivate and strengthen a familial bond even while in prison. The lessons that FACT participants learned were not skills solely to be used upon release, but rather lessons that can be implemented in their relationships in the future and the present, allowing them to feel fulfilled in their current incarcerated state and contributing to the strength of the familial bond upon release.

Discussion

Parenting cannot be perceived or taught as occurring “in a vacuum” (Brodsky, 1999). The effect of community characteristics on parenting has long been documented (Anderson, 1999; Burton, 1990; Ceballo & Hurd, 2008; Elder et al., 1985; Luthar, 1994; McLoyd et al., 1994; Ogbu, 1981; Pinderhughes et al., 2001). Studies have shown that taxing neighborhood conditions can impair mothers’ sense of parental confidence and psychological control (Ceballo & Hurd, 2008), and prison settings can make parents feel anxious, out of control, and inadequate (Dyer, 2005; Lewis, 2015; Roy & Dyson, 2010; Tripp, 2001). With an understanding that setting has a direct impact on parenting, parenting programs must address contextual issues.

Findings from the EA data demonstrate how program elements that attended to prison-specific issues were the most memorable and impactful for participants. Through firsthand experience and by conducting a needs assessment with incarcerated fathers, the founders were able to understand their audience and address the four issues they found most salient: isolation, financial restrictions, limited forms of child engagement, and adversarial relationships between co-parents.

Tailoring each and every program to fit the participants’ community and culture can be time and resource-intensive. However, parenting programs that address cultural, social, or historical factors that influence the experiences of the target population are found to have the highest effect size in improved parenting behavior (vanMourik et al., 2017). To achieve the greatest outcomes for parents, children, and society as a whole, it is important that programs take the initiative to make their curriculum not only culturally, but also contextually relevant to those participating. Many of those engaging in culturally adapted parenting programs, which are programs adapted to consider cultural patterns, meanings, and values (Bernal et al., 2009; Coard et al., 2007; Kumpfer & Alvarado, 2000; Kumpfer et al., 2002), still ask for support in dealing with contextual issues, such as neighborhood violence and poverty (Mejia et al., 2017). Therefore, it is important for future programming to conduct a needs assessment of the relevant community prior to implementation. This can be achieved through cost-effective means, such as focus groups and/or surveys.

As demonstrated by the findings presented here, contextual relevance enhances buy-in, perceptions of legitimacy, and achievement of programmatic goals. Although the data are not drawn from a true evaluation and therefore cannot conclude with certainty whether the program was able to achieve its short- and long-term goals, anecdotally, participants believe the program significantly impacted them and improved their relationships and familial bonds. FACT, therefore, is an example that can inform future programming on the importance of locating parenting and addressing ecological issues that parents may see as barriers to positive parenting.

Supplemental Material

PJ_Appendix_A_supplemental_material – Supplemental material for Meet Them Where They Are: The Importance of Contextual Relevance in Prison-Based Parenting Programs

Supplemental material, PJ_Appendix_A_supplemental_material for Meet Them Where They Are: The Importance of Contextual Relevance in Prison-Based Parenting Programs by Abigail Henson in The Prison Journal

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biography

Abigail Henson, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Arizona State University School of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Her research interests involve policy and program evaluation and the impact on individuals, family, and community. Her work strives to shift narratives and eliminate stigmas by engaging in strengths-based human-centered frameworks and applying a critical gaze to institutional injustices.

References

Allen

Hawkins

(1999). Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers’ beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(1), 199–212.

Anderson

E. A.

(1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. W.W. Norton.

Anderson

E. A.

Kohler

J. K.

Letiecq

B. L.

(2002). Low income fathers and “responsible fatherhood” programs: A qualitative investigation of participants’ experiences. Family Relations, 51(2), 148–155.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2012). A shared sentence [KIDS COUNT Policy Report]. http://www.aecf.org/resources/a-shared-sentence/

Arditti

J. A.

(2016). A family stress-proximal process model for understanding the effects of parental incarceration on children and their families. Couple and Family Psychology: Research & Practice, 5(2), 65–88.

Beckmeyer

J. J.

Arditti

J. A.

(2014). Implications of in-person visits for incarcerated parents’ family relationships and parenting experience. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(2), 129–151.

Bernal

Jiménez-Chafey

M. I.

Domenech Rodríguez

M. M.

(2009). Cultural adaptation of treatments: A resource for considering culture in evidence-based practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 361–368.

Block

K. J.

Potthast

M. J.

(1998). Girl scouts beyond bars: Facilitating parent-child contact in correctional settings. Child Welfare, 77, 561–578.

Brodsky

A. E.

(1999). “Making it”: The components and process of resilience among urban, African American single mothers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 148–160.

10.

Burton

L. M.

(1990). Teenage childbearing as an alternative life-course strategy in multigenerational Black families. Human Nature, 1, 123–143.

11.

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.

12.

Casey-Acevedo

Bakken

(2002). Visiting women in prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(3), 67–83.

13.

Ceballo

Hurd

(2008). Neighborhood context, SES, and parenting: Including a focus on acculturation among Latina mothers. Applied Development Science, 12(4), 176–180.

14.

Coard

S. I.

Foy-Watson

Zimmer

Wallace

(2007). Considering culturally relevant parenting practices in intervention development and adaptation: A randomized controlled trial of the Black Parenting Strengths and Strategies (BPSS) program. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(6), 797–820.

15.

Department of Corrections. (2008). Inmate compensation policy (DC-ADM 816). Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections.

16.

Dyer

W. J.

(2005). Prison, fathers and identity: A theory of how incarceration affects men’s paternal identity. Fathering, 3(3), 201–219.

17.

Elder

G. H.

Nguyen

T. V.

Caspi

(1985). Linking family hardship to children’s lives. Child Development, 56, 361–375.

18.

Gilbert

Widom

C. S.

Fergusson

Webb

Janson

(2009). Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries. The Lancet, 373, 68–81.

19.

Henson

(2018). Strengthening evaluation research: A case study of an evaluability assessment conducted in a carceral setting. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(10), 3185–3200.

20.

Hildyard

K. L.

Wolfe

K. L.

(2002). Child neglect: Developmental issues and outcomes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 679–695.

21.

Hoffman

Byrd

A. L.

Kightlinger

A. M.

(2010). Prison programs and services for incarcerated parents and their underage children: Results from a National Survey of Correctional Facilities. The Prison Journal, 90(4), 397–416.

22.

Kawulich

B. B.

(2005, May). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2). https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.17169/fqs-6.2.466

23.

Kumpfer

K. L.

Alvarado

(2000). Family-strengthening approaches for the prevention of youth problem behaviors. The American Psychologist, 58(6–7), 457–465.

24.

Kumpfer

K. L.

Alvarado

Smith

Bellamy

(2002). Cultural sensitivity and adaptation in family-based prevention interventions. Prevention Science, 3, 241–246.

25.

LaRosa

Rank

(2001). Parenting education and incarcerated fathers. Journal of Family Social Work, 6(3), 15–33.

26.

Lewis

(2015). Incapacitated fatherhood: The impact of incarceration on African American fathers [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Loyola University Chicago.

27.

Loper

A. B.

Tuerk

E. H.

(2006). Parenting programs for incarcerated parents: Current research and future directions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(4), 407–427.

28.

Luby

Belden

Botteron

Marrus

Harms

M. P.

Babb

. . . Barch

(2013). The effects of poverty on childhood brain development: The mediating effect of caregiving and stressful life events. JAMA Pediatrics, 167, 1135–1142.

29.

Luthar

S. S.

(1994). Poverty and children’s adjustment. SAGE.

30.

Makariev

D. W.

Shaver

P. R.

(2010). Attachment, parental incarceration and possibility for intervention: An overview. Attachment & Human Development, 12(4), 311–331.

31.

McLeod

J. D.

Shanahan

M. J.

(1993). Poverty, parenting, and children’s mental health. American Sociological Review, 58(3), 351–366.

32.

McLoyd

V. C.

Jayaratne

T. E.

Ceballo

Borquez

(1994). Unemployment and work interruptions among African American single mothers: Effects on parenting and adolescent socio-emotional functioning. Child Development, 65, 562–589.

33.

Mejia

Leijten

Lachman

J. M.

Parra-Cardona

J. R.

(2017). Different strokes for different folks? Contrasting approaches to cultural adaptation of parenting interventions. Prevention Science, 18, 630–639.

34.

Miller

(2006). The impact of parental incarceration on children: An emerging need for effective interventions. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(4), 472–486.

35.

Morris

A. S.

Robinson

L. R.

Hays-Grudo

Claussen

A. H.

Hartwig

S. A.

Treat

A. E.

(2017). Targeting parenting in early childhood: A public health approach to improve outcomes for children living in poverty. Child Development, 88(2), 388–397.

36.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

(2005). Parental imprisonment: Effects on boys’ antisocial behaviour and delinquency through the life-course. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(12), 1269–1278.

37.

National Resource Center on Children of the Incarcerated. (2014). Children and families of the incarcerated fact sheet. nrccfi.camden.rutgers.edu/files/nrccfi-fact-sheet-2014.pdf

38.

Newman

Fowler

Cashin

(2011). The development of a parenting program for incarcerated mothers in Australia: A review of prison-based parenting programs. Contemporary Nurse, 39(1), 2–11.

39.

Norman

R. E.

Byambaa

Butchart

Scott

Vos

(2012). The long-term health consequences of child physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS Medicine, 9(11), Article e1001349.

40.

Odgers

C. L.

Caspi

Russell

M. A.

Sampson

R. J.

Arseneault

Moffit

T. E.

(2012). Supportive parenting mediates neighborhood socioeconomic disparities in children’s antisocial behavior from ages 5 to 12. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 705–721.

41.

Ogbu

J. U.

(1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child Development, 52, 413–429.

42.

Pinderhughes

E. E.

Nix

Foster

E. M.

Jones

(2001). Parenting in context: Impact of neighborhood poverty, residential stability, public services, social networks, and danger on parental behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(4), 941–953.

43.

Poehlmann

Dallaire

Loper

A. B.

Shear

L. D.

(2010). Children’s contact with their incarcerated parent: Research findings and recommendations. American Psychologist Association, 65(6), 575–598.

44.

Purvis

(2013). Paternal incarceration and parenting programs in prison: A review paper. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(1), 9–28.

45.

Rabuy

Kopf

(2015, October 20). Separation by Bars and Miles: Visitation in state prisons [Press release]. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/prisonvisits.html#fnref:9

46.

Rios

(2011). Punished: Policing the lives of Black and Latino boys. NYU Press.

47.

Roberts

D. E.

(2003). The social and moral cost of mass incarceration in African American communities. Stanford Law Review, 56, 1271–1305.

48.

Roy

K. M.

Dyson

(2010). Making daddies into fathers: Community-based fatherhood programs and the construction of masculinities for low-income African American men. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 139–154.

49.

Thornberg

Charmaz

(2014). Grounded theory and theoretical coding. In Flick

(Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp.153–169). Sage.

50.

Tonry

Melewski

(2008). The malign effects of drug and crime control policies on Black Americans. Crime and Justice, 37(1), 1–44.

51.

Travis

Cincotta

McBride Solomon

A. L.

(2005). Families left behind: The hidden costs of incarceration and reentry. Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?id=310882

52.

Tripp

(2001). Incarcerated African American fathers: Exploring changes in family relationships and the father identity. Journal of African American Men, 6(1), 13–29.

53.

Troy

McPherson

K. E.

Emslie

Gilchristt

(2018). The feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness, and effectiveness of parenting and family support programs delivered in the criminal justice system: A systematic review. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27, 1732–1747.

54.

vanMourik

Crone

M. R.

de Wolff

M. S.

Reis

(2017). Parent training programs for ethnic minorities: A meta-analysis of adaptations and effect. Prevention Science, 18, 95–105.

55.

Visher

C. A.

Bakken

N. W.

Gunter

W. D.

(2013). Fatherhood, community reintegration, and successful outcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52(7), 451–469.

56.

Wakefield

Wildeman

(2014). Children of the prison boom: Mass incarceration and the future of American inequality. Oxford University Press.

57.

Wilson

Gonzalez

Romero

Henry

Cerbana

(2010). The effectiveness of parent education for incarcerated parents: An evaluation of parenting from prison. Journal of Correctional Education, 61(2), 114–132.

58.

Yasui

Dishion

T. J.

(2007). The ethnic context of child and adolescent problem behavior: Implications for child and family interventions. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 10(2), 137–179.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB