Did We Forget Something? Fathering Supports and Programs in Prisons in Victoria,Australia

Abstract

This article draws from data gathered for an Australian Research Council–funded study conducted in Victoria and New South Wales between 2011 and 2015, which examined how dependent children are responded to when their primary carer is imprisoned. In particular, this article specifically addresses a gap in knowledge by examining the current state of fathering programs in prison in Victoria. To do so, the views of 39 primary carer fathers incarcerated in Victoria are analysed. We argue that there is a distinct lack of support for fathers in prison, acting as a barrier towards maintaining father–child relationships. Findings indicate that 79% of the fathers in this study were never offered any parenting support services or programs. By clearly highlighting the state of fathering programs in prisons in Victoria, this article offers suggestions as to how best to facilitate the connection between incarcerated fathers and their children.

Keywords

fathering imprisonment programs children of prisoners support

Introduction

This article aims to provide insight into primary carer fathering by exploring formal fathering supports in prison in Victoria, Australia. We do so by exploring the following research question:

Research Question 1: How do primary carer fathers experience formal fathering supports and programs from inside the prison?

Given the lack of research in this area “experiences” comprise of subsidiary topics including access to programs, the nature and extent of support offered and accessed, and what was needed. We have drawn on research relating to formal supports for incarcerated fathers, and incarcerated parents more generally, to inform and support our discussion.

It is well established that the majority of prisoners are men (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014) and around 50% of these men are parents (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2015; Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). From a Victorian context, in 2014, when the current study was conducted, Corrections Victoria (CV) statistics obtained by the Criminal Justice Research Consortium (Trotter et al., 2015) indicated that around 11% of the 5,706 men (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2014) at reception into prison (from 2013 to 2014) were primary carers of children prior to imprisonment. This is approximately 630 men.¹ Yet very little attention has been paid to this group.

Research on father–child relationships from a child development perspective (Milligan & Dowie, 1998) has pointed to the distinctly unique connection between fathers and their children. As noted in Tasca (2018), assuming that this relationship has not been a damaging one for the child, this relationship is just as important to a child’s development when their father is imprisoned. In fact, the effects of this are even more heightened. Research from a study of 3,000 U.S. children indicates that, depending on how the relationship was before incarceration, the psychological, social, and economic effects of paternal incarceration on children are even stronger than for children dealing with other forms of father absence (Geller, Cooper, Garfinkel, Schwartz-Soicher, & Mincy, 2012, p. 65). Furthermore, there is longstanding international evidence of the negative mental health, behavioural, financial, and educational consequences that follow paternal incarceration for children (Geller, 2013; Geller et al., 2012; Hagan & Foster, 2012). This suggests that incarcerated fathers and their children require even more attention and support (Geller et al., 2012).

Despite evidence highlighting the effects of paternal incarceration on children, formal mechanisms for children of incarcerated fathers in Victoria are minimal. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 2008 (UNCROC) provides a specific set of principles outlining the protection of children, including children who are vulnerable due to their circumstances (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights [OHCHR], 2008). It states that “State Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents” to provide appropriate guidance in the rights of the child (OHCHR, 2008, Article 5). Furthermore, when a child is separated from one or both of their parents, the State shall respect the right of the child to “maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interest” (OHCHR, 2008, Article 9). Yet these principles are nonenforceable. As well as this, the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (hereafter referred to as the Charter) reinforces the right to the protection of the family as “a fundamental group unit of society” (Charter 2006 (Vic), s. 17). While these obligations were recognised as relevant in the development of the Mothers and Children Program in a women’s prison in Victoria, where children reside in a unit with their mother (Trotter et al., 2015), there does not seem to be any influence of these legislation on programs or supports for incarcerated fathers and their children. This study draws attention to this oversight by exploring the current state of formal supports offered to incarcerated primary carer fathers in Victoria.

Research on formal fathering supports provides snapshots of data relating to the delivery and effectiveness of a variety of programs, services, and supports (Buston, 2018; LaRosa & Rank, 2001). Formal supports for incarcerated fathers range from those in which no face-to-face contact takes place, such as Storybook Dads in the United Kingdom (Storybook Dads, n.d.) and Read Along Dads in Australia, to more immersive programs with entire units dedicated to fathering (Clancy & Maguire, 2017). A more substantial body of literature exists relating to contact between fathers and children by way of visiting, telephone conversations, and letter writing (Bartlett & Eriksson, 2018; Dennison, Smallbone, Stewart, Freiberg, & Teague, 2014). Importantly, research relating to maintaining father–child connections from prison does not relate to incarcerated fathers who were primary carers of their children prior to entering prison, notwithstanding recent research from Victoria (Bartlett & Eriksson, 2018; Bartlett, Flynn & Trotter, 2018). This study aims to address this gap.

The rest of the article is organised as follows: We explore relevant literature, providing an overview of incarcerated fathers and their children to ground the discussion, before moving onto research relating to formal fathering supports drawn from the United Kingdom, the United States, some Scandinavian countries, and Australia. The methodology used for our study is then provided before moving onto an overview of our findings using the categories identified above. Last, we conclude with the implications of our work.

Review of the Literature

Below is a review of the literature grouped into categories based on how formal support is delivered. These fall under Educational Fathering Programs (EFP), formal fathering/contact support (supported contact and family days), and fathering units. The term “supported contact” incorporates a range of services but should be distinguished from contact such as visiting, telephone contact, and letter writing in which no education, agency, or external organisation is involved. There are clearly overlaps between categories; however, we have grouped them this way to illustrate the difference in how these are structured and delivered to fathers in prison.

EFP

Evidence relating to EFP indicates programs range in length, and number of participants, and content differs between prisons (and does not always include face-to-face contact between fathers and children) (Block et al., 2014). In the United Kingdom, research illustrates that content works when it is tailored to the needs of the group (Meek, 2007) and relationships and facilitator skills are thus crucial in the successful delivery of these programs (Buston, 2018). Research from U.K. and U.S. programs also reveal EFP help support father–child relationships as they improve attitudes about child rearing (Harrison, 1997; LaRosa & Rank, 2001); improve fathering skills and child care issues for young fathers (Meek, 2007); and are linked to decreased offending post-release (Burraston & Eddy, 2017). Last, EFP give fathers the opportunity to discuss parenting and nurture the fathering role in a space that encourages this (Meek & Baumer, 2016).

In an Australian context, there is very little formal data on EFP and although some EFP have been delivered (see Rossiter et al., 2017) very few fathers have accessed these programs (Dennison et al., 2014; Trotter et al., 2015). In Victoria, only a small number of EFP have been adopted in the last 5 years and most information about the programs is of a low research quality and comes from government or organisation websites (CV, 2017; Victoria State Government, 2017; Victorian Ombudsman, 2015). In the last year (and since the data were collected) anecdotal evidence suggests that three additional fathering programs have commenced (two in private prisons). However, there is no formal evidence of this and publicly available data do not provide this information, meaning the exact number of fathering programs in prisons is unknown. Even though the latest figures indicate around 6,644 men are incarcerated in Victoria (ABS, 2017) and (using the 11% estimation) around 730 of these men were primary carers prior to imprisonment, there appears to be a distinct lack of research and practice about EFP and consequently a lack of in-depth understanding of what works.

Formal fathering/contact support

While not the focus of our study, it is worth noting the importance of visiting, letter writing, and telephone contact for incarcerated fathers as for some this is the only form of contact with their children (Clarke et al., 2005; Dennison et al., 2014). Research shows that visiting presents numerous challenges including distance between the prison and the home, poor quality visits (Bartlett & Eriksson, 2018; Dennison, Stewart, & Freiberg, 2013), the high cost of travel, and problems accessing accommodation when visiting (Dennison et al., 2014; Pierce, 2015). These issues may then contribute to the loss of a consistent relationship between father and child(ren) (Geller, 2013; Sharp, Marcus-Mendoza, Bentley, Simpson, & Love, 1998).

Yet there are indeed benefits to maintaining ties for fathers and children. For fathers, maintaining contact allows them to provide emotional support to their children (Clarke et al., 2005), helps them feel appreciated and closer to their children (Arditti, Smock, & Parkman, 2005; Day, Acock, Bahr, & Arditti, 2005), and contributes to positive parenting (Visher, 2013), ongoing involvement (Roettger & Swisher, 2013), and reduced reoffending post-release (May, Sharma, & Stewart, 2008). For children, maintaining contact with their father, even through noncontact channels, reminds them that their father continues to think about them (Boswell, 2002). Furthermore, being incarcerated may in fact open up opportunities for more contact between fathers and children who come together during this time (Tasca, 2018). As there exists a body of knowledge relating to these forms of contact, we now turn our attention to other forms of supported contact for incarcerated fathers and their children.

One U.K.-supported contact program for fathers is Storybook Dads (n.d.). This service is offered throughout the United Kingdom and involves a father reading along to a book and recording his voice. The book and CD are then sent to the child who can read along to the book while listening to their father’s voice. In Victoria, Read Along Dads (based on Storybook Dads) is delivered in one correctional facility (Delahunty, 2017). As well as Read Along Dads, SHINE for Kids (2017) offers the Invisit’s Program. This is a colourful visiting space inside the prison that is family friendly with art and creative activities for parents and children. Despite these services being offered, lack of data conceals any potential benefits for incarcerated fathers and their children.

Previous research points to the importance of family days/extended visits in supporting the maintenance of father–child relationships from prison (Hansen, 2017). In Norway, the “Fathers in Prison” program utilises family days and data indicate that those who completed the program felt a conflict between their criminal and fathering identity (Hansen, 2017). Family quarters are also offered in some Norwegian prisons where inmates and families stay for short periods (usually 24-48 hr). In the United States, a similar initiative was adopted in some male prisons with family trailer visits that last between 6 and 24 hr (Pierce, 2015). These visits allow fathers and children to connect and be “natural . . . in a very unnatural environment” (Pierce, 2015, p. 384). In Victoria, lack of formal data means very little is known about family days and how these work in practice.

Fathering units

One initiative outside Australia that has attempted to challenge the masculinity narratives inside male prisons is fathering units. These residential units, such as those implemented as part of the Families Matter program in Northern Ireland (Butler, Hayes, Devaney, & Percy, 2015) and Invisible Walls Wales (Clancy & Maguire, 2017), range from approximately 17 weeks to 12 months with inter alia classes, activities, family visits, and family-focused support. Once again, relationships between facilitators, staff, and participants are crucial in the long-term effectiveness (Clancy & Maguire, 2017). Likewise, having prison authorities and management on board is crucial in longevity and ongoing effectiveness (Hayes, Butler, Devaney, & Percy, 2018).

Although prisons do little to encourage the caring attributes that come with fathering (Bartlett & Eriksson, 2018), living with other fathers combats the need to withstand a masculine image, thus enabling men to focus on fathering (Nurse, 2002). Pierce, 2015). For young offenders in the United States, housing fathers together had a motivational impact and allowed fathers to use other fathers as a source of strength (Nurse, 2002). Similarly in Northern Ireland, an evaluation of the Families Matter program found that it helped fathers shift their awareness away from themselves and towards their children (Butler et al., 2015). This contributed to a “less macho” environment which consequently allowed them to focus on families (Butler et al., 2015, p. 11). Last, findings from Invisible Walls Wales showed participants had improvements in several risk factors related to reoffending (Clancy & Maguire, 2017). Therefore, even in relation to risk management, where the focus is on criminogenic needs (and problems that relate to reoffending), family remains a central part of the process (Andrews & Bonta, 2006).

Table 1 displays the supports offered to incarcerated fathers categorised thus far using publicly available data.

Table 1.

Support Services for Incarcerated Fathers in Victoria, Australia.

Type of support	Name of support offered (VIC)	Contact with child (VIC)
EFP	Inside/Outside Parenting Program	None
Supported contact	Christmas and Birthday presents for children	None
	Video Visits	Face to face over video.
	Letter writing	None
	Telephone “visits”	None
	Visits	Contact ranges from around 1 hr (noncontact) once a week (maximum security) to 5.5 hr (minimum security)
	Read Along Dads	None
	SHINE: Invisit’s program	2 hr
Family days	Closer Families	A full day surveilled
Fathering units	Not available in Australia	N/A

Note. EFP = Educational Fathering Programs.

Data indicate a sporadic array of support programs for incarcerated fathers. Research and/or evaluations tend to rely on data from participants who are self-referred or seek out the program (Meek, 2007), who are motivated to change (Harrison, 1997), or those who have just completed the program and are therefore more likely to benefit. Research also tends to use small samples of fathers (Pierce, 2015) and includes evaluations that are generally not longitudinal in nature (Butler et al., 2015). This limits the ability to generalise outcomes. On the contrary, the data do provide some insight into what works with regard to practice while highlighting gaps. It also shows the importance of individual agency in self-referred fathering programs as it displays a willingness of attendees to want to see different outcomes (Bartlett, 2018; Pierce, 2015). The current study aims to provide further insight in this area by examining the current state of fathering supports that are offered to incarcerated primary carer fathers in Victoria, Australia.

Method

Data were collected from 39 primary carer fathers incarcerated in Victoria, Australia, between May 2012 and October 2013. Data were originally collected as part of an Australian Research Council (ARC)–funded linkage project² conducted in New South Wales and Victoria that sought to examine care planning practices for children when their primary carer parent is incarcerated. Here, primary carer is defined using three criteria based on their circumstances: child(ren) required a new carer (relative, friend, or associate) to take over their care at home when their father was imprisoned; child(ren) needed to move house to be cared for by a different carer; or child(ren) had no carer.

Recruitment

Data were collected from a representation of maximum, medium, and minimum security prisons in Victoria by the lead author using a stratified purposive approach (Patton, 2002). Prisons were selected based on their security rating and the estimated number of parents; numbers drawn from unpublished CV data. Two prisons were excluded as the nature of the offences (specifically, sex offences) committed by a large portion of prisoners prevented any follow-up with family members (for the ARC linkage study). Three settings were included in the final data collection process (n = 9, n = 14, and n = 16). Flyer distribution in the prison and communication with prison staff were initially used as a recruitment strategy, yielding 23 participants. Group information sessions were then employed with prisoner peer educators to distribute knowledge first-hand. A further 16 participants were recruited using this method. While the sample size of 39 is relatively small, it does contribute to a better understanding of an invisible group.

Data Collection

A multimethod approach was taken with structured interviews providing both qualitative and quantitative data. This approach is useful in the examination of sensitive research and when examining emerging areas of study (Liamputtong, 2007). Interviews were conducted face to face with participants inside the prison and security constraints meant audio recording was not permitted. As such, note taking was used to record data. The sensitivity of this research is witnessed in its ethical oversight, with five Human Research Ethics Committees (HREC) and Research Coordinating Committees (RCC) reviewing and approving the project in Victoria. Qualitative data were initially coded using content analysis in NVivo11. Content was then analysed using inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) where latent themes were identified, such as “being offered” or “accessing,” fathering supports in prison.

Sample

This article includes interviews with 39 primary carer fathers incarcerated for at least three months in Victoria. The average age of the sample was 39 years and fathers had on average three children and were primary carers of 96 children in total. After their father’s imprisonment, children primarily lived with the other parent or with their father’s current or ex-partner (45%), with some children living with their grandparents (23%) or with other family members (12%), and a small number of children placed in foster care (7%). Overall, 85% of the sample were born in Australia and 18% were Indigenous.

Interviews

The interview schedule included questions relating to arrest, sentencing, imprisonment, and release, and the questions used in this article are relating to parenting support programs in prisons. These included, for example, “What supports/services have you been offered during imprisonment to support your parenting of your children?” and “What contact have you had with your children?” along with the final question asked at the end of the interview “Do you have any final comments? Anything you would like to say or feel we may have missed?” Data are presented below.

Results

The Absence of Fathering Support in Prison

Participants were asked “What supports or services have you been offered during imprisonment to support your parenting of your children?” Figure 1 shows the number of primary carer fathers who were/not offered and/or did/not access parenting supports or services in prison. “Other” indicates the two participants who did not state whether they had been offered or accessed a program.

Figure 1.

Number of fathers who were/not offered and did/not access parenting supports or services in prison.

At the time of their imprisonment, 79% of the 39 fathers in our study (n = 31) were not offered any parenting supports in prison. Furthermore, 28 of these fathers (72%) did not access any supports or services. The differentiation between offered and accessed was made as results indicated that there were three fathers (8%) who, while not offered any supports by prison staff or management, had sought them out of their own accord and accessed these services.

For the 28 fathers who were not offered and did not access any programs, some responses indicate that although participants new of a fathering program, other than that there was very little:

They do a parenting program, you’ve got to put in for it, apart from that there’s pretty much nothing. (“Dave,” Minimum Security Prison)

None. I think there’s a parenting program . . . (“Geoff,” Minimum Security Prison)

Nothing. What?!! (laughs) . . . We don’t get any help like that. (“William,” Minimum Security Prison)

For several participants, while they had not been offered any fathering support, they also reported that they did not need the help:

Don’t think anything’s really been offered but at the same time I’ve never really sought assistance. Any help I’ve needed I’ve asked friends and family to help out there. (“Frank,” Maximum Security Prison)

None. There are things in jail, but I don’t need the help. (“Mick,” Medium Security Prison)

Two participants who had not been offered any support noted that they enquired about parenting programs. One of these participants, along with another, mentioned that prisoners were more likely to be offered methadone than parenting support:

I’ve chased up a parenting course at another jail. I’m an essential worker here . . . so they’ll be moving me to [a medium security prison] where there’s a parenting course. (“Ron,” Maximum Security Prison)

None, I have asked and enquired. When I stopped seeing the kids I pushed for it, because it will just fade away and it does. My older kids might think I’ve abandoned them, but I’ve made them portraits and jewellery boxes and they haven’t given it to them . . . Tried to give me methadone when I wasn’t supposed to have it. (“Nev,” Medium Security Prison)

Nothing. Jails more interested in handing out methadone programs than childcare programs. (“Steve,” Medium Security Prison)

Participant responses therefore highlight the absence of fathering support available in prisons and the gap that exists for these fathers who are trying to maintain contact with their children.

As mentioned above, of the 31 (79%) participants who were not offered any parenting supports, three (8%) of these sought out support themselves:

Here plenty [of programs], anywhere else—nothing . . . Visiting is good . . . Christmas party was excellent. (“Reggie,” Minimum Security Prison)

Read Along Dads—done that a few times . . . Bit distant, but they know that Dad loves them and cares. Do lots of paintings—Aboriginal art and stuff. [There are no services]—But there should be because they make a lot of money from us. (“Tom,” Medium Security Prison)

While fathers have accessed these supports, their responses indicate that primary carer fathers are being offered very few fathering supports in prison and even when they do access programs, these are not intensive.

Current Fathering Supports Offered in Prison

A small group of seven fathers (18%) were offered parenting supports or services by prison staff. Yet only four of these (10%) had actually accessed these supports:

Salvation Army do the Christmas thing and send kid’s presents and birthday cards—they were happy with that. Pretty much the only thing that goes on in prison. (“Don,” Maximum Security Prison)

Couple at [a medium security prison]: Parenting program [family day]: come once a month on a Wednesday just you and kids and you can do face painting or whatever. And Storybook Dads [sic]. (“Richard,” Maximum Security Prison)

Inside/Outside Dad’s program [EFP] was really good. Mind Matters or another one … which is ways of dealing with things when you’re out. Give different scenarios and how to deal with them, not directly about parenting but could help with that. (“Greg,” Minimum Security Prison)

At the [remand prison], Salvation Army had Christmas presents, so that was really good. Heard about Read to Your Kids [sic], but didn’t do it. (“Matt,” Maximum Security Prison)

While these participants’ spoke about fathering supports, half of these did not involve an educational or face-to-face element and were instead services that provided (much needed) assistance to children by way of Christmas and birthday presents and noncontact support.

Table 2 shows the number of times fathers were offered, and accessed, specific supports. EFP were accessed by two participants (5%), formal fathering contact support (including Salvation Army services for children, Video Visits, Read Along Dads, and SHINE) were accessed by four participants (10%), and family days were accessed by one participant (3%). Overall, seven participants (18%) accessed all fathering supports and seven were offered all of these forms of supports by prison management or staff (18%) and as noted above, four of these participants had both been offered, and accessed, a support.

Table 2.

Support programs and services offered and accessed by primary carer fathers in Victoria.

Type of support	Name of support	Number of fathers offered this support	%	Number of fathers who accessed this support	%
EFP	Inside/Outside	1	3	2	5
Supported contact	Christmas and birthday presents for children	2	5	2	5
	Video Visits	1	3	0	0
	Read Along Dads	1	3	2	5
	SHINE: Invisit’s program	0	0	0	0
Family days	Closer Families	2	5	1	3
Total		7	18	7	18

Note. EFP = Educational Fathering Programs.

It is also worth noting that with regard to other forms of contact, such as letter writing, visiting, and telephone contact, the majority of participants reported having some form of contact. For instance, 30 fathers (77%) reported having at least one visit with their child(ren), 32 fathers (82%) reported having at least one telephone conversation with their child(ren), and six fathers (15%) reported having written or received one letter from their child(ren). There were also those participants who reported that due to circumstances beyond their control, such as being moved to a different prison, or conflict with an ex-partner, contact had ceased. Given this article is discussing formal fathering and supported contact, these are not discussed in more detail; however, Bartlett and Eriksson (2018) provide a more in-depth examination of visiting for primary carer fathers in prison.

Finally, although seven fathers in total were offered parenting supports or services, two fathers were yet to access these and, again, one father expressed surprise at the question:

[Laughs] . . . You’re joking aren’t ya?! VACRO said they would set up a video visit and help with accommodation and travel expenses and then I was transferred up here and haven’t got anything since then. (“Jim,” Minimum Security Prison)

Nothing except Closer Families program [family days]. I’m looking into it, not allowed to have my partner there which makes it difficult—if she’s travelling far she has to make herself scarce for X amount of hours. Would be much better if it was kids and partner. (“Jeff,” Medium Security Prison)

Even when participants are aware of fathering supports, they are presented with challenges when attempting to access these, such as being transferred to another prison or practicalities involving travel and rules relating to specific programs.

The Potential for Fathering Supports in Prison

Data indicate that there are clearly not enough fathering supports offered in prisons. Given there was such a lack of fathering supports in prison, fathers talked about the absence of programs and the potential for supports that would help them stay connected to their children. When fathers were given the opportunity to provide any further comments, many of the men mentioned needing more support to maintain connections with their children; an issue raised of their own volition.

Fathers indicated that the prisons needed fathering programs and services specifically for fathers and their children:

Think there should be more supports systems in place. Also should make a link up with children. Some dads don’t know how to express themselves (to read and write), could have classes for expressing themselves . . . This is a working prison, should be working towards parenting and family. Building blocks for life. (“Tom,” Medium Security Prison)

There should be services for parents with children or some kind of program in place—at least phone call or phone call program (between parents and children). (“Josh,” Maximum Security Prison)

There’s not enough support . . . [Have an] information pack available showing what is available for kids without me being there—what can they do? Because I don’t know. Even a parenting program at [a prison]—they have the space for it. (“Richard,” Maximum Security Prison)

While one father reported that specialised days would be beneficial:

Maybe more projects where kids can interact with fathers—specialised days. (“Ron,” Maximum Security Prison)

These findings highlight both the absence of, and potential for, fathering supports in prison.

Fathers also spoke of wanting to connect with their children in fathering units or dedicated spaces for children and family:

If you’ve got a wife then you could have a unit with your wife; open. You go in there and you do programs—anger resolution—same as women. In units where kids can go. (“Tom,” Medium Security prison)

Hoping that men can have kids in prison . . . They have the mental health unit and the other [special] units, they can do that with parents. I mean, fathers with their children is a totally different connection than those who don’t have children. (“Adrian,” Maximum Security Prison)

While fathering units have not been trialled in Australia, responses indicate that fathers are looking for ways to maintain father–child relationships from prison and they are open to being supported in a way that is immersive and engaging with children.

Discussion

There remain a considerable number of men in prison with children and as our research highlights, for primary carer fathers who are looking after their children prior to incarceration, once inside there is an absence of support to maintain father–child relationships. While a very basic level of fathering supports exist in prisons in Victoria, lack of formal data relating to the existence and impact of these programs, coupled with the small number of fathers in our study who had actually taken part in any supports, means there remains a significant gap in knowledge about what actually works in practice. Our findings indicate quite clearly that there is an absence of fathering support, a factor compounded by the many hindrances present, both from a practical and research-centred standpoint.

Prisons in Victoria currently offer transient, sporadic, and often times “distant” formal support services for fathers with no face-to-face contact involved. As noted, latest numbers indicate around 6,644 men are incarcerated in Victoria (ABS, 2017) and around 730 are primary carer fathers (using the 11% approximation). Yet findings indicate 79% of fathers in our study were not offered any fathering support. This, no doubt influences father–child relationships from prison. While we recognise our study is a relatively small group of men, given the nature of participants’ responses it does shed light on the absence of available supports for this often-overlooked group. Overall, our findings support previous research which shows formal supports that are offered are not very hands on and are not conducive to active engagement with children (Bartlett & Eriksson, 2018). Rather than providing intensive or immersive time between fathers and children, data point to the lack of face-to-face programs for fathers and children. While some fathers did access EFP, supports tended to be informal and thus failed to provide in-depth engagement between fathers and children.

Fathers in our study were typically unaware of any fathering supports in prison. This suggests that fathering is not a central component of program delivery in Victorian prisons. The literature review highlighted creative innovations such as those being implemented in Wales (Clancy & Maguire, 2017) and Northern Ireland (Butler et al., 2015) which provide an immersive experience and give fathers the opportunity to focus on fatherhood while addressing inter alia key risk factors associated with leaving prison. Fathers in our study signalled that programs like this would be of benefit along with fathering units or places to have extended time with their children to help maintain ongoing connections. While this may not be a viable option in all prisons due to security and managerial functions of the system, by extending already existing fathering programs in minimum to medium security correctional facilities these programs could offer, as one of our participants stated, “building blocks for life,” as it would allow fathers to be in the role of father; being natural “in a very unnatural environment” (Pierce, 2015, p. 384). This clearly requires the commitment of management and staff (Clancy & Maguire, 2017). Programs such as these would go some way towards addressing key criminogenic needs while allowing fathers to focus on fatherhood and their concomitant fathering identity.

Despite over 80% of fathers having some contact (in this case a phone call) with their children since their incarceration, there is very little by way of formal fathering support in prisons. Yet for primary carer fathers in prison, there is a need to engage, connect, and have support for their children and to work on fathering while incarcerated. Given the UNCROC includes provisions outlining the rights and duties of parents to provide guidance to children when it is in the best interests of the child (OHCHR, 2008) and the Charter includes obligations relating directly to the protection of family as “a fundamental group,” making formal fathering supports, and not just the occasional visit and phone call, a central facet of the prison experience would be a step forward in maintaining father–child connections.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted with the support of key partner organisations: Department of Justice and Regulation (DOJR), Victoria; Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Victoria; Commission for Children and Young People (CCYP); Victorian Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (VACRO); Prison Fellowship (PF) and SHINE for Kids (SHINE). Feedback on earlier drafts of this paper was gratefully received from Victoria Police.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Australian Research Council under grant number LP110100084.

ORCID iDs

Tess S. Bartlett

Christopher J. Trotter

Notes

References

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2006). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing.

Arditti

J. A.

Smock

S. A.

Parkman

T. S.

(2005) “It’s been hard to be a father”: a qualitative exploration of incarcerated fatherhood. Fathering 3(3), 267-288.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2014). Prisoners in Australia, 2014 (No. 4517.0). Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4517.02014?OpenDocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). Prisoners in Australia, 2017 (No. 4517.0). Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4517.0

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2015). The health of Australia’s prisoners 2015 (Report No. PHE 170). Canberra, Australia: Author.

Bartlett

(2018). Supporting incarcerated fathers. An exploration of research and practice in Victoria, Australia. Probation Journal. doi:10.1177/0264550518820115

Bartlett

Eriksson

(2018). How fathers construct and perform masculinity in a liminal prison space. Punishment and Society. doi:10.1177/1462474518757092

Bartlett

Flynn

Trotter

(2018). “They didn’t even let me say goodbye”: A study of imprisoned primary carer fathers’ care planning for children at the point of arrest in Victoria, Australia. Child Care in Practice, 24(2), 116-130.

Block

Brown

C. A.

Barretti

L. M.

Walker

Yudt

Fretz

(2014). A mixed-method assessment of a parenting program for incarcerated fathers. The Journal of Correctional Education, 65(1), 50-67.

10.

Boswell

(2002). ‘Imprisoned fathers: The children’s view’. The Howard Journal, 41(1), 14-26.

11.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.

12.

Burraston

Eddy

(2017). The moderating effect of living with a child before incarceration on postrelease outcomes related to a prison-based parent management training program. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 87, 94-111.

13.

Buston

(2018). Recruiting, retaining and engaging men in social interventions: Lessons for implementation focusing on a prison-based parenting intervention for young incarcerated fathers. Child Care in Practice, 24, 164-180.

14.

Butler

Hayes

Devaney

Percy

(2015). Strengthening family relations? Review of the families matter programme at maghaberry prison (Report). Belfast: Barnardo’s Northern Ireland.

15.

The Charter for Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).

16.

Clancy

Maguire

(2017). Prisoners’ children and families: Can the walls be “invisible”? Evaluation of Invisible Walls Wales (Report). South Wales: University of Wales.

17.

Clarke

O’Brien

Day

R. D.

Godwin

Connolly

Hemmings

Leeson

T. V.

(2005). Fathering behind bars in English prisons: Imprisoned fathers’ identity and contact with their children. Fathering, 3(3), 221-241.

18.

Corrections Victoria. (2017). Programs. Retrieved from http://www.corrections.vic.gov.au/home/prison/programs/

19.

Day

Acock

Bahr

Arditti

(2005). Incarcerated fathers returning home to children and families: Introduction to the special issue and a primer on doing research with men in prison. Fathering, 3(3), 183-200.

20.

Delahunty

(2017, April 28). The programs helping jailed dads start a new chapter. Herald Sun. Retrieved from http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/the-programs-helping-jailed-dads-start-a-new-chapter/news-story/7582b5bf78c965f31697f56f02ec116a

21.

Dennison

Smallbone

Stewart

Freiberg

Teague

(2014). “My life is separated”: An examination of the challenges and barriers to parenting for Indigenous fathers in prison. British Journal of Criminology, 54, 1089-1108.

22.

Dennison

Stewart

Freiberg

(2013). A prevalence study of children with imprisoned fathers: Annual and lifetime estimates. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 48, 339-362.

23.

Geller

(2013). Paternal incarceration and father-child contact in fragile families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 1288-1303.

24.

Geller

Cooper

C. E.

Garfinkel

Schwartz-Soicher

Mincy

R. B.

(2012). Beyond absenteeism: Father incarceration and child development. Demography, 49, 49-76.

25.

Glaze

L. E.

Kaeble

(2014). Correctional populations in the United States, 2013 (Report No. NCJ 248479). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

26.

Glaze

L. E.

Maruschak

L. M.

(2008). Parents in prison and their minor children (Report No. NCJ 222984). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

27.

Hagan

Foster

(2012). Intergenerational educational effects of mass imprisonment in America. Sociology of Education, 85, 259-286.

28.

Hansen

G. V.

(2017). “Fathers in Prison” program may create a basis for desistance among Norwegian prisoners. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 66, 173-187.

29.

Harrison

(1997). Parental training for incarcerated fathers: Effects on attitudes, self esteem, and children’s perceptions. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 588-591.

30.

Hayes

Butler

Devaney

Percy

(2018). Allowing imprisoned fathers to parent: Maximising the potential benefits of prison based parenting programmes. Child Care in Practice, 24, 181-197.

31.

LaRosa

J. J.

Rank

M. G.

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

32.

Liamputtong

(2007). Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. London, England: Sage.

33.

May

Sharma

Stewart

(2008). Factors linked to reoffending: A one-year follow-up of prisoners who took part in the Resettlement Surveys 2001, 2003, 2004. London, England: Ministry of Justice.

34.

Meek

(2007). Parenting education for young fathers in prison. Child and Family Social Work, 12, 239-247.

35.

Meek

Baumer

(2016). Safe ground-father figures program: Final report. London: Royal Holloway University of London.

36.

Milligan

Dowie

(1998). What do children need from their fathers? Edinburgh, Scotland: Centre for Theology and Public Issues.

37.

Nurse

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

38.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2008). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC). Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

39.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

40.

Pierce

M. B.

(2015). Male inmate perceptions of the visitation experience: Suggestions on how prisons can promote inmate-family relationships. The Prison Journal, 95, 370-396.

41.

Roettger

Swisher

(2013). Incarcerated fathers: implications for father involvement. In Pattnaik

(Ed.), Father Involvement in Young Children’s Lives (pp. 107-122). New York: Springer.

42.

Rossiter

Power

Fowler

Jackson

Roche

Dawson

(2017). “Learning to become a better man”: Insights from a fathering programme for incarcerated Indigenous men. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 52, 13-31.

43.

Sharp

Marcus-Mendoza

Bentley

Simpson

Love

(1998). Gender Differences in the Impact of Incarceration on the Children and Families of Drug Offenders. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, 4.

44.

SHINE for Kids. (2017). Prison invisits program. Retrieved from http://shineforkids.org.au/prison-invisits-program/

45.

Storybook Dads. (n.d.). Welcome to Storybook Dads. Retrieved from http://www.storybookdads.org.uk/index.html

46.

Tasca

(2018). The (dis)continuity of parenthood among incarcerated fathers: An analysis of caregivers’ accounts. Child Care in Practice, 24, 131-147.

47.

Trotter

Flynn

Naylor

Collier

Baker

McCauley

Eriksson

(2015). The impact of incarceration on children’s care: A strategic framework for good care planning. Melbourne: Monash University.

48.

Victoria State Government. (2017, March 16). More support for Aboriginal Prisoners [Media release]. Retrieved from https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-More-Support-For-Aboriginal-Prisoners-1.pdf

49.

Victorian Ombudsman. (2015). Investigation into the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners in Victoria. Melbourne, Australia: Author.

50.

Visher

(2013). Incarcerated fathers: Pathways from prison to home. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(1), 9-26.