Community Reintegration Among Prisoners With Child Support Obligations: An Examination of Debt,Needs,and Service Receipt

Abstract

In line with emerging work on the role of fatherhood in prisoner reentry, this study directs attention to the financial obligations that connect fathers to their families in reentry. Specifically, the study provides a descriptive picture of soon-to-be-released male state prisoners with child support obligations using a multi-state, longitudinal dataset, and examines whether characteristics of incarcerated men with child support orders and associated debt are significantly different from incarcerated males without child support orders. Whether males attached to comprehensive reentry programs received more services related to their debt obligation after prison release compared with non-program participants is also analyzed. Findings show that although prisoners identify having substantial needs vis-à-vis child support obligations, few reported receiving assistance related to these needs upon release. However, reentry program participants received significantly more child support–related services than non-program participants. Implications for community services and support for returning prisoners with child support orders and related needs are discussed.

Keywords

criminal justice debt fathers legal financial obligations prisoner reentry

Despite the wide interest in legal barriers to prisoner reentry in recent years, the topic of legal financial obligations (LFOs) for individuals leaving prison has received much less attention (Beckett & Harris, 2011). LFOs are financial obligations owed to the government from fines, court fees, treatment fees, probation and other law enforcement fees, restitution, and child support orders. A study of returning prisoners in Maryland showed that nearly two thirds (62%) of respondents reported having LFOs related to the criminal justice system (Visher, La Vigne, & Travis, 2004). Descriptive research has found that a large source of this debt is due to child support orders.

In line with emerging work on the important role of fatherhood in reentry (Visher, 2013), coupled with new interest in monetary sanctions for those involved in the criminal justice system (Iratzoqui & Metcalfe, 2015), this study directs attention to the financial obligations that connect fathers to their families in reentry. Specifically, we focus on the role that formal child support obligations and associated debt have on recently released male prisoners. Child support refers to the legal obligation of financial support that a noncustodial parent (NCP) must pay for a biological or adopted child if the NCP does not have full custody. Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities indicate that 52% of state prisoners and 63% of federal prisoners have children under the age of 18. Although there are no national data estimating the number of prisoners with open child support cases, the BJS data suggest that 46% of incarcerated fathers with minor children were noncustodial fathers (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008), and state-based studies that integrate child support enforcement data with corrections data suggest that anywhere from 23% to 30% of state prisoners have active child support cases (Griswold, Pearson, & Davis, 2001; Griswold, Pearson, Thoennes, & Davis, 2004). As such, the financial responsibilities stemming from child support obligations among this population are potentially large and pervasive. A study of fathers in the correctional system in Massachusetts found that virtually every prisoner with a child support order owed at least some amount of “back due” support (Pearson, 2004).

For most returning prisoners, any debt is likely to be long term. Research has suggested that debts and child support obligations present barriers for former prisoners attempting to reintegrate into their communities (Evans, 2014; Harris, Evans, & Beckett, 2010; Vallas & Dietrich, 2014). In many jurisdictions, child support payments are not scaled to income or employment status (Bannon, Nagrecha, & Diller, 2010). The majority of the population incarcerated or under criminal justice supervision is socio-economically disadvantaged (Pettit & Western, 2004), and if debt payments are made, household income is likely substantially reduced. Debt can restrict access to housing, credit, and employment (Levingston & Turetsky, 2007). Non-payment of child support can result in loss of a driver’s license, probation and parole violations, and even revocation of probation or parole. In Washington State, researchers found that of returning prisoners who had LFOs, one-quarter reported that an arrest warrant had been issued because of non-payment, and many were subsequently incarcerated for non-compliance (Harris et al., 2010).

Research has shown that large debt burdens also can have psychological and interpersonal consequences associated with stress and strain (Bucklen & Zajac, 2009; Martire, Sunjic, Topp, & Indig, 2011). A recent study that conducted detailed interviews with returning prisoners found that debt created stress and conflict between the noncustodial and custodial parent, as well other family members who helped the returning prisoner financially (Nagrecha, Katzenstein, & Davis, 2015). Furthermore, strain theory argues that financial burdens could be a factor in the commission of crime (Agnew, 2006), and research testing strain theory has supported this claim (Langton & Piquero, 2007). Some research has also shown that having high child support payments relative to income significantly lowers child support compliance rates. One study found that when a monthly order is more than 20% of a parent’s income, the obligor (i.e., the person who has an obligation) is less likely to pay than when the payment represents 15% or less of one’s income (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General [OIG], 2000).

With the exception of a handful of descriptive studies, little is known about the population of former prisoners with child support obligations, their debt burden, and the types of financial services or other support services they might need or want upon community reintegration. Furthermore, virtually absent in the literature is any indication of the degree to which these noncustodial fathers receive services to address the needs associated with LFOs such as child support. This is surprising given that children of prisoners are vulnerable to many risks, including increased violence (Schwartz, 2006), and that children greatly benefit from economic support in the form of child support (Amato & Gilbreth, 1999; Argys, Peters, Brooks-Gunn, & Smith, 1998; Nepomnyaschy & Garfinkel, 2010). The importance of formal child support has probably increased due to the decrease in public spending on welfare benefits in the United States (Cancian, Meyer, & Han, 2011).

To address these areas, we examine the service need and receipt of child and employment-related reentry services among returning state prisoners using longitudinal data that were part of a national evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI), a comprehensive prisoner reentry program for serious and violent offenders in 12 states. More specifically, the article has three goals: (a) to provide a descriptive picture of child support debt for male returning prisoners with child support orders and how the descriptive statistics vary by state; (b) to examine whether the demographic, criminal justice, and employment-related characteristics of incarcerated men with child support orders are significantly different from incarcerated males with children but without child support orders; and (c) to assess whether respondents who were part of the SVORI comprehensive community-based reentry program received more support and services related to child support orders, modification of debt, and financial and employment-related services after release from prison than non-program participants. Analyses focus on the critical 3-month period following prison release (Petersilia, 2003).

Overall, the goal of the SVORI program was to improve the quality of life and self-sufficiency of returning prisoners through employment, housing, family, and community involvement (Lattimore, Steffey, & Visher, 2009). Child support–related services were not a mandated part of the services in program sites, but it is likely that some participants received child support and/or related financial and legal services because of the dedicated reentry resources provided to SVORI participants. Our focus is not only on services specifically related to having a child support order (e.g., modification of the order, or assistance with payments) but also on those services that would be indirectly related to supporting the financial welfare of a father returning from prison. The research literature suggests that debt reduction strategies and employment programs for fathers increase child support payments (Bartfeld & Meyer, 2003). Below, we begin by describing the basic premise behind child support and then review the limited literature on the intersection of child support and criminal justice.

Background

Child Support Obligations and Parental Incarceration

The Child Support Enforcement program was established in 1975 to help limit public expenditures in the federal welfare program. As such, at the time, the program only enforced orders for non-welfare families by request, as the core goal was cost recovery from those already in the welfare system (Cancian et al., 2011). It was not until 1980 that the child support enforcement program made permanent enforcement activities on behalf of all families. Mothers receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) are required to pursue child support from the NCP, even though those mothers might not believe it is in the family’s best interest. In many child support cases, payments that are made do not go to the dependent family; child support payments made by the NCP go directly to the federal government to offset welfare (TANF) costs (Cancian et al., 2011).

The laws that govern legal child support orders vary by state, but for the most part, determinations of child support are usually incorporated into family law cases that cover divorce, separation, paternity, custody, and visitation. Today, child support experts generally agree that child support serves to reduce financial insecurity among children and custodial parents and the likelihood of living in poverty. And by helping to prevent a family from entering the public welfare system, it also reduces public spending on welfare (Waller & Plotnick, 1999). Overall, these goals ensure that children receive a fair share of their parents’ income and reinforce parental responsibility.

For newly convicted offenders with child support orders sentenced to prison or jail time, the status of the order upon prison entry will vary greatly by state; in some states, the order can be modified such that the case is placed on inactive status and the prisoner does not accrue child support while incarcerated. The “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act” (PRWORA) of 1996—and specifically the “Bradley Amendment”—legislated that child support debts could not be modified retroactively. Policy is more flexible with the modification of orders prospectively. These decisions were left completely up to the states, leading to wide disparities in modification across the states because the legal principle applied by state courts in this determination process is whether “substantial changes in earning capacity” have occurred. Unemployment can qualify as one of these substantial changes, but the status of unemployment cannot be voluntary. As of 2014, prisoners in 21 states are ineligible for prospective child support modification during the time they serve their sentences as their states have defined incarceration as a form of “voluntary unemployment.”

Although some states allow for prospective modification of orders, states do not routinely reduce an order when an individual enters prison (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement [OCSE], 2012). Thus, the burden is often left to the inmate to trigger the legal modification process. Further complicating matters, many prisoners are unaware that their child support orders can be modified or placed on inactive dockets during their incarceration, and the ones that do may lack the requisite knowledge to complete the modification paperwork (Pearson, 2004). For those that enter the process of order modification, the application process takes an average of 3 to 7 months (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, OCSE, 2006).

Issues for Policy and Programming

There are several reasons why child support obligations and related debt among formerly incarcerated fathers are important issues for policy and programming. First, child support payments play a significant role in the financial well-being of millions of children in the United States. The child support enforcement program had 15.7 million cases in fiscal year 2012 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, OCSE, 2013). Many fathers owe child support for more than one child. A study in Wisconsin found that for open child support cases among incarcerated NCPs in Milwaukee County, 24% of fathers had legal obligations for four or more children and half of fathers had children with more than one mother (Noyes, Cancian, & Cuesta, 2012). For families receiving child support, U.S. Census data show that receipts per family averaged US$5,135 per year (Solomon-Fears, 2013). This is significant for poor families because support payments can be roughly 40% of the family’s income (Sorensen, 2010).

Second, for fathers with child support orders, the monthly payments can be unrealistically high (Patterson, 2008; Pearson, 2004). One study found that child support orders for economically disadvantaged fathers on average ranged from 20% to 35% of their take-home income (Pirog, Klotz, & Byers, 1998). In the event of payment non-compliance, states are within the boundaries of federal law to garnish a majority of their income—up to 65% of their after-tax pay. For orders that go unmodified while the obligor is incarcerated, child support–related debt can quickly mount, and studies suggest that arrears may be already high upon prison entry. The Massachusetts study cited earlier found that for individuals with child support orders who were currently on parole, their arrears balance increased by nearly 50% (47%) during their time in prison. In dollars, this was an average increase per individual of US$5,250. The median total for child support debt for prisoners across Massachusetts was estimated to be about US$10,000, with half of prisoners owing more than US$10,000 and half owing less. The total arrears for the state generated by these parolees while they were in prison amounted to over one million US dollars (Thoennes, 2002).

The small number of other studies matching child support records to the correctional population report similar amounts in outstanding child support debt (Griswold et al., 2001; Ovwigho, Saunders, & Born, 2005). The numbers in Maryland are noteworthy—using a random sample of non-custodial fathers with child support obligations in 2005, the study found that those who were incarcerated at the time of the study (n = 68) had median child support arrears of approximately US$16,000 (Ovwigho et al., 2005). Back due support ranged from US$552 to US$70,305. For a subsample of those formerly incarcerated (n = 246), median arrears were US$11,554, with a range from US$32 to US$108,394. A quarter of all child support arrears owed to custodial parents was owed by individuals who were incarcerated or previously incarcerated.

Third, given these financial realities, many researchers and child advocates have suggested that the child support system can create disincentives for fathers to pay their support or to find legitimate employment (Harris et al., 2010; Holzer, Offner, & Sorensen, 2005; Waller & Plotnick, 1999). Fathers working in the underground economy do not have their wages garnished, so there may be an incentive to obtain income via illegal sources. Studies using qualitative methods have confirmed that many fathers do not comply with child support regulations that perceive to be unfair, counterproductive, or punitive (Waller & Plotnick, 1999). In an interesting experiment, the state of Wisconsin implemented a process for welfare participants to keep all the child support paid on their behalf (instead of going to the government as TANF reimbursement) and found that, as a result, more fathers paid support (Cancian, Meyer, & Caspar, 2008).

Fourth, having an understanding of the obstacles related to large debt burdens could assist prisoner reentry planning. With the exception of “gate money” (money sometimes provided to inmates upon their release; usually US$100 or less) and the reinstatement of welfare benefits by some correctional systems, financial planning, and/or legal support is rarely a part of correctional reentry planning, and even if returning prisoners have access to community-based reentry services, programs that address LFOs are few and far between (Berger & DaGrossa, 2013). In addition, incorporating child support–related services in reentry planning could foster improved attachments and relationships with the prisoner’s family upon release, which can bring about a host of benefits (Visher, 2013). The current study seeks to add to the child support literature and growing literature on poor fathers by using a multi-state sample of returning prisoners to examine a variety of aspects related to the child support obligations, including debt, service needs, and service receipt, and whether these vary across states.

Method

As stated in the “Introduction” section, the current study uses data from the SVORI impact evaluation. The federal government funded 69 agencies (representing 89 adult and juvenile programs) across 14 geographically diverse states in 2003 to provide a comprehensive set of reentry services across a multiple domains, including employment, health, education, life skills, housing, and criminal justice. SVORI targeted individuals with extensive criminal and substance use histories, low levels of education and employment skills, and high levels of service needs. Between 2004 and 2007, participants in the SVORI treatment group received services and treatment designed to address their particular areas of need. The suite of services and mode of delivery varied across SVORI sites, but SVORI site directors indicated emphasizing similar services such as assessment, case management, counseling, service referral, and classes/workshops (Lattimore & Steffey, 2009). Furthermore, the majority of SVORI site directors indicated their services were geared toward improving the following outcomes: community integration, employment, improved decision making and self-sufficiency, and reduced substance abuse. Services began in prison and continued through release into the community (for more detail on SVORI services, see Lattimore et al., 2009).

With regard to the adult male sample for the study, the SVORI impact evaluation comprised 12 adult programs which included 1,697 adult males (863 SVORI participants; 834 comparison men) across 12 states: Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington. In two sites (Iowa and Ohio), random assignment was used for program and study enrollment. In the other sites, comparison groups were developed by isolating key enrollment criteria and replicating the selection procedures on a different population—usually comparison participants came from the same pre-release facilities and were returning to the same areas after prison as the SVORI participants.

In terms of study results, SVORI researchers found that the proportion of males who reported receiving services was less than the reported need and, for the most part, the amount of services reported did not meet program directors’ expectations. Male SVORI participants were significantly more likely than the comparison group to report receipt of a variety of services across all waves, but receipt was not universal across the treatment group. For instance, 88% of the SVORI male sample reported receiving at least one pre-release “coordination” service (i.e., needs assessment, case management, reentry plan assessment, specialized reentry plan) compared with 66% of the comparison group. Overall gains in service receipt and improvement in intermediate outcomes (e.g., employment, substance use), however, did not result in significant reductions in recidivism, compared with non-SVORI male participants (Lattimore et al., 2009). Given the wide array of services and service types that were available through the SVORI programs, the SVORI evaluators conducted most of their analyses examining “service bundles” (i.e., groups of services by domain), not individual services. In addition, they did not conduct any analyses focused on men with child support orders.

This dataset was chosen for the present study because it represents a multi-state and relatively large sample from which to examine child support obligations, financial circumstances, and service needs of former prisoners. We note the limitation that the SVORI dataset is not representative of the larger population of state prison releases, but it represents the largest known collection of longitudinal, self-reported data on U.S. prisoners’ pre-release and post-release characteristics, services, and recidivism. This article specifically focuses on a subsample of the adult male sample—those with children under age 18 (n = 1,011).

We use two waves of SVORI data for the study—respondents that were interviewed at approximately 30 days prior to their release from institutional corrections and 3 months post release. Re-incarcerated respondents were re-interviewed in prison or jail. At 3 months, 60% (603) of the 1,011 with minor children were successfully re-interviewed. At the time of their first interview, the mean age of the subsample (those with minor children) was 29 years old. With regard to race (respondents were asked “which of the following best describes you?” and were allowed to provide multiple responses), 61% of the subjects identified themselves as Black, 35% as White, and 4% as Hispanic. Forty percent were incarcerated for (i.e., their “instant incarceration”) a violent offense.

Although we focus the article on the subsample of study participants that had minor children, it is important to note that of the total male SVORI sample (n = 1,697), 60% reported having minor children (under the age of 18). This percentage is somewhat larger than the national numbers for state prisons presented in BJS studies (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). As described earlier data from the 2004 BJS Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities showed that 52% of male state inmates indicated they had children under the age of 18. Returning to the current study, of the 1,011 males reporting having minor children in the SVORI sample, 312, or 31%, were required to pay child support during the 6 months prior to incarceration. This percentage generally matches the estimates from the few single state studies that have attempted to gather and integrate records data from both the child support system and state corrections agencies (Griswold et al., 2001; Thoennes, 2002).

Measures

In line with recent research (Miller & Mincy, 2012), child support was measured pre-release with the survey item: “Were you required to pay child support for any of your children under age 18 during the 6 months before you were incarcerated?” The responses were dichotomous (1 = yes, 0 = no). At the 3-month post-release interview, respondents were asked, “Are you currently required by a court to pay child support for any of your children under the age of 18?” (1 = yes, 0 = no).

Child support–related needs consisted of nine items that asked whether the respondent needed assistance in the following areas: job training, child support payment assistance, modifications in child support debt, custody modifications, legal assistance, financial assistance, employment documents (such as birth certificate, social security card, or photo identification card), assistance finding a job, and money management. Because the act of paying child support involves having the financial means to pay the support order, we have included needs related to employment and finances. Responses were coded such that “not at all” equals “0” and any indicated need (a little or a lot) was coded “1.” Child support–related services received was measured at Wave 2 (3 months after release) as a dichotomous variable for whether any of the nine services were received since release from incarceration. Because the frequencies for service receipt were very low and provided little variation for analytic purposes, for the multivariate analyses, we then created a count variable that summed the dichotomous responses of whether the respondent received services in any of the nine areas of need. Although the scale had a possible maximum value of 9, the values ranged from 0 to 5, with 57% of the respondents indicating they received none of the 9 services. It is important to note that that the nine items used in the current study were different from the items used by SVORI researchers to create the SVORI measure “child services bundle” in SVORI reports (Lattimore et al., 2009). The SVORI measure included parenting instruction, child care, child support payments, modifications in child support debt, and modifications in custody. Because parenting instruction and child care are secondary to the act of paying the support order, and do not necessarily improve the ability to pay, we have not included these services in our analyses.

To measure service needs that respondents deemed most important or greatest, we used an item from the SVORI protocol that asked respondents to list their “top two” needs after they had answered questions about whether they had any need on a long list of items provided by SVORI researchers. Our measure is a dummy variable for each of the 9 child support–related needs listed earlier—a “1” indicates the item was reported as a top need.

Pre-prison employment was measured as a binary variable indicating whether the respondent supported himself via a legitimate job before the current (i.e., “instant”) incarceration (1 = job, 0 = no job). In addition to the core child and employment-related service and need variables listed above, for the descriptive tables, we also include four additional baseline measures related to employment/ability to pay: (a) receipt of any employment skills training in prison, (b) hours worked per week at pre-incarceration job, (c) whether the respondent reported supporting self with illegal income before the instant incarceration, and (d) the amount of illegal income in the 6 months prior to the instant incarceration.

The type of offense for the instant incarceration was measured in the multivariate model as “person/violent offense,” with other types of offenses as the reference category. Age at first arrest, a measure often found in reentry evaluation studies (Lattimore et al., 2009; Lattimore & Visher, 2013), was also included as a covariate to control for criminal justice risk. The number of days incarcerated at baseline was included in analyses to control for baseline sentence length as research has suggested that being incarcerated for longer periods of time creates added difficulties in community reintegration, such as depressed wages (Kling, 1999). Participation in the treatment group for SVORI services is a dichotomous indicator (SVORI participation). Physical health problems reflects the following items measured at Wave 1: “Does your health now limit you in moderate activities—such as moving a table or playing basketball—a lot (2), a little (1), or not at all (0)?” and “Does your health now limit you a lot (2), a little (1), or not at all (0) when climbing several flights of stairs?” Thus, the variable ranged from 0 to 4 with higher scores indicating worse health. Reliability of the measure is good (Cronbach’s α = .81).

Black was measured using a questionnaire item that read “Which of the following best describes you: White; Black or African American; American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian or East Indian; Hispanic, Latino or Spanish; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander? Please check all that apply.” We coded “Black” for those respondents who only chose Black (i.e., Black alone). Age was measured as chronological age at release from the instant incarceration. An education indicator measured whether the respondent either completed high school or received a General Equivalency Diploma (GED) (1), or did not (0).

Analysis

Analyses are presented in three parts. We first provide descriptive statistics that illuminate the amount of child support debt and any processes related to child support debt or modification of debt. Second, we use difference in means statistical tests to compare the characteristics of respondents with child support obligations to those males with minor children who do not have child support obligations and then examine the child support–related needs and service receipt for different subgroups of the sample. Third, we use data from Wave 2 and present a multivariate negative binomial model showing which factors were associated with respondents who received more services, and whether SVORI treatment group participants received more legal/financial-related services. The model uses the SVORI-created propensity score weight to balance the sample characteristics between treatment and comparison participants (Lattimore & Steffey, 2009).

Results

Table 1 summarizes characteristics related to having child support obligations. Forty-two percent of males with child support orders indicated that they had primary care responsibilities for at least one child before their incarceration. The question was asked to respondents as follows:

During the 6 months prior to your incarceration this time, did you (if involved in steady relationship and lived with that person before incarceration: did you and your partner) have primary care responsibilities for any of your own children under the age of 18? By “your own,” we mean your biological or legally adopted children. By “primary care responsibilities,” we mean that the children lived with you most of the time, you fed and clothed them, and that you were not paid for this.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Males With Child Support Obligations (n = 312).

Provided primary care for at least one child pre-incarceration	41.5%
Made the payments (before current incarceration)	57.4
Had court order for support modified while incarcerated	26.5
State forgave/decreased some or all of back support	6.7
Owes no back child support	8.0
Owes less than US$1,000 in back child support	7.8
Owes US$1,000 to US$2,999	15.3
Owes US$3,000 to US$4,999	18.4
Owes US$5,000 or more	58.4
Missing info on amount of back child support	18.3

If a respondent indicated having primary care responsibilities, it could be that he was informally taking care of the children for whom he owed child support or that he had additional children for whom he was responsible that were not associated with the child support order.

Of the 312 males who indicated they had formal child support orders in the months before their incarceration, only 57% reported having made the payments. The overwhelming majority (92%) owed back support (i.e., had child support debt). Only a quarter (27%) of the sample had their child support orders modified while they were incarcerated. For more than half the sample, child support debt was very high—58% owed US$5,000 or more in back child support.

Table 2 highlights state variation in processes related to child support. Of the 12 states represented in the sample, there were some differences in the percentages of respondents who reported they made the payments, owed over US$5,000, and who had their order changed while incarcerated. Tests of statistical significance were not conducted because the cell sizes were too small. With regard to the percentage of respondents who made their child support payments in the period before incarceration, the percentages ranged from a low of 35% in Maryland to 75% in Indiana. Five states had at least 50% of their respondents report that they owed over US$5,000 in back support. The percentage of respondents reporting they had their orders modified also varied widely across states. Notably, half the respondents in Washington State had their orders modified, and none the respondents from Ohio indicated they had their orders modified. Also in Washington State, another 27% indicated the state forgave or decreased the amount of back support owed. Five states had no respondents report that the state forgave or decreased back pay.

Table 2.

Percentages on Child Support Order Characteristics at Baseline, by State, Respondents With Child Support Orders (n = 312).

State	Made payments before incarceration	Owed over 5K dollars	Had order changed while incarcerated	State decreased support order
Indiana	75.0	50.0	20.0	15.0
Iowa	68.6	66.8	31.5	6.1
Kansas	45.5	45.5	27.3	0.0
Maine	36.8	47.4	27.8	5.9
Maryland	35.1	40.5	25.8	0.0
Missouri	46.7	53.3	13.3	0.0
Nevada	52.6	63.2	37.5	7.7
Ohio	50.0	33.3	0.0	0.0
Oklahoma	46.7	46.7	30.8	0.0
Pennsylvania	63.9	22.2	42.9	3.7
South Carolina	70.9	54.5	11.1	10.4
Washington	42.9	21.4	50.0	27.3

Table 3 shows the demographic, criminal justice- and employment-related characteristics of the men with minor children who had and did not have court orders to pay child support, and highlights any statistically significant differences between the two groups. There are significant differences in means for a number of variables. Males with child support orders, on average compared with the rest of the male SVORI sample with children, are significantly older, are less likely to be convicted of a violent crime for their instant incarceration, and have had fewer days incarcerated with regard to their instant incarceration.

Table 3.

t-Test Results for Baseline Key Demographics, Criminal Justice- and Employment-Related Characteristics, Respondents With Child Support Versus Without, for Respondents With Children Under 18.

Variable	Mean/proportion for those with child support (n = 312)	Mean/proportion for those without child support (n = 699)	t value
Age at release	30.4	29.1	−2.97**
Black	0.6	0.6	2.37*
Married/partner	0.5	0.5	0.01
High school/GED	0.6	0.6	−1.22
Age at first arrest	16.5	15.8	1.94^†
Violent conviction for instant incarceration	0.3	0.4	3.15**
Days incarcerated at baseline	770.0	905.6	2.91**
Self-reported need for child-support-related services (0-9 needs)	6.1	4.7	10.52***
Received any employment skills in prison	0.7	0.7	0.15
Pre-prison employment	0.7	0.7	−2.43*
Hours/week at pre-incarceration job	43.4	41.0	−1.87^†
Supported self with illegal activity prior to incarceration.	0.4	0.5	1.86^†
Amount of illegal income (1 = all, 5 = none)	3.8	3.5	−3.33**

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

With regard to job-related characteristics and child support services, as expected, male respondents with child support reported an increased need for child-related support services. This group also reported a higher likelihood of receiving any child-related service while incarcerated. They were also more likely to be employed 6 months prior to their incarceration—which may be due somewhat to court systems linking ability to pay with the assignment of child support orders (i.e., those that have jobs may be more likely to receive formal orders). Those with child support obligations also reported receiving a lower amount of money from illegal income. The difference in number of hours per week worked at a job pre-incarceration approaches significance, with those having child support orders reporting more hours.

Table 4 reports the frequencies for male respondents with child support for whether a skill/service in the domain of child support–related services was listed as a “top two” need. The table reports frequencies at baseline and at 3 months post-release. The 3-month frequencies are weighted to address missing data due to attrition. At baseline, 15% of respondents with child support reported child support payment assistance as a top need. Interestingly, this percentage dropped to 13% at 3 months, but the percentage reporting the need for child support modifications as a top need increased from 13% at baseline to 18% at 3 months post incarceration.

Table 4.

Greatest Needs Across Child Support–Related Services, Identified by Fathers With Child Support Orders (n = 312).

	Baseline %	Wave 2 (3 months) %
A job/assistance finding a job	30.2	24.7
Job training	15.1	6.5
Child support payment assistance	14.5	12.9
Child support debt modification	12.9	17.7
Financial assistance	12.2	11.8
Custody modifications	4.2	3.2
Money management skills	2.3	3.8
Legal assistance	1.9	4.8
Documents for employment	1.6	0.5

Note. Percentage of respondents who chose item as in their top two across all their stated needs.

The table shows that the frequency of reporting needing legal assistance as a top need more than doubled after release from prison, which may be related to an interest in modifying child support orders or payment schedules. The most often-cited top need at baseline was the need for a job. The percentages reporting this need as a “top need,” however, decreased somewhat at 3 months out.

Table 5 reports descriptive data on the number of fathers with child support orders that reported certain child support service needs and other related service needs, as well as the number reporting they received those services by the 3-month interview. We focus only the period 3 months post incarceration because this is typically the critical reentry period for returning prisoners (Petersilia, 2003), and we want to limit issues with attrition in later waves.

Table 5.

Child Support–Related Service Needs From Baseline and Receipt at 3 Months.

	All male respondents with child support		SVORI clients vs. comparison group for those who reported need^a
	Reported as a need at baseline (those with child support)	Of those with need, percentage received 3 months post incarceration (those with child support)	SVORI clients received service (3 months)^b	Non-SVORI received service (3 months)^c
Job training	76.3%	16.7%	23.3%^†	0.0%
Child support payment assistance	79.4	3.5	5.1	1.5
Child support debt modification	86.6	11.5	16.4^†	5.5
Custody modifications	49.0	1.1	2.0	0.0
Legal assistance	53.9	5.0	8.0	2.0
Financial assistance	85.3	3.7	4.6	2.6
Employment documents	47.8	21.4	21.7	21.1
Assistance finding a job	73.6	27.9	36.8**	17.2
Money management skills	68.0	2.3	2.9	1.7

Note. SVORI = serious and violent offender reentry initiative.

T-test of proportions: ^†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Denominator is all SVORI treatment group respondents with child support who reported need at baseline.

Denominator is non-SVORI respondents with child support who reported need for this service at baseline.

The majority of respondents with child support reported having service needs in all of the following domains: (a) job training, (b) child support payment assistance, (c) modifications in child support debt, (d) custody modifications, (e) legal assistance, (f) financial assistance, (g) documents for employment, (h) a job, and (i) money management skills. The highest ranked needs among these domains were modifications in child support debt (87%), followed by financial assistance (85%). The next three most identified child support–related needs were child support payment assistance (79%), job training (76%), and assistance finding a job (73%). Of the needs listed in the table, the least frequently cited need was assistance with obtaining employment documents (48%).

The second column reflects the percentage of fathers with minor children (SVORI and non-SVORI) with child support who identified having these needs and reported receiving services in these areas. Twenty-eight percent of respondents reported receiving assistance in finding employment, 21% received assistance in obtaining employment documents, and 17% received job training. Only 11% reported receiving assistance modifying child support obligations and 3% reported child support payment assistance. In the remaining needs categories, less than (or equal to) 5% received services for these child support–related needs. The final two columns indicate that SVORI respondents who reported having service needs in these areas were more likely to receive them than the non-SVORI respondents across all need categories. These differences rose to significance for assistance finding employment (p< .01), and marginal significance for job training (p < .10), and assistance getting a support order modified (p < .10).

Table 6 reports the results of a count regression model predicting the number of services received in the 3 months post-release for those who reported child support obligations at baseline. The regression analysis uses the propensity score-based treatment weights created by SVORI researchers (Lattimore & Steffey, 2009). Results produce incidence rate ratios (IRR), which can be interpreted as the independent effect of a one-unit change in X (holding all other variables constant) on the incidence rate of Y, in our case, receiving an additional child support–related service. Receiving the SVORI treatment significantly increased the incidence rate by 176% (100 × [2.757 − 1]%) with regard to receiving an additional child support–related service (p < .001). Among this subsample of those reporting child support at baseline, the effect of reporting child support obligations at the 3-month post-release interview resulted in a marginally significant 63% increase in the incidence rate for service receipt (p < .10). The control variables for high school-level education and violent offense were also significant. The effect of having a high school education or GED raised the IRR by 145% (p< .01). Being convicted of a violent offense significantly decreased the incidence rate for service receipt by 54% (p < .05).

Table 6.

Negative Binomial Regression Results of Child Support–Related Services Received at 3 Months, Males With Child Support Obligations.

Child Support services	IRR	SE
Age	1.012	0.020
SVORI treatment group	2.757***	0.580
Child support order at 3 months	1.633^†	0.455
Black^a	1.391	0.284
High school/GED	2.336**	0.629
Index offense—Violent	0.465*	0.137
Age at first arrest	0.975	0.021
Days incarcerated	1.000	0.000
Pre-prison employment	1.047	0.200
Physical health problems	0.842^†	0.082

Note. n = 185. IRR interpreted as the independent effect of a one-unit increase in any X variable (with all other variables held constant) on the incident rate of receiving a child support–related service. Values less than 1 signify a decrease in the outcome. IRR = incidence rate ratio; SVORI = serious and violent offender reentry initiative.

Reference category is respondents who did not answer “Black” to the question: Which of the following best describes you?

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Although not shown, to test the robustness of these results while controlling for state variation, we also examined a similar model using the entire sample of male respondents with minor children—not just those with child support obligations—while leveraging a fixed effects approach by including dummy variables to represent states in the SVORI evaluation. We used this sample to provide more power for the test. The results of the state-controlled model were generally similar to the model results reported here without the state controls—being a SVORI participant (compared with a non-SVORI participant) resulted in a 76% increase in the incident rate for receiving one additional child support–related service (p < .001). The marginal effect of having a child support order 3 months after prison release disappeared; however, and education and type of offense were no longer significant in this model. (These results are available from the authors.)

Discussion

With the growing interest in understanding the legal financial barriers in community reintegration for returning prisoners and their families, this study set out to document the characteristics of individuals with child support orders leaving prison and to describe service needs and service receipt. From our analyses, we can conclude that a substantial number of returning state male prisoners in this sample have wide-ranging legal and financial needs due to having active child support orders. Roughly 60% of returning prisoners with minor children owe over US$5,000 in back child support and less than 60% were making their required payments before they were incarcerated. Some of the indicated needs are in critical areas for successful reentry and encouraging desistance, such as job training, and assistance finding employment. However, few appear to be receiving services to address these needs. Indeed, over three quarters of fathers with child support obligations reported needing job training services, yet less than 17% received any training. An even wider gap, 87% reported needing assistance with child support modification, yet only 11% were assisted. At 3 months post release from prison, these fathers ranked needing child support modifications as the third highest need—a jump up from sixth highest at baseline. This pattern suggests that these men are cognizant of their familial responsibilities and are likely struggling with making payments.

We found substantial variation across the 12 states in terms of the child support financial landscape. For example, inmates in very few states appear to have and understand the tools for managing and modifying child support orders while incarcerated. This is apparent from the low percentage of inmates who are able to have their orders modified during incarceration from any state. But the problem appears to be more dramatic in certain places, with Ohio standing out by having 0% of inmates report debt modification during incarceration. Contrast this with places such as Washington State—where certain processes for handling child support cases must be in place—as 50% of inmates reported successfully modifying their obligation while incarcerated. With such wide differences in how the child support and/or correctional systems in these respective states operate, it is not surprising that arrearage burdens would be substantially larger for inmates residing in certain states (e.g., 67% and 21% of inmates in Iowa and Washington owed >US$5K in debt, respectively). Case studies examining the type of child support programs and procedures states and local jurisdictions have implemented, and how these models have assisted the formerly incarcerated and their families, is perhaps a very important next step for researchers to pursue.

On a positive note, we did find evidence that the SVORI intervention was more successful than “business as usual” in delivering services to those returning fathers in need of child support services: Those in the treatment group were much more likely to receive a higher number of child support–related services than those respondents who did not receive the SVORI treatment. Importantly, this treatment assignment was a far better predictor of child support–related service receipt than having a child support obligation itself. This was probably because SVORI treatment participants were much more likely to have completed needs assessments after release than non-SVORI participants (see Lattimore et al., 2009). Indeed, needs assessments make it possible to have services tailored to one’s needs. However, stating one’s needs and/or having a needs assessment clearly is not sufficient to trigger service provision targeted to particular reentry needs (as shown in Table 5).

Implications and Future Directions

Given sizable and widespread child support debt and apparent limited reentry services tailored to returning fathers with child support obligations, there are numerous implications, some regarding criminal justice policy and child support system processing and collaboration, and others regarding broader forms of support for fathers and their families. In the criminal justice/public safety domain, prisoner reentry programs and associated evaluation research might want to pay closer attention to examining prisoner and returning prisoner needs surrounding debt, and in particular child support debt, and how debt might influence reintegration success and recidivism. Because of a lack of work-related reentry evaluation studies showing significant reductions in recidivism (Bushway & Apel, 2012), coupled with other research findings suggesting the most effective reentry strategies are skills-oriented and treat multiple offender deficits simultaneously (Smith, Gendreau, & Swartz, 2009), reentry program designers should carefully strategize about how to address needs related to prisoners with debt and child support. Needs assessments should cover debt,financial, and legal-related needs. As stated above, it is clear from the findings that being a SVORI participant provided more access to services. But because many participants reported they did not receive services related to their particular needs, it is important that any implementation of service-focused strategies to address debt and support should be monitored closely by funders and program developers to ensure that services reach enrolled participants. Research has shown time and time again—the SVORI evaluation included—that common implementation problems with reentry programs include ineffective delivery of services and poor matching of individual needs to program content (Visher & Travis, 2011).

Our results show that a large percentage of fathers returning home from prison reported needing services to directly address child support–related obligations. Indeed, some of these needs appeared to grow stronger as more time passed since their release. From a prevention standpoint, services to support noncustodial fathers should begin outside of the criminal justice system before incarceration, so that child support orders do not accumulate and become unwieldy, burdensome arrears in the event of incarceration. Furthermore, new and innovative models such as offering tax credits and work-oriented programs to NCPs have shown to improve employment outcomes and child support compliance (Sorensen & Lippold, 2013). Court-based programs that can intercept soon-to-be-incarcerated fathers before incarceration can help to provide support for possible modification of support orders. Indeed, moving away from the public safety domain toward the domains of child welfare and healthy communities, and given the extent of the need we found for child support–related services, innovative programs that seek to support men’s identity as fathers with the goals of increasing familial responsibility and co-parenting could translate into improved standards of living for spouses and their children. Research has shown that increasing the quality of the parents’ co-parental relationship increases financial support provided by nonresident fathers (Goldberg, 2015). Because the impact of non-payment of child support affects multiple systems, research examining what works with a criminal justice-involved population should simultaneously address how programs and services influence a variety of intermediate and long-term outcomes, including payment, parenting, employment, recidivism, and child welfare.

As in all studies, this work has its limitations. First, a perennial problem in longitudinal research, the data used in these analyses contain a non-trivial amount of missing data due to subject attrition. By 3 months out (Wave 2), 42% of the sample attrited. However, having a child support obligation was not significantly associated with those who dropped out at Wave 2. Indeed, there were no significant differences between attriters and non-attriters on key variables such as age, race, education, marital status, type of index offense, family instrumental support, employment status, SVORI treatment assignment, and physical health problems. As the purpose of this study is descriptive, we believe knowledge gleaned from the sample that did not attrite remains important for study. Two, respondent information on child support is based on self-report, and hence, responses may undercount important characteristics, perhaps due to social desirability biases. However, national numbers on noncustodial fathers in prison and state-based statistics examining the intersection of child support and incarceration are very similar to our findings, lending support for the validity of self-report. Three, because the SVORI evaluation sought to examine reentry across a wide range of geographic areas across the United States, disaggregated samples deriving from individual states were not large. These limited samples from each state precluded the possibility of painting a detailed picture of the debt, needs, and services landscape within individual states. As examining individual states has important implications for crafting or altering state-level policy, this effort would be critical in the identification of unaddressed legal/financial needs, and gaps in services for these needs. Last, our data precluded us from examining informal child support or “in-kind” support, limiting our ability to examine the degree that former prisoners supported their families in alternative ways. Another limitation related to the original sampling strategy is the somewhat limited generalizability provided by a high-risk sample that focused mostly on violent offenders. However, given the virtually nonexistent data at the national-level about prisoners and child support, we believe the findings from this study will be useful for policymakers and practitioners, and provide some impetus for additional research in this area.

Conclusion

Research on prisoner reentry has focused much attention on uncovering and documenting returning prisoners’ needs in the domains of housing, substance abuse, mental health, and employment among former prisoners. As critical as these investigations are, they have dominated the community reintegration conversation, overshadowing the less “visible” barriers—such as the collateral issues arising from justice processes and the accrual of large and unwieldy child support and other LFOs, hindering an understanding of the impact these issues have on reintegration and the family. The current study and other recent work have attempted to import these issues into the discussion. Findings from these studies may have important implications for strengthening families and improving overall prisoner reintegration. Given the large numbers of noncustodial fathers returning home from prisons and jails, the need for developing solutions that support fragile families is pressing.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Award No. 2012-IJ-CX-0012, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Author Biographies

Caterina G. Roman is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Temple University. Her interests include the social networks of at risk and gang youth, prisoner reentry, gang violence, and the role of community organizations and institutions and other aspects of social capital in crime prevention and neighborhood well-being.

Nathan W. Link is a doctoral student in criminal justice at Temple University. His areas of research are in corrections, criminal justice policy, and criminological theory, and his recent work is published in Justice Quarterly, Crime & Delinquency, and Criminal Justice & Behavior.

References

Agnew

(2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Amato

P. R.

Gilbreth

J. G.

(1999). Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 557-573.

Argys

L. M.

Peters

H. E.

Brooks-Gunn

Smith

J. R.

(1998). The impact of child support on cognitive outcomes of young children. Demography, 35, 159-173.

Bannon

Nagrecha

Diller

(2010). Criminal justice debt: A barrier to reentry. New York, NY: Brennan Center for Justice.

Bartfeld

Meyer

D. R.

(2003). Child support compliance among discretionary and nondiscretionary obligors. Social Service Review, 77, 347-372.

Beckett

Harris

(2011). On cash and conviction. Criminology & Public Policy, 10, 509-537.

Berger

T. A.

DaGrossa

J. A.

(2013). Overcoming legal barriers to reentry: A law school-based approach to providing legal services to the reentry community. Federal Probation, 77, 3-8.

Bucklen

K. B.

Zajac

(2009). But some of them don’t come back (to prison!) Resource deprivation and thinking errors as determinants of parole success and failure. The Prison Journal, 89, 239-264.

Bushway

S. D.

Apel

(2012). A signaling perspective on employment-based reentry programming. Criminology & Public Policy, 11, 21-50.

10.

Cancian

Meyer

D. R.

Caspar

(2008). Welfare and child support: Complements, not substitutes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 354-375.

11.

Cancian

Meyer

D. R.

Han

(2011). Child support: Responsible fatherhood and the quid pro quo. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 635, 140-162.

12.

Evans

D. N.

(2014). The debt penalty: Exposing the financial barriers to offender reintegration. New York, NY: Research & Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

13.

Glaze

L. E.

Maruschak

L. M.

(2008). Parents in prison and their minor children (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

14.

Goldberg

J. S.

(2015). Coparenting and nonresident fathers’ monetary contributions to their children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77, 612-627.

15.

Griswold

E. A.

Pearson

Davis

(2001). Testing a modification process for incarcerated parents. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research.

16.

Griswold

E. A.

Pearson

Thoennes

Davis

(2004). Fathers in the criminal justice system. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research.

17.

Harris

Evans

Beckett

(2010). Drawing blood from stones: Legal debt and social inequality in the contemporary United States. American Journal of Sociology, 115, 1753-1799.

18.

Holzer

H. J.

Offner

Sorensen

(2005). Declining employment among young black less-educated men: The role of incarceration and child support. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 329-350.

19.

Iratzoqui

Metcalfe

(2015). Set up for failure? Examining the influence of monetary sanctions on probation success. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0887403415586595

20.

Kling

J. R.

(1999). The effect of prison sentence length on the subsequent employment and earnings of criminal defendants (Woodrow Wilson School Discussion Papers in Economics No. 208). Princeton, NJ.

21.

Langton

Piquero

N. L.

(2007). Can general strain theory explain white-collar crime? A preliminary investigation of the relationship between strain and select white-collar offenses. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 1-15.

22.

Lattimore

P. K.

Steffey

D. M.

(2009). The multi-site evaluation of SVORI: Methodology and analytic approach. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

23.

Lattimore

P. K.

Steffey

D. M.

Visher

C. A.

(2009). Prisoner reentry experiences of adult males: Characteristics, service receipt, and outcomes of participants in the SVORI multi-site evaluation. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

24.

Lattimore

P. K.

Visher

C. A.

(2013). The impact of prison reentry services on short-term outcomes: Evidence from a multisite evaluation. Evaluation Review, 37, 274-313.

25.

Levingston

Turetsky

(2007). Debtor’s prison: Prisoners’ accumulation of debt as a barrier to reentry. Clearinghouse Review: Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, 41, 186-197.

26.

Martire

Sunjic

Topp

Indig

(2011). Financial sanctions and the justice system: Fine debts among New South Wales prisoners with a history of problematic substance use. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44, 258-271.

27.

Miller

D. P.

Mincy

R. B.

(2012). Falling further behind? Child support arrears and fathers’ labor force participation. Social Service Review, 86, 604-635.

28.

Nagrecha

Katzenstein

M. F.

Davis

(2015). First person accounts of criminal justice debt: When all else fails, fining the family. New York, NY: Center for Community Alternatives.

29.

Nepomnyaschy

Garfinkel

(2010). Child support enforcement and fathers’ contributions to their nonmarital children. The Social Service Review, 84, 341-380.

30.

Noyes

J. L

Cancian

Cuesta

(2012). Holding child support orders of incarcerated payers in abeyance: Final evaluation report. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty.

31.

Ovwigho

P. C.

Saunders

Born

C. E.

(2005). The intersection of incarceration and child support: A snapshot of Maryland’s caseload. Baltimore, MD: Family Welfare Research and Training Group.

32.

Patterson

E. G.

(2008). Civil contempt and the indigent child support obligor: The silent return of debtor’s prison. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 18, 95-141.

33.

Pearson

(2004). Building debt while doing time: Child support and incarceration. Judges’ Journal, 43(4), 5-12.

34.

Petersilia

(2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

35.

Pettit

Western

(2004). Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in U.S. incarceration. American Sociological Review, 69, 151-169.

36.

Pirog

M. A.

Klotz

M. E.

Byers

K. V.

(1998). Interstate comparisons of child support orders using state guidelines. Family Relations, 47, 289-295.

37.

Schwartz

(2006). Effects of diverse forms of family structure on female and male homicide. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1291-1312.

38.

Smith

Gendreau

Swartz

(2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention: A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims & Offenders, 4, 148-169.

39.

Solomon-Fears

(2013). Child support: An overview of Census Bureau data on recipients. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service Report.

40.

Sorensen

(2010). Child support plays an increasingly important role for poor custodial families. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

41.

Sorensen

Lippold

(2013). Strengthening families through stronger fathers initiative: Summary of impact findings. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

42.

Thoennes

(2002). Child support profile: Massachusetts’ incarcerated and paroled parents. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research.

43.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement. (2006). Working with incarcerated and released parents: Lessons from OCSE grants and state programs. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/working-with-incarcerated-and-released-parents

44.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement. (2012). Project to avoid increasing delinquencies (Child Support Fact Sheet Series, No. 4). Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocse/realistic_child_support_orders_for_incarcerated_parents.pdf

45.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement. (2013). FY2013 child support program highlights. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/fy2012-preliminary-report

46.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. (2000). The establishment of child support orders for low income non-custodial parents. Retrieved from https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-05-99-00390.pdf

47.

Vallas

Dietrich

(2014). One strike and you’re out: How we can eliminate barriers to economic security and mobility for people with criminal records. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

48.

Visher

C. A.

(2013). Incarcerated fathers: Pathways from prison to home. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24, 1-18.

49.

Visher

C. A.

La Vigne

N. G.

Travis

(2004). Returning home: Understanding the challenges of prisoner reentry—Maryland pilot study: Findings from Baltimore. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

50.

Visher

C. A.

Travis

(2011). Life on the outside: Returning home after incarceration. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 102S-110S.

51.

Waller

M. R.

Plotnick

R. D.

(1999). Child support and low-income families: Perceptions, practices, and policy. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.