Bringing Partners into the Picture: Family-Strenghtening Programming for Incarcerated Fathers

Prepared for:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Introduction

Recent research suggests that the partners and families of incarcerated men are an important resource for men's successful reentry into society. However, programming to support couple and family relationships through incarceration and community reintegration is relatively rare. The Marriage and Family Strengthening Grants for Incarcerated and Re-Entering Fathers and Their Partners (MFS-IP) were designed to meet this need. Administered by the Office of Family Assistance (OFA) within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), these programs provide services to families during and after a father's incarceration to enhance family functioning and improve reentry outcomes.

This brief documents implementation challenges and lessons from the grantees' first 2 years of program operations. Information gathered through site visits for the national evaluation suggests that the challenges to involving partners in family-strengthening activities are significant and involve every component of the program: recruiting partners, retaining partners, serving partners in correctional facilities, and working with partners in the community.

It is anticipated that these grantee experiences will be helpful to faith-based and community organizations, human services agencies, and correctional systems that are developing programs to assist families affected by incarceration. Future implementation reports, which will be based on additional years of program operations, will document additional challenges and lessons learned.

What services do the grantees offer?

All of the MFS-IP grantees delivered family-strengthening services to men incarcerated in correctional facilities and provided some programming to the spouses or committed partners of these men (Table 1). Most of the programs selected commercially available curricula, including the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP), Caring for My Family, Exploring Healthy Relationships and Marriage with Fragile Families, Married and Loving It, Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills (PAIRS), and Couple Communication. Two sites delivered in-house curricula specifically designed for use with their target populations: Back to the Family, developed by Centerforce staff, and Keeping FAITH, developed by RIDGE Project staff.

All of these curricula address the three basic components of marriage/relationship education as required by OFA: improving communication between couples, improving individual couples' ability to resolve their conflicts, and strengthening a couple's commitment to increasing marital or relationship stability. As an example of curriculum content, the text box provides information about the PREP curricula, which six grantees chose to use.

Most grantees offered couples-based programming, with partners coming into the correctional facilities. However, a few offered parallel programming, serving partners in the community and serving fathers in correctional facilities. Programs generally provided relationship education to the father and his partner, some also provided parenting skills workshops, and some included financial skills development or employment workshops. A number of grantees also provided certain program components, such as case management, to both members of the couple jointly in the community following the release of the incarcerated partner.

How are partners identified and located?

Once a father is deemed eligible for the MSF-IP program and agrees to participate, he is asked to provide the name and contact information for his spouse or partner (typically a committed romantic or parenting partner) in the community. At most sites, program staff then contact the partner by mail and telephone with information about the program and invite her to participate.

Programs often had trouble initiating contact with partners: unanswered phone calls and letters were common. Staff attributed this difficulty locating partners in the community to several factors. Mistakes in the contact information initially shared by the incarcerated partner were frequent: staff frequently requested contact information a second time from the incarcerated participant before securing the correct address and telephone number. In other cases, contact information was simply outdated because of the lack of recent contact between the partners. Finally, some failures to make contact were attributed to deliberate nonresponse on the part of the partner. It was noted that the practice in some sites of making "cold calls" to partners, rather than having the incarcerated participant initiate contact, might contribute to lack of initial responsiveness. Staff at these sites observed that this disadvantage was balanced by a desire to avoid the potential for coercion by the incarcerated partner and ensure the emotional and physical safety of the partner in the community.

Challenge 1 - Recruitment: Why Would I Be Interested in This?

Some partners were not interested in participating in the offered services. Some had a general lack of interest in relationship-strengthening services while others were not willing to invest more in the relationship with the incarcerated partner.

Many women harbored skepticism about the incarcerated partner's ability to change. This was the case particularly for the partners of parole violators and men who, when given the opportunity to be released on community supervision rather than serving their full sentence, chose to serve out their full sentence.

Many partners also wondered, "If I don't have the problem, why do I need to come?"

Competing demands

Staff in several programs observed that many partners were overwhelmed with their current commitments and were reluctant to take on another one even when specific logistical barriers could be addressed.

"I haven't been in touch with him in 10 years"

Staff from many sites reported that they contacted women who had been identified as the romantic partners of incarcerated participants, only to be told that they did not consider themselves to be currently involved with the men, had not had contact with them in years, or were now married to or involved with other people. These partners told program staff that they had moved on from the relationship during the incarceration and were not at all interested in reviving it.

In contrast, grantees also reported that some women were not interested in participating because they believed that their relationships were already so positive and committed that they could not see room for improvement.

"He will always be my kids' father"

Many women did not perceive relationship-strengthening programming as highly relevant or compelling in and of itself. Female partners cited concern for their children as a primary reason for participating in services.

Given partners' demanding lives and the complex nature of their relationships with the incarcerated men and the correctional system at large, flexibility, tangible incentives, and interpersonal sensitivity were instrumental in effectively including partners in programming.

Challenge 2 - Retention: If I Were Interested, How Would This Work?

Although partner motivation is the driving factor in deciding to participate in these programs, the number of logistical barriers facing the partner is also important, particularly for retaining partners in programming over time. Such barriers to retention include time constraints, parenting responsibilities, and lack of transportation. Grantees invested time and resources in understanding each partner and her situation, maintaining communication with partners over a long time period, offering flexibility in timing of participation, and providing material supports and incentives when possible.

"I have to work and can't get time off"

Most partners held low-paying jobs that did not offer flexible scheduling. Several programs reported that initial recruitment efforts were stymied by prospective participants' schedule conflicts and noted that they needed to adjust class times and days to accommodate work commitments. Even when staff thought they had resolved a schedule conflict and arranged for free transportation, partners were frequently no-shows.

"Who will care for my children?"

Child care was a common constraint, especially for those programs that asked partners to make a multisession commitment (i.e., those programs that involved partners in activities on a regular or repeating basis as opposed to inviting partners to a one-time couples' seminar).

"I don't have a car and I can't afford to pay for gas for my friend's car"

Some prospective participants did not have access to a car, some faced significant travel time, and others lacked funds to pay for gas or other transportation expenses.

"How many times do I need to do this?"

Some of the same obstacles that prevented women from enrolling in programming also hindered retention. Uncertainty about pending commitments (such as retail and service industry work schedules) prevented some partners from being able to commit to attending until the last minute, and a variety of emergent situations often interfered with the participation of others who had committed in advance.

Challenge 3 - In-Prison Programming: Going to Prison Isn't My Idea of a Good Time

In addition to the challenges associated with getting partners enrolled in the MFS-IP programs and resolving logistical barriers to retention, there were additional issues that surfaced once grantees began delivering programming to enrolled partners.

As mentioned previously, most of the MFS-IP grantees offered couples-based programming inside the correctional facilities. Staff noted several difficulties associated with effectively delivering corrections-based services, including previous negative experiences and correctional facility policies.

"I don't really want to deal with the prison any more than I have to. I don't trust them."

Some partners were wary of dealing with prison policies and procedures. Staff reported that partners were sometimes reluctant to participate in programming on prison grounds. Programs noted that many partners had negative perceptions of prison-based programs, which stemmed from disappointing experiences with other interventions. In addition, staff noted that many partners expressed weariness with prison regulations and procedures, which typically included use of metal detectors and hand searching, detailed rules for visitor clothing, and time spent in sparsely equipped waiting areas.

"I have a record and won't be allowed in"

Although background check regulations varied, most facilities prohibited partners with criminal histories from entering. Many partners had criminal histories that prevented them from being approved for facility admittance.

Correctional rules and regulations presented obstacles to delivering services to partners

Driven by security needs, correctional administrators restricted which areas of the facilities could accommodate partners and what kinds of activities involving partners and incarcerated men were allowable.

Most programs needed to consider the monitoring required by the correctional facility for nonincarcerated persons taking part in prison-based services. Occasionally, facilities were not willing to allow programs to deliver any services to partners on prison grounds due to security and monitoring concerns. Certain proposed components, such as couples counseling prior to release, were not allowed by some facilities.

Ultimately, all grantees were successful in identifying available rooms within selected prison facilities that were adequate for educational purposes and appropriate for outside visitors. However, staffing remained a challenge because activities involving contact between incarcerated men and outside visitors required heightened officer supervision, often outside of regular business hours.

Challenge 4 - Services in the Community: I Forgot You Were Coming, Can We Reschedule?

Grantees that offered community-based services for partners also found significant difficulty recruiting and retaining participants, in addition to challenges coordinating community service delivery when participants were scattered across large geographic areas.

Finding the staff time to provide such services and motivating and sustaining partner involvement in them were the most significant barriers, especially for programs in which corrections-based programming for the men was the primary focus.

"I'm not that interested in talking with you"

Although community-based activities were theoretically more convenient for most participants than facility-based activities, some of the same logistical barriers (such as transportation problems, lack of child care, conflicting work schedules, and other commitments) presented similar challenges to ongoing participation. Program staff indicated that the lack of participation might also have been caused by reduced motivation since activities offered outside of the facilities did not allow women an opportunity to see their incarcerated partners and, thus, might have been less appealing in the context of many competing demands.

"You can't help me get a job, and that's the thing I need most"

Staff noted that some partners were unable to take full advantage of community supports offered by MFS-IP programs. Many women who enrolled in programming had criminal histories or other employment-related issues that prevented them from being eligible for or benefiting from services such as job readiness or job placement assistance. In these circumstances, there was less incentive for partners to continue participating.

"I'm sorry you drove 3 hours to meet with me, but I can't talk now"

Several grantees provided case management visits to partners in the community, typically meeting women in their homes or in a public location in their neighborhoods. For one grantee, the service area for eligible partners included a 77,000-square-mile state, plus 100 miles in all directions around the state border. However, even grantees serving smaller geographic areas found that the time associated with traveling to individual meetings with participants was substantial, particularly because it was difficult to predict no-shows and other disruptions.

Conclusions

Partners of men involved in the criminal justice system face a numbers of challenges as they try to maintain partner and family relationships during the incarceration or to consider whether these relationships are worth maintaining. Supporting the couple relationship through incarceration and community reintegration is complicated by the competing factors of juggling job responsibilities and single parenting.

MFS-IP grantees offered a range of services to address the needs of partners in the community, from relationship and parenting education to case management, counseling, and practical supports. Recruiting women required adaptability on the part of program staff. To overcome motivation-related challenges, grantees worked to gain partners' interest and trust by persisting and investing time to get to know them. Emphasizing potential benefits for the couples' children and offering tangible participation incentives were also helpful.

Grantees overcame logistical challenges by adjusting the timing of their activities to accommodate partner work schedules; condensing programming into fewer, more intensive sessions; offering child care or concurrent activities for children; and providing transportation support and lodging as needed.

Delivering these services successfully in correctional facilities and community settings demanded further resourcefulness. Grantees built collaborative relationships with correctional facilities that enabled them to negotiate successfully for the space and staff time required to deliver programming involving partners; adapted their service delivery approaches to accommodate facility security requirements; built positive, collaborative relationships with facility administrators and staff; invested staff time in building trust and rapport with partners; offered basic participation supports, such as child care and transportation assistance, to retain partners in the programming; and worked to provide relevant, convenient services to partners in their home communities.

The ongoing national evaluation of MFS-IP grantees will provide opportunities to document the evolution and impact of these programs as they continue to adapt to the challenges of providing relationship- and family-strengthening services to families involved with the criminal justice system.

Endnotes

1. See Incarceration and the Family: A Review of Research and Promising Approaches for Incarcerated Fathers and Their Families, available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/MFS-IP/Incarceration&Family/.

2. Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63, 225-238.

3. Bersani, B. E., Laub, J. H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2008). Marriage and desistance in the Netherlands: Do gender and socio-historical context matter? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(1), 3-24.

4. Visher, C. A., Knight, C. R., Chalfin, A., & Roman, J. K. (2009). The impact of marital and relationship status on social outcomes for returning prisoners. ASPE Research Brief, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/09/Marriage&Reentry/rb.shtml.

How to Obtain a Printed Copy

To obtain a printed copy of this report, send the title and your mailing information to:

You may also email the title and your mailing information to pic@hhs.gov.