Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Office of Child Support Enforcement

Incarceration, 

Reentry and Child 

Support Issues:

National and State 

Research 

Overview

Incarceration, 

Reentry and Child 

Support Issues:

National and State 

Research 

Overview

Report
This report was prepared by the Center for Policy Research for the Office of Child 

Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health 

and Human Services, under Contract Number 105-00-8300, Task Order 38, with 

Policy Studies Inc., March 2006. Points of view expressed in this document are 

those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the 

Department of Health and Human Services.
Executive Summary 

 Researchers, community organizations and government agencies, 

including Child Support Enforcement agencies, are seeking effective strategies to 

make reentry of offenders successful while balancing the needs of communities 

for safety. This background report presents a synopsis of key reentry research 

that relates to offenders and ex-offenders with family responsibilities and 

highlights the findings that apply to those with child support involvement. 

Reviewing the primary issues and services, the report draws from many sources, 

such as Bureau of Justice Statistics reports and prisoner reentry studies 

conducted by the Urban Institute and Vera Institute of Justice. In another report, 

“Working with Incarcerated and Released Parents: Lessons from OCSE Grants 

and State Programs, A Resource Guide,” (U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 2006), we discuss state and local demonstration projects funded by the 

Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) which address the child support 

issues of incarcerated parents. 

 This research overview begins by describing characteristics of incarcerated 

and released noncustodial parents and their families, most of whom have 

substantial needs for education and training, medical assistance and substance 

abuse treatment. Parents with child support obligations tend to have arrears and 

monthly support orders that far exceed what they can pay while serving their 

sentences and following their release. 

 We present examples of the three types of programming offered in state 

prisons and county jails that are relevant to parental responsibility and child 

support issues and discuss their limitations: parenting, faith-based and prisonbased work programs. We also discuss the major barriers to reentry that 

offenders face, including criminal records, occupational barriers to employment 

for felons, and the lack of community resources to assist with reentry. Family 

support and employment have been identified as two components of successful 

reentry, and research relating to these topics is examined. 

We conclude by examining some of the newest collaborative efforts 

underway to address the challenges of reentry. These endeavors range from 

broad Federally-funded programs, such as the Serious Violent Offender Reentry 

Initiative (SVORI) and the Ready4Work Initiative, to privately-funded research 

efforts such as the Fathers at Work project, funded by the Charles Stewart Mott 

Foundation. The transitional jobs model is discussed, as is the comprehensive 

report produced by the Re-entry Policy Council. 

 
Table of Contents 

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 

2. Characteristics of the Targeted Population.................................................. 2 

3. Prison-Based Programs Dealing with Family and Work .......................... 6 

 Parenting Programs .................................................................................................. 7 

 Prison-Based Work Programs................................................................................... 9 

 Faith-Based Programs ..............................................................................................11 

4. Barriers to Reentry ............................................................................................14 

 Criminal Records.......................................................................................................15 

 Occupational Barriers................................................................................................16 

 Lack of Community Resources .................................................................................17 

5. Elements for Successful Reentry....................................................................18 

 Family Support and Reentry .....................................................................................18 

 Employment and Reentry..........................................................................................19 

6. Current Collaborative Efforts for Reentry Programs.................................22 

 Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative.........................................................22 

 Ready4Work Initiative ...............................................................................................23 

 The President’s Prisoner Re-entry Initiative.....................................................23 

 Fathers at Work Project ............................................................................................24 

 Monograph: From Hard Time to Full Time ................................................................25 

 Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service...........................25 

 Pulling for Progress...................................................................................................26 

 CEO Model of Transitional Jobs Programs ...............................................................26 

 Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council.......................................................................27 

7. Summary.............................................................................................................29 

References................................................................................................................30 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

 With the realization that roughly 650,000 people are released from federal 

and state prison each year, community organizations and government agencies, 

including Child Support Enforcement agencies, are seeking effective strategies to 

make reentry of offenders successful while balancing the needs of communities 

for safety (Harrison and Beck, 2005a). For several years, the Federal Office of 

Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has assisted child support agencies in their 

efforts to work with incarcerated and released noncustodial parents with child 

support obligations. OCSE has awarded ten Section 1115 and Special 

Improvement Project (SIP) grants for demonstration projects that involve 

collaboration among child support agencies, Departments of Corrections, and 

community-based organizations, in order to identify the best approaches to 

working with this population. At the same time, other government agencies, 

researchers, and numerous community service providers are studying the 

reentry process and looking for programs that lead to a lower rate of recidivism. 

 This background report aims to inform the child support community of 

the range of initiatives and efforts dealing with reentry, including relevant inprison programming. We present a synopsis of key reentry research, current and 

recently completed, that relates to offenders and ex-offenders with family 

responsibilities. Reviewing the primary issues and services, the report draws 

from many sources, such as Bureau of Justice Statistics reports and prisoner 

reentry studies conducted by the Urban Institute and Vera Institute of Justice. 

 In another report, we focus on research funded by OCSE and programs 

developed by states and other jurisdictions for incarcerated parents and also 

consider the policies and procedures affecting reentry efforts through the lens of 

the child support system and mission. See “Working with Incarcerated and 

Released Parents: Lessons from OCSE Grants and State Programs, A Resource 

Guide,” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006). 

 We begin by describing characteristics of the population of incarcerated 

and released noncustodial parents (NCPs) and their families. Next, we discuss 

prison programming that is relevant to child support issues. After exploring 

barriers to reentry, we conclude by examining some of the newest efforts 

underway to come to grips with reentry. The literature generated by research 

about incarceration and reentry programs is vast; therefore, we highlight the 

major findings and the most promising areas of research on these topics that 

apply to parents with child support involvement. The examples given are not 

exhaustive but are representative of the studies being conducted in this area. 

1 
Chapter 2 

Characteristics of the Targeted Population 

 Of the roughly 1.5 million individuals incarcerated in federal and state 

prisons at the end of 2004, most (93%) were male, and 41 percent were black 

(Harrison and Beck, 2005b). 1 The majority of the federal and state prisoners are 

parents. In a special report that is now the cornerstone for understanding the 

impact of incarceration on children and families, the Bureau of Justice Statistics 

(BJS) found that 63 percent of federal prisoners and 56 percent of state prisoners 

in 1999 reported having one or more children under the age of 18 (Mumola, 

2000). The children of these parents totaled close to 1.5 million. 

 The number of children impacted by incarceration and reentry is 

strikingly higher when we add in parents who are in local jails or are sentenced 

to community corrections. Using figures from 1996, 1997, and 2001 surveys of 

inmates in federal, state, and local correctional institutions, BJS estimates that in 

2001, there were almost 3.7 million parents under correctional supervision (i.e., in 

prison or jail, or on parole, probation, and other forms of community 

corrections), with 7,333,100 minor children being affected (Mumola, 2002). 

 

 The 2000 BJS report provides additional details about incarcerated 

parents: 

 Nearly half (48%) of the parents in state prisons and 38 percent of parents 

in federal prison reported they had never married. 

 The median age of parents in state and federal prisons was 32 and 35 

years old, respectively. 

 Forty percent of parents in state prisons and 28 percent in federal prisons 

had neither a high school diploma nor a GED, while less than a third of 

parents (31% and 27%, respectively) had earned a GED. 

 About 46% of parents in state prisons reported living with their child(ren) 

before going to prison. 

 Further details from this report involve employment and income, which 

are important factors for noncustodial parents with child support obligations. 

 

1

 Our discussion concentrates on people who are incarcerated as a result of a criminal conviction and who 

also have child support obligations, rather than on noncustodial parents who are jailed or imprisoned 

because of non-payment of child support. See May, 2004; and May and Roulet, 2005 for detailed 

discussions of incarceration of low-income parents for non-payment of child support. 

2 
 Seventy-one and 74 percent, respectively, of parents in state and federal 

prisons reported they were employed in the month before their latest 

arrest. 

 More than half (59% and 63%, respectively) were employed full time. 

 More than half (54%) of state prisoners and close to half (47%) of federal 

prisoners who were parents reported a personal income of under $1,000 in 

the month before arrest. 

 Other research (Travis 2005) identifies various health, mental health, and 

addiction problems among the incarcerated population: 

 The prevalence of mental illness for prison inmates is estimated between 

16 and 25 percent. In 1999, mental health treatment was offered to 60 

percent of inmates with major mental disorders. 

 Roughly 80 percent of state prison inmates report a history of drug and 

alcohol use. In 1997, 10 percent of state inmates reported receiving 

treatment for substance abuse. 

 In 1997, 38 percent of Americans with tuberculosis were released from a 

prison or jail; similarly, 20 to 26 percent of people with HIV or AIDS and 

29 to 32 percent of people with Hepatitis C were released from prison or 

jail. 

 Recent research funded by OCSE adds to the portrait of incarcerated 

parents in terms of public assistance and child support: 

 The majority of families of incarcerated parents (i.e., custodial parents and 

children) with child support cases in Texas and Massachusetts are 

currently receiving Medicaid or public assistance or received one or both 

in the past; percents range from 55 percent in Texas to 92 percent in 

Massachusetts (Griswold, et al., 2004; Griswold, et al., 2005). 

 The portion of incarcerated parents with child support involvement 

ranges from 13 percent of inmates in Texas state jails in 2004, to 26 percent 

of inmates in Colorado state prisons in 2001, and 26 percent in 

Massachusetts state prisons in 2003. The Texas and Massachusetts counts 

are of parents with active child support cases, but do not include cases 

needing paternity or an order established (Griswold, et al., 2004; Griswold, 

3 
et al., 2005); the Colorado figure refers to incarcerated parents who were in 

the child support caseload (Griswold, Pearson and Davis, 2001). 

 Current order amounts are high for NCPs in prison with little or no 

income. In Massachusetts state prisons in 2001, the average monthly child 

support owed by 973 parents with orders was $198 per order, or $227 

across all orders for those fathers with children by different women 

(Thoennes, 2002).2

 Many NCPs enter prison with child support debt. A study of 213 

Colorado inmates with child support orders showed that they owed an 

average of $10,249 in past due child support when they entered prison 

(Griswold, Pearson and Davis, 2001). A similar study with incarcerated 

NCPs in Massachusetts in 2001 found they held an average arrears 

balance of $10,543 at the time they entered prison (Griswold, et al., 2004). 

 Most NCPs with current support orders pay no child support while in 

prison. Inmates in Massachusetts prisons in 2001 and 2003 paid 5 percent 

of what they owed (Griswold, et al., 2004). 

 Returning to the findings of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Mumola, 

2000), we consider the parents’ past involvement with the criminal justice 

system: 

 Almost half (49%) of parents in state prisons and 27 percent of those in 

federal prisons were on parole or probation at the time of their current 

arrest. 

 More than three-quarters (77%) of state inmates and close to two-thirds 

(63%) of federal inmates who were parents reported prior convictions. 

From these statistics, it is apparent that incarcerated parents with minoraged children is a population with substantial needs for education and training, 

medical assistance, and substance abuse treatment. Those parents with child 

support obligations tend to have arrears and monthly support orders that far 

exceed what they can pay while serving their sentences and following their 

release. Additionally, they tend to have a history of criminal justice involvement. 

 Not surprisingly, many people share the notion that if an individual earns 

a GED and improves his literacy skills, gains work experience, and is taught 

 

2

 The majority of NCPs are fathers, and the majority of parents in prison are male. Therefore, we will 

sometimes use the term “fathers” or male pronouns when referring to the generic incarcerated parent. 

4 
socially acceptable methods of communicating and relating with others, he might 

be less likely to return to a life of crime upon release (Travis, 2005; Jeffries, 

Menghraj and Hairston, 2001). In the following section, we discuss three types of 

programs — parenting, faith-based, and work programs — that are available to 

parents in some, but not all, state prisons and county jails.3

 

3

 State prisons typically house inmates serving longer sentences than do county jails, but systems for 

incarceration of convicted criminals vary by state. 

5 
Chapter 3 

Prison-Based Programs Dealing with Family and Work 

 The sentiments of American society toward incarceration — should it 

consist strictly of retribution or should it be rehabilitative in nature — have 

swung back and forth over time (Travis, 2005). Rehabilitation programs are 

costly, and there is always a question of how effective they are. Although the 

researcher who pronounced in 1974 that “nothing works” in rehabilitation 

programs rescinded his views five years later (Martinson, 1974, 1979, as cited in 

LoBuglio, 2001), high rates of recidivism continue to challenge the notion that 

individuals who are convicted of crimes and incarcerated can be rehabilitated. 

Yet the staggering numbers of people moving through our prisons are causing 

officials and lawmakers to search for prison programming that will lead to “prosocial” behaviors and attitudes in inmates (Caliber Associates, 2004). 

 Evaluations of prison programming typically contain a number of caveats. 

The measure of success of prison programs is often lower rates of recidivism and 

higher rates of employment several years after release. 4 But, as discussed by 

Lawrence, et al., (2002), a primary problem with evaluating the success of a 

prison program is the factor of selection bias. Most prison programs are 

voluntary and have limited enrollments, and consequently, the programs do not 

involve random assignments of inmates. Those who participate tend to be the 

most well-behaved and/or highly motivated inmates. Thus, participants may 

have better recidivism and employment outcomes than non-participants, but it is 

difficult to link the outcomes directly to the programs. 

 Another problem is that studies of prison programs often fail to identify 

which aspects of program implementation (i.e., staffing, the length of the 

program, the quality of instruction) are successful in improving outcomes 

(Lawrence, et al., 2002). Further, studies have tended to blur many types of soft 

skill and job skill activities under the terms “work program” or “vocational 

training,” making it difficult to sort out those activities that lead to specific 

outcomes. Finally, an inmate may take part in more than one program during 

the same time period (life skills training, vocational training, drug abuse 

treatment, academic training, and faith-based programs, for example), again 

making it difficult to ascertain the impact of any one program. 

 

4

 Defined by Allen Beck (2001) as a “fruit salad concept,” recidivism definitions involve what is counted as 

recidivism (for example, a new offense, a parole violation, or a second offense within the same state) and 

the time frame for what constitutes recidivism, which ranges from one to 22 years. Versions of recidivism 

vary substantially by state and jurisdiction. 

6 
Parenting Programs 

 Interest in parenting programs for inmates stems from several sources. 

Research examining the impact of incarceration on the children of offenders finds 

it difficult to establish whether negative outcomes (depression and emotional 

withdrawal of family and friends, low self-esteem, disruptive behaviors and lack 

of engagement in school, likeliness of future involvement with the criminal 

justice system) are a result of the parent being imprisoned or are reflective of the 

household patterns in which the child is residing (Travis, Waul and Solomon, 

2002). Nevertheless, there is growing interest in working with incarcerated 

fathers to teach them parenting and communication skills, in the hopes of 

interrupting generational patterns experienced by children without sufficient 

parental attention who are struggling to develop, and in some cases are 

following in their fathers’ footsteps (Jeffries, Menghraj and Hairston, 2001). 

 The interest of the child support community in parenting programs is 

based on the perception that noncustodial parents with strong connections to 

their children are more motivated to pay support on a regular basis. Parenting 

programs for incarcerated fathers and mothers are designed to provide them 

with new tools for communicating with their children, along with the rationale 

for shouldering parental responsibility. 

 Some of the OCSE-funded demonstration projects involving incarcerated 

parents included a parenting program (Illinois and Texas, for example). These 

projects are discussed in another report entitled, “Working with Incarcerated and 

Released Parents: Lessons from OCSE Grants and State Programs, a Resource 

Guide” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006). An example of a 

state-sponsored project for parents in prison is found in New Jersey. The New 

Jersey Child Support agency has a Memorandum of Understanding with the 

Department of Corrections to conduct a Responsible Parenting Program in a 

corrections facility for women and in five halfway houses. 

 Started in 2002, the program offers 16 weeks of parent education, mixing 

child support information with literacy, employment and job placement 

assistance, and post-release community support services. According to a Child 

Support Enforcement representative, more than 500 parents completed the 

program from 2002 through 2004. To date, the child support payment patterns of 

the graduates of this project have not been assessed. 

 Within county jails and state prisons, there are numerous “homegrown” 

parenting programs for inmates that are conducted by volunteers or staff from 

local community organizations. Understandably, these programs operate 

sporadically, depending on who is available to lead the classes and whether 

7 
staffing and security conditions within the facility are amenable to having 

outsiders come in. 

 A 2001 overview of parenting programs by the Vera Institute describes 

seven prison-based programs that appear to be well established (Jeffries, 

Menghraj and Hairston, 2001). Only one of the programs (Long Distance Dads, 

described below) is found in multiple states; the others are limited to operating 

within one facility or within one state. These programs range in method from 

clinical social work (Parents in Prison; Baltimore, Maryland) to providing basic 

parenting, nutrition, and child support information and post-release services 

(Papas and Their Children; San Antonio, Texas) to facilitating family interactions 

for parents in a pre-release program (Strengthening Families; Rockville, 

Maryland). 

 Long Distance Dads (LDD) is perhaps the best known and most widely 

used parenting program for incarcerated fathers; it is now offered in federal and 

state prisons and local jails in 19 states. The program consists of 12 modules, 

each taking two or three hours to cover the material. The sessions are facilitated 

by a trained peer of the inmates. The focus of LDD is to provide fathers with the 

understanding of the child development process, the various dimensions of 

parenting, and techniques for communicating with their children and families. 

Anger management is also a topic. In the Illinois and Texas OCSE demonstration 

projects, portions of the LDD curriculum were incorporated into the parenting 

programs. 

 The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections LDD program has 

undergone an outcomes evaluation (Center for Organizational Research & 

Evaluation [CORE], 2003) and a process evaluation (Skarupski, 2003) by Penn 

State Erie, the Behrend College’s Center for Organizational Research and 

Evaluation. The outcomes evaluation used pre-test and post-test data from 84 

and 42 experimental inmates, 60 and 47 control inmates, and 37 and 18 

caregivers, respectively. Addressing the question, “Does the LDD program 

improve inmates’ fathering knowledge, attitudes, skills and behaviors?”, the 

researchers found minimal evidence that the program has an impact. The 

experimental group showed improvement in only two of 20 variables. The two 

variables — the number of letters sent to the child and total contact with the 

child — relied on self-reporting. Interviews with caregivers did not corroborate 

the fathers’ assessments of their behavior. 

 However, the qualitative process evaluation found that LDD has “some 

promise,” since it is well-received by inmates (Skarupski, 2003). Participants 

who were interviewed reported gaining knowledge and skills about raising 

children from the program (roughly 50%) and learning anger management skills 

8 
(70%). The researchers made more than 20 recommendations for improving the 

effectiveness of the program and increasing the visibility and status of the 

program within corrections facilities (Center for Organizational Research & 

Evaluation [CORE], 2003). Practical suggestions for improvement included 

development of a standardized training program for staff, improvement of the 

environment in which group sessions take place, and updating of program 

materials and group techniques. 

 While it seems clear that parenting programs can be useful to many 

incarcerated parents, there is another aspect of parenting from prison that should 

not be overlooked. A well-known researcher and advocate of families of 

incarcerated individuals argues that policies of Departments of Correction and 

individual prison facilities unnecessarily limit or prevent parents from exercising 

their parenting skills and strengthening family relationships (Hairston, 2001). 

Policies that place inmates in prisons hundreds of miles away from their homes 

make prison visits a matter of humiliation and endurance for family members. 

Installing unusually expensive telephone systems for prisoners and their families 

creates even more obstacles for incarcerated parents wishing to maintain contact 

with their children. Hairston recommends that “Congressional bodies and state 

legislatures...take ownership of family related incarceration issues as a matter of 

national interest and make prisoners’ family matters an integral part of the 

discussion on criminal justice and family policy” (p. 21). 

Prison-Based Work Programs 

Every prison has a different configuration of vocational training 

programs, work requirements, and work opportunities for inmates. For 

example, each Colorado state prison offers training and work requirements 

and/or opportunities in one or more of these fields: welding, firefighting, food 

production management, wild horse management, power sewing, drafting, 

canine behavior modification, graphic media and desktop design, laundry 

technology, and custodial activities. The income inmates earn from work is 

typically minimal, averaging from $0.23 to $1.15 per hour (Solomon, et al., 2004). 

 

Incarceration seems an ideal time to teach people skills and give them 

experience in developing useful work habits. But issues of logistics, security, and 

funding limit the training and work programs that prison facilities make 

available. As incarceration rates increased in the 1990s, access to vocational 

training in prisons decreased. Roughly one-quarter (27%) of inmates released 

from state prisons in 1997 reported they had taken part in vocational programs 

while incarcerated, compared to 31 percent in 1991 (Lynch and Sabol, 2001). 

9 
Statistics compiled for the Reentry Roundtable that was convened by the 

Urban Institute in May 2003 indicate that almost all of federal prisoners and close 

to half of state prisoners nationwide are assigned to some sort of work within the 

corrections facilities (Solomon, et al., 2004). But just 7 percent of inmates worked 

in traditional industries in 2000, making items such as furniture, license plates, 

and textiles. The others worked largely at institutional maintenance jobs, which 

are not highly desired within the employment arena of the “free world.” 

Additionally, in-prison training programs, which are available to only a small 

portion of inmates, may not mesh with labor market demand. According to exoffenders in Illinois who were looking for work following release, the training 

they had received while incarcerated sometimes involved outdated machines 

and techniques, and seemed to hold no meaning for employers (Festen and 

Fischer, 2002). 

 Illinois offers an example of the limited opportunities for training and 

employment programs in the state prisons. The Illinois Correctional Industries 

(ICI) has the mission of providing productive work activities for adults in the 

state’s prisons, but only 3 percent of the prison population were employed by ICI 

from July 1, 1998, through February 1999 (La Vigne, et al., 2003). Similarly, the 

Illinois Department of Correction (IDOC) has 12 residential work-release centers 

known as Adult Transition Centers (ATCs), designed to help offenders transition 

from prison to community through a structured program that includes 

employment, counseling, and various life management programs. 

Unfortunately, the ATCs have the capacity to serve just 3 percent of state 

inmates. 

 Oregon’s work requirements for inmates represent a unique approach. In 

1994, voters in Oregon passed the Prison Reform and Inmate Work Act, an 

amendment to the state constitution that requires that state prison inmates 

engage in meaningful work or workforce development activities for a minimum 

of 40 hours a week. In response, Oregon DOC developed a series of work 

programs that move an inmate from institutional jobs to vocational training, to 

actual job training, and finally to prison industry jobs. Offenders can spend up 

to 20 hours per week with education and treatment programming and workforce 

development training, but must spend 20 hours a week laboring. 

 Oregon DOC claims a recidivism rate of approximately 30 percent within 

three years after release.5 This is less than the national rate of 51.8 percent, based 

on a 15-state study of prisoners released in 1994 who were back in prison within 

three years of release, according to a 2002 report by the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (Langan and Levin, 2002). In both cases, “recidivism” is defined as an 

 

5

 http://www.oregon.gov/DOC/OPS/PRISON/Prisons_FAQ.shtml. 

10 
offender returning to prison after committing a new crime or violating the terms 

of his release and having his parole revoked. 

 Another aspect of work programming for inmates involves pre-release 

activities related to employment services. Pre-release programs are typically 

offered to inmates who are within 60 or 90 days of release. Topics covered by 

employment services classes may include job readiness skills (dressing 

appropriately and completing a job application, for example), appropriate 

communication and interview skills, and job search skills such as using the 

resources of a “one-stop shop” career center. In some cases, the employment 

services programming continues after the inmates are released, in order to 

provide job search and placement services, and job coaching once the offender 

has secured employment. 

 Project Re-Integration of Offenders (RIO), a well-known employment 

services program, is a collaborative effort among the Texas Workforce 

Commission (TWC), the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), the 

Windham School District, and the Texas Youth Commission. As described in the 

Project RIO Strategic Plan for 2004 to 2005, of the 72,666 adult inmates released 

from TDCJ facilities in 2003, 38 percent (27,823) had received services from 

Project RIO (Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Texas Youth Commission, 

and Texas Workforce Commission, 2004). Project RIO is a voluntary program, 

ordinarily offered to inmates when they are within 18 months of release. It is not 

available in every state prison or jail. A primary function of a Project RIO staff 

member is to refer RIO participants to appropriate classes, vocational training 

programs, and work assignments offered within the facility, based on the 

inmate’s work skills, experience, and career interests. 

 The Texas Workforce Career Centers are notified when RIO participants 

living within their service area are released. Roughly 26,600 adult Project RIO 

participants came to Texas Workforce Centers for employment assistance during 

2003. Many of these individuals were referred to the Workforce Center by their 

parole board. Of these, 70 percent obtained employment, although Project RIO 

does not track how long an individual stays in a job. 

Faith-Based Programs 

Faith-based prison programs typically provide the opportunity for parents 

to experience attitudinal changes so that they take responsibility for their child 

emotionally and financially; thus, this type of program belongs in a general 

review of national trends in reentry programs with connections to child support. 

11 
 Faith-based prison programs often strive to address the “whole person” 

by providing services around spiritual development, mentoring, anger 

management training, family relationships, and addiction recovery. While some 

of these programs are local and small, others are international in scope, and they 

appear to provide some of the elements of successful re-entry that have fallen by 

the wayside through budget cuts to governmental social services (such as case 

management services, employment and training services, and post-incarceration 

housing assistance). 

 Horizon Communities in Prison, evolving out of Kairos Prison Ministry, is 

a faith-based residential rehabilitation program for inmates and their families; 

the program is now established in several prisons throughout the country 

(Szekely, 2004a). Inmates who volunteer and are accepted into the program are 

housed in a separate unit from the general prison population and undergo a 10- 

to 12-month regime of mentoring, devotionals, and programs that promote life 

skills, job skills, and addiction recovery. 

 The original program in Tomoka Correctional Institute in Florida was 

evaluated by Caliber Associates under a grant awarded by the ACF Office of 

Community Services through the Compassion Capital Fund program in 2002. 

The objectives of the evaluation, as spelled out in an issue brief in 2004, included 

determining “the role of the faith-based program in supporting individual 

prisoners, their families and communities” (Caliber Associates, 2004a). The 

research team followed a small percentage of program participants after release 

for a year or more, and compared their employment patterns and family 

relationships with a similar group of non-participating prisoners (Caliber 

Associates, 2004b). Although the limited number of released parents with open 

child support cases precluded statistical analysis regarding payment patterns, 

the findings suggested that “program graduates are more likely to meet child 

support obligations” (ibid., 1). 

 The InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI) is a faith-based pre-release 

program started in 1997 in a prison in Texas. It is operated by the Prison 

Fellowship Ministries through a contract with the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice (TDCJ). IFI was one of a number of rehabilitative programs developed by 

TDCJ at the direction of the Texas Legislature. The legislators also required that 

the program be evaluated by the Criminal Justice Policy Council (CJCP). IFI has 

been evaluated by both CJCP and the Center for Research on Religion and Urban 

Civil Society (CRRUCS). 

 IFI is located in a prison unit with room for 200 male participants. It is a 

voluntary, three-phase program that incorporates 16 to 24 months of in-prison 

programming and six to 12 months of aftercare when the inmate is released and 

12 
on parole. The program is designed to substitute a spiritual and moral 

foundation for “criminal thinking” through the use of Bible study courses, life 

skills education, support groups, and group accountability. The program relies 

on volunteers from area churches to be male mentors, bible instructors and 

support facilitators (Johnson and Larson, 2003). In the aftercare phase of the 

program, the paroled offender is encouraged to bring his mentor to meetings 

with his parole officer. The aftercare program provides referrals for housing and 

employment, helps maintain mentoring relationships, and attempts to link the 

participants to local church communities. 

 The outcome evaluation of IFI conducted by CJCP compared the two-year 

recidivism rate of 177 project participants who were released before September 1, 

2000, with that of 1,754 inmates who matched IFI criteria but did not take part in 

the program (Trusty and Eisenberg, 2003). Participants who completed the 

program had significantly lower recidivism rates (8% after two years) than the 

comparison group (20%). Another finding points to the importance of a network 

of support for released offenders: The recidivism rate was 8 percent for 

participants whose mentor was known to their parole officer, and 17 percent for 

those without this relationship (ibid.). The researchers note that recruitment of 

mentors and maintenance of the mentor relationships present a continual 

challenge. 

 Unfortunately, neither of the evaluations provided demographic 

information about the participants except age (52% were more than 35 years old) 

and race (67% were African-American) (Johnson and Larson, 2003). We do not 

know the number of participants who were fathers or who had child support 

obligations, nor was any information given about employment patterns. 

13 
Chapter 4 

Barriers to Reentry 

Whether they did or did not participate in prison-based programming, 

paroled and released offenders face multiple barriers to employment and selfsufficiency (Petersilia, 2000). Many people emerging from prison lack job 

experience and work skills. Of 454 fathers in a Massachusetts state prison or a 

county correctional facility in 2002, approximately one-third (34%) said they 

were working full-time a year before incarceration, compared to almost half 

(48%) who reported they were unemployed, and 18 percent who were employed 

part-time or doing day labor (Griswold, 2002). Slightly more than one-fourth 

(27%) reported that the longest time they had worked for any employer was less 

than a year, and 56 percent reported working between one and three years for 

one employer. 

The pervasive deficiencies in education, work experience, and useful job 

skills held by individuals being released from prison have been well documented 

(Travis, Solomon and Waul, 2001; Holzer, Rafael and Stoll, 2003). In 2002, 36 

percent of state jail confinees and 31 percent of state prison inmates in Texas 

were tested at education achievement scores of less than sixth grade, indicating 

their low literacy skills (Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 2003). In the 

same year, 36 percent of Texas state jail confinees and 47 percent of state prison 

inmates disclosed they had stopped school before earning either a high school 

diploma or a GED (ibid.). In some cases, the pre-incarceration employment 

history of inmates consists of poor work habits combined with drug addiction 

problems (Festen and Fischer, 2002). Any career-building experiences offenders 

obtained prior to incarceration may be erased by time spent in prison (Street, 

2002). 

Transitioning back into the community and family presents a host of 

challenges for someone coming out of prison, beginning with the release process. 

For example, an offender released from Rogelio Sanchez state jail in Texas is 

transported by jail staff to the bus station in downtown El Paso unless he has 

arranged his own transportation from the jail. His canteen account is closed out 

and he is given a check for the amount he had in his account. If he has no 

clothing, he is provided with items which have been collected from the Salvation 

Army by jail staff. An inmate in an Illinois state prison with no savings is given a 

bus ticket and $50. Ex-offenders taking part in a study of reentry problems in 

Chicago reported that $50 is not enough to cover the costs of looking for work, 

much less to pay for such basic needs as housing and food until employment is 

found and paychecks are received (Festen and Fischer, 2002). 

14 
A study by Vera Institute found that offenders often cannot secure 

employment, housing, or public assistance because they lack basic proof of 

identity papers (Nelson, Deess and Allen, 1999). Released and paroled offenders 

typically face significant financial obligations, too. In addition to making 

restitution payments, the offender may owe current and past child support , 

court costs and fines, halfway house room and board expenses, drug treatment 

and testing costs, and, in some cases, supervision costs. 

A great deal of research has focused on barriers to reentry that released 

offenders experience (Lynch and Sabol, 2001; LaVigne, et al., 2003). In the 

following paragraphs, we will briefly examine the topics of criminal records and 

employment, occupational barriers to employment, and the lack of community 

resources to assist with reentry. 

Criminal Records 

 Employers are understandably cautious about hiring a released offender, 

regardless of the nature of the crime. Recent studies find that employers tend to 

avoid hiring individuals with criminal backgrounds, despite laws limiting the 

use of criminal history records in employment decisions (Holzer, Rafael and 

Stoll, 2003). A carefully structured experiment in Milwaukee used matched pairs 

of individuals to apply for real entry-level jobs in order to study how employers 

respond to criminal records (Pager, 2003). Two teams of two testers each, one 

with white males and the other with black males, conducted job application 

audits of 350 employers. The testers of each team were selected for similarities in 

appearance and style of presentation. They were given identical background 

characteristics and rotated having a criminal record or not. 

 The researchers found that, “in the absence of other disqualifying 

characteristics,” released offenders with criminal records are only one-half to 

one-third as likely to be considered by employers as are people without these 

records. In response to these findings, groups such as the National H.I.R.E. 

Network and the Council of Advisors to Reduce Recidivism through 

Employment (C.A.R.R.E.) in Illinois are calling for states to examine their policies 

with regard to correcting, expunging, or sealing criminal records in some cases, 

and under certain conditions to provide certificates of rehabilitation for released 

offenders after a specified number of years with no further criminal convictions 

(Matthews and Casarjian, 2002). 

 Several cities (Boston, Chicago and San Francisco) have taken steps to 

revise their hiring policies for city jobs, so that ex-offenders are not immediately 

eliminated from consideration (National Employment Law Project, 2006). These 

cities share a commitment to helping the reentry process succeed by removing 

15 
unfair barriers to employment. For example, Boston’s ordinance, which takes 

effect July 1, 2006, prohibits the city and its vendors from conducting a criminal 

background check until the job applicant is determined to be a qualified 

candidate. The employer is required to consider the age and seriousness of the 

crime. Additionally, the ordinance puts in place an appeals process for 

individuals who are denied employment as a result of their criminal records. 

Chicago’s policy requires that city agencies take into account a person’s 

rehabilitation record, and the age and seriousness of the crime. Similarly, San 

Francisco recently removed the requirement that criminal histories be included 

in initial job applications for public employment. Jobs where state or local laws 

specifically prohibit people with convictions from employment remain 

exceptions to these new policies. 

Occupational Barriers 

 A further set of barriers for released offenders seeking employment 

involves federal and state employment restrictions that bar individuals with 

criminal records from certain professions and occupations (Dietrich, 2002). 

Federal agencies are permitted to establish personnel policies that fit their 

mission and employment needs. Thus, the IRS has stringent policies regarding 

the employment of individuals with criminal histories involving taxes (Matthews 

and Casarjian, 2002). A recently enacted restriction is the new federal regulation 

for people with commercial driver’s licenses who must apply for a “hazardous 

material endorsement,” or HME, also known as a HazMat license. HMEs are 

required for a variety of drivers, including municipal trash collectors and 

interstate truckers hauling chemicals. Under the U.S. Patriot Act, there are 24 

felony offenses that will disqualify a person from receiving a hazardous material 

endorsement, either for a number of years or for a lifetime. Applicants for the 

license are now required to provide fingerprints for a national criminal records 

search (Emsellem, 2005). 

 Similarly, every state has its own set of employment laws, licensing 

practices, and hiring restrictions concerning individuals with criminal records. 

Often, states require that criminal convictions be considered when renewing or 

issuing licenses for specific occupations. In Illinois, more than half of the 99 

statutes that regulate licensing of occupational and professional employment 

contain stipulations for granting licenses to ex-offenders (DePaul University 

Legal Clinic and Safer Foundation, 2002). The restrictions range from absolute 

barriers to employment in some professions (for conviction of certain crimes) to 

consideration of a conviction when determining moral character in others. 

16 
 At the same time, the federal government is encouraging employment of 

released offenders by offering a federal tax credit to employers who hire people 

with felony records. The states of California, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, and 

Texas provide additional state income tax credits to employers who hire people 

with criminal records, according to the National H.I.R.E. Network.6

 

Lack of Community Resources 

It should come as no surprise that the communities in which many 

offenders were raised and to which they return when released have high 

unemployment rates, few housing options, above average crime rates, and 

limited social services available. A study of reentry patterns in Illinois found that 

62 percent of inmates released from Illinois state prisons in 2001 returned to 

Cook County (La Vigne, et al., 2003). Of these 18,377 inmates, 34 percent 

returned to six of the 77 Chicago communities. Of the various service 

organizations in Chicago serving ex-offenders, only 24 percent were located 

within these disadvantaged neighborhoods, and two of the six communities 

lacked any such services (ibid.). Thus, access to programs for substance abuse 

treatment, employment and training, and mental health is not readily available 

for residents of these communities. 

 A similar pattern is found in Houston, where one-fourth of all prisoners 

who were released in 2001 returned to Harris County, and roughly one-fourth of 

the supervised (under mandatory supervision) ex-offenders returned to five ZIP

codes in Houston (Watson, et al., 2004). As is true with Chicago, the Houston 

communities receiving the highest numbers of released offenders tend to have 

the fewest services to help individuals with reentry. A recent demonstration 

project in Texas involving incarcerated and released fathers also identified 

limited public transportation in the Houston area as a factor that contributes to 

the difficulties that these men have in obtaining employment (Griswold, et al., 

2005). 

 

6

 http://hirenetwork.org/state_tax_credits.htm 

17 
Chapter 5 

Elements for Successful Reentry 

 In the past few years, judicial personnel, officials in the criminal justice 

system, legislators, and community activists have developed an intense interest 

in creating, testing, and funding successful reentry programs. The reason for this 

interest has been well documented: the high rate of incarceration in the U.S. is 

causing tremendous impacts on communities and resources as increased 

numbers of people are coming out of prison (Travis, 2005). Roughly 650,000 

people are released from prison each year, according to the U.S. Department of 

Justice.7 Research suggests two elements play an important role for released 

offenders who succeed at reentering society and avoid returning to prison: 

family support and employment (Buck, 2000; Travis, 2005). 

Family Support and Reentry 

 A study completed by the Vera Institute of Justice in 1999 followed 49 

individuals for 30 days from the time they were released from a New York state 

prison or a New York City jail (Nelson, Deess and Allen, 1999). The researchers 

found that a primary indicator of successful reintegration was a supportive 

family. Having a strong family connection correlated positively with the success 

of individuals to find work, stay away from drugs, and make new friends. 

 The evaluation of another study from the Vera Institute provides details 

on the positive impact that families can have on released offenders (in this case, 

convicted drug users) but also highlights the strains in family relationships that 

such intense involvement can generate (Sullivan, et al., 2002). Since 1996, La 

Bodega de la Familia has provided family case management services to drug 

users and their supporting family members. For an assessment of the program, 

subjects for the study were interviewed when they entered the program and six 

months later. Arrest and conviction data for the study participants and 

comparison group were analyzed. The researchers compared outcomes for a 

sample of program participants (88 drug users and 69 family members) with 

outcomes for a comparison group of 91 drug users and 47 family members. 

After six months of being in the program, there was a reduction in illegal drug 

use by the program substance abusers from 80 to 42 percent, which was 

significantly more than in the comparison group, where usage dropped from 61 

to 48 percent. 

 

7

 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov./reentry/learn.html. 

18 
 One of the unexpected findings was that the drop in drug usage by 

Bodega participants was not accompanied by increased drug treatment, as was 

the case for the comparison group, but instead appeared to be linked to pressures 

and attention from family members and case managers (Sullivan, et al., 2002). At 

the same time, the successful reduction in drug usage often came with the 

exacerbation or reopening of old family issues and tensions. The drug users in 

the program reported less satisfaction with family living arrangements at the end 

of six months, while the comparison group’s satisfaction stayed the same. 

Researchers linked the disaffection felt by the participants to the adjustments 

both users and family members must make in the process of recovery from 

addiction. Finally, although a reduction in recidivism was not a goal of the 

original project, the evaluation indicated the project participants experienced 

fewer arrests and convictions than did the comparison group. 

Employment and Reentry 

 What is the relationship between post-release employment and successful 

reentry? A review of employment programs for ex-offenders conducted in the 

past three decades turns up mixed findings (Buck, 2000). Studies conducted 

during the 1970s, such as the evaluation of the National Supported Work 

Demonstration, found that this program of unsubsidized employment in a 

supportive work environment had an initial positive impact on ex-offenders, but 

by the end of the first year, the outcomes for the treatment and control groups 

were roughly the same (p. 3). 

 In contrast, an evaluation of Project RIO (described above on page 11), 

showed promising results (Menon, et al., 1992). Project RIO provides vocational 

and job preparation services to inmates, and refers offenders to local Workforce 

Commission Centers following release. A year after release, 69 percent of RIO 

participants were employed, almost double the portion of those employed in the 

comparison group (36%). Additionally, 23 percent of RIO participants were 

returned to prison within the first year, compared to 38 percent from the control 

group (ibid.). A more recent report on Project RIO provides similar employment 

results (Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 2003). 

 Harer’s study of 1,205 federal inmates looked at the impact of 

employment on recidivism rates (Harer, 1994). Rather than focusing on 

employment program content, Harer took into account pre-prison, prison, and 

post-prison experiences of the subjects, and demonstrated that people who were 

employed full time or attended school prior to incarceration had a lower 

recidivism rate (25.6%) than those who were not so engaged (60.2%), and that 

inmates who lined up employment before release returned to prison at a lower 

rate (27.6%) than those who made no such arrangements (53.9%). Those 

19 
individuals who as inmates completed a training program for each six months of 

their time spent in prison also had a modestly lower recidivism rate (35%) than 

inmates who did not complete such courses (41%). 

 A more recent review of programs involving employment services for 

hard-to-place individuals was completed in 2004, and involved 11 sites. The 

Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grants program, funded primarily by the Federal 

government, was designed to help disadvantaged welfare recipients (primarily 

women) become employed and self-sufficient. The program was based on the 

notion that placing individuals quickly into the workforce and providing 

support services is more useful than providing training prior to placing people in 

jobs. Congress mandated that the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) and the Department of Labor (DOL) evaluate the grants program 

(Fraker, et al., 2004). The results of one of the sites (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) are 

relevant to this report. Unlike the other sites, which primarily worked with 

females who were receiving welfare, the Milwaukee program served 276 men 

who were noncustodial parents on parole or probation. The Wisconsin 

Department of Corrections was in charge of this program, called the 

Nontraditional Opportunities for Work (NOW) Program. 

 Employment, training and support services were provided to the NCPs 

through four Wisconsin Works (W-2) agencies. Two of these agencies added 

parenting and fatherhood classes to the services, and included discussions about 

the child support system (Nightingale, Pindus and Trutko, 2002). Less than half 

of the NOW project participants received job readiness training (40%) or job 

search assistance (45%), which were the primary WtW services (Fraker, et al., 

2004). One-third (33%) took part in education or training programs designed to 

enhance work skills, and 28 percent took part in peer support and discussion 

groups. 

 Two years after entry into the program, 33 percent of the Milwaukee 

participants were employed, up from 26 percent at program entry. As was the 

case with the participants from other sites, the Milwaukee participants remained 

poor throughout the project, although they had the highest mean monthly 

income ($1,816) and the lowest incidence of poverty (59%) of the 11 sites. In 

Milwaukee, as in the majority of sites, employment for participants decreased 

between the first and second years after program entry. 

 Following analysis of the project data, researchers declined to say whether 

enrollees in the WtW grants program “made better employment progress” than 

they would have with no program. Noting that the outcomes indicate there is 

“room for considerable improvement” in current approaches to move people 

into viable employment with the potential for wage growth and away from a 

20 
state of poverty and the need for public assistance, the authors call for more 

research and experimentation to see if factors such as a greater use of job 

training, health care and child care would make a difference (Fraker, et al., 2004, 

pp. 116-117). 

 One researcher points out that the role of work in lowering recidivism 

rates is not straightforward (Piehl, 2003). In a review of data and literature, she 

suggests that crime is not necessarily an alternative to work. Data from the 1997 

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth indicate that 85 to 90 percent of young 

people who had an income through crime were also employed (p. 3). Other 

studies raise the question as to whether having a job will impact the behavior 

patterns of individuals who are fully invested in a lifestyle with antisocial and 

criminal patterns. Further, for ex-offenders who lack education, communication 

skills, work skills and job experience, any employment they secure is likely to be 

limited in wages and opportunities for wage growth. Most released offenders 

have an immediate need for employment, often as a stipulation of parole and in 

order to meet financial obligations such as child support, and they cannot afford 

to wait for the long-term benefits that might come from vocational training or 

more schooling. According to this review, employment programs can surely be 

structured to assist ex-offenders who are motivated to change, but we should not 

expect employment to provide more than “a modest reduction in criminal 

activity” (p. 13). 

21 
Chapter 6 

Current Collaborative Efforts for Reentry Programs 

 In the previous sections we discussed prison-based programming that 

centers on parenting and work, barriers to reentry, and elements that appear to 

contribute to successful reentry. In the final section of this report, we look at a 

range of collaborative efforts aiming to develop effective reentry programs. 

Some of these projects involve federal agencies; others are funded through 

private foundations. The projects listed here are indicative of the significant 

resources being poured into reentry. They were selected to show the scale of 

interest at the national level, and how this interest translates into local projects. 

For a number of the projects, such as those funded by the Serious and Violent 

Offender Reentry Initiative, the evaluation process is underway but outcomes 

will not be available for several years. 

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative 

The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) is funded by 

the U.S. Departments of Justice (DOJ); Labor (DOL); Education; Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD); and Health and Human Services (HHS). The intent 

of SVORI is to help states develop new or expand existing programs that provide 

integrated supervision and reentry services to adults and juveniles leaving 

correctional facilities. In 2003, this extensive collaborative project granted 

awards to 69 grantees, located in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. The 69 grantees, which include state and local agencies, are 

operating 89 distinct programs, of which two-thirds (67%) have both pre-release 

and post-release service components (Winterfield and Lindquist, 2005). The 

primary goal of SVORI is to increase public safety by reducing recidivism among 

the population served by reentry programs. 

 The grantee programs tend to be small, with roughly half (53%) planning 

to serve 100 or fewer individuals per year (Lattimore, et al., 2004). Almost all 

(95%) of the programs offer employment and/or education services, and more 

than 90 percent provide substance abuse treatment and mental health 

counseling. A comprehensive multi-site evaluation, being conducted by RTI 

International and Urban Institute, will include an implementation assessment, an 

impact evaluation, and a cost-benefit analysis (Lattimore, et al., 2004). The 

impact evaluation will compare outcomes for a sample of returning offenders 

who receive SVORI services before release and during the first two years after 

release, with a comparison group who do not receive these services. Details of 

the grantees and the evaluation plans were provided in a report presented at the 

22 
first National Conference on Offender Reentry in Cleveland in 2004 and posted 

on the Internet at the evaluation website.8 The evaluation period runs until 2008. 

Ready4Work Initiative 

 Ready4Work (R4W) is a three-year, $22.5 million program to assist faithbased and community programs that provide mentoring and other transition 

services for men and women returning from prison. R4W is jointly funded by 

the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and a 

consortium of private foundations. R4W was designed to generate successful 

reentry and reduce recidivism of released offenders through the provision of 

case management, job training and placement, soft skills development, and 

mentoring services to individuals. The initiative is aimed at bringing local 

businesses, faith-based organizations, criminal justice agencies, and community 

non-profit social service agencies together to address the problems of reentry and 

employment barriers.9

 Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) received a grant in 2004 to evaluate 16 

R4W sites across the country. The 16 sites are a mixture of non-profit and for 

profit organizations, some faith-based and others secular. The program is in the 

second year of operation; consequently, there is little to report in the way of 

outcomes. But P/PV released a one-page report saying that as of February 2005, 

2,700 individuals have been recruited for the program, and close to 60 percent of 

R4W adults have become employed.10 Demographic information and child 

support involvement of participants is not available at this time. 

 According to a P/PV administrator, the use of faith-based organizations is 

what sets R4W apart from standard reentry programs. Their contribution is the 

provision of volunteers who mentor individuals and groups. For example, Safer 

Foundation, the lead organization for the Chicago site, relies on four churches to 

recruit, train, and retain 15 to 20 mentors per congregation. 

The President’s Prisoner Re-entry Initiative 

 R4W served as the model for President Bush's four-year, $300 million 

prisoner re-entry initiative announced in his January 20, 2004 State of the Union 

Address and contained in his fiscal year 2005 budget. The Prisoner Re-entry 

Initiative is a collaboration of the Departments of Labor, Justice, Housing and 

Urban Development and Health and Human Services. 

 

8 http://www.svori-evaluation.org/

9 http://www.dol.gov/cfbci/ready4work.htm 10 www.ppv.org/ppv/community_faith/community_faith.asp 

23 
 Working together with faith-based and community organizations 

(FBCOs), this initiative is designed to help ex-offenders find and keep 

employment, obtain transitional housing and receive mentoring in urban centers 

and areas of greatest need. FBCOs will offer job training and job placement 

services in coordination with business and other employment providers. They 

will also provide post-release mentoring and other services essential to 

reintegrating ex-offenders in coordination with the corrections, parole, and 

probation structure. Grants would be available to organizations providing 

housing services or vouchers to individuals to partially subsidize transitional 

housing.11

 In 2005, DOL awarded 30 grants totaling $19.8 million to faith-and 

community-based organizations to assist non-violent ex-offenders returning to 

their local communities. DOJ is holding a limited grant competition in the 20 

states where the DOL grants were awarded to conduct pre-release services for 

program participants.12

Fathers at Work Project 

 Fathers at Work is a three-year initiative funded by the Charles Stewart 

Mott Foundation, which is currently being conducted at six sites throughout the 

country. Launched in 2001, the workforce development program is designed to 

provide services to young, low-income, noncustodial fathers in order to improve 

their employment and earnings, response to child support obligations, and 

involvement in their children’s lives. Two of the sites work specifically with 

released offenders. Of the 1,222 men who enrolled in the six programs, roughly 

three-quarters have criminal records (Kotloff, 2005). 

 Program outcomes for Fathers at Work have not yet been completed, but 

the evaluators (Public/Private Ventures) recently released a qualitative study of 

27 fathers who relied on illegal activity or “hustling” (either selling drugs or 

committing robberies and burglaries) as a source of income prior to entering the 

program (Kotloff, 2005). Recruited for the qualitative study several weeks after 

they enrolled in the project, the men were interviewed individually several times 

over a three-month period. The interviews explored their experiences with 

illegal activity, legitimate employment, fatherhood, and the child support 

system. Almost all of the interviewees had experienced a series of low-paying 

short-term jobs, and cited the need for full-time employment as a reason for 

enrolling in the program. Only three of the men were employed when they 

enrolled in the program, and their jobs were part-time. 

 

11 http://www.dol.gov/cfbci/reentryfactsheet.htm 12 http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20052123.htm

24 
 As participants in the Fathers at Work program, men were given job 

readiness training and help in locating and retaining employment. Of the 27 

respondents, employment information for 18 of them was retrieved in the 12 to 

18 months following their enrollment (the other nine men could not be located). 

The average hourly wage of the 18 men was $8.18. Fourteen of the men were 

employed full time at their 12-month enrollment anniversary, working at the 

same job on an average of nine months (Kotloff, 2005). Thus it appears that the 

majority of men for whom information was available made gains in employment. 

However, this is a very small group of individuals and the time frame is 

relatively short. Without analysis of the broader program outcomes for the 

larger sample, it is premature to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of 

Fathers at Work. 

Monograph: From Hard Time to Full Time 

Funded by the Division of Welfare-to Work of the U.S. Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), the monograph “From 

Hard Time to Full Time” was produced in 2001 to assist service providers and 

workers in TANF offices and workforce development organizations who are 

trying to place ex-offenders in jobs. 13 The booklet, written by a legal advocate for 

released felons seeking employment, explains the barriers to employment for 

released offenders: criminal records, occupation exclusions, employment 

discrimination, and lack of documentation. The worker is coached to work with 

employers as well as ex-offenders, to become familiar with relevant laws and to 

help clients clean up their criminal records (Mukamal, 2001). 

Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) 

 As part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Cooperative 

State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) agency provides links 

between Federal and State components of the national agricultural, education, 

research and extension system. The system is designed to address problems 

relating to agriculture, the environment, human health and communities. 

Depending upon state and local interests and resources, the Cooperative 

Extension system may be a resource for general adult education materials 

addressing such topics as parenting, financial management and nutrition. 

 State and county Extension agencies which are part of the network set their own 

priorities, and in some cases this involves working with incarcerated parents and 

their families. 

 

13 http://hirenetwork.org/pdfs/From_Hard_Time_to_Full_Time.pdf

25 
 One example of an Extension agency working with incarcerated parents is 

the 4-H Living Interactive Family Education (LIFE) program. This program, 

sponsored by the University of Missouri Outreach and Extension, serves children 

of incarcerated parents by involving the children in 4-H programming and by 

developing “an enhanced visitation environment” at one state prison facility in 

southeast Missouri. Fathers taking part in the program attend monthly 

parenting training classes, which interface with the children’s 4-H activities. The 

program has been operating for six years, and serves about a dozen fathers and 

their children at any one time. Pre- and post-assessments of the life skills of the 

children who participate indicate the program improves their social 

competencies, communication skills and decision-making skills (Dunn, 2003). 

Pulling for Progress 

The U.S. Department of Labor awarded a WtW grant to Hillsborough 

Community College in Tampa, Florida, to train noncustodial parents with 

criminal justice histories for entry-level jobs in the telecommunications industry. 

Described by the program director as a faith-based business model, the program 

consisted of one week in job skills training (for example, dressing and conversing 

appropriately and being at work on time), and two weeks of technical training 

and on-the-job training. The project also offered job placement services. From 

2000 to 2004, the Pulling for Progress program trained 423 NCPs in a Level 1 

cable installer course. Of these, 390 students were employed and had some 

income for at least three consecutive quarters, and 180 participants received 

certification from Building Industry Consultants Service International (BICSI). 

According to the program director, project staff accompanied participants to 

court for child support hearings, and worked to inform the state CSE agency and 

judges of the merits of the training program. 

CEO Model of Transitional Jobs Programs 

 

 Transitional jobs programs have the potential to help released and paroled 

offenders and other hard-to-employ populations by providing time-limited, 

wage-paying jobs to individuals while they are developing skills, overcoming 

barriers, and accruing experience in the workplace (Szekely, 2004b). A 

promising model comes from the nationally known employment services agency 

for released offenders, Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) in New 

York. CEO has contracts with a number of public agencies to provide 

maintenance services. 

 Released offenders who enter the program attend a four-day life skills 

class, which concentrates on workplace behavior and job search skills. They are 

then placed at one of CEO’s worksites, where they work four days a week and 

26 
are paid minimum wage on a daily basis. The parolees spend the fifth day of 

each week in the CEO office, meeting with job developers and coaches, and 

taking part in activities such as a fatherhood program. In this way, the project 

participants learn basic work skills as they prepare for full-time, unsubsidized 

employment. The agency works with roughly 1,800 participants a year, and 

estimates that 40 percent are noncustodial parents. 

 CEO has received foundation grants and is part of several federally 

funded demonstration projects aimed at developing a strong program for 

transitional jobs that meshes with responsible fatherhood activities. For example, 

CEO is one of four sites which make up the project “Enhanced Services for the 

Hard-to-Employ,” funded by HHS, DOL, and several private foundations. The 

goal of the project is to increase employment and reduce dependency on public 

assistance for the hard-to-employ population. The study with parolees is 

designed to compare the effectiveness of the core elements of CEO with the 

standard job search services offered. 

 Parolees who come to CEO are randomly assigned to the Neighborhood 

Work Project (NWP) group and receive a full set of services described above, or 

are assigned to the Resource Room Group as part of the control group. 

Individuals in the Resource Room Group attend a 11⁄2-day Life Skills class, and 

then have access to a staffed resource room with computers, phone, voicemail, a 

printer, and other job search tools. The Resource Room is staffed with someone 

to assist the parolees in learning how to use the equipment and develop a 

resume. Over time, the evaluator MDRC will use a combination of surveys and 

administrative records to measure employment, criminal justice involvement, 

and other outcomes of the two groups. 

Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council 

Another extensive effort to address issues of reentry is the final report of 

the Re-Entry Policy Council (Re-Entry Policy Council, 2005). Designed to assist 

policymakers dealing with funding and safety issues, this report was sponsored 

by the U.S. Departments of Justice, Labor, and Health and Human Services. The 

report is the result of a series of meetings among 100 respected workforce, health, 

housing, public safety, judicial, family, community, and victim experts working 

throughout the country. 

 The Re-Entry Policy Council offers hundreds of consensus-based, 

bipartisan recommendations for reducing public spending and increasing public 

safety by promoting the safe and successful return of released offenders to the 

community. Beginning with a discussion of how to prepare for a reentry 

program, the report identifies many of the challenges found in collaborative 

27 
efforts for reentry, such as conflicting organizational missions of participating 

agencies, difficulties in delivering services in the communities where released 

offenders reside, and identifying sufficient funding streams for sustaining the 

program. 

 There are 35 policy statements in this report, covering the general topics of 

admission procedures to a corrections facility, range of programming in facilities, 

managing the early (and key) transition period of release, community 

supervision, and effective health and social services systems. The topic of child 

support is given serious consideration in numerous policy statements. For 

example, the report recommends that intake staff identify new inmates with 

child support obligations soon after admittance, and that staff encourage inmates 

to “initiate the process to update their support orders” (Re-Entry Policy Council 

2005, p. 129). This suggestion is followed by a paragraph describing the 

approach taken by Massachusetts to modify orders of incarcerated NCPs (p. 130). 

 In the section “Children and Families,” several pages are devoted to the 

importance of collaboration between Child Support Enforcement agencies and 

Departments of Correction. The authors outline a compelling rationale for 

drafting state policies on child support and incarceration and they explain the 

need for timely responses to requests for review and adjustment by inmates (pp. 

198-200). Arguing that responsive child support policies can help released 

offenders/NCPs maintain steady employment and meet their monthly child 

support obligations, the section “Victims, Families and Communities” calls for 

the creation of “policies of child support debt management and collection that 

encourage payment and family stability” (p. 327). The authors cite as evidence 

the finding that released parents coming to the Colorado John Inmann Work and 

Family Center whose orders or payment arrangements were adjusted to fit their 

current circumstances paid a higher portion of their child support than did 

parents who did not use the Work and Family Center (Pearson and Davis, 2003, 

cited on p. 328). 

 The Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council reflects an optimistic view of 

the ability of communities to manage the phenomenon of reentry. It threads a 

number of critical topics for the child support community among the various 

discussions of best practices for reentry programs. Although many of the 

programs described in the report lack outcomes information, the report is an 

excellent resource for any organization or agency considering launching or 

expanding a reentry program. 

28 
Chapter 7 

Summary 

 Incarcerated parents with minor-aged children enter prison with many 

problems, including low levels of education, few job skills and often little work 

experience, few financial resources, and typically a history of substance abuse. 

In many cases, their children are receiving or have received public assistance. 

Incarcerated parents with child support involvement often have monthly 

support orders and arrears that total far more than they can pay while serving 

their sentence. 

 Given that parents are expected to take financial responsibility for their 

children, prison seems an ideal time to educate and train offenders who have 

children. Yet in reality, access to parenting and work programs in any facility is 

limited to a small percentage of the population. Parenting programs, usually 

well received by inmates, are often led by volunteers or staff from community 

organizations, and are subject to the vagaries of prison scheduling and security. 

While it is estimated that roughly half of all state prisoners have work 

assignments, most of this work is custodial or it has limited utility in the outside 

world. The number of inmates with work assignments in corrections industries 

is under 10 percent, and only a portion of offenders receive vocational training. 

 Parents who are released face multiple barriers as they seek employment 

and a stable living situation, including the stigma attached to having criminal 

records, the lack of work skills, the lack of training for the current marketplace, 

and often a return to a neighborhood lacking needed social services. Although a 

strong family support system and viable employment are predictors of 

successful reentry, these two items are not necessarily available to most released 

offenders. An overview of several collaborative efforts demonstrates the interest 

of the federal government and other organizations in addressing the problems 

associated with reentry. Various federal agencies are now investing in pilot 

projects that involve employment services for small numbers of ex-offenders. 

Transitional job programs appear to be one of the most promising ideas being 

tested, although they, too, operate on a small scale and currently lack evaluative 

data. 

 

 

29 
References* 

Beck, Allen R. (2001). Recidivism: A Fruit Salad Concept in the Criminal Justice 

World. www.justiceconcepts.com/recidivism.pdf

Buck, Maria (2000). Getting Back to Work: Employment Programs for Ex-Offenders. 

Public/PrivateVentures.www.ppv.org.ppv/publications/assets/94_publication.

pdf 

Caliber Associates (2004a). Navigating a New Horizon: Promising Pathways to 

Prisoner Reintegration. Issue Brief. Fairfax, VA: Caliber Associates. 

http://peerta.acf.hhs.gov/policies/pdf/Kairos_issue_Brief.pdf 

Caliber Associates (2004b). Rediscovering Compassion: An Evaluation of Kairos 

Horizon Communities in Prison. Issue Brief. Fairfax, VA: Caliber Associates. 

Center for Organizational Research & Evaluation (CORE) (2003). Outcomes 

Evaluation of the Long Distance Dads’ Program. Erie, PA: Penn State Erie, The 

Behrend College, Center for Organizational Research & Evaluation (CORE). 

www.pccd.state.pa.us/pccd/lib/pccd/stats/ldd_outcomes_final_report.pdf

DePaul University Legal Clinic and Safer Foundation (2002). A Review of the State 

of Illinois Professional and Occupational Licensure Policies as Related to Employment for 

Ex-offenders. Chicago, IL: Council of Advisors to Reduce Recidivism through 

Employment (C.A.R.R.E.), Policy Paper #4. www.saferfoundation.org/library

Dietrich, Sharon (2002). “Criminal Records and Employment: Ex-Offenders 

Thwarted in Attempts to Earn a Living for Their Families.” In Every Door Closed: 

Barriers Facing Parents with Criminal Records, by A. Hirsch, S. Dietrich, R. Langau, 

P. Schneider, I. Ackelsberg, J. Bernstein-Baker and J. Hohenstein. Philadelphia, 

PA: Center for Law and Social Policy and Community Legal Services, Inc. 

www.clasp.org

Dunn, Elizabeth (2003). Life Skills in Children of Incarcerated Fathers. Columbia, 

MO: University of Missouri-Columbia, University Outreach and Extension. 

http://extension.missouri.edu/fcrp/lifeevaluation/LifeSkillsReport 

Emsellem, Maurice (2005). “Commercial Drivers Face Major New Federal 

Screening Rules.” National H.I.R.E. Network News, Vol. 3, Issue 3. 

http://hirenetwork.org/pdfs/HIRE Newsletter April 2005.pdf 

*If known, websites are included in references. 

30 
Festen, Marcia and Sunny Fischer (2002). Navigating Reentry: The Experiences and 

Perceptions of Ex-Offenders Seeking Employment. Chicago, IL: Chicago Urban 

League. www.cul-chicago.org 

Fraker, Thomas, D. Levy, I. Perez-Johnson, A. Hershey, D. Nightingale, R. Olsen, 

and R. Stapulonis (2004). The National Evaluation of the Welfare-toWork Grants 

Program: Final Report. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/wtw-grants-eval98/

Griswold, Esther (2002). Child Support in the Criminal Justice System: The Role of 

Facility Coordinators. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research. 

Griswold, Esther, Jessica Pearson and Lanae Davis (2001). Testing a Modification 

Process for Incarcerated Parents. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research. 

www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/new_page-10.htm 

Griswold, Esther, Jessica Pearson, Nancy Thoennes and Lanae Davis (2004a). 

Fathers in the Criminal Justice System. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research. 

Griswold, Esther, Jessica Pearson, Lanae Davis and Nancy Thoennes (2005). 

Family Reintegration Project: Increasing Collections from Paroled and Released Noncustodial Parents in Texas. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research. 

Hairston, Creasie (2001). Prisoners and Families: Parenting Issues During 

Incarceration. Working Paper, National Policy Conference “From Prison to 

Home,” conducted by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the 

Urban Institute. 

Harer, Miles (1994). Recidivism Among Federal Prisoners Released in 1987. 

Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and Evaluation. 

Harrison, Paige and Allen Beck (2005a). Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2004. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (NCJ 208801). 

Harrison, Paige and Allen Beck (2005b). Prisoners in 2004. U.S. Department of 

Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (NCJ 210677). 

Holzer, Harry J., Steven Raphael, and Michael Stoll (2003). Employer Demand for 

Ex-Offenders: Recent Evidence from Los Angeles. Institute for Research on Poverty 

Discussion Paper No. 1268-03. 

31 
Jeffries, John, Suzanne Menghraj and Creasie Finney Hairston (2001). Serving 

Incarcerated and Ex-Offender Fathers and Their Families. New York, NY: Vera 

Institute of Justice. www.vera.org 

Johnson, Byron R. and David B. Larson (2003). The Innerchange Freedom Initiative: 

A Preliminary Evaluation of a Faith-Based Prison Program. University of 

Pennsylvania, CRRUCS, 2003. 

Kotloff, Lauren J. (2005). Leaving the Street: Young Fathers Move from Hustling to 

Legitimate Work. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. www.ppv.org 

Langan, Patrick and David Levin (2002). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994.

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. (NCJ 

193427). www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

Lattimore, Pamela, Susan Brumbaugh, Christy Visher, Christine Lindquist, 

Laura Winterfield, Meghan Salas and Janine Zweig (2004). National Portrait of 

SVORI: Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. 

www.svori-evaluation.org/

La Vigne, Nancy, Cynthia Mamalian, Jeremy Travis and Christy Visher (2003). A 

Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Illinois. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. 

www.urban.org/NancyGLaVigne 

Lawrence, Sarah, Daniel Mears, Glenn Dubin and Jeremy Travis (2002). The 

Practice and Promise of Prison Programming. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. 

www.urban.org/SarahLawrence 

LoBuglio, Stefan (2001). “Time to Reframe Politics and Practices in Correctional 

Education” in Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, Vol. 2. National 

Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy [E-Book]. 

Lynch, James and William Sabol (2001). Prisoner Reentry in Perspective. 

Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. www.urban.org/JamesPLynch 

Martinson, R. (1974). “What Works? Questions and Answers about Prison 

Reform.” 35 Public Interest: 22-54. 

Martinson, R. (1979). “Symposium on Sentencing: Part 2. New Findings, New 

Views: A Note of Caution Regarding Sentencing Reform.” 7 Hofstra Law Review:

243-258. 

32 
Matthews, Sharon and Amanda Casarjian (2002). Government Personnel Policies 

Impacting the Hiring of Ex-Offenders. Council of Advisors to Reduce Recidivism 

through Employment (C.A.R.R.E.), Policy Paper #3. Chicago, IL: Safer 

Foundation. www.saferfoundation.org 

May, Rebecca (2004). The Effect of Child Support and Criminal Justice Systems on 

Low-Income Noncustodial Parents. Madison, WI: Center on Fathers, Families, and 

Public Policy. www.cffpp.org 

May, Rebecca and Marguerite Roulet (2005). A Look at Arrests of Low-Income 

Fathers for Child Support Non-payment: Enforcement, Court and Program Practices. 

Madison, WI: Center for Family Policy and Practice. www.cffpp.org 

Menon, Ramdas, Craig Blakely, Dottie Carmichael and Laurie Silver (1992). An 

Evaluation of Project Rio Outcomes: An Evaluative Report. College Station, TX: 

Texas A&M University, Public Policy Resources Laboratory. 

Mukamal, Debbie (2001). From Hard Time to Full Time: Strategies to Help Move ExOffenders from Welfare to Work. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Labor. 

http://hirenetwork.org/pdfs/From_Hard_Time_to_Full_Time.pdf 

Mumola, Christopher (2000). Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. (NCJ 182335). 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/iptc/pdf 

Mumola, Christopher (2002). Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. Presentation 

at the National Center for Children and Families. Washington, D.C., October 31, 

2002. 

National Employment Law Project, 2006. “Major U.S. Cities Adopt New Hiring 

Policies Removing Unfair Barriers to Employment of People with Criminal 

Records.” www.nelp.org 

Nelson, Marta, Perry Deess and Charlotte Allen (1999). The First Month Out: Post 

Incarceration Experiences in New York City. New York, NY: Vera Institute of 

Justice. www.vera.org 

Nightingale, Demetra, Nancy Pindus and John Trutko (2002). The Implementation 

of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. 

Pager, Devah (2003). “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” AJS, Vol. 108, No. 5: 

937-975. 

33 
Pearson, Jessica and Lanae Davis (2003). “Serving Fathers who Leave Prison” in 

Family Court Review, Vol. 41, No. 3: 307-320. 

Petersilia, Joan (2000). When Prisoners Return to the Community: Political, Economic 

and Social Consequences. Research in Brief – Sentencing and Corrections: Issues 

for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice, National Institute 

of Justice NCJ 184253. 

Piehl, Anne (2003). Crime, Work and Reentry. Discussion Paper, Urban Institute 

Reentry Roundtable. www.urban.org/AnnePiehl 

Re-Entry Policy Council (2005). Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting the 

Safe and Successful Return of Prisoners to the Community. www.reentrypolicy.org 

Skarupski, Kimberly (2003). “A Process Evaluation of Pennsylvania Department 

of Correction’s Long Distance Dads Program,” in Pennsylvania Department of 

Corrections, Research in Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (June 2003). 

Solomon, Amy, Kelly D. Johnson, Jeremy Travis and Elizabeth McBride (2004). 

From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry. A Report of 

the Reentry Roundtable. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. 

www.urban.org/AmySolomon 

Sullivan, Eileen, Milton Mino, Katherine Nelson and Jill Pope (2002). Families as a 

Resource in Recovery from Drug Abuse: An Evaluation of La Bodega de la Familia. 

New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice. www.vera.org 

Szekely, Amanda Elk (2004a). “Marriage and Family Strengthening for 

Incarcerated Individuals.” Welfare Information Network, Vol. 8, No 8. 

Szekely, Amanda Elk (2004b). “Transitional Jobs for Ex-Offenders.” Welfare 

Information Network, Vol. 8, No. 7. 

Street, Paul (2002). The Vicious Circle: Race, Prison, Jobs and Community in Chicago, 

Illinois and the Nation. Chicago, IL: Chicago Urban League. www.cul-chicago.org 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice (2003). Texas Department of Criminal Justice 

Fiscal Year 2002 Statistical Report. Huntsville, TX: Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice. 

34 
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Texas Youth Commission, and Texas 

Workforce Commission (2004). Project RIO Strategic Plan, State Fiscal Years 2004-

2005. Austin, TX. 

Thoennes, Nancy (2002). Child Support Profile: Massachusetts’ Incarcerated and 

Paroled Parents. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research. 

www.centerforpolicy research.org/new_page-10.htm

Travis, Jerremy (2005). But They All Come Back. Washington, D.C.: The Urban 

Institute Press. www.urban.org/JeremyTravis 

Travis, Jeremy, Amy Solomon and Michelle Waul (2001). From Prison to Home: 

The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, D.C.: The Urban 

Institute. www.urban.org/JeremyTravis 

Travis, Jeremy, Michelle Waul and Amy Solomon (2002). The Impact of 

Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and Communities. Washington, D.C.: 

The Urban Institute. www.urban.org/JeremyTravis 

Trusty, Brittani and Michael Eisenberg (2003). Initial Process and Outcome 

Evaluation of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative: The Faith-Based Prison Program in 

TDCJ. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2006). Working with Incarcerated 

and Released Parents: Lessons from OCSE Grants and State Programs, a Resource 

Guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement. 

Watson, Jamie, Amy Solomon, Nancy La Vigne, Jeremy Travis, Meagan Funches 

and Barbara Parthasarathy (2004). A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Texas. 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute. www.urban.org/JamieWatson 

Winterfield, Laura and Christine Lindquist (2005). Characteristics of Prisoner 

Reentry Programs. The Multi-site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender 

Reentry Initiative. www.svori-evaluation.org 

35