Elements of Promising Practice in Programs Serving Fathers 

Involved in the Criminal Justice System 

Compiled by: 

Jacinta Bronte-Tinkew, Ph.D, Mary Burkhauser, M.A., Kassim Mbwana, M.A., Allison Metz, Ph.D., 

Ashleigh Collins, M.A., 

August 21st, 2008 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the 

official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Office of Family Assistance 

National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse 

101 Lake Forest Blvd, Suite 360 

Gaithersburg, MD 20877 

(877) 4DAD411 

www.fatherhood.gov 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................2 

 Making the Case for Interventions for Fathers Involved in the Criminal Justice System.......................2 

 Identifying Rigorous Research: The Ten Principles..................................................................4 

 Criteria Used for Considering Fatherhood Programs.................................................................6 

 Eight Elements of Promising Practice in Programs for Fathers Involved in the Criminal Justice System....8 

 Early Conclusions about the State of Research on the Effectiveness of Programs Serving Fathers 

Involved in the Criminal Justice System.........................................................................11 

 References.................................................................................................................12 

APPENDIX 1: “Model” Programs for Fathers Involved in the Criminal Justice System................14

 Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Program.............................................................15 

 Filial Therapy Training with Incarcerated Fathers..................................................................19 

 Parental Training for Incarcerated Fathers.............................................................................24 

 Systematic Training for Effective Parenting (STEP) for Incarcerated Fathers.................................28 

APPENDIX 2:“Promising” Programs for Fathers Involved in the Criminal Justice System ............32

 Long Distance Dads......................................................................................................33 

 Responsible Fatherhood Program for Incarcerated Dads............................................................37 

APPENDIX 3: “Emerging” Programs for Fathers Involved in the Criminal Justice System.............41 

 A Parent Education Program for Young Fathers in Prison .........................................................42 

 DADS Family Project.........................................................................................................46 

 Family Services at the Idaho State Correctional Institution.......................................................51 

 Fathers and Children Together (FACT)...................................................................................55 

 Fit 2-B Fathers..............................................................................................................59 

 Helping Your Child Succeed: A Family Nurturing Program......................................................63 

 Needs Assessment for Family Programming for Incarcerated Parents Among Inmates.......................67 

 Parentcraft: Parenting Classes for Young Fathers in Prison.......................................................71 

 People Empowering People (PEP)....................................................................................74 

 Preventing Violence in Children of Mentally Ill and Substance Abuse Inmate Parents.......................78 

 Psycho-educational Training for Inmates at the Orient Road Jail.................................................82 

 Qualitative Exploration of Incarcerated Fatherhood...............................................................86

 Wanting to Be Good Fathers: Helping Teen Fathers Become Parents...........................................90 

 Work and Family Center (WFC).............................................................................................94 
 

INTRODUCTION 

 Between 1991 and 1999, the percentage of children with an incarcerated father increased by 58 

percent, and it was estimated that 721,500 state and federal prisoners, 93 percent of whom were male, had 

fathered at least one child under the age of 18 (Mumola, 2000). When a father is incarcerated, there are 

repercussions not only for himself, but also for his spouse/partner, and most importantly his children 

(Mumola, 2000, Loper & Turek, 2006). The United States is responsible for the incarceration of more adult 

males per capita than any other nation (Turner, 2007). With the rising rates of incarceration, there has been 

an increased interest in developing programs that specifically address the needs of fathers involved in the 

criminal justice system. Incarcerated fathers have unique needs and relationships with their partners and 

children, and incarcerated men may have gender-specific stressors that require tailored conceptual and 

practical alterations to parent training (Loper & Turek, 2006; Palm, 2001). The current report examines 

existing programs for fathers involved in the criminal justice system that have been evaluated in order to 

answer the following question: What practices have been found to be successful in programs serving 

incarcerated fathers and fathers involved in the criminal justice system?

 

Making the Case for Interventions for Fathers Involved in the Criminal Justice System 

 Interventions for fathers involved in the criminal justice system may occur during imprisonment, 

prior to release, or upon reentry back into the community. Incarcerated fathers face multiple challenges, 

both while serving their sentences and after being released. Their ability to handle these challenges 

significantly impacts the lives of their children. Once incarcerated, studies show that fathers experience 

feelings of loss, powerlessness, and sadness (Nurse, 2002). Incarcerated married men are 15 percent more 

likely to have their relationships with partners and marriages dissolve in the first year of their sentence than 

men who have never been incarcerated (Lopoo & Western, 2003). Additionally, parent-child contact in the 

form of phone, mail, or personal visits while in prison is less for incarcerated fathers than it is for 

incarcerated mothers (Travis, 2005). After serving their sentences and upon reentry, many fathers receive 

inadequate assistance in their reintegration (Bushway, 2003; Hairston, 1991; Hairston, 2001; Mumola, 

2000; Joan Petersilia, 2003; Travis, 2003). Low levels of educational attainment, lack of employable skills, 

employment exclusions, and federal restrictions on subsidized housing and other forms of support often 

make it difficult for reentering fathers to find work and housing once they have been released (Blanco & 

Alwin, October 2003; Roman, Kane, & Giridharadas, 2006), let alone support a family. Overall, research 

suggests that ex-offenders are likely to fall back into a life of crime in times of hardship due to these 

barriers and institutional regulations (Blanco & Alwin, 2003). 

As such, programs for incarcerated parents take a number of different forms during imprisonment, 

prior to release or upon reentry. Some programs aim to increase contact between incarcerated fathers and 

their children while imprisoned, some attempt to improve visiting hours and facilitate family interactions, 

others seek to improve parenting skills of incarcerated parents, and still others are focused on easing 

inmates re-entry back into the community (Parke & Clarke-Stewart, 2002). The following outcomes are 

often the focus of interventions designed for fathers involved with the criminal justice system: 

 

• Work Skills, Self-Sufficiency, and Employment: Ex-offenders often fare better when they have jobs 

earning at least a living wage, safe stable housing, and the ability to access government supports 

(Blanco & Alwin, 2003). Unfortunately, returning prisoners and parolees face enormous barriers to 

reintegration, including but not limited to the following: 

o Employment Exclusions: Employers are often reluctant to hire ex-offenders and some states have 

laws prohibiting ex-offenders from being employed in certain occupations (Blanco & Alwin, 2003). 

The general lack of education and employable skills among prisoners often contributes to high rates 

of unemployment (Roman et al., 2006). Joblessness increases chances of recidivism, negatively 

impacts co-parenting relationships, and decreases fathers’ involvement with children (Bushway, 

Page 1 of 99 
 

2003). Programs that can successfully improve employment outcomes for reentering fathers are 

therefore critical. 

o Housing Hardships: Although housing is necessary for reuniting families and rebuilding the lives 

of ex-offenders, due to poor job prospects, these men are often unable to afford safe, stable housing 

(Roman et al., 2006). In addition, some criminal records automatically preclude eligibility for 

federal subsidized housing, and landlords often conduct criminal background checks before renting 

out apartments thereby reducing access to housing (Roman et al., 2006). 

o Government Regulations: Government support is critical for helping families through times of 

hardship and crisis, but anyone convicted with a felony is barred from receiving benefits such as 

food stamps or TANF (Blanco & Alwin, 2003). These are major social supports that ex-offenders 

depend on for survival, and also a form of social support that fathers attempt to access once they are 

released from prison. Interventions are needed to help ex-offender fathers navigate these various 

systems so that they can become self-sufficient and support their families. 

• Psychological Well-Being: Incarceration can affect a father’s emotional well-being, causing feelings 

of loneliness and isolation. Many incarcerated fathers have high levels of depression and anxiety, as 

well as, low levels of self-esteem. Other research indicates that fathers may feel guilty about the 

disruption that they have caused in the lives of their family members, blaming themselves for problems 

that occur in their children’s lives (Lanier, 2005). After incarceration, the stresses of release from 

prison and re-entering the family and community also increase the risk of negative parenting behaviors 

such as child abuse and neglect (Hairston & Lockett, 1985), suggesting the need for training and other 

interventions to prevent and improve psychological well-being for fathers involved in the criminal 

justice system (Eddy, Powell, Szubka, McCool, & Kuntz, 2001). 

• Recidivism: Reducing the likelihood of recidivism is often a goal of programs that serve men involved 

in the criminal justice system. In 1999, over 75 percent of fathers in state prison reported having a prior 

conviction (Turner, 2007). Additionally, the intergenerational trend of incarceration in communities of 

color, with high incarceration rates among families, can lead to a normalization of the prison experience 

and expectations among youth that time in prison is a typical milestone (Reed & Reed, 1997). 

Imprisonment and reentry represent critical junctures for preventive interventions designed to stop this 

intergenerational cycle in such family contexts. Studies suggest that the maintenance of family 

relationships is important to prisoners and central to the prevention of recidivism and future 

delinquency. Prisoners who maintain strong family ties during imprisonment have higher rates of postrelease success and lower levels of recidivism compared to those who do not (Hairston, 2001; 

Petersilia, 2003), suggesting the need for interventions designed to reduce recidivism. 

• Healthy Couple Relationships and Parenting: Most male inmates in state and federal prisons are not 

married (Turner, 2007); however, distance and the sheer fact of being incarcerated can put a strain on 

marriages and unmarried partnerships alike. Incarcerated men are an average distances of 100 miles 

away from their homes, making contact with their families more difficult (Travis, McBride, & 

Solomon, 2003). Another barrier to contact is that few prisons allow conjugal visits or extended contact 

with prisoners (Travis et al., 2003). Additionally, incarceration has been found to have negative 

consequences for children at all developmental stages, resulting in negative emotional and behavioral 

functioning (Gabel & Johnston, 1995; Gabel, 1992; Hagan, 1996; Lowenstein, 1986; Sherman, 1993; 

Simmons, 2003) as well as a higher risk of criminality (Loper & Turek, 2006). Father incarceration 

may further disrupt children’s development, as many children are already at risk of emotional problems 

and other negative outcomes prior to incarceration (Loper & Turek, 2006). Reentering fathers may have 

more difficulty relating to their children when their previous role as family breadwinners is lost 

(Magaletta & Herbst, 2001). Men who were not the primary caretakers of their children prior to 

Page 2 of 99 
 

incarceration may also have more tangential relationships with their children and may experience 

difficulty connecting with their children because of their ambiguous parental status (Eddy et al., 2001). 

Finally, many reentering fathers have themselves been recipients of ineffective parenting and therefore 

lack the skills necessary for appropriate interaction with their children (Rudel & Hayes, 1990). Thus, 

interventions designed to teach incarcerated fathers how to attend to and empathize with their children 

as well as their partners after release, are critical (Landreth & Lobaugh, 1998). 

Identifying Rigorous Research: The Ten Principles 

So, what works in programs serving incarcerated fathers and fathers involved in the criminal justice 

system? Only rigorous evaluations of programs can provide evidence of whether or not programs actually 

have a desired effect. While several studies have examined the effects of programs on outcomes for fathers 

involved in the criminal justice system and their families, the evidence-base varies widely as does the 

quality and rigor of research methods. In general however, results that come from well-designed programs 

that have been rigorously evaluated should be given more weight than results from less-well-designed and 

evaluated programs. There are several principles of rigorous research that have to be considered and that 

often yield high quality results. Each of the ten principles of rigorous research is discussed below in more 

detail. The extent to which each of these principles is adhered to by the studies used in this review is 

provided in the individual program summary descriptions (see Appendices 1-3, pp. 13-93). 

• Principle 1: Evaluation Design. The evaluation design recognized as the gold standard is a 

random assignment study (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). This design is used to determine 

causality, i.e. to determine whether the observed outcomes or changes that resulted for fathers 

and/or families were the result of participation in the program. In a random assignment study, 

fathers are assigned to one of two groups: a treatment group (a group that receives services) or a 

control group (a group that does not receive program services, but may receive other instruction or 

services). This design, if well-implemented, is the only way to create equivalent groups. That is, 

incarcerated fathers with varied characteristics (e.g., age, race and motivation) will be equally (or 

very close to equally) represented in both the treatment and control groups. This design therefore 

reduces the likelihood of “selection bias,” i.e. more highly motivated fathers being more likely to 

choose to attend the program, or more fatherhood programs being likely to be implemented in 

communities with more “at risk” fathers. Few of the studies in the current review used random 

assignment designs, while the majority used quasi-experimental or pre-post test designs. This 

means that selection bias, or other kinds of biases may have affected results. These biases can 

obscure actual positive program effects, or overstate positive program effects when they did not 

actually occur (Rossi et al., 2004). 

• Principle 2: Sampling of Programs. Varied approaches may be used to address the behavior and 

well-being of fathers involved in the criminal justice system and their families. However, in 

selecting programs, care must be taken in using the results from a small group of studies of fathers 

to draw inferences across a wide range of programs. The problem with generalization from a small 

group of programs to a larger group is that findings may work well with some fathers involved in 

the criminal justice system in some contexts, but not as well with others, and additional studies are 

needed with varied samples of fathers involved in the criminal justice system in different settings. 

In addition, programs that are well-funded often tend to have more well-trained staff, more 

resources and are better run programs, yielding positive evaluation results which may not be 

replicated in other settings that do not have access to the same resources and may have staff with 

less training (Kirby, 2007). Less mature programs may also be prematurely evaluated, before 

elements of implementation have been addressed, yielding less positive evaluation results. 

Page 3 of 99 
 

• Principle 3: Sample Size. It is commonly agreed that rigorous studies require a sufficient sample 

size to detect expected impacts. The necessary sample size varies according to the outcome 

measure, the magnitude of the effect that needs to be detected and the level of statistical 

significance (a measure of how confident one can be in the results) (Kalton, 1983). In general, a 

minimum sample size of 30 in the control group and 30 in the treatment group (after attrition) is 

needed to obtain robust results. Much larger sample sizes, though, are needed if sub-group analyses 

are planned (e.g., analyses of fathers involved in the criminal justice system, as a larger sub-group 

of fathers) (Kalton, 1983). There are several reasons why larger samples are needed. First, in the 

absence of adequate samples, it is difficult to determine statistical significance because of 

insufficient statistical power. Second, when sample sizes are small, the magnitude of the effect is 

difficult to determine, since such effects may have been a result of chance (Rossi et al., 2004).

• Principle 4: Long-Term Follow Up. The length of follow-up often varies, and is dependent on the 

outcomes being measured, the curriculum that is being used, and the amount of time that fathers are 

likely to attend. Several programs that have been evaluated suggest that follow up at least over a six 

week period is important, but follow up for a year or more is needed to establish whether impacts or 

effects endure. Follow up is required for several reasons. First, it can provide information about 

short-term effects. Second, some program effects are likely to diminish over time and it cannot be 

assumed that short term results with endure. Third, if programs are trying to influence changes in 

behaviors, such changes are only likely to be detected after a period of time has elapsed. 

• Principle 5: Validity and Reliability of Study Measures. Fatherhood interventions often strive to 

measure changes in behaviors and other outcomes for fathers and their families. Typically these 

behaviors can only be estimated from data that individuals report about themselves. Rigorous 

research often uses instruments (single item measures and scales) that have been validated in 

previous research. In short, measures that have previously been used with populations of fathers 

and that have been assessed for their psychometric properties (validity and reliability) are 

recommended. 

• Principle 6: Proper Statistical Analyses. Rigorous evaluation studies conduct proper statistical 

analyses of the data that have been collected. This includes the testing of hypotheses, using proper 

statistical tests, and reporting all of the results of the test, whether they are positive or negative. 

• Principle 7: Dissemination of Results. Evaluation studies that are rigorous and well-designed 

often attempt to publish results, whether they are positive or negative (Kirby, 2007). Studies that 

are large, well-funded, well-designed and have advisory boards that include experts in the field of 

fatherhood and are widely known while in progress are more likely to have published results, 

regardless of whether they are positive or negative. At the very least, results should be reviewed 

and shared with the field. 

• Principle 8:Independent External Evaluator. Rigorous evaluation studies are often conducted by 

an independent external evaluator for a number of reasons. First, external evaluators are less likely 

to be biased and more likely to be objective. Second, external evaluators bring technical expertise 

that may not exist in program staff. Third, external evaluators offer a new perspective and may 

bring fresh insights. Finally, external evaluators are often also more efficient because of experience 

with evaluation and often have greater credibility. 

• Principle 9: Replication. Replication of results is a hallmark of good science and an important 

aspect of demonstrating program effectiveness and understanding what works best, under what 

Page 4 of 99 
 

conditions, and for what target populations (Metz, Bowie, & Blase, 1997). A program that achieves 

positive results in one setting should be replicated in another setting with a new target population 

and re-evaluated to determine the generalizability of the model. A program that may have been 

found to have positive effects in one setting may not have the same effects in another setting 

primarily because there may have been unique characteristics of the first program setting that may 

have accounted for positive results. When tried in another setting, the results may differ, and may 

have been a result of chance, or a function of a more motivated group of fathers. Effective programs 

whenever possible should be replicated before being widely adopted (Kirby, 2007). 

• Principle 10: Fidelity to the Program Model. Fidelity refers to the extent to which the delivery of 

an intervention adheres to a protocol or program model originally developed (Mowbray, Holter, 

Teague, & Bybee, 2003). Ineffective programs can be implemented well, and effective programs 

can be implemented poorly. Neither is desirable. Desirable outcomes are only achieved when 

effective programs are well implemented. Therefore, it is critical that program evaluations include a 

fidelity assessment to ensure that essential elements of the intervention service model or curriculum 

have been implemented with integrity to the original model. 

Summary. These ten principles were used to guide how we considered programs to be a part of this review 

of programs for fathers involved in the criminal justice system. The identification of these principles, 

however, does not suggest a need to incorporate every principle into every evaluation study. Conducting 

evaluation studies that meet all or most of these criteria are often time intensive and costly. 

Criteria Used for Considering Fatherhood Programs 

The ten principles identified served as the template for identifying fatherhood programs for men involved 

in the criminal justice system included in this review. Several of the research criteria used to select 

fatherhood programs are currently being used in other “promising practices” efforts such as SAMHSA’s 

National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (U.S. Department of Health & Human 

Services, 2007) and the Promising Practices Network (2007). For the current report, we selected programs 

that met the following criteria: 

• The program/intervention was implemented in 1980 or later; and the evaluation results were 

published no earlier than 1990. 

• Evaluation data were collected from U.S., Canada, U.K, Australia and European samples of 

incarcerated fathers and their families. 

• The study used a sample size of at least 15. 

• The intervention aimed to influence: father involvement, healthy couple relationships, co-parenting, 

self-sufficiency/employment, psychological well-being, recidivism, or a combination of these as 

well as improve child outcomes and other outcomes identified. 

• The study design was an experimental, quasi-experimental, or outcomes study with baseline and 

follow-up data, and follow-up data from intervention and control or comparison groups being used 

to determine “effect” or “impact”; or an implementation evaluation was conducted. 

• Involvement of participants in the interventions was known by the researchers and not based on 

participant recall. 

• The study follow-up time was at least 1 month after the intervention was initiated. 

• Appropriate statistical analyses were used. 

• At least one outcome was statistically significant at the 0.05 level. 

• Program evaluation documentation was available. 

• The evaluation was conducted by an external independent evaluator. 

Programs included in the review did not: 

• Have to have findings published in a peer-reviewed journal; 

Page 5 of 99 
 

• Have to be replicated; 

• Have to be currently in operation or currently being implemented in some location. 

The following table categorizes programs into three groups: “model” programs, “promising programs,” and 

“emerging” programs on the basis of these criteria and drawing on the ten principles of rigorous research 

identified above (pages 4-6). 

TABLE 1: CRITERIA FOR RATING INCARCERATED FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS 

Criteria “Model Programs” “Promising” Programs “Emerging” Programs 

Evaluation Method Study uses a randomized control trial 

(experimental design) 

Study has a comparison 

group (quasi-experimental 

design). 

Study does not use a 

convincing comparison 

group (e.g., the use of 

before and after 

comparisons for the 

treatment group only); prepost test descriptives only; 

or implementation 

evaluation only. 

Effect Size or Outcome 

Magnitude/Significance 

At least one outcome is positively 

changed by 10% 

Change in outcome is more 

than 5% 

No outcome is changed 

more than 1%. Outcome 

changes not documented. 

Statistical Significance At least one outcome with a 

substantial effect size is statistically 

significant at the 0.05 level 

Outcome change is 

marginally significant at the 

0.10 level 

No outcome change is 

statistically significant 

Sample Size Sample size of evaluations exceeds 

30 in both the treatment and control 

or comparison groups 

Sample size of evaluations 

exceeds 15 in both the 

treatment and control or 

comparison groups 

Sample size of evaluation 

includes less than 10 in the 

treatment and comparison 

groups 

Attrition Study retains at least 60% of original 

sample 

Study retains at least 50% of 

original sample 

Study loses more than 50% 

of original sample 

Associations with 

Outcomes 

Outcomes for fathers, their 

partners/spouses, or fathers and 

families 

Outcomes for fathers, 

fathers and partners or 

fathers and families 

Outcomes not 

considered/documented. 

Independent External 

Evaluator 

Yes Yes Internal Evaluator 

Publication of 

Evaluation Results 

Publicly Available Publicly Available Distribution restricted only 

to the sponsor of the 

evaluation 

Table 2 summarizes all of the programs reviewed in this report according to which category they fell into 

(i.e., “model,” “promising,” or “emerging”), based on the ratings criteria identified in Table 1 above. 

Page 6 of 99 
 

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS USING RATING CRITERIA 

“Model” Program 

(Experimental) Evaluation. 

“Promising” Program 

(Quasi-Experimental) Evaluation. 

“Emerging” Program 

(Descriptive/Pre-Post Test 

Evaluation/Implementation 

Evaluation) 

Center for Employment 

Opportunities (CEO Program) 

Long Distance Dads Program A Parent Education Program for 

Young Fathers in Prison 

Filial Therapy Training with 

Incarcerated Fathers 

Responsible Fatherhood Program for 

Incarcerated Dads – Fairfax County 

DADS Family Project 

Parental Training for Incarcerated 

Fathers 

Family Services Program at the 

Idaho State Correctional Institution 

Systematic Training for Effective 

Parenting (STEP) for Incarcerated 

Fathers 

Fathers and Children Together 

(FACT) 

Fit 2-B Fathers 

Helping Your Child Succeed: A 

Family Nurturing Program 

Needs Assessment for Family 

Programming for Incarcerated 

Parents Among Inmates 

Parentcraft: Parenting Classes for 

Young Fathers in Prison 

People Empowering People (PEP) 

Preventing Violence in Children of 

Mentally Ill and Substance Abusing 

Inmate Parents 

Psycho-educational Training for 

Inmates at the Orient Road Jail 

Qualitative Exploration of 

Incarcerated Fatherhood 

Wanting to be Good Fathers: Helping 

Teen Fathers Become Parents 

Work and Family Center, Denver 

(WFC) 

Eight Elements of Promising Practice Programs Found to be Effective for Fathers involved in the 

criminal justice System 

 This review identified four programs serving fathers involved in the criminal justice system that 

were considered effective (i.e., fell into the “model” category). These programs all underwent either 

experimental evaluations, had low attrition rates, were conducted by external evaluators, and had publicly 

available evaluation results. Although the focus of these programs varied, “model” programs shared many 

of the promising practices noted below. As yet, there is no evidence to suggest which combination of these 

characteristics contributed to the overall success of the programs. Nor is there evidence that each program 

had to incorporate all of these practices to have a measurable effect on participants. The specific program 

descriptions for these “model” programs are in Appendix 1 (pp.14-31).

• Promising Practice 1: Effective programs provided staff training or hired staff with 

experience working with incarcerated populations. Fathers involved with the criminal justice 

systems are a high-risk group with unique challenges and needs. Model programs either provided 

staff training or hired staff that had experience working with incarcerated fathers or fathers who had 

been involved in or affected by the criminal justice system. Job coaches working at the Center for 

Employment Opportunities (CEO) Program were trained vocational specialists. The facilitators for 

Page 7 of 99 
 

Parental Training for Incarcerated Parents were certified parent training instructors. The 

facilitators for the STEP program parenting classes had prior experience teaching parenting classes 

in a prison setting. 

• Promising Practice 2: Effective programs for incarcerated fathers used theoretically driven 

program models. Although few programs for fathers involved in the criminal justice system have 

been replicated, most model programs used theoretical perspectives or theories of change and 

approaches that had been found to be effective in work with fathers. The curriculum used in STEP 

for Incarcerated Fathers was a modified version of the original STEP program (Dinkmeyer & 

McKay, 1982). In the curriculum used in the Filial Therapy Training with Incarcerated Fathers

program, parents were taught to be therapeutic agents with their own children through didactic 

instruction, demonstration, play sessions and supervision. Parents were taught child-centered play 

therapy skills including responsive listening, recognizing children’s emotional needs, therapeutic 

limit setting, building children’s self-esteem and structured weekly play sessions (Landreth & 

Lobaugh, 1998). Parental Training for Incarcerated Parents used lessons from the original STEP 

program as well as lessons from Concept Media’s Curriculum (Smith, 1973, 1975) and The 

Nurturing Program (Bavolek & Comstock, 1985). 

• Promising Practice 3: Effective programs for both incarcerated and re-entering fathers lasted 

a sufficient amount of time to complete important core activities adequately (at least 8 weeks).

Effective programs ranged in duration from eight sessions delivered over several weeks (e.g., in 

STEP for Incarcerated Fathers) to several months of program activities (e.g., the CEO program). 

Fathers participating in the CEO program completed four days of training followed by four-day 

work weeks with one day reserved for job coaching until permanently placed. Once permanently 

placed in a job, job coaches continued to track participants to encourage job retention. In all model 

programs, programming was held at least once a week for at least one-and-a-half hours. 

• Promising Practice 4: Effective programs taught both incarcerated and re-entering fathers 

important skills and gave them opportunities to practice using them. Effective programs went 

beyond classroom instruction. Fathers participating in effective programming were given 

opportunities to solidify their newly learned skills through hands-on application. Fathers 

participating in Filial Therapy Training program attended both weekly training sessions and weekly 

supervised play sessions with one of their children, during which they practiced their new parenting 

skills. Fathers in the CEO program participated in pre-employment classes as well as paid transitional 

employment and job coaching. They were also provided with ongoing post-placement support after 

finding a permanent placement. 

• Promising Practice 5: Effective programs working with re-entering fathers used an incentive 

with fathers. Although incentives were not a common component of all “model” programs 

working with incarcerated fathers, they were important in the CEO program, an employment 

program for ex-offenders. Fathers were motivated to participate because they were assigned to a 

work crew at minimum wage after only four days of training. Additionally, after being permanently 

placed in a job, participants received incentives to remain employed at 30-day milestones. 

• Promising Practice 6: Effective programs worked with incarcerated and re-entering fathers 

either one-on-one or in small group settings. Effective programs had a higher staff-participant 

ratio and/or provided opportunities for participating fathers to work one-one-one with staff. Group 

size ranged from eight participants (Filial Therapy Training) to 21 participants (STEP for 

Incarcerated Fathers). Smaller groups helped fathers to feel more comfortable and allowed them to 

Page 8 of 99 
 

participate more fully in discussions and activities. Fathers participating in CEO program worked 

one-on-one with a vocational specialist who assisted them in preparing for and finding an 

appropriate permanent placement. Working one-on-one with participants gave job coaches the 

opportunity to get to know participants, assess the type of job they were interested in, deem when 

they were ready, and find them an appropriate placement. 

• Promising Practice 7: Effective programs addressed the unique needs facing both 

incarcerated and re-entering fathers. Fathers involved in the criminal justice system are more 

likely than other fathers to have used drugs. Additionally, they are less likely than incarcerated 

mother to have contact with their children (Travis, 2005), and their low levels of educational 

attainment and lack of employable skills can make it difficult for them to find work upon reentry. 

Effective programs address the unique needs of incarcerated fathers. For example, communication 

strategies taught in the original STEP program were redesigned to focus on letters, telephone calls, and 

visiting hours, so that they would be applicable for incarcerated fathers. As part of their sessions, fathers 

in this program also received counseling about socialization and reentry into the family unit. Fathers in 

the CEO program were taught how to answer questions about their convictions while on interviews 

for permanent placement. 

• Promising Practice 8: Effective programs provided diversity in the delivery of program 

services to incarcerated fathers. Few effective programs for fathers involved in the criminal 

justice system relied on a traditional lecture-style presentation of materials. Effective programs 

delivered program services in a variety of engaging and interactive ways. Fathers in STEP for 

Incarcerated Fathers participated in small group discussion as well as letter-writing and role-plays. 

Time was set aside at the end of each session for participants to make something (e.g., a picture or a 

story) for their children. Parental Training for Incarcerated Parents used audiovisual material to 

make sessions more interesting, while Filial Therapy Training used both small group discussion 

and role-play during weekly training sessions. 

EIGHT ELEMENTS OF PROMISING PRACTICE PROGRAMS FOR FATHERS 

INVOLVED IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM 

1. Effective programs provided staff training or hired staff with experience 

working with incarcerated populations. 

2. Effective programs for incarcerated fathers used theoretically driven program 

models. 

3. Effective programs for both incarcerated and re-entering fathers lasted a 

sufficient amount of time to complete important core activities adequately (at 

least 8 weeks).

4. Effective programs taught both incarcerated and re-entering fathers important 

skills and gave them opportunities to practice using them. 

5. Effective programs working with re-entering fathers used an incentive with 

fathers.

6. Effective programs worked with incarcerated and re-entering fathers either 

one-on-one or in small group settings.

7. Effective programs addressed the unique needs facing both incarcerated and reentering fathers.

8. Effective programs provided diversity in the delivery of program services to 

incarcerated fathers.

Page 9 of 99 
 

Early Conclusions about the State of Research on the Effectiveness of Programs Serving Fathers 

Involved in the Criminal Justice System 

A number of early conclusions can be drawn from the 20 studies involving fathers reviewed in this report. 

• Few of the studies covered in this review meet all of the criteria required for rigorous research. Of 

the evaluation studies of fatherhood programs that are documented, only a few used random 

assignment designs, most had small sample sizes, most did not use a comparison group, some used 

inappropriate statistical tests, and some used psychometrically sound measures. Some reported 

positive results. 

• Some interventions designed to help fathers involved in the criminal justice system are not 

theoretically guided and are viewed simply as a plan to help children and/or their families, but are 

not seen as opportunities to evaluate the adequacy of theories in the field. 

• Current research has had limited follow-up to access the long-term effects the intervention (Parke & 

Clarke-Stewart, 2002). 

• Several studies use non-standardized measurement instruments. Some studies lack measures that 

demonstrate adequate psychometric properties. 

• Most attention has been focused on the well-being and attitudes of incarcerated fathers rather than 

on the impact of the intervention on fathers’ behavior and interactions with his children. 

Page 10 of 99 
 

REFERENCES 

Bavolek, S. J. & Comstock, C. (1985). The nurturing program. Eau Claire, WI: Family Development Resources. 

Blanco, D. & Alwin, R. (2003). Examining Prisoner Re-Entry and the CAA Response: National Association for 

State Community Service Programs, Center for Community Action Research. 

Blanco, D. & Alwin, R. (October 2003). Examining Prisoner Re-Entry and the CAA Response: National 

Association for State Community Service Programs, Center for Community Action Research. 

Bronte-Tinkew, J. Bowie L., & Moore, K.A. (2007). Fathers and Public Policy. Applied Developmental Science, 

.11(4), 1-6. 

Bronte-Tinkew, J., Carrano, J., & Guzman, L. (2006). Resident Fathers’ perceptions of their roles and links to 

involvement with infants. Fathering: A Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice about Men as 

Fathers. 4(3), 254-285. 

Bronte-Tinkew, J., & Carrano, J., Horowitz, A. & Kinukawa (2008). Involvement among resident fathers and 

links to infants cognitive outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 29(9), 1211-1244. 

Bronte-Tinkew, J. and Moore, K. (2006). The father-child relationship, parenting styles, and youth risk 

behaviors. Journal of Family Issues, 27(6), 850-881. 

Bronte-Tinkew, J. & Moore, K. (2006). Father involvement and youth transition into risky behaviors in 

immigrant and native-Born Families. Social Science Research, 35: 181-209. 

Bronte-Tinkew, J., Moore, K., Matthews, G. & Carrano, J. (2007) Symptoms of major depression in a sample 

of fathers of infants: Socio-demographic correlates and links to father involvement. Journal of Family 

Issues, 28 (1): 61-99 (January). 

Bronte-Tinkew, J., Ryan, S., Carrano, J., & Moore, K. A., (2007).Fathers’ pre-natal behaviors and attitudes and 

links to involvement with infants. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 69, 977-990 . 

Bushway, S. (2003). Reentry and Prison Work Programs, Urban Institute’s Reentry Roundtable. Washington, 

D.C. 

Dinkmeyer, K. & McKay, G. D. (1982). The parents handbook: Systematic Training for Effective Parenting.

Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services. 

Eddy, B. A., Powell, M. J., Szubka, M. H., McCool, M. L., & Kuntz, S. (2001). Challenges in Research with 

Incarcerated Parents and Importance in Violence Prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 

20(1), 56-62. 

Gabel, K. & Johnston, D. D. (Eds.). (1995). Children of Incarcerated Parents. New York: Lexington Books. 

Gabel, S. (1992). Behavioral problems in sons of incarcerated or otherwise absent fathers: the issue of 

separation. Family Process, 31, 303-314. 

Hagan, J. (1996). The Next Generation: Children of Prisoners. Journal of the Oklahoma Criminal Justice 

Research Consortium, 3, 19-28. 

Hairston, C. & Lockett, P. (1985). Parents in prison: a child abuse and neglect prevention strategy. Child Abuse 

and Neglect, 9, 471-477. 

Hairston, C. F. (1991). Families and children: a study of men in prison. Indianapolis, NI: Indiana University 

School of Social Work. 

Hairston, F. (2001). Fathers in prison: Responsible fatherhood and responsible public policies. Marriage and 

Family Review, 32(3-4), 111-135. 

Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to survey sampling. London: Sage Publications. 

Kirby, D. (2007). Emerging answers: Research findings on programs to reduce teen pregnancy and sexually 

transmitted diseases. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. 

Landreth, G. L. & Lobaugh, A. F. (1998). Filial Therapy with incarcerated Fathers: Effects on Parental 

Acceptance of Child, Parental Stress, and Child Adjustment. Journal of Counseling & Development, 

76(2), 157-165. 

Lanier, C. (2005). Incarcerated fathers: A research agenda, The Family Side of Corrections (Vol. 7). 

Loper, A. B. & Turek, E. H. (2006). Parenting programs for incarcerated parents: Current research and future 

directions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17(4), 407-427. 

Page 11 of 99 
 

Lopoo, L. M. & Western, B. (2003). Absence makes the heart grown fonder or out of sight, out of mind? 

Incarceration and the stability of marital unions, Association for Public Policy Analysis and 

Management (APPAM) Fall Conference. Washington, DC. 

Lowenstein, A. (1986). Temporary single parenthood—The case of prisoners’ families. Family Relations, 35, 

79-85. 

Magaletta, P. R. & Herbst, D. P. (2001). Fathering from prison: Common struggles and successful solutions. 

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 38(1), 88-96. 

Metz, A. J. R., Bowie, L., & Blase, K. (1997). Seven activities for enhancing the replicability of evidencedbased practices. Washington, DC: Child Trends. 

Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, 

measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 315-340. 

Mumola, C. J. (2000). Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Nurse, A. M. (2002). Fatherhood arrested: Parenting from within the juvenile justice system. Nashville, TN: 

Vanderbilt University Press. 

Palm, G. (2001). Parent Education for Incarcerated Fathers. In J. Fagan & A. J. Hawkins (Eds.), Clinical and 

Educational Interventions with Fathers (pp. 117-141). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Clinical Practice 

Press. 

Parke, R. & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2002). Effects of parental incarceration on young children. Washington, 

DC: US Department of Health and Human Services. 

Petersilia, J. (2003). When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York: Oxford University 

Press. 

Petersilia, J. (2003). When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press. 

Promising Practices Network. (2007). Promising Practices Network on children, youth, and families. Retrieved 

August 14, 2007, from www.promisingpractices.net

Reed, D. F. & Reed, E. L. (1997). Children of incarcerated parents. Social Justice, 24(3), 152-170. 

Roman, C. G., Kane, M. J., & Giridharadas, R. (2006). The Housing Landscape for Returning Prisoners in the 

District of Columbia. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. 

Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: 

Sage. 

Rudel, C. H. & Hayes, M. C. (1990). Behind no bars. Children Today, 19, 20-23. 

Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanctions. Journal of 

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 445-473. 

Simmons, C. W. (2003). California Law and the Children of Prisoners. California State Library. Sacramento: 

California Research Bureau. 

Smith, L. (1973). Human development: The first two and one-half years. Costa Mesa, CA: Concept Media. 

Smith, L. (1975). Human development: Two and one-half years to six years. Costa Mesa: CA: Concept Media. 

Travis, J. (2005). They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prison Reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban 

Institute Press. 

Travis, J., Cincotta, E.M., and Solomon, A. (2003). Families Left Behind: The Hidden Costs of Incarceration 

and Reentry. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. 

Travis, J., McBride, E. C., & Solomon, A. L. (2003). Families left behind: The hidden costs of incarceration 

and reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center. 

Turner, R. D. (2007). From Behind Prison Walls: Incarcerated Fathers and Their Children. In S. E. Brotherson 

& J. M. White (Eds.), Why fathers count: The importance of fathers and their involvement with 

children. Harriman, Tennessee: Men's Studies Press. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 

(2007). SAMHSA’s National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices (NREPP). Retrieved 

August 14, 2007 from http://nrepp.samhsa.gov/

Page 12 of 99 
 

APPENDIX 1: 

“Model” Programs 

Page 13 of 99 
 “MODEL” PROGRAM 

CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES (CEO) 

OVERVIEW: The Center for Employment Opportunities is an employment program for ex-offenders in New 

York City. The program offers ex-prisoners job-readiness training and counseling then places ex-offenders in 

paid temporary employment and assisted their search for permanent employment. In a random assigned 

experimental evaluation of the program ex-offenders participating in the CEO program were more likely to be 

employed and to stay employed than their non-participating peers. They were also less likely to be convicted of 

new crimes. Read more... 

PROGRAM GOALS:

• To assist ex-offenders to transition New York’s prison system into permanent employment by providing 

training and temporary employment; 

• To reduce recidivism rates among program participants; and 

• Assist program participants in reestablishing ties with children after incarceration, navigating the child 

support system, improving parental skills, and encouraging parental bonding through its Responsible 

Fatherhood Program.

LOCATION: New York City 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

There were 568 ex-offenders randomly assigned to the experimental group to be recipients of the CEO 

employment program, the Neighborhood Work Project (NWP). Another 409 ex-offenders were assigned to the 

control group to be recipients of a standard employment assistance program, the Resource Room Group. 

General characteristics of all participants were as follows: 

• The average age was 33.7 years old with approximately 57% aged 31 years old or older; 

• Approximately 64% were Black, non-Hispanic and 31% Hispanic; 

• Approximately 93% were male; 

• Approximately 57% reported at least one child with about 16% living with a child under age 18; 

• Nearly half the participants had either a GED (43%) or completed high school (10.3%); 

• Most participants (57 %) lived with family or friends. About 18% rented or owned homes and 12% 

lived in transitional housing; 

• Approximately 63% were single, 21% unmarried and living with a partner, and 9% married living with 

a spouse; and 

• Approximately 81% reported that they had been employed at least once in their life. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL STUDY 

• Outcomes:

o Employment; and 

o Recidivism. 

• Method: Participants in CEO’s program were directly referred to its Neighborhood Work Project 

(NWP) employment training program by the New York Prison system. Forty percent of all referrals 

were mandated to complete NWP while 60% are referrals by parole officers. Between January 2004 and 

October 2005, 977 ex-offenders who had never participated in NWP before and were not part of those 

mandated to participate in NWP were randomly assigned to one of two groups; the experimental NWP 

or the Resource Room Group. Potential participants were only randomly assigned during weeks when 

new enrollees exceeded the number of available NWP working slots. 

CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES 

14
 “MODEL” PROGRAM 

• Neighborhood Work Project Group (experimental group, 568 participants): Participants placed 

in this group were eligible for all of CEO’s program services including: 

o A four-day Life Skills training class; 

o Placement in a transitional job; 

o Job coaching; 

o Job development services; 

o All post-placement services (into permanent jobs); and 

o Other services including the Responsible Fatherhood Program. 

• Resource Room Group (control group, 409 participants): Participants in this group received a 

set of services aimed at helping them find and retain gainful employment. Services provided 

included: 

o A one and one half day modified Life Skills training class; 

o Access to a resource room that had computers with job search software, phones, voice 

mail, printers and fax, and additional job search resources such as publications. 

o The Resource Room had a staff member to assist users, if needed, in use of the 

equipment and writing resumes. 

• Sample: There were 568 ex-offenders randomly assigned to the experimental group. The control group 

had 409 ex-offenders. 

• Measures:

• Participant employment 

• Recidivism 

• Criminal Justice Service data were available for each participant in the study both before and 

after entry into the study. 

• Statistical Analyses: Chi-squares and t-tests were used to analyze differences between employment and 

recidivism rates by quarter between participants in the experimental and control groups. 

• Attrition: Results of employment rates are reported for all 977 participants in the study. Results of 

recidivism rates are reported for 565 participants in the NWP (experimental) group- 3 respondent’s data 

are not available. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: Not available for class training or work site. Each participant has 

access to their own job coach. 

o Staff Education: Job coaches were trained vocational specialists. 

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Training: Job coaches were trained staff members. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Some of the staff were former participants in the CEO program who chose 

to continue working with CEO as employees. 

CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES 

15
 “MODEL” PROGRAM 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Participants in CEO’s program were directly referred to the Neighborhood Work Project 

(NWP) employment training program by the New York Prison system. Specifically participants were 

referred by their parole officer. 

• Space: Participants in the NWP complete 4 days of classroom-based training and 4 days weekly with a 

work crew. 

• Materials: Information currently not available. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: CEO works with the New York Division of Parole, their primary source 

of participants. CEO also works with public agencies in New York including multiple sites of the City 

University of New York, Department of Transportation, and the city’s Department of Citywide 

Administrative services, to provide work sites for CEO participants. Private employers also work with 

CEO to place participants into permanent jobs. 

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model:

The CEO Program has four main components: 

o Pre-employment classes: Participants engage in four days of intensive in-class pre-employment 

training. Among the four days of training, participants learn how to answer questions about their 

convictions while on interviews for permanent placement. They also participate in interactive 

exercises to improve their decision making skills, goal setting, verbal/non verbal 

communication, and interview skills. 

o Paid transitional employment: Participants are assigned to work crews and engage in four days 

of work per week. The work may include providing maintenance and repair services, grounds 

keeping and maintenance, and minor construction. They are paid a minimum wage. 

o Job Coaching and Placement: On the fifth day of every week, participants met with a trained 

vocational specialist who would assist them in being ready for permanent placement. The job 

coach teaches the 4 day classes, tracks participant’s attendance and performance at work sites, 

and communicates with parole officers. The job coach continues to track participants once they 

have permanent employment to encourage job retention. When the job coach deems a 

participant is ready for a job, they assess what type of job they are ready for and match the 

participant to a permanent job. 

o Ongoing and post-placement support for up to 12 months. Among the programs of support are: 

 Responsible Fatherhood Program: The primary goals are to assist participants reestablish ties with their children and navigate the child support system. 

 Occupational Skill building: Eligible participants are offered two short-term courses—

Information Services and Customer Service. Information Services provides basic 

instruction in using computers while Customer Service provides training to help 

participants learn how to work with customers. 

 Rapid Rewards Program: Participants received incentives to remain employed at 30-day 

milestones. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: Information currently not available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Four days of classes are followed by 4-day work 

weeks. The fifth day is designated time for the participant and job coach. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Upon placement, participants work four days a week. 

CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES 

16
 “MODEL” PROGRAM 

• Diversity of activities: In addition to four days of class training, participants work paid jobs as well as 

receive counseling from a job coach. 

• Incentives for participation: Once participants are permanently placed in a job, they receive incentives 

at 30-day milestones. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Impacts on Employment: 

• Approximately 80% of participants in the CEO program were ever employed through 4 quarters after 

random assignment versus 56% of the control group. The 24% difference was statistically significant, 

p<.001. 

• Approximately 22% of CEO participants were employed throughout the 4 quarters following random 

assignment versus 11% of the control group. The difference was statistically significant, p<.001. 

Impacts on Recidivism: 

• CEO did not generate many significant differences with the control group on many measures of arrests, 

convictions, parole outcome, and incarceration during the first year. However, statistically significant 

differences (p<.1) were recorded for felony convictions. Control group participants were convicted at a 

higher rate. They were also incarcerated for a new crime at a statistically significant (p<.001) rate than 

CEO participants. 

• Recidivism outcomes are more positive when restricted to analysis of all participants who were 

randomly assigned to with the CEO program or control group within three months of being released 

from prison. A 10% difference in incarceration rates was observed between CEO participants and 

control group participants within the first year. The difference was statistically significant, p<.001. A 

five-percentage decrease in incarceration for new crimes for CEO participants was also observed, 

p<.001. 

SOURCES:

Bloom, D., Redcross, C., Zwieg, J., & Azurdia, G. (2007). Transitional jobs for ex-prisoners: Early Impacts 

 from a random assignment evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities Prisoner Reentry 

 Program (Working paper). New York, NY: MDRC. 

The Center for Employment Opportunities & MDRC. (2006). The Power of Work: Center For Employment 

 Opportunities Comprehensive Prisoner Reentry Program. 

 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

CEO Learning Institute 

The Center for Employment Opportunities 

32 Broadway, 15th Floor 

New York, NY 10004 

Website: www.ceoworks.org

Phone: (212) 422-4430 ext. 340 

Email: learning@ceoworks.org

CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES 

17
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

FILIAL THERAPY TRAINING WITH INCARCERATED FATHERS 

OVERVIEW: This randomized controlled study evaluated the effects of filial therapy training on a population 

of fathers incarcerated at a medium security federal correctional prison. Filial Therapy Training teaches parents 

to be responsive listeners, cognizant of their children’s emotional needs and build their children’s self esteem. 

During the ten week program, fathers in the experimental group received didactic instruction, structured play 

sessions with their child using a special set of toys and supervision from the investigator and peers in the group. 

Fathers in the experimental group scored significantly higher than fathers in the control group on all measures of 

child acceptance and significantly lower on measures of parental stress. Read more... 

PROGRAM GOALS:

The program was designed to assess the efficacy of filial therapy in: 

• Increasing incarcerated parents’ attitude of acceptance toward their children; 

• Reducing incarcerated parents’ stress related to parenting; 

• Reducing the number of problems related to family interactions as perceived by parents; and 

• Improving the self-concept of children of incarcerated parents. 

LOCATION: A medium security federal correctional prison in Texas. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

The eligibility criteria for fathers to participate included: 

• They had to be incarcerated with an expectation of at least 6 months remaining in prison; 

• Having a child aged between 3-7 year who was not in therapy; 

• Not being enrolled in another parenting class; and 

• Willingness and ability to attend ten weeks of filial therapy training and participate in weekly 30-minute 

play sessions with their child. 

The fathers (16 each in the experimental and control groups) characteristics were: 

• Experimental group fathers were aged between 22 and 46 years old with a mean of 30.94 years. Control 

group fathers were aged between 24 and 43 with a mean of 30.25 years old; 

• Both groups were approximately 52% Caucasian, 30% Hispanic, and 18% African-American. 

• Educational levels for both groups were identical- 31% had not completed high school, 37% had 

completed high school, and 32% had completed college. 

• The children of focus of fathers in the experimental group consisted of 10 girls and 6 boys aged between 

4 to 9 years old, with a mean of 5.94. The 9 girls and 7 boys in the control group were aged from 5 to 9 

years old, with a mean of 6.52. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL STUDY 

• Outcomes:

o Parental acceptance. 

o Respect for the child’s feelings and right to express them; 

o Appreciation of the child’s unique makeup; 

o Recognition of the child’s need for autonomy and independence; and 

o Unconditional love. 

o Parents’ perceptions of their parenting skill and parenting style. 

o Parental stress related to children’s behavior, moods and personalities. 

o The Filial Problem Checklist (FPC) (Horner, 1974) is a self-report of 108 potentially 

problematic situations related to parenting. 

FILIAL THERAPY TRAINING WITH INCARCERATED FATHERS 

18 
 “MODEL” PROGRAM 

• Method: Thirty two (32) fathers were randomly chosen from the pool of eligible fathers and 16 

assigned to an experimental and control groups respectively. 

Fathers and their children in both groups completed a pre-training session prior to beginning the filial 

therapy training. Fathers completed the (i) Porter Parental Acceptance Scale; (ii) Parenting Stress Index; 

and (iii) Filial Problems Checklist. Children completed the Joseph Pre-School and Primary Self-Concept 

Inventory. Posttests using the same instruments were administered one week after completing the 10 

week filial therapy training sessions. 

Parents in the experimental group were divided into two smaller groups of 8 to facilitate group work as 

prescribed in the filial therapy training curriculum. Each group met weekly in the evenings for one and a 

half hour training sessions for 10 consecutive weeks. Fathers were required to practice their new skills 

with their focal child in weekly 30-minute special play sessions. Play sessions were closed to other 

family members and fathers were provided with toys chosen to enable the child to express aggression, 

confusion about the family situation, and desire for interaction. Supervision of these sessions consisted 

of parents giving verbal reports to their groups where they would receive support and encouragement 

from other fathers and the facilitators. 

Fathers in the control group met their child as they normally would over the ten week period. Visits 

included other family members, and fathers were asked to interact with both their child and family. 

• Sample: Thirty two (32) men from a medium security federal correctional prison were split into an 

experimental and control group consisting each of 16 men. Ten girls and 6 boys were the assumed 

experimental group and 9 girls and 7 boys in the control group. 

 

• Measures:

o Porter Parental Acceptance Scale (PPAS) (Burchinal, Hawkes & Garner, 1957) was used to 

assess overall parental acceptance: 

• Respect for the child’s feelings and right to express them; 

• Appreciation of the child’s unique makeup; 

• Recognition of the child’s need for autonomy and independence; and 

• Unconditional love. 

o Parenting Stress Index (PSI) (Abidin, 1983) was used to assess the level of stress in the parentchild relationship. 

• The parent domain assesses stress related to parents’ perceptions of their parenting skill 

and parenting style. 

• The child domain assesses parental stress related to children’s behavior, moods and 

personalities. 

o The Filial Problem Checklist (FPC) (Horner, 1974) is a self-report of 108 potentially 

problematic situations related to parenting. Parents rate each problem on a three-point scale of 

increasing severity. 

o The Joseph Pre-School and Primary Self Concept Scale (JSCS) (Joseph, 1979) assesses a 

child’s self concept by using pictures to elicit responses from the child. An examiner uses the 

child’s descriptions of the activities and feelings depicted and evoked by the pictures to rate the 

child’s self esteem on a 30-point global index. Further analysis yields information on a child’s 

personal assessment of; 

• Significance; 

• Competence; 

• Virtue; and 

• Power. 

FILIAL THERAPY TRAINING WITH INCARCERATED FATHERS 

19
 “MODEL” PROGRAM 

• Statistical Analyses: Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVA) were calculated to test the significance of 

differences between the control and experimental group on the pretests and posttests. T-Tests were used 

to measure significance of differences in means of pretests and posttests. 

• Attrition: Not all children in the control group remained in the study to complete posttest data. Only 

children of fathers in the experimental group were ultimately analyzed. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: The study’s investigators facilitated each of the two experimental 

sub-groups of 8 fathers each for a staff to father ratio of 1 to 8.

o Staff Education: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available.

o Staff Training: Information currently not available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available.

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Advertisements for “parent training classes” were placed in several places in a medium 

security federal correctional all male prison. Eligible fathers were asked to choose one of their children 

aged between 3-7 years to be the “focal child” during the ten week study period.

• Space: Fathers are residents of a medium security federal prison. Fathers in the experimental group held 

special play sessions with their child in a small separate room in full view of prison security staff. 

Fathers in the control group conducted their child visits in the standard family room with other prisoners 

and family members. 

• Materials: Fathers in the experimental group were provided special toys for playing with their children 

including puppets, airplanes, ping pong ball shooters, cars, army men, and a shoe box doll house and 

doll family specifically to encourage expression of aggression, confusion about the family situation, and 

desire for interaction. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: Information currently not available.

• Community Organizations: None

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The filial therapy training sessions administered to two groups of 

eight fathers in the experimental group were based on Landreth’s (1991) 10-week Filial Therapy 

Training Model. Parents were taught to be therapeutic agents with their own children through didactic 

instruction, demonstration play sessions, and supervision. Parents were taught child-centered play 

therapy skills including responsive listening, recognizing children’s emotional needs, therapeutic limit 

setting, building children’s self esteem and structured weekly play sessions using a special kit of toys. 

(Watts, 2002) Supervision of the play sessions did not encompass video and/or audio recording as 

required by the curriculum due to prison privacy regulations- supervision consisted of sharing play 

session experiences within the group sessions. 

FILIAL THERAPY TRAINING WITH INCARCERATED FATHERS 

20
 “MODEL” PROGRAM 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: The experimental group had 16 fathers, each with 1 focal child. The experimental group 

was further divided into two equal groups. The control group had 16 fathers, each with a focal child. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): One and a half hour weekly group sessions for 10 

continuous weeks. Fathers in the experimental group met their focal child for 30 minute play sessions 

weekly. Control group fathers met their focal child weekly. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Once a week for a period of ten weeks. 

• Diversity of activities: During each filial therapy training session in the experimental group, 

facilitators used didactic methods and role playing to impart new knowledge. 

• Incentives for participation: Information currently not available. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Fathers in the filial therapy experimental group scored significantly higher than fathers in the control group on 

all measures of acceptance of their children: 

• Porter Parental Acceptance Scale total score. F(1, 29) = 20.47, p<.001; 

• Respect for the child’s feelings subscale. F(1, 29) = 9.9, p= <.004; 

• Appreciation of the Child’s Uniqueness subscale. F(1, 29) = 5.51, p= <.026; 

• Recognition of the Child’s Needs for Autonomy and Independence subscale. F(1, 29) = 8.19, p= 

<.008; and 

• Unconditional Love subscale. F(1, 29) = 8.85, p<.006. 

Fathers in the filial therapy experimental group also scored significantly lower than fathers in the control group 

on: 

• Parenting Stress Index total score. F(1, 29) = 10.08, p= <.004; 

• Parent Domain subscale. F(1, 29) = 15.6, p<.001; and 

• Filial Problems checklist. F(1, 29) = 9.53, p<.004. 

There were no significant differences between fathers in the filial therapy experimental group and fathers in the 

control group on the Child Domain subscale of the Parenting Stress Index. T-tests for children’s pre-post test 

scores on the Joseph Pre-School and Primary Self-Concept Scale showed significant (p<.001) increases in selfconcept at post-test for children in the experimental group. 

SOURCES:

Abidin, R. (1983). Parenting Stress Index. Charlottesville, VA: Pediatric Psychology Press. 

Burchinal, L., Hawkes, G., & Gardener, B. (1957). The relationship between parental acceptance and 

 adjustment of children. Child Development, 28, 67-77. 

Horner, P. (1974). Dimensions of child behavior as described by parents: A monotonicity analysis. Unpublished 

 doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, College Park, PA. 

Joseph, J. (1979). Joseph pre-school and primary self concept screening test: Instruction manual. Chicago, IL: 

 Stoetling. 

Landreth, G.L., & Lobaugh, A.F. (1998) Filial therapy with incarcerated fathers: Effects on parental acceptance 

 of child, parental stress, and child adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 76(2), 157-165. 

Watts, R.E., & Broaddus, J.J. (2002). Improving parent-child relationships through filial therapy: An interview 

 with Gary Landreth. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 372-379. 

FILIAL THERAPY TRAINING WITH INCARCERATED FATHERS 

21
 “MODEL” PROGRAM 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Gary L. Landreth, Ed.D. 

Department of Counseling, Development, and Higher Education and Director of the Center for Play Therapy 

University of North Texas 

Denton, TX 76203 

Alan F. Lobaugh, Ph.D. 

Center for Family Care 

University of North Texas 

Denton, TX 76203

FILIAL THERAPY TRAINING WITH INCARCERATED FATHERS 

22
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

PARENTAL TRAINING FOR INCARCERATED FATHERS 

OVERVIEW: Fathers at a correctional facility in Oklahoma completed 6 weeks in a parental training class 

aimed at improving father’s attitudes about child-rearing and their self-esteem. Fathers who completed the 

program showed significant positive changes regarding parental attitudes compared to fathers who did not 

complete the program. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS:

The parental training for incarcerated inmates was designed to: 

• Improve father’s attitudes regarding child rearing; 

• Increase father’s self-esteem; and 

• Increase the inmate’s child’s positive self-perception. 

LOCATION: The Jackie Brannon Correctional Center in McAlester, Oklahoma 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

• Fathers were aged from 20-46 years old with 53% aged 30 or older. 

• Fathers in the experimental and control groups were similar in mean age, years of education, number of 

children, and number of years they were exposed to their children. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL RANDOM ASSIGNMENT DESIGN 

• Outcomes:

o Parental attitudes towards child rearing; 

o Parent’s self-esteem; and

o Children’s self-perception. 

• Method: Thirty inmates participating in the values-clarification class at the correctional center 

completed the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI) and the Index of Self-Esteem (ISE). 

Fathers were then asked to share the age appropriate Self-Perception Profile with their child during their 

first visit. Children completed the Self-Perception Profile during the visit or completed it at home and 

returned it by mail. Fathers were then randomly assigned to either the experimental or control group. 

Children who did not visit their father received the instruments by mail. 

Fathers in the experimental group completed 6 weeks of parent training classes that met two and a half 

hours 3 times per week. Fathers in the control group did not receive any systematic training regarding 

child rearing. Fathers in the control group viewed videotapes; participated in discussions, and answered 

questions related to parenting audio/video tapes. After the 12th session, all fathers completed the posttest instruments, AAPI and ISE. 

• Sample: Thirty (30) male inmates who were in a values-clarification class at the Jackie Brannon 

Correctional Center. Each inmate participated in the program with their child. 

• Measures: Two instruments were administered to fathers in both the experimental and control groups:

o The Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI; Bavolek, 1984) to assess parental attitudes 

towards child rearing; and

o The Index of Self-Esteem (ISE; Hudson, 1982) to assess parent’s self-esteem. 

PARENTAL TRAINING FOR INCARCERATED FATHERS 

23 
 “MODEL” PROGRAM 

Children aged 8-12 years old self-perception was assessed using the Self-Perception Profile for Children 

(Harter, 1985) while those aged 13-17 years old had their self-perception assessed using the SelfPerception Profile for Adolescents (Harter, 1985). 

• Statistical Analyses: Data from the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory was analyzed for differences 

in means of parent attitudes between pre- and post-tests within the experimental and control groups. The 

AAPI data were further analyzed using a 2 x 2 analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures 

on one factor to assess the effectiveness of treatments between the control and experimental groups. 

 

The Index of Self-Esteem, Self-Perception Profile for Children, and Self-Perception Profile for 

Adolescents were also analyzed using 2 x 2 ANOVA techniques. 

• Attrition: Children of fathers participating in the study visited the inmates infrequently with only one 

father reporting being visited during the study period. Additionally, fathers in the study reported that it 

was difficult to communicate by mail or telephone with their children as such communication evoked 

feelings of guilt or depression in their children. As such, the children generally did not observe any 

changes taking place with their fathers. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: One staff member, the principal investigator, facilitated the 

experimental group’s class of 15 fathers. Information is currently not available for the control 

group instruction. 

o Staff Education: The principle investigator, the facilitator for the experimental group, was a 

certified parent training instructor. 

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Training: The principal investigator, the facilitator for the experimental group was a 

certified parent training instructor. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Information currently not available.

• Space: Information currently not available. 

• Materials: Information currently not available. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: Information currently not available.

• Community Organizations Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model:

Fathers in the experimental group received instruction from the principle investigator, a certified parent 

training instructor, using several curricula. 

o During the first 3 sessions, fathers were introduced to early child developmental stages, birth to 

two and a half years using Concept Media’s Curriculum (Smith, 1973). In addition to discussing 

various topics, fathers also answered a set of objective questions. Topics covered included : 

 Pregnancy; 

PARENTAL TRAINING FOR INCARCERATED FATHERS 

24
 “MODEL” PROGRAM 

 Birth and the newborn; 

 Physical growth and motor development; 

 The development of understanding; 

 Styles of interaction; 

 Emotional and social development; and 

 Language development. 

o The next 2 sessions explored human development from two and a half years to six years old 

using Concept Media’s Curriculum (Smith, 1975). Fathers completed questions about each 

topic as well as engaging in role playing. Topics covered included: 

 Physical and motor development; 

 Intelligence/cognitive development, 

 Language development; 

 Gender differences and socialization; and 

 The role of play in development. 

o Sessions 6-8 incorporated lessons from The Nurturing Program (Bavolek & Comstock, 1985). 

These modules focused on behavior-management techniques through use of presentations, 

discussion and audio-visual media. Fathers learned about: 

 Different ages and stages that motivate behavior; 

 Inappropriate combination of parenting and abuse of drugs; 

 Appropriate disciplinary skills; and 

 Appropriate ways to modify children’s behavior. 

o Session 9 focused on the role and problems of stepparents (Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1983). 

Session 10-12 used lessons from the Systematic Training for Effective Parenting program 

(STEP; Dinkmeyer & Dinkmeyer, 1989). The topics included: 

 Building children’s confidence; 

 Listening effectively; 

 Having family meetings; 

 Strengthening family commitments; and 

 Improving communications between parent and child. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: The experimental and control groups each had 15 fathers. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Fathers in both groups participated for 6 weeks 

and met 3 times a week for two and an hours. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Three times a week. 

• Diversity of activities: Information currently not available. 

• Incentives for participation: Information currently not available. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• Fathers in the experimental group experienced greater changes over time in attitudes about child rearing 

than fathers in the control group. The mean score on the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory for 

fathers in the experimental group changed from 4.98 to 6.45 versus a change from 3.71 to 3.75 for 

fathers in the control group. 

• A 2x2 (Time x Treatment) ANOVA showed a significant interaction for parental attitudes towards child 

rearing, F (1, 28) = 10.25, p<.01. The differences in parental attitudes over time between the 

experimental and control groups were significant. 

• There were no significant differences over time between the experimental and control groups for the 

Index of Self-Esteem (measuring parental self-esteem). 

PARENTAL TRAINING FOR INCARCERATED FATHERS 

25
 “MODEL” PROGRAM 

• There were no significant changes in child and adolescent perception over time between the 

experimental and control group. 

SOURCES:

Bavolek, S.J., & Comstock, C. (1985). The nurturing program. Eau Claire, WI: Family Development 

 Resources. 

Dinkmeyer, D.S., & Dinkmeyer, D., Jr. (1989). The next step: Effective parenting through problem solving. 

 Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. 

Dinkmeyer, D.S., & McKay, G.A.D. (1983). STEP: Systematic Training Effective Parenting. Circle Pines, MN: 

 American Guidance Service. 

Harrison, K. (1997). Parental training for incarcerated fathers: Effects on attitudes, self-esteem, and children’s 

 self-perceptions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(5), 588-593. 

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the self-perception profile for children. Denver, CO: University of Denver. 

Smith, L. (1973). Human development: The first two and one-half years. Costa Mesa, CA: Concept Media. 

Smith, L. (1975). Human development: Two and one-half years to six years. Costa Mesa, CA: Concept Media. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Kim Harrison 

4010 S. 133rd East Ave. 

Tulsa, OK 741

PARENTAL TRAINING FOR INCARCERATED FATHERS 

26
“MODEL” PROGRAM 

SYSTEMATIC TRAINING FOR EFFECTIVE PARENTING FOR INCARCERATED FATHERS (STEP) 

OVERVIEW: This study examined the effects on parenting of a modified version of the Systematic Training 

for Effective Parenting for Incarcerated Fathers (STEP) parenting class at medium security level correctional 

facility. Twenty one men about to start the STEP program were assigned to the experimental group where they 

attended eight class sessions on parenting over a three week period. Twenty one men on the waiting list were 

assigned to the control group where they were pre-tested and post-tested with the experimental group. The 

parenting class was aimed at increasing knowledge of parenting and child development, parent satisfaction and 

parent’s levels of confidence. After the eight sessions, men in the experimental group had significantly greater 

knowledge about parenting, increased levels of satisfaction and confidence about their role as parents. Read 

more... 

PROGRAM GOALS:

• Increase knowledge of parenting and child development; 

• To strengthen inmates levels of confidence, control and efficacy- moving their loci of control from 

external to internal; and 

• Increase parent satisfaction. 

LOCATION: A minimum security federal correctional institute for male offenders. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

There were two groups of 21 inmates, the experimental and control groups. 

• The average age of participants was 35.4 years old. 

• Approximately 33% of the participants were African American, 29% European American, and 21% 

Latin American. 

• About one quarter of the men (26%) were married to mothers of their children, 24% had never been 

married to the mothers nor kept close relationships, 21% had never been married to the mother but 

maintained close relationships, 17% divorced but still communicating with the mother, and 12% were 

divorced with no communication. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL STUDY. 

• Outcomes:

o Parental Efficacy; 

o Parental Responsibility; 

o Child Control of Parent’s Life; 

o Parental belief in Fate/Chance; and 

o Parental Control of Child’s behavior. 

o Spouse support; 

o Child-parent relationship; 

o Parent performance; 

o Family discipline and control; and 

o General satisfaction. 

• Method: This study was conducted at a minimum security correctional institution with a preexisting 

parenting class, STEP, in which inmates could voluntarily participate. The investigator utilized the 

presence of a waiting list to create two groups, an experimental and control group. 

The experimental group consisted of 21 men about to begin the parenting classes while the control 

group was 21 men on the waiting list. Both groups completed pre-tests. Inmates in the experimental 

SYSTEMATIC TRAINING FOR EFFECTIVE PARENTING FOR INCARCERATED FATHERS (STEP) 

27 
 “MODEL” PROGRAM 

group then met for 8 sessions each 1 1⁄2 hours long over a 3-week period. Participants each received a 

booklet with the course outline and other relevant material which they were allowed to keep and take 

back to their housing units. As part of their sessions, these fathers also received counseling about 

socialization and reentry into the family unit. Emphasis was placed on how to effectively communicate 

with letters and telephones. 

Upon completion of STEP, participants completed a post-test. Participants in the control group did not 

take part in any activities but completed the post-test after 8 weeks. 

• Sample: The experimental and control groups each had 21 men. 

• Measures:

Content Test: Investigators created this 25-item multiple choice test to assess the degree of inmate’s 

acquisition of material introduced during the experimental group training. 

Parental Locus of Control Scale (Campis et al., 1986): It consists of 47 items on a Likert-type scale that 

measure: 

• Parental Efficacy; 

• Parental Responsibility; 

• Child Control of Parent’s Life; 

• Parental belief in Fate/Chance; and 

• Parental Control of Child’s behavior. 

Cleminshaw-Guidabaldi Parent Satisfaction Scale (Guidabaldi & Cleminshaw, 1985) which consists of 

50 items on a Likert-type scale that measure: 

• Spousal support; 

• Child-parent relationship; 

• Parent performance; 

• Family discipline and control; and 

• General satisfaction. 

• Statistical Analyses: Paired one tailed T-tests were conducted separately for the control and 

experimental groups to test differences between pre- and post-test scores on the outcome measures. 

• Attrition: This sample of 42 inmates was not affected by attrition. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: The experimental group of 21 inmates had 1 facilitator. 

o Staff Education: The facilitator was a female graduate student in child development and family 

studies. 

o Staff Experience: The facilitator had been teaching parenting classes at the prison for a year.

o Staff Training: Information currently not available. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

SYSTEMATIC TRAINING FOR EFFECTIVE PARENTING FOR INCARCERATED FATHERS (STEP) 

28
 “MODEL” PROGRAM 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Participants were inmate fathers who had voluntarily signed up to take part in a preexisting on-site parenting skills training course. The course’s waiting list was used to determine 

program participants.

• Space: Information currently not available.

• Materials: Participants in the experimental group were presented a booklet with outlines for each class 

as well as other relevant material. Inmates were allowed to keep their booklets throughout and after 

completing the course. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: Information currently not available. 

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model:

The parenting classes met for eight sessions. The course was based on the Systematic Training for 

Effective Parenting (STEP) program (Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1982), which was modified and made 

suitable for an incarcerated population. Communication strategies were redesigned to focus on letters, 

telephone calls, and visiting hours. The eight sessions were: 

o Understanding your children’s behavior; 

o Understanding more about your child and about yourself as a parent; 

o Encouragement: Building your child’s confidence and feelings of worth; 

o Communication: How to listen and talk to your child; 

o Communication: Exploring alternatives and expressing your ideas and feelings to your child; 

o Discipline and natural logical consequences; 

o Video: Common Sense Parenting for the 90’s; and 

o Strengthening the bonds, dealing with the separation, and returning to your family. 

In addition to the main topics, each session included some time for the parents to make something 

special to send to their child. This enabled them to broaden their creativity beyond writing letters. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: The experimental and control groups had 21 participants.

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): There were 8 sessions each one and one half hour 

long over a three week period. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Approximately 2 sessions per week. 

• Diversity of activities: In addition to instruction from the facilitator and group discussions, participants 

were encouraged to make special gifts for their child. 

• Incentives for participation: Inmates were eager to participate in the parenting classes necessitating 

waiting lists. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• Participants in the experimental group scored significantly higher at posttest relative to pretest on the 

Content Test, which measured father’s knowledge about new parenting skills learned: t(20)=3.47, p= 

<.001. There were no significant pre- posttest differences for the control group. 

• Posttest scores for the experimental group were significantly higher than pretest scores on the Parental 

Locus of Control Scale total score, t(20)=-1.85, p= <.04. Significant differences persisted for the subscales; Parental Efficacy, t(20)=-1.81, p= <.04; and Parent’s Belief in Fate or Chance, t(20)=-1.84, p= 

<.04. The Parental Responsibility subscales and the Child Control of Parent’s Life subscales were 

marginally significant (p=.09 for both). 

SYSTEMATIC TRAINING FOR EFFECTIVE PARENTING FOR INCARCERATED FATHERS (STEP) 

29
 “MODEL” PROGRAM 

• On the Parent Satisfaction Scale, posttest scores were significantly higher than pretest scores on the 

Parent Performance subscale, t(20)=-1.75, p= <.04. The General Satisfaction subscale approached 

significance (p = <0.55). 

SOURCES:

Campis, L. K., & Lyman, R.D., Prentice-Dunn, S. (1986). The parental locus of control scale: Development and 

 validation. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 260-267. 

Dinkmeyer, K., & McKay, G.D. (1982). The parents handbook: Systematic Training for Effective Parenting. 

Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services. 

Wilczak, G.L., & Markstrom, C.A. (1999). The effects of parent education on parental locus of control and 

 satisfaction of incarcerated fathers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative 

 Criminology, 43, 90. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Carol A. Markstrom, Ph.D. 

Associate Professor 

Division of Family and Consumer Sciences 

West Virginia University 

Morgantown, West Virginia 26506 

Ginger L. Wilczak, M.S. 

Intake and Assessment Worker 

Columbiana County Department of Human Services 

Children Services Division 

110 Nelson, Lisbon, Ohio 44432 

 

SYSTEMATIC TRAINING FOR EFFECTIVE PARENTING FOR INCARCERATED FATHERS (STEP) 

30
 

APPENDIX 2: 

“Promising” Programs

31 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

LONG DISTANCE DADS PROGRAM 

OVERVIEW: The Long Distance Dads parenting program was developed by the Pennsylvania Department of 

Corrections aimed at promoting responsible fatherhood and holistic parenting. An evaluation of the program 

comparing outcomes of participating inmates to a similar group of non-participating inmates at the same 

correctional institution finds minimal evidence that the Long Distance Dads program improves inmates 

fathering skills, knowledge, behaviors and attitudes. Participating inmates were more likely to write letters to 

their children at the end of the program compared to non-participating inmates. Read more... 

PROGRAM GOALS:

The Long Distance Dads (LDD) is a parenting program developed at the Pennsylvania Department of 

Corrections. The program’s main goals are: 

• Promoting responsible fatherhood and holistic parenting; 

• Empowering fathers to assume emotional, moral, spiritual, psychological, and financial responsibility of 

their children both while in prison and upon release; 

• Accentuating the psycho-social development of both father and child; 

• Meeting the challenges of being an incarcerated father; and 

• Increasing the knowledge base concerning fatherhood. 

LOCATION: The State Correctional Institution at Albion, a medium-security institution for men, Erie County 

Pennsylvania. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

• The average age of inmates in the experimental group was 32 years old versus 33 years old for those in 

the control group. 

• Approximately 36% of inmates in the experimental group were African-American versus 51% in the 

control. Whites were 38% and 34% respectively. 

• Two-thirds or more of the inmates in both groups were single- 66% for the experimental group and 75% 

for the control group. 

• Both group completed 11th grade. 

• Fathers in the control group had older children than fathers in the experimental group, 10.5 years versus 

7.1 years. 

• Fathers in the experimental group reported higher wage earnings than control group fathers before their 

incarceration- $11/hour versus $8/hour. 

• Control group fathers had more medical limitations or needs compared to experimental group fathers, 

41% versus 19%. 

• The IQ of experimental group fathers was higher than control group fathers, 96.4 versus 88.9. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL 

This quasi-experimental evaluation utilized matched control group design. Fathers participating in Long 

Distance Dads were the experimental group. Evaluators matched fathers in the experimental group to fathers in 

the general prison population on: race/ethnicity; age; marital status; education; and sentence length. The 

matched inmates comprised the control group.

• Outcomes:

o Phone calls to child in a month; 

o Letters sent to child in a month; 

o Gifts sent to child per year; 

o Child visits per year; 

o Anger and frustration; 

LONG DISTANCE DADS PROGRAM 

32 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

 

o Knowledge and awareness; 

o Skills and consistency; 

o Goal setting; 

o Rating of father; and 

o Knowledge about children; 

o Parental locus of control; 

o Parental satisfaction; and 

o Parental attitudes. 

• Method: This evaluation used a time series, matched control design including proxy measures and 

archival data, to assess pre- and post-test changes in several outcomes. It consisted of four components: 

inmate surveys using 2 questionnaire instruments; caregiver telephone interviews; in-person inmate 

interviews; and institutional data. 

Over an 18-month period, data were collected from participants in 3, 12-week Long Distance Dad 

sessions. Trained inmate peer leaders facilitated each group session. Groups were limited to 8-10 

inmates per group. Each LDD father was matched to a control inmate on: race/ethnicity; age; marital 

status; education; and sentence length. Fathers in both groups completed pre-test questionnaires, posttest questionnaires and at least one follow-up interview. 

Evaluators conducted telephone interviews with caregivers of the LDD parent’s children at pre-, posttest, and follow-up using similar questionnaires. The questionnaires were modified to elicit the same 

information about the fathers from the caregivers. 

Evaluators also conducted in-person interviews with a randomly selected group of LDD fathers from the 

first session. Data from the Department of Corrections were regularly collected throughout the duration 

of the evaluation. 

• Sample: Pre-test data were collected on 84 experimental inmates, 60 control inmates and 37 caregivers. 

At post-test, data were collected on 42 experimental inmates, 47 control inmates, and 18 caregivers. 

• Measures: Fathers in the experimental and control groups completed two questionnaires, The Father’s 

Questionnaire and the Involvement, Consistency, Awareness, & Nurturing (ICAN) Questionnaire. 

The Father’s Questionnaire included four scales designed to measure fathering knowledge, attitudes, 

skills, and behaviors: 

1. The Long Distance Dads Content Test, developed from the LDD curriculum, measured five 

domains: 

• Anger and frustration; 

• Knowledge and awareness; 

• Skills and consistency; 

• Goal setting; and 

• Knowledge about his children. 

2. Parental Locus of Control (Campis, Lyman, and Pentice-Dunn, 1986) 

3. Index of Parental Attitudes (IPA)(Hudson, 1982) 

4. Cleminshaw-Guidubaldi (C-G) Parent Satisfaction Scale (Guidubaldi & Cleminshaw, 1985) 

The Involvement, Consistency, Awareness, & Nurturing (ICAN) Questionnaire is an internal instrument 

used by LDD (The National Center for Fathering, 1997). 

LONG DISTANCE DADS PROGRAM 

33
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

 

Caregiver Telephone interviews were similar to the questionnaires and were administered to the LDD 

father’s children’s caretakers. The interview content was primarily a modified version of the LDD 

Content Test. Item wording was modified so that the caretaker could report about the father. 

• Statistical Analyses: Data were analyzed for within-group and between group differences across the 

different time periods using General Linear Models (GLM) Repeated Measures. T-tests, Pearson’s 

correlation coefficients, chi-squares, McNemar’s, Ordinary Least Squares regression were also used in 

analyzing the data. 

• Attrition: The retention rates for the experimental group, control group, and caregivers were 50%, 78%, 

and 49% respectively. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: 1 trained inmate facilitator to 8-10 inmates (1 group). Each session 

had approximately 4 groups. 

o Staff Education: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Training: Inmates were trained in a 12-week training program to lead their peers. They 

were trained in group facilitation, fathering techniques, and in-depth analysis of fathering 

issues. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Information not currently available. 

• Space: Sessions were conducted in classrooms. 

• Materials: Information currently not available. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: Information currently not available.

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model:

The 12 sessions for the program were: 

1.) Fatherhood Self-Assessment 

2.) Character of a Man 

3.) Similarities and Differences 

4.) My Anger: Friend or Foe? 

5.) My Child’s Life I 

6.) My Child’s Life II 

7.) Communication 

8.) Healthy Relationships 

9.) Frustration and Discouragement 

10.) Looking Beyond the Walls 

11.) What Did we Miss 

12.) Fatherhood: The Next Level

LONG DISTANCE DADS PROGRAM 

34
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: 8-10 inmates to a group. Each session had an approximately 4 groups. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): 12 weekly sessions. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Once a week.

• Diversity of activities: Father’s primarily received instruction from peer group facilitators. 

• Incentives for participation: Incentives were not offered. Inmates were eager to participate 

necessitating a waiting list. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Minimal evidence is found that Long Distance Dads improves inmates fathering skills, knowledge, behaviors 

and attitudes. 

• While the experimental and control groups were statistically identical at pre-test on the 20 outcome 

variables, two out of a possible 20 outcomes showed better outcomes for participants in the LDD 

program as a result of participation: 

• Self-reports of the number of letters sent to child; and 

• Self-reports of total contact with the child. 

These self-report findings were not corroborated by the caregiver reports. 

• The GLM repeated measures analyses found only one significant group effect- control group fathers 

were more involved with their children than experimental group fathers. 

SOURCES:

Campis, L., Lyman, R., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1986). The parental locus of control scale: Development and 

 validation. The Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 15(3), 260-267. 

Guidubaldi, J., & Cleminshaw, H.K. (1985). The development of the Cleminshaw-Guidubaldi satisfaction scale. 

The Journal of Child Psychology. 14, 293-298. 

Hudson, W.W. (1982). Index of parental attitudes (IPA). The Clinical Measurement Package: A Field Manual. 

Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press. 

The National Center for Fathering. (1997). Fathering Profile (ICAN). Washington DC: National Fatherhood 

 Institute. 

Skarupski, K.A., Bullock, C.J., Fitch, C., Johnson, A. L., Kelso, L.M., Fox, E.R., Napenas, B., Dimperio, M., & 

Drabik, M.J. (2003). Outcomes evaluation of the Long Distance Dads Program. Penn State Erie, The 

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

 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Kimberly A. Skarupski, Ph.D., M.P.H., Principal Investigator 

Penn State Erie, The Behrend College 

Center for Organization Research (CORE) 

Station Road 

Erie, PA 16563-1801 

Phone: 814-898-6297 

Email: www.pserie.psu.edu/hss/core.htm

LONG DISTANCE DADS PROGRAM 

35
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM FOR INCARCERATED DADS 

FAIRFAX COUNTY

OVERVIEW: The Fairfax County Responsible Fatherhood Program for incarcerated dads was implemented to 

educate incarcerated fathers about child development, responsible fathering and to re-kindle child-father 

relationships. Two groups of prisoners, a treatment and control group, were drawn from a population of inmates 

just beginning their sentence or just about to leave the prison system by the Director of Community Corrections. 

Differences in key outcome measures were shown between fathers who had participated in at least four program 

sessions and those in the control group. Fathers in the treatment group significantly increased; their frequency of 

contact with their children; knowledge and attitude towards fatherhood; and knowledge of the justice system. 

Read more... 

PROGRAM GOALS:

The Fairfax County Responsible Fatherhood Program’s main objectives were: 

• Promote responsible fatherhood during and after incarceration. 

• Encourage father involvement in their children’s lives. 

• Teach parenting skills while providing understanding of child development. 

• Teach the values of positive communication between parents and methods of minimizing parental 

conflict. 

LOCATION: Fairfax County, Virginia 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

Fathers were primarily drawn from prisoners just beginning their sentence but some fathers about to be released 

were also included. These participants were identified by the Director of Community Corrections. 

Treatment Group (56) 

• The father’s average age was approximately 34 years old. 

• Most fathers (48 %) had graduated high school or obtained a GED. About 21 percent of the fathers had 

some high school; an equal proportion had some college. Nine (9) percent had associates or bachelors 

degrees. 

• The ethnic composition for the treatment group was 27 % White, 64 % Black, 5 % Hispanic and 1.8 % 

Asian or other. 

• About half (52 %) of the fathers made less than $30,000 annually. Twelve (12) percent made more than 

50,000.

• Approximately 60 % had lost their jobs since incarceration. Fifty (50) percent of the fathers had 

committed custodial offenses. 

• Forty six (46) percent of the fathers are single, 25 % currently married and 5 % widowed. They each 

had and an average of 2 children.

• Half the fathers attended all program sessions.

Control Group (31) 

• The father’s average age was 34 years old. 

• About one third (29 %) of the fathers had graduated high school or obtained a GED. Another third (29 

%) had some high school with an equal proportion having some college. Three (3) percent had an 

associate’s degree while approximately 10 % had graduate degrees. 

• The ethnic composition for the group was 38 % White, 42 % Black and 19 % Hispanic. 

• Almost half (42 %) of the fathers made less than $30,000 annually. Only 6 % made more than $50,000.

• Approximately 50 % had lost their job with an equal proportion incarcerated for custodial offenses. 

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM FOR INCARCERATED DADS 

FAIRFAX COUNTY 

36 
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

 

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM FOR INCARCERATED DADS 

• Twenty six (26) percent of the fathers are single, 26 % currently married and 48 % divorced or 

separated. Each had an average of 2.75 children. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL STUDY 

• Outcomes:

The following outcomes were assessed; 

o Frequency of contact with children

o Knowledge and attitudes toward fatherhood

o Quality of relationship with mothers of children

o Knowledge of the justice system. 

• Method: An experimental design was used in this study. The treatment group consisted of 56 fathers 

who participated in at least four of the fatherhood program sessions; these fathers comprised 80 % of the 

group. The control group consisted of 31 fathers incarcerated for the length of the program. The 

Responsible Fatherhood program ran for ten weeks and inmates in the treatment group met weekly for 

about one and a half hours. 

Fatherhood Program facilitators had been working at the jail and were known to the fathers. A pre-test 

was administered to the treatment group during the first session. Control group fathers received pre-tests 

within the same period. Post-tests were administered during the last session for the treatment group; the 

control group also completed post-tests within the same period. 

• Sample: The study involved 56 men in the treatment group and 31 in the control group. 

• Measures:

o Frequency of contact with children

During the pretest survey, inmates were asked how often they saw, spoke to, or wrote to their 

children. At post-test the same questions were posed but phrased in relation to the program. 

These questions were scored using a four-point scale ranging from never to four times per 

month. The scores were added up to create a composite score. 

o Knowledge and attitudes toward fatherhood

Seven items scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging were used to develop the measure. 

Responses were added for both the pre- and post-test to create a pre- and post composite score. 

This measure was based on the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI) developed by 

Bavolek, Kline and McLaughlin (1979).

o Quality of relationship with mothers of children

Four items were asked pre- and post-test. These items were also scored on a five-point Likert 

scale and similarly added up as in the knowledge and attitudes toward fatherhood measure. 

o Knowledge of the justice system. 

Four items asking respondents about their knowledge of the justice system pertaining to 

custodial issues were posed both at pre- and post-test. These items were also scored on the fivepoint Likert scale. Responses were added to create pre- and post-test composite measures. 

• Statistical Analyses: Analysis of pre- and post-test scores was conducted to determine if there were 

differences between the treatment and control group; differences across time on the four dependent 

variables; and differences on the four dependent variables based on the number of program sessions 

attended. Further analysis was conducted to determine whether differences on the outcomes existed 

between custodial and non-custodial inmates. 

FAIRFAX COUNTY 

37
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

 

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM FOR INCARCERATED DADS 

• Attrition: Out of the 72 inmates assigned to the treatment group, 16 men did not attend more than the 

minimum 4 sessions or were not present during either the pre- or post-tests. Of the 50 men originally in 

the control group, 19 men could not be located for post-tests due to early or work release programs. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participant ratio; Information not available. 

o Staff Education: Information not available. 

o Staff Experience: Information not available. 

o Staff Training: All volunteers were trained by the Director of Community Corrections. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information not available. 

o Staff Wages: Facilitators for all the program sessions were volunteers from a local non profit 

organization. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: The Director of Community Corrections recruited fathers for both groups. 

• Space: Program sessions were conducted in the pre-release center, a facility that housed inmates from 

several local counties who were either at the end of their sentences or participating in work release 

programs. 

• Materials: Information currently not available. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: Facilitators for the program sessions were volunteers from a local non 

profit, Opportunities, Alternatives and Resources (OAR). 

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The Responsible Fatherhood Program consisted of weekly sessions 

over ten weeks. To be included in the analysis for the treatment group, inmates had to have attended a 

minimum of four sessions. The curriculum for those in the treatment group covered demographics on 

fatherhood and parenting. Other modules included understanding child development, co-parenting, 

responsible manhood, conflict resolution and moving on. Each lesson had homework components that 

often required interaction with their children. Participants were also required to maintain a journal of 

reflections on classes and interactions with their children. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: Information currently not available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Each weekly session ran for about an hour and a 

half. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Inmates met once per week for ten weeks. 

• Diversity of activities: Sessions included homework that would require child interaction. 

• Incentives for participation: Participants in both the treatment and control group were informed that 

invitations were based on a desire to improve the program for future participants and a response to 

incarcerated fathers’ needs. 

FAIRFAX COUNTY 

38
“PROMISING” PROGRAM 

 

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM FOR INCARCERATED DADS 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Frequency of contact with children: 

• Scores on frequency of contact with their children for fathers in the treatment group increased 

significantly (p<0.05) over time suggesting that the program was effective in increasing a father’s 

contact with his children. 

• The frequency of contact with their children for fathers incarcerated for non-custodial offenses 

increased significantly (p<0.05) over time. When comparing fathers incarcerated for custodial offenses 

versus those incarcerated for non-custodial offenses at post-test, the frequency of contact among fathers’ 

incarcerated for non-custodial offenses was higher than those incarcerated for custodial offenses 

(p<0.05). 

Knowledge and attitudes toward fatherhood: 

• Fathers’ knowledge and attitude toward fatherhood for fathers in the treatment group significantly 

increased over time (p<0.05) suggesting that the program was effective in increasing fathers knowledge 

about psychological and physiological development of their children. 

• Fathers’ knowledge and attitude toward fatherhood varied significantly (F= 7.97, p <0.05) across the 

number of program sessions attended. This knowledge was significantly higher for fathers who had 

attended all sessions versus fathers who had attended four to five sessions or six to seven sessions. 

• Fathers’ who were incarcerated for custodial offenses had significantly higher post-test scores on 

knowledge and attitude towards fatherhood relative to those incarcerated for non-custodial offenses 

(p<0.05). Fathers incarcerated for both types of offenses showed significant (p<0.05) improvement 

over time. 

Knowledge of the justice system: 

• Fathers’ knowledge of the justice system for fathers in the treatment group increased significantly 

(p<0.05) over time suggesting that the program was effective in improving awareness and knowledge of 

the justice system.

• Fathers who were incarcerated for custodial crimes significantly (p<0.05) increased their knowledge of 

the justice system over time.

SOURCES:

Bavolek, S.J., Kline, D., & McLaughlin, J. (1979). Primary prevention of child abuse: Identification of high risk 

 adolescents. Child Abuse and Neglect: International Journal, 3, 1070-1080. 

Robbers, M.L.P. (2005). Focus on family and fatherhood: Lessons from Fairfax County’s Responsible 

Fatherhood Program for Incarcerated Dads. Justice Policy Journal Vol. 2 No 1. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Monica L. P. Robbers 

Associate Professor 

Department of Criminal Justice 

Marymount University 

FAIRFAX COUNTY 

39
APPENDIX 3: 

“Emerging” Programs 

40 
“EMERGING”PROGRAM 

A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR YOUNG FATHERS IN PRISON 

OVERVIEW: This program is an intensive parenting class delivered over a single week and designed to 

address the needs of young fathers in prison. The class covers a variety of topics, including childcare issues, 

sexual health, and legal issues. Additionally, participants are invited to pose their own topics. Overall, 

participants enjoyed the class and found it to be useful, especially learning about childcare-specific issues. Read 

more...

PROGRAM GOALS: To provide a useful, high-quality parenting class to young fathers in prison.

LOCATION: A young offender institution in the south of England 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: Young fathers participating in this program had the 

following characteristics: 

• Participants were between 18 and 21 years old, 19.65 years old on average; 

• Participants identified themselves as black (45%), white (41%), and Asian (1.3%) or did not identify 

their ethnic group (12%); 

• 59% of participants reported having a child or children at the beginning of the group; 

• Participants’ children were between 1 and 4 years old, 1.50 years old on average. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: DESCRIPTIVE CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY 

• Outcomes: 

o Most useful aspect of the course 

o Least useful aspect of the course 

o Most important thing learnt 

o What was missing from the course 

o Overall usefulness of the course 

o Parenting support whilst in prison 

o Support for young fathers after release from prison 

o Further comments and suggestions 

• Method: Participants were recruited through fliers placed on the accommodation, education, and 

resettlement wings of the prison. Many participants heard about the program from others who had 

participated. Participants were self-referred. Preference was given to fathers and perspective fathers. 

Participants provided feedback at the end of each day of the program as well as an anonymous written 

evaluation at the end of the week. 

• Sample: Over 3 years, 75 men completed the prison-based parenting class. 

• Measures: On the written course evaluation, participants were asked to: 

o Complete a series of open-ended questions addressing the course content (e.g., What was 

missing from the course that you would have liked? For you, what was the most important thing 

that you learnt?); 

o Rate the overall usefulness of the course on a five point scale (response options ranged from 

“not at all useful” to “very useful”); 

o Report the types of parenting support that they would be willing to access, both from within 

prison and after their return to the community. 

• Statistical Analyses: Thematic analysis was used to explore participant responses (Strauss & Corbin, 

1990). Descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis were also used. 

A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR YOUNG FATHERS IN PRISON 

41 
“EMERGING” PROGRAM 

 

• Attrition: Not currently available. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: This varied depending on the size of the class. On average, there were 

3 staff members for 8 participants. 

o Staff Education: The program leader has a Ph.D. in psychology and also conducted the 

program evaluation. She was assisted by a member of the prison resettlement staff and a 

classroom assistant. 

o Staff Experience: Not currently available. 

o Staff Training: The classroom assistant was a trained prisoner.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available. 

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Participants were recruited through fliers placed on the accommodation, education, and 

resettlement wings of the prison. Many participants heard about the program from others who had 

participated. Participants were self-referred. Course participants who wished to attend the course would 

indicate their interest to a staff member in the resettlement department, who would add the individual’s 

name to the program waiting list.

• Space: The program was implemented inside a young offender institution that could accommodate 400 

men between the ages of 18 and 21. 

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Several of the program sessions were led by guest speakers from the 

community. A female domestic violence officer from the local police force led the session on domestic 

violence, and a regional representative from a local fathers’ support group assisted in leading the session 

on fathers’ legal rights and responsibilities.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: Because of high turnover in the prison setting, this program was 

designed to be an intensive parenting class delivered over a single week. A set list of topics was covered 

as well as any additional topic that the groups wanted to learn more about. The following set topics were 

covered: 

 Childcare issues (e.g., child development, nutrition, play, discipline, health and safety); 

 Sexual health; 

 Pregnancy; 

 Domestic Violence; 

 Legal issues; 

 Accessing parenting support; 

 Maintaining contact with children and family members during and after prison. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: The size of the group varied. There were between 5 and 11 participants in each group, with 

an average group size of 8. 

A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR YOUNG FATHERS IN PRISON 

42
“EMERGING” PROGRAM 

 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): The program took place over a single week. A 

morning and an afternoon session were held everyday. 

• Frequency of program offerings: The program was offered every 2-4 months, depending on 

availability of staff and the length of the waiting list. Nine groups took place over a 32-month period. 

• Diversity of activities: Participants took part in whole- and small-group exercises, individual work, 

worksheets, discussions, quizzes, and role playing. There was little formal written work. Tutor and peer 

support were made available. 

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Most useful aspect of the course: 

• The majority of participants (57%) found childcare-specific issues to be the most useful aspect of the 

course. Of these participants, most of the responses related to physical care (e.g., learning how to 

change a diaper). The rest of the responses were related to general care and issues surrounding child 

development and behavior. 

• Participants also found other related issues useful (22%) (e.g., legal issues, domestic violence, parenting 

self-esteem, pregnancy). 

• Finally, participants found the course format and delivery useful (21%). Some participants mentioned 

specific teaching methods that the liked (e.g., guest speakers, role playing, group discussions). 

Least useful aspect of the course: The majority of participants either said that there was nothing they did not 

find useful or identified a least useful aspect and then commented that it really was useful. The aspect most often 

identified as least useful was course content, specifically domestic violence, pregnancy, sexual health, and legal 

issues. Other participants noted the course format or physical childcare issues. 

Most important thing learnt: Participants responded in a variety of ways. The most frequent response related to 

general childcare issues (21%). Participants also noted parenting roles (14%), the relationship with the child 

(14%), and health and safety concerns (14%). 

What was missing from the course: Only 21% of participants responded to this question, indicating that most 

participants felt that there was nothing missing from the course. The remaining participants suggested changes 

to the content of the course (43%) (e.g., if the child falls ill, how to feed my son), contact with the child/partner 

(38%) (e.g., having the partner take the course also), and a longer course. 

Overall usefulness of the course: All participants rated the course as “very useful” or “fairly useful.” There were 

no differences by ethnicity or parental status. 

Parenting support whilst in prison: 75% of participants wanted more frequent or longer visits, family days, or 

more privacy during visits; 18% wanted additional support with coping; and 7% wanted written contact with 

their family. 

Support for young fathers after release from prison: Over 75% of participants reported that they did not want 

any support; 8% wanted only informal support (e.g., family and friends); 5% wanted agency support (e.g., 

further courses, parenting club); and 9% wanted general support (e.g., help and advice, help to get an 

apartment). 

Further comments and suggestions: All additional comments were positive. Participants commented on the 

usefulness of the course (42%), expressed gratitude (29%), responded emotionally to the course (17%), or 

expressed concern for other parents (12%). 

A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR YOUNG FATHERS IN PRISON 

43
“EMERGING” PROGRAM 

 

SOURCES:

Meek, R. (2007). Parenting education for young fathers in prison. Child and Family Social Work 12(3). 

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. 

Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Rosie Meek 

Department of Psychology 

University of Sussex 

Falmer, Brighton 

BN19QG 

UK 

r.meek@sussex.ac.uk 

A PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR YOUNG FATHERS IN PRISON 

44
“EMERGING”PROGRAM 

DADS FAMILY PROJECT 

OVERVIEW: The DADS Family Project was created in 1996, and implemented in the South Eastern U.S. 

Research demonstrates that the use of group interventions with parents to prevent child maltreatment and to 

support positive parenting has been effective. The DADS Family Project is an innovative program that is 

designed to adapt to a variety of settings, from schools to churches to prisons and businesses. The DADS Family 

Project was conducted at three correctional institutions with fathers both face-to-face and via video 

conferencing. For men who participated in the group via video conferencing, the scores of the participants 

improved in three of the eight areas assessed in the predicted direction: permitting self expression, avoiding 

harsh punishment and not using physical punishment. For men in the face-to-face session, the changes were less 

dramatic, with significant changes only in avoiding harsh punishment. Read more.... 

PROGRAM GOALS: The purpose of the program is to assist dads in improving their understanding of the 

essential role of fathering. 

The goals for each father were to: 

o Recognize his potential positive impact on his children; 

o Improve in his attitude of wanting to be an equal parent; 

o Develop personal model of fatherhood as a “generative” dad; 

o Understand the meaning and strategies for establishing a safe, secure, predictable, and reliable home 

environment; 

o Acquire an appreciation of the value of play for children and strategies for playing; 

o Improve communication skills; 

o Improve stress management; and, 

o Acquire positive discipline strategies. 

LOCATION: Southeastern United States 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: The DADS Project was completed with fathers who were 

incarcerated in a state prison system and were selected to participate by prison officials. Fathers participated in 

the project either in a face-to-face program or through distance learning. 

Demographic Characteristics: 

• Average age of the participants was 33.8 

• Participants reported an average of 3.2 children, with a range of one to ten 

• Marital Status: 

O 25% were never married 

O 27% were married 

O 36% were divorced 

O 11% were separated 

• Educational attainment level 

O 35% had not completed high school 

O 59% completed high school or vocational training 

O 7% attended college 

• Family income range: 

O 34% was under $10,000 

O 17% between $10,000 and $20,000 

O 10% between $20,000 and $30,000 

O 20% between $30,000 and $40,000 

O 20% over $40,000 

DADS FAMILY PROJECT 

45 
“EMERGING” PROGRAM 

 

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING (PRE-POST TEST DESIGN) 

• Outcomes: 

o Encourage verbalization 

o Foster independence 

o Permit self-expression 

o Avoid harsh punishment 

o Non-physical punishment 

o Avoid strictness 

o Encourage emotional expression 

o Orient to change 

o Social desirability 

• Method: To assess the effects of the DADS training on participants’ knowledge and attitudes about their 

roles as parents; a 45 item pretest posttest design using a standardized questionnaire was administered to the 

fathers. Each inmate completed a demographic sheet. In addition, structured qualitative interviews were 

designed specifically for this project, and focused on the participants’ experience of the training. Four 

inmates from the distance learning group were randomly selected at the end of the project and were 

interviewed.

• Sample: Forty-six (46) fathers participated in the face-to-face DADS Program, and seventeen (17) fathers 

participated at a distance.

• Measures: The standardized questionnaire PARI Q4 (Parental Attitude Research Instrument) was used with 

the fathers. The total measure is 115 items, and includes a number of sub-scales both about dad’s 

relationship which his children and about his relationship with his spouse. Eight sub-scales were selected 

for this study and were designed to assess the following: 

o Encouraging Verbalization 

o Fostering Independence 

o Permitting Child’s Self-Expression 

o Avoiding Harsh Punishment 

o Non-Punishment 

o Avoiding Strictness 

o Encouraging Emotional Expression 

o Change Orientation 

• Statistical Analyses: Two statistical procedures were used to assess the effect of the training on the fathers’ 

attitudes about parenting. 

o Nonparametric tests for differences in outcomes between participants at the live training and at the 

distance site were conducted. This test was done to assess if any differences existed as a result of the 

distance learning condition.

o The second test was designed to address questions about the effect of the training on the attitudes of 

the participants. A repeated measures Wilcoxon nonparametric test was used to address this 

question. 

o Qualitative interviews were hand and audio recorded, and summarized. 

• Attrition: Not currently available.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

DADS FAMILY PROJECT 

46
“EMERGING” PROGRAM 

 

o Staff-Participant ratio: Not currently available.

o Staff Education: Not currently available.

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: Not currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff Wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Participants were selected to participant by prison officials. 

• Space: Training sessions were held at correctional facilities. 

• Materials: Parenting manuals were provided to each inmate in all locations who participated in the 

classes. In addition to the parenting manual, the group leaders followed the format detailed in the DADS 

Family Project manual. Small group activities, experiential exercises, and audio-visual aids were used in 

the class presentations. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not currently available.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The Dads Actively Developing Stable Families Project (DADS)

curriculum was developed by Dr. Larry Barlow and Dr. Thomas Cornille (2005). The curriculum 

utilizes a self-efficiency model (SE) to enable fathers to lower anxiety, experience a sense of 

accomplishment, and maintain high level of effort. The learning strategies include using group 

interaction, modeling by facilitators, and verbal persuasion. Instructors are encouraged to self-disclose. 

Fathers learn from and support one another in a context that allows for building trust and promoting 

community spirit. A brief description of each session is provided below:

o Session 1: DADS Actively Developing Self. Fathers are led through a session recalling their 

personal history of being fathered, sharing about the birth of their children, and eventually 

establishing a model of fatherhood. 

o Session 2: DADS Actively Developing Safety and Sensitivity. A house is drawn and divided into 

four rooms to portray the need for children to experience an environment that is (1) safe, (2) 

secure, (3) predictable, and (4) reliable. 

o Session 3: DADS Actively Developing Play Skills. This session begins by reading one or two 

books to the fathers with the attempt to set and atmosphere for playful interaction. 

o Session 4: DADS Actively Developing Communication Skills. The central theme of this session 

is to teach the skill of reflective listening. Fathers are taught how to distinguish between surface 

context and deeper meaning. Fathers learn about utilizing non-threatening body postures when 

discussing topics with their children. 

o Session 5: DADS Actively Developing Stress Management Skills. Fathers are taught about some 

of the properties, where a model of stress is diagramed and explained to fathers by studying a 

real-life family portrayed on a documentary. 

o Session 6: DADS Actively Developing Effective Discipline Skills. Fathers brainstorm about longterm parental goals for their children: to become self-supporting, self-regulating, responsible, 

DADS FAMILY PROJECT 

47
“EMERGING” PROGRAM 

 

and effective decision-makers. Fathers learn through role-playing activities and exercises on 

how to utilize natural and logical consequences as means of effective discipline. 

o Session 7: DADS Actively Developing Experiential Skills. This session provides a lab in the 

community setting for demonstrating what fathers have learned thus far. Fathers are guided 

through exercises and interactions with their children, and they each observe their child’s 

manner of interacting. 

o Session 8: DADS Actively Developing Experiential Skills: This session is a celebration and thus 

occurs at the final meeting. Fathers graduate from the course and are recognized by their entire 

family. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Sixty-three (63) fathers

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Four classes of three hours each (12 hours total) 

were held at three correctional institutions. Simultaneously, with the course being taught at one of the 

institutions, participants at a fourth institution interacted with the class by means of video and audio 

linkage. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Fathers participated in the project in one of two ways. One group 

took part in the program face-to-face and other group through distance learning. For the distance 

learning group, audio-video simultaneous broadcast was used, from one prison where a group was 

participating live to another prison, where a classroom manager was present who responsibility was to 

distribute materials for the class and oversee classroom order. 

• Diversity of activities: A brief description of each session is provided below.

o Session 1: DADS Actively Developing Self 

o Session 2: DADS Actively Developing Safety and Sensitivity. 

o Session 3: DADS Actively Developing Play Skills 

o Session 4: DADS Actively Developing Communication Skills 

o Session 5: DADS Actively Developing Stress Management Skills 

o Session 6: DADS Actively Developing Effective Discipline Skills 

o Session 7: DADS Actively Developing Experiential Skills 

o Session 8: DADS Actively Developing Experiential Skills 

• Incentives for participation: Not currently available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• For men who participated in the group via video conferencing, the scores of the participants improved in 

three of the eight areas assessed in the predicted direction: 

o permitting self expression at the level of (p<.05) 

o avoiding harsh punishment at the level of (p<.05) 

o not using physical punishment at the level of (p<.05) 

• For men in the face-to-face session, the changes were less dramatic, with significant changes only in 

Avoiding Harsh Punishment at the level of (p<.05). 

SOURCES:

Cornille, T., Barlow, L., & Cleveland, A. (2005). DADS Family Project: An experiential group approach to 

support fathers in their relationships with their children. Social Work with Groups, 28(2), 41-57. 

DADS FAMILY PROJECT 

48
“EMERGING” PROGRAM 

 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Thomas A. Cornille, Ph.D., L.C.S.W. 

Larry O. Barlow, Ph.D., L.M.F.T. 

Faculty in Interdivisional Program in Marriage and Family Therapy 

Department of Family and Child Sciences 

Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306 

Arthur D. Cleveland, L.C.S.W. 

Tallahassee, FL 

DADS FAMILY PROJECT 

49
“EMERGING”PROGRAM 

THE FAMILY SERVICES PROGRAM 

AT THE IDAHO STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

OVERVIEW: The Family Services Program at the Idaho State Correctional Institution was designed to teach 

parents better parenting skills while fathers were incarcerated. The program was successful in improving 

parents’ communication skills, the general home atmosphere, and the compliance behavior of children in the 

study. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS:

• To improve parents’ communication skills.

• To improve parents’ child management skills. 

LOCATION: Kuna, Idaho 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

There were three families of inmates who participated in the study. 

• The families of inmates who were within one year of parole and detained in the minimum security unit 

at Idaho State Correctional Institute. 

• A total of 10 children from the families participated in the study. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING (PRE- & POST-TEST DESIGN) 

• Outcomes:

• Changes in parents’ communication skills; 

• Changes in children’s compliant behavior; and 

• Changes in families’ general home atmosphere. 

• Method: Mothers had to allow a study observer to collect baseline and post-intervention data in the 

home setting. Both parents were required to voluntarily attend all classroom sessions held at the prison 

and complete a pre-test/post-test assessment of parents’ interpersonal communication skills in the class. 

Parents also reported on their children’s behavior before and after the program intervention and a 

completed a qualitative evaluation of the program’s usefulness upon completion.

• Sample: Three families with 10 children, the fathers of whom were inmates at the Idaho State 

Correctional Institution. 

• Measures:

Parents in the evaluation completed three questionnaires and a checklist: a pre- and post-test 

measurement of parents’ interpersonal communication skills; a qualitative evaluation by parents 

regarding program usefulness; a written self-report on their children’s behavior before and after 

intervention; and an Adjective Checklist completed for each of parents’ children. 

The Interpersonal Communication Skills measure (Carkhuff, 1969) included a five-point scale designed 

to make parents aware of their level of communicative functioning and teach them ways to reflect some 

of the most obvious feelings of the child: 

5. Parents’ communication behavior was rated by the instructor on a scale of one to five: 

• 1 = Irrelevant or harmful response 

• 2 = Subtracted (distractive) denies feelings, gives solutions, etc. 

• 3 = Essentially interchangeable. Gets at the most obvious feelings behind the statement. 

FATHERS AND CHILDREN TOGETHER (FACT) 

50 
“EMERGING” PROGRAM 

 

FAMILY SERVICES PROGRAM 

• 4 = Additive, gets at some of the more crucial feelings underlying the statement. 

• 5 = Completely “tuned in” to what the person is saying. 

The Adjective Checklist (Becker, 1971) included five domains designed to measure children’s levels of: 

• Relaxedness 

• Withdrawnness/Hostility 

• Aggressiveness 

• Intelligence/Efficiency 

• Conduct Problems 

The baseline and post-intervention observations consisted of two sixty-minute home observations by a 

trained observer who observed the interaction of the mother and siblings before and after the 

intervention program. Interactions were scored using the Behavioral Observation Form (Patterson, G., 

et al., 1969).The form focused on the number of times the children complied (compliance behavior) 

with the mothers’ commands and the types of control behavior she exhibited. The observer scored a 

variety of behaviors, including: 

• Positive Responses (i.e., approval, attention, and positive physical responses) 

• Negative Responses (i.e., crying, disapproval, destructiveness, humiliation, yelling, and 

hitting) 

• Statistical Analyses: Means and descriptive statistics.

• Attrition: The retention rate was 100%.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: 1 teacher and 2 volunteers to 10 children in the Child Development 

Classroom. Information is currently not available for the Parent Training Class. 

o Staff Education: Information currently not available.

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Training: Home setting observers received a training for which the details were not 

currently available.

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Information currently not available.

• Space: The cafeteria and prison grounds of the Idaho State Correctional Institution were used to 

conduct the Child Development Classroom and Parent Training Class.

• Materials: For the Child Development Classroom: arts and craft materials, box games, toys, books, 

Nerf balls, play dough, and snacks. For the Parent Training Class: films and adaptations of Becker 

(1971)’s Parents Are Teachers and Patterson (1969)’s Living with Children.

• Partnerships and Linkages: The Family Services Program at the minimum security unit of the Idaho 

State Correctional Institution (ISCI) was funded as a pilot program by the Whittenburger Foundation 

and administered by Idaho Volunteers in Corrections.

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available.

AT THE IDAHO STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

51
“EMERGING” PROGRAM 

 

FAMILY SERVICES PROGRAM 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

Curriculum or Program Model: 

The Parent Training program was an eight-week training program that emphasized: 

1. Communication – the communication curriculum was derived from Carkhuff (1969)’s Helping and 

Human Relations, Volume I and II. Parents were taught methods of providing feedback (or actively 

listening) to their children. 

2. Child management skills – the child management skills were adapted from Becker (1971)’s Parents 

are Teachers and Patterson (1969)’s Living with Children. 

The goal of the course was to involve parents in the learning process through written projects in and out of 

class, role playing, home assignments with their children, and films. 

The first four weeks of the course was devoted to teaching effective methods of verbal and nonverbal 

communication through reading, role playing, and other class exercises. The training combined humanistic 

and behavioral approaches. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: 3 father inmates, their children’s mothers, and 10 children 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): The PTC was an eight-week training program. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Information currently not available.

• Diversity of activities: Clients received instruction on providing feedback/active listening and effective 

child management and communication to their children. 

• Incentives for participation: Information currently not available. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Communication: 

• The average communication score rose from 1.38 to 3.1, reaching the pre-program objective of 3.0. 

Home Atmosphere:

The general home atmosphere and compliance behavior of the children improved in two of the three 

families: 

o In Family One, the compliance behavior average rose from 72.22% to 85.7%; 

o In Family Two, the compliance behavior average declined from 70% to 64.28%; 

o In Family Three, the compliance behavior average rose from 39.13% to 70.58%. 

The observer reported improvements in the families’ ability to handle child behavior problems. At the 

start of the intervention, families used aversive methods of control (i.e., raising one’s voice, spanking, 

and giving attention to inappropriate behavior). After the program, parents displayed increased use of 

time-out, less physical punishment, and more ignoring of children’s inappropriate behavior. 

Program Usefulness: 

AT THE IDAHO STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

52
“EMERGING” PROGRAM 

 

FAMILY SERVICES PROGRAM 

 All of the parents strongly supported this type of program. Most of their comments were directed to 

extending the program and adding marital counseling. 

SOURCES:

Becker, W. (1971). Parents Are Teachers. Champaign, IL: Research Press. 

Carkhuff, R. (1969). Helping and Human Relations, Volume I and II. New York, NY: Harper Row. 

Gordon, T. (1970) Parent Effectiveness Training. New York, NY: P.H. Wyden. 

Marsh, Robert L. (1983). Services for families: a model project to provide services for families of prisoners. 

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 27(2), 156-162. 

Patterson, G., et al. (1969). Manual for Coding Family Interactions. New York, NY: Microfiche Publ. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Robert L. Marsh, Ph.D. 

Department of Criminal Justice Administration 

Boise State University 

1910 University Drive 

Boise, ID 83725 

bmarsh@boisestate.edu

AT THE IDAHO STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

53
“EMERGING”PROGRAM 

FATHERS AND CHILDREN TOGETHER (FACT)

OVERVIEW: Fathers and Children Together (FACT) is a prison-based parenting program at the Blackburn 

Correctional Complex, in Lexington Kentucky. The program helps incarcerated fathers learn and improve 

parenting skill while enhancing parent-child relationships. In an evaluation of 231 participating inmates, fathers 

showed significant improvements in their parenting skills and reductions in their potential to abuse their 

children. Read more... 

PROGRAM GOALS:

Fathers and Children Together (FACT) aims to: 

• Reduce the potential for child abuse and neglect; 

• Promote father involvement in the lives of their children within and outside the prison; 

• Increase protective factors such as positive parent-child relationships, supportive family environments, 

enhanced coping skills for fathers, and awareness of expectations for phases of child development; 

• Reduce risk factors for fathers including poor ego functioning, social isolation, substance abuse and 

childhood history of abuse. 

LOCATION: Blackburn Correctional Complex, Lexington, Kentucky 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

Two hundred and thirty three inmates volunteered to participate in FACT. 

• The average age was 31.7 years old; 

• Approximately two thirds (64.8%) of the sample were white with 35.2% from other ethnic origins; 

• Approximately equal proportions of the sample were married, divorced, or never married at 33%, 32% 

and 35% respectively. 

• Over half (56.4%) of the fathers were employed full time prior to incarceration. About 28% were 

unemployed and 10% employed part-time. 

• Over half (54.4%) of the fathers had completed high school or had a GED. Another 31% had at least 

some college education while 14.5% had completed 8th grade or some high school. 

• Approximately 55% had prior convictions while 46% had been sentenced on drug charges. 

• Approximately 23% of the fathers had one child, 26% two children, 20% three children, and 31% four 

or more children. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: PRE-POST TEST DESIGN 

• Outcomes:

Short Term Outcomes: 

o Decrease in risk of child abusing behaviors; 

o Increased knowledge of parenting skills; 

o Decrease in feelings of isolation; 

o Increased empathy with children; 

o Increased recognition of importance of roles as fathers; 

o Increased awareness of how father’s behavior affects children; and 

o Increased recognition of things fathers do right as parents. 

Long Term Outcome: 

o Decrease in child abuse; and 

o Decrease in recidivism. 

FATHERS AND CHILDREN TOGETHER (FACT) 

54 
“EMERGING” PROGRAM 

 

• Method: Evaluation of FACT was completed using the recurrent institutional cycle design (Campbell 

&Stanley, 1963). Evaluators assessed pre- and post-test measures for 9 different cohorts (series) in the 

program. Enrollment into FACT was voluntary and each enrolling class represented a series. The first 

series was enrolled in the spring of 2004 while the 9th and last series enrolled in the fall of 2006.

Upon enrollment, fathers completed pre-tests. Post-tests were completed after the 12 week program. In 

addition to the 12-week parenting classes, fathers were offered a special child visitation program every 

6-8 weeks. These classes enabled fathers to play with their child using toys in a less restricted 

environment without the presence of the child’s caregiver or uniformed corrections officers. Graduates 

of the FACT program could also participate in a Parent Leadership Program. This group of 7 inmates 

actively participated in decision making for implementation of the program and met before each child 

visitation period. 

• Sample: Data was collected on 233 inmates who volunteered for the Fathers and Children Together 

program at Blackburn Correctional Complex. Only 140 fathers attended at least 10 sessions of FACT 

and completed both pre- and posttests. 

• Measures:

Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI)(Milner, 1994): This is a 160-item self-report inventory with a 

primary clinical scale, a physical child abuse scale, and six factor scales measuring distress, rigidity, 

unhappiness, problems with child and self, and problems with family. High scores on this scale report 

personality characteristics and interpersonal relationships similar to traits of known, untreated child 

abusers. 

 

Adult Adolescent Parenting Instrument (AAPI) (Bavolek, 1984): This is a 40-item standardized selfreport instrument that assesses five dimensions of parenting; inappropriate developmental expectation of 

children; parental lack of emphatic awareness of children’s needs; belief in use of corporal punishment; 

parent-child role reversal; and oppressing children’s power and independence. 

Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (Bernstein & Fink, 1998): a 28-item self-report that assesses history 

of abuse and neglect. It assesses five types of maltreatment: emotional, physical, sexual abuse, 

emotional and physical neglect. 

Parenting Recognition/Awareness Protocol: This included the following scales: 

o Recognition of things done right as a father, a 10-item scale; 

o Recognition of importance of role of father, a 10-item scale; and 

o Awareness of how father’s behavior affects children, a 5-item scale. 

Family Survey: This self-administered questionnaire was completed by caregivers of the father’s child. 

It collected data on the perceived impact of incarceration on the child and caregiver, effects of FACT on 

the child and caregiver, expectations of father’s role in child’s life at release, and the child’s needs at the 

time of release. 

• Statistical Analyses: Differences between pre- and post-test scores (outcome change scores) were 

examined using paired t-tests. Regression techniques, independent sample t-tests and ANOVA statistics 

were used to examine relationships between the outcomes and demographics/history variables. 

Statistical Equation Modeling was used to provide insight into the pathways which alter incarcerated 

fathers outcomes through the FACT program. 

• Attrition: Two hundred and thirty three (233) fathers volunteered to complete the FACT program and 

completed pre-tests. Approximately 69% (161) fathers completed 10 or more classes. Approximately 

66% (154) completed post-tests. Fourteen (14) fathers suspected of completing socially desirable scores 

FATHERS AND CHILDREN TOGETHER (FACT) 

55
“EMERGING” PROGRAM 

 

(faking) on the CAPI were dropped to leave a final sample size of 140 fathers who had completed preand post-tests. 

 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Education: Information currently not available.

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Training: Information currently not available. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Information currently not available.

• Space: Information currently not available. 

• Materials: Information currently not available. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: The College of Social Work at the University of Kentucky, the Prevent 

Child Abuse Kentucky (PCAK) and the Blackburn Correctional Complex worked together to implement 

FACT and complete its evaluation. The program also worked with the Director of Program Evaluation 

at the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services to develop the data collection instruments. A 

specialist in analyzing costs in human services, a professor at the American University, was also 

consulted. 

• Community Organizations: Prevent Child Abuse Kentucky (PCAK)

PROGRAM CONTENT:

Curriculum or Program Model: Classes were conducted in an interactive, non-judgmental manner. 

Five of the classes were delivered by PCAK and BCC staff. Seven of the classes were delivered by 

volunteer professionals from the community though PCAK and BCC. Fathers received a certificate 

upon completion. The sessions were: 

o Introduction; 

o Why Kids Do What they Do; 

o Child Development; 

o Anger, Feelings and Self-Esteem; 

o Discipline I; 

o Discipline II; 

o Communications; 

o Substance Abuse; 

o Values: What I want my children to know; 

o Family Relationships; 

o Domestic Violence; and 

o Graduation. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: An average of 26 fathers took part in each of the 9 series/cohorts. The group size ranged 

from 18 to 34 fathers. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): There were 13 two-hour sessions.

FATHERS AND CHILDREN TOGETHER (FACT) 

56
“EMERGING” PROGRAM 

 

• Frequency of program offerings: Weekly basis.

• Diversity of activities: In addition to the parenting classes/sessions, inmates were encouraged to attend 

special father-child visitations approximately every six week. These visitations occurred in a special 

room with toys and an absence of uniformed corrections officers and the child’s mother or caregiver. 

Fathers could also record themselves reading children’s storybooks and have them sent to their children. 

• Incentives for participation: Fathers were given $10 after completing the post-test. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Participants in the FACT program achieved significant positive changes in 5 of the 7 short term outcomes. 

• Means of measures of potential child abuse on the CAPI Scale reduced significantly from pre- to posttest. The difference in means for the combined series was -21.63, p<.001. 

• Means of measures of parenting skills/ego on the CAPI Scale increased significantly from pre- to posttest. The difference in means for the combined series was -2.31, p<.001. 

• Means of measures of parental isolation on the CAPI Scale reduced significantly from pre- to post-test. 

The difference in means for the combined series was -0.71, p<.001. 

• Means for the recognition of the importance of fathers increased from pre- to post-test for the combined 

series by 1.42 units, p<.05. 

• Means for the recognition of things fathers do right as parents increased from pre- to post-test 

significantly for the combined series by 2.6 units, p<.001. 

• The differences in means from pre- to post-test for recognition of how a father’s behavior affects 

children and the AAPI measures of empathy for children were not significant. 

SOURCES:

Berlin, T., Secret, M., Huebner, R., Werner, M. (2006). Fathers and Children Together: An evaluation of the 

 resources, services, and outcomes of a prison-based parenting program. Report Submitted to: U.S. 

 Children’s Bureau, February 2007. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Trey Berlin, M.P.A. 

FACT Evaluation Project Consultant 

Mary Secret 

FACT Evaluation Project Principal 

Ruth Huebner, Ph.D. 

FACT Evaluation Project Consultant 

Cabinet for Health and Family Services 

Commonwealth of Kentucky. 

Mac Werner, M.S.W. 

FACT Evaluation Project 

Research Assistance and Doctoral Student 

College of Social Work 

University of Kentucky 

FATHERS AND CHILDREN TOGETHER (FACT) 

57
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

FIT 2-B FATHERS 

OVERVIEW: Fit-2-B Fathers is an inmate parenting education program serving six mostly-rural correctional 

facilities aimed at helped participants become better men and fathers. Fathers who completed the program 

showed significant improvements in parental attitudes. Read more... 

PROGRAM GOALS:

The program aims to help males involved with the corrections system (incarcerated, sentenced to an alternative 

to incarceration, or participating in other forms of community transition programs) to become better men and 

fathers. 

• Improve participant’s knowledge, confidence, and skills pertaining to social and family relations. 

• Encourage healthy relationships between fathers and their children, family, friends and co-workers so as 

to reduce father’s risk of recidivism. 

• Improve participating father’s children’s outcomes with regard to education, self-esteem, pro-social 

behavior and high-risk behaviors such as truancy and criminal activity. 

LOCATION: A community-based correctional facility serving six mostly-rural Appalachian counties in East 

Central Ohio. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

Inmates at the correctional facility were low-level felons serving an average of a 180-day sentence. Overall 

characteristics for the 227 inmates were as follows: 

• 81% of participants were Caucasian, 12.4% African American, and 6.6% other; 

• Approximately 74% of the participants were high school graduates; 

• Approximately 54% were employed prior to incarceration; 

• Approximately 58% earned less than $20,000 per year; 

• Half (50.2%) were aged between 20-29 years and 27.8% between 30-39 years old; 

• Most (42.7%) were single, 24% married or remarried and 16.4% cohabiting; 

• Approximately 86 % had children; 

• Most inmates (54.2 %) volunteered to participate in the program; and 

• Most (77%) inmates attended half the sessions offered and 60% graduated (attended at least 80% of the 

classes offered). 

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING (PRE-POST TEST) 

• Outcomes:

o Participant attitudes about being fathers, their self-esteem, and knowledge of appropriate 

parenting skills; and

o Recidivism.

• Method: Fit 2-B Fathers was delivered to 227 inmates between 1999 and August 2004. During this 

period, the program evolved from a 9-session program to a 17-session program. Sixty four (64) inmates 

participated in the 9-session iteration, 41 inmates in the 10-session iteration, 96 in the 12-session 

iteration, and 26 in the 17-session iteration. This evaluation summary includes participants from all 

iterations of the program. 

• Sample: Over a five year period, 227 inmates took part in Fit 2-B Fathers. During this period, the 

program was conducted in 9-session (64 inmates), 10-session (41 inmates), 12-session (96 inmates), and 

17-session (26 inmates) iterations.

• Measures: Researchers developed a 10 item True/False questionnaire to assess father’s parental 

attitudes and self-esteem (0= False, 1= True). After summing the responses, higher scores indicated 

FIT 2-B FATHERS 

58 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

positive attitudes. This measure was revised in 2001 into a 9-item 6-point Likert scale (1 = Disagree, 6 = 

Agree) and summed. Higher scores indicated positive attitudes. 

Records from the Eastern Ohio Correction Center were used to assess recidivism rates for the general 

prison population and those who participated in Fit 2-B Fathers. 

• Statistical Analyses: T-Tests to estimate differences in means between pre- and post-test scores. 

Differences in means were also estimated for each of the outcomes measure. 

• Attrition:

o Only 74 of the 227 participants in Fit 2-B Fathers provided complete information on the preand post-test survey instruments. 

o There were no statistical differences in the pre-tests between those who completed both pre- and 

post-tests and those who only completed pre-tests. 

o Mandated participants were more likely to complete both surveys (47%) compared to 

participants who enrolled in the class voluntarily (24%), X2

 (1) = 16.1, p<.001. 

o Overall, 93.2% of the pre- and post-test surveys were completed by fathers. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Education: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Training: Information currently not available. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Inmates who were mandated to attend a parent education program were given the option 

to attend Fit 2-B Fathers in order to fulfill this requirement.

• Space: Information currently not available.

• Materials: Information currently not available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Information currently not available.

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model:

Fit 2-B FATHERS is based on The National Extension Parent Education Model (NEPEM)(Smith, 

Cudaback, Goddard, Myers-Wall, 1994). The program evolved from 9 sessions to 17 sessions. The 17 

session curriculum is outlined below. 

FIT 2-B FATHERS 

59 
“EMERGING”PROGRAM 

1. Living Proactively 

2. Back to Basics 

3. Career Advancement 

4. Money Wise 

5. Keeping a Balance 

6. Child Development 

7. Play, Learning, and Fathers 

8. Health and Safety 

9. Communication I & II 

10. Promoting Literacy and School Success 

11. Setting Limits I & II 

12. Roles, Rights, and Responsibilities 

13. Healthy Living 

14. Controlling Anger 

15. Wrapping It Up 

16. Graduation Celebration

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: Information currently not available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Information currently not available.

• Frequency of program offerings: The program progressed from 9, 10, 12 then 17 session iterations 

during a five year period.

• Diversity of activities: The curriculum covers child development, importance of play, communication, 

guidance and discipline, promoting literacy and school success, job planning, money management, 

balancing work and family, and healthy lifestyles. 

• Incentives for participation: Information currently not available.

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Fit 2-B Fathers achieved modest but significant impact on improving participant’s attitudes about being fathers, 

their self-esteem, and knowledge of appropriate parenting skills. 

• Among the 13 participants who completed the pre- and post-test ten item True/False survey of parental 

attitudes, mean scores improved from 8.85 (SD 1.14) at pre-test to 9.69 (SD 0.48) at post-test. This 

difference was statistically significant, p = <0.02. 

• Among the 61 participants who completed the pre- and post-test 9-item Likert scale of parental 

attitudes, mean scores improved from 5.01 (SD 0.55) at pre-test to 5.31 (SD 0.68) at post-test. This 

difference was statistically significant, p = <0.003. 

• A comparison of 3-year recidivism rates between the Eastern Ohio Correction Center and participants in 

Fit 2-B Fathers shows a slight reduction in recidivism rates. However, these rates are not directly 

comparable due to differences in definition of recidivism between the two populations. Differences in 

definitions pertained to the seriousness of crimes. 

SOURCES:

Maiorano, J.J., & Futris, T.G. (2005). Fit 2-B FATHERS: The effectiveness of extension programming with 

 incarcerated fathers. Journal of Extension. 43-5. Retrieved on May 2nd 2008 from the online journal, 

 Journal of Extension. Website http://www.joe.org/joe/2005october/a7p.shtml

FIT 2-B FATHERS 

60 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

Smith, C.A., Cudaback, D., Goddard, H.W., & Myers-Wals, J. (1994). National Extension Parent Education 

 Model. Manhattan, Kansas: Kansas Cooperative Extension Service. Available at 

http://www.ksu.edu/wwparent/nepem

The Fit 2-B Fathers curriculum was retrieved on June 4, 2008, from the website: 

http://jefferson.osu.edu/fcs/fathers.htm#Sessions

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Joseph J. Maiorano 

Extension Educator, Family and Consumer Science 

Harrison and Jefferson Counties 

Email: Maiorano.2@osu.edu

Ted G. Futris 

Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist 

Department of Human Development and Family Science 

Columbus, Ohio 

Email: Futris.1@osu.edu

FIT 2-B FATHERS 

61
“EMERGING”PROGRAM 

HELPING YOUR CHILD SUCCEED: A FAMILY NURTURING PROGRAM 

OVERVIEW: In the period from 2000 to 2006, 836 participants from several high-risk groups including 

inmates at a county correctional facility substance abuse program and inmates from a batterers program 

participated in the “Helping Your Child Succeed” parenting program. This parenting program focused on 

encouraging positive change in parents so as to enable growth in the parent-child relationship. All high-risk 

groups showed improvements in their parenting ability. Inmates showed significant improvements in their 

ability to perceive developmentally appropriate expectations of their children. Read more... 

PROGRAM GOALS:

Researchers administered a parenting education program several high-risk groups including incarcerated and 

residential substance abuse treatment populations before maltreatment occurred. It was anticipated that the 

parenting education program would improve participants’ knowledge and attitudes regarding parenting.

LOCATION: The intervention was administered to four groups between 2000 and 2006. The groups receiving 

the Helping Your Child Succeed (HYCS) parenting program were: 

• Inmates at a county correctional facility substance abuse program; 

• Inmates at a county correctional facility batterer program; 

• Residents of a substance abuse facility; and 

• Parents referred to a parenting camp by health providers. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

• Of the 836 participants enrolled in the various HYCS during 2000-2005, 781 were first time enrollees; 

• Approximately 62% of all 836 HYCS participants across all programs were incarcerated and 

participating in the correctional facility substance abuse HYCS component (446) or the batterer 

program’s HYCS component (38). 

• One fourth of all 836 HYCS participants were parents from the community (184), 9% from the 

residential substance abuse facility (74), and approximately 5% from the parents’ camp; 

• Over half of the participants were male (55%); 

• Participants were on average 33 years old; 

• Approximately 40% of the whole sample were from minority races; and 

• Males had statistically higher gains than females in the measurement instruments but lower pre- and 

post-tests than females. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: PRE-POST TEST DESIGN 

• Outcomes:

• Parental expectations; 

• Empathy towards the child; 

• Belief in the use of corporal punishment; 

• Reversing parent-child family roles; 

• Restriction of children’s power and independence; 

• Child physical abuse risk. 

• Method: The program was delivered to five different groups. Participants in all groups completed a preand post-test survey. The post-test survey included an open-ended section for participant comments.

The Community Group: 

Mental health providers and health providers referred parents whom they thought had specific parenting 

needs to this program. Mothers and fathers could participate together in classes of 10-20 families. 

HELPING YOUR CHILD SUCCEED: A FAMILY NURTURING PROGRAM 

62 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

Inmates in the Jail Substance Abuse Program: 

The program was open to inmates in the substance abuse program. Inmates voluntarily participated. 

Single gender classes were held weekly for 10 weeks. 

Inmates in the Jail Batterers Program: 

The program was open to inmates in the batterers program and they participated voluntarily. 

Participants were not excluded if they did not have children. Classes were held for 8-12 men. 

Parenting Camp: 

Participants were referred by health care providers based on their need for specific parent training. This 

program served parents who could not attend weekly classes. Classes were mixed gender and could 

include up to 30 mothers and fathers. 

Residential Rehabilitation Facility: 

Participants in the residential substance abuse rehabilitation facility specifically agreed to participation 

as part of their rehabilitation program. Mixed or same gender classes were offered for classes of 5-12 

participants. 

• Sample: There were a total of 836 participants across four participating groups over a five-year 

evaluation period from 2000-2005. There were 446 inmates from the HYCS component of the 

correctional facility’s substance abuse program, 38 from the correctional facility’s batterers program, 

184 from the community HYCS Health provider parent referral program, 74 from the residential 

substance abuse facility, and 39 from the 3-day parent training camp.

• Measures:

Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI)) (Bavolek & Keene, 2001) was modified into a 40-item 

Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI-2) to assess child rearing attitudes and practices of 

abusive and neglectful parents. The AAPI-2 assesses five constructs: 

• Inappropriate expectations: This refers to the ability of a parent to perceive the skills and 

abilities of their child. 

• Empathy: Pertains to the ability of an individual to demonstrate empathy towards the needs of 

their children. 

• Corporal punishment: Measures hitting of children as a means of discipline and punishment. 

• Role reversal: This measures an individuals expectation of their children to be sensitive to, and 

responsible for, much of the happiness of their caregiver. 

• Restriction of child’s power and independence: Measures a parents level of comfort with a 

child’s independence. 

• Statistical Analyses: Group and sub-group means and standard deviations were calculated for the 

AAPI-2 pre- and post-tests and construct subscales. Differences in scores were compared within and 

between groups. These differences were also explored by gender, age, and race. Paired t-tests were used 

for comparison of pre- and post-test AAPI-2 scores. Analyses were limited to first time enrollees in the 

program. Open-ended comments collected with the post test were aggregated and analyzed. 

• Attrition: Although data on attrition from each program is not available, analyses were only completed 

on 781 first time enrollees into HYCS programs out of the possible 836 enrollees. The CAPI was only 

completed by 217 participants. 

HELPING YOUR CHILD SUCCEED: A FAMILY NURTURING PROGRAM 

63
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: Information was not available. 

o Staff Education: Information was not available. 

o Staff Experience: Trained and experienced parent counselors and social workers were 

responsible for delivering the program to participants for each of the group interventions. 

o Staff Training: Training content was not available. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: HYCS was first implemented at correctional facility with 

inmates in the substance abuse program before eventually being rolled out to the inmate 

batterer’s group, residential substance abuse facility, community and parents. 

o Staff Wages: Information was not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information was not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Parents referred to the program were thought by their health or mental health providers to 

have specific parenting needs. Participants attended the first meeting where procedures were explained, 

and they could choose not to participate in subsequent meetings. Selection criteria differed based on the 

program location. No payment or non-monetary benefits were provided to participants beyond the 

educational value of the program. 

• Space: Space for each iteration of HYCS with the different groups was dictated by the groups’ location 

and participant. Inmates received the intervention at a correctional facility while some parents received 

the intervention either through the residential substance abuse program, community program, or 

parenting camp. 

• Materials: In addition to delivery of the curriculum from facilitators, participants received 

individualized handouts. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: Parents receiving the intervention at the community program or parenting 

camp were referred by health providers or mental health providers. 

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The Helping Your Child Succeed parenting program is a 

modification of the Family Nurturing Program (Bavolek, 1999). The parenting program is modeled on 

a family system approach emphasizing democratic parenting principles. Change is first harnessed in the 

parent before it can be expected of the children. 

Each of the different groups modified the delivery period of the HYCS program dependent on the 

characteristics of the group with each group receiving 10- 20 hours of instruction. Program delivery 

involved discussion, lecture and experiential learning. Topic covered included: 

1. Positive attention/praise; 

2. Realistic and developmentally appropriate expectations; 

3. Family rules and limit setting; 

4. Personal power/negative control; 

5. Managing anger; 

6. Corporal punishment and alternatives; 

7. Choices: Natural and logical consequences; 

8. Listening, communication and confrontation; 

9. Communication and confrontation; and 

10. Assessment/ seal the learning. 

HELPING YOUR CHILD SUCCEED: A FAMILY NURTURING PROGRAM 

64
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: Groups varied from 5-30 participants. Some groups were by gender while others involved 

both genders. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Groups received between 1—20 hours of 

instruction. 

o The community group received 2 hours of instruction weekly for 8 weeks in classes of 10-20 

families. Those without children could not participate;

o Inmates at the jail substance abuse program held weekly classes for 10 weeks, divided 

according to gender. These sessions were by gender;

o Inmates in the batterers program held classes for 8-12 men for 2 hours daily for 5 days. These 

sessions were divided according to gender. 

o Residential substance abuse participants held classes for 5-12 participants for 2 hours weekly 

for 8 weeks. Mixed or same gender classes could be held;

o Up to 30 fathers and mothers could participate together at the parenting camps for 3 days of 

course-work interspersed with other activities. 

• Frequency of program offerings:

• Diversity of activities: Participants received instruction through lecture, discussion and experiential 

learning. 

• Incentives for participation: Incentives were not offered for participation. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Generally all participant groups improved their knowledge and attitudes regarding parenting as measured by the 

AAPI-2 and CAPI measures. Inmate populations did not differ from other groups. 

• Inmates in the substance abuse and batterers HYCS programs showed statistical improvements in their 

ability to perceive developmentally appropriate expectations of their children from pre- to post-test, 

p<.01. 

• Inmates in both groups showed statistically significant improvements in their empathy towards their 

children from pre- to post –test, p<.01. 

• Inmates in both groups showed significant positive changes in their attitudes towards corporal 

punishment and discipline from pre- to post-test, p<.01. 

• Inmates showed significant improvements in their ability to understand their children’ role in 

determining their happiness from pre- to post-test, p<.01. 

SOURCES:

Palusci, V.J., Crum, P., Bliss, R., Bavolek, S.J., (2008). Changes in parenting attitudes and knowledge among 

 inmates and other at-risk populations after a family nurturing program. Children and Youth Services 

 Review,30, 79-89. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Vincent J. Palusci 

Email: vpalusci@comcast.net 

HELPING YOUR CHILD SUCCEED: A FAMILY NURTURING PROGRAM 

65
“EMERGING”PROGRAM 

NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR FAMILY PROGRAMMING 

FOR INCARCERATED PARENTS AMONG INMATES 

OVERVIEW: An exploratory study was undertaken at a correctional facility to assess the needs of families 

with incarcerated individuals as perceived by the inmate. Male and female inmates completed questionnaires 

about their needs. Male and Female inmates expressed a desire to increase their knowledge about general 

childcare issues, techniques to lower children’s stress and lonely feelings, and the harmful effects of 

incarceration on children’s behavior. Read more... 

PROGRAM GOALS:

The exploratory qualitative study was initiated to assess the needs of families with incarcerated individuals. The 

research aimed to: 

• Describe inmates’ family systems;

• Determine inmates’ family and parenting issues and concerns;

• Assess inmates’ interest in formal and informal family services. 

LOCATION: A correctional facility that offered a therapeutic community to help inmates deal with substance 

abuse and a vocational college program that helped inmates in their education and employment. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

Participants in the study included men (99) and women (37) who either had children or expected to return to 

homes with children. 

• The inmates ages ranged from 18 to 49 years old with an average age of 29; 

• Approximately 68% of the inmates were Caucasian, 3% African American, 8% Hispanic, and 13% 

Native American; 

• Approximately 37% of the inmates had less than a high school education, 29% had a high school 

education or GED, and 30% had at least some college training or more; 

• Approximately 40% were single, 18% married, 18% divorced, and 22% were in a serious relationship; 

• Seventy-three (73) percent had their own children with an average of more than one child (1.42) per 

inmate; 

• The inmates’ children’s ages ranges from less than 1 year to 28 years old with a mean of about 9 years 

old; and 

• Inmates reported being visited by their partners about once a month though 38% reported never being 

visited by their partners. Inmates’ children also visited them about once a month though 42% reported 

never being visited. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: QUALITATIVE 

• Outcomes:

• Education concerning parenting issues; 

• Concerns about finances; 

• Need for visitation programs; 

• Partner’s need for information about correctional facilities; 

• Inmates’ and partners’ needs for social support and services; and 

• Need for life skills training. 

• Method: The researchers initially created the needs assessment tool, the Possible Needs for 

Incarcerated Individuals, by conducting focus groups with 32 inmates at the same facility. The tool was 

also piloted at the same facility. 

NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR FAMILY PROGRAMMING 

66 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

• Sample: A total of 136 inmates completed the needs assessment tool, 99 men and 37 women. 

• Measures:

The Possible Needs for Incarcerated Individuals (Kazura, Baber, & Temke, 1998), a 50-item, Likerttype, self-report assessment tool consisted of six domains: 

1. Education concerning parenting issues 

 Children’s growth and development; 

 Caring for and raising my children; and 

 Disciplining my children. 

2. Concerns about finances 

 Affordable housing; 

 Help to support children’s basic needs; and 

 Public assistance. 

3. Need for visitation programs 

 Better meeting room at the facility for children; 

 Play activities during visitation; and 

 Family days at the facility (family picnics); 

4. Partner’s need for information about correctional facilities 

 Visitation policies for my family; 

 Information to family about the facility; and 

 Information about my parole to family. 

5. Inmates’ and partners’ needs for social support and services 

 Family counseling; 

 A support group; and 

 A support group for my partner (child’s parent). 

6. Need for life skills training 

 Community resources; 

 Coping and what to tell family and friends; and 

 How to deal with my feelings. 

• Statistical Analyses: Means and standard deviations for each item in the scale were assessed. Gender 

differences for each item were also reported and tested for statistical significance. 

• Attrition: Although 136 inmates completed the needs assessment tool, not all items in the assessment 

were completed by all inmates. Of the reported items, responses ranged from 131 to 134 responses. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support:

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Inmates with children or who anticipated returning to homes with children were eligible 

to participate in the needs assessment. A trained administrator at the correctional facility distributed 200 

consent forms, needs assessment questionnaires, and return envelopes to interested inmates. Return of 

the needs assessment was assumed to be consent to participate in the evaluation.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Information currently not available. 

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available. 

NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR FAMILY PROGRAMMING 

67
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: Content for the needs assessment tool were driven by responses from 

a focus group of 32 inmates at the correctional facility and an eventual piloting of the instrument at the 

same facility. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Incentives for participation: Information currently not available. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Parenting Issues: 

• Both men and women wanted to increase their knowledge about general childcare issues (M=4.61, SD 

0.84), techniques to lower children’s stress and lonely feelings (M= 4.74, SD 0.71), and the harmful 

effects of incarceration on children’s behavior (M= 4.63, SD 0.89). 

• Women were more interested in information about parenting from a distance, p<.05 and talking with 

their children about their prison experience, p<.01. 

Financial Concerns: 

• Men and women had future concerns about getting more education (M= 4.38, SD1.24) and job training 

(M = 4.23, SD 1.44). 

Visitation: 

• Women were more likely to want time for counseling after visits, p<.01. 

• Both men and women wanted family days (picnics) at the facility, (M= 4.68, SD0.93); better meeting 

places for children, (M=4.62, SD 0.99); and play activities provided for their children during visitation, 

(M= 4.55, SD 0.99). 

Correctional Facility: 

• Men and women were interested in getting information about their parole to family members, (M= 4.12, 

SD 1.42). 

Social Support Services: 

• Both men and women expressed interest in needing help with issues of trust and anger, (M= 4.13, SD 

1.4). 

• Women were more interested in family counseling, p<.01, support groups for themselves, p<.01, and 

support groups for their children, p<.01. 

Life Skills: 

• Both men and women were concerned about what to expect once released from prison, (M= 4.53, SD 

1.07). 

• Both men and women were also concerned about how to deal with feelings of depression, irritability, 

and loneliness, (M= 4.35, SD 1.62). 

SOURCES:

Kazura, K. (2001). Family programming for incarcerated parents: A needs assessment among inmates. Journal 

 of Offender Rehabilitation,32(4), 67-83. 

NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR FAMILY PROGRAMMING 

68
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

Kazura, K., Baber, K., & Temke, M. (1998). Possible needs for incarcerated individuals. NH: University of New 

 Hampshire, Department of Family Studies. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Dr. Kerry Kazura 

University of New Hampshire 

305 Nesmith Hall 

Durham, NH 03824 

NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR FAMILY PROGRAMMING 

69
“EMERGING”PROGRAM 

PARENTCRAFT: PARENTING CLASSES FOR YOUNG FATHERS IN PRISON 

OVERVIEW: Parentcraft is a parenting education program offered to young offenders at a young offenders 

institute in the United Kingdom. A qualitative evaluation of the content and delivery of the content of the 16-

week program finds that young men are particularly receptive about curricula on child development. They also 

appreciated hands-on learning. Read more... 

PROGRAM GOALS:

• The primary goal of this qualitative evaluation was to provide additional information in the field for 

similar programs;

• To describe the content of program sessions, and the mode of delivery.

• To inform programs about what young inmates respond to from the parenting classes and how they 

respond to various delivery methods. 

LOCATION: Aylesbury Youth Offender Institute, United Kingdom 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

The Aylesbury Young Offender Institute served men between the ages of 17-21. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: QUALITATIVE 

• Outcomes:

o Reception to teaching material, the curriculum, discussions, and teaching styles. 

• Method:

Data for this qualitative study were collected by observing sessions of the Parentcraft parenting program 

at the Aylesbury Young Offender Institute. Six weekly sessions of these classes were observed over a 

period of 18 months. The observer collected information on: 

• Responses to modes of delivery- by noting listening behavior, time on task, engagement with 

the material, and spoken contributions by inmates; 

• Sample:

Six weekly sessions were observed over 18 months. 

• Measures: Not applicable.

• Statistical Analyses: Not applicable. 

• Attrition: Information currently not available. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Education: Professors from the local university led some of the class session. Other 

sessions were led by experienced volunteers. 

o Staff Experience: Volunteers with experience working with children augment some of the 

sessions. 

o Staff Training: Information currently not available. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available.

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

PARENTCRAFT: PARENTING CLASSES FOR YOUNG FATHERS IN PRISON 

70 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

• Space: Information currently not available. 

• Materials: In addition to interacting with the lecturer, class sessions involved learning age appropriate 

games and toys for children of different ages. Participants were given the opportunity to play with some 

of these games and toys in groups. 

Additionally, participants worked with numerous children’s books, including pop-up books. Participants 

also linked the stories they were using to activities like making puppets. Participants also recorded 

themselves reading some of the books to share with their children. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: The Aylesbury Young Offenders Institute collaborated with the local 

university to provide lecturers for their class sessions. They also looked to the community to provide 

volunteers with specific experiences to participate in some sessions and to act as role models. One 

volunteer had experience working with young children while another was an officer with the St. Johns 

Ambulance Brigade. 

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model:

The 16 week Parentcraft program covered the following topics: 

o Contraception and sexual health; 

o Pregnancy and birth; 

o Children’s development between birth and five years; 

o The role of the adult in supporting children’s development; 

o The role of the father; 

o Listening to children; 

o Managing behavior; 

o Safety and first aid; and 

o The responsibilities of parents, including financial responsibilities. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: Information currently not available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): There were 16-weekly three hour sessions. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Weekly

• Diversity of activities: In addition to lectures, participants read and recorded children’s storybooks, 

watched videos to enhance course material, played with children’s games and toys and made toys such 

as puppets. 

• Incentives for participation: Information currently not available. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Findings about Course Content:

• Participants valued certificates issued at the end of completion of programs highly. They sent these 

certificates to their homes so that they did not get lost in the prison’s systems. These certificates were 

cited as useful when it came to looking for jobs. 

PARENTCRAFT: PARENTING CLASSES FOR YOUNG FATHERS IN PRISON 

71
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

• Participants seemed most receptive about courses on child development. These were the courses where 

they also displayed limited knowledge. Most importantly, several participants were able to relate child 

development to controlling their feelings of anger. 

• Participants’ sense of masculinity as pertains to sensitivity in taking care of their children was an issue 

that was continuously and cautiously presented throughout the course. When picking video examples of 

men interacting with young children, participants reacted adversely to men they did not perceive as 

good male role models. 

Findings about Program Delivery:

• Participants appreciated hands-on learning about some parenting skills. Use of the actual toys and 

games they were encouraged to share with their children kept most participants actively engaged. 

• Participants were keen about reading books to their children. 

o Observers noted that participants were eager to have books read to them, perhaps because they 

lacked this experience themselves. 

o When participants watched a video of a father reading a book to his child, the participants’ 

subsequent discussions suggested that they valued the quality of the relationship with the child 

that reading enabled the father to develop. 

o Based on participant comments, they learned a lot from exploring the types of books they could 

use with babies and toddlers. They practiced the type of language and activities they could do 

with pop-up books and telling stories from pictures. 

SOURCES:

Jarvis, J., Graham, S., Hamilton, P., & Tyler, D. (2004). The role of parenting classes for young fathers in 

 prison: A case study. The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice, 51(1), 21-33. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Joy Jarvis 

Education Department 

University of Hertfordshire 

De Havilland Campus 

Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 9AB 

Email: j.jarvis@herts.ac.uk 

PARENTCRAFT: PARENTING CLASSES FOR YOUNG FATHERS IN PRISON 

72
“EMERGING”PROGRAM 

PEOPLE EMPOWERING PEOPLE PROGRAM WITHIN A PRISON POPULATION 

OVERVIEW: People Empowering People is a parenting program aimed at improving inmates’ self-esteem, 

parent-child relationships, and community engagement. Among 89 inmates who completed the program at four 

correctional facilities, inmates significantly improved their self-esteem, satisfaction with parenting and 

communication with the family. Read more... 

PROGRAM GOALS:

People Empowering People (PEP) within a prison population is a program designed to empower adults and 

older adolescents with limited financial resources. It emphasizes i) the individual’s personal assets (strengths); 

ii) relationships with significant others (children and other family members); iii) and the local community. The 

program is designed to influence changes at three levels: 

• The individual (self-esteem, confidence, problem-solving, communication skills); 

• Relationships ((parent-child, family, co-workers); and 

• Community (engagement). 

LOCATION: Four Prisons in Connecticut. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

A total of 89 individual from 4 prisons in Connecticut participated in People Empowering People. 

• Approximately 85% of the participants (76) were male. 

• Participants ranged in age from 19-51 years old with a mean of 34 years. 

• Approximately 37% of the participants were African-American or black, 27% Hispanic and 11% white. 

• Eighteen (18) percent of the participants had completed some high school; 26% had completed high 

school; 33% some college; and 8% completed college or had a graduate degree. 

• Thirty-nine (39) percent of the participants were single, 16% married and living together, and 14% 

divorced. 

• Most participants (82 %) had at least one child. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING (PRE- POST TEST) 

• Outcomes

Outcomes were assessed at three levels: 

Individual Level 

o Self-assertiveness. 

o Mastery

Relationship Level 

o Parental satisfaction. 

o Family communication. 

Community Level 

o Community mobilization. 

• Method: The evaluation was completed between October, 2002 and April 2004 using a population of 

89 inmates from four prisons in Connecticut. Self-reported data were collected from inmates using 

survey instruments administered by workshop facilitators at three different points in time. Surveys were 

administered prior to starting the program (pre-test), at the end of the 10-week structured sessions (posttest) and 3 months after participants had completed their community-related project (follow-up survey). 

The post-test and follow-up surveys included program satisfaction surveys. 

Participation in the program involved 10 two-hour interactive life skills sessions. Upon completion of 

the life skills sessions, participants would attend workshop sessions for 1-3 months, dependent on the 

PEOPLE EMPOWERING PEOPLE (PEP) 

73 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

project, where they would work on a community project. The community projects completed by inmates 

included: i) developing, printing and distributing a booklet of letters to incoming female inmates to 

provide encouragement and support; ii) making 1,000 origami paper cranes and sending them to 

Hiroshima for Japan Peace Day; and iii) crocheting a flag for a New York City firehouse located at 

Ground Zero. 

• Sample: Eighty-nine (89) inmates at four prisons in Connecticut. Seventy-six (76) were male.

• Measures:

Self-Assertive Efficacy (Bandura, 2001): This scale measures an individual’s ability to stand up for 

oneself or to express opinions even when they are unpopular with others. 

Mastery Scale (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978): A seven-item scale that measures the extent to which an 

individual feels they are in control of the forces affecting their lives. 

Kansas Parental Satisfaction Questionnaire (James, Schumm Kennedy, Grigsby, Schectman, Nichols, 

1985): A three-item scale that measures an individual’s satisfaction with oneself as a parent, behavior 

of their children and their relationship with their children. 

Family Problem-Solving Communication (McCubbin & Thompson, 1996): A ten-item scale measuring 

an individual’s perception of the quality of communication within the family. 

Community Assets Survey-Individual Mobilization Scales (Jakes & Shannon): This scale assesses total 

community involvement as well as the following sub-scales: 

• Human capital; 

• Self-efficacy; 

• Motivation; and 

• Participation. 

The items in the scale were tailored to reference the prison community. 

• Statistical Analyses: Data was first analyzed to assess the percentage of participants who were satisfied 

with the program after completing the 10-week structured sessions. Repeated measure analyses were 

then used to measure changes participants reported on the outcomes from pre- to post-test and followup. Finally, satisfaction with the program was assessed at the 3 month follow-up. 

• Attrition: Of the 89 inmates who completed pre-tests, between 55 and 70 inmates completed post-tests 

for the different outcomes. A total of 30 inmates completed both the pre-test and 3-month follow-up 

survey.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: Information currently not available.

o Staff Education: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Training: All staff completed 2-day training sessions conducted by the Cooperative 

Extension System. They continued to receive support and education through telephone, email 

and 2-hour facilitator training sessions held four to six times annually. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Wages: All staff members were volunteers. 

PEOPLE EMPOWERING PEOPLE (PEP) 74
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Information currently not available. 

• Space: Information currently not available. 

• Materials: Information currently not available. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: Information currently not available. 

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model

The People Empowering People Program is modeled after the University of Massachusetts Cooperative 

Extension Master Teacher in Family Life Program (Slinski, 1990). The program was modified to 

emphasize community development and personal empowerment by Cooperative Extension Educators at 

the University of Connecticut (Czuba & Page, 2000). The program sessions cover the following topics: 

1. Values 

2. Verbal and nonverbal skills 

3. Active listening skills 

4. Problem solving skills 

5. Parenting styles 

6. Understanding child development 

 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: Information currently not available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): 10 two-hour sessions. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Information currently not available. 

• Diversity of activities: In addition to 10 structured program sessions, inmates had an opportunity to 

participate in a supervised community project over a 1-3 month period. 

• Incentives for participation: Information currently not available. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• Means on the Self-Assertive Efficacy scale increased from 21.47 at pre-test to 24.57 at the 3-month 

follow-up. F(1, 29) = 13.3, p= <.001. 

• Means on the Mastery Scale increased from 21.93 at pre-test to 23.93 at the 3-month follow-up. F(1, 29) 

= 6.7, p= <.01.

• Parental satisfaction means increased from 13.93 at pre-test to 16.93 at the 3-month follow-up. F(1, 29) 

= 14.97, p= <.001.

• Family communication means increased from 26.5 at pre-test to 31.37 at the 3-month follow-up. F(1, 

29) = 21.43, p= <.001.

• All of the 70 inmates, who completed both the pre- and post-test, reported that they felt supported and 

accepted in the program, were involved in stimulating activities and reported a mean score of 9.3 on a 

10-point scale of increasing satisfaction with the program. 

PEOPLE EMPOWERING PEOPLE (PEP) 75
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

SOURCES:

Bandura, A., (2001). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Stanford, CA: Stanford University 

 (Unpublished). 

Czuba, C., & Page, N. (2000). People Empowering People: Guidelines for initiation and conducting the P.E.P. 

 Program. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension. 

Czuba, C., Anderson, S.A., & Higgins, S. (2006). Evaluation of the People Empowering People Program within 

 a prison population. Journal of Extension 44-4. Retrieved on May 2nd, 2008 from the online journal, 

 Journal of Extension. Website http://www.joe.org/joe/2006august/rb4p.shtml

Jakes, S., & Shannon, L. (2002). Community Assets Survey. Available at 

 http://ag.arizona.edu/fcs/cyfernet/nowg/scale.pdf 

James, D., Schumm, W., Kennedy, K., Grigsby, C., Schectman, K., & Nichols, C. (1985). Characteristics of the 

 Kansas Parental Satisfaction Scale among two samples of married parents. Psychological-Reports, 

 57(1), 163-169. 

McCubbin, M., McCubbin, H., & Thomson, A. (1996). Family solving communication. In H. McCubbin & M. 

 McCubbin (Eds.), Family assessment: Resiliency coping and adaptation. Inventories for research and 

 practice. (pp.639-686). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. 

Pearlin, L., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior,18, 2-21. 

Slinski (1990). University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Master Teacher in Life Program. Amherst, 

 MA: University of Massachusetts. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Cheryl Czuba 

Extension Educator 

University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension 

Haddam, Connecticut 

Email: Cheryl.Czuba@uconn.edu

Stephen A. Anderson 

Professor 

University of Connecticut 

Center for Applied Research 

Storrs, Connecticut 

Email: Stephen.Anderson@uconn.edu

Shirley Higgins 

Research Coordinator 

University of Connecticut 

Center for Applied Research 

Storrs, Connecticut 

PEOPLE EMPOWERING PEOPLE (PEP) 76
“EMERGING”PROGRAM 

PREVENTING VIOLENCE IN CHILDREN OF MENTALLY ILL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSING 

INMATE PARENTS 

OVERVIEW: Inmates with a history of substance abuse at a Detention Center in Kansas City participated in a 

four-course parent training intervention as a means of lowering their child’s risk factors for violence. All 

inmates, the child’s caregivers and the child received parent training manuals but only inmates in the treatment 

group participated in parenting classes. Inmates participating in the parenting classes showed some 

improvements in parenting attitudes. Read more... 

PROGRAM GOALS:

To meet the parenting needs of inmates with drug and alcohol or mental health concerns. Parents of these 

inmates were thought to be particularly vulnerable to a combination of risk factors for violence. As such the 

intervention also included the inmate’s child and the child’s primary caregiver. 

LOCATION: Jackson County Detention Center, Kansas City Missouri. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

The characteristics of the members of the sample were as follows: 

• Inmates ranged in age from 17-49 years old with an average age of 30.3 years; 

• Approximately 91% of inmates were male; 

• Approximately 74% of the inmates were African-American, 21% White and 4% Hispanic; 

• Most (42%) inmates had completed high school or had a GED. Approximately 37% did not complete 

high school while 20% had completed some college or higher; 

• More than half (56%) of the inmates reported being employed for wages prior to their incarceration 

while 34% reported being unemployed; 

• Over half (55%) of the inmates lived with a significant other prior to incarceration. Ten percent (10%) 

of inmates reported living in homeless shelters prior to their incarceration; 

• The inmates were fairly transient with the average inmate moving 2.4 times in the year preceding 

incarceration; 

• Approximately 59% of inmates reported that they were never married while 18% were married and 14% 

divorced; 

• Approximately 15% of inmates reported that one of their parents had died as they were growing up. 

About half (47%) had parents who had divorced. Twenty percent (20%) of the inmates reported a 

serious illness for one of their parents as they were growing up; 

• About one third (33%) of the inmates reported being sexually active at or before age 12. About 23% 

reported having sexual intercourse at or before age 12; 

• Almost 7 out of 10 inmates reported having participated in a treatment program for alcohol or drugs; 

EVALUATION DESIGN: EXPERIMENTAL (RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL STUDY) 

• Outcomes:

o Parenting knowledge; 

o Changes in inmate behavior; 

o Maladaptive and pro-social behavior of inmate children; 

o Inmate anger and violence; 

o Inmate-child relationships; 

o Parenting sense of competence; and 

o Family cohesion. 

PREVENTING VIOLENCE IN CHILDREN OF MENTALLY ILL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE INMATE 

PARENTS 

 77 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

• Method: Participation in the parenting program was voluntary. One hundred and forty one (141) 

inmates from the jail-based drug treatment program volunteered and met all eligibility requirements. All 

inmates and primary caregivers were given written parent training manuals that were modified from a 

child development program for inner-city adults (McCool, 1998). Inmates were then randomly assigned 

to one of two equal sized treatment groups.

The experimental group completed four one-hour parenting classes to complement the training manual. 

Inmates in the control group did not complete any parenting classes. Caregivers for all participants were 

interviewed and as part of the interview process. 

Baseline interviews were conducted with all inmates, primary caregivers and the inmate’s oldest child 

(aged between 3-10 years old). Follow-up interviews were conducted with the inmates, caregivers and 

child 6 and 12 months after the initial baseline interview where they completed the post-test 

standardized instruments. 

 

• Sample: There were 141 inmates in the sample. All completed baseline interviews.

• Measures:

Pre-test and follow-up instruments for inmates and caregivers included: 

• Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) (Achenbach, 1991): This 113 item list identified favored 

activities, the child’s relationships, parent concerns, physical problems, and possible behavior 

problems. These items were subdivided into an internalizing and externalizing scale. 

• Parent assessments were completed by adapting some items from several standardized 

instruments: 

o CYDS Family Assessment Scale-Cohesion subscale; 

o The Quality of Life Questionnaire (Evans &Cope, 1989); 

o Parenting Skills Inventory (Hereford, 1963)- Parent-child relationships; 

o Conflict Tactics Scale (Strauss, 1979); 

o Novaco Anger Scale (Novaco, 1994). 

The inmate’s oldest child was also interviewed at pre- and post-test. Topics covered in the interview 

included: 

• Demographics; 

• Current living situation; 

• Knowledge of time out; and 

• Family interactions. 

The inmate’s child caregivers also completed a standardized scale assessing their child’s aggression, 

The Early Childhood Inventory-4: Parent Checklist (Sprafkin & Gadao). 

• Statistical Analyses: Tests of independent and related means were completed for the items measured by 

the various standardized instruments. Paired sample t-tests were used where appropriate to assess 

difference in means from pre-test to the 6 and 12 month follow-ups. A second phase of analysis 

included multivariate analysis (regressions equations and/or discriminate analysis) to examine 

relationships between the parenting training intervention, items and scales from the interviews, and 

select criterion variables. 

• Attrition: The initial sample at pre-test included 141 inmates, their oldest child, and the child’s primary 

caregiver. At the second six month follow-up, the sample reduced to 132 inmates. At the 12-month 

PREVENTING VIOLENCE IN CHILDREN OF MENTALLY ILL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE INMATE 

PARENTS 

78
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

follow-up, the sample was reduced to 62 inmates as most inmates had been re-incarcerated or 

transferred from the prison. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: Information currently not available.

o Staff Education: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Training: Information currently not available. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Participants volunteered or were referred to the intervention by a jail-based drug 

treatment program. 

• Space: Parenting training classes were conducted at the prison. Inmate follow-up interviews were 

conducted in person at the inmate’s home or by telephone. Caregiver and child interviews were 

conducted in the home or by telephone. 

• Materials: All inmates and caregivers of their children received a parent training manual. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: The intervention researchers worked with the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention to develop some of the standardized measures.

• Community Organizations: The research was conducted at the Jackson County Detention Center, 

Kansas City Missouri.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: All inmates and primary caregivers were given written parent 

training manuals that were modified from a child development program for inner-city adults (McCool, 

1998). The intervention was administered in four classes in conjunction with the four modules found in 

the training manual. The four modules included:

o Child development; 

o Management; 

o Communication; and 

o A review with exercises for group discussions covering common parenting situations. 

During caregiver interviews, the researchers also included discussions of the parent training manual 

where possible. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: A total of 88 inmates participated in the parenting intervention. Fifty (50) inmates 

completed the parenting intervention. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Each of the four parent training modules/classes 

was one hour long with additional time for discussions. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Information currently not available.

• Diversity of activities: Parent training modules were interactive. In addition to covering the material in 

the parent training manual, inmates participated in discussions after each class. 

• Incentives for participation: Information currently not available. 

PREVENTING VIOLENCE IN CHILDREN OF MENTALLY ILL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE INMATE 

PARENTS 

79
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Among the key short term effects for those who completed the intervention were: 

• Inmates showed statistically significant short-term improvements of their parenting skills. Scores on the 

Parenting Inventory Scale improved significantly from pre-test to the first 6-month follow-up. These 

improvements were not sustained at the 12-month follow-up. 

• Caregiver reports provided qualitative perceptions of improvement in inmate parenting behavior upon 

completion of the parenting intervention. 

• Inmates’ children showed improvements in their maladaptive and pro-social behaviors as the 

intervention progressed. There were no statistically significant differences between children of inmates 

completing the parent training and those not in the parenting training modules. 

• Scores on the Child Behavior checklist were lower for caregivers associated with inmates in the parent 

training modules reflecting fewer problems. 

• The parent training intervention showed few effects for inmates’ anger and violence. 

SOURCES:

Achenbach, T.M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4-18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: 

 University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. 

Eddy, B.A., Powell, M.J., Szubka, M.H., McCool, M.I., & Kuntz, S. (2001). Challenges in research with 

 incarcerated parents and importance in violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 

20, 56-62. 

Eddy, B.A., Powell, M.J., Szubka, M.H., Shontz, F.C., (2001). A program for preventing violence in children of 

 mentally ill, substance abusing inmates. Submitted to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

 National Center for Injury and Prevention Control. 

Evans, D.R., & Cope, W.E. (1989). The quality of life questionnaire manual. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health 

 Systems. 

Hereford, C.F., 1963). Changing parental attitudes through group discussion. Austin, TX: University of Texas 

 Press. 

McCool, M. (1998). Parenting and Child Development Manual. Kansas City, MO: Resource Development 

 Institute. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Bruce A. Eddy, Ph.D. 

Resource Development Institute, 

601 Walnut Street 

Kansas City, MO 64106 

PREVENTING VIOLENCE IN CHILDREN OF MENTALLY ILL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE INMATE 

PARENTS 

80
“EMERGING”PROGRAM 

PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL TRAINING FOR INMATES AT THE ORIENT ROAD JAIL 

OVERVIEW: Inmates completed a five week psycho-educational parenting program at a correctional facility 

in Florida. All participating inmates showed significant improvements in understanding their child’s skills and 

abilities. There were no significant differences in empathy, use of corporal punishment, or parental expectations 

of their child between inmates of different ethnicities. Read more... 

PROGRAM GOALS:

The intervention seeks to explore the effectiveness of parenting programs aimed at incarcerated men in changing 

attitudes in four parenting areas: 

• Appropriate expectations of a child’s abilities and skills; 

• Empathy towards a child’s needs; 

• Use of alternatives to corporal punishment for child discipline; and 

• Parental expectations of their child’s responsibility in keeping them satisfied with parenting. 

LOCATION: Tampa, Florida 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

Twenty-six male subjects at the Orient Road Jail waiting to complete a substance abuse program 

volunteered to participate in the psycho-educational parent training program: 

• Approximately 64% of the participants were either Hispanic or African American, 36% were 

Caucasian. 

• Approximately 40% of the participants were aged between 25-35 years old. Another 35% were aged 

between 19-24 years old. 

• About two-thirds (65%) of the participants were fathers. The other inmates identified themselves as 

father-figures for a child or soon to be fathers. 

• More than half (57%) of the participants had not completed high school with 30% reporting 

completing the 10th grade. Another 30% reported completing high school. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: PRE-POST TEST DESIGN 

• Outcomes: Parenting outcomes included:

o Inappropriate expectations; 

o Empathy; 

o Corporal punishment; and 

o Role reversal. 

• Method: The Orient Road Jail has a six-week substance abuse program, The Hillsborough County 

Sheriff’s Office of Substance Abuse Program (HCSOSAP), for both males and females. Researchers 

worked with the jail house staff to identify male participants for the psycho-educational classes from 

this pool of inmates. 

HCSOSAP policy required the substance abuse program supervisor to coordinate the selection of study 

participants. Twenty-six male inmates waiting to complete the HCSOSAP program volunteered to 

participate in the five-week psycho-educational training program. Participants in the program met once 

a week for five weeks for one and one half hour training sessions. Sessions were completed in two 

groups, with the second commencing after the first had completed all sessions. 

PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL TRAINING FOR INMATES AT THE ORIENT ROAD JAIL 

81 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

Each group was led by the same facilitator and co-facilitator. Pre-tests were completed at the first 

session prior to any discussions. Post-tests and a satisfaction survey were completed during the final 

session. 

• Sample: There were 26 inmates at the Orient Road Jail that volunteered to participate in the study. 

• Measures:

Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI)) (Bavolek, 1984) was utilized to assess child rearing 

attitudes and practices of abusive and neglectful parents. It assessed four constructs: 

o Inappropriate expectations: This referred to the ability of a parent to perceive the skills and 

abilities of their child. 

o Empathy: Pertained to the ability of an individual to demonstrate empathy towards the needs of 

their children. 

o Corporal punishment: Measured hitting of children as a means of discipline and punishment. 

o Role reversal: This measured an individuals expectation of their children to be sensitive to, and 

responsible for, much of the happiness of their caregiver. 

Satisfaction Survey: Inmates were asked five questions about their satisfaction with the presenters, the 

parenting class, what they learned, and suggestions for future courses. 

• Statistical Analyses:

o Paired t-tests were used to assess attitudinal changes of four parenting constructs from pre- to 

post test. 

o Independent t-tests were used to assess differences in outcomes between Caucasian inmates and 

other inmates of color. 

o Frequency distributions were assessed for the different items on the satisfaction survey. 

• Attrition: Of the 26 inmates who volunteered to participate in the psycho-educational program, 3 did 

not complete the program. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: There were two facilitators for the group of 23 inmates. 

o Staff Education: Information currently not available.

o Staff Experience: One co-facilitator (Caucasian) had no children and had been in substance 

abuse recovery for five years. Inmates looked to him as the expert on substance abuse. The 

second co-facilitator (Hispanic), was a parent with one child. Inmates looked to him as the 

expert on parenting issues. One of the facilitators also had experience with Healthy Start, a 

community-based program that visited families in order to decrease incidence of infant 

mortality and low birth weight. 

o Staff Training: Information currently not available. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: The Orient Road Jail has a six-week substance abuse program, The Hillsborough County 

Sheriff’s Office of Substance Abuse Program supervisor coordinated the selection of program 

participants. 

PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL TRAINING FOR INMATES AT THE ORIENT ROAD JAIL 

82
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

• Space: Information currently not available. 

• Materials: Assignments covering building trust, handling anger and setting rules and limits were 

handed out. Additional handouts were also availed throughout the course. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: The University of South Florida School of Social Work and The Child 

Abuse Council, Inc. of Tampa Florida collaborated with the Orient Road Jail. 

• Community Organizations:

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model

The psycho-educational parent training program is based on The Real Life Parenting Skills Program 

(Hazelden, 1995). It consists of a five-week series of programs that met once a week for one and one 

half hours. 

1. Session one: Fathers discuss what it means to be a good father and how their children perceive 

them as fathers. 

2. Session two: Four basic ways for the inmates to rebuild trust lost from their children are 

discussed. 

3. Session three: Four keys to handling anger were covered. It included handling their own anger 

and handling their children’s anger. 

4. Session four: The inmates discussed how to set limits, setting and following through with 

consequences, and setting personal limits in order to be a good role model. 

5. Session five: Reviewing of material learned and discussing how they hoped to use the material 

learned. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: There were two groups, 12 and 11 men completed classes in each group respectively. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): There were five classes/sessions each one and one 

half hour long. 

• Frequency of program offerings: The classes were held weekly for five weeks. 

• Diversity of activities: Learning was achieved through discussion as a group, completing assignments 

and facilitator instruction. 

• Incentives for participation: Information currently not available. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• Changes in Inappropriate Expectations from a mean of 20.26 to 21.35 were significant at p<.05, 

indicating improvement in inmates understanding of their child’s skills and abilities. 

• Comparisons with men of color and Caucasians on all four constructs did not show statistically 

significant changes. However measures on all four constructs for men of color showed marginal 

improvements. Measures on all but the measure of Inappropriate Expectations for Caucasians were 

marginally lower at post-test. Means for Caucasian men were however higher than men of color for all 

four constructs. 

• Comparisons between men of color and Caucasians on the four constructs generally did not show 

significant differences between the two groups. The men of color group had positive changes on 

empathy and corporal punishment. These results approached statistical significance at p<.05. 

• The satisfaction survey revealed that the inmates were satisfied with their facilitators’ grasp of the 

material and delivery methods. They appreciated the backgrounds of the facilitators and could easily 

relate to them. One facilitator, a recovering substance abuser was perceived as an expert on substance 

abuse while the other, a parent, was perceived as an expert on parenting issues. 

 

PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL TRAINING FOR INMATES AT THE ORIENT ROAD JAIL 

83
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

SOURCES:

Bavolek, S. J. (1984). Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory. Park City: Family Development Resources. 

Hazelden (1995). The real life parenting skills program. Center City, MN: Hazelden. 

LaRosa, J.J., & Rank, M.G. (2001). Parenting education and incarcerated fathers. Journal of Family and Social 

 Work, 6(3). 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Justin J. LaRosa 

Research Associate 

School of Social Work, University of South Florida 

4202 East Fowler Avenue, MGY 132 

Tampa, Florida 33620 

Email: Jjlarosa@aol.com

Michael G. Rank 

Associate Professor 

School of Social Work, University of South Florida 

4202 East Fowler Avenue, MGY 132 

Tampa, Florida 33620 

Email: mrank@chuma1.cas.usf.edu

PSYCHO-EDUCATIONAL TRAINING FOR INMATES AT THE ORIENT ROAD JAIL 

84
“EMERGING”PROGRAM 

QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF INCARCERATED FATHERHOOD 

OVERVIEW: Fifty-one fathers at three correctional facilities were interviewed to assess their perspectives on 

how incarceration influenced their identity as fathers and their involvement as fathers in their families. Fathers 

highlighted incarceration as inhibiting their ability to perform fathering functions. Release from prison was 

perceived as an opportunity to reestablish involvement- a time “to start all over” with their children. Read 

more...

PROGRAM GOALS: The qualitative evaluation sought to understand experiences of imprisoned fathers by 

considering their own perspectives of the fathering experience and family relationships as they approached their 

release from prison. The study assessed how incarceration influenced:

• Fatherhood or men’s fathering identity; and 

• Father involvement.

LOCATION: Three minimum security correctional facilities in Utah and Oregon. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: There were 51 fathers involved in the qualitative evaluation 

from the correctional facilities in Utah and Oregon.

• The average age of fathers was 36 years old; 

• On average, the fathers had more than one child (M= 1.7, SD 0.9) with the average age of children in 

the household at 10 years old; 

• Approximately 20% of the fathers were African American, 63% Caucasian, 10% Latino and 6% Native 

American; 

• Approximately 14% of the fathers completed some high school, another 40% reported completing high 

school, 35% reported some college or training, and 11% completed a college degree; 

• Approximately 78% of interviewed fathers reported that they resided with the focal mother; 

• Fathers in the study were incarcerated for their most recent conviction for an average of 24 months and 

were approximately 204 miles from home. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: QUALITATIVE 

• Outcomes:

o Father-Child Relationships; 

o Father-Mother Relationships; 

o Prison Experiences; and 

o Contact with Family Members 

• Method: Data for the qualitative evaluation were drawn from a pilot study of prisoner reentry 

conducted by the researchers at three minimum security prisons in Utah and Oregon. 

Participation was voluntary. All interviews were conducted using computer-assisted software by one 

researcher accompanied by a trained student assistant at the correctional facility. Each father was asked 

to pick one focal child, the one they expected to be most involved with upon release. 

Once completed, content analysis software was used to identify themes from the interviews. The 

confirmatory process involved the researchers, repeatedly reviewing each others notes and assessments 

of the generated themes and reaching consensus on modifications to the themes. 

• Sample: A total of 51 fathers were interviewed at the three correctional facilities. 

QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF INCARCERATED FATHERHOOD 

85 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

• Measures:

Father-Child Relationships: 

Fatherhood 

• Helplessness and regrets- “It’s been hard to be a father.” 

• Wishes and hopes/rebirth- “I want to get really close.” 

• Identity shifts and imbalance- “I really don’t know whether to give up or try...” 

Involvement 

• Efforts to father behind walls- “ I am being the best dad I can.” 

• Constraints on fathering functions- “I’m not there, I’m no help...” 

• Noninvolvement as care- “I don’t want him to see me like this.” 

Contact with the family: 

Visiting difficulties 

• Emotional pain and uncertainty- “They wonder where I am.” 

Visiting with children 

• Benefits of contact- “Helps me do my time.’ 

Father-mother Relationship 

Father-mother co-parenting 

• Mothers as gatekeepers-“I feel like the mother is the problem” 

• Statistical Analyses: The qualitative methodology was informed by the researchers own theoretical 

framework, related to the situation of incarcerated fatherhood. Additionally, it was driven by Weiss and 

Fine’s (2004) “theory of method” that obligates researchers to:

o Document sites of hope and despair;

o Embrace the category of “prisoner” and hence contextualizing analysis with respect to 

institutional life; and 

o Dynamism- contextualizing the shifting of space and time. With regards to the fathers, results 

were contextualized to their anticipation and anxiety of leaving prison within a month of the 

interview. 

• Attrition: The study reported an 89% participation rate. 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: Each interview was conducted by one researcher often accompanied 

by a trained student assistant. 

o Staff Education: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Training: Training content for student assistants currently not available. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Interview development occurred over several months. 

Coding, identification of themes and confirmation of themes during the content analysis was a 

process that involved multiple rounds of reading and interpreting each staff members' notes and 

perceptions about each interview. 

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF INCARCERATED FATHERHOOD 

86
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: Correctional staff at each facility distributed announcements to lists of fathers who met 

the eligibility criteria to participate in the study. Eligibility required: 

• Having at least one child under 18 years old; 

• Being at least 18 years old; 

• Having a release date within approximately one month from the interview date; and 

• Not serving time for a sex crime conviction or having committed violent crimes against family 

members. 

• Space: All interviews were conducted at the respective correctional facilities. 

• Materials: Researchers used computer-assisted software to conduct the interview. Computer software, 

NUDIST, was also used for content analysis. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: Information currently not available. 

• Community Organizations: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The development of the interview study for the pilot reentry program 

occurred over several months by the research staff. Content for the interview was informed by:

o Empirical literature on prisoner reentry and father involvement; and 

o Interviews piloted with family members visiting inmates. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: Interviews were conducted by one researcher often accompanied by a trained student 

assistant. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Each interview was about 60 minutes long.

• Frequency of program offerings: Participating fathers were interviewed once. 

• Diversity of activities: Not applicable. 

• Incentives for participation: Fathers received $20 for completing the interview. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

• Most fathers characterized incarcerated fatherhood as impotence due to the inability to perform 

fathering functions. One father equated being incarcerated with child neglect. Feelings of helplessness 

and ambiguity were often recounted by fathers. 

• With reference to hope for the future, prisoners seemed to preclude themselves from time as they just as 

they had been precluded from their families. Most men perceived “doing time” as just that and focused 

on what they would do upon their release. Being a good father was centered on themes of starting all 

over: fathers would do “whatever it takes” to re-establish father-child and family relationships. 

• As pertains to father involvement, most fathers perceived their involvement as dormant due to the 

inability to provide protection, support, guidance, and discipline. These functions were identified as 

essential fathering roles. Lack of “face to face” contact was seen as a major reason for their lack of 

involvement. 

• Most inmates (51%) received no visits from their children and 33% reported no phone contact with 

their children. Forty-five percent of fathers received no letters from their child or heard from them once 

or twice a year yet 56% of fathers reported writing to their child monthly or weekly. Contact helped 

inmates to feel remembered as well as a welcome distraction from the daily routine of institutional life. 

• Mothers were an important mediator of incarcerated father-father involvement. Many fathers reported 

gate-keeping, the restriction of contact with the child, by the mothers. Mothers also discouraged child 

contact with the father. A few fathers reported that mothers facilitated contact with their children. 

QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF INCARCERATED FATHERHOOD 

87
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

SOURCES:

Arditti, J.A. (2003). Locked doors and glass walls: Family visiting at a local jail. Journal of Loss and Trauma. 8, 

 115-138. 

Arditti, J.A., Smock, S.A., Parkman, T.S. (2005). “It’s been hard to be a father”: A qualitative exploration of 

 incarcerated fatherhood. Fathering, 3(3), 267-288. 

QSR. (1997). NUDIST for Qualitative Research (N4 Classis) [Computer software and manual]. Victoria, 

 Australia. QSR International Pty Ltd. 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Dr. Joyce Arditti 

311 Wallace Hall 

Department of Human Development, Virginia Tech, 

Blacksburg, VA. 24061 

QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF INCARCERATED FATHERHOOD 

88
“EMERGING”PROGRAM 

WANTING TO BE GOOD FATHERS: 

HELPING TEEN FATHERS BECOME PARENTS 

OVERVIEW: This parenting program was designed for adolescent fathers of Mexican descent involved in the 

juvenile justice system. Fathers participated in a series of six small-group sessions that included both therapeutic 

and psychoeducational components and emphasized the role that Latino(a) culture plays in the lives of 

adolescent, Latino fathers. After the completion of the intervention, a series of three in-depth interviews were 

conducted individually with six of the program participants. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS: This program aimed to: 

O Increase the adolescent father’s understanding of issues regarding becoming a father;

O Offer adolescent fathers resources to cope with issues between himself and the mother of his child;

O Increase the adolescent father’s involvement with children through increased comfort in taking care of a 

young infant/child;

O Teach adolescent fathers fundamental principles of infant care, child development, and parenting skills.

LOCATION: This program was implemented in the Southwest United States.

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED: The adolescent fathers participating in this program had the 

following characteristics: 

• Participants were all of Mexican descent; 

• Participants were between 13 and 17 years old; 

• Participants had been placed on probation for various offenses such as burglary, possession and use of 

illegal substances, or assault with a deadly weapon; 

• Two participants had 2 children each, and the rest had only one child, usually younger than 2 years old; 

• The educational level of participants ranged from 8th to 11th grade, with one participant having obtained 

his GRE; 

• 86% of participants were living with either their mother or stepmother; 

• 64% of participants were living with either their father or stepfather; 

• 57% of participants were in a romantic relationship with their partner while the rest were interested in 

establishing a co-parenting relationship with their former partner. 

EVALUATION DESIGN: PHENOMENOLOGICAL QUALITATIVE STUDY (DESCRIPTIVE 

INTERVIEW DESIGN) 

• Outcomes: Fathers provided feedback about their experiences as participants in the teen fathers 

parenting groups. During data analysis, this information was organized into the following categories:

o Life-world context data (i.e., ideas and thoughts in which the role of the adolescent was 

primarily receptive); 

o Lived experience data (i.e., ideas and thoughts that related to being a participant in the teen 

parenting program as well as being a teen father); 

o Detailed descriptions of teen fathers’ most relevant fathering experiences. 

• Method: Fourteen adolescent fathers participated in one of four teen fathers’ parenting groups over a 

period of 18 months. Fathers who completed both the therapeutic and psychoeducational components of 

the program and for whom contact information were provided were included in the study (n=6). After 

completion of the program, these 6 participants were interviewed on 3 separate occasions. All but one of 

the interviews was conducted face-to-face over a 2-month period. This method of conducting multiple 

interviews was chosen because it allows participants to reflect on their experiences and to confirm or 

modify their earlier statements. Additionally, during the third interview, participants were asked to 

review the findings from the first and second interviews. 

WANTING TO BE GOOD FATHERS 

89 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

• Sample: Six adolescent fathers were included in the analytic sample.

• Measures: 

o Perceptions of what it is like to be a participant in a teen fathers’ group.

• Statistical Analyses: In order to participate in data collection, evaluators went through a “bracketing 

process” during which they attempted to set aside preconceived ideas and biases. All of the interviews 

were transcribed and coded using NVivo qualitative data management software (Bazeley & Richards, 

2000). Distinct ideas and thoughts were labeled as either 1) irrelevant data, 2) life-world data, or 3) lived 

experience data. 

• Attrition: Fourteen fathers participated in one of 4 teen fathers’ parenting groups. Six participants were 

rearrested before they could complete the program. Two fathers completed the program but later moved 

away without leaving any contact information. The remaining 6 fathers were included in the study (57% 

attrition). 

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualifications and Support

o Staff-participant ratio: Two facilitators, one male and one female, co-led each session. 

Having female co-leaders was important because they were able to bring their perspective as 

mothers and Latinas. 

o Staff Education: The groups were led by the program developer, a Mexican male marriage and 

family therapy graduate student, and by one of 2 parent educators. 

o Staff Experience: Not currently available.

o Staff Training: The parent educators were both mature Latinas from the community and had 

received extensive training in the Parent Management Training model (Patterson, 1982). 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Not currently available.

o Staff wages: Not currently available.

o Staff Satisfaction: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Space: Not currently available.

• Materials: Not currently available.

• Partnerships and Linkages: Not currently available.

• Community Organizations: Not currently available.

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: This teen fathers’ parenting program included both therapeutic and 

psychoeducation components. Additionally, the role that Latino(a) culture plays in the lives of 

adolescent, Latino fathers was addressed throughout the six sessions. The follow six topics were 

addressed in these sessions:

o Therapeutic Components (Sessions 1-3)

 Family-of-origin issues: Participants drafted a letter to their father as well as a letter to 

themselves pretending to be their father. Participants were asked to think about how their 

relationship with their father influenced them as fathers. 

WANTING TO BE GOOD FATHERS 

90
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

 Personal Responsibility: This topic was addressed throughout the six sessions. Participants 

were challenged to take responsibility for their own actions, as opposed to blaming outside 

factors. 

 The meaning of being a father: Each participant shared what being a father meant to them. 

Participants then drafted a third letter to their child. 

o Psychoeducational Components (Sessions 4-6)

 Prevention of abuse and neglect: Abuse and neglect were defined and discussed using 

potential scenarios that their children might face in the future. 

 Child development and child care: Participants were provided with handouts and booklets. 

This information was then discussed in groups. 

 Fundamental parenting and discipline skills: Participants were taught concepts of parenting 

derived from social learning principles. Alternative discipline strategies (e.g., time-out) 

were discussed. 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group size: Group size was limited to 4 fathers in order to ensure that each participant received 

sufficient time and attention. After the first meeting, group membership was closed. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): There were 6 group sessions, each lasting 2 hours. 

(Note: Participants reported wanting to continue attending a support group for teen fathers.) 

• Frequency of program offerings: The groups met once a month for 6 months. 

• Diversity of activities: Fathers participated in group discussions, presentations, and role plays. 

Additionally, letter writing was used as a means for participants to address and process family-of-origin 

experiences. Participants were required to remain attentive and respectful while others shared; however, 

fathers only had to share what they wanted to share. 

• Incentives for participation: Participants received $15 for each session they attended. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Life-world context data

• Participants felt supported by group leaders and group members. They felt cared about because group 

leaders provided encouragement, companionship, and guidance about how to be a better father. 

• Participants felt safe in the group. They felt free to express themselves. 

• Participants appreciated that the group was specifically designed to meet their needs. They did not feel 

that they could get these services anywhere else in the community. 

Lived experience data 

• Entering the group: Although teen fathers were reluctant to participate in the group at first (some of 

them were required to be there by their parole officer), they reported that they came to appreciate the 

value of the program. 

• Liking and trusting: Participants reported that they began to trust each other and their group leaders over 

the course of the 6 sessions. They felt respected and did not feel judged. 

• Realizing group is important in redirecting my life: Participants reported that their feelings about the 

group changed when they began to realize that being a part of the group could help them to be a better 

father. 

• Realizing I am not the only one: Participants appreciated the opportunity to be around other teen fathers 

and realize that others were dealing with the same situations and the same emotions. 

• Letting feelings out: Participants reported feeling free to express their feelings and knowing that the 

other teen fathers would understand. 

• Valuing the bond: Participants reported a sense of bonding with other teen fathers in the group as they 

realized that there were all experiencing similar feelings. 

WANTING TO BE GOOD FATHERS 

91
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

• Hearing it from group leaders: Group leaders gave participants challenging feedback, which the 

participants learned to appreciate. 

• Deciding to write about my struggles: Participants commented on the relief they felt in writing letters to 

their fathers.

• Wanting to be a good father: Participants realized that they could not be good fathers and maintain their 

current lifestyle. They recognized the need to take responsibility for their lives and the lives of their 

children. 

Detailed descriptions of teen fathers’ most relevant fathering experiences

• Not giving up and deciding to be a dad: Participants reported struggling with the knowledge that they 

would become fathers. At first they avoided talking about it. As time when on, however, the fathers 

found “a new meaning in life” by becoming fathers. 

• Figuring out my relationships after becoming a father: Participants mentioned challenges they were 

facing in their relationships with their child’s mother, with their child, and with the rest of their family. 

• Wanting to be a good father: Participants reported that they wanted to be good fathers, which they 

understood meant taking responsibility for their actions, battling drug addition, and planning for the 

future. 

• Wanting to be Brown and a father: Participants commented on how their cultural identity and cultural 

values influenced them as fathers and affected their lives. 

SOURCES:

Bazeley, P., & Richards, L. (2000). The NVivo qualitative project book. Thousand, Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Parra-Cardona, J.R., Wampler, R.S., & Sharp, E.A. (2006). “Wanting to be a good father”: Experiences of 

adolescent fathers of Mexican descent in a teen fathers program. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32(2), 

215-231. 

Parra-Cardona, J.R., Sharp, E.A., & Wampler, R.S. (in press). “Changing for my kid”: Fatherhood experiences 

of Mexican-origin teen fathers involved in the justice system. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 

Patterson, G.R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia Press. 

EVALUATOR(S) AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

José Rubén Parra-Cardona, PhD 

Marriage and Family Therapy Program 

3D Human Ecology 

Michigan State University 

East Lansing, Michigan 48824 

Email: parraca1@msu.edu

WANTING TO BE GOOD FATHERS 

92
“EMERGING”PROGRAM 

WORK AND FAMILY CENTER (WFC) 

OVERVIEW: The Work and Family Center (WFC) is a multi-agency program aimed at enabling successful 

reintegration of offenders into the community upon their release from prisons in Denver Colorado. Although 

most clients requested and received assistance with child support issues upon their release from prison, little 

change was recorded in their child support status. Employment rates and earnings for clients six months after 

completing WFC programs improved. Read more...

PROGRAM GOALS:

• Reintegration of offenders upon their release from Colorado prisons.

• To provide services related to child support 

LOCATION: Denver, Colorado 

CHARACTERISTICS OF FATHERS SERVED:

There were 350 ex-offenders in the study. 

• Clients in the study had been out of prison ranging from days to 12 years. More than half had been out 

of prison less than 3.3 months with 39 % seen within one month of leaving prison. Sixty four percent 

(64%) were seen within 6 months of leaving prison. 

• Clients were an average of 35 years old. 

• Most of the clients served, 86%, were male. 

• Approximately 35% of the clients were African American, 38% Hispanic, and 24% White. 

• Nearly two thirds of the clients (61%) reported having a GED. Approximately 18% had less than a GED 

level of education and 21% reported completing high school or higher level of education. 

• Approximately 82% of all clients were fully employed before their incarceration. 

• Many (39%) of clients reported their marital status as never married. Another 32% reported being 

separated, divorced, or widowed with approximately 17% reporting being married. 

• Clients had an average of 2.6 children with an average age of 9.7 years. Nearly two thirds (62%) 

reported having a child out of wedlock. 

• Approximately 46% of clients reported seeing one child “often” before incarceration. Another 27% 

reported never seeing any child before incarceration. 

• Nearly three quarters (70%) of clients were required to pay restitution following their release from 

prison with an average amount owed being $3, 144. 

• Approximately 27% of clients faced driving restrictions upon release from prison. 

 

EVALUATION DESIGN: OUTCOMES MONITORING (PRE- & POST-TEST DESIGN) 

• Outcomes:

• Types of help wanted at the beginning of the program and the type of help received; 

• Changes in employment and earnings; 

• Changes in child support payments; and 

• Recidivism. 

• Method:

Client intake forms: This form detailed the clients’ demographics and the types of services they wished 

to receive. 

WORK AND FAMILY CENTER (WFC) 

93 
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

Six-Month follow-up interviews: Six months after being seen at the WFC, clients were interviewed by 

telephone about their employment and child support status. Clients also responded about the types of 

services they received. 

Follow-up review of agency records: Evaluators reviewed several types of agency records: 

• Automated child support records to track changes in child support payments; 

• Colorado Department of Labor and Employment records of earnings to assess changes in 

earnings; and 

• Department of Corrections records to assess client’s prison status. 

• Sample: The report focuses on 350 clients served at the WFC. 

• Measures:

• Employment earnings 

• Child support payments 

• Recidivism 

• Statistical Analyses: Client intake forms were used to assess proportions of clients requesting and 

receiving services. Descriptive statistics about the services requested and received were reported. 

Agency records were used to assess pre- and post WFC employment earnings, child support payments 

and recidivism rates. The differences in means at pre- and post-test were assessed for statistical 

significance.

• Attrition: Information currently not available.

STRUCTURAL/INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES:

• Staff Qualification and Support

o Staff-participation ratio: The WFC started out with 2 full-time staff, four part-time staff and a 

director. Over one year the program grew to 9 full-time staff and 4 part-time staff/consultants. 

The staff included a director, five case managers, one full-time and one part-time employment 

specialist, a child support specialist, a receptionist, and a part-time analyst. A lawyer and mental 

health specialist consulted for the WFC. 

o Staff Education: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Experience: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Training: Information currently not available. 

o Planning Time and Coordination: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Wages: Information currently not available. 

o Staff Satisfaction: Information currently not available. 

PROGRAM CONFIGURATION:

• Recruitment: During its first two years, WFC clients were recruited to the program from a variety of 

sources. About half the clients were referred by parole officers or community corrections agents. 

Another 17% heard about the program from reintegration staff at the Department of Corrections before 

being released from prison. A similar proportion heard about the program from friends while 26% heard 

about WFC from community organizations.

• Space: During its first two years, WFC was housed in a partially donated church space. It then moved 

into an office place with close proximity to the Denver Department of Human Services which housed 

many relevant agencies. 

WORK AND FAMILY CENTER (WFC) 

94
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

• Materials: Information currently not available. 

• Partnerships and Linkages: During its first two years, WFC was jointly administered, funded and 

staffed by the Division of Community Reintegration of the Denver Department of Corrections; the 

Denver Department of Human Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement, and the Community 

Reintegration Project of Colorado AFL/CIO. Other collaborators included the Colorado Judicial 

Department and the Mayor’s Office of Employment and Development.

• Community Organizations: The Parents Legal Resource Center, Real Life Ministries, and the Rose 

Community Foundation. 

PROGRAM CONTENT:

• Curriculum or Program Model: The Work and Family Center provided multiple services to clients 

who were primarily referred to the program by parole officers, and community corrections agents. Exoffenders were offered assistance with:

Employment Services: 

Paroled and released offenders had ten working days after which they were required to do day labor a 

few times each week as they continued to search for employment. Many paroled clients in the study 

were able to find employment before seeking WFC services. 

Child Support Services: 

WFC staff assisted clients to coordinate child support cases across the different counties in Colorado. 

They helped clients: 

• File requests to review child support orders to reflect changed financial circumstances; 

• Reduce monthly payments for arrears owed to the state; 

• Re-instate drivers licenses suspended for non-payment of support; and 

• Suspend or setup automated enforcement remedies. 

Reintegration Services: 

WFC offered three types of services to help clients reestablish contact with their children: 

• Mediation services with a professional mediator from the Office of Dispute Resolution of the 

Colorado Judicial Department; 

• Private meetings with family law attorneys to assist with measures such as filing for and setting 

up child visitation; and 

• Supervised visitation. 

Therapist Intervention: 

WFC clients were offered counseling in individual, couple, family and group formats to work through 

reintegration issues. 

Low-income clients who met Department of Labor’s lower-living standard and qualified for Welfare-toWork received: 

• Transportation assistance; 

• Clothing vouchers; and 

• Tools for work. 

Other clients who did not meet these eligibility requirements could receive similar services from the 

Division of Community Reintegration of the Department of Corrections and the Community 

Reintegration Project of the AFL/CIO. 

WORK AND FAMILY CENTER (WFC) 

95
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

PROGRAM DESIGN:

• Group Size: Information currently not available. 

• Number of program hours (dosage and duration): Information currently not available. 

• Frequency of program offerings: Information currently not available.

• Diversity of activities: Clients received assistance with finding and retaining employment and child 

support services. 

• Incentives for participation: Eligible clients received transport and clothing assistance. Clients 

completing the six-month follow-up interview received $20. 

KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS:

Types of services requested and received: 

• The most requested types of services were help with child support (69%), transportation assistance 

(57%), clothing assistance (50%), finding a better job (47%), and tools for work (44%). 

• Telephone interviews with 100 clients found that: 

o About 55% requested child support assistance and of those, 87% received it; 

o About 34% requested transportation assistance and of those, 91% received it; 

o About 32% requested clothing and food assistance and of those, 94% received it; 

o About 45% requested help with employment and of those, 89% received it; and 

o About 15% requested tools for work and of those, 73% received it. 

Employment: 

Fifty-four (54) clients employed were assessed before they received WFC services and six months after 

the initial employment. 

o The percentage reporting full-time employment rose from 47% to 65%; 

o Average earnings for full-time workers rose from an average of $7.39 to $9.22; 

o Wage reports filed by employers showed quarterly earnings rise from $2,850 to $3,746, 

statistically significant at p<.05. 

Child Support: Despite reviews and remedial actions taken by WFC staff to assist clients with child support 

issues, little change was achieved for client’s child support status from the initial contact with WFC to the six 

month follow-up interview. 

o At both point in time clients had an average of 1.9 child support cases and owed approximately 

$200-$300 monthly; 

o Average child support arrearages increased from $16,651 to $17,183. 

Recidivism: 

o Among 133 newly released WFC clients who had been out of prison at least one year, 29% 

were back in prison. More than half (55%) of these returnees were re-incarcerated for parole 

violation. Among the 29% re-incarcerated, only 11% had committed new crimes. 

o Among all WFC clients the re-incarceration rate was 25% with 53% returning due to parole 

violation. Approximately 13% committed new crimes. On average WFC clients were out of 

prison for 5.6 months before re-incarceration. 

SOURCES:

Pearson, J., & Davis, L. (2001). Serving parents who leave prison: Final report on the Work and Family Center. 

 Center for Policy Research. 

WORK AND FAMILY CENTER (WFC) 

96
 “EMERGING” PROGRAM 

EVALUATORS AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. 

Lanae Davis, M.A. 

Center for Policy Research 

1570 Emerson Street 

Denver, Colorado 80218 

Email: cntrpolres@qwest.net

Website: centerpolicyresearch.org 

 

WORK AND FAMILY CENTER (WFC) 

97