SERVING FATHERS WHO LEAVE PRISON

SERVING FATHERS WHO LEAVE PRISON

Jessica Pearson and Lanae Davis

This article describes characteristics, service experiences, and outcomes for 350 ex-offenders with minor-aged chiidren who were served at the John lnman Work and Family Ccnter (WFC), a multiservice program offering assistance with employment, child support, and family reconnection. Following their visit to the WFC, fathers had higher rates of employment and child support payment. They aiso retumed to prison at lower rates than the general offender population. Aithough the findings suggest that parents who leave prison benefit from a collaborative facility that offers multiple services, more ngorous research over longer periods of time is needed to reliably asseSS the effectiveness of reentry programs.

Keywords: incarceraied nvncusiodial parents; reentry programs for faihers; childsuppori enforcement; incur- cerated, paroled, and releasedfaihers

In 2000, there were an estimated 2 million people in prison and another 4.5 million on parole andor under the supervision of correctional systems (Beck & Karberg, 2002). The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that during the coming decade, approximately 600,000 inmates will be released from state and federal facilities on an annual basis (Beck, 2000). National surveys of prison inmates show that more than half of male and female prisoners have children younger than the age of 18 and that collectively, they are parents to approximately 1.5 million minor-aged children (Mumola, 2000).

Whereas most policies and programs for this population deal with mothers, the fatherhood movement has served to focus some recent attention on fathers and how to enhance their ability to assume their financia1 and emotional responsibilities when they leave prison (Jeffries, Menghraj, & Hairston, 2001 ). The limited research information that is available shows that although most incarcerated fathers have never been married to the mother of one or more of their children and many have children by different mothers with whom they did not live (Hairston, 1995), they reported regular contact with their children prior to their imprisonment (Adalist-Estrin & Mustin, 2003) and contributed income, child care, and social support (Hairston, 1998; Mumola, 2000). Prison disrupts these ties with fewer than one third of incarcerated fathers seeing at least one of their children on a regular basis during their imprisonment (Hairston, 1998).

There is growing consensus that family and community networks are important forms of social support for inmates that can promote their success after their release and deter future criminal behavior (Johnson, Selber, & Lauderdale, 1998). Studies find that inmates who lived with a spouse after release had the lowest recidivism rate (Laub, Nagin, & Sampson, 1998), that maintaining strong family ties during incarceration prevents relapse (Hairston,

Authors’ Note: Preparation of this uriicle was supported by a granifrom the Charles Siewart Moti Foundation. The underlying research was supporied by Grant No. 90-FD-O033 fiom the Federal Office of Child Suppori Enforce- ment lo ihe Colorado Depariment ofHumun Services. The Cenierfor Policy Research is solely responsibie for iis content. The opinions and points of view expressed do not necessuriiy reflfrt the views or policies of the Federal Ofice of Child Suppori Enforcemeni, the Colorado Depariment of Humun Services, or the Charles Siewari Mott Foundaiion.

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 41 No. 3, July 2003 307-320 DOI: 10.1 177/1531244503254604 O 2003 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

307

308 FAMILY COURT REVIEW

2001), that assuming family roles and responsibilities is associated with lower levels of recidivism (Field, 1998), and that family support among released offenders is associated with a higher rate of success in finding employment, avoiding substance abuse, and a reduction of criminal activity (Nelson, Deess, & Allen, 1999).

New efforts are under way to assist offenders with reentry (Buck, 2000; Nelson & Trone, 2000) and promote the involvement of fathers in the lives of their children by extending certain elements of the responsible fatherhood movement to men in prisons and community settings (Mustin, 1998). A byproduct of welfare reform legislation and time-limited benefits, responsible fatherhood programs (Johnson, Levine, & Doolittle, 1999; Pearson, Thoennes, Price, & Venohr, 2000) emphasize the financia1 role of poor fathers and seek to ensure that these men pay child support or repay the state for the public assistance received by their children through assistance in the establishment of paternity, child support payment, job referrals, and training on parenting.

It is not easy to turn incarcerated parents into responsible fathers. Typically, inmates leave prison with no savings or assets, limited job training and work experience, and a host ofbarri- ers to employment (Sachs, 2000). For example, a survey of parolees in Califomia reported that roughly 85% were chronic substance abusers, half were fünctionally illiterate, 18% had psychiatric problems, and between 70% and 90% were unemployed (Califomia Department of Corrections, 1997). On the outside, they may face bans on the receipt of public assistance and food stamps, limited eligibility of low-income housing, restricted access to substance abuse or mental health treatment, and employment prohibitions (Haberkern, 2003). A recent experimental study using matched pairs of individuals with and without criminal records to apply for real entry-leve1 jobs documented that paroled or released offenders face employer biases that severely limit their employment opporhmities (Pager, 2002). A comprehensive statutory and regulatory analysis showed that they encounter a host of legal restrictions that bar them from a broad range of occupations and professions (Dietrich, 2002).

Child support obligations compound the employment and financial problems that incarcerated parents face (Pearson & Griswold, 2002). Parents who have an established child support order are legally required to pay while they are in prison. Those who fail to pay typically accrue substantial arrears.’ For example, while Massachusetts inmates with child support orders enterprison owing an average of $10,543 in unpaid child support, they are projected to accumulate another $20,461 in child support debt, plus 12% interest and 6% penalties iftheir orders remain at preincarceration levels and they serve their h l l sentence (Thoennes, 2002b).

No state automatically modifies a parent’s child support order when he goes to prison. He must file a written request that meets with a different response, depending on the state and even the judicial district or child support office within a given state. Many courts rule that imprisonment is a form of voluntary unemployment, and that the father does not qualify to have his child support duty modified or excused (Morgan, 1998; Wozniak, 1995). Offenders with child support obligations may face a host of aggressive enforcement remedies when they are released or paroled, including wage attachments of up to as much as 65% of take- home pay, suspension of driver’s and state-issued professional licenses, and automatic sei- zures of bank accounts that include savings accrued for reentry. In some states, payment of child support is a condition of parole, with nonpayment theoretically leading to thc noncustodial parent being retumed to prison for a parole violation. Not surprisingly, some advocates and reentry personnel fear that these policies may drive paroled and released parents away from their families and legitimate employment (Roberts, 2001; Sachs, 2000).

Pearson, Davic 1 FATHERS WHO LEAVE PRISON 309

Some child support agencies are beginning to recognize that child support obligations may present barriers to successful reentry and are exploring ways to address them (Pearson & Hardaway, 2000; Sachs, 2000). Like responsible fatherhood programs for low-incomc fathers, they have begun multiagency demonstration projects that attempt to assist incarcerated parents in prerelease and community settings with employment, child support obligations, and family reconnection. For example, as part of Washington state’s Joint Agency Col- lection Project, a reintegration team designs an Offender Accountability plan prior to the inmate’s release, which includes support services from workforce and child support agencies. In Illinois, the child support agency is collaborating with correctional agencies and a leading reentry program, the Safer Foundation, to provide fathers who reside in Adult Tran- sition Centers in Chicago assistance with employment, family reconnection, and child support, including downward modifications so that their child support obligations match their earnings and ability to pay. The child support agency in Texas is also collaborating with state jails, workforce development agencies, and communi ty-based organizations to inform incarcerated parents of their child support obligations, enroll them in programs to promote paternity establishment and family reintegration, and help them obtain jobs.

Although most of the research conducted in the 1970s on employment programs for ex- offenders concluded that “nothing works” (Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001), more recent studies suggest that the programs increase employment and eamings. For example, Chi- cago’s Safer Foundation reported that 59% of program participants found work and remained on the job for at least 30 days in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1996. New York City’s Center for Employment Opportunities reported an average placement rate of 70% during 1992 and 1996, with 60% on the same job after 3 months. Texas’s Project R10 cites as evidence of its effectiveness the fact that almost 74% ofclients who used its employment services found jobs and experienced reduced recidivism rates, with 23% of RiO parolees reincarcerated compared with 38% of non-RIO parolees (Finn, 1999).

This article adds to the literature on reentry programs and their effectiveness in promoting prosocial behaviors. It describes an evaluation of the John Inman Work and Family Center (WFC), a multiservice program in Denver, Colorado, for paroled and released offenders with minor-aged children who were known to the child support enforcement agency and had an open child support case.2 During its first 2 years of operation, the WFC was jointly hnded, staffed, and operated by the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC), the Colorado and Denver Divisions of Child Support Enforcement (CSE), and a variety of otherpublic and private entities. Unlike most reentry programs that focus on job skills training and placement (Buck, 2000), the WFC coupled its offer of employment assistance with help regarding child support and family reintegration (Pearson & Davis, 2001b).

METHOD

The evaluation assessed characteristics, service experiences, and outcomes for 350 ex- offenders with minor-aged children who were known to the child support agency and were served at the WFC between August 1999 and March 2001 .3 Parents who visited the WFC met with case managers who offered them assistance with employment and child support issues. Some clients who qualified for welfare-to-work funds also received bus tokens and work tools. Finally, clients had the opportunity to meet with a family law attomey who could help them with their custody and visitation issues, and a therapist for individual and family counseling sessions. Attendance at the WFC was voluntary; whereas half were referred by parole

3 10 FAMILY COURT REVIEW

officers and community corrections agents, the other half learned about the program from friends and other community agencies. Parents were at different stages of the release process; 40% were seen within 1 month of their reiease from prison, two thirds were seen within 6 months, and 20% had been out of prison for more than 13 months.

The evaluation was based on information generated from several sources.

Intuke forms. During their first visit to the WFC, al1 350 clients completed a detailed intake form that elicited demographic information, criminal history, education and work experience, family composition, relationships with children, and interest in various services.

Telephone interviews. Six months after their initial visit, an interviewer attempted to contact each client by telephone and interview him about his service experiences and his employment and child support status. Interviews were conducted with 100 WFC clients, which translates into a response rate of 28.6%. Respondents were given a $20 payment to maximize participation. Twenty-five percent of potential respondents (n = 78) could not be interviewed because they were back in prison. Most of the remaining uninterviewed clients could not be located with the primary or secondary contact information they provided when they visited the WFC (n = 172), a pattern that was not unexpected given the fact that 37% had reported living in a halfway house (n = 130) and 8% ( n = 28) were iiving in a shelter. One lim- itation to the study is that the interviews undoubtedly reflect the experiences and reactions of the more stable and successfui elements of the client popuiation.

Agency records. At the conclusion of the evaluation, agency records were checked to determine the status of WFC clients before and after their initial visit to the WFC. Evaluators reviewed automated child support records for 242 clients with at least one open child support case, and extracted information on their orders and payment behaviors 6 months before and 6 and 12 months after their visit to the WFC. For evidence of earnings, researchers reviewed quarterly wage reports filed by employers with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment for its Unemployment Insurance (UI) system. Finally, the DOC supplied information on the prison status of 3 16 clients for whom DOC information could be located in August 2001, which was 6 to 24 months after the clients’ initial visit to the WFC.

Agency records have certain benefits and limitations. For example, quarterly wage reports filed by Colorado employers do not reflect eamings generated outside of Colorado, in certain nonprofit settings, or among employers who pay cash or fail to report quarterly eamings. In addition to nonreporting, there is a lag of up to 5 months in posting eamings reported by employers. Consequently, the absence of earnings may reflect aposting delay rather than a lack of employment activity. Child support records may not reflect modification activity or other adjustments that are in progress or were not recorded by workers. On the positive side, agency records were available for al1 350 clients in the study and not just the fraction who could be contacted by telephone. They also provide objective information on earnings and child support payments and avoid some of the social desirability factors, inaccuracies, and other biases endemic to self-reported behaviors.

PROFILE OF CLIENTS SERVED AND INCARCERATION HISTORY

The WFC served a varied clientele that resembled the parole population released to Den- ver, but was somewhat less violent and a lower-risk group than the Colorado inmate popula-

Pearson, Davis l FATHERS WHO LEAVE PRISON 3 I 1

Table I Selected Demogruphic Churucteristics of Work and Famiiy Center (WFC) Clients, the Inmate Population of Colorado, and the Parole Population oxDenver (in percentages)

WFC ( n = 350) Colorado (n = 15,846) Denver (n = 1,273)

Average age (years) Male Female Afncan American Hispanic White Less than GED GED High school or more Employed full-time before incarceration Worked for one employer less than 1 year Worked for one employer 1 to 3 years Worked for one employer 3 to 5 years Worked for one employer more than 5 years Served time for a drug crime Ever convicted of a violent crime

35 35 86 92 14 8 35 38 24 18 61 21 82 25 37 19 19 40 30

23 29 45

a

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

19.8 43.gb

36 84.1 15.9 41.9 20.6 35.6

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA 36.2

Average sentence (years) 5.4 5.5 NA Average time served (years) 2.8 2.5 NA Average time left on parole 2.3 years 14.8 months‘ NA

SOURCE: Adapted from the Colorado Department of Corrections (2001). NOTE: GED = general equivalency diploma; NA = not available. a. Average grade leve1 performance is 8.72 for reading, 7.28 for language arts, and 7.2 for math. b. Number of offenders with violent convictions. c. Average length of stay on parole in 2000.

tion. The average WFC client in this study was a 35-year-old male, repeat offender who had committed a drug crime or a burglary or theft, had served 2.8 years ofhis 5.4 year sentence, and faced 2.3 years of paroie. A mixed group of African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites, most clients reported holding a general equivalency diploma (GED) and being employed full-time before their incarceration, with 40% reporting having worked for a single employer for 3 or more years. Just more than haif reported having a job in a correctional industry while in prison. Although comparable statistics are not avaiiable for the DOC population as a whole, this group of WFC clients may be better educated and have a more stable employment history. Whereas 30% of WFC clients reported committing a violent crime, this was the case for 43.8% of DOC inmates. WFC clients were more apt to be racial minotities than both the Colorado inmate population and Denver parolees (see Table 1).

FAMILY STATUS, LIVING ARRANGEMENTS, AND CHILD ACCESS

Many (39%) of the WFC ciients characterized their current marital status as “never married.” Another 32% said they were separated or divorced, and 29% reported being married by conventional or common-law arrangements. When they visited the WFC, ciients were living in a variety of community and halfway house settings, and levels of contact with chiidren were far lower than they had been prior to incarceration. More than half of WFC clients reporied living in a house or apartment, typicaily with a parent or relative; a third lived in a


Table 2 Family Staius vf Wvrk and Family Cenier (WFC) Clienis and Child Access Befvre. During, and Ajier Prisvn (in perceníages)

Never married Separatedidivorcedwidowed Common law Married Average nurnber of children ( n ) Average age of children (in years) At least one out-of-wedlock child Children have different mothers Lived with at least one child before incarceration Saw at least one child “often” before incarceration Never saw any child before incarceration

39 32 12 17 2.6 9.7

62 58 54 46 27

Living with at least one child since release 19 See at least one child oAen since release Never see any child since release On birth certificate as father for at least one child Established patemity for at least one child

31 41 63 54

NOTE: N = 350.

halfway house. Eight percent lived in a shelter or boarding house, and a small proportion lived alone in an apartment.

Typically, clients reported having two children, with the average age being 9.7 years. Three fifths had at least one out-of-wedlock child, but approximately the same number said they had acknowledged their legal relationship by entering their name on the birth certificate or pursuing a paternity establishment procedure for at least one of their children. More than half (58%) reported having children with different women. Many clients reported having regular contact with their children before going to prison. For example, more than half of the clients seen at the WFC indicated that they had lived with at least one oftheir children before going to prison, and of those who did not live with their children, nearly half reported that they had seen one or more of their children “often.” Only one quarter said that they never saw any of their children before going to prison.

Prison clearly undermined parent-child relationships for most WFC clients. Half said that they never saw any of their children while they were in prison. Whereas one fifth reported that they were living with at least one of their children and a third reported some contact with children, 4 1 % reported no contact with any oftheir children since their release (see Table 2).

CLIENT FINANCIAL SITUATION AND EMPLOYMENT

WFC clients faced many financia1 pressures and limited resources. Fully 41% were unemployed when they visited the WFC, and a few worked part-time or temporary jobs. Among the half who said they were employed full-time, earnings averaged $9.00 per hour, and only 25% reported receiving any benefits.

Agency records show that 69% owed child support for at least one child, and the men had an average of 1.9 open child support cases. On average, their total obligations for monthly child support was $295. Nearly half of al1 WFC clients (48%) also owed money to the custodial parent for past due support, with arrearages averaging $8,368. More than half (60%) owed money to the state for welfare that had been paid to their children, with arrearages aver-

Pearson, Davk / FATHERS WHO LEAVE PRISON 3 13

Table 3 Selecied Indicutors of Eurnings and Obligutions for Work and Fumily Cenier (WFC) Clients ai Iniake

Employed full-time 50% Employed part-time 7% Working pick-up jobs 3% Unemployed 40% Average hourly wage for clients working hll-time (n = 176) Average total owed for monthly child support (n = 242 with support orders) Average total arrears owed to custodial parent and state (n = 234 with arrears) Total arrears owed to custodial parent and state (n = 234 with arrears) Average restitution owed by those ordered to pay (n = 245)

NOTE: N = 350.

$9/hour $295

$16,651 $168 to$111,622

$3,144

aging $1 1,877 per case. Taken together, the average amount owed for back-due support among the 234 clients with arrears was $16,65 1 and ranged from $168 to $1 1 1,622. Under Colorado law, up to 1/24 of the amount due in arrears can be added to the monthly child support obligation as long as the total does not exceed 65% of take-home pay.

The average amount owed by 70% of WFC clients who reported being required to pay restitution was $3,144, with total amounts ranging from $30 to $70,285. In addition to child support and restitution payments, 60% of WFC clients were required to obtain substance abuse treatment, a quarter were ordered to participate in counseling, and 20% were required to attend anger management classes-interventions that can each cost up to $60 per hour (see Table 3).

INTEREST IN AND ASSISTANCE WITH VARIOUS SERVICES

More than two thirds of WFC clients (69%) indicated that they wanted help with child support. The popularity of the WFC's child support services reflects the fact that parole officers and community corrections agents tended to recommend the WFC to clients with child support problems, and the evaluation focused exclusively on clients with minor-aged children who were known to the child support agency.

Other frequently mentioned types of assistance that WFC clients wanted help with were: transportation (57%), clothing (50%), employment (47%), and housing (41%). At their ini- tia1 visit, very few reported wanting help getting to see their children or improving relationships with their children or the other parent. Given the recency of their release, it is not sur- prising that WFC clients focused on pragmatic items that were central to their survival and were less interested in dealing with the more socioemotional aspects of their lives, including seeing their children or communicating with the other parent. Ultimately, the mental health specialist reported meeting with 29% of the clients (n = 102) for individual, group, or couple counseling, and the family law attorney met with 16% of the clients (n = 57) to discuss custody and visitation issues.

EMPLOYMENT OUTCOME

In interviews with 100 WFC clients conducted 6 months after their initial visit, 54% recalled seeing an employment specialist, whereas 40% said they did not want help with finding a job or getting a better one. Clients who saw the employment specialist at the WFC


Table 4 Quurierly Earnings.for Al1 135 Work and Family Cenler (WFC) Clirnts und Employed Clienrs Seen by June 30, 2000

2 1 1 2 3 Quarters Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarters Quarters

Indicator Pre Pre Seen Post Post Post

Al1 135 clients seen before June 30,2000

Average $ 1,292 1,624 2,405 2,854 2,923 2,459 Median $ O 108 1,742 2,123 1,881 1,009

Ernploycd (%) 43 (58) 51 (69) 77 (104) 74 (100) 71 (96) 57 (77) Average $ 3,007 3,178 3,122 3,853 4,110 4,31 I Median $ 2,685 2,708 2,496 3,329 3,698 3,682

Employed clients

NOTE: Number employed in parentheses.

rated their experiences favorably, with 57% characterizing the intervention as v e v heipful, and another 3 1 % terming it somewhat helpful. Among those who saw the specialist, 20% (1 1 clients) reported that the WFC had helped them find their job. The other 89 interviewed clients had found their current job on their own.

We assessed employment activity and eamings for WFC clients prior to and following their initial visit to the WFC using quarterly wage reports filed by employers. To eliminate the possibility of confusing normal posting lags with the absence of employment activity, we limited the analysis to the earliest 135 WFC clients who were seen from August 1999 to June 30,2000, and would have had enough time to produce at least three quarters of eamings that would have been reliably posted when a final data check was done on November 1,200 1.

Only 43% showed earning activity two quarters prior to the WFC visit, reflecting the fact that many were in prison. Not unexpectedly, labor force participation increased substantially in the quarter in which clients were seen at the WFC, when it rose to 77%. Employment remained stable at 71% to 74% during the two quarters following the initial visit. But by the third quarter after the initial visit, the proportion of men with reported eamings dropped to 57%. This pattern reflects employment declines due to the return to prison, as well as job loss among those who remained in the community. Some parole officers and community corrections agents believe that the drop-off in employment activity over time reflects the switch to cash-only jobs when parole ends. As one parole oficer put it, “1 run into my old guys, and they are working as movers and with construction crews, and it is al1 cash.” On a positive note, earnings for employed clients increased following exposure to the WFC, although none of the changes were statistically significant (see Table 4).

CHILD SUPPORT OUTCOMES

Interviewed clients reported high levels of satisfaction with the child support specialist, with half of clients with open child support cases receiving some kind of responsive child support action. Two thirds met the child support technician and had an in-person explanation of his or her child support situation. About half had a wage withholding action initiated for the automatic deduction of child support. Half also experienced at least one action designed to make their child support obligations more manageable, such as a reduction in the monthly amount to be paid toward child support arrears, suspension of automated enforcement activ-

Pearson, Davis / FATHERS WHO LEAVE PRISON 315

Table 5 Child Support Pa,vment Behavior,fvr Work and Famiiy Center (WFC) Ciients Prior to and AJer Their Yisit to the WFC

Indicator 6 Months Prior 6 Months After 12 Months Afier

Mean $ due 1,824 1,746 3,674 Mean $ paid 308 68 1 1,241 Mean % paid 18 39 38 Percentage pay $0 60 25 26 Percentage pay 75% or more 10 21 18 Number of clients 212 223 110

ity, reinstatements of driver’s licenses, andor deferments in the commencement of child support collection activity for 60 or 90 days.

Despite this activity, most clients did not experience any substantial change in their child support obligations. Six months after visiting the WFC, average monthly support obligations dropped from $295 to $257 and arrears balances rose from $16,65 1 to $17,183.

Although their obligations did not change, clients paid more support after visiting the WFC, and the percentage of clients paying nothing dropped. On average, WFC clients paid 18% oftheir child support obligation in the 6 months prior to visiting the WFC and 39% was paid 6 months after their visit. The percentage paying nothing dropped from 60% to 25%. In a similar vein, the proportion of men paying nearly everything that they owed doubled from 10% to 21 %. The improvements reflect their higher rates of labor force participation among clients following their visit to the WFC and the initiation ofwage withholding. Although less than one fifth of WFC clients demonstrated any payment activity through wage withholding in the 6 months before they visited the WFC, this was the case for 64% of WFC clients with child support orders who did not return to prison in the 6 months following their visit to the WFC. It is relevant that new hire reporting laws require employers to notify child support agencies about al1 new employees they retain, and that this notification process leads to the automatic initiation of a wage withholding action (see Table 5).

RETURN TO PRISON

WFC clients returned to prison at lower rates than those reported for al1 DOC inmates. A quarter (24.8%) of WFC clients were back in prison when DOC checked its records in August 2001. Among newly released clients, the rate of return was somewhat higher and stood at 28.6%. Most of the retums were due to parole violations and infractions of niles that are temed comrnunig regressions. Although we calculate the retum to prison differently than the DOC because we include community regression as a retum, it appears that WFC clients retumed at substantially lower rates. DOC’s 1 -year recidivism rate was 40% in 1999.

CLIENT REACTIONS

Interviewed clients gave mixed accounts when asked about their life 6 months after they visited the WFC. Three quarters reported that they were “doing a better job of geíting their life together.” Two thirds said that they were better able to keep theirjob. Approximately half


reported that their life was much better than it was 6 months earlier, and that they were being a better parent. Nearly 40% said that they were doing a better job of financially supporting themselves and their children. Although these patterns are promising, many clients reported severe financial, practical, and emotional difficulties. For example, nearly al1 (85%) said they would like to spend more time with their children, half said their salary did not cover their financial needs, and about 40% reported serious transportation problems.

More than half of the interviewed clients gave the WFC an overall rating of excellent (56%), and another third rated it as good (36%). The program’s child support service gar- nered the highest ratings from clients, with about half (44%) rating the help they received as excellent or good. Most clients (66%) also credited the WFC with giving them a sense of “hope about the future.”

Other WFC services that attracted positive ratings dealt with legal outreach, referrals to community services, assistance in getting a better job, and mental health services. Ratings for help with “communication with the other parent” or “visitation with children” were lower, principally because most clients did not seek assistance with these issues and were unable to evaluate them.

DISCUSSION

This evaluation of the WFC has severa1 major limitations. As previously noted, interviews were conducted with only 28.5% of WFC clients, undoubtedly the more stable and more successful segments of the population. Although quarterly wage reports are the most reliable way to gauge employment and earnings, they miss a great deal of activity, especially among young, low-income men with a criminal history (Komfeld & Bloom, 1999). The short-time frame of the evaluation did not permit the assessment of longer-term reintegration patterns. Final ly, the evaluation lacked rigor. Attendance was voluntary. There was no group of comparable offenders who did not visit the WFC against whom clients may be fairly compared. Thus, there is no way to separate the effects ofthe program from the preexisting characteristics and motivation levels of the client body, or the other services that clients receive through their parole officers and community corrections agents. Indeed, a comparison of prison return rates for WFC clients (24.8%) with those who scheduled an appointment but failed to appear (34.4%) shows that WFC clients were more successful in remaining out of prison and potentially more predisposed to succeed than the nonserved population.

Despite these limitations, the evaluation results are consistent with the employment and recidivism pattems reported for several postrelease programs that focus on job readiness training, placement, and support (Finn, 1999). More important, as one of the first programs to offer assistance with the issues of child support and family reintegration, the evaluation results offer some clues about the appeal of these types of services and suggest steps that the WFC and other prison reintegration programs might take to enhance their effectiveness.

Multiservice interventions for paroled and released offenders should be created and supported. The WFC demonstratcs that many paroled and released offenders will voluntarily visit a facility that offers them help with the many practical, financial, and emotional chal- lenges that they face on their release. The disproportionate number of African Amencan and Hispanic men who visited the WFC suggests that reentry programs may have particular appeal to racial minorities who are heavily involved with the child support enforcement system and may lack other forms of social support. An effective reentry program must be collaborative and have good working relationships with many public and private agencies to obtain

Pearson, Davis / FATHERS WHO LEAVE PRISON 31 7

referrals and address the many needs that offenders face when they retum to the community. Previous studies have shown that services to meet offender needs are typically fragmented in the community and not comprehensively available (Rossman, 2001).

Child support assistance should be included in the mix of services offered to paroled and released offenders. Most paroled and released parents have substantial monthly child support obligations and high arrears balances. They are frequently misinformed about their obligations and unaware ofthe consequences they face if they fail to pay. New child support laws require that employers report al1 new hires to child support enforcement agencies. Once their employment is detected, they may have up to 65% of their take-home pay gamished. Those who fail to pay may experience other enforcement actions, including driver’s license suspension. The size of monthly child support obligations, debts, and the negative consequences that can ensue from failing to make payments make it imperative that child support be included in the array of reintegration services offered to paroled and released offenders.

More sustained interventions over a longer period of time are needed for paroled and released offenders to reconnect with their children and deal with family reintegration. Most clients visit the WFC once or twice soon after their release from prison. At that point in time, they are understandably focused on getting a job, minimizing their monthly child support obligations, and addressing other practica1 issues pertaining to their economic survival. Only 16% used the legal services and 29% used the mental health services available at the WFC to help them reconnect with their children or deal with the other parent. These issues persist, however, with virtually al1 WFC clients who are interviewed 6 months after their initial visit saying they would like to spend more time with their children. Reintegration programs like the WFC should consider recontacting clients and providing case management services over a longer period of time to address both the immediate issues and the longer-term concems that ex-offenders have after their work and living situations become somewhat more stabilized.

Case management and other sustained interventions over time may help to stem the employment aitrition that WFC clients appear to demonstrate over time. Although most employment attrition is dueto the retum to prison, the rate of employment for those who stay in the community begins to taper off three quarters after the WFC visit. It is unclear why some clients who do not retum to prison fail to show evidence of eamings in the quarters following their visit to the WFC. Some may have moved out of Colorado, switched to cash employment, or changed to jobs for which employers do not file quarterly wage reports. Oth- ers may simply have dropped out or become involved with the underground economy. Case management, contact by WFC staff over time, and other interventions aimed at demonstrat- ing interested supervision and oversight rnay help to keep more ex-offenders on the right track. This strategy is used by other reintegration programs. For example, Safer’s case managers, called lifeguards, have the exclusive duty to stay in touch with clients for a year after they have found a job (Finn, 1999).

The child support agency should establish more realistic support orders and arrears obligations for low-income parents. WFC clients pay an average of39% to 4 1 YO ofwhat they owe in child support in the 6 months following their meeting with a child support worker at the WFC. Although paynient behavior improves for clients after they visit the WFC, chiefly because of the initiation of wage withholding, it remains far from perfect. This pattern is identical to those found in other Colorado programs for low-income fathers that seek to promote employment and child support payment (Pearson & Davis, 2001a; Thoennes, 2002a). The similarity in payment outcomes suggests that order levels may simply be too high for low-income parents, particularly when totals are considered across their multiple cases. A


2002 change in Colorado’s formula for establishing orders for low-income parents (SB 02- 02 1) promises to result in more realistic orders. These changes and more liberal policies for review md adjustment of orders should be encouraged. Without making changes to ensure that child support orders reflect an individual’s true ability to pay, improved payment pattems will remain elusive.

Prisons should do more job training with inmates, and reintegration programs like the WFC should develop more job opportunities that offer livable wages and wage growth possi- bilities. Most WFC clients find jobs on their own, with half of those employed full-time earning less than $9.00 per hour. Wage reports filed by employers show no significant change in average total quarterly earnings among those who are employed over six calendar quarters. Most interviewed WFC clients say their income does not cover their financia1 needs. Prisons need to conduct more education and job training with prisoners so that they leave with mar- ketable skills. Indeed, a recent, large-scale study of inmates in Maryland, Minnesota, and Ohio showed that educational participation while incarcerated was associated with higher wages and lower rates of recidivism after 3 years compared with a cohort of nonparticipants (Steurer, Smith, & Tracy, 200 1). Simultaneously, reintegration programs need to generate jobs for ex-offenders that offer a livable wage and opportunities for wage growth. For example, CEO, a New York reintegration program, created its own work crews and job placement services to ensure that ex-offenders get immediate employment and transition into perma- nent jobs (Finn, 1999). Programs that fail to aggressively develop new jobs will ultimately have a limited impact on client eamings and yield disappointing results with respect to employment stability, child support payments, and recidivism. This occurs especially with the changed economy and higher rates of unemployment.

Reintegration programs like the WFC may be a promising strategy to reduce recidivism, but more rigorous research is needed. Without a control group, it is impossible to h o w how WFC clients would have fared in the absence of the program, orto separate the effects of the program from the intrinsic characteristics of the clients, their risk level, and the other interventions and services they received. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that WFC clients return to prison at substantially lower rates than the regular DOC population with the 1-year retum rate standing at 28.6% compared with the DOC’s 1-year recidivism rate of 40%. These pattems are comparable to Texas RIO project’s reincarceration rates of 23% versus 38% for non-Rio parolees (Finn, 1999). Given the cost ofrecidivism, even small reductions can have significant aggregate effects for communities and society as a whole. Criminal justice agencies and other public and private entities need to develop comprehensive, community-based rehabilitation efforts for offenders, and invest in reliable research to assess their effectiveness.

NOTES

1. According to U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 93% of parents in prison are male (Mumola, 2000). Furthermore, the majority of noncustodial parents are fathers. Therefore, we will sometimes use male pronouns when referring to the generic incarcerated parent.

2. The evaluation was prepared under Grant No. 90-FD-0033, Collecting Child Support From lncarceratcd and Paroled Obligors, from the Federal Offce of Child Support Enforcement to the Colorado Department of Human Services.

3. Considered are the experiences of 270 other clients seenat the WFC during this time period who eitherdid not have minor-aged children or had children but no case on file with the Colorado child support agency.

Pearson, Davis / FATHERS WHO LEAVE PRISON 3 19

REFERENCES

Adalist-Estrin, A., & Mustin, J. (2003). Responding io children andfamilies ofprisoners: A communitygiride. Pal- myra, VA: Families and Corrections Network.

Beck, A. J. (2000). Siate andfederalprisoners returning to the community: Findings from /he Bureau ofJustice Sra- tistics. Paper presented at the First Reentry Courts initiative Cluster Meeting, Washington, DC.

Beck, A. J., & Karberg, J. (2002). Prison andjuil inmares ut midyear 2001 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bulletin, NCJ 191702). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Buck, M. (2000). Getting back to work: Employment programs ./or ex-oflender.s. Philadelphia: PublicíPrivate Ventures.

Califomia Department ofCorrections. (1997). Preventingparole,failureprogrum: An evaluation. Sacramento: Cal- ifornia Department of Corrections.

Colorado Department of Corrections. (2001, June). Fiscal Year 2000 Staiisticul Report. Colorado Springs, CO: Author.

Dietrich, S . M. (2002). Criminal records and employment: Ex-offenders thwarted in attempts to eam a living for their families. In A. E. Hirsch, S. Dietrich, R. Landau. P. Schneider, 1. Ackelsberg, J. Bemstein-Baker, & J. Hohenstein (Eds.), Every door closed: Barriers,facingpavt.nts with criminal records. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.

Field, G . (1998, Octoher). From the institution to the community. Corrections Today, pp. 94-97. Finn, P. ( 1 999). Job placement,for offenders: A promising approach to redircing recidivism and correctional costs.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice Joumal Haberkern, R. M. (2003, March). Helping parents with criminal records find employment and achieve self-

sufficiency (Issue Notes). Wevare ínformation Netnwk, 7(4). Hairston, C. F. (1995). Fathers in prison. in D. Johnston & K. Gabler (Eds.), Children of incarceratedpurents.

Lexington, M A : Lexington Books. Hairston, C. E (1998). The forgotten parent: Understanding the forces that influence incarcerated fathers’relation-

ships with their children. Child Weljare: Journal of Policy, Practice and Pmgrarn, 77(5), 61 7-639. Hairston, C. F. (200 1). Prisoners andfamilies: Purenting issues during incarceration. Paper presented at National

Policy Conference, From Prison to Home: The Effect of lncarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and Communities, Washington, DC.

Jeffries, J. M., Menghraj, S., & Hairston, C. F. (2001). Serving incarceruredandex-o~enderjalhers undiheirfami- lies: A review qf thefield. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

Johnson, E. S., Levine, A., & Doolittle, F. C. (1999). Fathers’fair shavt.: Helpingpoormen manage childsupport and, fatherhood. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Johnson, T., Selber, K., & Lauderdale, M. (1998). Developing quality scrvices for offenders and families: An innc- vative partnership. Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice and Program, 77,595-6 15.

Kornfeld, R., & Bloom, H. S. (1999). Measuring program impacts on eamings and employment: Do unemployment insurance wage reports from employers agree with surveys of individuals?Journal oflabor Economics, Z 7, l .

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

Morgan, L. (1 998). Child support guidelines, inierpreiation and applicaiion. 1998 supplement. New York: Aspen Law & Business.

Mumola, C. J. (2000). Incarceratedparenis and their children (Bureau ofJustice Statistics, Special Report No. NCJ 182335). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Mustin, J. W. (1998). Serving families qfudult offenders: A directoy ofprograms. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart- ment of Justice, National lnshtute of Corrections.

Nelson, M., Deess, P., & Allen, C. (1 999). Thqfirstmonth out: Post-incarceraiion experience in New York City. New York Vera Institute of Justice.

Nelson, M., & Trone, J. (2000). Whyplunning for releuse maiiers. New York: Vera Institute of Justice. Pager, D. (2002). The mark of a criminal records. Chicago: Northwestem University, Department of Sociology. Pearson, J., & Davis, L. (2001a). Final report on /he Work and Family Center. Denver, CO: Center for Policy

Pearson, J., & Davis, L. (200 1 b). Parent program: Preliminury report-People achieving responsibility through

Pearson, J., & Griswold, E. (2002). Incarcerated parents and child support. Policy andPraciice, 60, 4.

Research.

educution, nurturing and training. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research.


Pearson, J., & Hardaway, C. (2000). Designingpmgrams for incarcerated andparoled obligors (Expanded case study, Welfare Information Network, Vol. 1, No. 2). Retrieved from www.weflareinfo.org

Pearson, J., Thoennes, N., Price, D., & Venohr, J. (2000). OCSE responsible fatherhoodprograms: Early implemen- tation lessons. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research.

Roberts, P. (2001). An ounce ofprevention andapoundofcure: Developingstatepolicy on thepa,vmenrofchildsup- port arrears by low incomeparents. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.

Rossman, S. (200 1 ). Services integration: Strengtheningoflenders andfamilies. whilepmmoting community health andsafety. Paper prepared for National Policy Conference, From Pnson to Home: The Effect of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families and Communities, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.

Sachs, H. (2000). Supporí services for incarcerated and released noncustodial parents. Werfare Injormation Net- work, Issue Notes, 4(6). Retrieved from http://www.weflareinfo.org

Steurer, S., Smith, L., & Tracy, A. (2001). Three state recidivism mdy. Lanham, MD: Correctional Education Association.

Thoennes, N. (2002a). Childsupportprofile: Massachusetts incarcerated andparoledpurents. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research.

Thoennes, N. (2002b). The El Paso Counv Pareni Opporluniv Projecr (POP): An evaluation. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research.

Travis, J., Solomon, A. L., & Waul, M. (2001). Fromprison ío home: The dimensions andconsequences ojprisoner reentty. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Wozniak, F. J. (1995). Annotation: Loss ojincome due to incarceration uffecting childsupport obligation, 27 ALR 5th 540.

Jessica Pearson is a director al the Center for Policy Research in Denver, Colorado.

Lanae Davis is a research associate at the Center for Policy Research in Denver, Colorado.

Documents

SERVING FATHERS WHO LEAVE PRISON