Fatherhood, Community Reintegration, and Successful Outcomes

Abstract

Prior research indicates that assuming family roles, such as parent or spouse, can aid in the transition from prison to the community and has been linked to positive outcomes after a period of confinement. Using data from a longitudinal study of men returning to the community after incarceration, this study examines how the relationship between fathers and their children immediately after release may impact aspects of fathers' lives that are important to a successful reentry transition in the first year, such as employment, abstinence from substance abuse, and mental health. Analyses show that fathers who lived with children before incarceration and had regular contact with their children during their incarceration were more likely to be involved with their children after release. Moreover, fathers who were more involved with their children in the first few months after release, when interviewed again at 8 months out, worked more hours per week, were less likely to use illicit drugs, and were less likely to commit crime, get arrested, or violate conditions of their supervision.

KEYWORDS:

• crime
• employment
• fathers
• incarceration
• substance use

Acknowledgments

This article stems from a larger research effort at The Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center. The authors would like to thank Nancy La Vigne and Jennifer Yahner for their longstanding involvement in the project. The data used in this analysis were collected by Research Support Services directed by Alisu Schoua-Glusberg (Ohio) and NuStats directed by Robert Santos (Texas).

This research was funded through the generous support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, JEHT Foundation, Cleveland Foundation, Houston Endowment, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, George Gund Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services, and The Urban Institute. Lastly, the authors would like to thank the fathers who shared their experiences, opinions, and expectations with us. Without their willingness to share the details of their lives, this study would not have been possible.

Notes

*p < .05. **p < .01. †p < .10.

*p < .05. **p < .01. †p < .10.

This scale and all other scales used here are standard Urban Institute composite measures. For parsimony and to remain consistent with other studies (e.g., Visher, 2011), these scales are entered into the model as a single, combined item rather than with their individual components.

An alternative model that incorporated case weights to address attrition differences in the sample was also analyzed. Using these case weights did not change the substantive conclusions reached, but did result in a slightly poorer model fit. Because both models reach the same conclusions, the model with the better fit is the one presented here. In neither model were any variables added or removed to trim or otherwise alter the model; the theoretically driven models were tested without postanalysis modifications.

Due to the small sample size and the exploratory nature of this area of study, the results presented include effects that are marginally significant, also referred to as trending towards significant, in which the probability of erroneously concluding that there is an effect is larger (p < .10) than usually acceptable (p < .05). Marginal significance is reported here to avoid dismissing potentially important effects simply because of the small sample size, though these effects should not be assumed to be genuinely significant until further research can verify these findings.