The Intersection of Paternal Incarceration and Child Maltreatment Risk: A Call for Holistic Reentry Support

Background: With the majority (93%) of incarcerated males as fathers, an estimated 1.1 million children have a father in prison or jail. Due to a reduction in resources and support, children of incarcerated fathers are at risk of negative consequences including an increase in child welfare involvement. Such a relationship is associated with four factors: (1) reduction of economic stability; (2) an increase of family instability; (3) reduction of maternal wellbeing and support; and (4) poorer post incarceration parenting, all of which are related to an increased risk of child maltreatment. Yet few, if any, reentry programs support positive parenting practices, while also meeting necessary reentry needs. Therefore, this study uses families’ lived experience of the criminal justice system to conceptualize holistic reentry program design and services that promote entire family wellbeing.

Methods: Fathers of a child (12 or younger) released from prison or jail (within the last 12 months) and mothers and relatives connected to eligible fathers were recruited for focus group participation through purposeful and snowball sampling. Six focus groups were conducted with formerly incarcerated fathers (n=15) and co-parenting mothers and relatives (n=8), using semi-structured interview guides supplemented with a background survey completed by each participant. The focus groups lasted between 1-1 ½ hours, discussing fatherhood and incarceration, post-release relationship reconnection with partner(s) and child(ren), reentry barriers, and desired family-focused reentry services. The focus groups were transcribed, coded and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results: Results indicate fathers’ drive to parent while navigating emotional stress and motivation, disrupted relationships, and multiple individual and systemic reentry barriers. The experience of incarceration was discussed as contributing to the father’s internal trauma and emotional state. Many participants felt that fathers needed to re-learn healthy parent-child relationships and parenting roles. Additionally, systemic issues of “ex-con” stigma, post-release supervision, child support arrears, and economic and housing instability were discussed as impacting fathers’ ability to successfully parent in reentry. Participants described the desire for family-focused reentry support, including resource access, individual and family mental health and parent programming. Finally, participants offered input about appropriate program timing and duration, incentives (child-care, food, family activities) and characteristics (peer support, family involvement) that would motivate participation.

Conclusions and Implications: Understanding the negative impacts paternal incarceration has on economic and family stability, maternal wellbeing, and post-incarceration parenting quality may inform the development of more robust interventions that support parents involved with the criminal justice system and their children at risk of maltreatment. Reentry program supports rarely address such risk factors associated with paternal incarceration and child maltreatment. Therefore, a holistic, wraparound, parenting program that encompasses positive parenting education and addresses parental stressors may in fact result in more positive outcomes by either directly or indirectly alleviating maltreatment risk factors. This study highlights the lived experience of paternal incarceration, accounting for individual and family needs, with implications for social work research, practice and policy efforts that address the needs of criminal justice and child welfare involved families.