Interactive Knowledge Map: The Effects of Parenting Programs for Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers

Improving parenting outcomes for fathers with criminal justice involvement can be a challenge for RF programs. To help RF programs better serve these fathers, we summarize the impact literature on parenting programs for incarcerated and reentering fathers. First, we describe parenting programs for incarcerated and reentering fathers, including the populations they serve and the types of services they offer. Second, we highlight what is known about the effectiveness of these programs from studies of parenting programs for incarcerated and reentering fathers that measured program effects relative to a comparison group. Third, we discuss how the RF field can use this evidence to strengthen parenting services for fathers with criminal justice involvement.

Our review of the impact literature on parenting programs for incarcerated and reentering fathers yielded five key findings:

1. Programs were most successful at improving fathers’ contact with their child and parenting skills, attitudes, and knowledge. Of the ten studies we reviewed, eight found favorable impacts on outcomes related to fathers’ contact with their child and fathers’ parenting skills, attitudes, and knowledge. These outcomes included the frequency of phone calls and interactions with their child and fathers’ knowledge of child development and effective discipline techniques.
2. We know less about impacts on fathers’ relationship quality with their child and impacts on child well-being, outcomes that are central to the goals of parenting programs. Four of the 10 studies we reviewed examined impacts on fathers’ relationship quality with their child and 3 examined impacts on child well-being. Among these studies, only one found favorable impacts in these outcome domains.
3. Few studies examined impacts on fathers’ economic stability or financial support of their child. Three studies examined outcomes related to fathers’ economic stability or financial support of their child, and one found favorable impacts in these outcome domains.
4. Although several studies examined outcomes related to fathers’ personal well-being and relationship quality with a coparent, most found no impacts in these domains. Even though most of the programs we reviewed addressed topics related to fathers’ personal wellbeing—such as recidivism and substance use—and healthy relationships, few studies found significant impacts on fathers’ outcomes in these domains.
5. There is limited evidence on programs offered in a community setting, programs that include children or coparents in services, or programs that offer individual services. Most of the programs we reviewed served fathers in prison or jail, did not included children or coparents in services, and delivered services solely through group sessions. As a result, this body of literature provides limited evidence on the effects of working with fathers after they reenter the community, including children or coparents in services, or working individually with fathers.

We identified and reviewed 10 studies of parenting programs for incarcerated and reentering fathers that measured program effects relative to a comparison group generated either through random assignment or matching using a quasi-experimental design. To summarize the evidence from these 10 studies, we developed an evidence and gaps map. The map shows impacts of the programs included in our review on eight outcome domains. It also shows how these impacts varied across program features, such as the setting in which programs were delivered, whether children or other coparents participated alongside fathers in services, the types of services delivered, program length, and topics covered by the program.

Alamillo, J., B. Williams, and S. Avellar. (2021). The Effects of Parenting Programs for Incarcerated and Reentering Fathers. OPRE Report 2021-140. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.