Relationship Education for Incarcerated Adults

• Author: Kate Taylor Harcourt,Amy Rauer,Francesca Adler‐Baeder,Gregory S. Pettit,Stephen Erath
• Date: 01 March 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12164
• Published date: 01 March 2017

Relationship Education for Incarcerated Adults

KATE TAYLOR HARCOURT*

FRANCESCA ADLER-BAEDER

†

AMY RAUER

†

GREGORY S. PETTIT

†

STEPHEN ERATH

†

As relationship education (RE) programs become more widely implemented, it is impor-

tant to measure and document the changes associated with RE for diverse audiences. Also,

researchers have been challenged to examine the impact of RE with more disadvantaged

groups. While we are seeing an increase in this area, only three studies have examined RE

with an incarcerated sample. These previous studies examined only those currently in a

relationship and focused primarily on couple functioning. The aim of this study was to

expand the existing literature by examining RE with a broader sample of inca rcerated

adults, regardless of current relationship status, and to expand our understanding of its

association with outcomes beyond the couple domain by also including measures of indi-

vidual and parental functioning. In addition, we examined whether change from pre- to

posttest was moderated by individual characteristics. Using a sample of incarcerated

adults (N=122), the study found positive change in three domains of functioning (couple,

individual, and parental). Specifically, results indicated change on five of the eight out-

come variables examined. Overall, we found both similarities and differences among pro-

gram participants on changes from pre- to posttest. For the majority of outcomes, the

positive change from pre- to posttest emerged regardless of individual charact eristics.

Keywords: Relationship Educa tion; Incarceration; Recidivism; Healthy Relationships

Fam Proc 56:75–90, 2017

INTRODUCTION

The growing incarceration rate in the United States has spurred a large body of

research on the impact of incarceration on individuals, families, and children (e.g.,

Einhorn et al., 2008; Shamblen, Arnold, Mckiernan, Collins, & Strader, 2013). The rapid

increase since the 1970s has led the United States into a time that many are deeming as

“an era of mass incarceration” (e.g., Clear, 2007). Recent estimates suggest that over

2.2 million adults are currently housed in U.S. federal and state prisons (Cloud, Parsons,

&Delaney-Brumsey, 2014). Of those incarcerated, over 50% of males and over 60% of

*East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.

†

Auburn University, Auburn, AL.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kate Taylor Harcourt, Assistant Profes-

sor, East Carolina University, 332 Rivers West, Greenville, NC 27858. E-mail: harcourtk14@ecu.edu

Funding for this project was provided primarily through a grant from the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services—Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant #90FM0006. The opinions, findings, and

conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s)/presenter(s) and do

not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Admin-

istration for Children and Families.

75

Family Process, Vol. 56, No. 1, 2017 ©2015 Family Process Institute

doi: 10.1111/famp.12164

females are parents, making the incarceration epidemic an important influen ce on family

lives in the United States (Travis, McBride, & Solomon, 2005).

As incarceration rates continue to rise, so does the number of prisoners being released

each year. Unfortunately, it is estimated that within 3 years of release, two thirds of these

prisoners will be rearrested, with nearly 50% returning to prison with new sentences

(Langan & Levin, 2002). Increased attention is being paid to prison programming imple-

mented to enhance individual skills linked to successful reentry (e.g., Einhorn et al., 2008;

Mears, Cochran, Siennick, & Bales, 2012). Many programs focus on vocational training

and educational attainment; however, a growing number emphasize family relationships

and social supports. More specifically, recent programs target the adult relationships of

inmates (i.e., couple and coparenting), given that recent research suggests that those who

maintain strong, healthy family relationships are more likely to successfully reintegrate

into society after release (e.g., Berg & Huebner, 2011; Laub & Sampson, 1993). Research

on family programs and their effects for prisoners, however, is limited due to several

impediments—such as restrictive prison policies, logistical challenges, and limited fund-

ing (Haney, 2001; Mulroy, 2012). Only a handful of studies of the effectiveness of family

programs for prisoners have been published and only three published studies of relation-

ship education (RE) exist (Accordino & Guerney, 1998; Einhorn et al., 2008; Shamblen

et al., 2013). These RE evaluation studies were limited to a sample of prisoners who were

currently in a relationship and the majority attended with their partner. Findings indi-

cated positive change on measures of relationship functioning after class participation.

Despite an emphasis at the federal level on the importance of efforts to enhance the

family relationships of prisoners (McKay et al., 2010; White House Domestic Policy Coun-

cil, 2014), this evaluation research is in its infancy. Prison program evaluation studies are

largely a theoretical. In addition, the need for assessing the impact these programs have

on interpersonal skills and relationship quality for a broader population of prisoners con-

tinues to gain attention (e.g., Einhorn et al., 2008; Mears, Wang, Hay, & Bales, 2008). The

current study advances the literature on RE efficacy in general, and on family-focused

prison programs specifically. We incorporated aspects of life course theory and examined

the experiences of a diverse group of adult prisoners who participated in a RE program.

The focus was on determining the relationship between the program and outcomes in mul-

tiple domains—couple, individual, and parental functioning—as well as on whether indi-

vidual characteristics moderated these program outcomes.

THE INFLUENCE OF FAMILIES ON PRISONERS

The current study was guided by Laub and Sampson’s (1993) age-graded theory of

informal social control (also Sampson, Laub, & Wimer, 2006), a derivative of the life course

theory, which emphasizes the importance of turning points and—important for the cur-

rent study—the importance of social relationships in altering the trajectory of offenders.

Laub and Sampson argue that transitions themselves do not necessarily affect criminality ,

but rather it is the extent to which these transitions are associated with informal social

control. That is, transitions effect change in criminal trajectories (i.e., become turning

points) by influencing the strength of social ties (Matsueda & Heimer, 1997). Incarceration

is a critical event and for many prisoners it signifies a turning point in their lives (Mar-

una, 2001). Whether or not this turning point results in positive or negative change, how-

ever, may depend on several factors, including the extent to which social supports have

been sustained and whether or not the prisoner has the knowledge and skills necessary to

maintain these social supports and reintegrate into society (e.g., Laub & Sampson, 1993).

Scholars have devoted considerable attention to identifying factors that affect prisoner

reintegration (e.g., Mears et al., 2012) and to understanding persistence in and desistance

www.FamilyProcess.org

76

/

FAMILY PROCESS