1
SUPPORTING FAMILIES AFTER PARENTAL INCARCERATION: PRACTICES OF
HUMAN SERVICE PROFESSIONALS
Chapter 1: Introduction to Studies
Introduction
There has been a significant increase in the number of children in the United
States who have experienced parental incarceration over the last decade (Glaze &
Maruschak, 2008; Murray & Murray, 2010; Walmsley, Aebi, & Shinkai, 2006). Miller
(2006) reported that the unprecedented 3.8% annual growth of the U.S. prison
population has resulted in a growing number of children with incarcerated parents (p.
472). As the incarceration rate of men and women in the United States continues to rise,
families are increasingly facing challenges and difficulties related to parental
incarceration (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008)
.Negative Impact of Parental Detention
Families with incarcerated parents face significant social and practical
disruptions. Children may be placed in the child welfare system and endure the stress of
having a parent in prison (La Vigne, Davies, & Brazzell, 2008). Aaron and Dallaire
(2010) noted that children of incarcerated parents are at higher risk for academic and
behavioral issues, exposure to drug use, engaging in substance use themselves,
delinquency, poverty, violence, and elevated levels of non-conformity.
La Vigne et al. (2008) emphasized that "the process of detachment and
reintegration is a stressful time" (p. 5). Murray and Murray (2010) highlighted that
parental incarceration poses numerous challenges for children, potentially threatening
their sense of attachment security. They also advocate for tailored interventions to
protect the well-being of prisoners' children.
2
Carefully designed research on parental incarceration is critical for building a
robust evidence base to inform social and criminal policies that support children and
families affected by incarceration (Murray & Murray, 2010). Human service
professionals play a vital role in delivering supportive and therapeutic services to
families, children, and incarcerated individuals. This underscores the importance of
developing and implementing a practice model that provides clear expectations,
guidelines, and mandates to ensure effective service delivery.
The Role of Social Workers
Cnaan, Draine, Frazier, and Sinha (2008) emphasize the need for social workers
to develop programs, stating:
The "social work profession" must defend, support, and facilitate the full
participation of the most marginalized populations in society. The social work profession
must embrace the growing population of ex-convicts with challenges and develop
appropriately coordinated, relevant, and accessible programs to aid their successful
reintegration into families, communities, sustainable living-wage work, and civic duty.
(p. 194)
Families impacted by parental incarceration present social workers with the
challenge of facilitating the reintegration of parents into the family unit and supporting
the family during this process. My study examined certain social work practices,
including family group conferences (FGCs; Stewart, Hayes, Livingston, & Palk, 2008),
which have been used with the specific population this research focused on
3
FGC Background
Family Group Conferencing (FGC) is defined as a meeting involving family
members, social service practitioners, and other community stakeholders who collaborate
to address issues of concern (Connolly, 2009). FGC originated from a community model
rooted in Maori culture in New Zealand and other Indigenous traditions. It was
introduced into social work practice to bridge the cultural gap between Maori
communities and service providers in child abuse cases (Chandler & Giovannucci, 2004).
Legislation passed in New Zealand in 1989 established FGC as a critical component in
decision-making processes for cases involving serious issues affecting children
(Connolly, 2009). In these cases, the primary objective of FGC meetings was to create
protection plans for children who had been victims of abuse. Families are encouraged to
take the lead in decision-making about their lives, a common goal of all FGCs, regardless
of the specific context.
According to Connolly (2009), the child welfare system has undergone a
significant shift. This transition is referred to as "family preservation" in the United
States, "family participation" in the United Kingdom, and "family decision-making" in
New Zealand. Despite the different terminologies, the shared focus is on increasing
family involvement in decisions that affect their systems. Globally, this shift is
recognized as family-centered practice (Connolly, 2009, p. 309).
Researchers have identified diverse applications of the FGC model (Chandler &
Giovannucci, 2004; Lubin, 2009). For instance, in the criminal justice system, FGC is
viewed as a restorative justice approach that emphasizes the impact of crime on victims.
Marshall (1999) describes FGC as "a process in which all parties with an interest in a
particular violation come together to collectively decide how to deal with the
4
consequences of a violation and its implications for the future" (p. 5). Social workers in
the criminal justice system are often tasked with applying clinical skills and knowledge
to work with prisoners and their families (Mumford & Sanders, 2011). This may include
facilitating groups that adopt FGC practices as a core methodology.
In social work, Lubin (2009) characterizes FGC as a collaboration involving
families, agencies, service providers, and the state. The model is widely regarded as a
tool for family preservation and restorative justice (Sundell, Vinnerljung, & Ryburn,
2001). Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of FGC in addressing challenges and
resolving conflicts. Lubin (2009) found that FGC could significantly reduce instances of
abuse and decrease the number of children in the U.S. welfare system when applied
systematically. Chandler and Giovannucci (2004) highlight data from the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, which indicates that FGC often achieves
its desired outcomes. These include increasing family involvement in decision-making,
ensuring family members' safety, and enhancing the capacity of families and
communities to solve problems collaboratively.
Additionally, studies emphasize the cultural competency of the FGC model.
Chandler and Giovannucci (2004) note that it fosters a sense of identity for children and
affirms the cultural diversity of families within their communities. According to
Connolly (2006), the success of FGC depends on several factors, including the vested
interests of all participants and the involvement of community and family stakeholders in
addressing the issues at hand.
Adams and Chandler (2004) reference Braithwaite’s (2002) pyramid model,
which is applied to the criminal justice system. In this context, FGC focuses on
addressing crimes and their impact on victims. Social workers in the criminal justice field
5
must train their clinical expertise and knowledge to support prisoners and their families
effectively (Mumford & Sanders, 2011), often employing FGC as a foundational
practice.
Family Resilience
A stable, or resilient, family is the foundation of society. Benzies and Mychasiuk
(2009) and Connolly (2006) stated that there are protective factors that support family
resilience and identify these factors according to where they are in the ecological model
using three subcategories: individual, family, and community. Protective factors as
indicated by Benzies and Mychasiuk are provided in Table 1.
Researchers have shown that parental detention can significantly disrupt family
stability and resilience because it can affect many of these protective factors. Thus, the
implications for social work practices with families after parental detention are
significant. Researchers have previously investigated recidivist parents. However, less
research has focused on what is needed regarding social work practices to influence
social change in this population. How professionals can meet the needs of families who
have experienced parental detention significantly affects service delivery and the overall
impact on society. Thoughts on how families can
6
Better service and how one can contribute to family stability is essential. Leadership and
family empowerment are the operational themes of FGC (Chandler & Giovannucci,
2004), and FGC can provide therapeutic interventions that support family resilience.
Table 1
Three Subcategories of Protective Factors
Person Family Community
Internal control locus Family structure Community involvement
Emotional regulation Stability of intimate
partner relationships
Peer acceptance
Trust system Family cohesion Supportive mentors
Self-efficacy Supportive parent-child
interaction
Safe environment
Effective coping skills Stimulating environment Access to quality schools,
daycare
Improving education, skills,
and training
Social support Access to quality
healthcare
Health Influence of the family of
origin
Temperament Stable and adequate
income
Gender Adequate housing
Note. Adapted from "Building Family Resilience: A Review of Key Protective Factors,"
by K. Benzies and P. Mychasiuk, 2009, Child & Family Social Work, 14(1), p.
105. Copyright 1991 by John Wiley and Sons.
Bazemore and Maruna (2009) emphasized that research on FGC in the criminal
justice arena is still limited. The study provides additional support and findings relevant
to the re-entry process by identifying social work practices using FGC after parental
incarceration.
7
Problem Statement
The problem is the lack of information to assist humanitarian service
professionals in implementing FGC practices to help post-incarcerated parents to
reintegrate into their families, homes, and communities. Families often need such help,
and social workers do not have adequate evidence-based practices to guide them. Social
workers are employed in a variety of institutions that provide therapeutic services;
however, the literature provides little evidence to support the use of FGC.
In the past, exploring the essence of the experiences of social workers and other
human service professionals has provided the insights necessary to establish best
practices and guidelines in this field. Baker, Stephens, and Hitchcock (2010) assert that
practice evaluation is an important component of evidence-based social work practices
and that social work practice evaluation is underutilized. However, best practices for
FGC interventions remain a mystery. Understanding the experience of social workers in
a particular arena and social work practices is essential to the research process and the
results in this study. The best social work practices that utilize FGC for families trying to
reintegrate after parental detention are determined by increased understanding of social
work experiences and practices. Researchers have previously shown that identifying
these practices greatly improves the knowledge, skills, and abilities of social workers as
resilience development occurs.
Study Objectives
The purpose of this study is to explore the roles, activities, and practices of
social workers who have used FGC, also referred to as restorative justice,
8
and thus inform best practices for these individuals when working with family
reintegration after parental detention. The initial focus of this study was only on social
workers. After gaining participants, the sample population includes other human services
professionals. Fifteen human service professionals who had experience working with
families after parental detention using the FGC were interviewed to identify the essence
of their processes and guidelines. I collected, analyzed, and evaluated data obtained from
humanitarian service professionals involved in FGC clinical interventions that resulted
in positive reintegration, stabilization, and positive outcomes. Miller (2006) suggests
that the short-term and long-term effects of parental detention are difficult to measure.
Some programs that provide services seem to have a positive effect; however, service
providers face the challenge of identifying best practices due to the lack of reliable
statewide data collection on prison populations (Miller, 2006). Thus, the sample of the
study I selected included social workers and humanitarian service professionals who had
worked with families who had reintegrated after parental detention and who used FGC
as a service modality.
Broader utilization of the FGC delivery model identified in the U.S. criminal
justice system could prove beneficial to clients, the system, and the community. Such a
model can help practitioners realize their goals to empower clients and ensure that they
become productive individuals (Wilson, Gonzalez, Romero, Henry, & Cerbana, 2010).
According to Connolly (2006), FGC can provide many opportunities for families to
solve problems relevant to family success, productivity, character building, and
preservation.
9
Evidence-based interventions that use gender-specific, developmentally-
appropriate, and culturally sensitive treatment modalities are areas of practice that require
further development (Netting & O'Connor, 2008). Social workers have the necessary
skills to inform others about how they are practicing professionally. It is their
professional experience and knowledge that provides clarification, understanding, and
support about the practices used (Netting & O'Connor, 2008). Sheafor (2011) establishes
that social workers must have the ability to provide objective evidence to support the
practice.
However, some social workers oppose the idea of evidence-based evaluation, scientific
inquiry, and other formal means for validation and affirmation of practices (Sheafor,
2011). Sheafor further indicated that the research will help influence social change by
providing empirical evidence without sacrificing the quality of services provided to
specific populations. The outcome I would like is that the findings from this study will
help practitioners develop and implement FGC as a practice after parental incarceration.
Impact on Social Change
The study influences social change by providing relevant information to human
services professionals that includes strategies for families and their reintegration after
incarceration. This knowledge can be used to assist and inform the development and
implementation of FGC program modules for specific service delivery. Evidence is
needed to validate social work practices as well as the practices of others employed in
this arena.
Reintegration is difficult after many changes in the lives of individuals or the average
person. Many areas of social services (military, elderly, mental health, etc.) have
10
resources available for community-based support (Griswold & Pearson, 2005). Former
perpetrators face many restrictions and fewer resources to help with reintegration. The
results of this study can help develop the role of social workers in the use of FGC to
reintegrate incarcerated parents into their families and communities.
Nature of Research
I conducted exploratory studies using a phenomenological approach to help
provide insight into the use of FGC by social workers with families after incarceration in
an effort to develop resilience within families. Phenomenological research methods help
in identifying and understanding through the exploration of the essence of experience.
Beck (1990) stated that phenomenology is the study of experience through
understanding the structure, essence, and context of individual subjective experiences.
The individual in this case is a humanitarian service professional who has worked with
families who have experienced parental detention. In an effort to influence social change,
social workers must seek to identify practices that have had a positive impact on families.
Moustakas (1994) indicates that when using phenomenological studies that
researchers distance themselves from making assumptions, focus on a particular topic in
a fresh and naïve way, construct questions or problems to guide the research, and obtain
findings that will provide a basis for continuing research and reflection. The
phenomenon explored in this study is the role of social workers in facilitating FGC. I
interviewed a sample of 15 human service professionals who had experience working
with families using FGC after parental incarceration. The interviewee allows collection
and analysis
11
data from case records, their memories, and reflections to identify existing FGC
processes, practices, and guidelines. This is discussed in depth in Chapter 3.
Operational Definition
Best practice: defined as guidelines set for professional social workers. These
guidelines present expectations and appropriate service delivery for the specific group
served. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Best Practices for
Supervision (2013) states that it is important that all social workers are equipped with the
necessary skills to provide competent and ethical social work services and protect clients.
Evidence-based practices/interventions: described by Netting & O'Connor
(2008) as practitioners who recognize client values and then use the most promising
research to guide program, organization, community, and policy activities to facilitate
change.
FGC: defined as the practice that brings together all parties affected by the same
or similar problem guaranteeing the resolution, mediation, and in some cases restorative
justice (Malmberg-Heimonen, 2011). It has also been defined as a transformative
practice of the child welfare system that encourages new collaborations between
families, child welfare practitioners, and the courts (Chandler & Giovannucci, 2004).
The re-entry model: defined as the incarcerated transition into families and
communities. Various factors influence the re-entry model (Griswold & Pearson, 2005).
12
Reintegration: defined as an individual returning to their home community and
beginning the process of becoming a productive member. Griswold and Pearson (2005)
determined that an effective reintegration program guarantees former actors who receive
assistance to meet expectations of reintegration into society because assistance
(described as problems and services) is necessary for effective and successful
reintegration.
Restorative justice: defined as a technique that plays an important role in bringing
about change in a way that helps perpetrators take ownership of their behavior or crimes.
It is assumed that taking possession is a bigger task/change than simply completing the
punishment (Bazemore & Maruna, 2009).
Social work: defined as a self-proclaimed value-based profession that bases its
status on a combination of scientific principles and normative judgment (Reisch &
Gorin, 2001).
Social work practice: defined by the International Federation of Social Workers
(as quoted in Reisch & Gorin, 2001, p. 1133) as promoting social change, human
empowerment, and emancipation by integrating data-driven research and analysis with
the principles of human rights and social justice. According to NASW (2013), it consists
of the professional application of social work values, principles, and techniques to one or
more of the following objectives: helping people obtain real services; counseling and
psychotherapy with individuals, families, and groups; helping communities or groups
provide or improve social and health services; and participating in legislative processes.
13
Assumptions, Constraints, and Scope
Initially, the scope of this study was limited to U.S. social workers who met the
following criteria: graduated from an accredited social work school; hold a bachelor's
degree in social work, master of social work, doctor of social work, doctor of philosophy
in social work, or be a licensed clinical social worker; has used or is using FGC as an
intervention technique; and have experience working with families after parental
detention. I assume that all practitioners participating in this study followed the social
work protection measures that have been implemented in many U.S. states and ensured
that each social worker met the governing competencies. Because of the professional title
used, many practitioners who provide services are not social workers. However, they
hold degrees in human services such as psychology, counseling, and the like. Therefore,
the interviewed population represents a wider range of those in the humanitarian service
profession and also includes social workers.
Skeleton
The problem addressed in this study is the absence of guidelines or best practices
for social workers who use FGC to help families facing reintegration after parental
detention. Social workers deal with many problems without adequate insight or model
their role in facilitating family resilience using this modality with this specific
population. Social work is a diverse profession. Diversity gives professional social
workers many opportunities to integrate many theoretical frameworks.
14
The theoretical framework for this study is the family resilience theory of
Dallaire (2007) and Walsh (2003) combined with ecological and family development
perspectives (Braescu, 2011). Resilience theory focuses on the ability of vulnerable
populations to respond to crises and recover/respond to situations in their lives. This
theory states that individuals are able to cope with negative situations in their lives. This
does not mean that this population is not affected by difficulties; People seem to have
coping skills that allow them to move on with their lives.
When applying this theory to a specific population, the focus is on what can be learned
that will help social workers engage clients by leveraging resilience and ecological
frameworks.
According to Dallaire (2007), risk and resilience theory is a useful framework for
considering how parental detention can be associated with intergenerational incarceration
patterns as well as the differential implications of maternal and paternal incarceration.
Children with incarcerated parents may be particularly vulnerable to poor outcomes due
to their exposure to various economic, social, or sociodemographic risk factors such as
poverty and single parents (Dallaire, 2007). Walsh (2003) provides a description of the
resilience framework of the family as a family seen in relation to the broader
sociocultural context and evolution during the multigenerational life cycle and, while
acknowledging each family as different, there are some similarities to respond
appropriately (p. 3).
Acknowledging Dallaire (2007) and Walsh's (2003) explanation of the family
resilience framework provides an opportunity for the application of this framework to
this study. Leveraging the family resilience framework provides
15
an opportunity to examine the experience of social workers using them in practice. This
is discussed in depth in Chapter 2.
When working with families who have experienced parental detention, the goal of
social workers is to facilitate family reintegration after the incarcerated parents have been
released. Detention creates trauma (risk factors) for families (ecological theory and
family development). Durability is a protective factor. This may also be the main strength
of the family. Strength provides a foundation built on acceptance and expressed love
articulated in FGC sessions.
FGC is a protective process that uses the existing strength (resilience) of the
original family bond as the basis for the transformation from a state of risk to a state of
resilience. The process in this conference is reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite, 1989),
which is a form of narrative storytelling in which family members share their stories of
the damage done, who caused the damage, what can be done to repair the damage, and
tell the incarcerated family member, "You have caused the damage, but you are still
loved and needed by the family."
Risk and resilience theories provide the basis for accessing and analyzing
behaviors or responses to the reintegration of incarcerated parents. The risk and
resilience of vulnerable populations to accept and move forward with the support of each
family member is investigated through the use of FGC as a therapeutic modality.
Ecological and developmental theories help identify risk and protective factors as an
understanding of human development and development principles that align with the
practices, FGCs, and theories mentioned above.
16
It is this transformative conference that creates opportunities for family
reintegration. What is unknown is what social workers do as conference facilitators to
create opportunities to shame reintegrative and reintegration of families. What are their
processes, their thoughts, their feelings, their perceptions of how this transformation is
possible? Through data collection and analysis, insights can be gained that will help
develop best practices for social workers and other human services professionals to
facilitate family reintegration after parental incarceration.
Greene, Galambos, and Lee (2003) state that the risk and resilience approach to
providing client support is the study of what circumstances contribute to successful
consequences in the face of adversity. Greene et al. (2003) stated that researchers
persisted in identifying the factors that drive the phenomenon of resilience. This
exploration has spurred interest in understanding how the concept of strength-based
resilience can be used to promote client competence (Greene et al., 2003).
Ecological and developmental theories, developed by Bronfenbrenner
(Bronfenbrenner & Cecie, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2001), showed that five types
of systems aid human development: microsystems, mesosystems, ecosystems,
macrosystems, and chronosystems. This system has rules and norms and at the same time
a role that shapes human development (Hong, Algood, Chiu, & Lee, 2011).
Ecological theory (Braescu, 2011) suggests that it is necessary to identify risk and
protection processes at several levels of human ecology, including individuals, families,
peers, schoolwork, and community settings. Ecological risk/protective theory is proposed
as a framework for understanding human development and for developing
17
principles that can guide the design, delivery, and evaluation of prevention programs
(Boon, Cottrell, King, Stevenson, & Millar, 2012).
The resilience approach or protective process suggests that we must move
beyond the focus on risk to create conditions that facilitate and acknowledge the
potential for positive development (Braescu, 2011). Resilience is well related to the
restorative process that is seen to build future strength from past mistakes (Bazemore &
Umbreit, 2001).
Restorative justice and reintegration are methodologies that are often used when
working with incarcerated individuals. Bazemore and Umbreit (2001) show that the
underlying goal of restorative justice is to reconcile the needs of victims and perpetrators
with the needs of society. Furthermore, restorative conferences bring together victims,
offenders, and other members of the community to hold perpetrators accountable not
only for their crimes but also for the harm they cause to victims (Bazemore & Umbreit,
2001).
I consider restorative justice theory, resilience theory, and ecological
theory/framework as the basis for exploring the use of FGC as a key practice in family
systems and community systems. Ungar (2002) states that there is a comfortable fit
between ecological science and professions such as social work, which has the stated
goal of encouraging healthy and interdependent transactions between people and their
environment. The facilitation of social workers in the FGC process reflects ecological
practices with the development of healthy and interdependent transactions between
family members to support family resilience (Braescu, 2011). By focusing on the
protective factors mentioned earlier, this integration will occur in
18
individuals, families, and communities. Social workers must be aware of the agencies and
community partners that can cooperate, collaborate, and communicate with social
workers, human services professionals, and family members. The potential impact of
FGC and social worker actions can affect an individual's emotional state (reduce stress)
by affecting self-efficacy and improving job opportunities, job education/training, and
healthcare. The protective factors of the individual are integrated with the family and
there must be some changes (improvements) in the family such as family cohesiveness,
social support, and overall stability. The protective factors experienced by individuals
and families affect integration into the community. This process is likened to a domino
effect. Strengthening families through the use of FGC begins to build family resilience.
Resilience theory and ecological theory provide an overall understanding of
family processing towards reintegration and help inform the key questions that drive this
research:
What are the perceptions and beliefs of social workers regarding their activities and
steps in practice?
What role does social workers take to achieve the goals and objectives of
mediation families, resolutions, and outcomes?
How do social workers experience and meet the desired outcomes using FGC?
What underpins the outcome of the FGC and how social workers determine that
goals and objectives have been achieved?
19
Possible Types and Sources of Information or Data
I collected data from participants through interviews and by using semi-structured
questions. I recruited participants from a sample of humanitarian service professionals
who are currently using or have experience in the practice of working with clients using
FGC and asked them about their memories and experiences in introducing resilience-
focused strategies. The data includes interview transcripts and written materials from
social workers, such as case notes, training materials, logs, and other documents, that
they may have used in practice. Englander (2012) indicates that interviews have become
a major data collection procedure closely related to qualitative human scientific research.
Giorgi (2009) states that research interviews in phenomenological research should
produce the most complete description possible of the experiences that the respondents
have undergone.
Englander (2012) suggests that researchers who plan to conduct interviews hold
preliminary meetings to build trust, review ethical considerations, complete approval,
and review questions. Following the advice of Englanders (2012), I sought to include 25-
50 participants and determine the appropriate and necessary number of final participants
required for phenomenological studies as interview questions and data saturation
evolved.
I sorted and analyzed the data with the help of Atlas.Ti 7, a qualitative analysis
software program, and searched for themes to help identify the phenomenon. I then
developed a group of meanings from important statements into themes that can be used
to illuminate what these participants consider to be best practices.
20
Summary
Social workers seek to influence social change by conducting research,
developing programs and services, and implementing established protocols. Social
workers want a better society for everyone to live in. This is a phenomenal task for
everyone and can be achieved if we, as social workers, define and refine the way we
train.
The purpose of this study is to explore, determine, and then inform human services
professionals about best practices utilizing FGCs that will support the successful re-entry and
reintegration of former offenders after they return to their families and communities after
incarceration.
In Chapter 2, I discuss the literature reviewed for this study and the current status
regarding the concepts of effective social work practices, evidence-based practices,
FGC, restorative justice, phenomenology, parental incarceration, reentry, reintegration,
resilience, and ecology.
21
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
There is a lack of information on protocols or best practices for humanitarian
service professionals responsible for using FGC as the primary intervention because
practitioners help families with reintegration after experiencing parental incarceration.
The purpose of this study is to conduct a phenomenological exploration of the roles,
activities, and practices of social workers who are currently involved in the use of FGC
with families after parental incarceration. I collected, analyzed, and evaluated data
obtained from human service professionals in developing clinical interventions (best
practices) that resulted in family reintegration after detention, family stabilization, and
positive outcomes.
It is important to discuss and identify research and researchers that focus on
restorative justice and social work practices. I would like to add a review of research that
focuses on reintegration and social work practices. Successful outcomes are necessary to
create a comprehensive bank of information and supporting documentation.
The framework for the integration of resilience families with social workers in
critical roles is essential. This phenomenological study uses the theory of family
resilience from an ecological and developmental perspective. Risk and resilience are
considered when exploring parental detention (Dallaire, 2007). Walsh (2003) provides a
description of the family resilience framework. In a broad sense, families are considered
to have a lot in common.
22
I want to help social workers by gathering the necessary information that will
improve the social work profession. Service delivery can be improved as social workers
develop a greater understanding of the field and practice. I started by exploring the
practice of social workers with families.
Chapter 2 of this study provides an in-depth review of the literature regarding the
key concepts and theories related to this research. It begins with an overview of literature
search strategies, followed by a discussion of the theoretical framework underlying the
research. This is followed by a discussion of what social work practices are, an important
component because often the understanding held by many social workers is that they take
your children and break up families. Dispelling myths is essential. Next was a discussion
on restorative justice construction and FGC and exploration of parental incarceration,
followed by a section on evidence-based practices, inmate reentry, resilience, and a
section summarizing the findings.
Literature Search Strategy
To obtain literature related to the identification of social worker practices with
FGC and the development of resilience in families after parental incarceration, databases
(SocINDEX, PsycInfo, PsycARTICLES, and ProQuest Central) relating to human
services, social work, psychology, and sociology were sought. At the beginning of the
literature search, the goal was to find documents on social work practices, parental
incarceration, reintegration, FGC, restorative justice, and the use of restorative justice as
social work practices. I am interested in the study of the work experience of social
workers and other humanitarian service professionals and on factors relevant to
23
reintegration after parental incarceration. Key phrases guiding the search include
ecological and developmental theory, effective social work practices, evidence-based
practices, FGC, family group conferences, parental incarceration, phenomenology,
prisoner reentry, and resilience.
Research investigations based on the use of FGC in social work practice require
that studies reflecting alternative restorative justice or additional terms are also sought
and examined.
Theoretical Framework
Awareness of the theoretical framework of this research and the practice
discussed is important. The theoretical framework for this study is the family resilience
theory of Dallaire (2007) and Walsh (2003) combined with ecological and family
development perspectives. Resilience theory focuses on the ability of vulnerable
populations to respond to crises and how they recover and respond to situations in their
lives. In essence, the theory is that individuals are capable of coping with negative
situations in their lives. This does not mean that these populations are not affected by
adversity but rather that these individuals seem to have coping skills that allow them to
move on with their lives. When applying this theory to specific populations in this study,
the focus was on what could be learned that would help social workers engage clients
using resilience and ecological frameworks.
According to Dallaire (2007), risk and resilience theory is a useful framework for
considering how parental detention can be related to intergenerational incarceration
patterns as well as the differential implications of mothers and fathers
24
Prison. Children with incarcerated parents may be particularly vulnerable to poor
outcomes due to their exposure to various economic, social, or sociodemographic risk
factors such as poverty and single parents (Dallaire, 2007). Walsh (2003) provides a
description of the family resilience framework as a family seen in relation to the broader
sociocultural context and evolution during the multigenerational life cycle and while
acknowledging each family as different, there are some similarities to respond
appropriately. Acknowledging Dallaire (2007) and Walsh's explanation of the family
resilience framework provides an opportunity for the application of this framework to
this study and to examine the experience of social workers using it in practice.
Ecological theory suggests that it is necessary to identify risks and protection
processes at several levels of human ecology, including individuals, families, peers,
schoolwork, and community environments. Ecological risk/protective theory is a
framework for understanding human development and for developing principles that can
guide the design, delivery, and evaluation of prevention programs. The resilience or
protective process approach suggests that practitioners must move beyond focusing on
risk to create conditions that facilitate positive development.
The goal of human services professionals is to facilitate family reintegration after
incarceration. Detention creates trauma (risk factors) in the family (ecological and
developmental theory). Durability is a protective factor. Before the detention of the
parents there is a family bond, which is defined as resilience. Parental detention is a
trauma or risk. FGC provides an opportunity to
25
Reintegrative shaming and for families to build on a foundation of acceptance, love, and
resilience. Successful family reintegration can occur by reducing trauma and increasing
the resilience of family members. Ecological theory suggestions are met when risks and
family protection processes are identified.
Defining Social Work Practices
Social work practices have historically been seen as a helpful profession. Dybicz
(2012) states that many are interested in the social work profession because of their
desire to help. He further stated that while this mindset is admirable, it is only one
element that contributes to effective social work practices.
Social work is a broad profession. As social workers, we are employed by several
agencies and we may be involved in work at the mezzo, macro and micro levels. Some
confuse sociology with social work. The focus of these two disciplines is not identical
and, in many cases, not similar. Sociologists are more inclined towards the research side
than treatment/therapeutic interventions. Ahmed-Mohammed (2011) asserts that the
social mandate falls on social work as a profession in which social workers are
empowered to intervene with the aim of achieving social welfare.
Individually, there may be someone who disagrees with this intervention, but the ethical
obligation of social workers is to intervene (Ahmed-Mohammed, 2011).
According to NASW, one of the largest social work organizations in the world,
social work practices
consists of the professional application of social work values, principles,
and techniques for one or more of the following purposes: Helping
people
26
get real services; counseling and psychotherapy with individuals,
families, and groups: helping communities or groups provide or improve
social and health services; and participate in the legislative process.
(NASW, 2013, para. 1)
Marston and McDonald (2012) stated that social work overcomes barriers,
injustices, and injustices that exist in society. Interventions can involve the
administration of community institutions and organizations, and engage in social and
political action to influence social policy and economic development. For social workers,
effective social work is defined as success in practice, in service delivery, and in
influencing change. Dybicz (2012) shows that the expertise of social workers arises from
a base of authority that makes social workers uniquely qualified and thus best able to
meet the social welfare needs of clients. The Fund for Southern Communities defines
social change as building a community-based response that addresses underlying social
problems at the individual, institutional, community, national and/or international levels
and involves the collective action of individuals closest to social problems to develop
solutions that address social problems (Fund for Southern Communities, 2013).
Measuring change can be a challenge or problem that requires interventions that
affect or influence social change. Social change impacts a broad spectrum in our society
resulting in greater change in people and society itself. These altered behaviors can be
individuals who leave violent relationships after social workers provide the tools for
change; changes can become emotional after the intervention is given, and
27
Finally, positive changes in behaviour at any level in the social work profession
demonstrate what is considered an effective social work practice.
Social work practices offer a variety of work environments. This range allows
social workers flexibility and the opportunity to work outside the box. In some arenas,
social workers may appear as if they are not working in a particular modality. Rutten,
Mottart, and Soetaert (2010) argue that social workers are stimulated for reflection in
action to be able to deal with complexity and ambiguity.
Poulter (2005) provides in-depth insights into integrating social work theory and
practice. Social workers can devote a lot of time to deciding which theory is best for
practice. I argue that there are many theories that can be used in practice. Some can be
interrelated, interconnected, or used simultaneously. One must know what the desired
outcome is and the benefits of achieving that goal. However, the social work profession
must address issues that can affect its profession and credibility.
Historically, social work practices have answered the call of those in need of
therapeutic intervention in a number of areas of human services where the resolution to
social problems and their responses have proven challenging or problematic. Social
problems are described as mental illness, incarceration, disability, criminal justice-related
problems, school performance, academic problems that can affect school performance,
homelessness, domestic violence, and many other impairments to a person's ability to
"exist" or function adequately in a person's social environment (Stockwell & Triezenberg
Fox, 2006).
28
Reisch (2012) describes social work as a self-proclaimed value-based profession
that seeks to promote social change, human empowerment, and liberation by integrating
data-driven research and analysis with the principles of human rights and social justice.
Thompson (2009) explores the concept of radical social work and shows that the values
of radical social work are most in line with the ethics and professional philosophy of
social workers and human service professionals. This concept ideally supports the
influence of advocacy on the profession. Social workers, historically, have stood up for
what is right and for everyone. It is the responsibility of social workers to stay on track
influencing change through client service and advocacy. Thompson stated that the role of
supervisors, institutions, and institutions must also be reconstructed to reflect the mission
of the social work profession. Effective social work practices must have a foundation to
build on. As social workers strive to ensure that social work practices are effective, it is
important that practices are validated and scientifically supported. Evidence-based
practices provide the support needed.
The social work profession has made many changes over the past 20 years
regarding policies, laws, practices, and credentials. Examples of these changes can be
explained in the development and formation of certain social work organizations. I am a
member, regional representative, and executive board member of the American
Association of School Social Work. This organization emerged as a direct result of the
changes that occurred in the field of school social work. The organization works with
NASW and certification in school social work becomes a national credential. It is similar
to the national board certification for educators (NASW, 2013).
29
The social work profession has encountered some controversy. This is mainly
because many people view the profession as one that serves welfare clients. A retired co-
worker of mine stated that he could no longer work with "no wells." This interpretation
or perception ensures that these professionals do not possess the expertise, skills,
knowledge, and other characteristics that contribute to what it means to be a professional.
In response to this perception and other disrespect shown to social workers, they have
historically advocated for respect for their profession and have proven to succeed in
earning the respect they guarantee through their ability to advocate for themselves. As a
result of self-advocacy, social work title protection laws have been enacted in many
states. This law simply states that a person must complete a Social Work Education
Board-accredited program to earn a social worker degree (NASW, 2013).
Specifically regarding the phenomenon that this research focuses on, social
workers are often frontline professionals to help families with integration after parental
incarceration. Trulear (2011) showed that family connectivity—keeping families
together during detention and through the reentry process––provides important support
for those transitioning back into society, and successful reentry has an impact on society
in producing productive citizens in family and community life, reducing recidivism and
further.
Cnaan et al. (2008) stated that practitioners should be equipped with policies and
programs to serve incarcerated parents after they have re-entered society.
Petersilia (2005) found that there was a need for a model that would address new approaches
30
to facilitate reintegration because psychological literature fails to address issues with
housing, employment, childcare, and other areas necessary for survival.
A social worker can provide the services, guidance, and support necessary to
empower returning parents, their children, and entire families to be successful in their
community. Thompson (2009) investigated the reintegration of female prisoners in
Canada, and although the population of women incarcerated is much smaller than in the
United States (503 in Canadian facilities at the time of the study), Thompson points out
that supporting women returning during and after detention as they deconstruct and
reconstruct their relationships and aspirations is an important work that requires a strong
commitment from the justice system, women, and the community. Social workers also
have a role to play in this process.
Thompson (2009) described Canada's reintegration program, known as Stride,
and conducted research on the program. She decided that reintegration from prison was
often traumatic, and that many women were unprepared for social, emotional, and
economic challenges. He examines restorative justice as a way of approaching conflict
and crime by addressing the needs of victims, holding perpetrators accountable and
including the wider community in the process (Thompson, 2009). These factors are very
similar to what makes up FGC.
Restorative Justice and FGC
Restorative justice and reintegration are methodologies that are often used when
working with incarcerated individuals. Bazemore and Umbreit (2001) stated that the
underlying goal of restorative justice is to reconcile the needs of the victim and the
perpetrator
31
With the needs of the community and the restorative conference brings together victims,
offenders, and other members of the community to hold perpetrators accountable not
only for their crimes but also for the losses they cause to the victims. Bazemore and
Umbreit also stated that there are four models of restorative conferences: victim-offender
mediation, community reparative councils, FGCs, and circle punishments.
Thompson (2009) and van Wormer (2005) point out that restorative justice is a
concept that has not been exploited and accepted in the United States as much as in other
countries; And the significance of this process to social work has not yet fully emerged.
Restorative justice is an emerging practice that is used with incarcerated populations.
The re-entry/reintegration of incarcerated people into their families and communities is
important, and especially important when incarcerated people are parents.
Bazemore and Maruna (2009) suggest that restorative justice is not understood as
a correctional program but as a process and points out that many restorative practices
result in significant recidivist reductions. One reason may be the use of reintegrative
shaming. Braithwaite (1989) defines reintegration (reintegrative shaming) as an
expression of community disapproval, which can range from a mild rebuke to a
degrading ceremony and which is followed by a signal of acceptance back into the
community of law-abiding citizens. FGC can provide a platform for this process. An
additional view of this process is that the facilitator, mediator, or practitioner conducts
the group with the desired outcome (reintegrative humiliation, conflict resolution,
acceptance, forgiveness, and productivity) that will prove beneficial to all parties.
Restorative justice discussions focus on the impact of detention and the ability of former
offenders to
32
Make a positive transition and come back. There are some who argue that the current
system is so punitive that little or no effort is made for rehabilitation. There is a
discussion about whether or not incarcerated individuals have the ability to accept
responsibility for criminal behavior. However, there are those who accept responsibility
and this helps to successfully re-enter the home, family, and community. Re-entry can be
a very challenging transition. Bazemore and Maruna (2009) stated that there are many
activities regarding the improvement of the re-entry process and that these activities do
not have a strong theoretical and empirical foundation.
Bahr, Harker Armstrong, Gibbs, Harris and Fisher (2005) suggest that transitions
are life events embedded in trajectories. People released from prison will benefit from
discussions related to reintegration and transition.
Transitions are described as things in a person's life that are needed to move from one
point to another. One of the immediate transitions is to job readiness or the employment
arena. Of course, this is the second after reintegration into the family and community.
The transition to the job arena gives individuals the means to support themselves and
their families. This transition also supports the integral emotional needs and self-
awareness for individuals returning home. Bahr et al. (2005) also stated that the ability of
the perpetrator to change the trajectory significantly affects the re-entry process.
Braithwaite (1989) points out that the integrative shame theory is based on the
assumption that obeying the law is an important social goal. Shame is considered an
effective component of the process. Ronel and Elisha (2011) provide a different
perspective and a perspective that can be reconciled with shame and reintegration. They
discussed
33
Positive criminology, which refers to focusing on the individual who is confronted with
the focus and influence and influence experienced as positive and that keeps them away
from deviations and evil (Ronel & Elisha, 2011). This positive approach can be aligned
with the concept of shaming and reintegration. Positive criminology, shame, and
reintegration emphasize positive experiences that have the potential to prevent or prevent
continued criminal behavior (Ronel & Elisha, 2011). I would consider this to be an
integral component of expertise for practitioners who use FGC with families after
parental detention.
Bazemore and Maruna (2009) suggest that restorative justice processes may be
more effective if used to facilitate reintegrative processes. This strategy provides an
effective tool that will suggest different ways of thinking about perpetrators, victims, and
society in solving problems for those involved. An understanding of the restorative
process and how it relates to effective social work practices can provide additional
insights.
Levine (2000) defines FGC as a means to resolve child protection and adolescent
justice cases. This process/method was developed in New Zealand, where it is mandated
by law. Levine (2000) also states that this mandate, which ensures that government
agencies use FGC, increases the participation of family members, victims, social service
workers, and other community stakeholders.
FGC has become a strategy used by social workers to help families resolve
emotional injuries related to the detention of one of its members. It is a new practice
used to strengthen and preserve the family by strengthening the resilience of the
surviving family
34
in accordance with the family resilience theory of Dallaire (2007) and Walsh (2003).
Chandler and Giovannucci (2004) indicate that:
FGC has four main principles: (a) the process is family-centered and moves away
from negative perceptions and blame approaches to a strength-based model, (b)
respect and values are placed on cultural ideals and practices, (c) family and
community involvement are encouraged, and (d) community is seen as a family
support resource. (p. 219)
Malmberg-Heimonen (2011) provides a different model from Chandler and
Giovannucci (2004) and points out that there are five principles and steps for the FGC
process: (a) it is a meeting of participants, (b) participants are assisted by an independent
FGC facilitator (not employed by social services) to organize the meeting, (c) an
expanded network of participants is invited, (d) public authorities, including FGC
facilitators, are not present at the second part of the meeting, and (e) the FGC process
produces an action plan. One can view the participant's network as previously referenced
families and communities. I would feel safe assuming that, since participants have
choices and key decision-making roles, these two philosophies about FGC have a lot in
common.
I have found no research that addresses the experience or practice of social
workers as FGC facilitators. There are no evidence-based practice guidelines for social
workers involved in FGCs to support family resilience. However, Malmberg-Heimonen
(2011) points out that there is a lack of research analyzing the effects of FGC
35
process in the context of social services. This gap in the literature supports the need for
further investigation and research on FGC in the social work profession.
Walker (2012) describes the conference as a restorative justice practice that
provides an opportunity for participants to develop coping skills and resilience and that
the conference is a group process for dealing with crime that incorporates restorative
principles. Resilience is defined as the ability to recover from or adapt to adversity or
change (Walker, 2012). The practice for this kind of intervention remains a mystery.
Understanding the experience and essence of the practice is a factor to consider. How
resilience, strengths-based approaches, inform these practices are critical to service
delivery. This should be explored with experienced practitioners to determine what they
believe to be the best social work practices in utilizing FGC for families trying to
reintegrate after parental incarceration. Investigating FGC as a successful social work
practice requires reviewing, understanding, and incorporating the tasks mentioned above
as they relate to the research topic.
A literature review shows that FGC has been researched with adolescents. Alder
& Wundersitz (1994) indicates that this process was first developed in the hope of
diverting juveniles from traditional judicial services (courts, detention). The intended
concept is packaged in the program with the terms of diversion, mediation, and
assessment in the title. The goal of this practice with adolescents is to offer a new and
different way of dealing with problems in their lives that will help divert them from the
juvenile justice system and reduce criminal activity in the future. This format provides an
opportunity for youth to learn socially acceptable and respectful behaviors
36
Other. Braithwaite (1989, 1993, 2001) gives reasons why FGC, coupled with the concept
of restorative justice, is beneficial to perpetrators, victims, families, and society. The idea
of an opportunity to discuss, negotiate and bring closure in the form of social restitution
will prove crucial to transforming the criminal justice system as it is known. Braithwaite
(1989) details the reintegrative process of shaming rather than stigmatization and the
emergence of a process of negotiation and reparation that benefits all parties and the
reintegration of actors into families and communities.
FGC can be seen as a branch of restorative justice. Restorative justice, initially,
was used in the juvenile justice system. As I continue to inquire about the application of
FGC in the adult system, I find in the literature that there is a large amount of focus on
adolescents. The desired outcome is similar, if not the same. The overall idea is to
mediate or facilitate communication between victims, perpetrators, families, and the
community with the overall result of bringing change and repairing the damage done to
all parties involved. There is an old saying that in prison "no one is guilty." Are they
innocent or that they do not know the importance of taking ownership of negative
behavior and taking responsibility for the violations they committed and the harm it
caused to all interested parties? When the perpetrator considers the interested parties, the
list will often grow. This consciousness takes on a different appearance, and generally
grows larger than one might think.
37
The first step in the FGC process is that all parties are in the same location
(Stewart et al., 2008). Individuals must acknowledge their loved ones and acknowledge
the disruptions that have occurred in families and communities. Emotional disturbances
are experienced by victims, perpetrators, families, and the community. FGC offers a
facilitated and controlled environment for recovery, settlement, and return to mediation
venues. This process initiates the healing and transition necessary to succeed after re-
entry into the family and community.
Although Malmberg-Heimonen (2011) states that reliable evaluations to deal
with the effects of FGCs are lacking, Pranis (2007) points out that conferences have
great potential to strengthen society through collective responsibility and accountability
in the context of caring. FGC has emerged in the United States as a practice that can be
successfully used with children and adults. This practice can also be intertwined with
other modalities, resulting in empowerment and stability in the family. In practice it is
often determined that communication, self-expression, and acceptance can be absent, and
these are behaviors and characteristics that will benefit FGC participants. FGC may
appear to be a complex intervention; However, it has been used quite extensively and is
in line with restorative justice programs.
Parental Detention
Hoffman, Byrd, and Kightlinger (2010), Honoré-Collins (2005), Huebner and
Gustafson (2007), Murray and Murray (2010), and Nesmith and Ruhland (2008) indicate
that there has been a significant increase in the number of parents incarcerated over the
past 10 years. Huebner and Gustafson estimate that 63% of women incarcerated
38
have one or more minors and most are reported to live with their children. Researchers
also found that parental detention increases the risk that children will experience
behavioral and emotional problems later in life, have problems in school, and become
involved in the juvenile and criminal justice systems (Hoffman et al., 2010).
Parental detention seems to have a domino effect on children, families, and
communities. Aaron and Dallaire (2010) showed that children of incarcerated parents are
exposed to factors that put them at risk of delinquency, with higher rates of
maladjustment, problems with social stigma, and other disadvantages that significantly
impact children and direct caregivers.
Huebner and Gustafson (2007) and Murray and Murray (2010) agree that
parental detention contributes to the impairment of parent-child relationships. Huebner
and Gustafson (2007) suggest that incarceration instills social stigma in families and
children that often elicit strong feelings of shame and anger in families and fellow
inmates.
I find the mention of shyness interesting. I also thought about how adults
responded to children when I was a child when questions were asked about absent fathers
or incarcerated family members. Some behaviors occur in families. In my experience, the
child was often told that the individual was going or staying in the South. The child was
also warned not to talk about individuals outside of immediate family. Most of us know
the truth or understand that there is some level of truth from what is being told to us
coupled with the shame of the individual not present. Many children who live in homes
where their parents are not present seem to accept it or allow the status to negatively
impact their lives.
39
Greene et al. (2003) stated that in relation to the response to the impact of incarcerated
parents on the family, internal factors such as roles, responsibilities, and authority during
and after incarceration emerge. External factors (environmental and community welfare)
only arise when certain situations arise (filling out school forms, extracurricular
activities).
External factors that affect families are related to perceptions and responses to
parental incarceration. The absence of parents is the cause of various attitudes
experienced by children. Children who have parents who are absent are often perceived
as negative members of society. It resonates with me personally. I grew up in a home
with single parents. My parents separated when I was very young. I remember
accompanying my best friend to a Brownie meeting (Brownies are the Boy Scout level).
A troop leader told me that because I didn't have a father, I couldn't participate. Another
example is when I want to play in a basic orchestra. The teacher told me that I was and
could not participate. At a very early age I decided not to participate in any
extracurricular activities. I only go home every day after school. It was easier than
explaining to all these very smart people that I had a father, he lived in another state.
What is very ironic is that my best friend's father runs an illegal liquor house and he is a
number writer. However, he is seen in a more positive way. His father was the greatest
godfather in the world and saw that I never wanted anything. He treats me better than
anyone else. I never understood why people were so cruel and why they raised my father
who lived in another state. I know that many children whose parents have left or are in
prison have similar things
40
Experience. External factors are sometimes a direct result of others and their perception
of what constitutes this difference and treatment of the perpetrator.
Evidence-Based Practice
Netting and O'Connor (2008) suggest that evidence-based practice is seen as
practitioners who recognize the values of clients and then use the most promising
research to guide program, organizational, community, and policy activities to facilitate
change. Franklin (2009) points out that the challenge for practitioners is how to
conceptualize what is needed and find the best source to answer the question. Netting and
O'Connor describe evidence-based practice as practitioners who recognize client values
and then use research to guide program, organization, community, and policy activities to
facilitate change. Stanhope, Tuchman, and Sinclair (2011) suggest that the evidence-
based practice movement has permeated all aspects of social work, including the way
social workers educate social work students, how their practices are guided in the field,
and how they conduct research.
Netting and O'Connor (2008) discuss the importance of performance
measurement in the field of social work. The discussion noted five key Martin and
Kettner forces driving performance measures that reflect the call for greater
accountability that emerged from the era of accountability over the last 30 years or more:
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law No. 103-62), which
requires all levels of government to develop performance measures; The National
Performance Review, which grew out of the government movement that reinvented in
the early 1990s; total quality management; managed care, due to its extensive monitoring
system; and
41
the Securities and Achievement Service reporting initiative of the Government
Accounting Standards Board, which calls on all state and local agencies, including
human service providers, to collect and report performance measures (Netting &
O'Connor, 2008). The overall purpose of the formation and implementation of this force
is to ensure accountability in all aspects of the profession. These aspects are best
described as practice, ethics, policy, and research.
Sackett, Richardson, Rosenberg, and Haynes (1997) describe evidence-based
practice as a problem-solving process consisting of five steps: (a) transforming
information needs into answerable questions, (b) tracking, with maximum efficiency, the
best evidence to answer these questions, (c) critically assessing evidence for its validity
and usefulness, (d) applying the results of these assessments to policy/practice decisions,
and (e) evaluate the results. Netting and O'Connor (2008) note that evidence-based
practices have controversial signs and this has an impact on accountability, which is also
a concern for social work. Netting and O'Connor further noted that social work practices
have a variety of intervention problems that warrant evidence-based practices as an
integral part of social work practices.
Stanhope et al. (2011) conducted research on the use of appropriate practices and
evidence-based practices in the mental illness arena. They emphasized the importance of
research for practice, which supports the need for accountability in the humanitarian
services arena. Acknowledging the growing need for evidence-based information to
help develop interventions will help their understanding, particularly FGCs.
42
Baker et al. (2010) state that "practice evaluation is an important component of
evidence-based social work practice and that it is underutilized in practice and that social
workers are not involved in evaluation activities" (p. 963). Identification of what social
workers consider to be effective practices with families after parental detention will
provide data to inform and develop best practices and effective programs to assist
families with the reintegration of released parents into the family and community. As
stated by Pettus-Davis, Grady, Cuddeback, and Scheyett (2011), there is a lack of
empirical literature, and practitioners have limited time to look for evidence to support
interventions used with clients.
Pettus-Davis et al. (2011) state that the evidence-based practice process should
present findings in a way that practitioners find useful to them and clients. They further
state that practitioners must also learn how to bridge the gap between research and
practice. Pettus-Davis et al. also stated that evidence-based practice would not be realized
without translating research into practice, and that social work practitioners are an
important link in that translation. Pettus-Davis et al. support the need for social workers
to contribute to the interventions offered to clients. Opportunities to provide input
(through research participation) are needed to analyse intervention strategies used in the
field. Pettus-Davis et al. (2011) suggest that
Translation of research into practice requires the practitioner to perform three
tasks: be aware of the evidence, receive evidence applicable to his or her client
group, and actualize the evidence through the adoption and incorporation of
research into practice procedures. (p. 380)
43
Re-entry of Prisoners
The incarcerated person has a lot of experience, which can prove to be beneficial
or detrimental. It is becoming more common to implement programs that can help in re-
entering the community. However, Scroggins and Malley (2010) found that re-entry
programs do not adequately meet the needs of the populations served.
Scroggins and Malley (2010) investigated female prisoners returning to the
community and the programs and services available. The five broad areas detailed as
noteworthy concerns for the successful re-entry of female prisoners are childcare and
childcare; housing and transportation; health care, counseling, substance abuse, and
medication; education, employment, and job training; and social support (Scroggins &
Malley, 2010).
Cnaan et al. (2008) point out that many former inmates learn to survive in prison
by "strengthening" and adopting a worldview that helps them cope, but this same
worldview is inadequate and unproductive for the reintegration of society. For former
prisoners to succeed, they must have an established and willing support system.
Fontaine, Gilchrist-Scott, Denver, and Rossman (2012) indicate that families seem
to provide a lot of support; a level of closeness or attachment that seems to be an
important factor in individual reentry outcomes.
Petersilia (2005) indicates that the United States faces a major challenge in
managing the reintegration of an increasing number of individuals leaving state and
federal prisons and states that it is time to do the hard work to develop a more effective
response to these challenges. This should be done not only because it will
44
both for the perpetrator who returns home but also because in the end it will be good for their
children, their neighbors, and society at large (Petersilia, 2005).
Fontaine et al. (2012) discuss the difficulties experienced by practitioners
working with re-entry programs in Chicago, Illinois. The difficulties are largely due to
the program model (an inclusive model focused on families) used and the level of
knowledge and skills of case managers and other staff. It was determined that additional
training would be beneficial to incarcerated persons, families, practitioners, and
community stakeholders.
According to Cnaan et al. (2008), the social work profession must defend,
support, and facilitate the fuller participation of the most marginalized populations in
society. In this era, the social work profession must embrace the growing population of
ex-convicts by advocating on their behalf, educating the public about their unique
needs and interventions. Understanding re-entry when discussing incarcerated parents
returning to family and community helps develop policies and practices relevant to
reintegration.
The knowledge and understanding developed regarding reintegration and re-entry
after parental detention will help identify social work practices using FGC. Resilience
has been proposed by Greene et al. (2003) in relation to the response to the impact of
incarcerated parents on families. Internal family factors, such as roles, responsibilities
and authority, arise during and after detention. External factors (environmental and
community welfare) only arise when certain situations arise (filling out school forms,
extracurricular activities, and so on). Resilience may be a multisythemic phenomenon
that can and does occur throughout the life span (Greene et al., 2003). Resistance
45
It has become a characteristic that is often used to describe how children respond to life
experiences. Smith-Osborne & Bolton (2013) states that:
For inclusion criteria, resilience is defined as the process of personal,
interpersonal, and contextual protection mechanisms, which produce anomalous
positive outcomes in the face of adversaries including a variety of outcomes,
such as health status, educational attainment, and vocational success. (p. 115)
Because prison reentry is explored and the role of practitioners is aligned with
service and understanding of prison reentry can prove beneficial. Patterson (2013) points
out that re-entry preparations vary across jurisdictions and range from providing bus
fares to services that continue within the community.
Resistance
Roberts, Galassi, McDonald, and Sachs (2002) show that resilience theory
provides a framework for the reconceptualization of interventions as applicable to the
therapeutic community. Roberts et al. (2002) provide Henderson and Milstein's definition
of resilience as "the capacity to bounce back, bounce back, successfully adapt in the face
of adversity and develop social, academic, and vocational competencies despite exposure
to severe stress or just the stress inherent in today's world" (p. 56).
Greene et al. (2003) point out that researchers view resilience as involving
internal factors, such as temperament and attitudes, and external elements such as
environmental or community well-being. Atwood (2006) cites three major factors related
to resilience: individual characteristics (temperament, competence, self-efficacy, and
self-esteem), family support, and the person or agency that supports outside
46
family. These characteristics are also discussed and supported by Roberts et al. (2002)
and Greene et al. (2003).
When I investigated its resilience and applicability, I found that researchers have
suggested that internal and external factors be explored. Atwood (2006) suggests that
awareness or understanding of attachment theory, described as the underlying process of
resilience would be beneficial.
Summary
Chapter 2 includes a literature review of relevant information regarding the
identification of social work practices, particularly FGCs, while developing resilience
within families after parental incarceration. A review of existing research shows that
minimal research exists in the area of social work practice in the criminal justice system.
The experience of social workers (proposed respondents) will assist in
developing best practices for social workers working with populations of interest,
parents who have experienced incarceration, to improve and improve the delivery of
services and programs and to help address recognized risk factors. The methodology
used will be discussed in Chapter 3.
47
Chapter 3: Methodology
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to investigate the essence of the roles, activities, and
practices of social workers who currently use FGC with families after parental detention
to develop best practices for clinical interventions that result in positive reintegration,
stabilization, and positive outcomes. The main goal is to explore what social workers
and other humanitarian service professionals identify as their experiences with FGC in
helping families develop resilience after parental detention using FGC. Participants in
this study were humanitarian service professionals who had worked with families who
had experienced parental incarceration.
Chapter 3 includes a discussion of the methodology used in this study. I
reviewed specific information about the central concepts/phenomena of the research,
the research traditions/approaches used, the research population, data collection, and
analysis.
Design and Research Rationale
The research questions that are the basis of this research are as follows:
What are the experiences, perceived roles, activities, and practices of
humanitarian service professionals currently involved in the use of FGC in
families after parental incarceration?
What practices will assist human services professionals in developing clinical
interventions (best practices) that can result in positive reintegration and family
stabilization after parental incarceration?
48
Questions asked to study participants include:
1. What are your perceptions and beliefs regarding your activities and steps in
this practice to support family resilience and ecology?
2. What strategies and processes do you use in FGC that reflect protective
factors related to family resilience?
3. What is your experience in using FGC with your family?
4. How would you describe resilience when FGC has been used as a practice?
5. How do you integrate protective factors in the FGC process?
6. If you take on the role of facilitating FGC with the understanding and
knowledge that in order to successfully achieve goals and objectives, it is
important to use appropriate mediation skills, practice conflict resolution
skills, and assess outcomes during the process, what measure will you use to
determine success and achieve the desired outcome using FGC?
7. What supports the success of the FGC or how do you determine that the goals
and objectives have been achieved?
A qualitative phenomenological heuristic approach is used in this study to
investigate the phenomenon (Moustakas, 1994). Englander (2012) points out that when
researchers try to study a phenomenon, they must understand each research method.
Englander further indicated that the phenomenon was the object of investigation, not the
person required to describe the phenomenon. Phenomenology is described as the study of
the meaning of experience from the subjective perspective of the individual himself
(Greenfield & Jensen, 2010).
49
A phenomenon is just an idea. Finley (2009) points out that phenomenological
research provides an opportunity to obtain direct reports of experiences that will be
helpful in informing others and are descriptive.
Cerbone (2006) discusses the emergence of phenomenology as discovered by
Husserl, who describes phenomenology as a kind of purely non-empirical discipline.
Moustakas (1994) brought to the forefront of heuristic phenomenological research
methods. Moustakas indicated that when using phenomenological studies, researchers
do not make assumptions, focusing on specific topics freshly and naively.
build a question or problem to guide the research, and obtain findings that will provide a
basis for further research and reflection.
The heuristic phenomenological research approach helps provide insight into the
field of interest. Phenomenological research methods help in identifying and
understanding through the exploration of the essence of experience. Creswell (2007)
states that the most suitable type of problem for this form of research is one in which it is
important to understand the general experience or with several individuals about a
phenomenon. Creswell further states that it is important to understand this common
experience in order to develop a practice or policy, or to develop a deeper understanding
of the features of the phenomenon.
Beck (1990) stated that phenomenology is the study of experience through
understanding the structure, essence, and context of individual subjective experiences.
The individual in this case is a social worker who has worked with a family who has been
in parental custody. In an effort to influence social change,
50
Social workers should seek to identify practices that have a positive impact on families.
The heuristic phenomenological methodology was the method of choice for this
research because I wanted to have the opportunity to understand the essence of the social
worker experience from an intimate perspective. Their contributions in the field of social
work practice are invaluable. I don't want to measure, measure, and compare the
phenomenon. My desire is to explore and illustrate through the experiences of the
participants and gain understanding, knowledge enhancement, and appreciation for
social work practices with families who have experienced parental incarceration.
Other methodologies are not chosen mainly due to personal preference.
I prefer the intimacy of the phenomenological approach. Brinkmann and Kvale (2005)
state that qualitative research interviews investigate human existence in detail. This
provides access to subjective experiences and allows researchers to describe intimate
aspects of people's lives in the world. The ethnographic methodology was not chosen
because I thought it would hinder my desire for a diverse sample. I would like to study a
more diverse population involved in this practice (FGC) in various settings. Case study
methodologies and foundations may have proven successful but may not provide insight
into developing practice. I don't think doing a case study will give me the level of
diversity I want. I think more in-depth data is needed in developing best practices and
this data can be better developed and or defined using phenomenological methods.
Although narrative methodologies can be used, I believe a phenomenological approach
will yield findings that will have
51
greater impact on social change that focuses on developing resilience in families after
parental detention by identifying social worker practices with FGC.
The Role of the Researcher
This research is a direct result of my interest in family preservation and stability.
In my travels and work, I have observed the impact of parental reintegration into
families after detention. Detention significantly affects family dynamics. The trauma is
very widespread. Children and families do not know how to respond, as do communities
and other stakeholders.
As an advocate for family preservation, my desire is to help social workers and
other humanitarian service professionals better help parents after being released from
prison. The reintegration of parents is essential to sustain the family. Practitioners can
greatly influence parents, children, family members, victims and their families, and other
community stakeholders. I want to help social workers by investigating interventional
techniques, especially FGC, and developing the necessary practice methods and
information that will improve the social work profession. I would like to include a review
of research that focuses on reintegration and social work practices. I am interested in the
study of the experience of social work, and other human services professionals and the
factors relevant to reintegration after parental incarceration. Service delivery can be
improved as social workers develop a greater understanding of the field and practice.
My role or participation in research studies is as an interviewer. I started by
exploring the practice of social workers with families. I am not an acquaintance, friend,
and colleague with any of the participants. I do not and do not own a personal or
52
professional relationship with participants. I did not or had no personal or professional
relationship with the participants in this study. Participants are obtained through
colleagues, agencies, social media, community partnerships, and acquaintance referrals.
Methodology
Population
I reached out to approximately 2,500 humanitarian service professionals through
the following organizations and agencies: National Association of Black Social Workers
(NABSW), National Association of Social Workers, Virginia Department of Social
Services, Prison Reentry Program, Trinity Baptist Church, VA Resources, Black in
Criminal Justice, University of Minnesota School of Social Work, and Virginia
Department of Corrections. My goal was a small sample size of 25-50 participants,
which corresponds to the recommendation for saturation for this kind of study. Dworkin
(2012) points out that saturation is defined many as the point at which the data collection
process no longer offers new or relevant data. When I started my research study, I
imagined having to stop accepting volunteers. To my disappointment, it took me 9
months to get the right or adequate number of participants. I got 15 participants who
were willing to sign the necessary paperwork and schedule an appointment.
I ended up selecting a deliberate comfort sample of 15 human services
professionals based on criteria they currently use or have experience in the practice of
working with clients using FGC and have the memory and experience in introducing
resilience-focused strategies. Reasons to ask for help from
53
The organizations and institutions mentioned above are that they have memberships that
can include diverse groups of human services professionals and employ individuals who
may meet the criteria for participants. I interviewed 15 practitioners, including
counselors, social workers, criminal justice majors, and a nurse practitioner employed in
the veterans program.
Data Collection Procedure
Data collection includes the selection of participants and determining the
appropriate or necessary number of participants required for phenomenological studies
and question development (Englander, 2012). These two elements have previously been
presented and discussed in this chapter.
Primary data collected for this study were obtained from interviews and reference
participants to their own case records and reflections. I collected data through open-
ended and semi-structured questions and interviewed a sample of 15 human services
professionals, reviewing interview protocols as the interviews took place. These
participants are currently using or have experience in the practice of working with clients
using FGC on their memories and experiences in introducing resilience-focused
strategies. I recorded the interview and copied the data. I sorted and analyzed the data
with the help of a qualitative analysis software program (Atlas Ti 7) to look for themes
that helped identify the phenomenon. Creswell (2007) suggests that through data
analysis, researchers study the data and can highlight significant statements, sentences, or
quotes that provide an understanding of how participants experience the phenomenon. I
then developed a group of meanings from the significant
54
The statement uses software to identify the repetition of items and analyze the meaning
into a theme used to illuminate what humanitarian service professionals consider to be
best practices.
Interview
Interviews are one of the most widely used tools in conducting phenomenological
qualitative research studies. Brinkmann and Kvale (2005) point out that the cultural shift
from an industrial society to a consumer society is an explanation for the current
popularity of qualitative inquiry, especially interviews. Jacob and Furgerson (2012)
stated that qualitative researchers collect people's life stories to learn about human
experiences and nurture participants through the storytelling process. It is also stated that
the interview protocol is not just a set of questions but a procedural guideline to direct
qualitative researchers through the interview process.
In an effort to understand the essence of human services professional experience
that provides an opportunity for insight into the practices used, it is necessary to question
the people on the front lines, the practitioners. When exploring best practices related to
FGC, practitioners provide expertise and experience when identifying the best practices
needed to influence social change. Participants' responses to interview questions tell me
about their beliefs, feelings, and experiences.
I developed questions to gain insights and information relevant to this research. I
do individual interviews, and I use closed-ended and open-ended interview questions. It
appears that the length of time employed with former perpetrators and their families
resulted in more experienced practitioners using different clinical terms;
55
however, the methods described or described are very similar to FGC/restorative justice.
When the interview was conducted, I received participants' references to case records
and their own reflections. When necessary, I conduct follow-up interviews to help
develop a greater understanding of the phenomenon.
I recorded and transcribed interviews. Records and observations are transcribed.
Each transcript is reviewed multiple times and notes and themes are pulled. A full
discussion of the participants' experiences is presented in Chapter 4, and an analysis of
data from participant interviews, as well as the conclusions drawn, is presented in
Chapter 5. Data Recording
Chenail (2011) suggests that instrumentation accuracy and bias management are
integral challenges for qualitative researchers who use interviews as a method of data
generation. Interviews, field observations, and document analysis are among the most
significant ways qualitative researchers complete research studies. Recording interview
sessions and transcribing data provides the specificity necessary to adequately capture
everything stated and done during interviews, observations, and other interactions.
Tessir (2012) suggests that for researchers conducting qualitative research,
interviews are a commonly used method. Tessir further states that data collected through
interviews can be recorded through field records, transcripts, or recorded recordings (p.
446). I found that a backup to record the interview was necessary, so I also took notes. I
tried using Dragon Naturally Speaking while doing interviews and found that it was
difficult for me because the software didn't record exactly what was stated and
56
The sentence is very difficult to read. This required me to make follow-up phone calls to
verify my information and to ensure that I was recording exactly what the participant
stated and meant. Initially, I thought using the phone would be problematic. It doesn't
matter. Block and Erskine (2012) show that the use of the telephone as a medium to
conduct interviews is becoming a more popular method of data collection.
Analyzing Data
I sorted and analyzed the data with the help of a qualitative analysis software
program (Atlas. Ti 7) to look for themes that can help identify the phenomenon. I
developed a group of meanings from important statements into themes that can be used
to illuminate what these humanitarian service professionals consider to be best practices.
Practitioners who use FGC can facilitate or help families become more resilient.
Resilience identified in families is a direct result of intervention strategies (FGCs) and
requires the attention of social workers and other humanitarian service practitioners. The
family and the preservation of the family are integral components of our society. Social
issues that impact society are very important for families who experience parental
incarceration. This significantly impacts the reintegration and re-entry process for this
population. Support from practitioners can be beneficial for these families to become
resilient and successful. The support was identified as a social work practice with FGC.
Understanding the experiences of social workers and humanitarian service practitioners
who use FGC can provide insight into families who have
57
experiencing parental detention. The experiences and resilience of the identified families
can influence the development of best practices for practitioners who use FGC as we
analyse the data.
Grinnell and Unrau (2001) emphasized that the data analysis process is iterative.
That is, we have to read and re-read the volume of data that we have collected. We
(social workers) are encouraged to explore patterns and themes that help us in seeing the
experiences that our research participants have experienced.
Validity
Creswell (2013) indicates that there must be established criteria to determine the
quality of phenomenological studies. Triangulation of data may be useful in confirming
and or ensuring the validity of the study. Interviews and data collection will benefit the
process to ensure the validity of the research.
Nachmias and Frankfort-Nachmias (2008) show that validity ensures that the
question is answered. They also state that there are three types of validity and that each
type produces a specific tangible result. The types of validity are content, empirical, and
constructive. Nachmias and Frankfort-Nachmias provide the following definitions:
Content validity means that the measurement instrument includes all the
attributes of the concept you are trying to measure – that nothing relevant to the
phenomenon under investigation is left out; Empirical validity relates to the
relationship between the measuring instrument and the measured result; and The
validity of the construction is determined by linking the measuring tool with a
general theoretical framework. (pp. 149–154)
58
Establishing validity using all three types of validity provides a consistent way to
ensure validity. Content validity covers all when studying the phenomenon; empirical
validity helps in the evaluation of interview questions and results (themes, responses);
and the validity of the construction will ensure the relationship between the interview
and the theoretical framework discussed in the study.
I make sure that there is a rich description throughout the data reporting. I
included a verbatim excerpt from the interview to support my findings. The direct quotes
obtained during the interview help ensure validity. This information is important because
social workers are provided with the means to develop and implement best practices
when working with families using FGC after parental detention. FGC best practices will
be used as a resilience development component in this family. This resulted in the
development of best practices for social workers.
Ethical Treatment and Protection of Participants
Researchers are expected to follow ethical standards and federal laws that protect
research participants. Creswell (2008) states that researchers protect the anonymity of
informants, develop individual case studies that represent composite images rather than
individual images, convey to participants that they participated in the study, explain the
purpose of the research, do not engage in deception about the nature of the research, and
do not share personal experiences with participants as this minimizes parentheses.
For this study, ethical procedures followed in accordance with the standards of the
National Institutes of Health. Participant anonymity and confidentiality are protected
59
and attention to their well-being is given throughout the time the research was conducted.
This includes providing informed participants with an informed consent form, which they
must sign before they begin participating. The form also informs them that their identity
will remain anonymous and their confidentiality will be maintained by giving them a
code number and storing all data in a password-protected file.
Summary
Chapter 3 includes a discussion and explanation of the proposed methodology for
conducting this research. A heuristic phenomenological research approach to answer
questions is discussed. The family resilience theory of Dallaire (2007) and Walsh (2003)
provides a theoretical framework based on the family resilience theory, which is
combined with ecological and family development perspectives. The findings will be
discussed in Chapter 4.
60
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to investigate the essence of the perceived roles,
activities, and practices of human services professionals involved in the use of FGC. The
particular focus is on their practice with families after parental incarceration. I started
my exploration using interviews. Data is collected, analyzed, and evaluated.
Data were obtained from verbal descriptions of social workers and other human services
professionals about their experiences of clinical interventions and best practices that
resulted in positive family reintegration and family stabilization. Chapter 3 includes a
discussion of the methodology used in this study. I reviewed specific information about
the study population, and data collection and analysis were discussed.
The heuristic phenomenological research approach (Moustakas, 1994) helps to
provide insights into interesting phenomena. Phenomenological research methods help in
identifying and understanding through the exploration and description of the essence of
experience. Other methodologies were not chosen mainly because they seemed less
suitable for answering research questions. Brinkmann and Kvale (2005) state that
qualitative research interviews investigate human existence in detail. This provides
access to subjective experiences and allows researchers to describe intimate aspects of
people's lives in the world. Phenomenological intimacy is preferred. Ethnography was
not chosen because I thought it would not provide an opportunity to explore diverse
samples. I had the opportunity to study the diverse populations involved in FGC in
various settings, the theoretical methods on which they were based and the case study
methodology may have been proven
61
successful but do not provide information to develop best practices. I don't think I would
have the desired level of diversity in the sample either by doing a case study
Participant Recruitment and Data Collection
Upon approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), potential participants are
recruited through cover letters (see Appendix A), emails, and social media
announcements disseminated to a number of key groups, including the National
Association of Social Workers, the National Organization of Human Services, Black
People in Criminal Justice, the National Association of Black Social Workers, the
Virginia Department of Corrections, and the Virginia Department of Social Services. I
plan to conduct my research with participants who are social workers who meet the
inclusion criteria; i.e., social workers who have worked or worked with former
perpetrators using FGC, are also referred to as restorative justice. Several people
contacted me; however, some do not fit the criteria because they are not graduates of the
Social Work Education Council program. I submitted a change request to the IRB. My
request is to include other humanitarian service professionals who are actively involved
in the FGC.
After the second approval from LHDN was received, I continued to recruit
participants. Once a potential participant contacts me, I email, call, and use U.S. mail to
provide participant packages to individuals who agree to participate. The participant
package included informed consent (see Appendix B), a list of protective factors in
Table 1, information regarding the study (see Appendix C), and the demographic shape
of the participants (see Appendix D). The informed consent document is discussed in
62
long with the participant during the face-to-face interview, or they can sign and get back
to me by email, U.S. mail, or fax.
I found that it was easier to recruit participants individually than through an
agency. Many institutions have established protocols for engaging in research that will
extend my research efforts. One of the IRB agencies/researchers suggested that I use
word of mouth rather than trying to address the problem they present at their location.
Participants come from state, federal, and faith-based organizations
I conducted semi-structured interviews, which were recorded on a digital
recorder. To protect the privacy of the participants, the interviews are then downloaded
to disk and stored in a password-protected file. The interviewees are assigned a number
to ensure their anonymity and confidentiality. This gave me the opportunity to align the
interview with thinking regarding responses and interpretation of the data.
I conduct interviews in private spaces in offices, in community facilities, and
over the phone. Participants in states other than myself were interviewed by phone.
Documents are mailed and/or faxed before the interview, and I receive all the necessary
documents before conducting the interview. Participants interviewed by phone were told
that the call was being recorded and permission to resume was obtained.
I keep records during the interview when I ask open-ended questions in
accordance with the interview protocol (see Appendix E). I took notes during the
interview. The interviews were transcribed, and several callbacks were made to the
participants for member checks and further clarifications.
63
Once transcribed, the data is reviewed. Any unheard statements in the audio
recording are reviewed by listening to the recording and making necessary edits and/or
contacting the interviewee and questioning them regarding their previous responses to
obtain clarification and ensure accuracy and validity. Transcribed interviews are saved as
PDFs, which allows the collected data/documents to remain in their original
configuration, including text and other content. The PDF format also ensures data
integrity by preventing additional editing. Each interview file is saved to my computer's
hard drive in a personalized folder. Participants were randomly assigned numbers to
protect their identities and distinguish interview dates as well as responding individuals.
The files were then password protected and then placed on my computer's hard drive. No
participant is named by their real name in any of the files.
Demographics of Study Participants
Fifteen adults aged 30 to 64 participated in the study. Nine participants were
women and six were men. At the time of the study, one participant lived in the North
(New York), 12 lived in the South (Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina), 1 from the
Midwest (Illinois), and 1 from the West (California). Ten study participants had at least a
bachelor's degree, three held an MSW (one of whom also held a master's degree in
divinity), one participant was a nurse practitioner, and one participant had a doctoral
degree. Experience in humanitarian services was extended from 8 to 34 years. I
interviewed six parole officers, four social workers, two re-entry program administrators,
two case managers, one licensed professional counselor, one nurse practitioner, and one
counselor. The socioeconomic status of the participants was not considered significant
for this study.
64
Three of the participants are retirees and have been in the process for less than 3 years.
One participant had a humanitarian service agency, eight participants were employed
with a state agency, two were employed with a local government agency, one was with a
federal agency, and four were employed with a faith-based agency. Six participants were
white and nine were black. Interviews last from 18–30 minutes. Table 2 presents
demographic information about participants in the study.
Table 2
Participant Demographics
Participants Gender Race Region De
gre
e
Major Experience
(years)
1 Man W
h
i
t
e
South MSW
MDiv
Social work 25
2 Woman W
h
i
t
e
South NP Nursing 20
3 Man Black West MDiv Pastoral counseling 25
4 Woman W
h
i
t
e
N
ort
he
ast
MSW Social work 22
5 Woman Black South MSW Social work 8
6 Woman Black South MSW Social work 7
7 Man Black M
id
w
es
t
MSW Social work 21
8 Woman W
h
i
t
e
South MSW Social work 15
9 Woman W
h
i
t
e
South MSW Social work 17
10 Man Black South BA Criminal justice 39
65
11 Man Black South BA Criminal justice 35
12 Man Black South BA Criminal justice 27
13 Woman Black South BA Criminal justice 9
14 Woman Black South BA Criminal justice 8
15 Man W
h
i
t
e
South Med Psy/Education 9
Note. MSW = master's degree in social work; NP = nurse practitioner; MDiv = master in
divinity; BA = bachelor of arts; MEd = master of education; Psy = psychology.
Some participants were eager to participate because they felt the need for best
practices to improve service delivery and to bring credibility and attention to the field
66
necessary. An inspector indicated that the state (Commonwealth of Virginia) has
mandated that a prison re-entry program be implemented. However, there is no
additional funding stream for this initiative.
Computer-Aided Software and Non-Computerized Analysis
I used Atlas.Ti7 software and non-computerized methods to analyze and organize
data from interviews. A hermeneutics unit, the Atlas.Ti term for research project files, is
created within the Atlas.Ti program, and all PDF files collected from the interviews are
assigned to the hermeneutics unit in preparation for coding and analysis. Each PDF file
is accessed individually through Atlas.Ti and is subject to the first cycle of the coding
process.
Atlas.Ti enables encoding and identification of statements throughout interviews.
It provides an opportunity to review all documents loaded in PDF format and survey data.
Survey data is placed in an Excel document and uploaded to Atlas.Ti. Additional
observations and thoughts in the hermeneutics unit are captured in the software memo
section. This provides an opportunity for easy data retrieval based on code categories,
quotes, or memos, as well as easy memo links to specific codes during analysis.
My notes and observations during interviews and reflective notes are considered
non-computerized methods. I also recorded my own thoughts as I spoke to the
participants. Demographic data on each participant were obtained and entered.
67
Document
Two participants shared documents they used at their respective institutions—re-
entry program brochures and checklists. The checklist is used to assess the risk level of
former offenders and determine program placement after release. The brochure explains
the mission, objectives, and objectives of the prison re-entry program. North Carolina
uses the Carey Guide for Risk Assessment and other respondents use the COMPAS Risk
& Needs Assessment. Both evaluative tools essentially provide the same or similar
guidance for counselors, parole officers, social workers, and nurse practitioners. While
two participants mentioned the Correctional Management Profile for Alternative
Sanctions (COMPAS) instrument during the interview, none of the participants shared
any of the documents; Therefore, these documents are not included in the analysis of
participant comments.
Response to Research Questions
The following research questions are the main focus of my investigation:
What are the experiences, perceived roles, activities, and practices of
humanitarian service professionals currently involved in the use of FGC in
families after parental incarceration?
What are some practices that will assist social workers in developing clinical
interventions (best practices) that can result in positive reintegration and
stabilization of families after parental incarceration?
The full interview protocol consists of seven questions as shown in Chapter 3 and
in Appendix E.
68
Interview Question 1
"What are your perceptions and beliefs regarding your activities and steps in this
practice to support family resilience and ecology?" The responses of the interviewees are as
follows. Participant 1 stated,
"Criminal offenses" guarantee the level of service and look at family,
neighborhood, and criminal history. The combination of all these factors favors
the service. If there is a family, the process begins before being released. Family
gatherings took place at the facility and after release. As a parole officer, it is my
job to put everything together, including service. The restorative justice model
has served us well over the years. Although, many perpetrators do not have
families, many have a support system. Generally, they want the perpetrator to be
a productive individual and stay at home. Generally, they will participate to
ensure release and stability (most importantly they want family members to stay
at home. The longer the offender is imprisoned, the more difficult it will be for
him to participate in any formal intervention. Ultimatums are often used to get
participation.
Participant 2 stated,
I have worked in the Department of Corrections for more than 20 years. I have
worked with youth and adults in institutions and after release in community
programs. We haven't themed or mentioned the models used but we are trying to
adapt to their communities and families. The actual restorative justice model has
been discussed but not fully utilized. The FGC model seems to be the "unnamed"
force that dominates today. We have re-entry
69
Program; However, they follow an unfunded mandate. This results in little to no
support or follow-up in the community.
Participant 3 stated,
I am a member of the Re-Entry Council in Virginia. I am also a substance abuse
counselor for returning ex-offenders. I have been working in this role for 15
years. It seems like its main role is to find resources for clients. One of the
initiatives for the re-entry council is to develop a network of resources. In this
role I see myself as a resource for the family and to build resources for them and
returning family members.
Participant 4 stated,
When working with families [FGC], it's hard to work with families with clients
just showing up there really needs more transition. Families need to be educated
about what to expect. Sometimes families assume that everything will be the
same. They need to be educated.
Participant 5 stated,
And they don't have much you know to help them and reintegrate them with
society. We have the Oasis organization where they provide, they provide jobs,
training and things like resume writing, they provide job skills to the point where
you can be a licensed barber things like that, they get dressed, they're going to get
dressed and everything and they can go to a homeless shelter to stay. They are
the older ones, the younger ones come out with a support system for example
their parents may be in their fifties, so they may be
70
Either dead or forty or whatever so they're going to come back and I don't know if
they're going to apologize to the victims of the crime that they offended but
they're going to come to the probation parole office, and, and they're going to sit
down with the probation officer and they're going to discuss their treatment plan
and everything and to succeed in the treatment plan and to complete the
probationary period, They basically have to admit that they did commit a crime
and they regret it. And check the treatment plan not to participate in the same
behaviors that made them there, for example, no longer engage and socialize with
such negative friends or criminal associates. Many of them only know fellow
criminals, they don't know law-abiding citizens and what they are saying is that
they will just stay at home all the time and not go anywhere, just go to work but
you can't live like that.
Participant 5 stated,
I work with a re-entry program through prison ministry in my church. My main
focus is to prevent perpetrators from criminal activities and rebuild families.
Participants are encouraged in the sessions to think about themselves and what
they need to do to reintegrate into their families and communities. Dealing with
family is a priority.
Participant 6 stated,
I am a retired parole officer. I was a parole officer for 32 years. I saw it spinning
in full swing. At first we only did inspections and visits. We don't focus on the
treatment model. As a trained social worker, I am familiar with some of the
71
intervention efforts. However, we were never expected to "facilitate" anything. I
have many contacts through NABSW to contact for help. I don't want to give the
impression that because of my age and tenure, I am not able to meet new
intervention techniques or do what is expected.
In developing an understanding of the practice, practitioners assess their roles,
responsibilities, and expectations. Participants identified how they thought they were
expected to perform. Knowledge of identified strategies and processes relevant to
protective factors associated with family resilience will support, improve, and provide
guidelines for the practices presented in Chapter 5.
Interview Question 2
"What strategies and processes do you use in FGC that reflect protective factors
related to family resilience?" The responses of the interviewees are as follows. Participant 1
stated,
Communication is the most important thing for me. When you have a client who
fails to communicate, it indicates his inability to communicate in the community,
with family members, and potential employers. Self-efficacy is also important.
Self-esteem and seeing one's ability to change. Coping skills are very important
because there is a lot of frustration and disappointment that goes back to a
previous life. So many changes.
Participant 2 stated,
We want to think that the family is resilient. When we look at individuals, we
have to equip them with additional and in some cases new skills. Most don't
72
realize the importance of communication and I should not say acceptable
communication either. Prison does not create positive people. This service is
mainly for people who are mentally ill or substance abusers. The average
perpetrator needs some support. The belief system is very important but many are
desperate. Improving or building coping skills is a shared characteristic of others
for individuals that must be addressed. All of this is difficult. The individual must
be empowered to a certain degree before he or she can use the relevant skills as a
family member.
The protective factors associated with the family all include the need for the
family system to be a productive citizen. Once these areas are addressed, we can
then look at the integration or reintegration of the family system in society.
Participant 3 stated,
Resilience in the family, I would say, depends on how much positive support
system the family has built because with it, the reunification of the incarcerated
individual with the family comes a lot of mixed emotions and having somewhere,
or having the individual or having the individual or that they can vent their
feelings. I think it is meaningful for the system of understanding. I think it will
help build that resilience, so they're ready for it. I think better work needs to be
done when we know that a father will be home in the next eight months. Program
what supportive actions need to be done where the individual is, you know if it's
family counseling, it's family therapy, individual therapy and preparing that
person when they come home because as I said home won't look the same.
73
Participants are familiar with protective factors related to family resilience. Many
consider the family to be resilient. Developing or having communication skills, coping
skills, self-efficacy, and belief systems can be seen as significant in the FGC process.
The experience of professionals who have used FGC with families provides additional
information.
Interview Question 3
"What is your experience in using FGC with your family?" Participant 1 stated,
Well, I think it was a struggle. My strong belief is that we need to start pre-release
and involve families in order to successfully re-enter. Again because since the
DOC, the model, the release model has changed, we get people who, so if they
have less than a year, they go to the local jail and then we have other people who
have done you know a decade or more in the Correctional Department facility.
Participant 2 stated,
Social workers will first and foremost be seen as formidable players at the table.
The therapeutic component is completely new in the criminal justice system. We
are generally "forced" to respond as mandated by those who do not have a clear
humanistic approach. This is especially very punishing. Families, parolees, and
community stakeholders must change their opinions about the process and the
desired outcome. What FGC/restorative justice insinuates that there is potential
for hope and success? He also said that the perpetrator is or has the potential to
be productive.
74
Participant 3 stated,
More than anything is to respect the concept of family, is to remind people what
their role is in the family, what I often ask parents is what would you do if you
caught your son and your son or daughter acting like you are doing right now,
what would be your reaction? And most of the time we have it, I would call it a
good theme or a good framework or a good foundation, which we reuse and we
start to assess and assess our own performance.
Participant 4 stated,
The additional things that can be done are some kind of agency to hire, mandated
to hire, a number of criminals who are coming back, because it's hard for
criminals who are coming back to get a job because you know you have a record
and you have people who didn't commit crimes who are trying to get a job as
well, in this world right now. But there are many things that these people take the
job for; Many things have been left behind by these people. They have abandoned
the children and they are not supporting these children and they are in the child
support enforcement system and they are in arrears, and the stressor is that they
already owe a lot of money, they owe with arrears, they can't get a driver's license
because they are in arrears, they can't get a job for, you know, they can't get a job
to pay all the arrears or catch up. And they have substance abuse problems and
they don't have a support system, someone who can really let them stay with them
to help them with hot food, shelter and some good words and things like that.
There is no fair justice for them.
75
Participant 5 stated,
I believe that expectations should be comprehensive. Everyone must have the
clinical skills to adequately serve this population. One of the reasons the
restorative justice model doesn't work is because of the educational background
of many of us in the office. I am a criminal justice major and find it complicated
and difficult to implement a program that I obviously don't understand. I did try.
Many of my colleagues, criminal justice majors, do not seek to facilitate the
necessary groups. So the first thing that needs to be there is resources and/or
training for staff. You can't expect [parole and family] clients to show up
successful when the workers don't fully accept their roles.
The experience of social workers and other human service professionals has the
potential to assist in the development of best practices. However, gaining an
understanding of this experience provides a foundation as we incorporate this knowledge
into practice and use FGC with families.
Interview Question 4
"How would you describe resilience when FGC has been used as a practice?"
Participant 1 stated,
And just with the important things that are already in place, like the transition
process before they actually go home, I think it will help some of the resilience
of the family so that they don't have to go through some of the issues that they
had when these individuals came home.
76
Participant 2 stated,
Practitioners must understand where the family is with the concept of resilience.
Factors related to resilience should be a standard part of the session. A
practitioner support network is also important. Often the boundaries are unclear.
There are conflicts based on roles, responsibilities, and accountability. Things
have to be laid out properly. Honesty is an important factor.
Participant 3 stated,
We always hear the statement that the children and families we work with are
resilient. When we talk about resilience, we are talking about the ability to adapt
to change. When a person adjusts to change, they must also change.
Interview Questions 5
"How do you integrate protective factors in the FGC process?" Participant 1
Explain
Well, the biggest thing right now is that number one reminds people before we
start that they have value because in most cases, you know, value is sometimes
what the criminal system takes. And the first thing you have to do is that, in order
for a man, to value himself, sometimes you have to remind him of the values he
has and what you can do is take even small successes and build on them. I get
people who, you know, are so depressed that they can't do anything and so I'm
going to ask really silly questions and say "Well, did you brush your teeth this
morning?" And, well, they will say, "Yes because
77
my mouth is evil." And I'd say, "Well, do you realize that it's something that you
do for you because you think you have value?
Participant 2 stated,
Each component requires attention and the ability to focus on the individual first.
With the individual capable of practicing characteristics from the individual
level, he is then equipped to focus on characteristics relevant to the family
system and then the community. Protective factors become the building blocks of
a critical process for reintegration into communities and resilience becomes an
integral part of the process. Resilience is inevitable if the work is completed with
the individual, within the family, and out into the community. Community
stakeholders are active participants in the process that they will bring about the
changes necessary for full integration.
Participant 3 stated,
Communication is the most important thing for me. When you have a client who
fails to communicate, it indicates his inability to communicate in the community,
with family members, and potential employers. Self-efficacy is also important.
Self-esteem and seeing one's ability to change. Coping skills are very important
because there is a lot of frustration and disappointment that goes back to a
previous life. So many changes.
Interview Questions 6
"If you are to play a role in facilitating FGC with the understanding and
knowledge that to successfully achieve goals and objectives, it is important to
78
using appropriate mediation skills, practicing conflict resolution skills, and assessing
outcomes during the process, what measure would you use to determine success and achieve
the desired outcome using FGC?" Participant 1 stated,
Well, the biggest thing is literally only through the value of communication. If
you want to call it that. Generally when you first start, when you first start a
family session, you're going to have one individual beating the whole crowd, so
what you do is stop everybody and then say, "Okay, now we have to change the
way we talk, okay, we're no longer using second-person pronouns, we're no
longer using third-person pronouns, We only use first person. Define me, I
think, I feel, I want, I need, I'm happy, I'm angry, I'm sad, I'm happy, I'm
frustrated, because of everything you do and that, you're basically trying to put a
mind in the mind of someone else when you're using the second or third person
that you're accusing or blaming against."
Participant 2 stated, "The ability to take responsibility. The ability to apologize and
acknowledge the feelings of others. Accept criticism in a positive way. Be responsible."
Participant 3 stated,
When the plan is completed at the first community meeting is where mediation
begins, if one understands what the expectations are, there is a number of work
that can be overcome. Most of the perpetrators feel that they have not been heard.
At the mediation stage, we will be active listeners. We then move forward with
resolution, and finally the result. Often the process has to address each goal and
allow time for mediation and resolution to occur with each
79
goals, and ultimately the results will support each other and build the idea of
success for all. This is possible with proper community preparation.
Interview Questions 7
"What supports the success of the FGC or how do you determine that the goals and
objectives have been achieved?" Participant 1 stated,
I think the main indicator is communication. I have found over the years that
many of these cats do not know how to communicate. Once they achieve this
goal, there is hope. They have not had the opportunity to communicate
adequately. Their lives weren't so great, no one treated them with respect. So, we
have a lot to do. But there are possibilities that can be achieved. If they don't
return to prison, it's a sure sign of success. But on the real side if they live outside
for a while, get a job, are the father, husband, family member, and are responsible
for their time living outside – that's success. The whole system has to change. The
time at which these men (women) have to pay for crimes in themselves is a
reason for concern and the law needs to be changed. They do time.
Participant 2 stated, "Improvement based on formal assessment completed. Observation.
Communication. Collaborative efforts are presented in a behavioral and verbal manner,
as well as a review and analysis of service plans." Participant 3 stated,
If you make everybody think the same, okay, where do you need to do this, I
don't have to do this, let's not do this, you do it and let's try to focus on the
positive and how to get you moving forward then if the majority is like that if
you're in the majority
80
situation, it's like the people around you and you can choose your friends.
Participant 4 stated, "I would say the success of meeting the actual goals and objectives
of the treatment will be established by, you know, not only the child but by the parent or
adult returning home."
The findings show that many things happen in the effort to serve in the capacity
of family conference facilitator. Three of the interviewees had a history of working with
FGC and they had successfully used it. Based on their responses, better outcomes occur
when the process begins before the physical release of the perpetrator, and it is important
to involve integral people in the conference, including former perpetrators, victims,
family members, and community stakeholders. It is also important to provide resources
such as job placements. Participant 1 stated,
The results of COMPAS can be used as a starting point. What is the level of risk
then and now? What has happened to determine the current level of risk?
Compare common themes and thoughts in general conversations. Instinct will be
present. Whether individuals respond appropriately during the mediation phase––
individual sessions, family sessions, sessions with stakeholders and families, both
mediation and resolution, and then assessment of outcomes.
Employment, communication, accountability, ownership of criminal and
behavioral problems/behaviors are indicators of success and potential for decent
and non-recidivism members, family stability, whole family, progress . . . You
know.
81
Participant 2 stated,
We use a re-entry program that is based on the Carey Guidelines. We are all
focused on re-entry and restorative justice. A re-entry program is an effort to
support returning family members with a structure and with common interests. By
doing that we want to see a decline in recidivism, sometimes you can't say that
family reintegration is going to happen. It is based on whether or not there is a
family bond and cohesiveness before the release.
Participant 3 stated,
I am a member of the Re-Entry Council in Virginia. I am also a substance abuse
counselor for returning ex-offenders. I have been working in this role for 15
years. It seems like its main role is to find resources for clients. One of the
initiatives for the re-entry council is to develop a network of resources. In this
role I see myself as a resource for the family and to build resources for them and
returning family members.
Identified Themes
The following sections present a discussion of the themes identified by reviewing
the transcriptions of data collected from all participants. Four themes were identified by
eight or more participants with similar or similar experiences. They are as follows:
The lack of articulated practice models concerns facilitators who do not
have guidelines and directions to guide them through the process.
Lack of established guidelines. Different approaches to facilitating FGC
sessions are common. There are no established guidelines disseminated for
82
Employee. There is no general understanding of what to do. Facilitators facilitate
select groups. Thus using different approaches to apply practices or modalities seems
to be the norm; and
Inadequate training. Unprepared and lacking training and appointed facilitators
do not know about the details of the process they will use. The workers were told
that they had to use modalities, but no one knew how to inform, instruct, or
guide those assigned with programmatic tasks. The movement has given little in
the areas of training, best practices, and job duties and responsibilities, and
lacked the skills and knowledge to successfully utilize FGC emerging as a
theme.
FGC improvisation. Improvising a practice model to FGC is shared among the
interviewees. It is determined by the facilitator that developing the session on its
own, not an FGC but something that resembles an FGC, meets the needs of the
facilitator.
The four themes were supported by statements made by participants to provide
descriptions of the phenomena they experienced during their involvement with the FGC.
Atlas.Ti software has proven to be beneficial in organizing data through
recordings and transcripts. Transcripts are saved in PDFs. The common occurrence of
words, phrases, and experiences is highlighted and aligned with the theme they
represent. The interview excerpts provided in the following section are direct quotes and
quoted verbatim as stated by the participants in reporting the phenomenon.
83
Theme 1: Lack of Articulated Practice Models
The first theme, the lack of articulated practice models, emerged when
participants relived their experiences when asked to talk about their experiences,
perceived roles, and activities as facilitators utilizing FGC after parental detention. Many
understand the model and its concepts. However, a complete implementation has an
impact on overall success. Not having an established model to follow is a shared
problem. O'Connor, Morgenstern, Gibson, and Nakashian (2005) investigated the
programs and training used in working with families experiencing drug addiction parents
and suggested that professionals receive training to better serve clients. In addition,
cross-system training is highly recommended to ensure that a comprehensive service
model is adopted in an effort to better support families. In investigating staff preparation
or training, O'Connor et al. (2005) stated,
Staff participate in professional development workshops and seminars on topics
such as substance abuse awareness, motivational interviews to engage
ambivalent families, family group conferences, and Focus on the Family. These
sessions equip staff with the skills and knowledge to strengthen their
performance and improve their ability to collaborate with each other. (p. 161)
Participants in the study were asked about the training they believed would
improve their intervention techniques and skills, the knowledge needed to improve their
performance and competence. Participant 1 stated,
Okay, let me know if I'm on the right track to answer this question, but in my
circumstances as you probably know, we don't really use the family group model.
We use
84
Family Partnership Meeting. Although our institution has and we have sent, over
the past 2 years, we have sent people to national conferences. I think this is an
international conference. FGC international conferences and our facilitators have
tried family group conferences in some cases where professionals leave the room
and families have time to spend time alone. We don't use a formal model to re-
enter. Although, we had some incidental overlaps, Participants gave various
responses regarding the implementation of the
FGC Process. There is a stated need for documented service support. This support is
considered essential in developing a service plan and having knowledge of the risk level
of the individual reintegrating. Participant 2 stated,
Pre and post assessments will be beneficial. However, an initial meeting with all
will contribute to the process. With mediation which is the facilitation of stage
arrangements; Issues relevant to the overall functioning of the family and the
acceptance of detention and homecoming are the points at which resolutions
begin. Once both are dealt with immediately, the results will occur. Not all at
once but during the process.
Participants are aware of the importance of pre and post-assessment. The pre-
assessments used before release indicate the level of risk and the level of service need. The
post-assessment provides insight into the success of the FGC process used after parental
detention. Participant 3 stated,
Well, restorative justice won't work with everyone. The people involved in this
model have to do the extra hard work. You need to be able to convince the
perpetrator
85
benefits for him and their return to society. With drug offenders, it has positive
results. Now, the main problem with this group is whether or not the family is
free from negative behavior. For this model to be successful, you must have
everyone buy and participate.
Participant 4 stated,
I think there needs to be an opportunity for individual sessions on parole. We
can't put it in a meeting with family members and think they will respond. The
necessary steps will take place in person. Behavioral changes affect mindsets. It's
a long process. There should be a professional judgment of "where the client is"
when we look at individual protective factors and move forward.
Participant 5 stated,
Well, in my office it is difficult to apply. Some professionals have given up on
clients and demeaned them. Lack of respect can sometimes cause problems. The
client's ability to accept and take responsibility and take ownership is a process in
itself. They don't just apologize to the person they've committed the crime with,
often just admitting even if the person is present, it can be difficult. Family
members sometimes don't want to participate. So, we found that global processes
are not always possible. This is a process full of baby steps. Facilitators also need
to have resources to connect with so that clients see value in what we ask them to
do. Successful families do well with the process.
86
Participants' responses indicate that there is a lack of articulated practice
models. Respondents can articulate the need for training to assist in the
implementation of FGC. Collaboration with others will also prove beneficial.
The consensus seems to be that the task of conducting FGC with families after parental
detention from the model of practice. Participants' recognition of the need for cohesive
implementations, processes, and resources provides significant support for what they
need to successfully implement FGC. In addition, participants acknowledged the lack of
guidelines that affected their ability to successfully facilitate FGCs.
Theme 2: Lack of Established Guidelines
As the discussion progressed, the idea of FGC had different meanings for many
people, resulting in different approaches to FGC or how the model was applied.
O'Connor et al. (2005) acknowledged the difficulties experienced by professionals in
trying to implement programs, including FGCs, and decided that in order to provide the
necessary support, positions needed to be created for individuals with the responsibility
to guide and direct the process. This individual will bring the necessary mediation,
problem-solving skills, and administrative support to the family group conference.
Without this support, O'Connor et al. (2005) identified other problems that could
interfere with desired results and successes (p. 160).
Understanding a process or the way in which a practitioner performs significantly influences
the implementation of the process. Participant 6 stated,
Yes, you may or may not be familiar with the Second Chance Act pilots that are
happening at the state level, and while they are called protective factors in the
87
This Virginia is the same indicator that we should assess for social and family
reintegration for actors who enter our communities as Second Opportunity Grant
recipients.
Participant 7 stated,
Yes, and what I want to tell you is that in our pilot program, you have to be at
moderate to high risk of violations. So especially the stronger families involved.
Sex offenders are most likely not in a program. Many of their families did not
allow them to return home. Stronger families have strong families and support
systems; One of our priorities is public safety. So people who are perceived as a
threat to society are usually not allowed to enter the reintegration program.
Participant 8 stated,
I work primarily with substance abusers. We do not have the opportunity to
experience restorative justice as written. However, most substance abusers who
have been incarcerated have a history that significantly affects family
functioning, especially neglect, stealing from the family, and other ways to
guarantee the opportunity to reconcile differences, apologize, take possession,
and move forward. This is necessary if we want to stabilize the family and create
a different life.
Theme 3: Inadequate Training
This theme emerged when the participants discussed their experiences. Some
expressed their concerns about not having the skills and knowledge to be successful. Not
88
Having the skills and knowledge to be successful is of concern to the facilitators and
individuals involved in the meeting.
According to Reamer (as quoted in van Wormer, 2005, p. 113) the social work
profession, and especially social work education, have largely left the field of criminal
justice, and social work is encouraged to reclaim the territory by developing awareness
and knowledge of the principles of restorative justice, which offers an avenue for re-
entry. Participant 1 stated,
The process must begin before it is released. Group meetings bring families and
community stakeholders before being released. Begin explaining to the family the
importance of accountability. Have a transition plan to include jobs, job training,
etc. Have an idea of what the desired outcome is and how to meet it.
Participant 2 stated,
I saw it spinning in full swing. At first we only did inspections and visits. We
don't focus on the treatment model. As a trained social worker, I am familiar with
several intervention efforts. However, we were never expected to "facilitate"
anything. I have many contacts through NABSW to contact for help. I don't want
to give the impression that because of my age and tenure, I am not able to meet
new intervention techniques or do what is expected.
All clients/parole are assessed prior to release with COMPAS. That gives us an
idea of their level of risk. If properly conducted or facilitated, FGC/restorative
justice sessions are guided by the stated principles, which for me
89
are accountability, understanding, forgiveness, and communication are the main
components.
Participant 3 stated,
I have a very short time using FGC. I think if I might be younger, it would be
more effective. I did see some progress. I have to stay on top of everything.
Parole recipients and their families believe that you are helping. They see some
things change and I can see their ability to be successful.
Theme 4: FGC Improvisation
Participants discussed the improvisation of practice models. Wallace (2010)
describes improvisation as having the ability to take advantage of the unexpected and
turn the given material into one's own scenario. In discussing the FGC with the
interviewee, some participants found it advantageous to improvise because they were
trying to provide and implement the modalities of interest. Participant 11 stated,
Right at the moment when the state's focus on social services changed, we were
immediately without much. We don't really don't know what to do. We have
OAR [Offender Relief and Restoration program] doing re-entry, so we're part of
the group's leadership. We recently launched, let's say starting in January, an
intensive case management pilot program for purposes or responses to mandates.
Our goal is to have 10 participants from the local prison. We have a total of 17
participants, about eight, nine. So, I was part of the team that reviewed the cases
and gave them deep disciplinary case management. Then here in the social
services department obviously we should be doing it
90
Outreach with former offenders, we go to local jails, provide information about
benefits and services.
Participant 13 stated,
Our program was established through prison services. This process is enhanced
by the restorative justice model because it holds everyone accountable for their
actions. It also provides support for individuals returning home. Everyone has the
support of the facilitator. We also help in getting resources and connecting with
resources to remove some of the barriers. It can be very difficult to put someone
in a group that will be blamed.
Participant 15 stated,
It is important to connect the dots between individuals, families, and
communities. This connection strengthens it for all involved. However, the work
has only just begun with individuals returning home. Families don't always
embrace and forgive and move forward. Once sharing and communication has
occurred, healing can begin. This process allows you to get answers to some of
the questions and concerns expressed by everyone. It is a facilitator-directed
process, which assists participants in the process. Sometimes families should be
allowed to have dialogue among themselves. Again, the process is inconsistent
and the way we should do things is a mystery. The idea is good.
Proof of Trust
Carlson (2010) suggests that qualitative investigators attentively use various
techniques to increase the confidence of the research they conduct; i.e., how much
91
Trust can be given that researchers are doing everything possible to ensure that data is
collected, analyzed, and reported appropriately and ethically.
Ensuring trust in my research studies involves a few different steps. First, I
looked at the reliability of the data collection records. To ensure that the data is reliable,
the tapes are played several times to ensure that the correct information appears in the
transcript. Creswell (2013) showed that the reliability of qualitative research can be
improved if researchers obtain detailed field records by using good quality tapes for
recording and by copying tapes. When there seems to be a need for clarification,
participants are called in for clarity. There are very few errors.
However, the clarification is helpful when the interviewee provides additional
information. The examination of members occurred at this time. Carlson (2010)
describes member checking as an opportunity for members (participants) to examine
(approve) certain aspects of the interpretation of the given data and suggests that
member checking is a way to find out if the data analysis is in line with the participant's
experience. For this study, member checks occurred individually with each participant,
all of whom were asked to clarify the information in the transcript, edit, expand, and
make the necessary changes. Carlson suggested that the data should be reviewed and
researched for accuracy of interpretation and for the delivery of meaningful, coherent
participant narrative contributions.
Bold and rich descriptions throughout data reporting are presented to provide a clear
picture of the subject. I included verbatim quotes and anecdotes to support
92
findings, which help ensure validity in the development and implementation of valid practice
models. This will result in the development of best practices for social workers.
The audit trail comes into existence because all documents and records are
maintained and kept to ensure that confidentiality is maintained and records remain
secure. This audit trail also supports my documentation and findings when reviewed.
Carlson (2010) indicated that keeping field observation records, interview notes,
journals, notes, calendars, and various interpretation drafts is part of creating an audit
trail.
Maintaining audiotapes, videotapes, and photos for a period of time (often 3-5 years) is
also part of building an audit trail.
Using the concepts mentioned above supports the trustworthiness, credibility, and
reliability of my research studies.
Summary
Investigating the experiences of humanitarian service professionals who have
used FGC in the past or today with families who have experienced parental detention is
the focus of this phenomenological study. This chapter presents the results of data
obtained through open-ended interview questions. This information provides insight into
the experiences of humanitarian service professionals working with parents who have
been incarcerated using FGC as an intervention technique. As discussed, four themes
emerged during the interview: lack of articulated practice models, lack of established
guidelines, inadequate training, and an improvised FGC approach for successful
utilization. Table 3 provides a recap of participant responses relevant to the identified
themes.
93
Table 3
Identified Themes
Theme Participant response (based on participant number)
Lack of
articulated
practice
models
1: The FGC model has been tried. Although presented as an
effective means of possible reintegration, many staff have had
difficulties.
2: As PO we are required to use different modalities. People don't
understand that it can be a waste of time.
3: I don't have a clear understanding of the process to have a proper
idea of what to expect.
4: Criminal justice majors need a clinical model to follow. We don't
learn it in school.
5: The therapeutic component is completely new to me. My major is
criminal justice. T read the rules and regulations to parole and that's
it. Facilitating the group was difficult and there was nothing to
follow that I knew. I just do what I think is appropriate.
Lack of
established
guidelines
1: Social workers will first and foremost be seen as formidable
players at the table. The "therapeutic" component is completely new
in the criminal justice system. We are generally "forced" to respond as
mandated by those who do not have a clear "humanistic" approach.
This is especially very punishing.
2: Some people believe that resilience just happens. Not. The
reintegration process requires a lot of resources in the community.
Practitioners must assist clients in building support systems. Most
don't know how.
3: For a model to be successful, everyone must use the same model,
follow the process, and participate as a team member.
Everyone should do the same. I don't know what my coworkers are
doing.
4: We haven't themed or mentioned the model used to align with the
community.
5: Social workers must establish an internal system that will bring
counseling into practice
(table continued)
94
Theme Participant response (based on participant number)
Inadequate
training
1: Purchases must come from the staff first because they are the
facilitators and the "doctors" in charge. Clinical skills are not taught in
criminal justice programs and many of us have criminal justice
degrees. Therefore, the model does not work as well as it should
2: Practitioners cannot do this without knowledge, preparation, and
understanding. They must also have a sincere desire to participate on
their own. At my agency, this is not the case
3: We need to understand the culture served and the influence of
social problems
4: We need to have an idea of what the desired outcome is and how to
meet it
5: We need to know how to understand the desired outcome and how
to fulfill it. No one trained us how to do this.
6: I think the lack of clinical knowledge and skills negatively impacts
our ability to be successful
7: Purchases should come from the staff first because they are
responsible for facilitating and they are doctors. We do not study
clinical skills, methods, or techniques. When do we learn?
FGC
Improvisasi
1: Successfully meeting the goals and objectives of the treatment plan
is what I focus on.
2: Communication is the focus for me.
3: As long as reintegration is indicated, we are fine. Process is not
always the main focus.
4: Having the ability to see beyond their past is important. Don't know
if that's the concept.
5: Well, we try to work by connecting families with resources
available in the community.
6: Additional components work to move forward. We have to look at
the foundations and move from there.
Chapter 5 presents an interpretation of the findings, recommendations for future
studies and FGC programs, and implications for social change, as well as my reflective
observations.
95
Chapter 5: Interpretation, Conclusion, and Recommendations
The purpose of this study is to explore the essence of the perceived roles,
activities, and practices of social workers and other humanitarian service professionals
involved in the use of FGCs to support family reintegration after parental incarceration.
To explore this phenomenon, information was collected through semistructured
interviews with professionals who utilized the practice in several ways. Data were
collected, analyzed, and evaluated regarding how human service professionals developed
clinical interventions (best practices) that resulted in positive reintegration, stabilization,
and positive outcomes for families.
Participants are recruited via email, community partnerships, organizations, and
word of mouth. Some prospective participants indicated that they were willing to
participate, but they did not meet the degree requirements. However, they meet the
criteria as human service professionals rather than social workers. These people are
employed with agencies or organizations that work with incarcerated individuals who
return to society.
Therefore, a request to amend the study and open up the pool of participants to
humanitarian service professionals was submitted to the IRB, which gave approval. The
final sample of participants included parole officers, psychologists, nurse practitioners,
licensed professional counselors, MSWs, program administrators, case managers, and
some who had degrees in criminal justice.
96
Interpretation of Findings
This study is important because it presents an investigation of the personal
accounts of the experiences of participants who used or have used FGC as a model of
practice. It is hoped that these findings will inform and support practitioners as they
apply FGC to families with incarcerated parents. The findings of this study provide
support to the limitations of the literature and understanding of best practices for
implementing FGC as a reintegration tool and support for families experiencing parental
reintegration after incarceration.
While the sample size is within the standard for qualitative research projects
(Creswell, 2013), I initially had some doubts. I worry that more participants means
greater results. Before collecting the data, there appeared to be more social workers
working in the criminal justice system. After initial contact was made, I discovered that
there were other human service professionals employed in the correctional system.
When I recruited participants and asked questions regarding participant education, I
found that prospective participants had degrees in criminal justice, psychology,
education, social work, nursing, divinity, and sociology. This is an indication that there
is a wide range of knowledge, skills, and abilities in the field and that this diversity may
present different levels of awareness and performance.
Therefore, I am requesting changes, approved by the IRB, to expand the sample
population source to include individuals other than social workers. After the interview
was over, I realized that I was interviewing more social workers (four) than I had
previously anticipated. I interviewed the following people: one science scholar-
97
A level psychologist who also holds a master's degree in education, one nurse
practitioner, one licensed professional counselor, two case managers, one re-entry
program administrator, four social workers, with one also holding a master's degree in
divinity and working in a faith-based program, and six parole officers.
Various Professionals Who Practice FGC
The fact that FGCs are employed by a diverse group of professionals working in
different fields on the one hand should be seen as a limitation in research as I hope to
identify social worker practices. I found that many individuals employed in criminal
justice institutions hold a variety of degrees, as indicated earlier.
Criminal justice majors expressed their concern for lacking a clinical background
and their desire to gain additional knowledge, skills, and abilities to carry out the
responsibilities associated with facilitating FGCs successfully. Identifying success with
the client population will improve work performance and their ability to work with
clients positively in a positive way.
Counsellors (who hold a PhD) are highly knowledgeable about the FGC process
and are more than well equipped with the skills to assess the success of the process and
the client's growth in reintegration. People who hold MSW degrees are also well-
rounded and have an extensive history of working with FGC. They also identify what
affects their success by implementing FGC.
98
Clinical counseling skills are a key factor of what practitioners consider to be in-
demand skills and are directly related to their ability to measure success. Further
discussion on defining program success in FGC is as follows.
The Complexity of Reintegration for Families
As previously stated, La Vigne et al. (2008) point out that "the process of
detachment and reintegration is a stressful time" (p. 5). Murray and Murray (2010) stated
that parental detention itself involves many challenges for children that can threaten their
sense of attachment and security. They also believe that different interventions are
needed to protect child inmates, and go so far as to suggest that carefully designed
research on parental detention can also provide a strong evidence base for implementing
social and criminal policies that benefit children (and families) of detainees (Murray &
Murray, 2010).
Human service professionals are in positions that provide supportive and
therapeutic services for the complex needs of incarcerated families, children, and
individuals. It implies that a model of practice is established and implemented to provide
the expectations, guidelines, and mandates necessary to ensure proper practice and
service delivery. The intervention skills and techniques used should be similar, if
inconsistent, for each practitioner. Consistency and continuity support programmatic
requirements for implementation. Practitioners must use the right techniques and
methodologies to guide practices that will empower clients. Social workers and
humanitarian service professionals have taken on the task of empowerment, advocating
for social justice and advocacy. Practitioners succeed when clients exhibit behavior
changes that
99
demonstrate that they are able to practice their decision-making skills in a positive way.
It also shows self-empowerment.
In discussing FGC, Holland and Rivett (2008) stated that FGC emphasizes the
value base of empowerment interventions, family expertise and practical outcomes that
may emerge. Holland and Rivett (2008) further state that there is little mention of some
of the potential therapeutic consequences and that FGCs harness and build knowledge,
strength, and resources within families and communities. It provides a framework for
families, communities, and institutions to work collaboratively (Holland & Rivett,
2008). These findings support the need for additional research.
Holland and Rivett (2008) state that the Family Rights Group, which is
responsible for FGC training and programs, has indicated that there are principles and
guidelines for practice. These principles are stated and their practice is how the goals are
fulfilled (practice). The facilitator must provide information to the family about the FGC
process and provide opportunities for the family to be involved in all decision-making
and planning processes. Family members should be recognized and empowered as
decision-makers, families should be told that they have the right to have family time free
from facilitators, and, finally, they should have a safe environment to work in. See
Appendix F for more details on this.
Hames (2009) points out that FGC differs from conventional methods because
although it recognizes the importance of professionals, it recognizes that the groups that
are very important to children are their own families and extended family networks. Ini
100
The concept can also be applied to the FGC process in working with families and with
adult parents who are reintegrating into the family.
FGC should be seen as a more holistic practice than previously identified.
Hames (2009) states that it is a complex practice that reaches far more people than it
initially thought necessary. FGC was originally used with children who were considered
in danger. Hames (2009) also points out that restorative justice strategies (such as FGC)
have some key advantages and, like social work, can reestablish their historical role in
criminal justice (p. 3). If social workers want to be effective and re-establish their role in
criminal justice, training will greatly help with the proper implementation of FGCs.
Practitioner Training in FGC
Practitioner training is usually required in most institutions. Seven participants
indicated that training was a priority and greatly influenced their roles and
responsibilities. The remaining participants expressed their concerns and frustrations
with inadequate training opportunities. The participants who received consistent positive
training and felt successful in the practice and implementation of FGC. Participant 1
stated,
I believe that expectations should be comprehensive. Everyone must have the
clinical skills to adequately serve this population. One of the reasons the
restorative justice model doesn't work is because of the educational background
of many of us in the office. I am a criminal justice major and find it complicated
and difficult to implement a program that I obviously don't understand. I did try.
Many of my colleagues, majoring in criminal justice, did not
101
try to facilitate the necessary groups. So the first thing that needs to be there is
resources and/or training for staff. You can't expect clients, parolees, and
families, to emerge successful when workers don't fully accept or understand
their roles.
Participant 2 stated, "I never received training to properly facilitate the FGC
program. I just do what I think will work. No one ever offered anything else."
Participants stated,
I love FGC. It has proven to be an excellent intervention tool in my unit. We have
participated in international training and our supervisors ensure that we are
among the most progressive training. We feel like we're succeeding and we've
seen a decrease in probation/parole violations. Connecting with the community is
helpful.
Connolly (2009) reflects on Braithwaite, who suggested that the restorative
justice paradigm was particularly influential in the development of FGC. FGC has been
directly correlated with family empowerment. Therefore, if professionals are trained to
empower families using this process, we, as social services professionals, must witness
change and success with the implementation of appropriate protocols. Participants trained
to empower families who successfully utilize the right protocols experienced positive
outcomes. Positive outcomes result in the empowerment needed to rebuild the family as
it reintegrates into the family and community.
I explore the experiences, roles, activities, and practices of humanitarian services
professionals involved in the use of FGC after parental detention. I asked
102
Interview questions that reflect two main research questions. Interview questions are
semi-structured and open-ended. Participants presented their experience and knowledge
about FGC. Some participants have a better understanding and more opportunities to
take full advantage of this model of practice. During the interview, the range of
awareness varies. However, most participants are aware of FGC as a model of practice.
The participants stated that there was a level of frustration directly related to
recidivists and that this may be a factor influencing practice or lack of exercise
protocols. They stated that the lack of protocols significantly affected their ability to
implement FGC effectively. Some participants emphasized that it should be standard
practice for all and that the process should not be disrupted by inconsistent
implementation. The following comments by the interviewee are considered to be an
expression of their perception of the process. Participant 1 stated, "This might work. I
think people are dreaming and that some of these techniques are useless." Participant 2
stated,
Well, in my office it is difficult to apply adequately. Some professionals have
given up on clients and demeaned them. Lack of respect can sometimes cause
problems. The client's ability to accept and take responsibility and take
ownership is a process in itself.
Participant 3 stated,
We need everyone on the same page. If parole and their families knew that they
were required to do something different, we would have lost everyone. We all
need
103
have the training and the expectations should be the same across the state. This
could work. What bothers me is that everyone flies freely. The client should be a
priority. This could work. Train everyone to do the same.
Participants' responses to the process supported the idea of an inclusive system.
This system will serve as a method to engage and encourage community stakeholder
participation as they may prove useful in reintegrating parents after detention.
Stakeholders may prove useful in parental reintegration after incarceration. The
interviewee stated that community stakeholders are an important component of the FGC
process. It is stated that community stakeholders are urgently needed as supporters of
clients, families, and agencies.
The Importance of Community Stakeholders
Participants indicated that the community is included as a stakeholder and that
the resources needed must be provided through partnerships with the community.
Community support has an impact on the success or failure of programs and services.
The involvement of community members as stakeholders guarantees their support and the
necessary recognition when concerns arise. Community investment is demonstrated by its
visibility and support for programs and services in the community.
Community member contributions such as funds and programs and establishing
partnerships for service improvement and positive outcomes. The investment guarantees
their role as stakeholders who are also careful contributors to the welfare of society as a
whole.
104
Participants stated that communities would benefit from having the resources
necessary to meet the needs of returning families and parents, including income and
housing and providing a safe environment for reintegration with fewer challenges.
Participants expressed concerns about the placement of former offenders in FGCs and
the need for resources. Expectations are placed on them as responsible parents and the
support that will empower the family system is non-existent.
FGC as a Treatment Modality
Many participants easily identified the understanding of FGC as a treatment
modality used with family and/or former perpetrators. All participants stated whether or
not they clearly understood the technique and its benefits for the population served.
Some stated that they attended the annual conference on restorative justice. One
participant indicated that after attending the conference it was difficult to apply the
information presented at the conference. Some attribute that difficulty to the fact that
they study criminal justice and lack the knowledge, skills, and abilities guaranteed in a
clinical setting.
Defining Program Success in FGC
Participants who majored in criminal justice in college expressed concern with
their inability to assess and serve clients clinically. This major does not offer a clinical
component; Therefore, their skills must be fully supported by on-the-job training. These
participants expressed their concerns about making proper assessments and whether or
not they were providing the necessary services. Eleven participants, including clinical
professionals, expressed their desire to apply
105
models with a high level of knowledge and skills. Other participants had the opportunity
to successfully facilitate the FGC model with parents reintegrating after detention.
Participants make the following statements regarding the assessment when using FGC.
Participant 1 stated,
Pre and post assessments will be beneficial. However, the facilitation of the stage
setting . . . Issues relevant to the overall functioning of the family and the
acceptance of detention and return home are the points at which resolution
begins. Once both are dealt with immediately, the results will occur. Not all at
once but during the process.
Participant 2 stated,
You know, the offending must be released in Virginia after the completion of the
COMPAS, which is a risk assessment. I think that would be a good starting point.
I believe mediation happens from start to finish. When we teach and facilitate it is
an act of mediation. When we make references to problems and apply discussions,
activities, and conclusions, it is a resolution. We have discussed family issues so
that everyone takes ownership when necessary and appropriate. The success that
is assessed or observed is the desired result. I make this seem small or short but
it's a long process.
Participant 3 stated,
The results of COMPAS can be used as a starting point. What is the level of risk
then and now? What has happened to determine the current level of risk?
Compare common themes and thoughts in general conversations. Instinct will go
away
106
to attend. Does the individual respond appropriately during the mediation
phase––individual sessions, family sessions, resolutions, stakeholders, family,
mediation and resolution and then outcome assessment? Work, communication,
accountability, ownership of problems and behavior are indicators of success and
potential for a worthy member of society and no recidivism, family stability,
whole family, progress . . . You know.
Participant 4 stated, "The facilitator uses the protective factor as an entry point
and when progress is made, they move on to the next step. Again, it's time-consuming
and impractical with everyone." Participant 5 stated, "Improved communication, work,
continuity. Acceptance. Accountability. Compactness. Listen. Respect each other. Pre
and post-assessment."
When asked about the protective factors and their knowledge of those factors, the
respondents' responses reflected that they were able to apply the protective factors and
that they understood their significance to the FGC process. The practitioner's ability to
align the FGC process with the protective factors applicable to individuals, families, and
communities is critical to the implementation of the practice model and its success.
Assessments and other tools used in therapeutic settings provide an opportunity
for practitioners to determine progress, leading to success. Some participants talked
about COMPAS and other protocols to determine the level of risk and service needs of
violators. Similar assessment tools can prove beneficial in measuring successful
outcomes.
107
Participants were asked to describe what they considered to be indicators of
participant success. Participant 1 stated,
FGC has been successful when the former offender has not reoffended, has not
returned to prison or prison, has not used substances, has changed his peer group,
is able to take care of the family adequately and effectively maintains his or her
role in the family. For substance abusers, a consistent program needs to be
maintained. Success is possible. Best practices will be very helpful in this
endeavor.
Participant 2 stated,
Families begin to communicate in the right way; The environment does not seem
to be tense. There is a feeling of openness. The real perpetrator can say with
conviction that he or she is wrong, apologize to all involved, take the right role in
the family, and everyone in the family allows it to happen. The family is stable,
there is no recidivism, the family is transferred to a therapeutic environment that
continues not to be ordered by a forced court but is desirable. The family is stable
and moving forward.
Participant 3 stated,
I think the main indicator is communication. I have found over the years that
many of these cats do not know how to communicate. Once they achieve this
goal, there is hope. They have not had the opportunity to communicate
adequately. Their lives weren't so great, no one treated them with respect. So we
have a lot of things to do. But there are possibilities that can be achieved. If they
don't return to prison, it's a sure sign of success. But on the real side if they stay
outside for a while, get
108
Job, is the father, the husband, the family members, and is responsible for their
time outside––that is success. The whole system has to change. The time at which
these men (women) have to pay for crimes in themselves is a reason for concern
and the law needs to be changed. They do time.
Participant 4 stated, "Resilience of all parties, improved communication,
communication skills, accountability, forgiveness, cohesiveness, such work,
reintegration – it works." Participant 5 stated, "Improvement based on formal assessment
completed. Observation. Communication. Collaborative efforts are presented in a
behavioral and verbal manner. Review and analysis of the service plan."
Participants who are familiar with the FGC model and clinical interventions are
confident in their ability to facilitate and implement the FGC model if given appropriate
training. Their statement shows that they all feel that training is a key factor in
successfully facilitating the FGC model. As a result, participants who are familiar with
the FGC's processes and protocols expressed confidence in their ability to successfully
work with parents who reintegrate into families and communities after detention.
Process, Practice, and Protocol
It is beneficial to speak with individuals who are actively involved in facilitating
FGCs. Social workers who use it do so as a model of practice on an ongoing basis. They
are well-trained and receive annual training and updates.
The risk assessment instrument (COMPAS) used by the justice system helps them plan
and coordinate the return of parents to their homes. One of the participants stated that
social workers
109
start the process before physical release. Another participant stated that the family also
started a therapeutic program before being released. In some cases, families and
stakeholders are invited to the facility 4 weeks before the physical release of the
incarcerated people.
Participants who fully integrate the FGC model in their work can detail the
process. When asked about the steps that would make FGC a successful practice,
responses were mixed. One participant, who works at the New York facility, felt that the
agency's support was phenomenal and pointed out that its support warranted annual
training. Many offenders need help with resources, and those with clinical support
systems are seen as the least likely to commit repeat offenses and better employees.
Participants collectively expressed their disappointment and concern with the lack of
resources available to returning parents. They note that those who are most successful
can get lucrative jobs, generally with previous employers, because they stabilize more
quickly, and that these employers are often more willing to hire these people because
they have a shared history and tend to have confidence in their work ethic and
performance. Also have a relationship back with someone who is already employed who
has experience and longevity with the agency.
While exploring practices that can help social workers develop clinical
interventions (best practices) that can result in positive reintegration and family
stabilization after parental incarceration, participants expressed the need for training,
supervision, and updates to the practice model. FGC has evolved from focusing on
children to an inclusive model of practice. The concepts of shame, evil, and
110
Punishment has evolved to the point where individuals understand that punishment can
also affect the treatment of adult offenders. Participants pointed out the need to
understand the process in facilitating FGC. Although some participants indicated that
they had studied the model of practice in college, others, especially those who had
studied criminal justice, had not. The absence of this acquired knowledge can affect their
ability to apply the FGC practice model appropriately.
Durability and Protective Factors as a Result of FGC
I explore the perception of family resilience and family ecology as integral
factors in this study. I seek insights from practitioners on what they find effective.
Participants indicated that family resilience is a positive indicator of success.
They emphasized that success must be considered individually and that assessments must
be made on individuals (parents) as well as the family system. FGC offers an opportunity
for families to continue to meet without the presence of a professional. This helps to
improve communication skills and provides an opportunity for family members to seek
support if challenges arise. Some participants expressed difficulties in facilitating these
sessions without clinical knowledge or preparation. Criminal justice majors indicated that
their curriculum was not focused on clinical intervention, and they felt that they were not
prepared to meet expectations of applying the FGC practice model appropriately.
However, further discussion showed that they were most familiar with family resilience
and were able to identify and support components of this practice. Some participants
described resilience as a behavior or action
111
reflecting a sense of change in parents and families. These changes are described as
"coming back," "accepting the past and moving forward," and "making small steps."
The participants talked about the importance of identifying changes or the
existence of resilience. Once identified, several participants spoke about the direction of
the session. Resilience is described as present if the family is able to accept the
reintegration of family members. Participant 1 gave a summary of the influence of
resilience on the FGC process: "Resilience appears in many ways, one step at a time or
several steps, we must recognize how each participant responds to change and moves
forward.
Resilience is different for every family member, stakeholder and facilitator."
Resilience is an integral factor when working with children, families, and
individuals in clinical settings. Resilience indicates progress and, in some cases, success.
Benzies and Mychasiuk (2009) point out that "Resilience is nurtured by protective factors
and inhibited by risk factors. Protective factors modify or alter the response to side
effects so that the family avoids the possibility of a negative outcome" (p. 104). Benzies
and Mychasiuk (2009) identified protective factors in three categories: individual, family,
and community. Most (10) participants identified self-efficacy, effective coping skills,
and social support as important factors for individuals; family structure, family support,
stable and adequate income, and housing factors are identified in the family category; and
community engagement, access to health care, and a safe environment are identified in
the community category. Participants noted that self-efficacy is an indication of
individual strength and identified self-confidence as a component of existence
112
succeeded with the reintegration process. Former offenders have many challenges
between detention and reintegration. Respondents stated that self-confidence and self-
efficacy give them and clients the opportunity to set goals. Participants also identified the
importance of protective factors and stated that all protective factors are important in
practice.
Social workers, through education and training, are familiar with the strength-
based modalities that are often used in practice. Resilience, for social workers, serves as a
positive indicator of success and progress in practice. Gilligan (2004) indicates that
Social work caters to people who are experiencing difficulties and people who
show resilience avoid the full impact of adversity. The protective factor protects
them from the worst effects of negative experiences. Therefore, social workers
must be interested in the concept of resilience and protective factors are often
strengths in the makeup of children and adolescents and in the context and where
they live. (p. 93)
Ecological System Model
Patterson (2013) suggests that ecological systems models can form the basis of a
multidisciplinary approach to reentry interventions that include professionals from social
work, criminal justice, and public health. There seems to be a need for community
collaboration. There appears to be a split between community institutions that breaks
down the services available to former inmates. Joint training and collaborative teams
will likely be an area for future research to determine what needs are needed to improve
services. Patterson's suggestion can be used as
113
basis or guidance for developing best practices in utilizing FGC as an intervention
model. The fact that ecological systems models have been cited as the basis of a
multidisciplinary approach will create a comfort zone for practitioners who do not have a
clinical background. They will be able to learn the skills necessary to succeed in the
implementation of the practice.
Patterson (2013) shows that participating in social change efforts can result in
much-needed services for former inmates. According to the ethical principles of social
justice, this includes pursuing social change that focuses on forms of social injustice
such as poverty and unemployment (Patterson, 2013). Participants in the study cited the
economy and unemployment as factors that disrupted or influenced the success of
parents reintegrating into families and communities after prison. In addition to building
on FGC best practices by utilizing ecological systems models as foundations, best
practices will be enhanced by including resources that address factors related to
poverty, especially employment. Participants cited a lack of resources to help them
successfully work with clients.
As the findings of this study show, there is a wide range of understanding and
familiarity with the treatment models discussed. What is clearly recognized is that in
certain arenas treatment or therapeutic interventions are not enforced. Many factors
contribute to this. One, the standard training component, is non-existent. Based on the
participants' responses, it was also concluded that mandatory training is not required to
ensure proper implementation and follow-up. Two participants
114
stated that criminal justice, their field of study, is the reason why they cannot adequately
implement FGC because their field of study does not have a clinical course.
Braithwaite (1993) suggested that using the family model as a crime deterrent in
nearby and surrounding communities could prove to have a positive impact on families
and returning parents. Braithwaite (as quoted in Hannem-Kish, 2004, p. 205) advocates
the alternative use of communities for incarceration or at least the use of proactive
community reintegration after a period of incarceration. His research and theory serve as
the basis for FGC. The theory of reintegrative shaming, coupled with the ecological
systems model, offers support when providing services to parents.
FGC should be seen as more than just an exit strategy but also as a model of intervention and
support practices.
Summary of Findings
The findings of this study can be presented well using the themes that emerged
during the review and transcription of the interviews. The themes of lack of articulated
practice models, lack of established guidelines, inadequate training, and FGC
improvisation provide information and knowledge that will guide the development of
best practices using FGC after parental incarceration. The development of best practices
will have a significant impact on social change as clients are successfully reintegrated.
Three people interviewed indicated that they included community stakeholders, family
members, and resources within the FGC.
To ensure continuity of service, it is often a good practice to include a guide to
available resources and services. For example, every local social service office in
115
both cities and counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia have prison reentry
departments/offices responsible for assisting with reintegration and services. Many
residents who returned from detention did not know that the office existed. Therefore,
there is a need for one to ensure that communication and guidance take place. Politicians
often discuss prison reentry programs. In response to the need expressed for programs
and services at the governors' conference, the issue of prison re-entry programs was
discussed, and it was determined that programs should be developed to address the
problems presented by the ex-convict population (Jones, 2007).
Study participants also spoke of all the players in the process, such as victims and
perpetrators, as participants. When practitioners take on their role as facilitators of the
FGC process, they acknowledge the individuals involved. Involvement or role is key in
developing an understanding of family dynamics and the impact of parental
incarceration. The practitioner's knowledge and understanding of the family will help in
the reintegration and reorganization of the family. Miller (2007) investigated the risks
and resilience in children of incarcerated parents and stated that parental detention seems
to be part of a more complex equation that researchers and social work professionals
need to consider to fully understand the problems these children face.
Most of the participants in this study had a clear and concise understanding of
protective factors because they are often used as empowerment guidelines. Participants
noted that empowerment and self-efficacy are generally indications of therapeutic growth
during the FGC process. Benzies and Mychasiuk (2008) suggest
116
that the identification of protective factors will prove beneficial for family resilience.
They also state that resilience is fostered by protective factors that modify or alter the
response to side effects so that families avoid the possibility of negative outcomes
(Benzies & Mychasiuk, 2008).
Recommendations
When I was doing this research, I was watching a television show called "Locked
up Raw." That included an interview conducted with an inmate regarding his detention
in a dangerous state prison. The inmate states that prison is a place where individuals are
imprisoned and turn into people who become insensitive to things that are painful,
dangerous, and disrespectful to others. Inmates also stated that the survival and social
skills learned in prison significantly influenced the character of these people after their
release. He emphasized that the character and behavior of incarcerated individuals
change and affect their ability to exist outside the prison walls. He further stated that
individuals return to prison because it is easier to stay in prison than to return home. This
statement is concerning because it supports the idea of the need for interventions to
assist ex-offenders in their reintegration into families and communities.
Fortune, Thompson, Pedlar, and Yuen (2010) explore social justice and women
leaving prison. Fortune et al. (2010) quoted Girshick as stating that women who leave prison
should be stronger than when they were incarcerated, and that once released, they should
have a sense of empowerment and access the resources necessary to rebuild their lives.
Although women are the main focus of Fortune et al. and Girshick's research, I
117
believe that the same can and should apply to both men and women. This premise will
support the process that started before the release as mentioned by the five participants.
FGC initiatives must be initiated before they are released. This will help parents
prepare to reintegrate into the family and community. Family members and community
stakeholders must participate in FGC sessions before they are exempted from the
institution. There will be opportunities for a supportive environment for all involved.
Release, as stated earlier, is stressful. Therefore, the pre-release meeting will kick off a
successful reintegration process.
Based on the responses of participants and the literature review conducted for this
study, the following recommendations were made.
First, for the success of FGC interventions, it is highly recommended that an FGC
training model be developed by utilizing the ecological system model as a foundation.
Once developed, training should be provided to all persons involved in the
implementation of the FGC model of practice. This will ensure that everyone responsible
for implementation, monitoring, supervision, and assessment will acquire the knowledge
necessary to become successful practitioners. In addition to training and follow-up and
regular reviews (ideally quarterly), practitioners should also be provided with a list of
networks and community partnerships to use as resources. Resources should include job
training, job opportunities, partners who have committed to hiring former offenders,
housing, obtaining health care insurance, and other helpful programs and contacts.
Second, politicians, community organizations, public and private institutions, and
the justice system at the state and federal levels should have the opportunity to review the
FGC because of this
118
Practiced. To do this, practitioners and social workers must present the concept to the
aforementioned individuals and institutions. As information is disseminated, advocates
must be able to support a model of practice with stories of truth, transparency, and
success. In the overall scheme of things, practitioners should be trained in the
implementation of the practice model first and especially, as being able to demonstrate
their expertise in using the FGC model can be the best way to demonstrate its
effectiveness and further use it. Information and resource tools will be prepared to
support the FGC and reintegration process. The kit will be customized to meet the needs
of different audiences. For families, it will include a list of community resources and an
introduction to what's available and its benefits. It also includes job opportunities with
community stakeholders who have agreed to hire former offenders. Community
stakeholder kits will provide information about programs, processes, and needs. The
professional kit will include the information necessary to implement the program. All
kits will contain a list of resources to use as a reference when communicating with
clients and family members.
Third, I recommend meeting with correctional officers and law enforcement, such
as wardens and sheriffs, to discuss the possibility of implementing FGC when individuals
are incarcerated. Based on the findings of this study, FGC should ideally be started
before being released. I believe that doing so will better prepare parents to reintegrate
into the family and community. The final six months of sentencing will be a great time to
build connections and support for the anticipated transition. Family members and
community stakeholders should participate in FGC sessions before parents
119
Released. If the family participates in a community-based program before the parents are
released from prison then the people involved will benefit from the program's support.
The pre-release service will begin the process for successful reintegration of parents
prior to release. Pre-release programs will also help work with the stress factors involved
in reintegration after release from prison.
It would be advantageous to seek funding through nonprofits and government
resources. The lack of local funding for these efforts can be a problem. However, many
nonprofits, such as the Casey Foundation, provide funding for prison re-entry programs.
Grant application opportunities will be a possibility to support FGC initiatives. I would
ask for support from individuals who believe that change is a possibility. I firmly
encourage them to become visible and verbal supporters of FGC. I will emphasize that
FGC practices will support successful reintegration into families and communities.
Successful outcomes can occur with financial support from private and public funds.
There is also a need for those who support the re-entry of prisoners to educate and
inform members of the public. Proponents of the FGC practice model understand the
power of practice and how a healthy atmosphere for parents, children, families, and
community stakeholders can be created. My final recommendation is that FGCs be
mandated by federal, state, and local communities as part of the release of violators. The
continuity and implementation of practices will provide structure, cohesiveness, and a
knowledge base for everyone to grow. Training can be developed into a credential
program for all human service providers. FGC can be a practice that influences social
change and ensures family preservation, family stability, and reduces recidivism. Funds
saved from
120
incarceration reduction can be used in FGC programs, which have proven successful and
have a positive impact on society.
Recommendations for Future Research
Apparently, there is a need for community collaboration. There appears to be a
split between community institutions that breaks down the services available to former
inmates. Joint training and collaborative teams involving all institutions that may be in
contact with or who may need to provide services to former actors will be an area for
future research to determine what needs are needed to improve services.
Additional research should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of FGC
from FGC when practitioners have been well trained and have the necessary resources.
Many participants in the study expressed their disappointment with the fact that some
were required to implement mandated programs that were not state-funded.
The legislature can respond to research that shows the ineffectiveness of programs that
are not appropriately funded.
An additional research recommendation is to study the results when FGC
progress begins before the physical release of the perpetrator. It will also be beneficial to
study larger samples. Approximately one-third of the participants in the study used FGC
as evidenced by their statements that including family members, victims, and community
stakeholders and resources contributed to the success of FGC. This requires further
research to determine the ways in which returning parents can be introduced to FGC
before being released to support and ensure the success of reintegration.
121
Impact on Social Change
The findings of this study suggest that there is a need for FGC training to
empower practitioners to successfully develop and apply FGC principles, practices, and
guidelines. The formal FGC curriculum for practitioners will support the practice model
and ensure continuity and cohesiveness. The knowledge gained will prepare supervisors
appropriately to ensure the delivery of appropriate and desired services occurs. The
curriculum and training will assist and support practitioners in meeting the needs of
clients with effective program implementation and skills.
The training provided to practitioners must result in certification in the FGC.
These credentials support the fact that individuals have been trained on how to
effectively implement the practice model. Recertification either annually or bi-annually
to ensure competence should also be an expectation and requirement. The meeting's
training mandate ensures that best practices are used when humanitarian service
professionals facilitate FGC sessions with former actors who are reintegrating into
families, homes, and communities.
As agents of social change, social workers and other humanitarian service
workers must always be aware of what we can do to make a difference. The difference
we want to make is based on the experience we have, personally and professionally. We
know what it's like to do the things we do in life. My interest in social worker practices
with families after parental detention was influenced by many families I saw devastated
by lack of services or no services. I have experienced social workers who give up and
consider themselves failures because what they think is needed is not what is needed.
This is mostly because we have not perfected
122
skills and knowledge with successful methodologies. No one is treated the same for
everyone. A template is needed that provides an opportunity to move forward
successfully with what has been proven to work. We can only do it when we have
something to offer.
Conclusion
FGC is a participatory family decision-making model (Connolly, 2006) developed
in New Zealand to help families cope with the well-being of Maori children. Over time, it
has been applied in other areas, most notably as a restorative justice approach. It has also
been used as a model practice with individuals returning from prison to help their
reintegration with their families, their communities, and society. The study explores the
essence of the roles, activities, and perceived practices of a sample of social workers and
other human services professionals who use FGC.
Developing a curriculum for the comprehensive implementation of FGC
practices will provide support and validity to the phenomenon. It will also help in the
application of findings in support of family preservation and stability which will have an
impact on social change. A model of practice must be developed, established, and
implemented. Completion of FGC training must result in certification in FGC facilitator.
Many practice models require individuals using the model to be trained and certified
with annual or biennial updates and updates implemented with formal training modules.
Completion of training ensures that best practices are used as humanitarian service
professionals facilitate FGCs with former offenders reintegrating into their families,
homes, and communities. The training module will establish an agreed model, have a
single, approved approach to FGC, eliminate the need for improvisation, and prepare and
123
Equip professionals with the necessary skills, knowledge, and abilities to become
successful facilitators. This will result in the former offender reintegrating into their
family as stronger individuals who will acquire the necessary skills to take on their role
in the family. This reintegration will affect social change because recidivism rates will
decrease, families will become stable and preserved, and family strengthening will
improve the welfare of families and society.
I listen to my colleagues in professional settings and social settings. They are
aware of what steps to take to address reintegration after detention. We can no longer
store answers to the locked questions of those who can more than try enough to influence
social change. Change agents are ready to make a difference for everyone. People have
many needs. Every problem area needs attention. Often, we find that there is a behavioral
linkage of the problem. The absence of parents has an impact on the family system, thus
causing problems with family members. The excitement of the participants in my
research study reminded me of the fact that it wasn't because I didn't know how to use
FGC. I want someone to tell me how to do it appropriately and successfully. The
participants stated that the reintegration process must begin before the release. Most
offenders don't have anyone to prepare them for anything other than release, go
somewhere, and know that there is a possibility of a drug test. The goal is that we will
help perpetrators prepare for release, not only from detention but from the system. The
justice system must be goal-oriented.
Incarcerated persons must be ready to be released from the moment they enter prison
124
system. There are several factors that those working in the justice system must consider
to help individuals reintegrate when they are released.
The protective factors discussed earlier will prove significant to the reintegration
process if used appropriately. The FGC process, when it reflects protective factors,
provides a comprehensive treatment model. A holistic treatment model will include
facilitators, community stakeholders, victims, and family members. This provides an
opportunity for communication, including an apology, as well as acceptance, settlement,
and successful reintegration of parents after detention.
The idea is to rebuild the path of former perpetrators into families and
communities and help them successfully reintegrate. This process may take a short or
long time. The main goals are family stability, family empowerment, and family
preservation.
The success of FGC implementation must be reflected in families, homes, and
communities. Real changes will be seen in the decline of recidivism, increased family
resilience, improved communication within the family, family preservation, family
stabilization, and successful reintegration.
