How Incarceration shapes Fatherhood

This blog entry is based on an article authored by Marion Neunkirchner and Emanuel Tananau Blumenschein published in Soziales_Kapital. It uses research findings that were part of the NESTOR Project which was funded by the European Commission under the Erasmus+ funding scheme. More information on the project is available here. NESTOR Handbooks and Training Material is available here.

Incarceration shapes the life of those incarcerated. It defines daily routines and regulates social interaction. As such, incarceration inadvertently affects parenthood. The daily schedules of appointments and rules to visitation superimposed on the inmates gives shape to the type of parenthood available to them. Where opportunities to receive in-person visits are limited, parenthood must shift to non-personal forms; where the ability to provide financial security to the family is curtailed, fatherhoods must be practiced via non-financial interaction. Possible modes of parenthood thus rely on their recognition and acceptance by the carceral system the inmates find themselves in. While motherhood in Austrian prisons has seen a degree of recognition via a dedicated Mother-Child ward in Schwarzau and prison furlough for expecting and new mothers; fatherhood in Austrian prisons remains relatively underdiscussed. As of the date of our research, there are several local but scant nationwide services for father prisoners in Austria. This blog post attempts to discuss why incarceration in its current form hinders more involved forms of fatherhoods, and how this can be remedied. To do so, a short discussion of what fatherhood entails will follow, before the limits on fatherhoods imposed by incarceration are highlighted.

Dimensions of Fatherhood

Fatherhood is difficult to define, as its understanding differs between regions, times and persons (See Lamb/Pleck/Charnov/Levine 1985: 885–889; and Meuser/Neumann 2022: 28–31). Fatherhood’s relationship with masculinity is likewise unclear, as the sphere of family and reproduction are ascribed more commonly to women. Meuser describes this as the “gender-exclusive delineation of family and labour” (translated from the original German in Meuser/Neumann 2022: 92). Furthermore, defining a clear father role has become increasingly more complicated, as changes in production- and gender-relations have eroded the bread-winner model of the post-war consensus. This, in turn, has given rise to increasingly involved forms of fatherhood (noted already in 1985 by Lamb et al: 886).

To still allow for an understanding of how fatherhood is affected by the conditions of incarceration, we can look at how fatherhood is put into practice. Establishing the term father involvement, Lamb et al (1985: 884) differentiated between different ways in which fathers partake in child-rearing. They identified three categories of involvement: Interaction, Availability and Responsibility. While these categories have been further built upon by subsequent research (such as by Palkovitz 2002: 39–41), they provide a useful framework to discuss how fatherhood and its practice are affected by the terms of the incarceration.

According to Lamb et al, interaction “refers to the father's direct contact with his child, through caretaking and shared activities”. It includes acts, such as brushing their teeth, playing catch with them, and so on. Availability, as Lamb et al put it " is [...] the father's potential availability for interaction, by virtue of being present or accessible”. This holds true regardless of whether any interaction is happening. As such, it is not defined by the type of interaction, but the mere (potential) presence, i.e. a child knowing that their father would be present in the next room, should they choose to play with him. Lastly, responsibility is “the role father takes in making sure that the child is taken care of and arranging for resources to be available” (Lamb et al 1985: 884). This does not just include the securing of financial resources required to pay for food, education, clothing, etc., but can also entail calling babysitters and doctors to secure (health)care. With these three categories established, the impact of incarceration on fatherhood involvement can be made evident.

Incarceration and its consequence for fathers

Just like fatherhood is difficult to define, imprisoned fathers have a complex understanding of what ideal fatherhood is. In line with existing literature (see Adritti/Smock/Parkman 2005: 7, 9f.; and Clarke et al. 2005: 7–10), interviewed fathers highlighted how widely they would like to be involved in their children’s lives. It can include regular calls to discuss daily experiences at school and with friends, driving them from and to school, telling goodnight tales, providing a role-model, and so on. While economic worries are often at the forefront of what they understand father-involvement to be, their ideas of being a father go beyond just aspects of “responsibility”. Fatherhood, as presented by incarcerated fathers, included being present, being supportive, providing guidance, and so on. Hence, it involved activities associated with interaction and availability.

At the same time, incarceration often presents a large obstacle to these different aspects of fatherhood. This does not just include material obstacles. Imprisonment and the crimes committed often carry a stigma for prisoners and their family members. The interviews have shown, how fathers might worry about stigmatization of their loved ones at school or within a community. Similarly, the stigma attached to the fathers can result in fathers questioning their own fatherhood. The affected families and persons respond to this differently. Some might choose to not disclose the incarceration to the children, others might not discuss the underlying crime, and some families might not maintain contact at all. The stigmatization of fathers is in part at the core of incarceration. Cremer-Schäfer and Steinert (1998: 40) highlight how the punishment has an ideological function. The subsequent public exclusion signals to others and the prisoner alike a moral failing, that affects how their ability to be a father is perceived. This results in both, imprisoned fathers and others, questioning the right and capacity of the affected fathers to parenthood.

Practical implications for fatherhood arise from the functioning of the prison system. The exclusion of inmates from public life is facilitated by limiting their ability to interact: from freedom of movement, access to communication technology and their access to visitations. Strict opening hours, costly or curtailed access to communication technology, and physical barriers during visits; these all define how much interaction and availability fathers can offer. Likewise, limited or low-paying working opportunities can inhibit the ability of fathers to take over financial responsibilities. Responsibility is also affected by the inability to partake effectively in the education of children, as visiting and calling time is limited. One father recalled: „Because I am not there, there is no presence [...]. And I need to be a father from a distance, [...] to be there when someone asks for an advice [...].“ (NESTOR Interview: F4WG). If the impact of incarceration on families and/or fathers is to be addressed, the various forms of fatherhood involvement incarcerated parents consider need to be recognized and accounted for.

Improving Fatherhood in Austrian Prisons

As it stands now, prisons in Austria, due to the societal exclusion and deprivation inherent to incarceration, hinder father involvement. This is largely due to two problems:

Firstly, the current understanding of fatherhood of the Austrian carceral system is very limited. The current institutional set-up focusses mostly on the aspect of “responsibility” of father involvement. This is exemplified by the limited number of national programs targeting incarcerated fathers. While activities allowing for better interaction and availability, like dedicated child-friendly visitation rooms or Christmas events, are local;  national measures focus on supporting “responsibility”. The most prominent example are alimony payments done by the state in lieu of incarcerated parents, who are obliged to pay off the accrued alimony-debt after incarceration (where able). This focus on the financial effect of incarceration is understandable, as it addresses its immediate consequences for affected families. Nonetheless, given that the Austrian prison population is mostly male and that productive and reproductive work are gendered, the one-sided economic approach reproduces the underlying gendered distribution. By focusing on “responsibility” and limiting “availability” and “interaction”, gendered notions of parenthood are maintained.

Interestingly, even the recognized economic function of fatherhood is hindered, as income during the prison sentence is limited. Instead, the state often has to intervene and temporarily take over this aspect of “responsibility”. This brings us to the second point: even where fatherhood is recognized, it is hindered. Incarceration, as it is currently understood, requires the disciplining of the inmates. As such, responsibility on their part, such as participating in the education of their children, is (temporarily) suspended. This suspension is done not just by having physical limits imposed, such as limited/no access to income-opportunities outside of prison; but also symbolically. The latter is done by framing the incarcerated as a risk, especially male prisoners (see Oberlaber 2012), as well as questioning their ability to serve as a role model.

Consequently, fatherhoods in prison faces a twofold problem. It is hindered not just by not recognizing certain aspects of fatherhood, but by also not leaving room for those recognized by the prison system.

Addressing Fatherhood: Father-schools as a first step

To address this, the role of fathers needs to be recognized. This requires not just local efforts; however commendable they are. Instead, nationwide efforts are necessary. Allowing for “more fatherhood” can aid not just in rehabilitation of the incarcerated fathers, but also in the well-being of their children (see. Dallaire/Kaufman 2018: 6f., 13). One step could be the implementation of dedicated father schools, as designed by the NESTOR project for Greek prisons. These schools refer to training groups open to father-prisoners under the guidance of trained personal using training curriculum on Fatherhood in prison developed by the NESTOR project. While these schools fall short of structural changes required for a holistic involvement of incarcerated fathers in the education of their children, they can offer a first step. They would signal a recognition of fatherhood that goes beyond “responsibility”, as well as provide a platform for incarcerated fathers to articulate and reflect on their fatherhood.

Nonetheless, a few considerations must be made, when implementing said schools. Without careful implementation, the schools could work to further exert unnecessary control over the incarcerated fathers and delegitimize the fatherhood of those incarcerated (following the arguments put forth in Cremer-Schäfer and Steinert 1998: 40). As such, participation in said schools must not be limited. Similarly, groups should not be overseen by prison guards and instead make us of civilian personal. Participation in the group should also impact any decision regarding prisoner conduct and their release. Only by respecting participant autonomy, can wide-reaching changes be accomplished (following the logic of interventions laid out in Pilgram 1978: 145–14). Furthermore, the implementation of parent schools should be accompanied by additional changes to the incarceration system, to allow the involvement in all three aspects, i.e. interaction, availability and responsibility. Possible changes can include the introduction of dedicated father-child wards, as well as prison furlough for expecting or new fathers.

Sources

Arditti, Joyce A./Smock, Sara A./Parkman, Tiffaney S. (2005): It's Been Hard to Be a Father": A Qualitative Exploration of Incarcerated Fatherhood. In: Fathering, 3(3), S. 267–288. https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0303.267

Clarke, Lynda/O`Brien, Margaret/Godwin, Hugo/Hemmings, Joanne/Day, Randal D./Connolly, Jo/Van Leeson, Terri (2005): Fathering behind Bars in English Prisons: Imprisoned Fathers' Identity and Contact with Their Children. In: Fathering, 3(3), S. 221-241. [StM1] https://doi.org/10.3149/fth.0303.221

Cremer-Schäfer, Helga/Steinert, Heinz (1998): Straflust und Repression: Zur Kritik der populistischen Kriminologie. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.

Dallaire, Danielle/Kaufman, Rebecca (2018): Parenting Programs for Incarcerated Fathers. Fatherhood Research & Practice Network. https://www.frpn.org/asset/frpn-research-brief-parenting-programs-incarcerated-fathers (12.11.2024).

Lamb, Michael E./Pleck, Joseph H./Charnov, Eric L./Levine, James A. (1985): Paternal Behaviour in Humans. In: American Zoologist, 25(3), S. 883–894. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/25.3.883

Meuser, Michael/Neumann, Benjamin (2022): Vaterschaft. In: Haller, Y. Lisa/Schlender, Alicia (Hg.): Handbuch Feministische Perspektiven auf Elternschaft. Leverkusen: Barbara Budrich, S. 27–38.

Oberlaber, Johannes (2012): Kindererziehung in Haft (als Privileg der Frau)? https://rdb.manz.at/document/rdb.tso.LIsprw2012005 (11.12.2024).

Palkovitz, Rob (2002): Involved Fathering and Men’s Adult Development – Provisional Balances. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pilgram, Arno (1978): Herrschaft durch Korruption. Randbedingungen der Gruppenarbeit in Gefängnissen. In: Borneman, Ernest/Huber, Jakob (Hg.): Soziale Identität und Gruppendynamik: Zur Bildung individueller und kollektiver Identität im Alltag, im Betrieb, im Krankenhaus, im Gefängnis. Klagenfurt: Kärntner Dr.- u. Verl.-Ges., S. 131–150.