Evaluation Results for Fit 2-B FATHERS1

(September 1999 - January 2004)

 

I.  Who participated in Fit-2B-Fathers?

 

Ÿ        Overall, 213 inmates participated in Fit-2B-Fathers between September 1999 and January 2004.

Ÿ        Most participants were Caucasian (82%), between 20-39 years old (77%), not married (75%), high school graduates (76%), employed prior to being incarcerated (53%), earning less than $20,000/year (61%), and fathers (86%).

 

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Fit-2B-Father Participants.

 

 

Overall N=213

9-Session (n=64)

10-Session

(n=41)

12-Session

(n=96)

17-Session

(n=12)

Race (%)

 

 

 

 

 

      Caucasian

82.1

87.5

95.1

75.8

58.3

      African American

11.8

10.9

4.9

11.6

41.7

      Other

6.1

1.6

0.0

12.7

0.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age (years, %)

 

 

 

 

 

      Less than 20

10.3

6.3

17.1

10.4

8.3

      20-29

50.2

37.5

53.7

56.4

58.3

      30-39

27.2

39.1

19.5

21.9

33.3

      40 or older

12.2

17.2

9.8

11.5

0.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marital Status (%)

 

 

 

 

 

      Single

44.2

40.0

36.6

48.4

58.3

      Cohabiting

15.5

13.3

24.4

14.0

8.3

      Married/Remarried

24.7

23.3

31.6

23.7

16.6

      Separated/Divorced

15.5

23.3

7.3

14.0

16.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

Education Level (%) *

 

 

 

 

 

      Less than High School

24.6

 

16.7

23.1

45.5

      Completed High School/GED

47.4

 

50.0

48.4

36.4

      Beyond High School

28.1

 

33.4

28.6

18.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employed Prior to Incarceration (% Employed) *

 

53.4

 


38.5


57.0


40.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gross Income Before Taxes (%)*

 

 

 

 

 

      < $9,999

39.7

 

36.4

39.6

44.4

      $10, 000-$19,999

20.7

 

27.3

19.8

22.2

      $20,000-$29,999

18.9

 

0.0

20.9

22.2

      $30,000 >

20.7

 

36.4

19.8

11.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have Children (% Yes)

85.9

85.9

75.6

88.5

100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Children

 

 

 

 

 

      No Children

14.1

14.1

24.4

11.5

0.0

      One Child

36.2

34.4

31.7

39.6

33.3

      Two to Three Children

36.7

37.5

29.2

39.6

33.3

      Four or More Children

13.3

14.0

14.7

9.3

33.3

Values for education (Missing: Overall, n=99; 10-Session, n=14), employment status (Missing: Overall, n=97; 10-Session, n=28), and income (Missing: Overall, n=102; 10-Session, n=30) represent valid percents. Men participating in the 9-session and earlier 10-session classes were not asked to report on these variables.

 

 

II.  What was the level of Participation in the Program?

 

  • Overall, most (77%) participants attended at least 50% of the classes offered and 60% graduated from the program (i.e., attended at least 80% of the sessions).

 

Table 2. Level of Participation in Fit-2B-Father Program (Sept 1999 – Jan 2004)

 

 

Overall N=213

9-Session (n=64)

10-Session

(n=41)

12-Session

(n=96)

17-Session

(n=12)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Voluntary (vs. Mandated) Participation (% Yes)


56.3


100.0


68.3


29.2


0.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent of Sessions Attended

 

 

 

 

 

      24% or less

12.3

23.5

7.3

6.3

16.6

      25 – 49%

10.8

12.5

9.7

11.6

0.0

      50 – 74%

19.8

7.8

43.9

15.9

33.3

      75 – 100%

57.1

56.3

39.0

66.3

50.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Graduated Program  (%Yes)

60.1

56.3

58.5

64.6

50.0

 

Notes: Mandatory participation in the program was initiated with the 12-session group. Attendance and graduate rates were impacted by whether the inmates started the program late, were “unsuccessfully released” (e.g., broke the rules and were taken to prison), or were successfully released from prison.

 

 

III.  Who graduated from the program?

 

  • There were no statistically significant differences between those who graduated and those who did not on age, race, marital status, level of education, and whether their participation in the program was voluntary or mandated.

 

  • For those inmates who reported on employment status (n=116), 69.4% of those who were employed prior to incarceration graduated from the program compared to only 53.7% of those who were not employed; the difference approached statistical significance, X2 (1) = 3.0, p = .08.

 

  • Of those inmates who reported being fathers (n=183), 65.0% graduated from the program compared to only 30% of all non-fathers (n=30); the difference was statistically significant, X2 (1) = 13.2, p < .001.

 

 

IV.  Who completed both pre- and post-test evaluations?

 

  • Overall, 68 of the 213 participants (31.9%) provided complete data on both the pre- and post-test evaluation survey.

 

  • Not surprisingly, those participants who completed both surveys were more likely to attend a greater percentage of the sessions (M = 93.3%) than those who did not complete both surveys (M = 58%), F (1, 210) = 104.8, p < .001. Similarly, compared to those who participated voluntarily and those who did not graduate, those who were mandated (20.0% vs. 47.3%, respectively; X2 (1) = 18.0, p < .001) and those who graduated from the program  (0% vs. 53.1%, respectively; X2 (1) = 66.3, p < .001) were more likely to complete both surveys.

 

  • Although the majority of program participants were Caucasian (n=175; 82.1%), only 28.6% completed both surveys compared to 47.4% of all non-Caucasian participants, X2 (1) = 5.1, p = .02.

 

  • Of those inmates who reported being fathers, 34.4% completed both surveys compared to only 16.7% of non-fathers, X2 (1) = 3.7, p = .05.

 

  • Overall, 93% of the pre- and post-test surveys were completed by fathers. Thus, the findings are primarily reflective of the programs impact on fathers.

 

 

 

V.  What impact did the program have on participant's attitudes?

 

Earlier in the program, a True/False 10-item survey was used to assess attitudes about themselves, their role as fathers, and parenting practices. Scores across the 10-items were summed, with higher scores reflective of more positive attitudes. Later, the survey was revised (9-items) and a 6-point likert scale response set was used (1=Disagree; 6 = Agree). Mean scores were computed, and again, higher scores reflected more positive attitudes about themselves, fathering, and parenting practices.

 

Table 3.  Program impact on participant’s attitudes.

 

 

True-False Sample (n = 13)

Likert Scale Sample (n = 55)

 

 

 

Pre-test score: Mean (SD)

8.85 (1.14)

5.04 (0.57)

 

 

 

Post-test score: Mean (SD)

9.79 (0.48)

5.36 (0.67)

 

 

 

Mean score change (SD)

.85 (1.14)

.32 (0.78)

 

 

 

T-test (p-value)

2.67 (.02)

3.08 (.003)

 

 

 

Program impact: N (%)

 

 

Attitudes worsened

1 (7.7)

14 (25.5)

Attitudes remained the same

5 (38.5)

2 (3.6)

Attitudes improved

7 (53.8)

39 (70.9)

 

 

  • Overall, the findings demonstrate a statistically significant (yet modest) program impact on improving attitudes. In fact, compared to their pre-test scores, most (n=46; 67.6%) participants demonstrated higher scores on their post-test.

 

  • Examination of the responses to the individual items revealed that participants felt better about themselves, better understood effective discipline practices, and they were more likely to  recognize play as an important way of learning for children

 

 

VI.  What impact did the program have on recidivism?

 

Data to assess program impact on recidivism rates was available for 152 of the program participants. Table 4 summarizes the number of participants who recidivated following release.

 

Table 4. Recidivism rate for program participants by year of release

 

 

 

 

Recidivated

Year
released

Number released

No new charge

Within
1 year

Within
2 years

Within
3 years

1999

15

8 (53.3%)