presented by Avraham Hoffmann at the Family and Corrections Network Conference, November 2002, St. Louis, Missouri.

Israeli Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority (background)

First let me tell you a few words about the Israeli Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority (PRA):
The Israeli Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority, a state entity, was founded in 1984[1], to deal with all inmates: male and female, Arab and Jewish, married and single, as well as with their families. The PRA offers them an equal chance to a successful rehabilitation, by developing programs to fulfill the special needs of the different populations. Participation is voluntary.

We believe rehabilitation is the start of a perpetual struggle, with no end nor limits, in which a man stands alone in a struggle with himself. The Authority’s philosophy is that there is no person who cannot be rehabilitated, and that everyone has a right to a new beginning. However, it should be recognised that not everyone has the power and ability to achieve the same heights, and that the jumping-off point differs from person to person. Hence, measuring rehabilitation from a solely statistical standpoint implies reducing the value of a human being to an insignificant number. In spite of this conception, and maybe by virtue of this belief, 81% of the inmates that joint the PRA‘s programs are successfully rehabilitated – they do not use drugs or commit crimes – as opposed to 30% among those that did not participate in rehabilitation programs.

The problem

Approximately a third of the Israeli inmates are family men[2]. They have, all together, a few thousands ‎children. What kind of fathers are they? Being away from their family for a long period – how do they manage fatherhood in remote control? How do they deal with coming back home ?

The average Israeli inmate has lived away from home since childhood: in the streets, in juvenile institutions, or in foster families. Very young he enters the delinquent world, faces the police, and is exposed to detention houses, closed institutions, drugs and violence. In most cases, he himself is a victim to violence in his family: physical, emotional or sexual violence, in some cases also incest. Most of them suffer of drug addiction, ‎and are often characterised by socio-economic distress and primary lacks.

Considering this profile, the inmate becomes a father, in most cases, without having a positive example he could imitate. Education in institutions distorts the family image, no less. Therefore the expectation that the inmate become a normative average father is groundless.

Moreover, due to the objective difficulties – the separation caused by the multiple incarcerations of the fathers – they have a difficulty in conducting proper parental relations. Some of the prisoners’ families’ common characteristics are:

1. A multi generational history of distress.
2. Poor education.
3. Poor living skills.
4. Double standards from the father and mother towards the children.
5. Multiple family secrets.
6. Addiction symptoms of different types.
7. Irregular family routine.
8. Multi-problems families.
9. History of family violence.
10. Divorce.
11. Long absence of the father from the children’s lives.
12. Employment instability of the family members.
13. Financial distress and radical financial changes.
14. Distrust and anger toward the establishment.
15. A demanding family with broken limits.
16. Many and continued assistance needs, also after the father’s release from prison.

Thus, for this population the parental issue is problematic. We may then ask:

With such difficulties how can we help rehabilitate these prisoners and their families?

Moreover, the return to community is ‎traumatic for the inmate and for his family, no less than the incarceration itself. A family reunion with ‎no preparation may be devastating and become a violent confrontation.‎

At first sight, the diagnosis looks very negative. Observing this issue from the right angle, we could ‎say that the incarceration crisis puts the family on a cross-road, from which it can either chose the ‎way to become distressed and overwhelmed or the way to get rebuilt and healed. How?

In trying to find the way ‎to a positive recovery, looking for ways to make this crisis become a lever to rebuilding the ‎family, we started developing in 1986 the “Triangular Program”.

Believing in a holistic treatment for the prisoner, his wife and children we developed our program merging two (2) earlier theories: “the intrinsicmethod” perceiving the family, and especially the children, as a high-risk group that requires specific attention, and “the extrinsic method” seeing them as being able to enhance the father-inmate’s rehabilitation. We emphasise the importance of saving the child and preventing him from behavioural digression, and acknowledge the importance of the mother for the child’s development. Therefore the children are tutored by college students in a program called “Big Brothers / Sisters for inmates’ children”, while the mothers participate in support groups, and the fathers in rehabilitation programs in prison.

We observed that the fathers-inmates were our program’s weak link. We believed that strengthening the fathers-children and inmates-spouses bond is crucial to the inmate’s return home and successful rehabilitation.[3]  But why should inmates be motivated to join the program ?

Often being parents and family men is the only normative aspect of these prisoners through which they can join the society on an equal level. Hence, we believe that parenthood is a very important — perhaps the most important — aspect of the overall rehabilitation of the prisoner and his family (Ohlin[4]). To enable these inmates to rejoin their family and society successfully, we must impart them with the means to overcome their lacks and difficulties by:

1. Improving their parenting skills.
2. Teaching them how to seek the community services’ assistance – this population is not familiar with the state’s and local authorities’ social, health and educational services.

These are the main goals of our “Parental training program for prisoners and ex-prisoners and their wives”.[5]

The parental training program

Background – pilot project

The project was initiated and led by the Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority and the National Insurance Institute, joined by the Parenthood School of the Adler Institute and the Israel Prison Service. The pilot project started in 1998 and run during 22 months (until the year 2000). It was accompanied by an evaluation research that was carried out by Haya Amzalag-Bahr and Hagit hacohen-Wolf of the National Insurance Institute. It examined the principles on which the project was based, the way these principles were applied, and the effect of the parents’ participation on their concept of parenthood and their awareness to services in the community.

During the pilot project seven (7) groups of parents were operated[6]: five in the community (involving prisoners after release and their wives) and two in Prisons (involving prisoners awaiting release). The pilot project included a total of 101 participants – including prisoners, ex-prisoners and their wives. Each group met for 15 two-hour sessions: 12 meetings were devoted to learning and three to enrichment (joint by additional family members).

The meetings were conducted by teachers (guides) from the Adler Parenthood School, accompanied by the Prison education officers and the Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority’s co-ordinators. The latter must attend the meetings, are responsible for the administrative aspects of the program – keeping in touch with the participants and reporting to the program’s director.

Democracy and tolerance

The Adler method supports establishing “democratic” family relations, based upon co-operation and mutual respect between parents and children. Contrary to relations based upon power and authority and obedience exigency. Contrary to the “omnipotent” and “know all” authoritative parent, the democratic parent allows himself to look imperfect and show he needs for help or advice. Turning to the child for help and suggestion in itself strengthens his positive self-esteem. The relations of mutual counselling between parents and children will replace a relation of “explanations”, claims, arguments, pressures, criticism, reproaching and preaching. The guidance is intended to help the parents to learn how to allow their children to take responsibility, thinking and behaving independently and a strong social feeling, in a relaxed homey environment.

Most inmates are not familiar with democracy; if they are it is usually with a negative attitude. Is it possibile to change their perception?

Differently from behaviouristic therapy, this program works on changing the cognitive perceptions of the inmate and former inmate. The basic principles being the “democracy” and “tolerance” – two (2) cognitive elements that must be nurtured otherwise the method is worthless.

The inmates this program is intended for, lack any experience and example of democracy or tolerance. On the contrary, as criminals they experienced a “dictatorial” surrounding. They have developed a need for immediate results – in material aspects such as money and drugs, as well as in human interactions. To rehabilitate, inmates must learn to overcome their impatience and how to relate democratically with others. By learning how to interact, raise and educate their children they learn also to rehabilitate and integrate the normative society.

Results: In general the findings point to the development of a more “democratic” and tolerant perception of parenthood.

Program implementation

Subjects emphasized in the courses: the Adlerian theory addresses a wide range of issues of parenting and inter-family relations. However the meeting in the different groups managed to discuss most of the main issues of Adler’s theory, but at different levels and different emphasis. Some major subjects that were dealt with in the groups are shown on the transparency (3# שקף):

• The needs of children and parents in the family – possible conflict.
• Setting limits.
• Sibling rivalries.
• Secrets.
• Parents’ and children’s responsibilities.
• Parents’ contribution to the home’s atmosphere and children’s behaviour.
• Charing, consulting and asking for help.
• Respect and acceptance. Encouragement.
• Decision making in the family.
• Belonging; mistaken ways of belonging.
• Over protectiveness; spoiling.
• Parental authority; rules and limits in the family.
• Acquaintance with the psychological service.
• Punishment and alternatives to punishment.
• Natural and logical results. Educational methods.
• Dealing with anger.
• Children’s development stages.
• The couple in the family. Family setting.

Main findings

Significant differences were found between the parental attitudes of the participants at the beginning of the project and at its close:

• These differences reflect an undermining of attitudes regarding the most common methods of education such as: over protection, pressure and competitiveness, guilt feelings and overcompensation, reward and punishment, and unrealistic expectations.
• A few changes were in strengthening attitudes regarding recommended methods of education by means of the Adler theory, such as: letting children experience the natural and logical results of their actions, encouragement, showing trust in children’s capabilities.
• There was a notable rise in the number of methods parents use in order to become aware and involved in what goes on in their children’s schools.

Did we expect to much or did we offer these fathers a possibility for a new begining?

In most of the recommended educational methods, parents’ attitudes remained the same at the beginning and end of the project (transparency 4). For example: setting up agreements, mutual respect, encouragement, consultation, getting help from the children. Also: understanding subjectivity, choice and responsibility, different perceptions that different people may have (accepting the “other’), the influence of values on forming children’s perceptions and expressing positive feelings towards the children.

It is important to emphasise that these changes are not obvious. They are even more impressive, if we take into account the problematic characteristics of inmates’ families and parenthood among them. As well as the fact they had only half of the meeting usually administered in normal parenting programs of the Adler Institute (15 instead of 30).

The main changes that occurred

The aspects that were studied:

1. Widespread educational methods – aspects of guilt feeling and compensations; Over-protection; spoiling; pressure and competitiveness; high and unrealistic expectations;
2. Recommended educational methods – encouragement, mutual respect, forming agreements.
3. Subjectivity and choice – understanding the differences in world-views of people and accepting the other.

In some issues little changes occurred if any. Especially in subjects concerning:

• Recommended educational methods.
• Taking advice.
• Sharing and seeking help.
• Natural and logical results.
• The influence of attitudes and values on the children development.

We believe that the changes are in accordance with the characteristics expected from such a process of changing attitudes. First will occur undermining of existing perceptions and only later will new perceptions are be accepted; in the beginning we see a change of external manifestations and later a change of the fundamental values that guide the individual’s perception and behaviour.

As expected, behavioural changes are the last manifestation to occur in the course of changing perception and world view. They are the most difficult to achieve and they necessitate many reinforcements to support and stabilise them. Although, from the behavioural measurement view point there were only little real significant changes monitored, the overall differences point at a tendency to change.

Background variables

• Among the background variables which influenced changes in parenthood attitudes were the following: the operating of the group in prison or in the community; previous experience, or extent of exposure of participants to courses on parenthood; the children’s living with their father or separated from him; and the Influence of the parental role – fathers as opposed to mothers.
• Another interesting variable was the social role – from mothers report at the beginning of the program we observe that they are less reluctant consulting with their children than the fathers. This difference blurs after the course. However we observe other differences between fathers and mothers: while fathers report more about guilt feeling and a need to compensate their children, the mothers show high and unrealistic expectation for their children together with more involvement in their schooling and behaviour at school. In community courses, where men and women attended the course together, men show less flexibility and a difficulty in believing an individual may change. Their parenthood is motivated by guilt feeling and a need for over-compensation of the children. Hence liberty from rules means happiness.
• Fathers that live with their children show stricter perceptions of parenthood than those living away, especially those still incarcerated. The former tend to agree with the statement “my children behave better after being punished”. While the latter would identify with the saying “my child behaves badly because I was in jail”.

Parent- children joint activities and involvement

Fathers in the community reported at the end of the course that they watch television more often with their children than they used to before the course.

Contact and involvement with the school or kindergarten has increased significantly – more parents have contacts with the teachers and attend parents’ meeting at school; more parents say their children tell them what is going on in school. This fact may also testify indirectly to an improvement of the parent-child relations.

The school’s parents’ meetings are significant example of democratic behaviour. They serve as an opportunity to experience democratic decision making. The father-inmate cannot behave according to his “nerves”. He must learn to restrain although his child did not achieve a 100 mark on his test.

Future – participants’ opinion

All the participants expressed interest in continuing to learn about active parenthood. Most of them would prefer to continue both learning and social activities with members of the same group. We believe it points to an additional aspect of the course as a support group. Hence, they expressed their wish to include social content in the meetings. They said they would highly recommend it to their friends.

Research recommendations

The findings showing a change of the participants’ parental perceptions and to a certain extent also their behavioural manifestation strengthen the probability that these courses contribute to a successful rehabilitation of the fathers-inmates.[7] It seems that the Adlerian parenting style strengthen the inmates’ families and become a source and support for the inmate (and less a source of pressure that might harden the rehabilitation process). Strengthening the positive and normative aspects of his role and functioning as an incarcerated parent or released inmate is a step in building a sense of self-ability and a normative self-image.

The program had two (2) apparently un-connected goals:

1. Changing the parenting style: it seems from the program plan, an anticipation for a general change, even if superficial, of all the aspects with which the Adlerian theory deals with.
2. Learning about the community services and getting their help:  the results show a poor familiarity with the services. The encouragement to seek their help did not achieve its goal. However, the main goal of the program was to change the parenting style, and we still believe most of the resources should be directed toward this goal. Moreover, we can assume that with the move toward a more open and democratic parenting style, these parents will make a greater use of the community services.

On the basis of the findings, it was recommended to include a course of parenthood among the services provided by the Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority. Because 15 meeting were insufficient it was recommended to gather each group once a month during an additional year.

Conclusions

After 18 years of experience in the rehabilitation of inmates, we had found the weak side of our triangular program: we improved the inmates’ children situation by offering a special tutoring program by university students; we improved the wives situation while offering them assistance during their husbands’ incarceration. The program I presented today is a bridge between the above two programs and completes the triangle of the inmate’s family.

It is not a coincidence that the prophet Malachi (3: 22-24) describes the stage of salvation by saying the prophet’s (Elijah) mission is to “turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers” [8] . Meaning that, the mutual approach is the wholeness inside the opposition.  

---

[1] Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority Law, 5743-1983.

[2] Today I am talking about the program for fathers (the conference’s subject). The Authority has a special program for mother with their children. I will be happy to talk about it separately.

[3] The strengthening of the relationship between the inmate and his family, has been found to be an important factor in the rehabilitation process. (In a research of Dr. Levenstein, 1980). A third of the inmates who return to prison, have pointed out that the reason for their re-incarceration, was their failure to reunite with their close family, that provoked their despair and unwillingness to become rehabilitated.

The inmate is in a trap, that provokes a decline in his social position, and sometimes even in the destruction of his family status. In another research, conducted by the PRA, among inmates before their release from prison, 70 % have expressed their concern as to how their children will accept them. Both researches show the crucial importance of the spouse in the inmate’s rehabilitation.

[4] See for example, Ohlin (1954, 1970) found that inmates who have positive relations with their family have succeeded more while released on parole, and showed lower recidivism rates and less returns to prison.

[5] As far as I know, most of the similar programs in other countries are intended for inmates while in still incarcerated: The H.I.P (helping Incarcerated parents) program in Maine, surveyed in 1993; the “Parent in Prison” program in a prison in Tennessee (Hairston & Locket, 1987); in a prison in Minnesota (Klinman & Kohl, 1984); “Family Reunion Program” in New York, (Carlson & Cervera, 1991); and in Oklahoma “The Fathers and Children” (Harrison & Mitchell, 1992).   

[6] Attendance: in the 7 courses that operated, 101 inmates, released inmates and their wives participated. 60 of them completed the course. The research is based upon the answers of 56, of which 38 men (68%) and 18 women (32%). The average of completers in each group was 63%. According to the Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority’s staff it is hard to recruit a large number of participants among the population we treat, as well as ensuring the completion of the course. However, the anticipated problems proved to be wrong. The drop-out from the groups did not harm the courses stability and flow.

[7] מראה מקום עמ’ 28

[8] “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. ⁶ He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse.” (4:5, or 3:23).           (הנני שולח והשיב לב אבות על בנים ולב בנים על אבותם)