\a 4.1.1.“. , (int..- .vlflbnflf'fiwb no." I... 2:? . .‘ 33:21:77.1.3... x :71... {411:2 3.. t n: '1 58A 1” 1...... {I .oIA. t. 0.. ill”. 91 Kiri; A. ul.)!..x..a . . 5.x? .15. .. . N .y ah...m_£.yu§ 3 in.» 3.. ..~ IIQI piflhvi -. w. 2. i a 5 I Ilia-{Ir . . ’35:...- :2. L5...“ tfexi $2.: 9.; . an». .11 .. :1. 2 .I.§:. - $1.31.. .1. c... S. {tallizfi yo .5 , 5‘1 9 Hana. 3.19:2 aé ... .§!.lg.b. .ii!.i.lhl:t. 1"?§3.:3‘ .314.‘ a} 4 H ..E.::vt>.. (.2303; ‘33.} x .«r S... .4901. . 9 r.uv§~in...y ......................... Excerpt ................................... Overview of Session 6 .......................... Excerpts ................................... Recovery Plan Excerpts ......................... Session 7: Conflict Resolution and Financial Management ....... Conflict Resolution: ......................... Children and Parenting: ......................... Overview of Session 8 .......................... Excerpts ................................... Excerpts ................................... Follow-up Session: Review and Encouragement ............. CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION ............................. Introduction ................................... Conclusions ................................... Limitations of the Research .......................... Implications ................................... APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E REFERENCES OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ix 86 86 86 87 87 88 89 95 96 97 99 101 110 122 125 128 Table 4-1 Table 4-2 Table 4—3 Table 4-4 Table 4-5 Table 4-6 Table 4-7 Table 4-8 Table 4-9 Table 4-10 Table 4-11 Table 4-12 Table 4-13 LIST OF TABLES Individual Pre—test and Post-test Scores from FACES II: The Comparison Group ......................... Individual Pre—test and Post-test Scores from FACES II: The Experimental Group ........................ Pre-test and Post-test Mean Scores .................. FACES II Linear Scoring and Interpretation; Comparison Group Pre-Test and Post-Test ..................... Olson’s Clinical Rating Scale for Circumplex Model (1993), Life Innovations, Inc. .......................... FACES 11 Linear Scoring and Interpretation; Experimental Group Pre-Test and Post-Test ..................... Olson’s Clinical Rating Scale for Circumplex Model (1993), Life Innovations, Inc. .......................... One-sample T-test: Pre-test/Post-test Standard Deviations . . . . One-sample T-test: Improved Mean Scores by Group ....... One-sample T—test: Determining Significant Differences Within Groups .............................. Two-sample T-test: Determining Significant Differences Between Groups with Equal Variances Assumed .......... One-sample T-test: Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean and Standard Error Means .......................... One-sample T-test: Improved Mean Scores, Standard Deviation, and Standard Error of Mean ............... 45 46 47 48 51 52 55 56 57 58 59 61 62 Table 4-14 One-sample T-test: Experimental Group Pre— and Post-test ENRICH Differences ..................... xi 63 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4-1 Olson’s Circumplex Model: The Comparison Group ....... Figure 4-2 Olson’s Circumplex Model: The Experimental Group ...... Figure 5-1 Sharing Strength and Growth Areas ................. Figure 5-2 Peace Agreement ............................. xii 50 54 67 85 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The United States imprisons more of its people than any other nation in the world. More tax dollars are poured into the coffers of criminal justice, in an effort to support this ambitious distinction, than are invested in all academic pursuits such as public education, trade schools, universities, and so on (Mustin, 1997). Propelled by an immense $25 billion annual budget, it is baffling that the single greatest asset, the richest and most reliable resource in reducing recidivism and divorce rates, is either ignored, misused, or casually treated. “In spite of previous research indicating the benefits of family involvement, little clinical application has occurred; discussions of correctional education largely overlook perhaps the most important variable bearing on an inmate’s success or failure in an education program; namely, his family” (Klein & Barr, 1996, p. 33). Lori Girshick (1996) concluded in her book, Soledad Woman: “The most frequently cited recommendation related to prisoners and their families is to offer family counseling or workshops” (p. 112). According to “Families of Offenders: A Key to Crime Prevention, ” published by the Family & Corrections Network (1996), there are over one million people imprisoned in the United States today. It is estimated that every prisoner has 5 immediate family members and 15 extended family members waiting for them to be released. In addition, over 4 million people are presently under court supervision such as probation or parole (Mustin, 1996). A good deal of effort has been expended researching the devastating effects incarceration can impose on prisoners and their families. The emotional and physical strain can be immense. Indeed, families also face a “sentence” of physical, social, and psychological hardship, and they will do so, in most instances, with few resources and little power to meet these overwhelming demands (Brooks, 1994). Fathers who have been released from prison often deal with unique obstacles and conflicts which can subvert their efforts to re-engage their families and communities. In an effort to deal with those multiple stressors, and as a way of monitoring their behavior over time, all probationers in the state of Michigan are required to participate in individual counseling. Scope of the Problem Former Michigan inmates are required to attend individual counseling as a condition of their parole or probation. The hope and rationale driving this requirement is rooted in the belief that counseling may help some men to reconcile their sense of anger, despair, and regret, recover from substance abuse addictions, and to not re-offend. There are no counseling protocols in Michigan for helping families adjust to the return of a father from prison, but it was assumed that a family therapy model could be developed specifically for this population, and that it could be implemented to help stabilize and restore family systems. Indeed, individual counseling does not permit family input, assessment, or participation, and without that fathers cannot fully understand the suffering they have imposed on their families, and their wives and children cannot “get over it” until he has accepted responsibility, made amends, and sought forgiveness. Beyond that, the failure to treat former inmates and their families 2 from a systemic, ecological perspective diminishes the scope and impact of mandated individual therapy. In many respects strong marital bonds buffer competing familial, individual, and environmental demands, while weaker relationships may simply recycle conflict, disappointment, and blame. Stable family systems can foster forgiveness, deter isolation, and affirm a sense of shared identity. Fathers returning from prison are uniquely challenged to recover from their prison experiences while quickly adapting to their former roles and responsibilities at home. Their need to be anchored into something more meaningful, and perhaps more reliable than themselves, is immense. Family relationships, burdened and disorganized by reintegration, can exacerbate existing problems, or discourage re-engagement. Worse still, fathers may start feeling apathetic about the important and ordinary decisions they make about their wives and children, substance abuse recovery, keeping a job, probation requirements, and so on. Statement of the Problem This study investigated the pre-test and post-test differences in Adaptation and Cohesion, as measured by the FACES II Instrument (Appendix A), between two groups of ten fathers. Specifically, this study compared the FACES II scores of fathers who received eight sessions of solution-focused, contextual family therapy with their wives with fathers who received eight sessions of individual counseling without their wives. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to identify and examine the most persistent problems and conflicts which impeded the reintegration efforts of fathers returning home 3 from prison, and to also help men resume their roles as husbands and fathers for the sake of their families, and for the sake of themselves. Overall this was an attempt to investigate the benefits of family counseling as a more ecologically responsible and systemically correct way for treating fathers already stigmatized by their past, struggling to redeem their present, and too uncertain about their future. Significance of Research This research was important because the effects and differences between individual and family therapy for this population were unclear. “Since the family is for most persons in this society the significant social unit in which social attachments are grounded and social life is enacted, the family might have been expected to have been the focus of a good deal of theoretical and empirical work on rehabilitation, or at least to have been the target of programmatic efforts of those working to reintegrate ex- offenders into the community. This is not the case, however. The literature on the family in this area is meager indeed” (Martin, Sechrest, & Redner, 1981, p. 406). More recently Jim Mustin, editor for the Family & Corrections Network, recommended that the highest research priority be given to understanding the links between prisoners and their families (Mustin, 1998). Reintegration is an evolving and delicate process often requiring empathy, reciprocity, trust, and forgiveness to reconcile marital conflicts and restore family systems. The unique and complex problems and potential resources, which most couples must inevitably sort through, can be daunting, and the temptation to ignore or mistreat them can be strong. And yet so much depends on couples resolving their differences and recovering a sense of hope and resolution; after all, they are parents with children who are anxiously depending on them to get it right and stay together. Indeed, all family members have endured multiple hardships, and they are all seeking relief and compensation from it, and for it. Unfortunately, the reality of reintegration disappoints the imagination far too often. Beyond the benefits of intact families, the implications for protecting and enhancing environmental resources, by lowering recidivism rates, are also obvious and important. Conceptual Definitions (1) Wife: Woman who is married, or co—habitating, for at least 2 years with a man who had formerly been imprisoned for a period of not less than 18 months. (2) Father: Former inmate who is married, or co-habitating, for at least 2 years with a woman who is either the biological or step-mother to his children. (3) Children: A father’s biological offspring or his step-children as a result of marriage or co-habitation. (4) Family System: Structured organizations comprised of interdependent familial relationships and influenced by rules, roles, boundaries, and enviromnental resources which serve to enable or disable the stability of the whole organization. (a) Rules: Regulates and controls how decisions are made, reflects different levels of intimacy and power between members, encourages predictability, and establishes roles. (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) 10) 11) (b) Roles: Members assume specific positions, commitments, and responsibilities based on the needs and expectations of individuals within and outside the system. (c) Boundaries: Invisible barriers which determine the extent that family members are either connected or disengaged from each other. Social supports: All emotional, financial, and physical resources which promote familial reintegration efforts. Reintegration: The longitudinal processes and levels of success fathers and their family members experience as they seek to redefine and restore rules, roles, and boundaries that either facilitate or diminish adaptation and cohesion. Adaptability: The capacity family systems possess to alter power structures, rules, and roles in response to circumstantial or developmental stressors. Cohesion: Perceptions of how loyal and emotionally bonded family members view one another, particularly with respect to decision making. Reciprocity: The art of giving and receiving favorable consideration, effort, or regard by family members. Empathy: Rooted in fairness, it expresses respect, concern, and selflessness. Trust: Built on forgiveness, it is achieved through personal responsibility, meeting familial expectations, and being reliable. Operational Definitions (1) Independent variable: Dichotomous treatment variable for contextual, solution- focused family therapy vs. individual counseling. Family therapy treatments will advocate the principles of fairness, reciprocity, empathy, and trust, described by 6 (2) Contextual Theory, as strategies for treating the Experimental Group of fathers and their wives. Dependent variables: (a) Adaptability: Scores on the FACES II Instrument which determine perceptions of adaptability. (b) Cohesion: Scores on the FACES I-I Instrument which determine perceptions of cohesion. Research Assumptions (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Family relationships are reciprocal in nature; a father needs his family as much as they need him. Separation and isolation, created by the imprisonment of a father, can disable family systems. The reintegration of the father, along with his efforts to restore his family, can be precarious. Fathers with little hope for their futures can feel apathetic about the decisions they make, their sense of familial obligation or loyalty, and their motivation to comply with probation. The love and respect fathers receive from their families can enhance their sense of worth and esteem, and may inspire their efforts aimed at commitment and trust. Fathers employ multiple coping strategies to maintain homeostasis, stability, and varying needs for interdependence. Theoretical Model Human Ecological Framework: Human ecology, built upon the principles of several systems theories, illustrates and explains the interdependent and reciprocal nature of family relationships, how environmental resources and social supports enhance or diminish those relationships, and how decisions evolve with respect to familial rules, roles, boundaries, and environmental influences. These principles describe the “mutually sustaining transactions that link people and environments, and on the decisions that families make to creatively adapt and foster human development” (Boss, Doherty, LaRossa, Schumm & Steinmetz, 1993, p. 423). Furthermore, it examines how well people survive and function in relation to their environmental demands, opportunities, and choices. Human ecology “is grounded in a balance between demands of the ecosystem for cooperation and integration, and demands on the individual for autonomy and freedom” (Boss, et a1., 1993, p. 425). This quality of life focus may be further assessed and appreciated by the four virtues described by Kenneth Boulding (1985) in achieving “human betterment.” They include: (1) Economic Adequacy which is the process of securing food, housing, clothing, and other essentials, (2) Justice which seeks fairness and equal treatment with respect to jobs, education, and health care, (3) Freedom which is the authentic expression of ideas, feelings, and beliefs without fear of retribution or imprisonment, and (4) Peacefulness which is a sense of harmony and well being that protects against suffering and hardships. Other remarkable characteristics of this ecological perspective include trustworthiness, generosity, courage, and tolerance. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction It is important to understand that all family members are affected by the incarceration of a father. “The stigma accompanying incarceration affects the whole family, leading some members to distance themselves overtly or covertly from the offender” (Carlson & Cervera, 1992, p. 22). Sixty percent of men in prison are also fathers (Brooks, 1994). Isolated from their families, these fathers may endure intense feelings of loss which is often reflected by their “loneliness, guilt, self-blame, anxiety, depression, loss of sleep, diminished appetite, and feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness” (Carlson and Cervera, 1992, p. 25). Most inmate fathers lack an accurate sense of the financial, emotional, and physical burdens they have imposed on their wives and children; most struggle to retain an acumen of their former roles as husbands and fathers in the midst of a prison environment which may hasten dependency, hostility, and distrust. The level of influence they seek, however, is rarely achieved because their wives often exclude them from the decision making process by withholding or diminishing familial problems. And while his family may have dramatically changed and grown during his absence, his personal development may not have changed much since the day he lost his freedom. One father acknowledged: “You know time has stopped for me. I still think like I did when I went in and I’m trying to make up for all the time that I lost but I know I can’t. I also have this bitterness, this inner rage that I don’t know how to let go of. I’ve been treated as less than human for so long that I no longer know what to expect or what is expected of me” (Shaw, 1992, p. 70). Most fathers in prison report feeling anxious, but eager to resume their family commitments. “Because of their stigmatized and socially devalued status as criminal offenders, the role of the father is one of the few roles that they can look forward to assuming successfully upon release” (Carlson and Cervera, 1992, p. 145). Most men suspect or fear their wives have been promiscuous or unfaithful; most rightly worry about losing a measure of their authority and respect. According to Klein and Bahr (1996) most inmates, upon release, lack the cognitive and social skills they need to satisfy the obligations and responsibilities they promised themselves and their families while they were still in prison. “When inmates are de-socialized from life with their families and socialized to the life of an inmate, they are more likely to end up back in prison. Simply put, the behavior patterns one learns in a cage teach one how to survive in a cage, not how to live fruitfully in society as a whole” (Brooks, 1994, p. 277). Most fathers are highly motivated to reconnect with their families upon release, to avoid circumstances or careless decisions which may violate the conditions of their probation, and to fulfill their redemptive promises. Fathers who honor their commit- ments, make amends, and successfully reintegrate back into their families are far less likely to return to prison (Fishman, 1986). Paroled fathers assume a significantly greater risk of failure if they live alone, live with siblings, or take up residence with a 10 non-family member. Conversely, they are more likely to succeed if they live with a spouse, significant other, or parent (Brooks, 1994). The role of the prisoner’s spouse, or significant other, was likely arduous and unfamiliar during their husbands’ incarceration. Unlike their husbands who had few responsibilities and obligations beyond serving their prison time without major incident, wives often feel overwhelmed by the competing demands of work and child care. In essence, the wife must manage all family responsibilities as a single parent (Mustin, 1998). Beyond dealing with her own loss of affection, emotional support, and sexual fulfillment, she is also pressed into the role of a single parent. Common stressors among wives include economic hardships, behavioral and disciplinary problems with their children, and the withdrawal of familial supports, either by her family or his. It is not uncommon for her parents to encourage divorce, while his parents may blame her for the misdeeds of their son. Diminished relationships with friends and neighbors, who may betray or reject her, along with an awful sense of embarrassment and resentment, completes the cycle of isolation. Most wives perceive that they are also being punished for their husbands’ crimes, and report that they are also forced to endure similar feelings of loneliness, boredom, and helplessness (Fishman, 1986). This feeling of being punished, and of losing control over their own lives, is a universal complaint. Recently the Tennessee legislature identified “the families of inmates as victims suffering the effects of crime through no fault of their own, and urges the Department of Corrections to encourage programs that enable family bonding and to make visitations a priority for Tennessee correctional institutions” (Mustin, 1998, p. 4). It is not surprising that when husbands are finally released from prison, they may be ill-prepared to negotiate with wives, who may have grown more 11 independent and confident since their absence. “Although effective adaptation of wives necessitates learning how to survive independently from their spouses, their husbands may become jealous and feel threatened by their wife’s ability to be competent and self- sufficient without them” (Carlson & Cervera, 1992, p. 24). One wife-in-waiting con- cluded: “I thought I was pretty well prepared for his coming home but I wasn’t. There was so much I resented about him and we never got around to talking about it while he was inside. I guess also I did change. I stand up to him now and tell him what I think and he doesn’t like that but he’s learning. I’m a lot more independent now. I’ve had to be. He hasn’t been here to change the plugs and all. I’ve had to do it all” (Shaw, 1992, p. 70). Given the sacrifices they have made, and the obstacles they have cleared, it is not surprising that when wives deal with their husbands they are much more assertive, particularly about issues surrounding money, child-rearing, and work. Husbands who fail to adapt, or feel their authority has been subverted, may become antagonistic, uncooperative, and disaffected. Wives often report feeling unappreciated by their inmate husbands, particularly when they feel obligated to comfort him, to assuage his sense of loss and despair. As such, they may reserve their own feelings of anger, blame, and resentment until he gets home to “face the music” (Carlson & Cervera, 1992). Some wives may actually perceive his release as a threat to the stable routines they have worked hard to secure. They may be incapable of trusting him to be a reliable husband and father (Shaw, 1992). The fear wives may have felt for his well being and safety while he was in prison may be eclipsed by the anxiety and suspicion she may feel after he is released. Wives typically have a more diminished vision of the marital bond 12 than their errant husbands, who usually fantasize the relationship beyond its reality and strength (Carlson & Cervera, 1992). Children suffer emotional, social, and cognitive problems when their fathers are absent. These symptoms are manifest in aggressive and disobedient behaviors, alienation from peers, truancy from school, poor academic achievement, and substance abuse problems. Expressions of anger, blame, and embarrassment may be projected toward the mother, or directed against the father. “Limited research suggests that they (children) have behavioral problems at home and school and suffer from emotional distress, worry, and depression as a result of the loss of their father and other associated difficulties” (Carlson & Cervera, 1992, p. 31). In fact, children often experience episodes of grief associated with feelings of denial, guilt, anger, and sadness. Children who had secure and reliable relationships with their fathers are even more vulnerable to these feelings of loss than children who had weaker attachments. It is quite common for parents to conceal the truth about the father’s crime and his subsequent punishment both to ease their own sense of shame and to protect the child from the harsh and incompre- hensible realities that are disrupting the family system. Although well-intended, children are often quickly and adversely affected and attempts at deception may only fuel their worst fears. “Thus, failure to communicate the truth to the child can contribute to additional anger and serious behavioral and emotional problems” (Carlson & Cervera, 1992, p. 320). The whole family system is affected, of course. According to Carlson and Cervera (1992), “Any type of dismemberment necessitates family readjustment, but when it is accompanied by stigma, shame, and embarrassment the task of achieving a new equilibrium is more complicated” (p. 22). Most men returning home are reluctant to 13 abdicate their roles as husbands and fathers, but their expectations and appeals for inclusion may actually disable the family system. The principal reason these familial relationships are so difficult to sustain is the inability of family members to engage one another with empathy and reciprocity. Imprisoned fathers, isolated and stuck in their own misery, may not fully understand, appreciate, or acknowledge that their families have also struggled to cope with multiple hardships his criminal behavior and subsequent absence inflicted. Families who do remain intact during the father’s imprisonment often feel entitled to full reciprocity from him, and may have unilateral and very different expectations of how he should balance the suffering he has caused against the hope of redemptive measures he may have promised (Bayse, 1991). Over the past fifty years a plethora of treatment programs have been introduced and tested within prison systems throughout the United States aimed at reducing recidivism rates. According to the Directory of Programs Serving Families of Adult Offenders (1995), there are more than 130 major social support agencies, prison ministries, and volunteer organizations (not including their sub-chapters) devoted to helping men, women, and children affected by the imprisonment of a family member. The vast majority of these programs provide some form of on-site, on-campus, prison counseling and training in an effort to enhance familial relationships, parenting skills and marital bonds, problem-solving and coping strategies targeting substance abuse, spirituality, behavior modification, and levels of academic competence and future job prospects. Most agencies have designed deliberate treatment goals and strategies to support inmates or their families. For example, Families in Crisis, Inc. (Hartford, Connecticut) offers some form of individual, couples, or family counseling; Fathers and 14 Children Together (Lexington, Kentucky) helps inmates to become better parents; Friends Outside National Organization (San Jose, California) teaches conflict resolution and behavior modification strategies; Families Matter (Virginia Beach, Virginia) targets substance abuse; Prison Fellowship Ministries (Washington, DC) promotes spiritual growth; and Pace, Inc. (Indianapolis, Indiana) assists with job training and education. The good works and benevolent ideals inherent with all these organizations are meaningful and laudable, but their efforts are largely focused on helping the father while he is still in prison, enhancing the quality of prison visitations, or assisting his family until he gets out. Jim Mustin, Editor for the Family & Corrections Network (1998) wrote: “Fifteen years ago, little recognition was given to the importance of families of offenders. Today, in most parts of the United States and Canada, some kind of effort is under way to strengthen prisoners’ family ties. Unfortunately, these programs—mostly small, non-profit—reach few of those in need. Also, little research has been done to evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts. To prevent crime by strengthening families of offenders, there must be a re-ordering of priorities. The criminal justice system and the community agencies that potentially serve the prisoner’s family must re-examine their roles” (p. 1). Too often, it seems, the inmate and his family are perceived as two independent systems, each reflecting unique but separate strengths and weaknesses. A much greater emphasis should be placed on family therapy, post-release from prison, as a preemptive and concerted strategy for helping to restore marital and parental bonds, and to assess if family counseling can more successfully bridge these two systems; particularly for men who return home from prison with an uneasy and uncertain sense of their worth as husbands and fathers. However, men who maintain their family relationships while imprisoned and then assume their previous roles as husbands and 15 fathers, have significantly lower recidivism rates than those who abandon their familial responsibilities (Hairston, 1990). Tricia Hedin, whose husband is a prisoner in Oregon, expressed her feelings of anger and disbelief in an article she wrote for the Family & Corrections Network (1998). She said: “The correctional system crushes families beneath the Steamroller of ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric and lack of funding for family-oriented programs. We recognize empty phrases such as ‘family support is an essential element of our rehabilitation program,’ phrases not reflected in programs or policies” (Mustin, 1998, p. 7). In 1986 Dr. Patricia Van Voorhis, Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati, addressed the First International Conference on Reaffirming Rehabilitation held in Alexandria, Virginia. She wrote, “The practice of targeting individual factors for treatment while neglecting factors of an individual’s environment has been criticized for some time now. This view is also consistent with the major tenets of social psychology and, more recently, community psychology, environmental psychology, and social ecology” (Van Voorhis, 1986, p. 57). She maintained that family therapy offers the best hope for counseling inmates, even though its value has not yet been reflected in offender treatment. This view is also supported by Dr. Creasie Finney Hairston, University of Illinois at Chicago: “Concern about prisoner-family relationships is gaining momentum and may become, if not a major correctional treatment strategy, one of the most pressing problems ever encountered in corrections” (Hairston, 1991, p. 101). Ariela Lowenstein, Professor of Social Work at Haifa University in Israel, published research in Family Relations (1986) on the adjustment problems children experienced when their fathers were imprisoned. In her summary she recommended that counseling be available for prisoners’ families at the point of prison release. She said, 16 “Family counseling should be aimed at: (a) dealing with the anxiety, depression, and stigma effects on the mother and children; (b) assessing the strength and resources of the marriage and the family and identifying children who are likely to encounter problems; and (c) arranging for intensive treatment for families who need it” (p. 84). In 1986 Canada’s Salvation Army and the Justice Services Department teamed up to help fathers transition from prison back into their communities. They looked beyond the scope of most traditional reintegration efforts which simply addressed employment, housing, and substance abuse concerns. Stewart King, Executive Director of The Salvation Army, asked: “Is it possible that many existing reintegration efforts have failed to recognize and address the root of what it takes for the offender to ’make it’ on the outside? Could it be that relationships, particularly those of a family nature, are able to play a pivotal role in community restoration and reintegration of offenders?” (King, 1994, p. 9). The American Correctional Association ratified its 1996 Public Correctional Policy on Crime Prevention to include a statement about the significance of familial relationships on offender behavior. “Consider the offender’s family as an integral partner in the offender’s treatment program, and as an essential element in crime prevention among families at risk. Using this approach, we assist not only the offender, but another high risk group: the children of offenders” (Adalist-Estrin, 1996, p. 2). In 1995 the efficacy of family therapy as a superior treatment modality was demonstrated by Family Re-Entry, Inc., a Connecticut-based, non-profit agency com- mitted to helping prisoners and their families. They interviewed and tested 133 former inmates who had been imprisoned between 1987 and 1991; their results were conclusive: 33% of former inmates who participated in family therapy (n=61) remained arrest free 17 for 3-5 years following release; however, 10% of former inmates who only received individual counseling (n=72) were able to make the same claim. Terryann Reed, Director of Family Re-Entry, explained in a 1995 press release: “These remarkable results show that there is programming that does cost effectively turn crime around. Past attempts at social rehabilitation of inmates failed because the therapy was individually focused. This study is one of the first to highlight the benefits of family focused therapy which helps the inmates to replace abuse with caring discussion, and dependency with responsibility” (Reed, 1995, p. 1). According to Goldberg (1994) several universities have taken the lead in training and deploying Marriage and Family Therapy graduate students in an effort to help inmates and their families. For example, Dr. William H. Quinn, Director of Marriage and Family Therapy at the University of Georgia, led a 3-year study aimed at reducing juvenile delinquency. He and his MFT graduate students created the Family Solutions Program, a solution-focused model designed to enable client families to more effectively protect and control adolescent members with high risk behaviors and delinquent histories. His study included a Control Group (10 sessions of individual therapy) and an Experimental Group (10 sessions of family therapy). Six months to two years after the study was completed recidivism rates for the Control Group were 44.3%, but only 34.8% among the Experimental Group. Dr. Richard Wampler, Director of Marriage and Family Therapy at Texas Tech, presented a workshop on treating young offenders and their families at the 1993 AAMFT Annual Conference. Their clients are recruited from The Brownfield Regional Court Residential Treatment Center (a residential prison alternative for young men convicted of crimes triggered by alcohol and drug abuse) and from the Lubbock County Youth 18 Center (a residential detention center for boys and girls, ages 11-16). Wampler reported: “Despite progress in therapy in LCYC (Lubbock County Youth Center), a return to the community returned the juvenile to her/his old friendship networks and a family environment that allowed delinquent behaviors” (Goldberg, 1994, p. 4). In response to those destructive obstacles, Wampler introduced home-based family therapy for adolescents released from LCYC. In 1993 twenty families participated in this solution- focused family treatment program. Mary Sandor is a Marriage and Family Therapist and the Director of The Family Therapy Program at Isaiah House in Bridgeport, Connecticut. Isaiah House is a 90-day halfway house that provides family therapy to its residents who are in transition from prison back home. Sandor supervises MFT graduate students from Fairfield University in a collaborative effort to “ease, reconcile and change the family tensions and divisions that the offender’s crime and sentence may have brought. . .hurt, resentment, disillusion- ment, powerlessness, frustration and broken communication may have occurred as a result of the offender’s crime and incarceration” (Sandor, 1991, p. 21). Goals and treatment strategies are pursued and revised over 7-10 weeks of family therapy. The program, called New Directions-Taking Care, challenges the residents to practice interpersonal and parenting skills. With growing awareness and respect, mental health professionals and criminolo- gists have begun to recognize the complexities and resources inherent in all familial relationships. “The role of the family contributes to a great extent to the success of a parolee. It gives him a reason to want to live and want to change because of knowing someone loves, needs, cares, and depends on him being there” (Girsheik, 1996, p. 102). Traditional treatment methods to reduce recidivism have focused on “fixing” the inmate 19 with individual counseling, as opposed to stabilizing and empowering family systems. Failure to bring family members into this process demeans and belittles the sacrifices and hardships they have endured; moreover, opportunities for reconciliation and forgiveness can be lost when they are desperately needed the most: at the point of release. This may be the most critical time to intervene with family members because their motivation to recover is strong, their expectations are high, and they may never be so willing to engage one another again with the same measure of excitement, candor or honesty. Human Ecology Theory Family Ecosystems Urie Bronfenbrenner has been a pioneer in the development and advancement of Human Ecology Theory. His model of human development asserts that human behaviors and characteristics are remarkably fluid and shaped by environmental forces which, paradoxically, produce consistency and change over a life span. This Person-Context Model reveals the reciprocal and interdependent nature between various systems and environmental conditions. Bronfenbrenner created five separate, but interrelated systems to describe his concept of family ecosystems. They are: ( 1) Microsystems, (2) Mesosystems, (3) Exosystems, (4) Macrosystems, and (5) Chronosystems. Microsystems reflect interaction patterns between the developing individual and other people within his or her immediate environment (e. g., jail, home, school, peer groups) who espouse similar or diverse values and beliefs. Quite simply, “Microsystems are the places people inhabit, the people who are there with them, and the things they do together” (Whittaker & Garbarino, 1983, p. 11). The relationships an imprisoned 20 father may have had with other inmates, as opposed to correctional officers, would have represented two very different microsystems. Mesosystems describe the relationships between and among different micro- systems. For example, the relative strength of a parent-teacher mesosystem may have significant bearing on how a child behaves at home and performs in school. The relationship husbands have with their wives, probation officers, counselors, or employers can easily influence how they parent and make decisions. Exosystems link different settings to one another, and affect individuals who do not participate within those settings. For example, a father’s commitment to his wife and children may be strengthened or weakened by employment opportunities and the availability of social supports like job training, housing, health care, and college loans. Fathers who perceive their environment with optimism and hope are more likely to reassert themselves as reliable providers and committed care givers. Macrosystems are comprised of micro, meso, and exosystems. They represent the blueprint of societal norms and expectations, and reflect different cultural beliefs, traditions, stereotypes, and resources in which the developing person lives. Mesosystems describe “how different cultures respond to economic crisis that diminish the ability of some people to pay for services, how the nature of friendship and neighboring differs among ethnic groups, how cultures define and respond to dependency, and how different political idealogies allocate authority between public and private agencies” (Whittaker & Garbarino, 1983, p. 15). To be sure, fathers who had to deal with being imprisoned subsequently had to also deal with the stigma and bias society reserves for ex-convicts; and as such, so did their wives and children. 21 Chronosystems examine how individual development may be triggered or influenced by changing environmental events or circumstances over time. Events may be external (being sent to prison) or internal (abusing alcohol) and can alter existing relationships between a person and his environment. For example, fathers in this research often reported a sense of personal stagnation, regression, and dependency while they had been imprisoned. Human Ecology Theory posits that people not only experience relationships within familial and social contexts, but that their development is also pinned to the relationships among other subsystems. Moreover, people not only acquire certain skills when they adapt to changing circumstances, but they also influence and change the environment in which they live. Indeed, environments not only function to limit and restrict human behaviors, they also exist to promote opportunities for individual autonomy and freedom. Adaptation Adaptation is a crucial theoretical construct for this research because families are living and evolving systems who are constantly having to balance the demands of their individual members with their ecological resources. Adaptation not only challenges the system to be flexible and goal-directed, but it may also alter the environment to accommodate the change. The adaptive process requires: (1) recognition of information, (2) a variety of possible solutions to select from, and (3) implementation. Ecological transitions occur when roles or rules become changed by environ- mental influences. For example, men cannot fulfill their roles as husbands and fathers when they are separated from their families by imprisonment; their environment (prison) does not permit sufficient feedback with them, and as such, roles and rules evolve to 22 accommodate this external stressor. Indeed, one of the primary objectives of human ecology development is to achieve mutual accommodation between individuals and their surroundings. Decision Making Another important theoretical perspective for this research is decision making. “Decision making is the central control process in families that directs actions for attaining individual and family goals” (Boss, et al., 1993, p. 427). Decision making reflects how well family systems function, establish rules and roles, set goals and expectations, and react to stressors or conflicts. When decisions respect individual rights and family needs, preserve stability and cohesiveness, encourage participation, and offer a variety of options for resolving problems, then these families have a much clearer sense of who they are, where they are going, and how they will get there (Paolucci, et al., 1977). It is important that the decision making process inspires as much trust, respect, and reciprocity as possible. How couples perceive their roles (authoritarian vs. authoritative), establish family rules (flexible vs. rigid), and boundaries (open vs. closed), not only reflects their decision making style, but it also communicates their willingness, or reluctance, to support other family members. Of course, some families are adroit at minimizing or avoiding problems as a way of “not fighting.” Couples from this perspective may be bound by rigid rules and roles, and more inclined to be enmeshed or disengaged in struggles for more influence and individuation; and as such, may even form coalitions against other family members. 23 The fear of making a decision and risking conflict may be related to a weak sense of personal autonomy and esteem, and a willingness to surrender control to another. These avoidant behaviors are identified and described as: (l) Drifting: blindly following the status quo; (2) Pedantry: focusing on insignificant parts of a problem; (3) Allegiance: belonging to a group or an organization that espouse similar beliefs, and protects individ- uals against isolation and fateful decisions; (4) Exegetical: individuals maintain certain beliefs based on the “expert” opinions and ideas of others; (5) Manichaeism: choices are viewed within extremes of being completely right or completely wrong; and (6) Mar- riage: couples may be unwilling to assert their ideas, opinions, beliefs, and expectations as a way of avoiding responsibility for failed outcomes (Paolucci, et al., 1977). Bad decisions, like good ones, may also be assessed by the effect they have on the family system. For example, couples with few resources and strengths may also be too permissive or restrictive in setting boundaries for their children. Decisions which divide and belittle can impose more hardship and anxiety than the presenting problem. Families without a shared vision of their potential can easily be drawn into conflict avoidance strategies. In essence, they have learned that engagement may only bring more distrust, anger, and rejection. Good decisions are firmly grounded in principles of fairness, equality, and reciprocity. They seek to balance ecological demands with familial and individual needs for stability, cohesiveness, and free expression; perhaps most importantly, they unite and empower individual members. Every laudable concept human ecology strives to advance is grounded in the capacity to make decisions which either support economic adequacy, justice, freedom and peace; or disables these through self-indulgence, intolerance, helplessness, and retribution. 24 How couples decide to decide has overwhelming implications and consequences, not only in the present but well into the future. Couples make good or bad choices based on how much control they perceive over their lives, relationships, and environment. Families who perceive their environments replete with possibilities and opportun- ities can also imagine the power and control they have in determining their own futures. They are less likely to avoid conflict or problems because their ideas and solutions do not undermine or threaten. Defined by trust, empathy, and reciprocity, these families focus on what is possible, not what is unimaginable (Kantor & Lehr, 1990). Family Values In human ecosystems, family values “shape perceptions and influence the selection of goals as well as the perception and ranking of alternative means for reaching goals” (Paolucci, et al., 1977, p. 63). They are defined along three domains: (1) “Personal” examines how people are motivated to change, how they cope with problems, and how they determine goals, (2) “Moral” reflects fairness, integrity, and empathy in determining what is ethically right as opposed to what is not, and (3) “Social” reveals the capacity people have for respecting or challenging the rights of others. Family values, as a function of the ecological decision making process, refers to the development of personal, moral, and social attributes which determine how satisfactorily people view themselves in relationship to their environment (Paolucci, et al., 1977). For example, families who feel disconnected from the outside world, or perceive few social supports, may exist in isolation and despair. As such, individual members may unwittingly exchange their independence in an effort to gain a greater sense of familial cohesiveness and security. They may be unwilling to risk change or 25 engagement, and often see themselves as helpless and powerless. Conversely, families with a stronger sense of control and purpose, and who have clear expectations for their members, do not jeopardize individual autonomy. Most acquired values can be traced to family of origin experiences and expectations. For example, children develop a sense for judging what is right or wrong, and how people should act toward one another with respect to empathy, forgiveness, and reciprocity, from their parents or care givers. Inconsistent parental signals can confuse and distort a child’s capacity to distinguish right from wrong. Parents who doubt their own beliefs, or lack the integrity to impose standards of accountability and fairness, may expect similar expressions from their children. Values may be assessed by one’s capacity to: (1) cope with failure, hardship, and rejection; (2) achieve goals through discipline and persistence; (3) recognize and pursue ideals of fairness, empathy, and integrity; and (4) respect the legitimate rights of others (Kantor & Lehr, 1990). Roles and Boundaries “Roles provide a method of organizing expectations and determining rules for acting” (Paolucci, et al. , 1977, p. 76). They may be assigned or assumed, and perceived as positive, neutral, or negative; but regardless, roles always reflect who should do what, when, and how often. Roles are influenced by environmental demands, rewards, or traditions. They shape rules of behavior and attitudes for interacting, and they support or disable relationships within and outside the family system. 26 All families are semiopen systems, and are governed by flexible boundaries which regulate varying degrees of being open or closed. Boundaries define family systems in terms of tolerance and permeability. Closed systems are rigid in nature, discourage change, and may ignore or resist environmental inputs and outputs. Open systems, conversely, are more adaptive to change, and more willing to invite and consider environmental opportunities and demands. Ideally, families develop a balance between being open and being closed. Too much of either can create conflict and confusion (Firebaugh, 1988). For example, families who are rigidly closed may implement decisions without ever resolving the problems they seek to remedy; systems which are too flexible and open may also be too chaotic and crowded to ever reach consensus about what to do and where to go. Conflict Resolution In human ecosystems conflict is viewed neither as good or bad because negotiated outcomes may produce varying levels of stability or chaos. Family development and bonding among members are enhanced when conflicts produce solutions which reflect trust and respect. Frequent and unresolved conflicts, however, may exhaust a system of its resources and ability to make good decisions. People enmeshed in conflict tend to disengage from one another and become apathetic or hopeless in their efforts to find agreement or compromise. Families generally choose three different strategies for resolving conflict and making decisions: (1) consensual, (2) accommodation, and (3) de facto (Paolucci, et al., 1977). Consensual decisions reflect agreement and support among family members; accommodation requires commitment but does not require agreement from all. De facto 27 decisions usually are not decisions at all. Rather, they are unwelcome events or issues that do not permit negotiation, compromise, or resolution. From an ecosystems perspective, real negotiation may only be achieved when “everyone wins; each family member comes out with some needs satisfied” (Paolucci, 1977, p. 163). Contextual Theory This research was also framed by Contextual Theory and its relevance in negotiating and balancing issues of entitlement through fairness, reciprocity, empathy, and trust. “Contextual theory integrates the systemic view of classical family therapy with multiple individual levels {of dynamics” (Gurman & Kniskern, 1981, p. 151). Its goal is to develop trustworthy ways for family members to engage one another. The four primary dimensions that undergird Contextual Theory are grounded in: (1) facts: truths driven by destiny, which accurately reflect and describe individual and familial events and circumstances. For example, a father separated from his family by imprisonment would simply be regarded as a fact; (2) psychology: emotional and personality responses to facts. Mothers and children may adapt and compensate for the incarceration of the father based on their personality characteristics, development, and life experiences; (3) transactions: the motivation and persistence individuals pursue over time in an effort to secure positions of power and influence. Indeed, men who have been involuntary estranged from their families by imprisonment, often strive to retain and protect their roles as fathers and husbands; and (4) relational ethics: reflects the most salient constructs of Contextual Theory; fairness, reciprocity, empathy, and trust. It not only asserts that family members take responsibility for themselves, but that they also respect and care for one another. Additionally, relational ethics seeks equality while 28 recognizing the existence of emotional debts and entitlements which family members may have lost or earned. With respect to the multiple hardships imposed on family systems by the imprisonment of a father, all family members, including the father, seek recognition and compensation for their sacrifices. Multigenerational Perspective The way in which marital relationships are managed, and the rules which determine parental decisions within one’s family of procreation, may be traced back to the historical and social influences from three prior generations. Family legacies are driven by these perspectives and reflect multigenerational injustices and dysfunctional behaviors. Constructive Entitlement This refers to concepts of fairness and reciprocity wherein family members give and receive consideration. Individuals within a system earn merit when they contribute to the overall welfare, growth, and survival of family members. Moreover, they consciously tally what they have given to the system (merit), relative to what they are owed (entitlement). Due crediting encourages individuals to show positive regard and appreciation for other family members, while expectations of personal accountability holds them responsible for their behaviors, decisions, and subsequent consequences. 29 Destructive Entitlement This is an attempt to ease injustices from the past by punishing innocent people in the present. Family systems diminished by stagnation and apathy reflect destructive tendencies. Loyalty Children are instinctively loyal to their parents, regardless of their perceived losses and hardships. “N o matter how damaging the relationships have become, it is safe to assume that on a child’s part there is some natural reserve of trust and a desire to extend it” (Gurman & Kniskern, 1981, p. 163). Loyalty is viewed as a fundamental pathway for encouraging the reciprocity of trust and fairness between family members, but they may also be split or invisible. For example, individuals may be loyal to some members while betraying others (split), or they may seek to protect their autonomy by undermining existing loyalties (invisible). Contextual Theory, and its therapeutic applications, have been proven effective in understanding and treating families disillusioned by the imprisonment of a father. By the time most fathers are released from prison their family resources are depleted emotionally, financially, and physically. All family members have been affected; losses and hardships have been real. Feelings of constructive entitlement may run deep, and the competition among individual members to be recognized and credited, at a time when the family “account” is nearly empty, can turn arbitrary and divisive. Contextual Theory views the family system as a collection of individuals, each responsible for contributing to the greater whole while simultaneously seeking personal autonomy and fulfillment. This theory posits that fairness, reciprocity, empathy, and 30 trust can strengthen and balance familial relationships, restore trust and respect, and assuage or reverse injustices. 31 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Research Objectives The overall purpose of this research was to identify different levels of family satisfaction, based on perceptions of adaptability and cohesion, from fathers who received family therapy with their wives relative to those who received individual therapy without their wives. In order to achieve these goals, a standardized, solution-focused therapy model was also developed, introduced, and tested. Research Questions (1) Will fathers who participate in eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives have higher post-test scores of adaptability than fathers who received eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused therapy with their wives? (2) Will fathers who receive eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused family therapy with their wives have higher post-test scores of adaptability than fathers who received eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives? (3) Will fathers who participate in eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives have higher post-test scores of cohesion than fathers who received eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused therapy with their wives? 32 (4) Will fathers who receive eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused family therapy with their wives have higher post-test scores of adaptability than fathers who received eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives? (5) Will couples who receive contextual, solution-focused therapy have higher post-test ENRICH scores following eight sessions of treatment? Research Hypotheses H01: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives will show no significant differences between pre- and post-test cohesion scores on FACES II. Hal: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives will reflect significantly stronger post-test cohesion scores on FACES II. H02: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused therapy with their wives will show no significant differences between pre- and post-test adaptability scores on FACES II. H32: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused therapy with their wives will reflect significantly stronger post-test adaptability scores on FACES II. 33 H03: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives will show no significant differences between pre- and post-test adaptability scores on FACES II. Ha3: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives will reflect significantly stronger post-test adaptability scores on FACES II. H04: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused therapy with their wives will show no significant differences between pre- and post-test cohesion scores on FACES II. Ha4: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused therapy with their wives will reflect significantly stronger post-test cohesion scores on FACES II. H05: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused therapy with their wives will show no differences in adaptability than fathers who participate in eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives. Ha5: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused family therapy with their wives will reflect stronger adaptability scores than fathers who participate in eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives. 34 H06: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused family therapy with their wives will show no differences in cohesion than fathers who participate in eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives. Ha6: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused family therapy with their wives will reflect stronger cohesion scores than fathers who participate in eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives. H07: Couples who receive eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused therapy will not reflect significantly stronger post-test ENRICH scores. Ha7: Couples who receive eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused therapy will reflect significantly stronger post-test ENRICH scores. Research Design To test the appeal of treating former inmates and their wives with family therapy, a quasi-experimental design was pursued to explore differences between fathers who received contextual, solution-focused therapy and fathers who received only individual therapy. The independent treatment variable is family therapy vs. individual therapy; dependent variables are fathers’ pre- and post-test perceptions of adaptability and cohesion. A cohort study was established to determine differences between an Experi- mental and Comparison Group of fathers. Eligibility for subject participation in either group was controlled along four criteria: the men had to be fathers; they had to be married or co-habitating with the same partner for at least two years; the crimes for which they were imprisoned had to have been non-violent; and prison time served had to have been no less than eighteen months. 35 Ten qualified subjects were initially selected to participate in the Comparison Group. They completed the FACES II Instrument, pre-test, and then received eight sessions of individual therapy over two months without their wives, before being post- tested again with FACES II (Appendix A). Individual counseling was conducted by mental health professionals employed at the House of Commons in Lansing, Michigan. After the Comparison Group had been pre- and- post—tested, another group of ten qualified subjects were recruited for participation in the Experimental Group. These ten fathers, along with their wives, were pre-tested with FACES II and ENRICH, given eight sessions of family therapy over two months, and then post-tested with FACES II (Appendix A) and ENRICH (Appendix B). Family counseling was conducted by this researcher, a licensed family therapist and addictions counselor. All testing and treatments were administered at the House of Commons, a 90-day residential halfway house for men in transition from prison back home. Instrumentation FACES II To measure the perceived differences of adaptability and cohesion between the Experimental and Comparison Groups, both completed the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales II (FACES II). This instrument was initially developed in 1979 by David H. Olson to assess how well families were functioning with respect to adaptability and cohesion. It is theoretically based on his Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems, and uses a 5-point Likert Scale to assess 30 questions dealing with perceptions of family adaptability and cohesion. 36 The differences between pre- and post—test perceptions of adaptability and cohesion reflects change over time, and family satisfaction along three measures: Balanced, Mid-range, and Extreme. Different scores along this continuum reflect varying levels of: (1) negotiation, (2) communication, (3) responsibility, (4) marital interactions, (5) cooperation, (6) assertiveness, and (7) fairness. Scores of adaptability are separated into four groups: Rigid, Structured, Flexible, and Chaotic. Scores of cohesion are similarly divided into four separate groups: Disengaged, Separated, Connected, and Enmeshed. All responses are plotted on the Circumplex Model and then classified into one of sixteen combination types. Adaptability is determined by leadership, control, discipline, rules, and roles; cohesion is assessed according to emotional bonding, supportiveness, boundaries, and loyalties. The strengths of this instrument are related to its validity and reliability in assessing two dimensions of family functioning (adaptability and cohesion) which have been consistently viewed as significant from prior research efforts and current literature recommendations. In fact, FACES II has been used in over 1,200 research studies examining interactional patterns of familial transactions. Cronbach’s alpha measures of reliability are .78 for adaptability and .87 for cohesion. This instrument was easy to administer (it is suitable for children as young as 9) quick to complete (15 minutes or less), and required little training to accurately score (Grotevant & Carlson, 1989). The FACES II was also selected because it reflects and measures the attributes of Contextual Theory: fairness, reciprocity, empathy, and trust. FACES II fits 37 Contextual Theory because individuals may perceive their family systems, and how those systems are structured, in very different terms. ENRICH To further measure the effects of contextual, solution-focused therapy, Experimental Group participants (husbands and wives) were also pre- and post-tested with ENRICH (Appendix B), a computerized marriage assessment tool, at the same time they were given FACES 11. David Olson created this 165—item questionnaire (Appendix B), using a 5-point Likert Scale, to evaluate relationship strengths and weaknesses along ten categories: (1) Personality Issues “reflects adjustment to the partner and satisfaction with his/her behavior, personality traits, and habits,” (2) Communication “measures the perception of being understood by the partner and the ability to share feelings,” (3) Conflict Resolution examines “attitudes about conflicts in the relationship and comfort with the way problems are handled and differences resolved, ” (4) Financial Management assesses “attitudes and concerns about the way economic issues are managed and agreement on financial matters,” (5) Leisure Activities are determined by “the individual’s preference and the couple’s consensus about the use of leisure time, interests, time together, and activities,” (6) Sexual Relationship “reflects the individual’s feelings and concerns about the expression of affection and sexuality in the couple’s relationship,” (7) Children and Parenting reveals “consensus regarding child-bearing and child-rearing decisions and satisfaction with how parental roles are defined,” (8) Family and Friends examines “feelings and concerns about relationships with relatives, in-laws, and friends,” (9) Equalitarian Roles “assesses an individual’s feelings and attitudes about various marital 38 and family roles,” and (10) Religious Orientation evaluates “religious beliefs and attitudes about the importance of religion in the couple’s life” (Lavee and Olson, 1993, p. 328). Couples scores are calculated by computer and organized into an ENRICH Counselor’s Report (Appendix C). This report reflects the exact answers which couples gave from their ENRICH questionnaire and then defines their relative strengths and weaknesses within each of the ten categories as a: (1) Relationship Strength, (2) Possible Relationship Strength, (3) Possible Growth area, or (4) a Growth Area. Once scores have been calculated and strengths assessed, couples are ranked according to seven types of marriages: (1) Devitalized is “characterized by dissatisfaction with all 10 variables,” (2) Financially-Focused are “characterized by having a single relationship strength, finan- cial management, and dissatisfaction with six other relationship issues,” (3) Conflicted are “low on many of the internal aspects of their relationship, such as personality issues, communication, conflict resolution, and sexuality,” (4) Traditional are “dissatisfied with sexual relationship and with the way they communicate, but they have strong and satisfactory relationships with the extended family and friends,” (5) Balanced couples “communicate well and are highly satisfied with their problem-solving strategies,” (6) Harmonious are “highly satisfied with each other, and with the expression of affection and sexual life in their marriage,” and (7) Vitalized marriages are characterized by a “high level of satisfaction with most every dimension of their relationship” (Lavee and Olson, 1993, p. 331). ENRICH scales were initially administered in 1986 to 164 couples from a sampling pool of 8,385 couples; its internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct 39 validity, and predictive validity are strong, and the discriminant validity and concurrent validity of the measures have also been established (Lavee and Olson, 1993). Contextual, Solution-focused Model Olson also created a clinical model, the ENRICH Program (Appendix D), as a treatment strategy for couples seeking marital enhancement. He developed six standardized counseling goals to be pursued over six sessions of couples therapy. His model is very systemic and creative in treating normal marital problems (Appendix D), with enrichment-focused ideas and solid recommendations (Appendix C). But the couples in this research were not primarily seeking or expecting marital enrichment. Most were simply hoping to balance an unstable marriage and unpredictable future. None had ever been in “marriage counseling” before, and the problems they had to deal through required more than six sessions. Therapy was also more directive and confrontational with respect to substance abuse problems, conflict resolution, and communications, than was Olson’s model. The ENRICH Program was carefully amended by this researcher to: (1) provide two intake sessions, and eight sessions of couples therapy instead of six; (2) target and emphasize different goals; (3) combine, add, or delete standardized sessions; (4) simplify and relax presentation format; (5) treat the most threatening and frequently cited problems with more time and rigor; and (6) introduce strategic interventions aimed at restoring fairness, reciprocity, empathy, and trust. A Contextual, Solution-focused Model, which this researcher developed from Olson’s ENRICH Program, was also implemented as a standardized treatment strategy for the couples in this study. 40 Research Sample The sampling frame was comprised of fathers in residence at the House of Commons who had served prison terms of at least eighteen months for non-violent offenses, and were married or co-habitating for at least two years. The House of Commons accommodates thirty men at full capacity. Beginning in August, 1998 all new arrivals at the House of Commons were interviewed by this researcher. Those who qualified were offered a chance to participate in the Comparison Group. These were the fathers who did not receive family therapy with their wives. They completed the FACES II Instrument pre-test, and then received eight sessions of individual therapy before being post-tested with FACES II. Three weeks after the last Comparison Group father had been post-tested, another group of ten qualified subjects were recruited and offered a chance to participate in the Experimental Group. These ten fathers, along with their wives, were pre-tested with FACES II and ENRICH, given eight sessions of family therapy over two months, and then post-tested with FACES II and ENRICH. The fathers were not paid, but their wives received a lump sum payment of $320. Data Collection Identifying qualified subjects, administering the FACES II pre/post-tests, and conducting contextual, solution-focused therapy was conducted at the House of Commons by this researcher. The process of collecting and separating data began in August, 1998 and was concluded in June, 1999. 41 Data Analysis In order to meet the objectives of this research, a One-sample T-test was used to investigate the differences in mean scores for Adaptability and Cohesion within the Comparison and Experimental Groups. A One-sample T-test was also used to determine if pre- and post-test differences in Adaptation and Cohesion were statistically significant within each group; the probability level of significance was set at .05. To determine whether Adaptability and Cohesion mean scores were significantly different between both groups, a Two-sample T-test was conducted. Finally, ENRICH scores for Personality Issues, Communication, Conflict Resolution, Financial Management, Leisure Activities, Sexual Relationship, Children & Parenting, Family & Friends, Role Relationships, Spiritual Beliefs, Couple Closeness, and Couple Flexibility were measured with a One-sample T-test to determine if sta- tistically significant differences existed between pre-test and post-test scores within the Experimental Group. 42 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction The primary goal of this research was to measure differences in perceptions of adaptability and cohesion between one group of fathers who received individual therapy only (Comparison Group), and another group which received individual therapy and family therapy with their wives (Experimental Group). Description of Population Comparison Group (N = 10 fathers): Six of the ten men grew up in families without fathers or male role models; four were African-American, six were Caucasian, and six had children from previous relationships. They were all fathers, five of them with young children under the age of ten. All men were between the ages of 22 and 38 years old. They had all been with their wives for at least three years, and had all been raised in poor to lower-middle class environments. Six fathers reported physical maltreatment as children. All were on probation for non-violent offenses, presented with histories of alcohol and/or drug abuse problems and relapse, periods of unemployment, and multiple prison terms. Eight of the ten fathers were repeat offenders and had worked a variety of blue-collar jobs before going to jail. All had completed high school or obtained a GED. 43 Experimental Group (N = 10 couples): Eight of the ten men grew up in families without fathers or male role models; five were African-American, five were Caucasian, and five had children from previous relationships. They were all fathers, seven of them with young children under the age of ten. All were between the ages of 29 and 42 years old, had been with their wives for at least three years, and were raised in poor to lower middle-class environments. Four fathers reported physical maltreatment as children. All were on probation for non-violent offenses, presented with histories of alcohol and/or drug abuse problems and relapse, periods of unemployment, and multiple prison terms. They were all repeat offenders and had worked a variety of blue-collar jobs before going to jail. Nine had completed high school or obtained a GED. Five of the ten women grew up without fathers or male role models; five were African American, five were Caucasian, and five had children from prior relationships. All were between the ages of 24 and 41 years. old and had been raised in lower to upper- middle class families. One wife reported being sexually and physically abused by a step- father, but the rest reported neither. None of them had substance abuse or legal problems. Eight of the women held para-professional jobs, one was on disability, and one was a full-time college student. All the women were high school graduates, and six had some college or technical training. Moreover, they had all separated from their husbands at least once before, all had threatened divorce, but two had actually initiated divorce proceedings. Statistical Analyses Fathers’ individual FACES 11 scores from the Comparison and Experimental Groups were calculated to reflect pre- and post-test perceptions of Adaptability and Cohesion (Tables 4-1 and 4-2). Table 4-1 Individual Pre-test and Post-test Scores from FACES II: The Comparison Group ADAPTABILI'I‘Y COHESION Father Pre Post Pre Post 01 45 5 1 60 65 02 36 3O 4O 40 O3 45 53 67 64 04 47 5 1 57 64 05 43 47 62 55 O6 50 53 65 65 O7 36 33 39 46 08 45 52 61 64 09 42 37 5 3 44 10 52 50 65 52 45 Table 42 Individual Pre-test and Post-test Scores from FACES H: The Experimental Group ADAPTABILITY COHESION Father Pre Post Pre Post 01 5 1 58 73 79 02 48 52 - 59 62 03 41 61 53 69 04 4O 58 60 7O 05 3 1 44 44 56 06 42 50 47 5 1 07 45 58 58 72 08 33 44 54 87 09 53 50 65 68 10 51 56 66 73 In an effort to determine if pre-test scores for both groups were similar, and if differences existed between pre- and post-test Means and Standard Deviations, a One- sample T-test was conducted (Tables 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4—8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, and 4-14; Figures 4-1 and 4-2). 46 Table 4-3 Pre-test and Post-test Mean Scores Mean Scores Adaptability Cohesion Group N Pre Post Pre Post Comparison - 10 44.1 45 .7 56.9 55.9 Experimental 10 43.5 53.1 ' 57.9 68.7 47 Table 4-4 FACES II Linear Scoring and Interpretation; Comparison Group Pre-Test and Post-Test COHESION ADAPTABILITY TYPE 80 7O 8 74 65 Very Very 73 Connected 64 flexible Balanced 7 71 55 70 54 6 65 50 . Moderately 64 Connected 49 Flexnble Balanced 60 Separated Structured ‘ Mid-Range 54 42 3 3 3 51 40 50 39 2 2 2 35 . 3o . . Disengaged Rigid "‘_‘ Extreme 34 29 1 1 l 15 15 Comparison Group Pre-Test: xx COHESION + ADAPTABILITY _ /2 = TYPE 56.9 (Cohesion) = 4; 44.1 (Adaptability) = 4; 4 (Cohesion) + 4 (Adaptability) = 8/2 = 4 (Type) Separated + Structured = Mid-Range Comparison Group Post-Test: 55.9 (Cohesion) = 4; 45.7 (Adaptability) = 4; 4 (Cohesion) + 4 (Adaptability) = 8/2 = 4 (Type) Separated + Structured = Mid-Range 48 Comparison Group perceptions of Adaptability and Cohesion reflected Mid-Range levels of Structural Separation, both pre- and post-test. Families within these parameters are rated Low to Moderate in terms of functioning. Figure 4-1 illustrates movement along Olson’s Circumplex Model, and Table 4-5 describes the characteristics of families who are Structurally Separated. 49 v-Imt'flhl NWT, t-Jml'flr-i r-IV’O'V DISENGAGED SEPARATED IA( I CHAOTICALLY Cl )T C DISENGAGED CHAOTICALLY SEPARATED FLEXIBLE FLEXIBLY SEPARATED CONNECTED ENMESHED CHAOTICALLY ONNECTED REXIBLY CONNECTED srnucrunxu. \\\\\\ STRUCTURED ISENGAGED $23353“)! RIGID ' mcer ' ' SEPARATE!) I: BALANCED DISENGAGED SEPARATED CIIAOTICALLY CHAOTIC DISENGAGED CHAOTICALLY SEPARATE!) FLEXIBLE FLEXIBLY SEPARATED DBENGAGED [:l mmnmca UCI'URALLY STRUCTURALLY . CONNECTED “”3"” ~ .. RIGIDLY , ' - . comment: ' . -£m£ME CONNECTED ENMESHED CIMOTICALLY l-INMESIIED CHAOTICALLY CONNEXITED REXIBLY CONNECTED ST RUCI’ URALL l WCAGED STRUCTURED RIGIDLY DISENGAGED l: BALANCED I: MID-RANGE STRUCTURA LLY CONNECTED RIGIDLY EN MESH ED - EXTREME Figure 4-1 Olson’s Circumplex Model: The Comparison Group 50 Table 4-5 Olson’s Clinical Rating Scale for Circumplex Model (1993), Life Innovations, Inc. CATEGORY SEPARATED COHESION Emotional Bonding: Family Involvement: Marital Relations: Parent-Child Relations: Internal Boundaries: (Time) (Space) (Decision-Making) External Boundaries: (Friends) Emotional separateness. Limited closeness. Occasional family loyalty. Involvement acceptable. Personal distance preferred. Emotional separateness. Some closeness. Clear generational boundaries. Some parent/child closeness. More separateness than togetherness. Time alone important. Separate space preferred. Individual decision-making, but joint possible. More focused outside than inside family. Individual friendships seldom shared with family. (Interests) Separate interests. (Activities) More separate than shared. CATEGORY STRUCTURED ADAPTABILITY Leadership: Primarily authoritarian but some equalitarian leadership. Discipline: Somewhat democratic. Seldom lenient. Negotiation: Structured negotiations. Decisions made by parents. Roles: Roles stable, but may be shared. Rules: Few rule changes. Rules enforced. 51 Table 4-6 FACES II Linear Scoring and Interpretation; Experimental Group Pre-Test and Post-Test COHESION ADAPTABILITY TYPE 80 70 8 74 8 65 8 Very Very __3 73 Connected 64 flexible Balanced 7 7 7 71 55 2:2:‘.‘.::..0-;: iiiiiiiiiiimsa," ........... . 65 2.060.000ng0 Coooggooooo 0.60. goo-0000000. . __ Moderately 64 Connected 49 FIexnble Balanced 5 5 5 60 46 F—59— ......, 4 45 ' 55 ‘ Th2:- Separated Structured ‘——t Mid-Range 54 42 3 3 3 51 40 50 39 2 2 2 35 D' d 30 R1 (1 E men a e ' ' ‘— xtreme 34 g g 29 g] l 1 1 15 15 Comparison Group Pre-Test: k\‘\\\ COHESION + ADAPTABILITY _ /2 = TYPE 57.9 (Cohesion) = 4; 43.5 (Adaptability) = 4; 4 (Cohesion) + 4 (Adaptability) = 8/2 = 4 (Type) Separated + Structured 7 = Mid-Range Comparison Group Post-Test: E E E E E E E 3 EE] 68.7 (Cohesion) = 4; 53.1 (Adaptability) = 6; 6 (Cohesion) + 6 (Adaptability) = 12/2 = 6 (Type) Connected + Flexible = Moderately Balanced 52 Pre-test Experimental Group perceptions of Adaptability and Cohesion, just like pre-test Comparison Group perceptions, reflected Mid-Range levels of Structural Separation; Post-test perceptions, however, improved to Moderately Balanced levels. Figure 4-2 illustrates movement along Olson’s Circumplex Model, and Table 4-7 describes the characteristics of families who are Moderately Balanced. Families within these Moderately Balanced parameters are rated Moderate to High in terms of functioning. 53 r-IUil'l'lr-I l'flW'U amma Hwow DISENGAGED SEPARATED CIIAOTICALLY CHAOTIC DISENGAGF-D CHAOTICALLY SEPARATED CONNECTED ENMESHED CHAOTICALLY CONNECTED FLEXIBLE nEnELY FLEXIBLY “SEWAGE” SEPARATED CONNECTED srnucrunALt. STRUCTURALLY UCI'URALLY STRUCTURED [SENGAGED 353%“ coming—ran ENMESHED I mornur' )mcmuv ' . RIGID . - SEPARATED CONNECTE . [:3 BALANCED E3 Min-RANGE - EXTREME DISENGAGED SEPARATED CONNECTED ENMESHED ' CIIAOTICALLY CHAOTIC DISENGAGED CHAOTICALLY CHAOTICALLY SEPARATED O O O O I . O FLEXIBLE DISENGAGED “9X13“ : SEPARATED . O srnucrunALL srnucrunALLv STRUCl-URED STRUCTURALLY STRUCTURALLY SEPARATED RIGIDLY DISENGAGED RIGID RIGIDLY SEPA RATE) [:| nALANCED I: MID-RANGE CONNECTED EM‘ESHE" RIGIDLY CONNECTED RIGIDLY ‘ - ENMESHED - EXTREME Figure 4-2 Olson’s Circumplex Model: The Experimental Group 54 Table 4-7 Olson’s Clinical Rating Scale for Circumplex Model (1993), Life Innovations, Inc. CATEGORY CONNECTED COHESION Emotional Bonding: Family Involvement: Marital Relations: Parent-Child Relations: Internal Boundaries: (Time) (Space) (Decision-Making) External Boundaries: (Friends) Emotional closeness. Some separateness. Loyalty to family expected. Involvement emphasized. Personal distance allowed. Affective interactions encouraged. Emotional closeness. Some separateness. Clear generational boundaries. High parent/child closeness. More togetherness than separateness. Time together important. Time alone permitted. Sharing family space. Private space respected. Joint decisions preferred. More focused inside than outside family. Individual friendships shared with family. (Interests) Some joint interests. (Activities) More shared than individual activities. CATEGORY FLEXIBLE ADAPTABILITY Leadership: Equalitarian leadership, fluid changes. Discipline: Usually democratic. Negotiated consequences. Somewhat lenient. Negotiation: Flexible. Decisions agreed upon. Roles: Role sharing; fluid changes of roles. Rules: Flexibly enforced; some rule changes. 55 Table 4-8 One-sample T-test: Pre-test/Post-test Standard Deviations Standard Deviations Adaptability Cohesion Group N Pre Post Pre Post Comparison , 10 5.2 8.6 10.0 9.8 Experimental 10 7.5 6.0 t 8.8 10.4 It is evident that pre-test Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for both groups were very similar; no significant differences existed. However, post-test Mean Scores were quite different for the Experimental Group and required further analysis to determine if improved scores were significant. A One-sample T-test was used to measure improved perceptions of Adaptability and Cohesion, based on differences between pre- and post-test FACES II scores (Table 4-9). 56 Table 4-9 One-sample T-test: Improved Mean Scores by Group Std. Std. Error Variable N Mean Deviation Mean ADAPTATION Comparison 10 1 .60 ' 5. 14 1 .62 Experimental 10 9.60 6.86 2.17 COHESION Comparison 10 -1.00 6.91 2.18 Experimental 10 10.80 9.05 2.86 The Comparison Group mean for Adaptability improved by 1.6 points, while the Experimental Group mean for Adaptability improved by 9.6 points. The Comparison Group mean for Cohesion actually fell by 1.0 points, while the Experimental Group mean for Cohesion improved by 10.8 points. To test whether the differences between pre- and post-test Means were significant, a One-sample T-test was conducted (Table 4-10). 57 Table 4-10 One-sample T-test: Determining Significant Differences Within Groups 95% Confidence Interval Sig Mean of the Difference Variable t (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper ADAPTABILITY _ Comparison .983 .351 1.6 -2.08 5 .28 Experimental 4.421 .002 9.6 4.68 14.51 COHESION Comparison -.457 -.658 -1 .0 -5.94 3.94 Experimental 3.773 .004 10.80 4.32 17.27 There were no significant differences. in Adaptation and Cohesion between pre- and post-test scores for the Comparison Group since P-values (.351 Adaptation / .658 Cohesion) were greater than .05. As such, Hal and Ha2 were rejected. Hal: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives will reflect significantly stronger post-test Adaptability scores. < REJECTED > Ha2: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives will reflect significantly stronger post-test Cohesion scores. < REJECTED > There were significant differences, however, in Adaptation and Cohesion between pre- and post-test scores for the Experimental Group since P-values (.002 Adaptation / .004 Cohesion) were less than .05. As such, H03 and H04 were rejected. 58 H03: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused therapy with their wives will show no significant differences between pre and post-test Adaptability scores. < REJECTED > H04: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused therapy with their wives will show no significant differences between pre and post-test scores for Cohesion. < REJECTED > A Two—sample T-test was conducted to see if mean differences in Adaptability and Cohesion were significantly different between the Comparison and Experimental Groups (Table 4-1 1). Table 4-11 Two-sample T-test: Determining Significant Differences Between Groups with Equal Variances Assumed 95% Confidence Interval of Mean Sig Mean Std. Error Category t (2-tailed) Diff. Diff. Lower Upper ADAPTATION -2.948 .009 -8.0 2.7 -13.7 -2.29 COHESION -3.276 .004 -11.8 3.6 -l9.3 -4.23 There were significant differences in Adaptation and Cohesion between the Comparison and Experimental Groups since P-values (.009 Adaptation / .004 Cohesion) were less than .05. As such, H05 and H06 were rejected. 59 H05: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused therapy with their wives will show no differences in Adaptability than fathers who participate in eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives. H06: Fathers who participate in eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused therapy with their wives will show no differences in Cohesion than fathers who participate in eight sessions of individual therapy without their wives. < REJECTED > To better understand the pre- and post-test scores reflected on ENRICH, by the couples in the Experimental Group, a One-sample T-test was run to determine group pre- and post-test Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Error of Means (Table 4-12). 60 Table 4-12 One-sample T-test: Pre-Test and Post-Test Mean and Standard Error Means Couples’ Positive Agreement Std. Error Mean Scores % (N = 10) Mean ENRICH Category Pre Post Pre Post Personality Issues 10 38 4.4 9.5 Communication 14 50 4.7 8.5 Conflict Resolution 12 35 4.9 6.7 Financial Management 13 40 4.4 8.0 Leisure Activities 22 45 7.2 8.6 Sexual Relationship 49 78 11.2 5.3 Children & Parenting 33 59 6.6 8.4 Family & Friends 20 49 5.5 8.2 Role Relationship 56 60 6.7 7.1 Spiritual Beliefs 4O 69 10.5 10.6 Couple Closeness 31 81 9.8 5.8 Couple Flexibility 24 65 8.3 8.4 The Experimental Group reflected improved post-test scores in every ENRICH category. One-sample T-test analysis also determined if differences between pre- and post-test scores were statistically significant within .05, and calculated improved Mean scores, Standard deviation, and Standard error of Means (Table 4-13). 61 Table 4—13 One-sample T-test: Improved Mean Scores, Standard Deviation, and Standard Error of Mean Improved Mean Standard Standard Error ENRICH Category Scores % Deviation of Mean Personality Issues 28 31.9 10.0 Communication 36 _ 20.6 6.5 Conflict Resolution 31 24.2 7.6 Financial Management 27 30.2 9.5 Leisure Activities 20 20.5 6.4 Sexual Relationship 29 22.8 7.2 Children & Parenting 26 29.5 9.3 Family & Friends 35 20.6 6.5 Role Relationship 4 33.3 10.5 Spiritual Beliefs 24 28.3 8.9 Couple Closeness 46 25.0 7.9 Couple Flexibility 45 25.0 7.9 Improvements in each ENRICH category appeared evident, but to determine if pre- and post-test differences were statistically significant within .05 levels, a One-sample T-test was conducted (Table 4—14). 62 Table 4-14 One-sample T-test: Experimental Group Pre- and Post-test ENRICH Differences Mean 95 % Confidence Interval of Sig. Difference the Difference ENRIC H t (2-tailed) (%) Lower Upper Personality Issues 2.7 .002 28.0 5.17 50.8 Communication 5.5 .000 36.0 ' 21.22 50.7 Conflict Resolution 4.0 .003 31 .0 13.65 48.3 Financial Management 2.8 .020 27.0 5.39 48.6 Leisure Activities 3.0 .013 20.0 5.30 34.6 Sexual Relationship 4.0 .003 29.0 12.66 45.3 Children & Parenting 2.7 ' .021 26.0 4.88 47.1 Family & Friends 5.3 .000 35.0 20.20 49.7 Role Relationship .3 .714 4.0 -19.89 27.8 Spiritual Beliefs 2.6 .025 24.0 3.71 44.2 Couple Closeness 5.8 .000 46.0 28.09 63.9 Couple Flexibility 5.6 .000 45.0 27.07 62.9 Mean Differences reflected improvement in every ENRICH category and significant improvement within .05 in every category, with the exception of Role Relations (.714). As such, H07 was rejected. H07: Couples who receive eight sessions of contextual, solution-focused therapy will not reflect significantly stronger post-test ENRICH scores. < REJECTED > 63 CHAPTER 5 DESCRIPTION AND QUALITATIVE OUTCOMES OF CONTEXTUAL, SOLUTION—FOCUSED MODEL Introduction To better appreciate the dynamics of contextual, solution-focused therapy with this population and to emphasize the sequence of standardized counseling sessions, strategies, and interventions, the following synopsis, including client excerpts, is offered for consideration: Intake Assessment: Administering the ENRICH Questionnaire and Developing Family of Procreation and Origin Profiles (A) Couples were asked to describe their initial attraction; to talk about how they met, how they treated one another, what they enjoyed doing together, and the unique virtues they perceived in one another. (B) A complete background history was important to briefly learn the sequence of events, significant facts, and consequences which had most influenced their relationship from the beginning to the present, and to explore their attributes, ambitions, familial and social supports, spiritual beliefs, substance abuse patterns, legal problems, and so on. (1) Who had they been living with before they moved in with each other, and were these relationships significant? (2) How long had they dated before moving in together, and how was that decision made? (3) Which family members and friends were most supportive and appreciated, and which ones were viewed as threatening or disapproving? (4) If either had children from a previous marriage, what kind of relationship did they have with them, and with their former partners? (5) Were they financially stable and independent? 64 (6) What were his job prospects, and/ or plans for continuing his education? What were hers? (7) How severe and chronic were his legal and substance abuse problems, and what were the consequences from both? (keep very brief for now) (8) Do they share and practice similar spiritual beliefs? (9) Why had all of their past separations been such colossal failures, and how had they reconciled after each? (D) Quickly sketched out their family of origin and procreation using geneograms. Overview of Intake Assessment There were several objectives within this exercise. The first was to build rapport with the couple, and to relax them by staying very conversational; no “psycho-babble” or “thera-speak.” The second was to support their separate hardships, emphasize existing strengths, acknowledge accomplishments, and provide a sense of hope and progressive movement. The third objective was to focus on family of origin stories to: (1) deflect attention from their presenting problems, (2) provide a richer context for appreciating their childhood experiences, disappointments, regrets etc. , (3) enlighten and change some of their perceptions, and (4) encourage mutual feelings of sympathy and admiration. Client Excerpts #002: His father abandoned him and his younger brother when he was eight years old. And while his father only moved 50 miles away, T has no relationship with him or any other male role model. He grew up “very, very poor;” his mother worked hard as a maid, and collected welfare to make ends meet. He remembered going hungry sometimes but always marvelled at “her magic tricks with food.” As he was describing the poverty and humiliation he endured, D (wife) started softly crying and repeating, “I never knew any of this.” When he was fourteen years old his grandmother had a paralyzing stroke and for the next four years he had to “grow up quickly and without a lot of friends because I had to take care of her.” #003: Five years ago he learned he had been a “mistake.” His parents divorced shortly after he was born. His much older sisters were raised by his father and he was raised 65 by his mother. When he was twelve years old he was arrested for stealing a moped and subsequently ordered into foster care. His foster dad, I, had a profoundly positive influence on him. I took him fishing, camping, hunting, etc.—it was the first and last time he would enjoy the company of a father figure. Two years after being “adopted” by J he was sent back to live with his mother. Heartbroken and angry, he quickly started getting into trouble again; smoking marijuana, skipping school, starting fights, and so on. He thought if he were “bad enough” it might earn him a trip back into J’s home. That never happened and for the rest of his adolescence he bounced in and out of several different institutions. He most vividly recalled a two year confinement at Bogs Camp for Boys in Pennsylvania where “they beat the shit out of me almost every day, and I had the bruises to prove it.” Of course, he was desperate to escape Bogs, and pleaded in vain for his mother to “get me out of here before they kill me!” #006: She was firm that she would never “live like that again,” referring to T’s (husband) cycle of alcohol/drug relapse and multiple jail terms. She revealed some family of origin experiences which helped to explain why she was so “overly protective and such a worry wart” concerning C (one year old son). Her mother abandoned her family for six months when she was six years old, and as a result she had always been much closer to her dad. She wanted T to be as nurturing and reliable as her father had been, and still was. She also said her dad never had a father and that she “doesn’t want C to go through that, but T’s got to get better first!” #007: His parents divorced when he was twelve years old. This triggered “constant instability and moving back and forth between my parents." Their marriage had been defined and destroyed by alcoholism; his mother drank heavily at home and his father drank heavily in bars. They were often physically abusive with one another, and K never risked bringing friends home because it was too embarrassing. His dad sobered up two years ago and they have grown closer, however, his mother continues to drink and he reports that “she is drunk every time she comes over to visit.” Sessions 1 and 2: Couples’ Strengths and Weaknesses (A) Read typed casenotes from prior session to the couple. This accomplished several things: (1) it allowed the therapist to use casenotes as a written tool for refraining conflict, reinforcing key ideas, quoting clients, and asking thoughtful follow-up questions, (2) encouraged cooperation and agreement between couples, and (3) ensured greater accuracy and clarity from the client’s perspective. (B) Briefly reviewed ENRICH Counselor Report (APPENDIX E) with couple. Did not completely ignore their “Disagreement” or “Special Focus” responses, but concentrated primarily on “Agreement” and “Indecision” responses. It was strategically important to identify and affirm their strengths and resources quickly and more fully at this point. (C) Gave them both a copy of “Sharing Strength and Growth Areas” worksheet (Figure 5-1), asked them to read it carefully, and then had them each choose and circle 3 “positives” (+) and 3 “negatives” (-). Couples were asked to share their 6 choices with 66 one another so they could discuss the meaning and significance behind each one. Most tended to give brief or incomplete responses. Surprisingly, most of them did not value “The Positives” as much as one might have expected. Circle 3 (+) & 3 (-) (1) MARITAL SATISFACTION: (+) (-) (I’m satisfied with most aspects of our relationship) (2) PERSONALITY ISSUES: . (+) (-) (I like my partner’s personality and habits) (3) COMMUNICATION: (+) (-) (We share feelings with and understand each other) (4) CONFLICT RESOLUTION: (+) (—) (We are able to discuss and resolve differences) (5) FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: (+) (-) (We agree on budget and financial matters) (6) LEISURE ACTIVITIES: (+) (-) (We share similar interests and spend time together) (7) SEXUAL EXPECTATIONS & RELATIONSHIP: (+) (-) (We’re comfortable with sexual issues & preferences) (8) CHILDREN AND PARENTING: (+) (-) (We agree on issues about having & raising children) (9) FAMILY AND FRIENDS: (+) (-) (We feel good about our relatives and friends) (10) RELATIONSHIP ROLES: (+) (-) (We agree on how to share decision-making and responsibilities) (11) SPIRITUAL BELIEFS: (+) (-) (We hold similar religious values and beliefs) Figure 5-1 Sharing Strength and Growth Areas 67 Overview of Sessions 1 and 2 Couples seemed relieved that the focus had been split between the positives and the negatives, and not simply a clinical foray into every weakness, broken promise, breach of trust, infidelity, and so on. They already knew what they did not like about their marriages in general, and their spouses in particular; but most lacked the confidence to change either one very much. And while the husbands were more contrite and passive than their wives, both were similarly motivated by strong parental ties to their children and an optimistic sense that counseling might produce something worthwhile. What helped considerably was having a step-wise plan, provided by ENRICH, for stabilizing and restoring their relationships. They also needed a structured and neutral place to be confrontational, and to be confronted. This exercise gave them the opportunity to quickly identify, rank, and clarify their perceptions of relative strengths and weaknesses. Since none had ever had family counseling, or dealt with their prob- lems so directly and openly before, many were initially cautious about revealing their toughest problems, especially the ones they had worked so hard at avoiding, protecting, or recycling. This exercise pulled them away from their private agendas and began pushing them toward empathy, appreciation, and compromise. Some wives begrudged or struggled to articulate the positives in their marriage; not surprisingly, their husbands'were more eager to give credit and recognize strengths. Most wives were very precise and harsh about the negatives; not surprisingly, their husbands were more vague and generous in their appraisals of them. It was critical for the therapist to be very directive, solution-focused, and concrete; to be more interested in what they THOUGHT as opposed to what they FELT because emotions were already 68 too strained and tense. In an effort to get and keep them talking to each other, and to hold them on task, it was important to intervene when they veered into an emotional “meltdown.” These two sessions produced a richer and clearer presentation of their interaction patterns, and their strengths and weaknesses; it also provided a roadmap and a context for practicing, negotiating, and enhancing communication and problem-solving skills over the next six sessions. Session 3: Her Entitlement The vast majority of conflicts were driven by multiple episodes of substance abuse, relapse, and imprisonment. Most wives had lost a great deal of trust, respect, affection, and confidence in their husbands; however, most husbands had become so distracted by their own hardships, restrictions, relapses, and probation requirements that they could not fully appreciate or recognize those losses. None of the couples had ever been in counseling before, and past attempts at reconciliation had been unproductive at best, and highly explosive at worst. The goals for the next two sessions were to: (1) enhance empathy and appreciation, (2) make amends and seek forgiveness, and (3) restore trust, respect, and hope. (A) Read typed case notes from prior session to ensure accuracy and currency; reviewed and reinforced salient ideas, themes, and promises to build empathy and reciprocity; or, contextually reframe and negotiate “stuck points” toward reconciliation. Encouraged clients to assertively express themselves in terms of: (l) amending or restating their key points or conditions, (2) seeking or giving forgiveness, and (3) pursuing future goals. (B) Couples discussed their “going home plan” after his release from the House of Commons. This was an opportunity to learn more about her expectations or ultimatums. Most women reported that their lives had become more stable and predictable without him. They all expressed a sense of anger, betrayal, and embarrassment over his addicted behaviors, aberrant decisions, and the punitive consequences which followed. As such, they were keenly interested in what HE was willing to do to repair the marriage, make amends, and change his ways. They wanted to regain their trust and respect for him, which he desperately wanted too, but they were rightly cautious and reticent about doing that until he clearly defined his plans for staying sober, getting a job, and becoming a reliable father and attentive husband again. Typically, her agenda for the “going home plan” was much more precise and conditional than his. 69 (C) Focused on building more appreciation and empathy for her, and her hardships and sacrifices. Recall, his tendency was to be self-absorbed by his own circumstances and losses. She will never fully understand why he traded his freedom, and the well-being of his family, for such a careless and reckless lifestyle; just like he cannot completely understand how helpless and hopeless it was for her to live with so much instability and confusion. This had little to do with him just being apathetic or selfish, and almost everything to do with them having never talked through this so deeply and completely before. To help him have a “corrective emotional experience” so he could more fully understand her sense of isolation and loneliness, and for her to quantify and describe her feelings of fear, anger, and despair, the therapist engaged her exclusively and started asking questions designed to stir and spark her feelings. (I) What is he like when he is sober and when he is not, and how does she treat him differently when he is using and when he is not? (2) What are the nagging questions she has been too afraid, embarrassed, or uncertain to ask him? (3) What significant promises did he break, were there family events, celebrations, or holidays he ruined? (4) Who were the “using” friends she felt most threatened by and hostile towards? (5) How appreciated does she feel for being faithful to him? (6) What are her friends and family telling her to do about him? (7) How have their children been affected by the chaos and separation he has imposed on them; has she noticed discipline or behavioral problems, do they know where he has been and where he is, what have they been told? (8) How has becoming a single mother transformed her life, and who or what has she relied on the most for support and comfort while he has been imprisoned? (D) Asked wives to write their husbands a “Letter of Entitlement,” and then to bring it to the next session to read to him. Ideally, it was a presentation of her hardships and disappointments, lost opportunities, new hopes and expectations, and any feelings of affection or compassion she still holds for him. Most importantly, it was about anything she wanted it to be about, and it reflected exactly what she needed to say. Most wives were eager and enthusiastic about doing this assignment, and their carefully worded letters reflected a good deal of thought, insight, and surprisingly enough, expressions of forgiveness and encouragement. ' Overview of Session 3 This exercise was designed to showcase her attributes, expectations, and examples of her loyalty, perseverance, resourcefulness, and integrity. Before wives could think about forgiving, trusting, and respecting their husbands again, they first needed to freely vent and describe their feelings of disappointment, despair, and anger. Harsh words, 70 blame, and recriminations were common, and even encouraged, to dramatize and satisfy her “pound of flesh” requirements. It was cathartic for her; it cleared up any misconceptions or ambiguous ideas, and it cleared the way for genuine progress in later sessions. It was terrible for him, of course, but he became more enlightened and prepared for apologizing to her in Session five. As such, the husband needed to fully understand and appreciate her reality as a single mother, and he needed to hear how helpless and hopeless she was every time she tried to “save” him. The wives had all believed that if their husbands had just loved and cared about them more, they never would have slipped into an addictive and criminal lifestyle. But alcoholics and drug addicts do not deliberately choose to hurt their wives and children; their addictions are not driven by a lack of love or commitment for them, but rather by a progressively disabling process that narrows choices, impedes judgement, and feeds apathy. Wives needed to clearly hear and fully accept that love has nothing to do with it, and they were powerless to manage or control his addiction. Furthermore, every time they had tried, they also had assumed too much of the burden and the responsibility for him. They can encourage his recovery efforts, of course, but they can never stop him from relapsing or violating probation, unless they stalk him down 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It was also important that they start becoming more future-focused at this point, and throughout the rest of therapy. 71 Session 4: His Apology (A) Read and processed typed casenotes from prior session. (B) Asked her to read her “Letter of Entitlement,” and then elicited his reaction and response. (C) Information and a chronology of his substance abuse and legal problems should have been briefly gathered and noted during the Intake Assessment. But now it was time to explore that history in greater depth. (1) When did he first start using, and who first noticed that “using” had slipped into “abusing?” (2) What was the relationship between his criminal behaviors and his alcohol/drug abuse? (3) How did he conceal and manipulate his addiction and criminal choices around his family, what were the secrets and lies he maintained to protect both? (4) What had he done in the past to stay sober and out of jail; what had she done to encourage his abstinence; what worked, what did not, and WHY? (5) What were his relapse triggers—people, places, and things; how did drugs or alcohol “help” him cope with, and escape from, his familial obligations and commitments? (6) Who or what provided the most inspiration, or motivation, for him to stay abstinent? - (D) Asked him to write her a “Letter of Apology,” and bring it to the next session to read to her. Ideally, it was an expression of remorse, accountability, appreciation, regret, and so on. Most men viewed this assignment favorably and it was the first time any had made thoughtful and deliberate amends. Overview of Session 4 The “Letter of Entitlement” exercises were very revealing. None of the wives ” wrote “Letters of Condemnation. Husbands appeared anxious and sheepish, perhaps assuming their wives would have retaliated. But they did not for the most part, and as a result of their benevolence, this session began with warm and fuzzy feelings, even though it usually didn’t end up that way. In fact, some wives were too accommodating or stoic and were pressed to clarify, elaborate, and reinforce, in no uncertain emotional terms, their key points, conditions, expectations, etc. Men were challenged to tell the 72 awful truth about their patterns and episodes of secrecy, lying, and hypocrisy. This strategy was designed so husbands might earn back a measure of trust and respect by confessing completely and voluntarily to their wives. All fathers expressed a keen desire to protect and defend their families, a role which became impossible to honor under the influence of an addiction, or the gaze of a corrections officer. It was immensely important to reiterate this key idea: Men can never assume their roles as reliable fathers and trustworthy husbands as long as they are abusing substances and breaking the law. It was also important to identify and understand relapse triggers, past failures, and past successes. Men were quick to accept blame for their broken promises, and to point out how quickly and easily their addictions had driven their selfish and reckless choices. They were also explicit and forceful about maintaining their sobriety and probation requirements. Indeed, most had never committed themselves to complete abstinence before, or developed an aggressive recovery plan to follow. Couples also needed to distinguish the salient differences between a “slip” and a “relapse,” and then to agree about the consequences for each. Most wives had issued severe ultimatums, including the threat of divorce “if he ever takes another sip.” Unfortunately, alcoholics and drug addicts cannot promise perfection, but they can stop a one-time slip from escalating into a full blown relapse; they can and should promise to do that. Letter of Entitlement Excerpts #009: “I’m not sure how to write this letter. I want you to know that I have very positive feelings about our future, and I want the past to stay in the past. I told you that you being gone hasn’t been that bad, and it hasn’t. I’m used to running the household so that hasn’t been a real problem. Do I feel lonely? Yes, I do. I don’t watch my favorite movies because I don’t want to see people happy and in love. When it gets to the crying part, I would be crying for me, not the movie. I also told you I 73 didn’t want to be pregnant and alone, but I feel like I am. That’s why I pushed you to make decisions with me. This time apart has had some positive aspects, though. When you were drinking last summer, I felt like I had no pride left. Every day I lost a little bit of myself. There were a lot of times when I thought I couldn’t do it anymore, but I felt like I was begging you to stay. Even the one time that I did leave, I called you the next morning—you wouldn’t have called me. When you went to jail, I knew you weren’t drinking so I knew I would get my old M (husband) back. It gave me time to really evaluate my feelings and decide what I wanted from this relationship. It also gave my wounds time to heal. I do still worry (sometimes) that you’ll start drinking again—and if you do, I can’t go through that again. But I believe in you, and I will support you in staying sober. I love you very much and I think that we will only get stronger with time. I think we have enough strength to overcome the obstacles ahead of us. I think our greatest strength is love, and with that, we can do anything.” #010: “Are you taking good care of yourself? C, (husband) it really hurt the way you left me out here all alone. Darling I love you, you know that. You are my life. Why can’t you stay out here with me? Jesus will help you with any problems you have. C it’s not hard to abide by the law of the land. I believe you have been with the wrong people all your life. Darling, it’s time for a change. I knew your mother. She taught you and raised you in the church. It’s up to you to live a good life. Your mother still would love for you to live good. Darling, I have a prayer for you. I’ve been there for you, I’ve tried to help you in every way, but you must make a change in your life. Don’t do it for me, Jesus loves us, He made us, He knows what we are going to do before we do. Ask Him to lead you and guide your footsteps. He will, and He’s waiting on you. When you leave me alone, I’m not sure you love me. You don’t'hurt the ones you love. I’m tired of being alone all the time. I was alone on my birthday, Thanksgiving and Christmas, two or three of the most important days of my life. I won’t wait for you again. It’s time to ship up, get right, or call it quits, okay? You took me for a good thing, but no more my love. I will always love you with all my heart a whole bunch. So now it’s your turn to prove your love for me. It’s your time to be the man in my life, my friend, my husband, my lover, and head of our household. I love you. I am waiting.” Session 5: Three Wishes (A) Read and processed typed casenotes from prior session. (B) Asked him to read his “Letter of Apology” and then elicited her reaction and response. (C) Asked the wives, “How do you think your husband has been affected by prison? Have you noticed any before and after differences?” 74 Excerpt 1 #002: She said that before he went to prison he was “a lot more considerate, and not so angry....he wasn’t getting high on weed and drinking all the time....he went to church then, and he was a lot cleaner, too.” After prison he became “mean and hard and not respectful....he had a big chip on his shoulder....he stopped caring about his appearance.” He responded, “Yeah, I learned to shut down in prison, there was so much anger in there.” He had not ever spoken to her about his prison experiences and said, “It’s very hard getting out of a prison state of mind.” He said he wanted “to get this out of my system, the same way she needs to talk about A’s (aunt) death.” (D) The strategy behind the Three Wishes Exercise challenged couples to “Speak Fearlessly” and “Listen Precisely.” The exercise was set up like this: “It can be hard, or risky, to ask our partners to give us what we need, or for them to do some things more often or more consistently. It’s a gamble because we don’t want to be embarrassed, start an argument, or get shot down. In a lot of ways it’s just easier not to ask, but then we risk building up hard feelings and hurt feelings.” Couples were then asked to describe one person who they held in great confidence and esteem; the one who had always been there for them without being critical, argumentative, or presumptuous. They were asked to talk about and give examples of that unique person in terms of: (1) how important and accepted they made them feel (2) what they admired about him/her (3) how honest and reliable they were (4) how approachable they were Excerpt 2 #002: She talked about a very close female friend, and wonderful aunt who “were both unselfish and loved me no matter what I did; they never left me and always depended on me.” She felt safe in L’s (friend) company because “she listened to me without interrupting and gave perfect feedback.” She lamented, “If T (husband) were more like L and A (aunt), then I wouldn’t be so critical and controlling.” Each partner was given a sheet of paper and a pen, and then told: “Take a few minutes to write down 3 things you WISH your partner would do more often, or more of. Don’t worry if they’ll actually grant your 3 wishes, but they might. The thing that matters the most for now is how fearless you are in asking what for you’d like, and how well you thought your partner heard and understood you.” (1) Couples took turns talking about their Three Wishes. The speaker was free to ask for anything, but the listener was very restrained, and only allowed to repeat back, or interpret, what they had just heard. 75 The therapist should not reframe or explore their Three Wishes while they are still “Speaking Fearlessly” and “Listening Precisely” to one another. It is better to let them struggle and falter, or cooperate and succeed, on their own. It is important to freely observe and assess: (1) body language, eye contact, closeness, affect, and patterns of communication and problem-solving, and (2) the exact nature of their worst problems and conflicts, and their ideas for resolution and restoration. The therapist’s observations, comments, follow—up questions, and interventions should be methodically pursued and scrutinized following each stated wish. (E) Husbands were asked to draft their own “Recovery Plan” for staying sober, and then to bring it into the next session for discussion. Overview of Session 5 Most husbands became quite emotional, often stopping to compose and collect themselves, as they read their “Letter of Apology” to their wives. This exercise was powerfully evocative, and prompted most wives to express appreciation and gratitude to their husbands. It also facilitated more closure, and set the stage for achieving forgiveness and enhancing reciprocity. The Three Wishes Exercise was well received, but challenging to maximize because couples gave such brief responses. The wives tended to be more focused and assertive, while their husbands appeared more introspective and reserved. Men were reluctant to ask their wives to do anything else; most encouraged them to “stand up to 99“ me more, talk more softly to me, without a badger tone,” or “Baby, just get out there and enjoy yourself more.” Perhaps women felt more entitled and unburdened to ask for three things, because they were more indelicate and deliberate about what they needed him to be doing more of, or more often. Typically wives would make a wish, fall silent, and wait for his response. For example, #006 said, “Spend more time with me and C without us begging you,” and he responded, “Oh, you want me to spend more time with you and C without 76 you begging me.” It was critical to intervene often, and with solution-focused questions like: (1) What kind of things would you all be doing as a family? How flexible would that be? (2) Who usually decides what to do, or where to go? Is that working well for you? (3) When was this not such a problem? (4) If begging him to do things with you has not worked, how will you start asking him differently? (5) How will you know when this is not an issue for you any longer? (6) What will he be doing differently? What will you be doing? (7) Once you have worked this out, how will you keep it going? In essence wives appealed for: (1) his sobriety, (2) more of his time and attention, and (3) a better way of communicating so “he’ll listen to me more.” This also proved to be a concrete and non-threatening way for couples to practice speaking and listening without interrupting, making assumptions, or becoming defensive. By the fifth session they had grown more aware of their communication deficits, and instincts to avoid conflict; they had also grown more confident and willing to negotiate, compromise, and reconcile. Letter of Apology Excerpts #006: “I am writing this letter because of the things I have done, said, and the way I treated you. You have stuck by me through good times and terrible times. Your family has stuck by me also, and I know it will take some time before anyone will begin to trust me again. All I can say is that I will try not to hurt the people that love me anymore. Especially you. I realize I have not been the greatest husband in the past. You truly deserve the best of everything. You especially deserve to be treated much better than I have been able to give you. There are too many incidents and situations in which you deserve an apology, but there are too many to write down. I can only say I’m sorry so many times, but you need to be shown now, and I am ready to do that. I haven’t been the man you wanted me to be in the past. I only hope I can become the man you fell in love with. I knew from the first time I saw you that you could be the woman I would love forever. I didn’t think you would ever leave me, but when someone treats another person bad enough, they will eventually leave. I love you too much and I don’t want to live my life 77 with any other person. There have been too many times when you needed me and I was not there. Since I have been gone you have been able to hold everything together. You have done a great job with the bills, house, our boy, and even the dogs. You are a wonderful person and you deserve to be treated like a princess. Anyone would be honored to have a wife as beautiful as you, and I am lucky you picked me for your man. I can’t say I’m sorry enough. I can only start to show you how much I want to be a part of yours and C’s (son) life. I think of you and C every day, and it hurts so much that I can’t be with you. I have wanted all my life to meet someone like you. I never want to lose you. I love you to the moon, the stars, and back again. You are the most beautiful woman I have ever known. Please don’t give up on me.” #009: “I don’t know where to start with this because saying ‘I’m sorry’ to me isn’t enough. I just want to say I love and thank you for standing by me through all this madness. I know I have done so much to you and left you in some tough times. Right now I can’t promise you anything because right now I’m not sure about a lot of things myself. But there is one thing I can tell you. I care for you and T (son) more than words can say, and I know if you care about me as much as I care for you, we will be able to iron all this out over the next couple of years, so me and you can start to see smoothness in our lives. You’re the one I want to spend the rest of my life with. Whether it be short or long, because having you in my life makes each day worth living. I don’t blame you if you are mad at me because I had you go through one year almost not knowing what to expect. But I hope I can show you it was all worth it. I know over the next year I have a lot to prove to myself, and by proving it to myself, hopefully you and the people around me that I love, will start to be comfortable, and start to trust me because I will need this from all of you in time. Well baby, I know I could probably write page after page but I am going to leave some stuff for when I come home. I just want to end this by saying today is just the start of our lives together, and if we keep living each day like the first, we will never find the end!” Session 6: Three Wishes (continued), and Communication Enhancement (A) Read and processed typed casenotes from prior session. (B) Asked him to discuss or read his “Recovery Plan” to his wife; and then asked her to respond. (C) Complete Three Wishes Exercise. Asked couples to describe and elaborate how satisfied they were with Three Wishes in terms of “speaking fearlessly” and “listening precisely.” Asked them: “How different was it talking with each other like this, as opposed to your normal way?” (D) Referred to and reviewed couples “Special Focus” and “Disagreement” responses under COMMUNICATION (ENRICH Counselor’s Report, Appendix C) to determine: 78 (1) How they had each contributed to their communication problems (2) Patterns or “stuck points” that diminish empathy and reciprocity (3) Solutions designed to restore and enhance dialogue Communication: < Client Examples from ENRI CH Counselor ’s Report> Question #3: Reframe: Question #18: “I wish my partner were more willing to share his/her feelings with me.” If you want him to share his feelings more, like when he read you his letter of apology, what should you do to encourage him? “When we are having a problem, my partner often refuses to talk about it.” Reframe: When you’re having a problem and he won’t talk about it with you, what should you do differently? Question #63: “At times it’s hard for me to ask my partner for what I want.” Reframe: What’s getting in the way of asking? How are you making this harder than it ought to be? Question #93: “My partner often doesn’t understand how I feel.” Reframe: If you don’t think she understands how you feel, what will you have Question #121: Reframe: Question #134: Reframe: to do differently so she will know? “It is difficult for me to share negative feelings with my partner.” What can she do so you’ll take more chances with this? “My partner is a very good listener.” Before he can start listening to you better, what do you need to do differently? (E) Couples were asked to describe, in very simple and concrete terms, what their “old” communication pattern had looked like. Excerpt His tendency had been to “escape and evade;” a predictable way alcoholics can deflect hardships and conflicts. When he felt angry or threatened by his wife, he would simply leave home and go drinking with his “buddies.” He would typically stay gone until she had “cooled down some.” She retreats from him too easily, and forgives him too quickly every time she “just drops it” in an effort to keep the peace. She’s not overly demanding or confrontational by nature; her tendency is to “forgive and forget.” Like most couples, their key problem is a natural and mutual reluctance to avoid conflict, and the inherent risks associated with resolution. When he runs away from her, and she does not hold him accountable for it, then the cycle of “no-resolution” and “no-satisfaction” runs unopposed. This pattern can easily erode relationships over time because couples 79 build resentrnents, along with a growing sense of discouragement, disaffection, and disconnection. Couples were also asked these follow—up questions: (1) Were there times when you were not having so many communication problems? (2) What will you each have to do differently to break your old cycle? (3) At first it may be easy to slip back into your old ways. How will you keep that from happening? Overview of Session 6 Most husbands had carefully considered, edited, and re-written a personal “Recovery Plan” to satisfy their wives, but not necessarily themselves. As a result, their ideas for staying sober were sometimes grandiose and unrealistic. All wives expressed relief and appreciation for their efforts, but encouraged them to develop more realistic and reasonable recovery plans. All couples cited “communication problems” as a primary source of conflict and dissatisfaction. In terms of interaction patterns and skills, they were similarly distracted and distressed by the way they talked “at” each other, the way they rarely listened, and the frequency in which they became defensive or vindictive. Most couples were much more interested in talking than in listening, and inclined to interrupt dialogue than to invite it in. Most had expended far too much energy simply trying to be heard and understood. The greatest conununication barriers for achieving more balance and empathy were narrowed into five categories. Couples were afraid that if they listened more and spoke less, they risked becoming too: (1) controlled, (2) vulnerable, (3) unappreciated, (4) uncompensated, and (5) disregarded. The Three Wishes Exercise helped dispel those concerns, and it reinforced the benefits of “Speaking Fearlessly” and “Listening 80 Precisely.” In an effort to further amend their communication skills, encourage dif- ferentiation, and punctuate conflicted interaction patterns, it was vitally important to continue building from that exercise. This was accomplished by challenging couples to identify and describe how they each contributed to the problems they were both seeking to remedy, and then to tease out different strategies or solutions for achieving greater levels of reciprocity and consensus. Excerpts #002: He lamented, “We’re not on the same wavelength—we misunderstand each other way too often.” His chief complaint was his inability “to read her moods, or understand what she’s mad about.” As such, he persists with a litany of questions and concerns thinking her “bad moods” always have something to do with him. He added, “She doesn’t understand how much I care about her,” but she shot back, “He’s got to stop telling me how I should feel....stop trying to fix me!” #003: She noted that his alcohol/drug abuse always “hurts the way we talk to each other....we really can’t unless he’s straight.” Her strategy was to “get mad and get even” when he tries to avoid talking with her. She’s not afraid “to get right in his face. . ..sometimes I even have to shove him around.” She tries to engage him by “going on and on and on, but then I always back down.” This builds resentrnents of course, and as a last resort she will use “the silent treatment to really piss him off.” She said, “I need to talk to him in the same nice and calm way I talk to T (daughter).” #006: She needs to stop berating and chiding him. For example, she routinely says “always” and “never” in describing his mistakes and faults. She said she was so caustic and dismissive because “it keeps him honest.” His self-esteem was already in the gutter and the more she threatened, degraded, and blamed him, the less likely he was to “fight for his family” like she expected. He can’t do that, though, if he’s forever being defensive, which he accomplishes by reminding her of her faults, returning the hostility, or becoming hyper dramatic—“Why don’t you just go ahead and take off then, I won’t be your problem anymore!” Surprisingly, most couples were harder on themselves than they had been on their partners; more inclined to voluntarily concede their own deficits than to accept blame or criticism from their partners. 81 Recovery Plan Excerpts #005: He was clear that she had been “very supportive and wonderful. . . .always there for me through this.” He’d taken advantage of her tolerance and knew he “owed her big time.” He’s much more aware of the pain he has imposed on his family, and noted that “she needs to recover from this, too.” In a lot of ways he thought his sobriety alone would “clean the slate with her.” He said staying clean and sober had consumed his thinking and that, “I really didn’t think about her in this.” #006: They both agreed that she should not become too enmeshed in his recovery. She is entitled not to be burdened by his responsibility.- She will trust him to take his medication for anxiety and depression as prescribed. But unlike past failures, T (husband) will ensure that she has complete confidentiality privileges, and easy access to his physician. She said, “The shrink has got to accept my calls, and that will be good enough.” #008: He read her his Recovery Plan pointing out his need to “pray for the courage and patience it’s going to take to change my friends and stay out of bars and gambling houses.” His primary focus will be on changing his “lifestyle,” which he views as his most dangerous trigger. They both perceived this to be true, but she remained intensely worried that “his old friends will steal him away again.” Clearly, he needs to avoid people, places, and things which invite failure and relapse. T expressed some anxiety about “making a clean break” from everyone who abuses alcohol and drugs. It will be very hard for him to “just say no” when they tempt him, and some will. She cannot relax with this until she sees him standing up for himself. It won’t take long to determine his “real friends” from his “real acquaintances.” The former will respect his efforts, the latter will tire of his commitment, and they will drop him. T said that if he made his family his first priority, his recovery would develop naturally and reliably. Session 7: Conflict Resolution and Financial Management (A) Read and processed typed casenotes from prior session. (B) Referred and reviewed couple’s ”Special Focus” and “Disagreement” responses under CONFLICT RESOLUTION and FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (ENRICH Counselor’s Report, Appendix C) to identify: (1) How they had each contributed to their problems related to Conflict Resolution and Financial Management (2) Patterns or “stuck points” that diminish empathy and reciprocity (3) Solutions designed to restore and enhance dialogue 82 Conflict Resolution: < Client Examples from ENRICH Counselor ’s Report> Question #5: Reframe: Question #67: Reframe: Question #95: Reframe: Question #109: Reframe: Question #135: Reframe: “To end an argument, I tend to give in too quickly.” What are you doing that makes her give up on you, and give up trying to find answers when the two of you argue? “I go out of my way to avoid conflict with my partner.” When he does that, what do you need to do differently so he won’t ignore you or run away? “At times I feel our differences never get resolved.” How are you allowing that to happen? “To avoid hurting my partner’s feelings during an argument, I tend to say nothing.” How does that work against you; how does your silence contribute to the problem? “When we argue, I usually feel responsible for the problem.” If you’re feeling too responsible for your marital problems, what do you need to do differently? Financial Management: < Client Examples from ENRICH Counselor ’s Report> Question #6: Reframe: Question #51: Reframe: Question #96: Reframe: Question #123: Reframe: “Sometimes I wish my partner were more careful about spending money.” You both wish the other were more careful about spending money. What can you each do differently to resolve this? “We have trouble saving money.” You both see this as a problem. What will you each have to start doing? “Use of credit cards and charge accounts has been a problem for us.” How did this grow into a problem? “We usually agree on how to spend money.” She thinks you all do a great job with this, but you disagreed. What do you need to see her doing so this feels more reasonable for you? 83 Overview of Session 7 This exercise challenged couples to work harder at achieving “win-win” out- comes. It was important to continuously stress ideas of “emotional restraint” or differen- tiation, and to intervene quickly and forcefully every time they “headed into the danger zone.” Most couples had been physically provocative or inappropriate with each other, but most had not been violent. Some said they avoided conflict, or bailed out of ar- guments before they became too intense, just to avoid “an explosion.” All couples wanted to break that cycle, but some were more concerned about it than others. Several had good reason to be alarmed, and they wanted to DO something to bring an end to it. From their desire and willingness “to do something,” and to elevate this problem front and center, a “Peace Agreement” was created for their consideration and relief (Figure 5-2). This exercise was also important because it gave them a chance to: (1) practice and refine their communication and problem-solving skills, (2) negotiate their own solutions, and (3) become more aware and responsive to their “confrontation-triggers.” 84 (A) He or she writes a letter of apology accepting COMPLETE responsibility for the abuse, and seeking forgiveness and closure. The letter may reflect feelings of remorse, shame, recklessness, etc., and it should be read aloud in an atmosphere which provides privacy and warmth. Consider using music, poetry, candles to signify, enhance, and ritualize this experience. (B) The Peace Agreement should include this statement: “No matter how angry I get in the future, I won’t physically threaten or harm you. I promise not to hit, grab, punch, or push you; but if I ever do, I’ll know it’s completely my fault, and I’ll know to seek professional help through a counselor or minister immediately.” (C) Both partners should sign and date their Peace Agreement, seal it in an envelope, and treat it like the morally binding document it now is. Figure 5-2 Peace Agreement Excerpts #002: She has serious and troubling concerns about past episodes of shoving and grabbing. It’s gone both ways, but he gave her a bloody nose before he went back to jail, and she has been worried ever since because “when it happens once, it’s got to happen again.” #005: Too often their disagreements escalate into angry shouting matches and sometimes into physical abuse. He is “not a talker” and walks away during arguments which “pisses her of .” She said that his unwillingness to talk with her proves “he doesn’t really care about me.” #004: “She’s got to stop embarrassing me in front of my friends or in public. Her timing is terrible!” He elaborated, “When she’s ready to leave a party, she’s ready to go right now. . . .and I won’t like that so I’ll stay longer just to piss her off.” She agreed, “I’ll try hard not to embarrass you anymore.” #006: They had both been financially responsible in the past (eg; saved $20,000 in just three years to buy a home), but “we’re barely surviving since he’s been in jail.” She accepted credit from him for doing “a great job budgeting money, and keeping me on an allowance. . . .she’s not a wasteful gal.” She wants him to become more aware of their bills and more reliable about sticking to their financial goals. She said, “T (husband) never had to worry about money before, so he couldn’t understand it.” She added, “He still questions me too harshly over this.” 85 Session 8: Affirming Spiritual Beliefs and Parenting Strengths (A) Read and processed typed casenotes from prior session; (B) Referred to and reviewed couples “Agreement” and “Indecision” responses under SPIRITUAL BELIEFS and CHILDREN AND PARENTING (Counselor’s ENRICH Report, Appendix C) to identify: (1) Perceived strengths and resources (2) Ideas for enhancement and enrichment Spiritual Beliefs: Question #45: Reframe: Question #82: Reframe: Question #104: Reframe: Question #145: Reframe: < Client Examples from ENRI CH Counselor ’s Report > “Sharing spiritual values helps our relationship remain strong.” You both agreed that sharing spiritual values helps keep your marriage strong. How do you rely on each other in this way? “We have resolved the differences in our spiritual beliefs.” There may be some perspectives or teachings where your spiritual be- liefs differ. How will you respect those differences and still maintain the traditions of your faith? “We rely on our spiritual beliefs during difficult times.” How has your faith sustained and protected you during this hardship? “My partner and I feel closer because of our spiritual beliefs.” You all were unsure about this. Have there been times when you were very clear that your beliefs brought you closer together? Have you ever prayed together? Children and Parenting: < Client Examples from ENRICH Counselor ’s Report> Question #12: Reframe: Question #42: Reframe: Question #87: Reframe: “In our family, the father spends enough time with our children.” Your wife thought you spent enough time with your kids, but you were unsure. How will you spend more time with them? “We agree on how to discipline our children.” You all are on the same page when it comes to disciplining your children. What are the other things you agree about? “Children seem to create problems in our relationship.” You both said that your kids don’t normally create problems in your relationship. A lot of kids will play one parent off the other, espe- cially if the parents have been separated. How will you keep your kids from doing that? 86 Question #101: “Having children has brought us closer together as a couple.” Reframe: How did becoming parents strengthen your marriage? (C) Turned to the father and asked: “Once you get home, how will you reassure your children that you won’t do this to them again. Clearly they can’t and they won’t tell you what they’re most afraid of, angry about, or hurt over; you’ll have to take the initiative. What’s the plan to make this up and make this right, so that THEY can get over it?” Most couples were unsure how to do that exactly, but all were very receptive to the idea of calling a “Family Meeting” to explain, reassure, apologize, and to encourage their children to ask questions. One father simply said, “This has killed my kids.” (D) Asked them what they are most optimistic about, and looking forward to. (1) What did you like about counseling? What did you learn about your partner? (2) When he comes home, how will you remember that it is “progression not perfection” you are seeking? Overview of Session 8 Couples frequently cited “Spiritual Beliefs” and “Children and Parenting” as their greatest strengths and shared convictions. Men seemed eager to assume their roles as husbands and fathers, and their wives appeared eager, if not anxious, to let them. They were often quick to remind him how much their children had missed and needed him, an odd but effective strategy for promoting guilt while building his esteem and confidence. They were more inclined to give him credit for his past contributions as a father than to remind him of his present failings. Excerpts #003: She told him what a terrific father he had been to their daughter, who had Cerebral Palsy and was not his biological child. She said, “He shows me how to make her be more independent and confident. He treats her like a normal child and she adores him.” #005: J had been a neglectful father with his first three children from a prior marriage because “I was never home.” She said, “When he’s sober he’s a real attentive and good dad, especially with J (son).” 87 #007: He gave her high marks for “being such a great mom to our kids,” and com- mitted himself to “doing more as a father.” He seemed particularly proud that “we’ve also agreed to never hit the kids.” #009: They seemed very united in their approach to discipline, setting rules and so on. She conceded her tendency to be too lenient, and relied on him to “be the enforcer.” He also expressed concerns about her “never having enough free time to herself without the kids around.” Couples had also viewed spirituality and parenting as pathways toward restoring their marriage. Belief in God, and belief in their family, had provided so much hope, and had been such a reliable “reconciliation trigger,” that it made sense to reaffirm and recall the virtues of both in the final session. They had all expressed a keen desire to develop their spiritual beliefs, and to expand their circle of friends and social supports through church or community-service involvement. The wives had also been critical and fearful of his old “using friends,” and most viewed this as another opportunity for them to “make new friends.” Moreover, they all perceived a need for imparting religious values into their children, and for building their own family traditions around those values. Excerpts #006: She was more “religion-focused” than he, but he was “open-minded” and willing to grow in this area. They used to attend Trinity Lutheran Church with her sister and husband, but quit going because he “didn’t like the new pastor.” They’ve prayed to- gether in the past, and he said it always moved him to “see her heart and soul” when they did. He liked the idea of creating a “family prayer” and agreed to do that once he got back home. #007: She was “church-raised” with Episcopal traditions, and by a father she af- fectionately described as “a born again nut.” She acknowledged that her “faith has got- ten me through this.” He was raised without any religious traditions, but was very “ready to find a spiritual life,” and had enjoyed attending services with her family. They both viewed this as a critical area of importance especially “for the sake of B (daughter). ” 88 #008: This was a strength in progress. She was raised with Baptist traditions, but he was raised with none. They were both eager and ready to explore this more deeply; not only to provide T (daughter) with a spiritual reference, but to also grow into a faith that is meaningful and enriching. He viewed this as a pathway for better understanding hirn- self, and “to take a fearless and moral inventory so I can become more selfless and con- siderate.” They seemed discouraged by traditional churches, but were more positive about joining a non—denominational church, volunteering time to help their community, or enrolling in a Bible study class at Lansing Community College. Follow-up Session: Review and Encouragement (A) Immediately after the last counseling session (Session #8), all couples were post- tested with ENRICH, and then scheduled for one follow-up session two weeks later to review their scores and to reinforce their strengths and goals. (B) All couples received a personalized and bound “Marital Reflections Guide” for their consideration and reference. This document contained their typed casenotes from every session, including therapist interventions and comments, and post-test ENRICH results. 89 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION Introduction All the wives from the Experimental Group had left their husbands at least once prior to his imprisonment, and two of them had already filed for divorce before family therapy began. The expectations that wives had about their husbands coming home ranged from guardedly optimistic to extremely apprehensive and cautious. Indeed, most women reported that in some ways their lives had become more stable, structured, and predictable without their husbands. Therefore, it was surprising that the fathers from both groups (Comparison and Experimental) perceived and reflected their marital relationships so favorably on the FACES II, pre-test. Both groups reflected pre-test Cohesion and Adaptability scores within Mid-Range levels of satisfaction that one might expect from more balanced and less conflicted relationships. It is important to understand that these men had all been imprisoned, unemployed, addicted, and diminished. All were so eager to get home, and so anxious to start anew, that most had thought of little else. Most believed that their misdeeds had been largely redeemed through their prison hardships. In fact all fathers talked about their prison hardships and their constant anxiety about being surprised with divorced papers. They had all known other men whose wives had not waited faithfully, and so some may have had a sense of “marital security;” after 90 all, they still had wives and children who had not deserted them. Most fathers wanted to believe the worst was over, and for them it was in many respects. It is reasonable that they would be optimistic and hopeful, and it is reasonable that their pre-test scores of Adaptability and Cohesion on the FACES II Instrument would be similarly enthusiastic, if not inflated. It is also important to note that FACES II post-test scores were significantly different between the groups; and that the Experimental Group reported significant improvements in Adaptability and Cohesion. The ENRICH questionnaire (165-items; Appendix B) required much greater thought and consideration from the Experimental Group couples than the FACES H Instrument (30—items; Appendix A). Subsequent test results from ENRICH, each organized into a Counselor’s Report (Appendix C), were not only comprehensive in analyzing couples’ relative strengths and weaknesses, but they also revealed a clearer picture of their marital expectations and rules for reconciliation. Table 4-14 reflected improvement in every category, at .05 levels of significance, with the one exception of Role Relationships which were defined as “an individual’s beliefs, attitudes and feelings about marital and family roles” (Life Innovations, 1998, p. 19). These disappointing group scores may reveal a lack of confidence in resuming traditional roles, and an uncertain strategy for dividing marital and parental respon- sibilities equitably. The decisions which couples made about role assignments were impossible to implement because all fathers were still living at the House of Commons when those decisions had been made. “Actions speak louder than words” was a frequently issued challenge by wives, and perhaps more than anything else, this helps to explain why Role Relationship scores were so modest and flat. These men simply had 91 not had an opportunity to demonstrate their promises and assertions to be more reliable husbands and fathers. It was not very complicated sorting through the most threatening problems all the couples in this research had to deal with, resolve, and get beyond. It was more precarious, however, to keep them engaged and on task in therapy, without them becoming too acrimonious. On several occasions sessions had either been interrupted or abruptly terminated because hostilities ran so high. Building empathy and reciprocity were key strategies in finding forgiveness and reconciliation, negotiating rules and roles, and establishing a future-focused orientation. The balance of power within these relationships was never equal or stagnant. Of course, partners who wield the most power in a conflicted marriage are usually the ones most willing to leave it. They are the ones with the least to lose and the most to gain if they decide to go. The reverse is true, obviously. Partners with the least amount of power are usually the ones most willing to negotiate and compromise because they value the relationship more. They will fight harder to save a marriage because they have the most to lose if it collapses, and the most to gain if it does not. The balance of power between the couples in this research was overwhelmingly lopsided. The wives owned it. They all had a home, a job or reliable income source, the children, and their freedom to say the least. Husbands, on the other hand, were anxious to regain a sense of leadership and control, especially after having been so disempowered and degraded in prison. Unfortunately for them, they were the ones still serving time at the House of Commons, after having already served a prison term. They did not have any leverage, and they rarely had the power or authority to deal with their wives on equal terms. Before a balance of power and role privileges could be restored, 92 fathers first had to achieve 2 goals. They had to: (I) understand and acknowledge her suffering and losses, and (2) accept full responsibility, give appreciation, and make amends. The contextual, solution-focused model which emerged from this study was developed and implemented around this crucial principle. The more completely and genuinely husbands achieved each of those goals, the more likely their wives were willing and prepared to negotiate, compromise, and forgive. Typically the wives assessed their marriages more critically than their husbands, and reflected greater reservations and conditions for staying in the marriage. This disparity in perceptions lends credibility to the argument that the men in this research were often unrealistic about their relationships and tended to minimize or deny the severity of their marital problems. Solution-focused treatment strategies, and a standardized therapy model evolved from this research and from David Olson’s ENRICH Program, which he designed to enhance solid andcohesive marriages, but which had to be modified to fit this more conflicted population (Appendix D). Most of the problems couples presented with in this research were driven by a reluctance to give empathy and reciprocity, to risk conflict, and to make decisions to implement change. As a result, their efforts at restoring stability, finding reconciliation, and pursuing a shared vision for their future had been largely unsatisfactory and unrewarding. Conflicts were typically recycled by an inability, not an unwillingness, to negotiate and compromise with fairness. Indeed, couples separated by imprisonment faced complex and unclear challenges in their efforts to re-order family roles, rules. and boundaries. Wives had typically assumed dual roles as parents and providers, establishing rules to ensure stability and 93 security for their children, and determining boundaries to regulate social supports and resources. Family systems in transition, like those in this study, sought to restore and balance rules, roles, and boundaries by insisting on conditions and limitations, or hastily accommodating the transition without a clear idea for reconciling and reorganizing. All couples could easily articulate their sense of misery and pessimism, but they were often uncertain about how they had individually contributed to their own problems and disagreements. Most had not fully considered the systemic and interdependent nature of their marriage, their family, and their environment. For example, imprisoned fathers understood that their illegal choices had produced harsh consequences for themselves, but most were less sure about how their wives and children had also been diminished. At some level people deliberately choose or decide to act in ways which are trust- worthy, fair-minded, and empathic—or unreliable, intolerant, and selfish. This ecological concept of individual choice, and the freedom to make decisions, was profoundly important in advancing ideas of personal accountability and responsibility in therapy. Fathers who claimed little responsibility for their actions were more likely to rationalize their illegal choices and defend their substance abuse behaviors. These two decision-making tendencies, benevolent vs. malevolent, surfaced quickly and reliably in therapy as couples engaged one another or sought to heal their differences with peaceful solutions. Moreover, couples who accepted responsibility for their past decisions received more empathy and appreciation than those who did not. To wit, the decision making process integrates personal accountability, communication and problem solving skills, social supports, and environmental opportunities. 94 Conclusions It was clear that family therapy had significant advantages over individual therapy, based on statistically significant differences between the two treatment outcomes from this research. It is reasonable to assume that these differences were linked directly to the contextual, solution-focused model which was developed and implemented with the Experimental Group, especially when one considers that pre- and post-test scores for the Comparison Group remained virtually unchanged. Perhaps more than anything else, these stagnant perceptions of Adaptability and Cohesion, relative to the improvements reflected by the Experimental Group, lends credibility to the systemic, interdependent, and fluid nature of familial relationships. Men who have been separated from their families by imprisonment cannot fully recognize or respect the hardships and sacrifices their families made without becoming aware, or having insight into, those struggles. All couples were diligent in their efforts to reconcile problems, and motivated to restore family rules and roles, but facilitating empathy and compromise between them was difficult, repetitive, and strategic. It is doubtful that these couples could have made as much progress on their own because their communication and problem-solving skills had become so truncated by blame, anger, suspicion, and resentment. Indeed, empathy, reciprocity, forgiveness, and trust may never be achieved with individual counseling alone. Without familial input, assessment, and participation, communication patterns and conflict resolution skills cannot be challenged, encouraged, or negotiated. 95 Limitations of the Research The steady and varying turnover rates at the House of Commons prevented the possibility of recruiting both groups of fathers at the same time. Pre- and post-tests were staggered to accommodate fluctuating schedules so that all subjects, from both groups, could be pre-tested and then post-tested at 2-month intervals. Most importantly, there were no post-counseling sessions to encourage and support couples’ growing sense of confidence, affection, and optimism. Compromise and reconciliation had been difficult for most of them to achieve. Treating couples at the House of Commons, while the husbands were still 90-day residents there, had a number of advantages. Most couples had a sense of urgency and were motivated to make amends before the “homecoming;” husbands were usually contrite and deferential, largely because of their unfavorable circumstances, and so most wives treated them with more empathy and benevolence than they might have otherwise. Short-term gains may have only been significant in the short-term because some couples will not negotiate the real world challenges awaiting them, without slipping into old habits of avoidance and non- resolution. In fact, four of the couples from this research asked for help after the husband had been released from the House of Commons. Eight or ten counseling sessions, scheduled over a 6-12 month period, would help reinforce, encourage, and challenge couples to keep building upon their strengths, and to practice their communication skills. This was the most glaring limitation of this research, and all couples expressed discouragement about not having additional sessions as a way of maintaining and enhancing their relationship over the long term. 96 Implications The implications for doing family therapy with this population may be enormous and far-reaching; not only with families affected in this way, but also in the arena of public opinion where criminal justice policy and objectives are shaped. If a more rational and global approach was followed to reduce recidivism rates, an idea unanimously favored by society, then the appeal of that approach would be obvious. The implications for doing family therapy, as a strategy for restoring and strengthening families who are trying to reintegrate a father, may even have useful applications beyond the prison population. For example, military fathers returning from war or hardship tours may face similar transitional problems associated with separation and re-adjusting to familial roles, rules, boundaries, and expectations. 97 APPENDIX A 98 FACES II: Family Version David H. Olson, Joyce Portner & Richard Bell . In solving problems, the children’s suggestions are followed. . Family members feel very close to each other. _ . Discipline is fair in our family. 1 2 3 4 5 Almost Never Once in Awhile Sometimes Frequently Almosr Always Describe Your Family: _ 1. Family members are supportive of each other during difficult times. _ 2. In our family, it is easy for everyone to express his/her opinion. _ 3. It is easier to discuss problems with people outside the family than with other family members. _ 4. Each family member has input regarding major family decisions. _ 5. Our family gathers together in the same room. _ 6. Children have a say in their discipline. _ 7. Our family does things together. _ 8. Family members discuss problems and feel good about the solutions. _ 9. In our family, everyone goes his/her own way. _ 10. We shift household responsibilities from person to person. _ 11. Family members know each other’s close friends. _ 12. It is hard to know what the rules are in our family. _ 13. Family members consult other family members on personal decisions. __ 14. Family members say what they want. _ 15. We have difficulty thinking of things to do as a family. . Family members feel closer to pe0ple outside the family than to other family members. . Our family tries new ways of dealing with problems. . Family members go along with what the family decides to do. . In our family, everyone shares responsibilities. . Family members like to spend their free time with each other. . It is difficult to get a rule changed in our family. . Family members avoid each other at home. . When problems arise, we compromise. . We approve of each other’s friends. . Family members are afraid to say what is on their minds. . Family members pair up rather than do things as a total family. . Family members share interests and hobbies with each other. 99 APPENDIX B 100 I*. I*I I.- VERSION . ENRICH ENRICHING RELATIONSHIP ISSUES, COMMUNICATION AND HAPPINESS MINNEAPOLIS. SIN 5940-0!” ' I. upright. 1W0 LIFI: I\\O\ AI IU\§. In; 101 Joan \I. Drurknun. Ph.D. - - - - - - - None of peace ‘mh ID Number C _ N.- ounselor must fillomdteshededseeuon' ] - Double check the metro sheets betore mailing 1n - CW! N... Month De) 7 Year Month Des Year -C~*N-~' o O o Cumulus-nun OOOOOOO wm OOOOOO - ted—flTfl—rooooooo M-M oooooo - [ED 000 ooooooo mm ooooo - @OO OOOOOOO appropriate @OOOO - mew-3k ooo met-"w ooooooo am o 000 - mgr, 000 .4927... 0000000 ,_ I o 000 - m' OOO ”was; OOOOOOO ...,...' O (DOG) - M~mh®®® fill-6e ®®®®®®® Iz-Dee 6 OOO - mm 000 "mm- 0000006) ”-12” 0 OOO - vQQL, o-ooooo o oso - I I. GENDER 2. AGE 3. YEARS acts :Alfiggfig‘; s. EDl’CATIO\ o. mum \rnr midi ® Less than 20 MARRIED MARRIAGE ® Graduate Protessmnal (9 Full-time - ® Male (9 20 - 25 ® 0 - 5 (9 Less than I <9 Four-year College ® Parr-time - ® 20 - 30 ® rt - 10 ® I . 2 G) Somefollege Teehlueal ® Pull-nme A Pan-lime - ® Female @ 31 . 3‘ ® I! - 15 ® 3 - 4 ® finished High School (91 nemplmed - CD 36 - 40 ® loot more (D 5 or more O Some High saw: d 6) at orolder ll.( 1‘thth m m: 8. INCOWC 9. RELIGION lo. ETHNIC ARRANGE‘IINT - 7, occuu'nox @511 - 50.999 (D Catholic 6) Arman Amt-nun G) \\ uh Pmm‘f - (9 Clerical. Sales. Techmcran ®SIOK . 519.999 ® Jen rsh G) Asian Amt-man ® \lone - ® Execum e. Doctor. Lauyer @820}; - 529.999 G) Protestant ® Caucasian @ \\ uh othen - @ Faeron \\ «Let. Laborer. “ alrenessr ®S3OK - $39 999 ® Other G) Hupame Larmu Ca) \\ uh parent. - ® Homemaker ©540K ° 54‘5”” @ “'WJ N. I’ \RENTS' MARITAL STVII S H (9 Manager. Teacher. Rune ©550K - 5.49” © 01h" ® \lamed In mg together d ® Sell-employ ed ©5'5K - SW99" 6‘ Separated - ® Skllled a; Bulldmg Trades. Farmer ©SIUUK or more © Unmet-.1, ‘rwh ‘mgte “ \\()\l ‘\ - (9 Student 1;, \\ HERE DO \ ()1 LIVE? I3. \I.\R|T \L ST \TI 5 C4) Dlsuru‘d. I‘vm temamcc U mun \\T'.‘ - @Lnemplm ed Rural area 6) \Iamed <9 Dutvncd. I ungl; l tellramed - @ Other ® Town 6) Separated © Single manner Jeecawdr ® M) q @ Small (II) CD NIH-'3: ® Rclrlamed manner dumbed: ‘ G) Large ctr} ® Burn part-m- aeteawd (V) “N - - l8. (‘HILDRD 19. mm \1 \\\ \IORL 20. \m R 2r. \m R “Inserts It. BIRTH 17. \l'\lB£R 0? \‘0l HAVE CIIILDRE\ DESIRED “\RRIAGE \I “I!!! \(if‘ - rosmox CHILDREN @ \vnc \vm s \I I» «Tim s \Tle -\(‘Tl()\ - G) Fm! GUM @IMe ®trne @Mr I):~~.l:'~:n...' @‘sen I)!~\JII\IIL\I - ® Second 6) Tun ® Tvm ® Tun C2) lhnalulltlz ® I)l\\.|II\IIs‘d - ® Third ® Three 6) Three ® Ihree é) \eu'r... GD \eutral - G) Fourth G) I’uul (9 four (9 tour (9 mnmea C4) Salhlied - ® Finn or more (9 inc or more © Ir’ne or more 6) In: or more @ \ cu \JIIsIle’ki @ \ en SJH‘I‘ICLI - - - 22. CONSIDERED FOR ITEMS 23-30 l‘SE THE SCALE LISTED - ”"0"“ 23 24 25 26 27 2x 2» m 022:: - ® \0 NEVER G (D (D G) (I) (D G) 6) ONLY _ snow O O O O O O O O - Ore SOMETIMES O O O O O O O O O O own O O O O O O O O - w“ "”mh'” ""' my OFTEN ® © © G) (D © © (9 Inna H.01wn. Ph.D. - 'RE'ARE’BR'C" Irma (3. I‘nurnier. Ph.D. - [0. BOX I90 - ENRICH Questionnaire (165-items) IDEALISTIC DISTORTION 1) My partner and I understand each other completely. 40) My partner completely understands and sympathizes with my every mood. 60) Every new thing I've learned about my partner has pleased me. 80) I have never regretted my relationship with my partner. 100) My partner has all the qualities I've ever wanted in a mate. 120) We are as happy as any couple could possibly be. 140) My partner always gives me the love and affection I need. MARRIAGE SATISFACTION 16) I am very happy with how we handle our responsibilities in our family/household. 20) I am unhappy with some of my partner's personality characteristics or personal habits. 31) I am unhappy with our communication and feel my partner doesn't understand me. 46) I am very happy with how we make decisions and resolve conflict. 61) I am unhappy about our financial position and the way we make financial decisions ‘ 76) I am very happy with how we manage our leisure activities and the time we spend together. 91) I am very pleased with how we express affection and relate sexually. 105) I am very happy about the way we each handle our responsibilities as parents. 118) I am happy with our relationship with my parents, in-laws, and my partner's friends. 132) I feel very good about how we each practice our religious beliefs and values. PERSONALITY ISSUES 7) There are times when I feel jealous because of my partner's behavior. 17) Sometimes I am concerned about my partner's tamper. 32) I am sometimes concerned that my partner appears to be unhappy and withdrawn. 47) My partner has some personal habits that bother me. .102 62) I wish my partner were more reliable and followed through on more things. 77) I am sometimes upset or embarrassed by my partner's behavior. 92) Sometimes my partner is too stubborn. 106) I wish my partner were less critical or negative about some topics. 119) Sometimes I have difficulty dealing with my partner's moodiness. 133) Sometimes my partner seems to be too controlling. COMMUNICATION 3) I can express my true feelings to my partner. 18) When we are having a problem, my partner often refuses to talk about it. 33) My partner sometimes makes comments that put me down. 48) I wish my partner were more willing to share his/her feelings with me. 63) At times it is hard for me to ask for what I want. 78) Sometimes I have trouble believing everything my partner tells me. 93) My partner often doesn't understand how I feel. 107) I am satisfied with how my partner and I talk with each other. 121) It is difficult for me to share negative feelings with my partner. 134) My partner is a very good listener. CONFLICT RESOLUTION 5) 22) 35) 50) 65) 67) 95) 109) 122) 135) To end an argument, I tend to give in too quickly. My partner and I have different ideas about the best way to resolve our disagreements. When we discuss problems, my partner understands my opinions and ideas. Even during disagreements, I can share my feelings and ideas with my partner. Sometimes we have serious disputes over unimportant issues. I go out of my way to avoid conflict with my partner. At times I feel our differences never get resolved. To avoid hurting my partner's feelings during an argument, I tend to say nothing. At times my partner does not take our disagreements seriously. When we argue, I usually end up feeling responsible for the problem. 103 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 6) 21) 36) 51) 66) 81) 96) 110) 123) 136) Sometimes I wish my partner were more careful about spending money. My partner tries to control the money we have. We have difficulty deciding how to handle our finances. I am satisfied with our decisions about how much money we should save. We are both aware of our major debts, and they are not a problem for us. We have trouble saving money. Use of credit cards and charge accounts has been a problem for us. We sometimes have problems deciding what is most important to spend money on. We usually agree on how to spend our money. I am concerned about how my partner handles money. LEISURE ACTIVITIES 8) 23) 38) 53) 68) 83) 97) 111) 124) 137) I sometimes feel pressured to participate in activities my partner enjoys. I wish my partner had more time and energy for recreation with me. I am concerned that my partner has too many activities or hobbies. It upsets me when I have to spend an evening by myself. My partner and I enjoy the same social and recreational activities. My idea of a good time differs somewhat from my partner's. Hy partner's activities (television, computer, sports, etc.) interfere with our time together. I am happy with the amount of time and leisure activities my partner and I share together. My partner is more outgoing and enjoys social activities more than I do. My partner and I have a good balance of leisure time spent together and separately. SEXUAL EXPECTATIONS 9) 24) 39) 54) I am completely satisfied with the amount of affection my partner gives me. We try to find ways to keep our sexual relationship interesting and enjoyable. I am concerned that my partner may not be interested in me sexually. i am comfortable talking with my partner about sexual ssues. 1104 69) 84) 98) 112) 125) 138) I worry that my partner may have thought about having a sexual relationship outside of our marriage (an affair). Our sexual relationship is satisfying and fulfilling to me. I am reluctant to be affectionate with my partner because he/she often interprets it as a sexual advance. It bothers me that my partner uses or refuses sex unfairly. I am satisfied with our openness in discussing sexual topics. I am concerned that my partner's interest in sex might be different than mine. CHILDREN and PARENTING 12) 27) 42) 57) 72) 87) 101) 115) 128) 142) In our family, the father spends enough time with our children. I am satisfied with how we share the responsibilities of raising our children. We agree on how to discipline our children. My partner seems to give more attention to the children than to our marriage. :e are happy with the number of children we have or plan to ave. Children seem to create problems in our relationship. Having children has brought us closer together as a couple. My partner and I have similar views on our children's religious education. Since our children were born, I feel more satisfied in my marriage. We agree on how much we should provide financially for our children. FAMILY and FRIENDS 13) 28) 43) 58) 73) 88) 102) 116) 129) 143) Our parents expect too much attention and/or assistance from us. My partner accepts me completely and respects the decisions I make. Hy partner is too involved with or influenced by his/her family. I really enjoy spending time with my partner's family. Hy partner gets along well with most of my friends. Sometimes my partner's friends or family interfere with our relationship. I am worried that accepting financial assistance or advice from our families causes problems for us. One or both of.our families cause trouble in our marriage. I really enjoy being with most of my partner's friends. I have concerns when my partner spends time with friends or co-workers of the other sex. 1055 ROLE 14) 29) 44) 59) 74) 89) 103) 117) 130) 144) RELATIONSHIPS We divide household chores based on our interests and skills rather than on traditional roles. If both of us are working, the husband should do the same amount of household chores as the wife. I am concerned that I do more than my share of household tasks. In our marriage, the husband is as willing to adjust as the wife. If the wife works outside the home, she should still be responsible for running the household. A career can be equally important to a man or a woman. We both work hard to maintain an equal relationship. If a couple has young children, the wife should not work outside the home. Hy partner would not make an important decision without consulting me. In our marriage, the wife is encouraged to work outside the home. SPIRITUAL BELIEFS 15) 30) 45) 52) 75) 82) 90) 104) 131) 145) My partner and I disagree about our spiritual beliefs. We share very similar spiritual beliefs. Sharing spiritual values helps our relationship remain strong. My spiritual beliefs are an important part of the commitment I have to my partner. Spiritual differences cause some tension in our relationship. We have resolved the differences in our spiritual beliefs. I believe our marriage must include active participation in a church/synagogue. We are satisfied with how we express our spiritual values and beliefs. We rely on our spiritual beliefs during difficult times. My partner and I feel closer because of our spiritual beliefs. COUPLE CLOSENESS 2) 10) 25) 37) 55) 70) We really like to do things with each other. We ask each other for help. We spend too much time with our friends and relatives. We share hobbies and interests. Jealousy is an issue in our relationship. Hy partner and I really enjoy spending our free time together. $106 85) 113) 126) 139) We feel very close to each other. We find it easy to think of things to do together. We consult each other on all important decisions. Our togetherness is a top priority for us. COUPLE FLEXIBILITY 4) 19) 34) 49) 64) 79) 94) 108) 127) 141) We compromise when problems arise. We are creative in how we handle our differences. In our relationship, we share leadership equally. Both of us are able to adjust to change when it's necessary. We try new ways of dealing with problems. We make most decisions jointly. We seldom seem to get organized. We will share household responsibilities equally. We have difficulty completing tasks or projects. We are flexible in our lifestyle. FAMILY CLOSENESS 146) 148) 150) 151) 153) 156) 159) 161) 162) 164) Family members asked each other for help. Family members approved of my friends. Our family liked to do things with only members of the immediate family. Family members really enjoyed being together. Our family liked to spend free time together. Family members felt very close to one another. When our family got together for activities, everybody was present. It was easy for our family to think of things to do together as a family. Family members consulted one another on decisions. Family togetherness was very important in our family. FAMILY FLEXIBILITY 147) 149) 152) 154) 155) 157) 158) Family members compromised when problems arose. Our family was flexible in how we handled discipline. When there were problems, our family became disorganized. Things never seemed to get done in our family. Our family was able to adjust to change when necessary. Parent(s) and child(ren) made decisions together in our family. Our family had a hard time finding good ways to solve our problems. ‘107 160) Our family shifted household responsibilities from person to person. 163) We never seemed to get organized in our family. 165) Our family had a rule for every situation. 1108 APPENDIX C 109 flaw...— .esExom..: .2 .32. 5....— .exsemcu .3 2:: d...“- .s=m_3 .2 Essa sfiwé semen mumszmfimm—E 66:36.: 39:86 m ml @338 ms 8 team: was 0.520 5:6 mm: 6.569560 65 toe me a .6338 ms 8 :95 on 2 8: ml toqmm «Es Ema mEuuoB 8.22553 28 EnEaz. ._ 6.69500 m. Sam A .833 p 2.. Ecosy— 2:3:ch Hang/3% 8.33% 2: £26.25: J 69— no: 5..— :kezmbufiwfi .2: 8:23.55: 3:.— 966l Iubuldoo o ’suouvnona asn 110 .NJQDOU m....... :23 02.5.03 2. 25m «50> FDOm< v.95... .2». 0mm... 0.60.. 9......5... 3.50... 0:: 9.3.5.“. 0.950 30301 .3... 0mm... 0.50.. 20:05. 0 3.90". .5. 03:05.0 0.950 30.>0~. 8.0.5.6-...5. :0... 55:03.. .0. 00... .0980... a 0.. 5.3:... w:.>.. 3.60.. 0. L059... :000 3.00.0... .c 09.... 0005.00me 0....— »..Ee.._ .052 .:.m..O ..c 2.50“. .05. 9.75.1.3. 0.950 0... .0 05:95.0..- 5.. .m. 0%.... .53. 3.5....— d 0.950 30.>0~. .m 79 00mm... ....... . ...... - - mes. 2.80“. a 0.950 .0m.0.0xm .05.... 3.055.”... 0... :. 00¢: 0.. ..0...3 .3 0%.... 50809253. .5053... 3033. .0053 0.0.:0. 0:: 0...... 3.5.2.5. .0250 o. .000... 0.. .fi 0mm... 5:575 0.7.30... .052 AN FUN ammunVOOOIOIOO... IIOOI 0” {II t{OIOIOCCOIOOOOOIOIOCOIOC Bhfiu-mcou >_a=°_>wbn “a: ”“05“ -—~ 3m->um 0.950 0... 5.3 0.0.... c. 0.80.. 50500935 :0... US. 5:0: .500... .a.00..m Wm .00.0m .00... 530.0 :000 5.. ... 0.950 0... 5.3 0.....0 o. 050.. .:0E00.w< m-~ 60.00 .00... ...w:0..m :03 5". .0 .000... I0.~.Zm\m~.<..m~... 0... =5... 5.0.. 35.30:. 50.0.. o. v. 4. 0.0.3.. 00.: 50.00.00. 0...... 5.. v.00.< 525.0 0:: ...w:0..m 0... 0.2.0:... 0... 0.950 0... 5.3 300...... c. w..0.< 530.0 m 0.... 0.2.30.5 9:05:23. m 80.0... .05. 0.5.00.0m 0.0.5.000". 5.. 80:00.53 0.0.9.50 H. 00.0.05". 5200.58.50 0.950 5". A0 mafia—v.55- .......... -- - -- - -- megmmflm sown—vat .Ou «azmxuO; .00... .30 :.....3 0.80.. 0:00. .2009. 0:0 ..:0.:00.w..v...0 .:...z.00.0:. 50.50."... 0.950 03:03.. :. 00.30.... gm... .3: 052 0.2.0.. .c 0.099 3:: 5.0.x. 53.0.0 0% ...u:0..m 9.7.5.223. .c. b.2555 50.. 30.51 Am ”Gun: - -- - -.-.>.QEEq—w Eu: 0.950 0... 5.3 9.6.53 5. 20.5—0:25:80. 00.52 .m..0.< 533.0 .05. ...w:0..m 9.75.6.3. 0.0.00»? 0:: 0.... 9......:c.:..0. 0.950 0... .3. 0.0.950 .c 00...... 30.0% Ac mama—v-33: : -- mwaaOO no maPP 08:03:03... .5 000.000. .. 00.0.05... :o....0.::.:.:o0 0....50 .8535: .05. 00:055.... .052... .0... 0.0.3.0.. 9:23.00 .0:.. $0053.00... .0:.. 00:03.50 :3 .0... 2&5... 3.3520: {05.2. :20 0:80.005. .0202 o. .:0Emm0¢.m< 3.2.50.0; 30.>0~. Am Oman: ...... - - - : - - uCflEOmOmm< >:_fl:Om._0n_ .303... .5305... 80:80:... 0.950 .05. $530.... 0.0....0...:.¢. 0.950 .05. 52.0.. :000 .0 055.30.... .c 303.05 5. 5.3.5.0.:— .0:.5.m0.0..m 30.>0~. AN one... 5.55.2:- 9.5.9.000 "0:0.mm0m 0.00.300... wig—«EC 08 0:020:50:— 966l “0040030 SNOIlVAONNI 3511 111 :0...0 2.0., u... _ :0...0 n2 mu: >OfiZm. .m >903. ZmpuO 2.01 .002 u... m0E..0E:m .2 m»2wm<... wagkmm wm3m< my? “y.— mflf .—2 Dwkw :5... n... =3. "2 Dmewo ZmIQdIO “.0 02 10.0.02 u... 20.0.2.3. . 2 w3hz< >m wm3m< 0.0:...0..5m n... .0>02 .2 mm: ODKOJOIOO.< m..n.wz._.m .2 wO424”. EDO> Z. zwmodIO “.0 OZ 10.0.52 00.02 H... :0...:2 2.0.5.5.... .2 w:.~<..m .3955). 30...... 0.... u... 25...... . 0:... .2 w2OUZ_ >.m mwzhmxfi Z>>Ozv. mm E020m u... 00>02 .2 mmzkmgn. >m. ww3m< .052 n... m0E..0..5m .2 mm: 03102010004 I30) 0.2.5.. H... 02.75.. >...0> .2 w0<_mm<2 0.. 2020.3! mhzmmdxn. 10...... n... 5...... n2 >.__2m mem< 00.02 u... 00:50.52 .2 mm: ODKDDOIOU.< w.._.zww.(a 0.00... m.~ n... 0.50... v .5... 0.52 .2 ZmedIO w> .1:>> ZmI>> 52 u... .02 "2 okZ> th w. 5.53:0... u... 5.0.1.050 .2 DZDOIOx004n=2m =9 . cm u... .3. . c... "2 was. mama 'suouuomu am 112 .9... .2. $2.2: E... .2. 55:8 3 8.... 2. .2... 5.5.5.... by.» m. .252... .2. 5... 28. 22:2 2.... u... :6... ".50.. .0... m... 0252.. .5: 5... 5.2.8 o. 3.... 2.... 5... .5 52.55.. m. .255: m... 5... 22.. 5.5.3. v.2: 2. h "S. 30. ”.95.. w, .0... .25... 22.55.. 2.- .....E... 5.53 8 no... 55.2. .25... .52 .522. a cos... 32. .5 :25... 02.2.5.2. .05.-n. 62.5. E... 1.9.. .352... 3 2.32:2 m. .2... 85%. 3.5.5:. 3 £52 2... .5: 35.29.: :. an... m. 0.2:... 2. .. n... =6... “3.5.. 6.2.8. 5... .9... 2.8.... o. 559...». 2. 8.5.958 =.... .5: 8:2... 3.55.... 85.55% E... 2. .5: 8.5...3: 5 295.5... m. 9.2.. 2.... ”2 Pram—DOS. u.93.. .. . . $.82... .25.. 5... .5: 2 92.2022 2.- 5:... 3.5.5... 2 >232... 9.522. c o. 02.2.5.2 . n o .o... :. 8.5... 2... .2... 5......58: o. 3...... .2. .25 .322. 25.... .55» 23. 35.5% 69.51.25. :8 25w 2... 0.2:». 2.... u... HhéunO—z ".05.. d... :. 3:...» 2. .2... £25582. 23.50.... 3 3...... m... .2... :35... 25.... .55» be.» 28. 69:93.59 :3 ..u... 2... 0...... 2.... ".2 =0:— ".32. .30.... c. 2...... 2.22. .25. 5.5.53- 2 >5...- .2.}... u... .52255-E... .32.. .52 .522. u .50.. 32. .5 .0252 8:25:00 :5 a o .55.... .2. :5... 8:...» 2... .2... .5. Am: a. 9...: Eco—om m. .2... $.53. .5: 3:95... .2. «£89.93 352...... 2... 22.5. 2. ... u... 30. ".95.. ...2....2. n... :5... 3...... 2. .2...» .5. .7... c. 2.... 2.2.2. m. .2... 35.3. .5: 3.35... m... 9:86.93 5 .59” b3 u. «.2: 2. ... .5. IO... N.95.. -3 x #31,: ; .. ...,....mo..mmtca .25... E0... 2... 2.5! 2.22. .2... .o. .5- o. .3- 2. u..- no..._o2 .25... 5293 o. 3.....- 9522. u o. ua25>...o:< @ 23332 3:28.... 966k N50603:! SNOanONNI 3.40 113 .3313... 3:: 2:5:3 £539:— =£E£==EE3 .= “5.3.58 given 95 .55.?on 295... 3 ~35 $.ng . fl .mExm E533“... SEE; ES :e_.3_:=EE:u .5 55¢“— . "mzczwmchm £3.3— EEIEm 5:: £9.33— .a E55,.— .uEEEa; Q .5555 .aEmEgfifim 23. 3 =82...— ma=m£ 125:5“... E. 3:32;. 9.5.: cc: :cwfiauaza—e .5255... 53:233. «3:55 .:=_.=..._==EE=U £2.3— >..=m=cm._a.= 3:52;: EESE 5 3.5.23 3.: 2:— 93:3 if. 29:. ”fir—ECU ‘_:u< JEN“: c.5333. 55.8 83¢— .Suaxm 92300 Eatam 23. 1:55". E2250 .333 2.23 Eucaci SEES .E:EE:U 3:335... ”wits: _ o— \ | ON \ a: rr / CM 71 aLFnF- 1 \ I a fgjfzaii. Ill 8 / /\ in: Irir+r\ 966‘ momma c SNOIquNNI 3m //\‘ / \\ ///\\\ a < ow .323 .92.: 2a 3.63 EoEooE< 03:00 02:2... :2: :5 5:89 25 :0 auto... coon .0: can 23:8 35.. E or _ .o .3205me bemm B .2563. m n. n. _ Em g 38: :85 I 930 new mason _.. 9.55 2055 9.56:2 m5 no woman 8.300 55:55 .0 won: Soul 9: .2585! 30.3 3.55 9:. meQDOU no mwa>k 114 .322. cozzcmu 3m. 93$. 1.30:0 ozq xyozmmpm 2.620:qu mimt ZOE-own... 58:8 .o 3.3 cu m. .. gun 205:1 4N a m .2. ason w :2: 20E ‘3 86-23 205.31 252. . ES... 350 2.. .n a 3 3.3%... Eu: 2.. to 3.2395 Ba 23qu £2. 3 2.5 .3 a v .2. E2533 2:32. a to 35° to: .o .50.. 2.9 55.; «tun Boat-m I: I . .. .1 is. n. I ... I .83 <2: E323 i. I . . . .1 I . .15. I . . I n: a I 11.... I .815 3593982 .1 . .. . I L . 1.1. I I I Iii... I .823 gage—~53 3030.. a . . . . I . Eu. . I ”I'dl.s..|.ihd I $8.348 EuzuzsmEmzop—fim: . I .1 «I in 1:1 3 :4 tings-58. (I:Susie-am...II§=8§E_81=.§E8§§5§8§328§E_Bug-n.lan.aI I L I ... .i........< H 2 . J .3..< 2.33.... 22.35. $3. _ m e .3 mama. 5.3;:me >225. 59.26. 2238.. *2. u a _ .2 083 E3554”. 3.58 .82 £32: 83 e , c , .8 mane mmmmeod 5:2,: 59.9.5 22.8.... *3. n c a. 38. mmmzwmod wince fucohm 55:33.3. $5. c . . . a W a. moan: wumzmm éaiam 59.25 22.8.... $2. a ~ 2 . _ .2. _ a. 33. aimzocfimm 50: no.2 2.3:... 2233.. $3. ._ . v , . 9 .2 mama. mozEE oz< >225 59.9.5 222:. 83. o v . _ m '3 .8. 02:22.2". oz< zmmoexo 5.2.25. 25:3. $3 e m e 2 n , a. 3&3 30:58.26 23% 5955 2.58.. .25 a v e e _ a. 83. 3:55.. #593 .82 539.... 22.5.... $9. v . _ N n :m 38. Emzwom o2... new 5352 m mm 39.2.33 . , . 9:... >9: 9.2335 9.3.. > Em. .o 35...... 5.3 32.3.5: @533 5..» 22.3.5: 45...... a mg... m... o. 39.0%... 929.8 m... m. 3.3 2.2.... . .2 3:25.. 5.... 3...... 3:93.. N 6.3.8 m... £3. um: Egan. m 2.300 m... .9... 9...... 90.2. .5335 5.35.00 O $9.53.. an 380....qu .m 23 50> c. uwocmtwnxw .96 .< "mwoszmnxm mu... >....s.<.. 5.95.5. 55:3..«3: ski... a. mom... m.m_.mm iatmim 59.25 93.3.... $2. a. 32.. aimzocfimm 30m 3:. 53...... 9333.. 9...... c. 3...... 82!... 02.. 5:25 59.25 23.8.... $3. .2 .8... 02:29.... 02.. 233.10 Sushm 23.3.... $3 8. wow... mzo.pE Sosa mass. 805 @955 2 .033 3 =3. .. .3559: .22 .8 3 ..oéaEa.o§>s§§&2.e8=8¥8oc.§z 2 3 .33.. >6 :2. 850 288 >9 SE 3 ....s 95:2:3800 .2 88: >8 .0 9:3 68:88 .22 .6 A: . .sfiaaaisogeafiaassssgissasugggssseoofiafioES. .9 3 .238 a mm 26.. oz. 3.285 on. .o .35 9.32 _._.s we... .8 3 .§§u§22§_§3£§3€8>.52=28§3>5 .8 3 .0359: .30 c. 2.28... 2.2.8 99.. .96 53 9s .9: .896 .0: on _ .9 3 $8 *3 595.5 0338.. $3 M .. . +|.-:-.?- ..-l-.-ila-1 :eifli «1111.513? 71!}--airlll, g .. x. I!!! In: 35 £328 5:555» gfimc . x 3.53 9.59. @ . . ... dun—ta:— 3 83.35:. i flag—.29 2: a: 9:35 Eu» m. MHZ—2m..— 2:. vmvflvvnnvv G mmn—NQ—I—NQN 69.93:. ..c 8235:. d fiance—.39 2: no 9332:. m. ”.552 05,—. wzofidkomaxm moSmqu 85¢ 230.2%... 8.3... 328233 8585"“ 8585 29.25". . ...... m. .. . .. . .. . . . . . . Saga 2.2.82 «.822. o... .2 38:8 83 .68.... 8.. cm 5.2.28 .. .3 .. as ... 8... 58 .2 :8. as .552... ...-...... a... ...: v8 Q... .5223 25.38. S a. 28.. ..o... g :9. 8 88.. . bastion 3209.50 3 can :03 so 203 33222.. 9:83 a £8. :03 .0. 28a .3222. 98:80 20:. a 02.65 9 .020 c. . ( ...... J.,~ . Ir.vpifiwr\;. . ... $203.. .... . 2.6. .. N .32 2.22 ...: 32o... .53... 9.28. 83:8 3:2. 2...; .8223 8......8. ... «28¢ .39.. 2,2 o. 22 8.38 3.2.2.. .. ...,..__. .. , . . . ...... .. _ .353... 23.39. 29: a c. 95:26.... .35 $9.83.. .5an on. 55 «2365 28» >6. < .. .... . . .. .... ............ .,. .. $38.0 .358 82.. . .... ...... .. ...... . _ . ._ =92... .. 88 2a .85... 2.28.. 2.96 5 ... £8322 .35 89.08.. 828 a ...... 8.8%... 28» E... < .. negate-58.. . ... 2.3.3.... ...... .o 8.3.8.... ...... 8.8.... 82... u 5...... 8 2.3.3 .5 8.38... 8.5:... 25.8.... ...-3588.382 safe-glue... ...... ...: 3:... ......8. as. . is... 2:38.. >5. 8.53:. ... h.5. s 2...... ...... £2852 :2: .8... 9.5.8... r: a .355: 2:. {figfihf 3...... $8 .558 ...—<2”...— ._ 28. 52%... 2...... 98...... s... 2.2.3... a... 8.5.5... .... 2.... 8 2...: ...... £3328 ...... 32.. 9.3.8... r: a .35. 2: gage-£53823; $8 "mucom was). isg§3§§so§_§u8§a 1233553198 26.8.32 ZOCKOFm—D 0753de 966| WW3 O 'SNOLLVAOMI 3:01 117 m ‘ : ‘ : 3:22. coca :2 a 2 .25: >2 .3: 3 v m l, t ‘ «flfll. w .555: >E 5.3 $5.8. w>=muoc Emcm o. 9: .2 .3056 m_ = .8, 3 v N D , ..oso 58 5.; 55 _ new 55.3 E :9. 5; 3.2.8 :2 Em _ .8. 3 v v < .62 . go: 2928:: ..cmoou cat: .8th >5. .mm 3 m v m .2: m__2 55.5: >E 9.2505 9.30:3 22:0: 9:: _ 3E=oEow .9. 3 N N < .Em; _ :33 .o. .mctma >E in 2 9: .2 Eu: 2 ._ mmE: _< ,8 3 v N a 7 .9: 5:; 35.2: .952 2:5 2 95:3 20E 2o; 5:qu >E cm? _ .3 3 m v m A :38 9.: 5: :2: 3:95:00 3me mesz8 $58: 22 .mm 3 N _ < ¥ 2 Son: 59 2 33.2 coco .octan >E .6222: a 93a: 2: w; :23 ‘m— 3 n m a , $.58 >E 2 35.3. ms: >E 39:3 :8 _ .m A: N N m A . L s. i 33.9 i 34: $5 250:: :0 Egg; ...:mzocjw: pa 3.58 manic: autos i! O ‘. S ., U . 3 use— _ QuwN «PE 5.59.3 a313,— $=v / W , . :38 , ‘ ‘ 1‘ ‘ \“‘ v mum unmmz. .u a . 0:3: 55.5: .5: 3 “5323:: u: :5: maize.— 5: ES? 2 93:5. mop—.2058 m. 1:: 52:23:55: :2: .25: 2:35.: 2:8 2:. 25:9. 2:. 55.3.. mi .3 “5333:: 2. :5 $5.09.. mi 2.2% 2 03:5. 8:525; m: :5. 55:25:55.: :2: 28:: 2:855 3.8 2:— 93E 2; ZOFE moEzoEom .nn— 3 m N D .monuooE 95:th >E 5:3 02.30: 3.856 o5: _ mmE=oEow .m— — 3 v v m .832 oan Song 3:03: 5 .856 «no. 22s .653: >E no...» _ .oo— 3 N N < £3an 02 m_ 5:th >E wwE=oEom .mm 3 v m m .3333 955.3 >E >n 382395 .0 .25: 35.8an E: _ .R 3 — u < .mucf. 29: :o .5325 .3328. new 2956. 20E 9o; 5:th >E cm? _ .3 3 v N a .9: .053 35 £39. .3023 2:8 3: 35.3 >2 .nv 3 N m a .Esflufits ucm >325 on o. 958:: 55.3 >5 3:. 858:8 mezoEOm Em _ .Nm 3 9 v m . ...oQEo. 9.05:3 >5 53a 3E8coo Eu _ uoE=oEom .2 3 N N < , .8323 9.055: >E .o 8:83 323.. .3. _ :9? 92:: 9a 20:... N 3 _ — < o u .. .. . \o obnn $3 :93. 5380 258:.— §3 ._ . fl. . Hull: infill”; .=a::22_ 05 a: 392.3 2:8 5.3 3:333: m. 2::— 2:. 966| NWO O ‘SNGJVAWI 31“ 118 22.8 as...» .8 .o 8:33 .38 .8. _ 2a .85.. >2 ...: 3 .m0E: .305... 9.5.0 32.0: .m:....% ....o co >.o. ES .5. T. .30:0: 9.0 000.9. .25....» :6 000.96 03 .50: E... 3.3.8» 0.0 02. .3. T. 0303053558 0 :. :o..ma.o.:wa 02.0w 0.3.0:. .maE 0am...mE so 0>0..0n . .8 T. 5.0.3 32...... .3 .o 85:85. a... 3.88... 2...... es 8 .... .:.:m:o_.m.0. .:o :. :o_m:0. 0E8 038 80:05:... .m:._..am .m> ... <<<<< __ .053: E. o. 0.6: . 20:...EE8 0.... .o :3 .:mtan. :0 o... $2.0: .0233 >2 .mm 7. .. . , , . . .26... 95:28.0. So 8.0: $3.? .mBEam m:_.m:m .9. T. 22.0: .0233 5.5.0 >.E. 0.0:» 02. .8 T. NVVMNVQVVN 20:0: $2.5m 50 Scam 0033.: _ 3:: .055: >5. .3 ... “vavamvmv $3. .2... £05.: 2.25.53. .:.... ., Ia Ll - 1 . 1 -l \ g i 535.. I 3:. <05 #50:: :o 2820...... .....ngij # 0:50... 02:09. . .n..0..0: .a:.....% ...0:. 00:09:. .05. 00.»: >05 >6: .:.: .3538 >.0> m. 0.050.. 0...: 20:0: .:a......m ..0:. 00:09:. .E: 00.»: >0:. Be: 5.: .005...“ >.0> m. 0.0:. 0:... wumflwm ...2 .0? 3 N _ .— < . .. . .... .. V 3.6.5105 10.33 {2, 8: 2:2... 2.; a... 5.9.5 9.3.. m2 2.58 a ._ g : .... N . m. < 0.9: 0m.:..an8 “:0 0.9.30: 2 :00: .. 0; .:.:m:o_.m.0. :m_.m._.m:c0 :m 0.6: o h we. 3 m m U . ......W; .....k..... ...»..y - . MM... .. . . .. .:qus a .o :2: 0 o. 20:85 2.030 0: :3 .0200 < .8 3 v N ... A. .u.o:.0m=o: 0:. o:.:.:.:. .2 2929.3. 0: ....m 0.85 05 0:8: 0:. 02.0.3 9.82. 0.... 0:. ._ .vn ... N . .. < -:.... ....Mr. ... ...1232 0.... 0.0 «oz—.:. .o. 9......s 00 O.... 9.3:» 3.08:: 0:. .0u0E0E :5 :. .0... T. v v a. < .951... “...ozmmao: 0:. .o 0.05 >.E. :0... 06:. ago: 0: ...; . .0mm...mE .2... .9: 858:8 Em _ .3. ... v N ... A. gg§§1323 28...: 058 o... 8 98.: 9.33.. a... .828; 0: 205.3 58 ._ .& .+. a u o 3.9 55:60.. :0 :0... .05... waxw Em 93.0.5 So :0 :08: 8.9.0 20:099. 02>... o. .0098 0.5 .3 E N . Z 88 8.: £05.: 252... .:E‘ ., i0 .. I 54:“; a!“ 0.2: \ m4 Dm025mm> 8502200 2:20.28 . 2390:2960 ...... _... .. . . . m. 0.060“. :0... . . . 30.0.3.2. m 25:80.0: 0.98 .. g . .. m 0.0.2 :0... ... .... : 50.5 .0 2.50.. 0.050.. 9.... . . 30:0... “0 y.— _ . 2:30.28 505.0%... ...... .. a. 0.0.2 9.... .:...,.,..._.. ... : ... . L‘kr. rub-1L9 .. 0 .. . .... l.l|ll lul II J In l 1| .. ..... ..., .... , . .m.¢..n.w40. 0..» 1.... m . .0. .‘..A. .. «2‘... ,. .....L » .... «...... ... , .. .. ; ....m... L, . . ......w....r............ .. p. .. .. . , . .. 0».+....,....,1.:..J .... rt \. “Us: .. ., ..-i. 17.3., . . , ,. . .. . m. ...Nfi.%a...¢.~..w. u. .... .. . . wl—m_XWJu ‘0” Imtnnrn. ... _. . .. n .. 0 , . .. .. .3... . .... .. . . 5.. . . ... . . ,. . .. . 802552: . . ...... .. .... .. _. ... _ .. fiftil wa‘::'.rL I! .I- u. ,lll .r v . ' ”...,“- ‘Wfih. § ...”. 4.0,... V... .0 ”03“ t\,_.. .V I . u. . . Dm.un qu-m-4_9>‘ w02Cm> m . A , . ' _ . ‘ r . h 32 _ 4‘ It . . . - . _ ... Dw02<4__Eu.._.w.0......=... 966t We SNOIlVAONNi San 120 APPENDIX D 121 @ Counselor Feedback Guide “"335 . PREPARE/ENRICH Program Goals of the PREPARE'ENRICH Program 0 Review these goals with the couple: . Explore the couple '5 Relationship Strength and Growth Areas. - Learn useful communication skills, including assertiveness and active listening. - Learn skills to resolve conflicts through use of the Ten Steps procedure. - Explore their couple relationship and their farnilies-of-origin using the Couple and F amily Map. - Develop financial plan and budget. - Develop their personal. couple and family goals. l——_‘.—_ .VV. Feedback Session 1 1. Review goals of the PREPARE/ENRICH Program with the couple (see above). 2. Couple discusses their experience in taking the Inventory. 3. Couple completes Couple Communication Exercise 1. 4. Couple completes Couple Communication Exercise II. 5. Summarize session and review the Ten Steps Procedure and assign it as homework for the couple. Feedback Session 2 . Review couple's homework using Ten Steps for Resolving Couple Conflict. . Counselor reviews Communication (page 8 of the Report) and Conflict Resolution (page 9 of the Report) areas to identify Strength (Agreement items) and Growth Areas (Special Focus and Disagreement items) with the couple. . Select one or two new issues (Special Focus or Disagreement items) from any area to use with Ten Steps procedure. . Explore Couple Relationship and F amily-of-Origin. . Summarize session and assign homework on Financial Plans and Budget. N— b.) r._ _. __-..__.__--_-___..._.____.__ LII ‘3 Feedback Session 3 1. Review the homework assignment on Financial Plans and Budget. 2. Have couple complete the Goal Exercise. 'i 3. Summarize and discuss future goals. L 122 Ten Steps for Resolving Couple Conflict Couple should follow along in their Building A Strong Marriage Workbook. 9 In selecting a conflict item for the couple to resolve. use Special Focus and Disagreement items from the various areas. Set a time and place for discussion. Define the problem or issue of disagreement. How do you each contribute to the problem? List past attempts to resolve the issue that were not successful. Brainstorm. List all possible solutions. Discuss and evaluate these possible solutions. Agree on one solution to try. Agree on how each individual will work toward this solution. Set-up another meeting. Discuss your progress. Reward each other as you each contribute toward the solution. Ppwflg‘PPP’Nt‘ H 0 Family Life Experiences: For a summary of the type( s) of families people experienced see page 6 of the Each person described their Couple Relationship and their Familyoof-Origin on closeness and flexibility and the results are summarized on the Couple and Family Map (see page 15 of the Computer Report, couple uses page 18 of the Building A Strong Marriage Workbook). 1. 2. 3. Feedback Using the Couple and Family Map Computer Report. People use the “Teenage Years" in describing their F amily-of-Origin. Define couple and family closeness and balancing separateness versus togetherness. Define couple and family flexibility and balancing stability versus change. Describe that the 25 possible types of couples and families can be categorized as three general types (Balanced, Mid-Range, and Unbalanced). Give a brief overview of the Couple and Family Map and your personal experience using the map with other couples. Show the couple where they are plotted on the Couple and Family Map from page 15 of the Computer Report. Discussion of similarities or differences on the Couple and Family Map. What are the similarities and differences in the couple ’5 description of their own relationship? How does each person ‘5 description of their couple relationship relate to their F amily-of-Origin? What are the similarities and differences in their Family-of-Origin? What does each person want to bring from their Family-of-Origin into their marriage? 99-957.” What doesn't each person want to bring from their Family-of-Origin into their marriage? Summarize the information with the couple and ask them to share what they learned. 123 APPENDIX E 124 Experimental Group: WIVES' CONSENT Hichigan State University is doing a study with fathers who have been separated from their families by imprisonment. The purpose of this research is to see if family counseling can help fathers move from halfway house arrangements back into their families as effectively as individual counseling. To test this idea, I'm looking for 10 couples to attend 8 weekly sessions of family counseling, over a 2-month period, at the house of Commons: each counseling session will last about 1 hour. All couples will be asked to answer 2 questionnaires: once at the start of counseling and again after counseling has been completed. Hives who participate in this study will be paid $320, but they must complete all 8 sessions of counseling before they can receive payment. Your husband's length of stay at the House of Commons, along with his privileges and rights, will be honored. In fact, neither of you will be named, confidentiality will be fully protected, you may stop being in this study at any time and without explanation: the total amount of time you'll be asked to give will be no more than 12 hours. Stan Meloy will be the family counselor. He's a licensed family therapist who uses solution-focused ideas to help ease personal problems you may be dealing with now, while also looking at long- term solutions into the future. And while family counseling may strengthen marriages in general, your results cannot be guaranteed. Beyond receiving $320 for your help, you'll also get a copy of the results and recommendations from this research when it's done. If you ever have questions or concerns about any of this, you may always call Stan at home (517) 675-5848 or work (517) 332-0811. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. Please print your name Please sign your name Date 125 Experimental Group: FATEERS' CONSENT Hichigan State University is doing a study with fathers who have been separated from their families by imprisonment. The purpose of this research is to see if family counseling can help fathers move from halfway house arrangements back into their families as effectively as individual counseling. To test this idea, I'm looking for 10 couples to attend 8 weekly sessions of family counseling, over a 2-month period, at the House of Commons: each counseling session will last about 1 hour. All couples will be asked to answer 2 questionnaires: once at the start of counseling and again after counseling has been completed. Wives who participate in this study will be paid $320, but they must complete all 8 sessions of counseling before they can receive payment. Your length of stay at the House of Commons, along with your privileges and rights, will be honored. In fact, you and your wife will never be named, confidentiality will be fully protected, you may stop being in this study at any time and without explanation: the total amount of time you'll be asked to give will be no more than 12 hours. Stan Meloy will be the family counselor. He's a licensed family therapist who uses solution-focused ideas to help ease personal problems you may be dealing with now, while also looking at long- term solutions into the future. And while family counseling may strengthen marriages in general, your results cannot be guaranteed. You'll receive a letter .of appreciation from Nichigan State, along with a copy of the results and recommendations from this research when it's done. If you ever have questions or concerns about any of this, you may always call Stan at home (517) 67s- 5848 or work (517) 332-0811. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. Please print your name Please sign your name Date 126 REFERENCES 127 REFERENCES Adalist-Estrin, Ann. (1996). "Incarcerated Fathers." Family & Corrections Network, 8, 1-10. ' Boss, P.J., W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm and SK. Steinmetz. (1993). Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach. Plenum Press, New York, New York. Bayse, Daniel J. (1991). As Free As An Eagle. Arlington, Virginia: American Cor- rectional Association. Bayse, Daniel J. (1989). "A Study of the Effect of Family Life Education on Prisoners’ Narcissism, Locus of Control, and View of Ideal Family Functioning. " Master of Science Thesis: Auburn University. Brooks, Justin, and Kimberly Bahna. (1994). "It’s a Family Affair—The Incarceration of the American Family: Confronting Legal and Social Issues." University of San Francisco Law Review, 28, 271-308. Carlson, Bonnie E., and Neil Cervera. (1992). Inmates and Their Wives. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut. Firebaugh, F. , and Ruth Deacon. (1988). Family Resource Management: Principles and Applications. Allyn & Bacon, Inc., Toronto, Canada. Fishman, Laura T. (1986). "Prisoners and Their Wives: Marital and Domestic Effects of Telephone Contacts and Home Visits. " International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 6, 55-65. Girshick, Lori B. (1996). Soledad Woman. Praeger Publishers, Westport, Connecticut. Goldberg, Joan R. (1994). "Alternatives to Incarceration for Criminal Offenders. " Family Therapy News, 25, 1—12. Grotevant, Harold D., and Cindy Carlson. (1989). Family Assessment: A Guide T 0 Methods and Measures. The Guilford Press, New York, New York. 128 Gurman, Alan S., and David P. Kniskern. (1981). Handbook of Family Therapy. Volume 1, 159-186. Hairston, Creasie F. (1991). "Family Ties During Imprisonment: Important to Whom and For What? " Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 17, 88-101. Kantor, D., and William Lehr. (1990). Inside the Family. Josey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, California. Klein, Shirley R., and Stephen Bahr. (1996). "An Evaluation of a Family-Centered Cognitive Skills Program for Prison Inmates." International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 4, 334-346. Lowenstein, Ariela. (1986). "Temporary Single Parenthood—The Case of Prisoners’ Families." Family Relations, 35, 79-85. Martin, Susan E., Lee B. Sechrest, and Robin Redner. (1981). New Directions in the Rehabilitation of Criminal Ofienders. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. McMurray, Harvey L. (1993). "High Risk Parolees in Transition from Institution to Community Life." Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19, 145-161. Mustin, Jim. (1998). "Families of Offenders: A Key to Crime Prevention. " Family & Corrections Network, 1, 1-7. Mustin, Jim and Ann Adalist-Estrin. (1997). "The Prison Fellowship Children, Youth, and Family Initiative." Prison Fellowship, 1-16. Paolucci, 8., Olive Hall and Nancy Axinn. (1977). Family Decision Making: An Ecosystems Approach. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, New York Reed, Terri Ann. (1995). "New Study Shows Success in Prison of Family Therapy To Turn Around Crime. " Press Release, 1-2. Sandor, Mary. (1991). "Isaiah House Family Therapy Program." International Journal of Corrections, 16, 20-22. Shaw, Roger. (1992). Prisoners’ Children, What Are the Issues? Routledge Publishing, New York, New York. Van Voorhis, Patricia. (1987). "Correctional Effectiveness: The High Cost of Ignoring Success." Federal Probation, 3, 56-61. Whittaker, J. , and James Garbarino. (1983). Social Support Networks: Informal Helping in the Human Services. Aldine de Gruyter Publishing, Hawthorne, New York. 129 131293 62123 46: