Research Problem: Father involvement plays important role in development of a child; for fathers who are incarcerated; presents challenges that seem insurmountable. Recent increases in incarceration rates means more children at disadvantage by decreased father involvement. Research Question and Hypothesis: What are the attitudes of incarcerated fathers towards maintaining involvement with their children while incarcerated in a Northwestern Wisconsin county jail? Based on literature, researchers predicted fathers who had higher levels of involvement with children and positive relationships with primary caregiver before incarceration, have higher levels of involvement during incarceration. Literature Review: Sarkadi et al. focused on accessibility, engagement, and responsibility the fathers had in their children’s lives (2008). Maldonado investigated reasons that hinder the father- child relationship during incarceration and the benefits to society for creation of laws and policies that foster increased involvement during incarceration (2006). Day et al. introduced problems such as costs and availability of phone calls, location of the facility and mothers acting as a gateway to child (2005). Arditti et al. focused on relationship between incarcerated father and child’s mother with father being dependent on her (2005). Hairston identified components of being a “good father” (2001). Gap researchers hoped to fill was research done on long term state/federal level facilities. Study focuses on issues concerning short term (less than a year) county level facilities where involvement may be easier to encourage. Theoretical Framework: Ecological Theory states environmental forces impact families, assumes that levels in an ecosystem interact in different ways depending on relation to each sub-system Theory supports idea adaptation in family system is needed to maintain paternal involvement during incarceration. Theory would predict when father is incarcerated, family would need to adapt to environment to maintain paternal involvement. Results: Fathers higher levels of involvement with children and positive relationships with primary caregiver before incarceration, have higher levels of involvement during incarceration. Found moderate support for hypothesis significant correlations between 6/12 p<.01 & p<.05 PAI,ICV,GRP, ACP, SAV, and CCW Reliability Analysis: Cronbach’s Alpha measures reliability and survey items measured with increase to if variable PLA is removed. Results Summary: Eight statistically significant correlations found in variables. Significant correlations between good relationship with primary caregiver and involvement with child through visitations and contact with child weekly supports hypothesis. Having a good relationship with primary caregiver and caregiver aiding involvement coincides with current literature suggests primary caregiver acts as “gatekeeper.” Implications for Practitioners: Data findings show attitudes of incarcerated fathers are that the facility places limitations on their involvement. Respondents report that they do not feel that the facility or the staff encourages this involvement in their child’s life. Current policy could be reviewed in light of this study to find new ways to promote father involvement. Visitation policies could be implemented to include physical contact. Lower pricing for phone calls would be helpful to increase involvement by providing an affordable means for incarcerated fathers to stay in contact with their children. Implications for Future Research: Future research include random, large, national sample to generalize findings nationwide. Reduce number of undecided responses use a 7-10 point Likert Scale instead of5 point scale Include qualitative interviews, so interviewee so inmate fully understands questions and communicate “lived experience”. Surveys as well should be written at a reading that is more appropriate for the fathers that are incarcerated and provide assistance as needed. Conclusion: Father involvement has a positive influence on the lives of children. Children who have low levels of father involvement often become engaged in behaviors that may lead to their own incarceration. For incarcerated fathers, the opportunities to remain a present and active influence in their children’s lives are limited. These factors include their relationship with the primary caregiver, as well as policies of the jail facilities. Along with existing research, findings of the study at hand suggest that incarcerated individuals may play an active role in the reducing the chance of generational incarceration (e.g. the cycle of incarceration in a family). Methods: Participants: 57 incarcerated fathers in Northwestern Wisconsin county jail facilities Research Design: Pilot study, Non-Random Probability Design, and Snowball Sampling Design Data Collection Instrument: IRB approved, informed by literature and theory, implied constant;Self administered with seven demographics, twelve closed ended questions based on a 5-point Likert Scale, and three opened qualitative questions Procedure:Surveys were given to the jail’s program director and then the surveys were distributed to the incarcerated fathers; Implied consent, voluntary participation, and confidentiality was explained to the incarcerated fathers by the program directors Data Analysis Plan: Clean and coded surveys; Analyzed data using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS); Frequencies, mean-comparisons, correlations, and a reliability analysis: Cronbach’s Alpha Dependent Variables: SPC (The jail supports parents having contact with their children) SSV (The correctional staff supports visitation with children) FLI (Rules of the facility limit my involvement in my child’s life) PLA (Child’s primary caregiver limits ability to be involved with my child while incarcerated) PAI (My child’s primary caregiver does his/her best to assist me in staying involved with my child while incarcerated) GRP (I have a good relationship with my child’s primary caregiver in best interest of child) ICP (My involvement with my child is mostly through phone calls) ICV (My involvement with my child is mostly through visitations) PCI (Having physical contact with my child during incarceration would improve my ability to stay involved with my child) SAV (I am satisfied with the amount of visitation time with my child while in jail) APC (I am able to be a positive influence in my child’s life while incarcerated) CCW (I am able to have contact with my child at least weekly while incarcerated) Demographic Variables AGE (Age) NOC (Number of children) CCU (I currently have children under the age of 18) NCR (Please indicate number of children in each age range below) RSM (Relationship status with mother of your child/child prior to incarceration) IPI (Involvement with child prior to incarceration)