Understanding family support needs of people in prison custody: literature review

10 - Reflection Opportunities

Introduction

The reflection opportunities with a small number of people in custody, families, prison staff, and key stakeholders provided valuable insights into the barriers faced by families of imprisoned individuals, and echoed themes from the literature review.

Visitors/families who were interviewed were visiting a range of different relatives including mothers with children visiting their partner and father, people visiting their children and one respondent visiting a friend.

Participants discussed the benefits of family contact, and the key challenges they identified in the context of visiting to maintain family contact. They also discussed the positive impact of in-cell telephony. Opportunities for improvement emerged from the discussions which are highlighted in the chapter, before ending with a discussion on the feedback from key stakeholders on the draft logic model.

Benefits of Contact

Both the literature review and reflection opportunities underscored the profound benefits of maintaining contact between prisoners and their families. Prisoner participants who regularly interacted with their families described improved mental health, greater engagement with rehabilitation programmes and stronger motivation to avoid reoffending. Staff participants reported observing noticeable differences in behaviour and morale between prisoners who maintain regular family contact and those who do not.

Visitor/family participants said that, for their families, especially their children, maintaining contact provides reassurance, emotional support and a sense of continuity during a challenging period. Stakeholder participants emphasised that family bonds can play a crucial role in reducing intergenerational cycles of imprisonment. Staff and stakeholder participants emphasised that children benefit from maintaining a connection with their parent, as it helps them process their feelings and reduces the stigma they might face in their communities or schools.

However, the quality of contact is just as important as the frequency. Meaningful interactions, whether through in-person visits, phone calls or virtual meetings, can mitigate the emotional toll of separation and reinforce positive relationships. Participants, across all of prisoners, staff, stakeholders and families, highlighted the need for child-friendly visiting spaces and structured activities to make visits less intimidating and more engaging for families, with some prisoner participants emphasising the better quality of family visits in the establishments which allow parents to spend time with their children in a more private environment, than a general visit.

Key Challenges Identified

One of the most significant barriers to family contact remains the logistical and financial burden of travel. Families often travel long distances, at great cost, for short visits. For example, a family travelling from Aberdeen to Edinburgh for a 45-minute visit noted they had to leave at 5 a.m., making regular visits unsustainable. This aligns with the literature review, which identifies travel difficulties as a critical impediment to maintaining family ties. Participants called for more joined-up thinking in terms of support available and timing of visits to take into account the challenges and costs of travelling to visits.

The length of visits also emerged as an issue among participants. Some visitor/family participants emphasised that 45 minutes is insufficient for meaningful interaction, particularly given the time and effort involved in visiting. Prisoner participants, too, expressed dissatisfaction with the visit length, as these brief sessions provide limited emotional support and felt short, especially for participants who were parents.

Stakeholder and family participants further highlighted inconsistencies in visiting protocols across establishments (important where a family member was moved during their sentence, or had previously been imprisoned elsewhere). Families reported confusion due to varying application of rules and lack of clear communication, exacerbating their stress. While virtual visits introduced during the pandemic were praised for increasing accessibility, technical issues such as connection failures and misdirected sessions frustrated both families and prisoner participants.

Positive Impact of In-cell Telephony

One of the most popular interventions noted in the reflection opportunities was the introduction of in-cell telephony. Both families and prisoner participants emphasised its importance in maintaining regular communication. Prisoners appreciated the ability to make calls at their convenience, which provided a sense of autonomy and allowed them to maintain family connections, without relying on the limited availability of in-person visits. Visitor/families participants valued the increased accessibility, particularly during times when travel was not feasible.

However, there were concerns regarding the costs associated with these calls. While prisoners are allocated free minutes each month, prisoners who participated reported that the allocation was insufficient to maintain regular, meaningful contact. This sentiment was echoed by their families, who found themselves financially strained by additional communication expenses. Participants suggested reviewing the current minute allocation and exploring options to subsidise costs further, aligning with broader recommendations to reduce financial barriers to family contact.

Opportunities for Improvement

Several considerations emerged from the discussions during the reflection opportunities, supported by both the literature review and participant insights. Enhanced communication remains a top priority. Families expressed a need for clearer, more accessible information about visiting procedures, virtual visit options and prison processes. Suggestions included digital handbooks, improved websites and consistent updates during custody transitions.

Expanding the use of in-cell telephony while addressing its cost implications was another key recommendation. Participants stressed the importance of affordable, regular contact for maintaining family relationships, particularly when in-person visits are not feasible. The need for wider support to help families struggling to afford or attend visits was a consistent theme in the interviews conducted during the reflection opportunities.

The reintroduction of family induction programmes and the creation of child-friendly spaces in all prisons were also widely supported by participants. Sharing best practices across the prison estate, such as innovative family engagement projects already in place in some establishments, could help standardise and elevate the quality of support.

Draft Logic Model – Stakeholder Feedback

The research team developed a first draft logic model based on the evidence that emerged from the literature reviewed. The logic model methodological approach is discussed in chapter 3. Figure 1 below shows the first draft logic model.

Figure 1: First Draft Logic Model

Inputs

• Stakeholder Engagement
• Financial Resources
• Information and Communication
• Counselling Services
• Family-friendly Facilities
• Policy and Training Programmes

Activities

• Develop inclusive visitation policies
• Review activity on communication outside of visits
• Train prison staff
• Enhance access to information and services
• Implement community-based reintegration programmes
• Greater financial support

Outputs

• Increased family visits or opportunities for contact
• Better communication with families
• Enhanced access to counselling and information
• Consistent policy application
• Trained and supportive staff

Outcomes

Short-term

• Improved emotional and mental wellbeing
• Stronger family bonds
• Better navigation of time in custody for prisoner and family
• Less financial burden in families

Medium-term

• Improved family support systems
• Increased engagement in reintegration programmes
• Reduced stress and conflict among families and imprisoned family members

Long-term

• Successful reintegration
• Reduced recidivism
• Enhanced family stability

Impacts

• Overall improvement in the quality of life for families of imprisoned individuals
• Stronger community ties and support networks
• Reduction in family breakdown
• Enhanced social integration of formerly imprisoned individuals
• Greater societal resilience

External Factors

• Economic conditions
• Policy changes
• Legal and regulatory frameworks
• Community attitudes

Assumptions

• Stakeholder commitment
• Sufficient funding
• Staff engagement
• Continuity of services
• Family participation

The research team then hosted a roundtable with key stakeholders to develop the logic model further.

Stakeholders provided constructive feedback on the above draft logic model, suggesting it required a broader perspective to adequately address family support. Participants noted that the model appeared overly focussed on prison-based interventions, neglecting the critical role of community networks and external support systems. They also recommended revising outputs to focus on improving the quality of family contact, rather than simply increasing visit opportunities.

Suggestions for refinement included explicitly recognising the role of community services in supporting families, integrating a rights-based approach, and adopting clearer, more inclusive language to avoid overly prison-centric interpretations. By incorporating these changes, stakeholder participants thought the logic model could better align with the holistic needs of families.

Following the stakeholder roundtable the research team refined and developed the draft logic model further, based on stakeholder’s insightful and constructive feedback. The second draft of the logic model is shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Second Draft Logic Models

Inputs

• System-Wide Collaborative Engagement
• Accessible and diverse financial support
• Information and Communication Tools
• Family-friendly Facilities
• Policy and Training Programmes
• Community Networks

Activities

• Develop inclusive visitation policies
• Review activity on communication outside of visits
• Training for prison staff and social workers on family contact
• Enhance access to information and services
• Best Practice Sharing
• Greater financial support
• Provide accessible, trauma-informed counselling for families and those in prison

Outputs

• Enhanced quality and accessibility of visits, including virtual and in-person options
• Better communication with families
• Enhanced access to counselling and information
• Consistent policy application
• Trained and supportive staff
• Improved access to comprehensive support services for families and individuals in custody

Outcomes

Short-term

• Improved emotional and mental wellbeing for families and those in prison
• Stronger family bonds
• Better navigation of time in custody for prisoner and family
• Increased awareness and utilisation of available support services

Medium-term

• Improved family support systems
• Increased engagement in reintegration programmes
• Reduced stress and conflict among families and imprisoned family members
• Improved emotional wellbeing and stability for families

Long-term

• Successful reintegration
• Reduced recidivism
• Enhanced family stability
• Less financial burden in families
• Recognition of families affected by imprisonment as a distinct group requiring systemic support

Impacts

• Overall improvement in the quality of life for families of imprisoned individuals
• Stronger community ties and support networks
• Reduction in family breakdown
• Enhanced social integration of formerly imprisoned individuals
• Greater societal resilience

External Factors

• Economic conditions
• Accessibility of public transport and proximity to prisons
• Policy and legal frameworks supporting family engagement
• Community attitudes
• Collaboration among stakeholders, with clear accountability

Assumptions

• Stakeholder commitment
• Adequate and sustained funding for family support programmes
• Staff engagement
• Continuity of services
• Family participation
• Policy frameworks consistently applied

The draft logic model is an iterative document which the Scottish Government and the Scottish Prison Service can draw upon in any future policy development work.

Reflections on Whole Family Wellbeing Fund Principles

The ten Whole Family Wellbeing Fund (WFWF) principles are explained in chapter two.

The findings of this chapter reflect the WFWF principle of taking account of families’ voices, as it is based on direct feedback from people in custody, their families, prison staff, and stakeholders.

The reflections highlight key concerns around the logistical and financial burdens of visits, inconsistent visiting policies, and the need for child-friendly spaces, all of which align with the WFWF’s commitment to needs-based and accessible support.

The findings also emphasise the importance of skilled and supported professionals, particularly in how staff interactions shape family experiences. Positive engagement from prison staff enhances visits, whereas dismissive treatment reinforces stigma—highlighting the need for training in trauma-informed and family-centred approaches.

The introduction of in-cell telephony is a promising example of collaborative and seamless support, ensuring that families can maintain contact even when physical visits are challenging. However, financial constraints on call minutes demonstrate that support must be timely and sustainable, as the WFWF principles advocate.

Finally, the development of a logic model reflects a whole system, multi-agency approach, ensuring that family support services are not fragmented but integrated across different sectors.