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

3 - Methodology

Introduction: Approach to the Review

The literature and evidence review sought to identify, review and synthesise research on the family support needs of people in prison custody. The research topics guiding this review are detailed previously in the Introduction (page 8).

The aim of the review was to interrogate available existing literature to inform the development of holistic models of family support for people in prison custody, to overcome barriers to building and maintaining family relationships.

This study employed a comprehensive methodology, integrating rigour with subject-matter expertise to explore and assess family support mechanisms for individuals in custody. The approach encompassed a detailed literature review, the development of a draft logic model for Holistic Whole Family Support, reflection opportunities and stakeholder engagement, analysis and an ongoing quality assessment of the reviewed literature and limitations. These steps were designed to provide a thorough and evidence-based understanding of the needs and support structures for families impacted by imprisonment.

Literature Review

The evidence and literature review was carried out between April and October 2024, and built on initial scoping work conducted by Scottish Government Justice Analytical Services (JAS). The scoping work brought together a range of sources, including academic research, civil society reports, government documents and international studies, to present a collation of some of the existing knowledge base. This literature was not reviewed by JAS, but was shared with the authors for review and decisions on inclusion in the study within their methodological approach.

The approach used in this literature review built on and developed further the scoping exercise of JAS in more depth. The first stage of the literature review involved developing a search strategy and parameters for the review. As with the JAS scoping exercise, this approach combined evidence from academic research, government/policy research, and strategic/practice literature from organisations working with or for adults in prison custody (including ‘grey literature’), to ensure robustness.

Key topics covered in the review include the impacts of custody on families, the support needs of both imprisoned individuals and their families, existing support models, and the barriers to maintaining family relationships during and after custody.

Search Strategy

The tables below shows the resources used to implement the search, as well as the key words used for the search strategy.

The first list below shows the resources searched:

• Academia.edu
• Research Gate
• Sage Journals
• ProQuest
• Scottish Government publications
• United Kingdom Government publications
• Policy Commons
• SPS publications
• His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Scotland (HMIPS) publications
• His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) publications
• Families Outside publications
• The Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research (SCCJR) publications
• Community Justice Scotland publications
• The Howard League
• Google Advanced Search
• Google Scholar

This list shows the keywords and search strategy deployed:

• Prisoners’ families
• Prisoners’ children
• Prison visits
• Visiting prison
• Family in prison
• (prison) AND (family)
• (prison) AND (family) AND (support)
• (family support needs) AND (prison)
• Family member in prison
• Family member in custody
• Family strategy prisons
• Impacts of custody on families
• Contact with prisoners
• Older prisoners
• Aging/Ageing prisoners
• Aging/Ageing prison population
• Disabled prisoners
• Disability and prison
• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) and prison
• Sexuality and prison
• Ethnicity and prison
• Race and prison
• Race-ethnicity and prison
• Minority prisoners
• Intersectionality and prisoners
• Prisoners’ siblings
• Siblings of prisoners

Some of the returned literature was excluded after reviewing titles and abstracts. Although they appeared in the search results, they were not relevant to the key topics of the review and were not included in the analysis.

Where an organisation’s publications were searched, searches took the form of using the above search terms or scanning the available literature within the organisation’s publication section, depending on the source. A list of the literature reviewed is presented in the bibliography (Annex A).

Discounted Search Terms

Certain other search terms were discounted, as the references generated were too wide in nature and ‘off topic’ or out of scope for the research. These were:

• Prisoners’ Needs
• Supporting Prisoners
• Support in Custody
• Prison Regimes
• Custody models
• Prisoner Support Needs.

An initial search using these terms generated masses of material related to physical and mental health needs (including a significant body of research related to drug and alcohol addictions and wider criminogenic needs), but with most material containing no substantive content linked specifically to family contact or family support needs.

Search Parameters

Although a robust approach has been taken to mitigate any shortcomings within the conduct of this review, it is not intended to be an exhaustive or traditionally ‘systematic review’ of evidence and, as such, there are a number of limitations (noted later in the chapter). Due to the nature of this type of review, it is possible some literature may have been missed.

In filtering and refining material, the following parameters were used:

• Publication date - all research from 2010 onwards was included, although initial searches were generated dating back to 2000 and key papers of interest were extracted and retained.
• Publication formats - searches included journals, books, reports, conferences, posters, theses, presentations and ‘other’ publications.
• Language - only material that was published in the English language was retained.
• Origin - searches were not restricted by geography and included both United Kingdom (UK) and international literature (including the United States of America (USA), Canada, mainland Europe and Australia).

Developing the Draft Logic Model

Based on the insights from the literature review, a draft logic model was developed to conceptualise a framework for Holistic Whole Family Support for individuals in custody and their families.

This model outlines the essential components, processes and outcomes associated with effective family support.

A logic model is a structured framework used to apply research findings to real-world practice, ensuring that programmes are well-planned, evidence-based, and measurable. In the context of supporting families of those in custody in Scotland, developing a logic model helps translate key insights from a literature review into clear actions that improve support services and policies.

A logic model provides a clear pathway for achieving meaningful change by mapping out:

• inputs (resources such as research, funding, and collaboration),
• activities (actions like training, policy development, and new support initiatives), and
• outputs (measurable results such as increased service access).

It also identifies outcomes at different stages, from short-term awareness and access improvements, to long-term benefits such as lower reoffending rates and stronger family resilience.

Developing a logic model based on the literature review ensures that findings inform practical decision-making, helping to address gaps in support, anticipate challenges, and measure impact. It also considers external factors (such as policy and economic influences) and assumptions (such as the role of family support in rehabilitation), ensuring a realistic and strategic approach to improving family engagement in the justice system. The draft logic model development is further discussed at chapter 10.

Reflection Opportunities and Stakeholder Engagement

Reflection Opportunities

As part of this research we discussed the key themes explored in this research with prisoners, staff and visitors at HMP YOI Polmont and HMP Edinburgh in September and October 2024. This involved a researcher attending these establishments and carrying out in-person interviews on-site.

The discussion guides used in these interviews were agreed and signed off by the Scottish Government. Where consent was given, interviews were recorded and notes of key insights from interviews were transcribed from the recordings.

Across the two fieldwork visits, a combination of individual and group interviews were conducted. The researcher also attended at the visitor centres at each establishment.

The reflection opportunities heard the views of:

• 10 individuals in custody
• 8 members of staff
• 6 people visiting someone in custody.

Stakeholder Engagement

Alongside the reflection opportunities, stakeholder engagement formed a pivotal part of the methodology, involving collaboration with key organisations that provide support to families of imprisoned individuals in Scotland. This engagement was crucial for identifying additional literature, and gaining a deeper understanding of the specific needs and experiences of these families. The organisations consulted included Families Outside, Barnardo’s Scotland, SACRO and the Prison Reform Trust.

In addition to this, a roundtable was carried out with these stakeholders on the draft executive summary and logic model in order to gather their views on the emerging findings, and offer an opportunity to test the outputs with experts in supporting families of those in custody.

Insights contributed by key stakeholders have been included in the review of literature (see chapter 10).

Analysis

The evidence review involved consulting and summarising the relevant literature outlined above, and thoroughly documenting the key information contained within this.

To begin, documents were sifted for inclusion by reviewing abstracts and titles. This initial screening process ensured that only those sources directly aligned with the core research topics — particularly those related to the support needs of families of individuals in custody and related outcomes —were selected for further review. This process also allowed the inclusion of a variety of sources, including peer-reviewed articles, grey literature, reports, and other non-peer-reviewed materials, to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the existing evidence base.

Once relevant documents were identified, full texts for all included sources were downloaded and reviewed by the research team. Each document was assessed in detail, considering its relevance, methodological quality, and the applicability of its findings to the research focus. This review was essential for ensuring that the sources included in the analysis were robust and provided reliable data to address the research topics.

For each document that met the inclusion criteria, the research team extracted the main themes, summarising key findings and conclusions. This process not only facilitated easy tracking of common themes across multiple sources, but also enabled the team to reference specific documents during analysis and synthesis stages.

The research team applied a thematic analysis approach to the included documents. From these descriptive themes, analytical themes were generated, which addressed the key research topics and highlighted significant patterns across the literature. This approach allowed us to systematically explore the evidence and draw meaningful insights about the needs and support mechanisms for families of individuals in custody.

As part of the iterative nature of the project, stakeholder engagement feedback was incorporated into the analysis. Insights from stakeholders, including practitioners and individuals with lived experience, were used to revisit the emerging themes and validate the findings.

Finally, the findings from the thematic analysis were synthesised under key headings, with a clear narrative structure that connected the themes and responded to the research topics.

Quality Assessment of Literature and Limitations

Date of literature reviewed

A limitation of this review is that much of the evidence reviewed was dated, particularly in certain thematic areas. Although the review parameters allowed for a broad scope of sources, some of the themes discussed in the review are based on research that may no longer fully reflect the current context or recent developments in the field.

The absence of more recent research on some topics may mean that the review may not capture the most up-to-date evidence, or emerging best practices.

Evaluating Programmes, Initiatives and Interventions

When evaluating programmes and interventions noted as positive examples of ‘what works’ in supporting families affected by imprisonment, it is important to exercise caution. The literature often highlights that these evaluations are based on small and self-selecting samples. Prisoners and families who choose to participate in these studies may already have a predisposition to change or improve their experience, which may not reflect the wider prison population. This selection bias can limit the generalisability of the findings and may present an overly optimistic view of the effectiveness of these programmes.

Data Collection Issues and Challenges in Scotland

A significant gap identified in the literature is the lack of data on the numbers of children affected by parental imprisonment. Estimates of the number of children affected by parental imprisonment are often based on self-reports from imprisoned parents. These reports are less reliable than more comprehensive measures and may be skewed, as noted by Quilty et al. (2004). Domżalska et al. (2022) also emphasise the need for future research to engage larger samples of prisoners' children. Much existing work relies on small samples, limiting the ability to use advanced statistical techniques for data analysis.

This data deficit hampers the ability to fully understand the phenomenon and to develop targeted support. Burton (2012) and others have noted this issue across various studies.

For instance, Bocknek et al. (2009) highlight the lack of reliable data on children of prisoners in the United States (US), pointing out several barriers to gathering robust data. These barriers include difficulties in comprehensively identifying affected children, and ethical challenges in interviewing them to qualitatively gather their views. Consequently, existing quantitative data are often limited to basic functional information such as:

• The estimated size of the population
• Racial and age demographics
• Basic information regarding family and household compositions.

However, there is also a scarcity of qualitative information about children's personal histories, needs, wider characteristics, lifestyles, education and support networks. This lack of detailed data impedes a full understanding of the challenges faced by these children. Ethical concerns further complicate the collection of qualitative data. Saunders et al. (2015) report that ethical issues are a major barrier to gathering detailed qualitative data about children of prisoners.

In July 2024, the Ministry of Justice published a new set of statistics seeking to estimate the number of children a year with a parent in prison in England and Wales. These statistics estimate that between 1 October 2021 and 1 October 2022 there were 192,912 children with a parent in prison (Ministry of Justice, 2024). Similar statistics are not collected in Scotland.

Challenges in Scotland

In Scotland, there is a notable lack of statistical information regarding the profile of families affected by prison custody. Data captured upon arrival in custody could potentially be improved to provide a clearer picture. For example, gathering information on extended family structures/partnerships, and validating self-reports from prisoners by cross-checking with partner agencies at an early juncture.

Key stakeholders who participated in the review, stated that this lack of detailed information presents a substantial challenge for service providers who need to understand who they are serving to tailor their interventions effectively.

However, it should be noted that SPS are required to justify why they are collecting and holding data on individuals who come into custody, and individuals are not required to provide information to SPS about their family if they do not wish to do so.

Therefore, any additional personal data gathered, held, processed or to be shared requires a clear purpose and lawful basis under the Data Protection Act 2018. It is acknowledged that gathering information on third parties without their explicit consent, and the basis partner agencies would have to verify third party information with SPS, would not align to SPS’s law enforcement processing purposes under the Data Protection Act.

Methods and approaches to improve data/information would require further and deeper exploration with individuals in custody, their families, SPS and partner agencies and key stakeholders, to understand the complexities of doing so, and to ensure compliance with data protection legislation.

Furthermore, there is a need for more research focussing on the voices of those with lived experience, involving both family members and individuals in custody. Ensuring that interventions are appropriate and effective requires incorporating the perspectives of those directly affected by imprisonment.

Another challenge is that for many strategies and initiatives included in the review, it was difficult to find published evaluations of their impact, meaning it is hard to know and evidence how successful some interventions and programmes are.

The extremely high and complex prison population in Scotland should be acknowledged, as it continues to place significant pressures on SPS and staff and the time available to them, for example to develop and implement work and initiatives to support people in custody and their families to maintain and build relationships. The average daily prison population in Scotland was 7,860 in 2023-24. This is an increase of almost 6% from 2022-23 (7,428), and the highest level since 2019-20 (8,198). This increase is primarily driven by an increase in the sentenced population (+8%)^[18].

Gaps in understanding of family support identified in the literature reviewed, and points for consideration that emerged from the literature review are discussed in more detail in chapters 11 and 12 respectively.

The report now moves on to discuss the literature review findings in chapters 4-10.