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

6 - Support needs of people in custody to maintain family relationships

Introduction

Maintaining family connections during imprisonment is widely recognised as crucial for reducing recidivism and supporting successful reintegration into society. The Social Exclusion Unit (2002) argues that prisoners who maintain regular family contact are significantly less likely to reoffend, emphasising the pivotal role of familial relationships in promoting desistance from crime (see also Casey et al., 2020). The ‘What Works to Reduce Reoffending Report’ published in 2015 also notes that Offenders’ relationships with supervisors, family and friends are considered to be important to the process of desistance (Sapouna et al., 2015). Lord Farmer’s Review (Farmer, 2017) echoes this sentiment, describing families as the 'golden thread' essential for fostering positive change within the prison system.

This chapter explores the key themes surrounding the support needs of people in custody to maintain family relationships. It examines the role of in-person visits, remote communication, and peer support in fostering connection, as well as the barriers that prisoners and their families face. Additionally, it considers the importance of post-release support in sustaining relationships and promoting successful reintegration

Support While in Custody

The Prison Reform Trust's report, 'A Long Stretch' (2024), provides firsthand accounts of the challenges prisoners face in maintaining meaningful relationships while imprisoned, which was echoed in the interviews conducted for this research (see chapter 10) and research conducted by Diffley Partnership for the Scottish Prison Service corporate plan (Diffley Partnership, 2023). It highlights how the erosion or absence of external relationships impacts inmates' wellbeing, motivation and prospects for rehabilitation. This report emphasises the vital role of pro-social relationships in instilling hope and humanity within punitive environments, advocating for policies that uphold realistic expectations of hope throughout and after imprisonment (Prison Reform Trust, 2024).

Prisoners often lament the loss of personal connections during imprisonment, fearing a return to a world where their support networks have dissolved, exacerbating feelings of isolation and hopelessness. The stark reality is that many prisoners confront the prospect of enduring their sentences without any external contact, underscoring widespread social isolation among imprisoned individuals (Prison Reform Trust, 2024).

Efforts to leverage technology for communication in prisons vary widely, reflecting disparities in access across institutions. The slow adoption of modern communication methods within the prison system underscores persistent challenges in maintaining familial ties, especially for those serving lengthy sentences (Prison Reform Trust, 2024). It should be noted, at the time of writing, that in-cell telephony is currently being rolled out across the Scottish prison estate.

In-Person Visits

A wealth of literature reviewed reports benefits of visits for prisoners, both from families, children and professionals. Those taking part in visits are typically reported across this literature to be females and their children as well as parents of the imprisoned individual. Children's visits, in particular, contribute positively to parental involvement in their upbringing, promoting a sense of parental efficacy and self-esteem; factors that support rehabilitation (Clarke et al., 2005; Loper et al., 2009).

Foster (2017) discusses how prisoners rely on emotional support from families through visits. Maintaining supportive family ties is linked to improved mental health for prisoners by decreasing risks of suicide and self-harm. It is also connected to successful resettlement and reintegration upon release. Families provide emotional reassurance and encouragement, as well as practical support through items permitted for the individual in custody. Foster notes that previous research has identified a positive correlation between parole success and maintenance of family ties while imprisoned (Foster, 2017).

Much of the literature reviewed highlights that visits are important for prisoners' wellbeing, mental health and prison regime, and these studies are referenced in the paragraphs that follow. One study (Condry and Minson, 2021) showed that visits help prisoners cope with imprisonment and stay focussed. Positive visits improved prisoners' moods and interactions, while negative visits increased stress levels. Prisoners viewed visits as the highlight of their regime and vital for coping with imprisonment. Positive visits through physical contact/kisses lifted moods, while negative visits increased stress and in one case led to an overdose. This evidenced the crucial support role visits play. Many prisoners involved with the research suggested that the visitors’ centre made the prison a friendlier environment which encouraged their families to visit them.

Families Outside (2017) emphasises the need for consistent and meaningful contact through visits, phone calls and written correspondence, citing emotional support from family as crucial for prisoners' mental health and motivation toward positive behavioural change.

It is worth noting that there is literature which shows the potentially negative impacts of prison visits too, both for prisoners and others. Research from America suggests that visits can be disruptive for prisoners, both practically in terms of their routines and regimes, but also emotionally, e.g. giving them insight into the outside world and the liberty they have lost, and/or causing frustration which can manifest in disruptive behaviours back in the cells/prison communal areas (Siennick et al., 2013).

Equally, visits can have positive and/or neutral effects. Siennick et al. (2013) for example, explored the effects of prison visits on inmate misconduct and found that misconduct decreased before visits and increased temporarily after visits, but then reverted to ‘normal’ levels of misconduct, suggesting little longer-term impact of visits on conduct. Casey et al. (2020) found that the more frequent prison visits, the greater likelihood of reduced recidivism, but countered that extraneous factors such as a goal to remain connected with loved ones may be a greater influence on future behaviour, than visits per se. Furthermore, de Claire and Dixon (2017) suggest that women’s recidivism is less impacted by visits than men’s, and that children’s visits had a more positive impact if structured and delivered as part of an intervention.

Despite efforts to facilitate visits, studies internationally have shown that a substantial portion of prisoners, up to 50%, do not receive visits due to various barriers, including personal choice or logistical challenges (Burns et al., 2024; Lockwood et al., 2022; Ryan and Ryan, 2024). Burns et al. (2024) reviewed literature on reasons for male prisoners not having visits, the effects of not having visits and the value of volunteer visitor programmes. They found that some prisoners felt a threat to their masculinity from visits, some mothers refused to bring their children to visit and sometimes cost, time and logistics made visiting challenging. Sometimes, volunteer visitors offer a neutral third-party source of support, both emotional and practical.

These findings from the literature reviewed correspond with findings from primary research conducted by Diffley Partnership (2023), which involved interviews with prisoners in which they reflected on the rules surrounding visits, and the applications of these rules. Challenges included that families often felt the rules were applied inconsistently and differed from establishment to establishment causing confusion, particularly where prisoners had been moved. They also noted the shame that they could feel when their families felt upset or stigmatised by the process of being processed to be able to visit. Prisoners also often discussed the length of visits which had reduced to 45 minutes since the COVID-19 pandemic. Many felt that 45 minute visits were insufficient in length, particularly where families and visitors had travelled a distance.

Indeed, of the literature reviewed, while most historical research focusses on prisoners’ families and friends in the context of visiting, more recent work has started to explore the valuable role of volunteers and community-based professionals (CBPs) in providing both emotional and instrumental support for individuals in prison (Bares and Mowen, 2020; Kjellstrand et al., 2021). Individuals such as local authority representatives and charity volunteers have been shown to offer significant support especially in cases where prisoners have no family (Bares and Mowen, 2020).They also often offer a vital signposting source to practical support in the pre-release planning period (Kjellstrand et al., 2021). Based on observations of the prison system in the Netherlands, Pasma et al. (2022) highlight the importance of considering facilitation and accessibility in relation to visits from such external agencies, noting that access and facilitation can be highly variable between different establishments, creating inequitable opportunities for prisoners in benefiting from such support. American research has also shown a correlation between visits from community volunteers - specifically clergy and mentors - and a reduction in recidivism (Duwe and Johnson, 2016).

Remote Contact

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of mobile phones and video communication in prisons, challenging traditional security concerns. This area is not highlighted extensively in the literature reviewed and could be explored through future research in this area.

Participants in a study conducted by the Prison Reform Trust advocated for leveraging technology more effectively to facilitate and maintain these crucial family connections, citing disparities in access to communication technologies across different prisons. It highlights a general sentiment that the prison system lags behind in adopting modern communication methods, which could profoundly affect those serving long sentences (Prison Reform Trust, 2024).

These are similar to findings from research conducted by Diffley Partnership on behalf of the SPS as part of the latter’s Corporate Plan preparations, where the introduction of remote forms of communication via mobile phone and ‘virtual visits’ were welcomed by prisoners. A common theme among prisoners interviewed was the importance of visits to them, in terms of morale and maintaining ties with their family. The process of organising visits was discussed, and many prisoners felt this could be improved via digital solutions (Diffley Partnership, 2023).

In Romania, Drāghici et al. (2023) asked inmates about online visiting, and the positives were seeing more than just one or two family members at the same time (including pets), and seeing the background home environment in the video. The negatives were limited time for online visits, the lack of physical touch and the often poor quality of the connection.

Findings from the cross-Europe COPING project (Robertson et al., 2012) also reports that while indirect contact via written communication (letters) is universally welcomed across jurisdictions, especially for families experiencing poverty or living in rural/remote areas, it is never considered by prisoners, their families or professionals to be of the same benefit to prisoners and their families as face-to-face contact.

Indeed, recent research shows there is a fear that technology may replace, rather than supplement, more traditional means of communication between prisoners and their families/friends (Lockwood, 2021). McKay and Macintosh (2024: 3) suggest that the success of digitisation (for the prison authorities at least) is being used to cement remote or virtual communication channels: “This points to a future of absolute confinement uninterrupted by “inconvenient” physical court attendance or human visitors.” Digitisation may also discriminate against people who live in rural and more disadvantaged areas, as in Australia (Antojado and Ryan, 2024).

So-called ‘smart prisons’ (Hofinger and Pflegerl, 2024) can adversely affect the quality of visits and interactions. However, Hofinger and Pflegerl found that prisoners generally approved of digital communication devices, especially for keeping in touch with their children, not least if such devices were cheaper than landline telephone calls, more available to prisoners and less subject to monitoring by prison staff.

Antojado and Ryan (2024) found that in Australia at least, video or telephone conversations can be recorded for security reasons, creating privacy/confidentiality issues for prisoners and their families, as well as uncertainty as to how long such recordings will be stored. These authors recommend “a hybrid model that harmoniously blends the intimacy of in-person visits with the convenience, accessibility and extended reach of video ones” (ibid: 17).

Support within Prison

Walker et al. (2021) notes that some jurisdictions have legal provisions for residential programmes (i.e. full or part-time accommodation of babies and very young children with their mothers while in prison as a means of supporting bonding in the early years). Research from Australia (Walker et al., 2021) noted, however, that these provisions are often shaped by outdated ideologies that can limit their effectiveness in meeting the needs of mothers in prison, their children and prison staff. The main problems they identify include failing to separate out the rights and interests of the child and the mother, over-reliance on attachment theory principles (and historical evidence to support it), and concerns held by prison managers and support staff around responsibility and risk.

The literature reviewed also notes the challenges faced by prison staff in delivering support including, for example, lack of appropriate training in relation to such things as trauma, distress and self-harm (Short et al., 2009; Walker et al., 2017; Walsh and Freshwater, 2009). Powell et al. (2020) note in particular that staff can experience challenges when working with separated mothers, as this work can be emotionally difficult especially when operating under the constraints of the criminal justice system and prison rules.

For those on remand, the Howard League critiques the current remand system in Scotland for its inadequate support structures, and advocates for alternatives like supervised bail and community-based accommodations (Howard League, 2021).

Peer Support

Donato et al. (2023) reports that a strong support group from inside of prison is also essential for female prisoners, in particular - i.e. the loss of friends on the ‘outside’ is compensated for by making friends on the ‘inside’ with whom women can share their experiences and concerns.

Many prisons in the UK also offer peer support programmes such as the Samaritan Trained Listeners^[21] across the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), wherein fellow prisoners act as trained listeners to provide confidential emotional support to their peers who are struggling to cope.

Recent Scottish research from Long et al. (2022), that gathered lived experience of children, young people, parents and other relevant adults, also showed a desire among parents for the development of parent-to-parent and young people-led support groups for families involved in the prison system. The research also called for more and better signposting for affected families to self-support groups.

Self-Reliance

Although less evident across the literature reviewed, self-support and self-reliance are also reported as coping strategies from a study of mothers in prison in the Philippines. This self-reliance involved staying positive, hopeful and accepting their situation. This was deemed to be helpful for prisoners who find themselves isolated from families and other support networks, especially women (Donato et al., 2023).

Support on Release

Of the research available, the main sources of support for prisoners on leaving prison appears to be support given by family and friends (e.g. Berg and Huebner, 2010; Picken, 2012).

Across the research reviewed (see references in paragraphs below), the main support needs of prisoners on release appear to be practical, including such things as:

• financial support and assistance in securing paid employment
• provision of housing/a place to sleep
• access to food and clothes
• assistance accessing physical/mental health support or addictions support.

Emotional support features less in the post-release research literature reviewed, but consistency and a sense of feeling ‘cared for and connected’ are noted to be important (Condry and Smith, 2019). The literature also shows links between positive and frequent visits when someone is in custody and the support provided and felt on release. For example, relationships are likely to be stronger on release with corresponding lower risk of re-offending (Brunton-Smith and McCarthy, 2017). Similarly, strong family relationships can be a predictor of positive outcomes such as securing accommodation, managing addictions and feelings of coping and support (Markson et al., 2015).

Families Outside (2017) states that upon release, individuals need support in re-establishing relationships and reintegrating into the family unit. This may involve family counselling, support groups and assistance with finding employment and housing. Continued emotional support from family is crucial for reducing recidivism and promoting successful reintegration. Mills (2005) also reports on the significant role played by families in potentially reducing the risk of suicide/self-harm once a prisoner is released.

Garland et al. (2001) point towards the role of families in directing ex-prisoners towards more formal support agencies, as well as their role in ensuring compliance with and taking guidance from probation services, etc.. Families can also play a role in helping ex-prisoners in their desistance by advising on the risks of criminal associations post release (Mills, 2005), and preventing reoffending and intergenerational crime (Farmer, 2017).

More general issues with post-release support have been identified, including comment from researchers in Australia (Carlton and Segrave, 2015) who note that post-release support policy and practice are often shaped and informed by the experiences and needs of men, and they argue that there is a need for “alternative approaches that respond to the structural injustices that define the post-release trajectories of women and men.” (p.1)

Qasim and Webster (2020) find that British Muslim inmates, like most other inmates, struggle with resettlement. This includes, particularly, struggling to maintain healthy family relationships, trying to find suitable work and refraining from further offending after release from prison.

Daily life pressures and unresolved issues can cause relationships to falter post-release. This highlights the need for continuous and adaptable support to navigate the transition (Deacon, 2020).

Summary

Supporting people in custody to maintain family relationships involves addressing diverse needs across various stages of imprisonment and reintegration. Clear, consistent policies on visitation and communication are essential to fostering and preserving family bonds throughout imprisonment.

Maintaining family relationships in custody requires clarity and consistency in policies regarding contact with imprisoned family members. Ambiguity around the frequency and type of permitted contact complicates family bonds. Clear and consistent policy is needed to ensure support is readily accessible and adaptable (Deacon, 2021).

Embracing technology alongside traditional methods can enhance accessibility while mitigating the isolation experienced by prisoners and their families. Peer support and community-based initiatives further complement formal support structures, offering invaluable emotional and practical assistance.

By integrating these insights into policy and practice, stakeholders can enhance support systems that promote resilience, reduce recidivism and strengthen familial bonds throughout the criminal justice process. This is an area for further research.