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

7 - Support needs of families of people in custody

Introduction

The imprisonment of a family member profoundly impacts the lives of those left behind, creating a range of practical, emotional and financial challenges that can strain the family unit. This chapter explores the multifaceted support needs of families when a loved one is in custody, highlighting the critical importance of comprehensive support systems. Research consistently shows that families often experience sudden financial instability due to the loss of income associated with imprisonment. They also encounter a host of emotional burdens, from coping with stigma to navigating complex legal processes.

The chapter also explores the complexities of in-prison visits, the support needs when a family member is released and the challenges of this transition period, and the differences in support needs between remand and post-sentence detention. Before concluding, the chapter discusses the gaps in understanding around meeting the range of cross-cutting needs families with a person in custody experience.

Support Needs When a Family Member is in Custody

Visitor Survey Findings

The last SPS Visitor Survey in 2018 revealed that a third of visitors experienced challenges, primarily the distance to the prison, costs involved and time limits on visits (Scottish Prison Service, 2018).^[22] Specifically, 53% of visitors who responded to the survey cited distance as a major problem, 44% mentioned the cost of travel and 41% were concerned about the limited visiting time. Visitors suggested organising visits online, though infrastructure limitations were noted.

In primary research conducted in 2022, the quality of visits was reported to vary across establishments, with some visitors feeling respected while others felt uncomfortable or stigmatised (Diffley Partnership, 2023).

Alleviating Poverty and Providing Practical Support

The Scottish Government's “Best Start, Bright Futures: tackling child poverty delivery plan 2022 to 2026” identifies several needs of families impacted by imprisonment. These include alleviating poverty, mitigating loss of income and providing practical and emotional help, including referrals for income maximisation and housing support (Scottish Government, 2022a). This suggests families often face a sudden reduction in household income when a family member is imprisoned, leading to increased reliance on social services and support networks (Scottish Government, 2022a).

Clancy and Maguire (2017a) argue that practical and financial support is needed to overcome the hardship of loss of income including help with travel and childcare for visits, and emotional support to deal with stress of imprisonment.

Condry and Minson (2021) argue that government has a responsibility to support families affected by imprisonment. They introduce the idea of ’symbiotic harms’ and suggest that, when creating laws and policies, the government should recognise these harms and provide the necessary support to these families as part of their duty. The paper discusses potential interventions like financial assistance, housing support, access to education, improved prison visitation, family therapy post-release, and other measures to mitigate harmful impacts on families throughout the custody period and beyond. Recognising ongoing prisoner-family relationships, residual obligations imply the need for responsive, tailored initiatives to address varied family circumstances. Negative interactions with the criminal justice system can create mistrust in children and families by eroding their trust and view of state representatives, and symbiotic harms may be reduced through mutually supportive relationships between prisoners and families.

Access to Information and Emotional Support

Families Outside (2017) emphasises that families need access to information, emotional support and practical assistance, such as understanding prison rules, visiting schedules and available support services. Emotional support can come from peer groups, counselling and services provided by Prison Visitors' Centres. For instance, knowing visiting hours, how to send money and what items can be brought into the prison can significantly reduce stress for families.

School Support

Schools can be a valuable source of support for children at all stages of a parent's custody and release (Robertson, 2016). Robertson identified good practices in schools to include raising awareness among teachers, and sensitising both teachers and students to the experiences of children with a parent in custody to ensure they are supported.

Christmann et al. (2012) identify that communities, especially schools and other pre-existing social networks, play a pivotal role in supporting the resilience of children of prisoners. Christmann et al highlight that community resilience, especially shown by teachers, schools and peers, can provide a valuable source of support for children at all stages of their parent's involvement in the criminal justice process.

In-Prison Visits and Their Complexities

Visits between prisoners and their families, especially children, are often seen positively for prisoners, but the evidence on benefits for children is less clear (Knudsen, 2016). Because some children find prison visits frightening and confusing, Knudsen argues against presumptively encouraging visits between children and parents in prison, and recommends helping children decide the best way to maintain contact. Similarly, Saunders (2016) and Poehlman et al. (2010) suggest making visiting arrangements more child focussed.

Dixey and Woodall (2012) note that prisoners often discourage children from visiting to protect them from emotional distress. Marshall (2008) highlights additional support needs for children, including protection from media, financial support, addressing bullying and harassment and coping with the new family dynamics post-imprisonment. The presence of these stressors can lead to long-term emotional and psychological impacts on children.

Research by Condry and Minson (2021) also set out that barriers such as stress, fear and emotional toll of visiting on prisoners and their families led to some people stopping visiting altogether. Many prisoners felt uncomfortable at the prospect of their children seeing them in a daunting and unfamiliar environment, and some suggested that seeing their child for only a brief period and then being taken away from them could be psychologically damaging.

A Dutch study found visitors' experiences more negative than those of prisoners, with visiting protocols and conversation topics often causing stress (de Jong et al., 2022). Dixey and Woodall (2012) describe visits as “an emotional minefield fraught with practical difficulties.” This highlights the need for more supportive visiting environments and processes.

Research conducted by Diffley Partnership (2023) involved speaking to visitors at establishments across the SPS estate. The method of organising visits varied across establishments but, generally speaking, visitors and families reported a fairly straightforward experience when organising visits. Some felt that there should be a way to organise visits online, but appreciated that the infrastructure was not currently in place to allow for this.

The experience of attending visits was variable, dependant on the establishment in question. Visitors often raised that their experience could be dependent on the staff members who were on duty, and that rules were applied inconsistently across establishments and sometimes between visits (Diffley Partnership, 2023).

Many visitors commented on the length of visits as they are currently 45 minutes. There was a strong feeling that this was not long enough, particularly where families had to travel long distances in order to attend visits (Diffley Partnership, 2023).

Based on this Scottish research, visitors who participated were, broadly speaking, treated with respect when visiting an establishment and encountered friendly and helpful staff. However, there were instances/establishments where visitors did not feel comfortable, or felt stigmatised in their treatment (Diffley Partnership, 2023). For example, some visitors described feeling uncomfortable during searches when attending visits.

Virtual Visits and Child-Friendly Environments

Virtual visits, which became popular during COVID-19, are generally seen as helpful, providing flexibility for visitors unable to travel (Diffley Partnership, 2023). These virtual alternatives allow families to maintain contact without the financial and logistical burdens of in-person visits.

The flexibility allows people to speak with their loved one when they may have time restrictions/unable to travel, and visitors are keen that they stay in place. They also provide a tangible benefit for prisoners with families who live abroad. However, there have been a few technical issues such as poor internet connection that have impacted both visitors and their loved ones (Diffley Partnership, 2023).

Traditional visit room setups can be intimidating for children, but initiatives like the Family Learning Group create more relaxed environments for interaction (Deacon, 2020). The Family Learning Group, established within HMP Kilmarnock, helps mitigate some of these impacts by providing a relaxed and supportive environment for family interactions, which is crucial for maintaining familial bonds and addressing the emotional needs of children. The staff's approach, wearing casual clothing and reducing the level of surveillance, helps normalise the experience, fostering a supportive environment.

Challenges Specific to Mothers in Prison

Children visiting mothers in prison often experience anxiety, stigma and safety concerns. For example, Ye (2023) describes how criminals’ identities are passed down through generations, resulting in discrimination and harmful stereotypes placed on children, and Hannem (2012) provides anecdotes of visitors being treated poorly by prison staff leading to embarrassment, discomfort and distress. Despite these challenges, research shows visits can improve parent-child relationships and reduce adjustment problems for children (Lösel et al., 2012; Murray, 2005; Poehlmann, 2005). This suggests that while visits can be beneficial, they need to be managed carefully to support children's wellbeing.

Visiting as a Privilege vs. Right

One paper reviewed explored visiting as a right or a privilege in the United States (US) and Western countries (Berghuis et al., 2024). In many US states, visits are often seen as a privilege rather than a right, leading to stricter control and monitoring such as the ability to revoke visits.

Where visits are treated as a privilege Siennick et al. (2013) found that

inmates’ risk of infractions were consistently lower in the weeks prior to visits, but if visits are legally conferred, and consequently, inmates are certain of their visits, then they seem less likely to adjust their behaviour in anticipation of visits.

However, treating visits as a privilege can undermine prisoners' fundamental rights to family life and hinder the development of social ties critical for re-entry (Berghuis et al., 2024). Most Western countries view visits as a right, as evidenced by higher visit rates in the Netherlands (Berghuis et al., 2024). In Scotland, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child upholds children's rights to visit their parents.^[23]

Support Needs When a Family Member is Released

When a family member is released from prison, the transition period can often be challenging for families. The process of reintegration often places demands on families, who may experience emotional, financial and relational pressures as they navigate this adjustment. The evidence reviewed highlights the dual burden families face in supporting their loved one's reintegration while managing their own wellbeing. This section explores the specific needs of families post-release, the pressures they encounter and the importance of targeted support to foster successful reintegration and maintain family stability.

Pressure to Maintain Relationships and Responsibility

Historically, families have felt pressured to maintain relationships with imprisoned members to support their reintegration upon release. However, Codd (2007) argues that families should not be made to feel responsible for a prisoner's successful resettlement, highlighting the need for support for families themselves. Jardine (2015; 2018) notes the dual burden on families to support prisoners while often being unsupported. This dual burden can lead to significant emotional and financial strain on families.

Specific Needs Post-Release

Families need to adapt to restrictions placed on offenders, such as those on the sex offenders' register (Condry, 2007), shifts in gendered relationship dynamics (Comfort, 2018) and financial hardships (Comfort, 2016). Clancy and Maguire (2017a) highlight the lasting financial and emotional strain on families and the need for continued practical and financial help, housing assistance and support for reintegration challenges. For example, families may need assistance with finding affordable housing, securing employment and accessing mental health services.

Families Outside (2017) outlines support models including transitional programmes offering counselling, job training and housing assistance. Family reintegration programmes providing therapy and support groups can help ease the transition, and address issues arising during reintegration.

Families Outside (2017) further point out that families need support in adjusting to the return of their family member. This includes assistance with relationship dynamics, financial stability and navigating changes in family roles. Support services should help families cope with the transition and maintain a stable environment. This transition period is critical as it can set the tone for the family's long-term adjustment and the former prisoner's reintegration success.

Stigma and anticipated stigma continues to be a barrier upon release (Moore et al, 2016) as former inmates and their families struggle with societal judgment. The potential for relapse into criminal behaviour further complicates the reintegration process, impacting family dynamics and stability.

Differences in Support Needs Between Remand and Post-Sentence Detention

The support needs of families during remand detention differ significantly from those post-sentence, yet this area was underexplored in the existing literature reviewed. Remand detention presents unique challenges, marked by uncertainty, disruption and stress for families as they navigate unfamiliar systems and face unclear outcomes. Despite these distinct experiences, the literature review found research into the specific needs of families during remand to be limited, leaving gaps in understanding on how to provide effective support. This section examines the limited available insights into the challenges and concerns faced during remand, and the differences in family experiences compared to post-sentence detention.

Challenges During Remand

Research shows that remand or pre-trial detention presents unique challenges. A few older studies found that partners often feel overwhelmed by rules and lack of experience (Christensen, 1999) and families experience disruption, disorientation and uncertainty (Codd, 2008). Boswell and Wedge (2007) reported worsened child behaviour during remand detention. These challenges are exacerbated by the uncertainty of the trial outcome and the potential for a custodial sentence.

Concerns During Remand

The Howard League set out a number of effects on families during remand including uncertainty, impacts on childcare, stress, impacts on income and housing, and family division compounded by the uncertainty of the release date and duration of remand (Howard League, 2021). The COPING project found high levels of stress and trauma for children at the point of a parent's arrest (Robertson, 2016). Families need greater support and timely information to navigate these uncertain times effectively (Howard League, 2021).

Visiting Rights for Remand vs. Sentenced Prisoners

Visiting rights for remand prisoners can vary by jurisdiction. For example, in the UK, remand prisoners have more frequent visits compared to those in Scandinavian countries, where visits can be police-supervised and less frequent (Smith, 2017; Smith and Jakobsen, 2017). Pre-trial solitary confinement in Scandinavian countries can also negatively impact prisoners' mental health and family interactions (Smith, 2011).

Cross-Cutting Needs

Families of prisoners face a range of cross-cutting needs that span emotional, informational and practical domains, yet existing research reviewed highlights gaps in understanding how best to meet these needs. While families require clear and accessible information about the justice process and support services, stigma and individual circumstances often create barriers to accessing help. The diverse and sometimes complex experiences of families further underscore the importance of tailored and flexible support. This section explores the common themes of informational needs, stigma and heterogeneity in family experiences that emerged from the literature.

Need for Information

Families need clear information about the justice process and what to expect for both themselves and their imprisoned family members. Adequate explanations are crucial for children to cope with a parent's imprisonment (Ayre et al., 2006; Robertson et al., 2012; Howard League 2021). This need for information extends to understanding legal rights, available support services and processes for maintaining contact with the imprisoned family member. This highlights that consideration must be given to who gives this information and how, given the potential complexity of delivering information to families of those who have been imprisoned.

Unique Needs of Families

Families of prisoners may have unique needs requiring independent support. For example, Rodriguez (2016), highlights complexities such as mental ill health, substance misuse and trauma histories, which may act as barriers to seeking support. Support services need to be flexible and responsive to these varied needs to effectively assist families.

Stigma and Barriers to Accessing Support

Stigma often prevents families and children from accessing support. Bocknek et al. (2009) note that children may avoid social support due to stigma, and parents may not disclose imprisonment to teachers for fear of discriminatory attitudes (Dallaire and Wilson, 2010). This highlights the importance of creating non-judgmental support environments, and raising awareness about the needs of these families.

Heterogeneity of Experiences

The literature reviewed cautions against assuming uniform experiences among families. Many children of prisoners may not have lived with or had a close relationship with the imprisoned parent, and impacts vary greatly. Some children/family members may welcome or be ambivalent to the removal of a harmful family member (Turney et al., 2024). Knudsen (2016) stresses the need for individualised support to address these diverse needs.

Summary

Understanding the support needs of families of people in custody requires acknowledging the complexities and individual differences in their experiences. The literature reviewed, although limited in some areas such as on remand and cross-cutting needs, highlights the critical need for comprehensive support that addresses practical, emotional and informational needs. This includes providing financial assistance, facilitating easier access to visits, offering emotional and psychological support and ensuring families receive clear, timely information about the justice process and available resources.

Post-release, the focus shifts to supporting reintegration, where families often face additional challenges, such as adapting to new dynamics, dealing with financial pressures and navigating societal stigma. Effective support systems must continue beyond imprisonment, providing ongoing assistance with housing, employment and mental health services.

Key differences in the support needs between families dealing with remand and post-sentence detention further complicate the landscape. Families of remand prisoners experience unique stressors due to the uncertainty and potential impermanence of their situation, requiring tailored support strategies.