Divided Households
Supporting children and young people with a family member in prison
Foreword: a ‘view from practice’
When someone goes to prison, the children and families left behind experience the punishment without having committed the offence. The change in circumstances impacts every aspect of their lives, yet they often remain ‘under the radar’ without support or information that might ease the situation.
Families Outside (Scotland) and NEPACS (Northeast England) were delighted to be part of this important project, providing an essential opportunity for children and young people to share their perspectives directly. Too often, adults speak on children’s behalf, yet children have their own voices, and we all need to hear them.
The messages children shared through the Divided Households project came out loud and clear: treat us like you would your own children, through approaches that are Child-centred, Consistent, and Compassionate. The numbers of children participating in the project were not enormous; however, they reflect what organisations like ours hear every single day, from hundreds of children in Scotland and England. Beyond these are thousands more children and young people who don’t manage to visit, who receive no information or support, and who may feel utterly alone.
We welcome this crucial work and commend its recognition of children as more than a tool in their family member’s rehabilitation and resettlement. Children and young people need to be viewed and supported as children first and not as potential offenders. Too often, responsibility for funding and provision of such support (such as it is) lands with criminal justice agencies rather than with health, children & families, or education. The cultural shift this report calls for could not be more timely.
Prof
Nancy Loucks
OBE Chief Executive, Families Outside
Authors
Amanda Lacey Chief Executive, NEPACS
Naomi Griffin (Newcastle University), Nancy Loucks (Families Outside), Shona Minson (Oxford University), Tracy Shildrick (Newcastle University), Tina Young (Nepacs), Lisa Crowe (Newcastle University), Steph Scott (Newcastle University)
Cite as
Griffin N, Loucks N, Minson S, Shildrick T, Young T, Crowe L and Scott S (2025). ‘Divided Households’: Supporting children and young people with a family member in prison. Newcastle University: Newcastle, UK
Acknowledgements
Heartfelt thanks to all of our participants and their families. Sharing your views, feelings and experiences with us during such a turbulent and personal time in your lives is so appreciated. We hope we have done justice to your experience in this report.
Thank you to all the staff and volunteers in prison visiting centres across Scotland and Northern England. Your unwavering support, especially during the recruitment phases of this project, was invaluable.
Finally, thank you to our external stakeholder group and to the many voluntary sector organisations who have engaged with us across the duration of the project. Your wisdom and experience has helped shape our research. We know the difference you make as you work tirelessly to support children and families impacted by imprisonment every day.
This report is based on research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) [Grant reference: ES/W003716/1]. This report was produced in partnership with Nifty Fox Creative (https://www.niftyfoxcreative.com/) and includes illustrations by Jack Brougham (https://www. jackbroughamdrawing.com).
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the ESRC. The funders had no role in data analysis, decision to publish or preparation of this report.
Unheard voices
Our research focuses on prison visits. This means our research participants are all children who have experience of visiting prisons. These are children who can visit and who want to visit. This means our project only reflects half of the story.
Accounts from children and families who do not visit prisons are not included in this report.There are lots of reasons why children and families do not visit prison including choice or factors such as distance or court orders. All perspectives are important in learning how to support children and young people with a family member in prison. Our future work will strive to listen to new and previously unheard voices.
Executive summary
What
happens to a child who experiences familial imprisonment?
Life changes dramatically. Life chances are at risk.
Through no fault of their own children and young people find themselves at greater risk of ongoing problems due to:
• Damage or disruption to their attachment bond with their family member in prison as well as wider family members,
• economic instability, and
• educational impacts.
These children are more likely to face poorer health outcomes than their peers.
If it is what the child wants, and it is appropriate and safe, maintaining family ties is vital.
Vital for a child’s health and wellbeing. Vital for their future.
We asked children and young people what it is like to visit a family member in prison.
We learnt about the:
• burden of stigma and concealment,
• impact of imprisonment on familial and peer relationships,
• challenges faced when navigating the criminal justice system and visiting a prison, and
• health outcomes that can result from trauma associated with familial imprisonment.
From the findings we have developed the Three Cs Framework for improving support, and reducing negative outcomes, for children and young people with a family member in prison.
We’d like your help to implement this framework and improve futures.
Priorities for Change: The Three Cs
C1: Child-centred contact and visiting: (re)designing social visits with child needs and experience at the centre.
C2: Clarity and consistency: at every step of the custodial journey.
C3: Compassion, respect and understanding: from professionals within and beyond the prison walls.
What we know
The Ministry of Justice estimate that there were 192,912 children with a parent in prison in England and Wales between 1 October 2021 and 1 October 2022 (Ministry of Justice, 2024, p2).
This figure is based on self-reporting, meaning it does not account for all children affected by parental imprisonment and provides us with an indicative number only.
It is anticipated that the number of children impacted by imprisonment is higher still when accounting for non-parent family members, such as siblings, grandparents, and chosen family.
To date, this data remains unavailable.
Children who experience familial imprisonment are at greater risk of damage or disruption to their attachment bond with their family member in prison as well as wider family members. They are also more likely to find their education impacted, navigate economic instability and face poorer health outcomes than their peers. Indeed, imprisonment of a household family member is an Adverse Childhood Experience (Felitti et al, 1998).
Adverse Childhood Experience: A highly stressful and potentially traumatic events and/or situations that occur during childhood and/or adolescence’ (Young Minds, 2018).
For many children impacted by familial imprisonment, adverse outcomes are further exacerbated by other marginalising factors such as poverty, ethnicity, racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism and neurodiversity.
The right of the child to maintain family life is recognised in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 8). The opportunity to regularly visit a family member in prison is necessary - visits benefit family bonds and the wellbeing of all parties (where contact is deemed safe and appropriate) (McCarthy & Adams, 2017). The importance of in-person visiting (in addition to other forms of contact), with the opportunity for physical contact with a loved one, must not be underestimated (Minson, 2021). Yet, families face many barriers when visiting prisons. For example, visits can be difficult for families to attend due to inconvenient visiting times, geographic distance, and expensive and/or poor public transport options.
The newly elected government pledged to support children affected by parental imprisonment in the Labour Party Manifesto 2024: Our plan to change Britain (Labour Party, 2024). However, it is unclear where statutory responsibility lies to support children impacted by imprisonment. A clear
statutory duty to report accurate data on children of prisoners is missing. Without more clarity, this group of children are more likely to remain unnoticed (Payler, Cooper & Bennett, 2024). Responsibility for this group of children is currently dispersed as follows:
• The Ministry of Justice have a duty to strengthen family ties as far as it relates to the reduction of re-offending.
• The Department for Education support children and families.
• The Department of Health and Social Care oversee the health and care children and families receive.
Despite the recognition of familial imprisonment as an Adverse Childhood Experience, little is known about the experience of visiting from a child’s perspective, particularly in relation to health and wellbeing. Previous research has thoughtfully and sensitively captured the impacts of imprisonment on children and young people. However, this has predominantly been from the perspective of adults, and particularly in relation to motherhood. Meanwhile, very little research has taken a longitudinal approach and looked at changes over time.
This research is unique in its child-centred approach. It is the first major research project across Scotland, England and Wales to speak directly to children and young people and explore their experiences over a longer period of time.
It aimed to address the gaps in the evidence base. Exploring the health inequalities faced by, and the health and wellbeing impacts on, children and young people who experience familial imprisonment.
Project Aims
• To understand the (long-term) impact of prison social visits on children and young people’s:
◦ mental health
◦ emotional wellbeing, and
◦ familial relations between children and an imprisoned family member (from the child’s perspective).
• To explore how the experiences of children and young people can be applied to co-produce a child-centred rights-based framework for prison social visits. A framework to place health equity at the heart of prison visiting in England, Wales and Scotland.
What we did
We interviewed 19 children and young people about their experiences of visiting a family member in prison. Children and young people took part in up to three one-to-one interviews over nine months. All interviews used visual and creative activities.
Qualitative data collection
In total, we carried out over 45 hours of interviews:
• Interview 1: Focused on practicalities of visiting a family member in prison
• Interview 2: Focused on the children themselves and their wellbeing
• Interview 3: Focused on priorities for change.
All participants were aged 7-17 years old and lived in the North of England or Scotland (10 girls, 9 boys). Family members in prison included fathers, step-fathers/mother’s partners, one mother (of two participants) and one sibling.
Interviews took place in family homes and public spaces such as coffee shops (based on participant choice). All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, aided by Microsoft Excel and NVivo software. Written notes were taken and used during data analysis.
Co-production activity and development of creative outputs
The narratives of five participants informed the co-creation of five comics. The comics are based on characters created in final interviews. Using a fictional character helped participants openly discuss the impacts of imprisonment and interactions with professionals and institutions. An artist (Jack Brougham) brought the characters and stories created by participants to life in illustrated comics. To maintain anonymity, the participants met with a project researcher to discuss comic drafts. The researcher subsequently relayed participant feedback to the artist. This process was repeated until participants were happy with the comics. Images from the comics feature in this report.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical approval for this study was provided by the Faculty of Medical Sciences Research Ethics Committee at Newcastle University (Reference: 2346/23630). We worked in partnership with visitor centres and organisations who support families of those in prison to protect the wellbeing of participants.
Wellbeing of participants came first
To centralise participants’ wellbeing we did a number of things, for example:
• No recruitment from visitor centres within remand prisons due to the intensity of experience at the early stages of familial imprisonment. Many children and families may have been visiting for the first time, and we did not want to cause overwhelm.
• Some children may not be aware that they are visiting a prison; with this in mind we took care in how we approached families to discuss the research.
• Familial imprisonment can be very distressing; we were careful to build in regular breaks and pauses.
• Interviews took place over multiple sessions; we sought written informed consent during interview 1 but re-established consent verbally at the beginning of each subsequent interview.
Key Findings
By listening to children and young people we learnt about 4 key areas of impact.
Stigma & concealment
• Most participants conceal that they have/had a family member in prison to at least some people in their lives for fear of stigma, judgement and bullying.
• Children want to protect their family member who is in prison from judgement, as well as their wider family.
• Some participants had not spoken to a single person outside of their family unit or professionals linked to the justice system about their familial imprisonment.
Relationships
• Where children and families want to maintain contact with their family member in prison, access to visiting is vital in supporting their emotional and mental wellbeing, as well as mitigating the harms of familial imprisonment.
• Participants highlight the importance of physical touch on visits and the necessity of family days.
Inconsistency
• Most participants had experience of visiting at least two prisons and found the difference between them frustrating and confusing.
• Differences extended to rules, staff attitudes, options for visiting, food and drinks, and options for things to do on visits.
Health outcomes
• Familial imprisonment can have a profound impact on children and young peoples’ health and wellbeing.
• When children experience shock, confusion, stress, and worry, it impacts their sleep quality, ability to focus, educational attainment, engagement in hobbies, and relationships.
Priorities for Change: The Three Cs
Building on what we heard we recommend three priorities for change:
C1: Child-centred contact and visiting: (re)designing social visits with child needs and experience at the centre.
C3: Compassion, respect and understanding: from professionals within and beyond the prison walls.
C2: Clarity and consistency: at every step of the custodial journey.
The Three Cs as priorities for change are interconnected and cross-cutting. Therefore, they should not be considered in silo, but instead signify different levels of change required to improve the lives of children who are affected by familial imprisonment.
‘C1’ focuses on the importance of contact and social visits, where appropriate, for maintaining bonds and for minimising the negative impacts of familial imprisonment on children and young people’s mental and emotional wellbeing. We found that visits varied in quality and consistency and that there were changes within visits that would greatly enhance the visiting experience of children and young people that would not require large resource investment.
‘C2’ expands to the overall process of the custodial journey, from arrest to release, focusing on engagement with the prison system specifically. This C requires some greater structural and cultural change as well as practical and procedural changes that we believe to be achievable in the short to medium term.
‘C3’ expands beyond, but still includes, the criminal justice system. We call for compassion, respect and understanding from all those who engage with children and young people, as we know it is often not possible to tell which children are affected by familial imprisonment due to concealment as a result of fear of judgement. We therefore call for greater awareness and training of professionals who work with children and young people within and beyond the prison context, pushing for greater investment in supporting children and families affected by the criminal justice system across sectors.
Here, we unpack each C in turn, using findings and quotes from our research to contextualise our recommendations.
C1: Child-centred contact and visits
‘So we can, like,
see her and not be lonely.’ - Maddie, 10
Social visits are fundamental to maintain bonds between children and their family member in prison. Where appropriate, maintaining these bonds is vital in reducing the negative impacts of familial imprisonment on children. Our research participants described several ways in which prison visiting could be improved, particularly for children and young people. They described frustration with the process of visiting, the time it takes, the cost associated with visiting, a lack of things to do (for all ages), limited options for food and drink, and frustration with rules that felt arbitrary and were not consistent across sites. We propose that the first priority for change should be a re-design of social visits which places the needs of children and families at its core. These changes should be informed by a strategic needs assessment and made in partnership with families impacted by imprisonment as well as organisations which support them.
The visiting process:
‘If you’ve got to go to the toilet I’d never do it because I’m sure you’ve got to leave, walk through the scanners and everything, go over to the visitor’s centre, go to the toilet and then walk back through, get searched and everything. It just takes too long’ – Frankie, 16
Participants described that they experienced fear and stress about visiting prisons, especially leading up to their first visit. Participants who had had a member of staff or volunteer from the visitor centre go through the visiting process and what to expect with them beforehand reflected on how helpful and reassuring this was, but not all participants had this support. Most participants found that they became more used to the process after a few visits and were no longer scared. However, participants experienced several common frustrations. Children did not like to use the toilet during visits as they had to undergo an additional search. They also found only being able to hug at the beginning and end of visits frustrating.
‘If I’m being honest, I hate half of them [prison officers]’ – Omar, 15
Going through security felt difficult and intense, with one participant describing having her hair messed up after getting it styled for the visit. The children’s experiences of being physically searched varied, with some describing some prison officers as friendly and funny and others as strict and grumpy, impacting on how they experienced being physically searched. Participants appreciated when they did not feel rushed and when prison officers were friendly, jovial and reassuring. Some participants were wary of the search dogs and felt much more at ease when they were allowed to see and interact with the dogs in a relaxed way before the search process. However, this option was not consistent across sites. The children and young people described how the attitudes and friendliness of prison staff impact on how easy the process of visiting is for them. This was particularly reflected upon by young people who had experience of visiting in more than one prison (see C2).
Visiting halls:
‘It’s,
sort of, like a big room with nothing in it. It’s just really plain.’ – Sydney, 8
Children described the visitor halls as having plain walls, nothing to look at, and uncomfortable chairs that generally could not be moved. Participants felt that visiting halls often did not feel very welcoming and were frustrated that you could not take anything in with you (for example, one participant would have felt better if she could take a teddy in with her). Participants also vocalized acute awareness of prisoners not being allowed to wear their own clothes, and that some prisoners wear a different colour to represent them being in solitary confinement.
‘Sometimes you’re like- you’ve got the guards around you and that, you just feel a bit uncomfortable because they’ve got so many.’ – Omar, 15
Participants described discomfort and a lack of privacy felt due to the number of prison officers present and the closeness of other tables, meaning visitors can hear others’ conversations (though this varies between sites). These factors contribute to feeling a lack of calm and welcoming atmosphere within visiting halls. This is in contrast to visitor centres which are often run by charitable/third sector organisations and were generally described as more vibrant, colourful and had more toys and books for the children to engage with while they wait to start their visit.
Things to do:
“Here is the paper, but we’ve got no pens.” – Kelsey, 13
Participants described frustration due to a lack of things to do on visits. Participants described getting bored on visits but were clear that the problem was not that visits were too long. In fact, many asked for longer visits. They were very clear that they wanted more options for things to do with their loved ones, to bond and for their visits to feel more like ‘normal’ life. When equipment or toys were made available to them, they said that it was often poor-quality, for example: dried out pens, broken toys, or games that are very old and poor quality, and games with pieces missing. Many participants raised that activities and toys were often aimed only at very young children rather than older children, so there was little for them to do.
Food
‘There is no proper food though. It’s like snacks.’ – Hannah, 14
The food and drink available for visitors differ between prison sites but there were common themes among participants about the kind of refreshments that they prefer or would like. Most visitor centres offer snacks and hot and cold drinks but fewer offer hot meals to share together. Participants generally found the food offerings limited and would rather there were more options so that they could eat a full meal together with the family member they’ve come to visit. Some participants, who had experience of visiting before Covid-19 measures were put in place, described a decline in options since then that has remained since.
Costs of maintaining contact:
‘[I visit] Just when I can afford it really. Because the time we get there and then it just costs a lot. I try and get in like once a month, if not like a few times. Just depends.’ – Mother of Sydney, 8
The financial costs of having a family member in prison are well documented (Nugent, 2022). This is predominantly due to supporting the family member in prison financially, as well as the potential loss of income as a result of losing a working household family member. To add to this strain, visiting a family member in prison can be costly.
‘It was in the middle of nowhere’ – Noah, 11
Participants commented on the financial strain of having a family member in prison, and the costs associated with maintaining contact with them (e.g. phone calls and visits). Many families have to travel long distances (with journey time for our participants ranging from 45 minutes to four hours each way). The cost of travel is combined with the cost of refreshments during a visit.
The importance of extended visits or ‘family days’ to children and young people:
‘It was much better because he’s allowed out his seat, you can walk around, there’s a PlayStation there and all. So you can do like two player games and that. So it’s like what you would do out here on games.’ – Kelsey, 13
Extended ‘Family days’ or ‘children’s visits’ differ from regular social visits in several ways. Whilst provision differs between sites, in general, these visits are more relaxed, there is more freedom of movement for families including the family member in prison, and there are more activities. Not all of our participants had been given the opportunity to attend a family day, but all those who had attended one preferred them to a regular social visit.
‘When you go on a weekday the person in there is not allowed to stand up. Only on the Friday he is allowed to move off this chair. So if he stood up to give me a hug the guard would come running over and tell him to sit back down.’ – Callie, 14
In particular, they valued greater opportunity for physical touch and the ability to play with their family member in a way that feels more ‘normal’. Where participants were given the opportunity to have photographs taken as a family, they spoke about the importance of having a recent family photo for themselves and for the family member in prison. One participant, who has concealed that their dad is in prison, also said that a photograph together would be helpful for her to show friends when they ask about him. Here, the main priority for change from children and young people regarding family days/children’s visits was to make them much more frequent and with greater capacity to respond to demand.
Other forms of contact - Phone and video calls:
‘I’m out a lot. Obviously I’m a teenager; I like to be out and everything. I can’t talk to him as much as I like.’ – Hannah, 14
It costs money to make phone calls from prison, and mobile phone calls cost more than landline calls. Participants described frustration with this cost, especially when it resulted in fewer or shorter phone calls or needing to be in the house for landline calls at certain times because they are cheaper.
‘Phone calls, maybe [if] they gave you a little bit longer or you shouldn’t really have to pay for them.’ – Hannah, 14
The limited length of time for phone calls caused frustration for participants who felt these rules to be arbitrary. For example, one participant described a limit of calls to half an hour (when in the past they were 45 minutes), after which time her dad was able to call back after 10 minutes. But, by the time he calls back, they have forgotten what they were talking about and it interrupts the flow of the conversation.
One participant was particularly frustrated that they introduced a message at the beginning of phone calls from prison, and felt strongly that this message should be omitted to reduce the awkwardness and distress of taking calls from a family member in prison:
‘It says that someone’s calling you from a prison in England and just says that for 10 seconds... But obviously if that happens and I’m out with my mates, I’ve got to walk away from my mates because if they’re hear that, then they’ll find out where he is… If I’m at my mates and they see that he’s calling me, and I’m just holding the phone for 10 seconds and I’m not saying anything, then I go, “Hi.” And they’re like, “What do you wait that long for?” I’m just like, “Oh, I couldn’t hear him.” – Kelsey, 13
‘They’re [video calls] a lot better now, but they still cut off sometimes.’ – Sarah, 11
Video calls were discussed as a helpful option, particularly during Covid-19 lockdowns and when families have to travel a great distance to visit. However, they were often described as glitchy (e.g. cutting out without warning, which takes time out of the calls) and they were not an adequate replacement for in person visits due to the importance of physical contact. Participants talked about the rules being very strict about who could be seen on the calls which made them less convenient than they had hoped they would be. For example, one family could only video chat with 3 people at once but there were 4 siblings, two of whom were very young. If the video call registered that another face was present – including those of household pets - it would cut out, but it was difficult to explain this to very small children.
Children and young people asked for:
• Child-centred contact and visits that are welcoming, relaxed, conducive to bonding and have things to do for all ages. Visits designed to centralise the needs of children will be accessible and beneficial to all, subsequently improving the visiting experience for everyone.
• A more relaxed experience with friendly staff, comfortable chairs, better food and drink, and more colourful decoration; toys, books and (video) games that are of good quality and working properly.
• An increase to the number of family days/children’s visits and other opportunities for bonding with activities (e.g. homework clubs).
• Reduce the distance that families have to travel for visits.
• Reduce the costs of visiting as well as providing consistently available financial support for families to support visiting.
• Make phone calls free (for mobile phones and landlines) to promote family bonding and contact.
C2: Clarity & consistency
‘It’s always the young ones and like some of them don’t- they change the rules as they go as well. Some of them don’t know the rules.’ – Omar, 15
Participants referenced differences between sites in terms of provision, visiting processes and rules; a lack of clear information; and confusion caused by procedures that do not make intuitive sense to them both within the visiting process and their overall criminal justice ‘journey’. C2 expands beyond ways to maintain contact with a loved one to the need for structural, cultural and practical change in order to provide clarity and consistency at every step of the custodial journey, from arrest to release, to reduce the negative impact that familial imprisonment can have on children and young people.
Problems with rules:
‘You’re not allowed crisps or anything. So, you’re only allowed sandwiches and a few chocolate bars. But you’re allowed three or two. It might be three actually, chocolate bars each. But my grandma doesn’t normally get anything. So, she just orders three chocolate bars for herself, but gives them to my dad, because he can’t get that over there.’ – Kelsey, 13
Confusing rules and processes within prisons were described by participants. Rules sometimes felt arbitrary and frustrating. For example, rules around how many people can visit on certain days; why - at a certain age - children were no longer allowed to sit on their imprisoned family member’s lap; rules about clothing, and which foods were or were not allowed during visits.
‘[I] Don’t always know what they’re saying. And then there was that point as well where it was after Covid, it was if you’re under 14 or 14 under, you were allowed to hug your dad and that. So I gave my dad a hug and then they all went mental. Like, “Oh, you’re not allowed to do that.” But we had been told before that I was allowed to and people up there said that I wasn’t. There was a big thing about that.’ – Noah, 11
Children and young people acknowledged being thrust into a system that they quickly had to ‘learn’. When they did not understand processes and policies, this caused a great deal of stress. Participants also described frustration about prison rules that do not make sense and that change that would occur without warning. For example, multiple accounts were shared describing being given permission for something by one prison officer then being reprimanded for it by another, causing great distress.
‘So what
kind of happened is some people came to the house and I just had to pack some clothes and stuff and then
I
went to go live with my aunt for a couple of weeks, because my mum had to go in to do some stuff to do with what happened.’
– Sarah, 11
However, stress, shock and confusion tended to begin at point of the arrest of their family member, particularly if children and young people were present when the arrest happened. One participant described intense stress on the day of arrest when the police arrived at their home, with no one explaining to them what was happening or where their family member was going. Meanwhile, other participants described uncertainty and a lack of clarity around the oftenchanging timelines in terms of when family members could first speak on the phone, first have visits, the sometimes sudden and unexpected movement of a family member between prisons, and a lack of clarity around when they would be released. Several participants had expected their family member to be released for several months before the release actually happened, which caused a lot of dashed hopes, frustration and stress. As a result, some participants chose to not be told when a parent would be released to avoid potential disappointment, choosing uncertainty instead.
Differences between sites:
‘But it’s bad when you can only have two visits a month…Last prison I think it might have been three or four visits a month.’ – Brianna, 8
Frustration around clarity and consistency of rules and procedures was exacerbated for many by differences between prison sites. The majority of participants had visited multiple sites and described differences in rules, provision, length of visits, staff attitudes, and overall visiting experience.
Acute stress and frustration was caused by different rules in different prison sites. Examples include (but are not limited to): different rules about clothing and jewelry (including whether you have to remove jewelry when being searched), varying rules about the number of visitors, how much and what type of food you could buy for the visit, and what level of physical contact was permitted. Participants also described different provisions in different sites, such as: different times of visits (which may be more or less convenient in relation to school and public transport), different types of visits available, and differences in frequency and capacity of family days. One participant described a father and child homework club at one prison that was not available when he was moved to another prison. The time which the young person spent doing homework with her father was important to her, and she really missed it when her father moved prisons.
Further, inconsistency in the attitudes of prison staff directly impacted children and young peoples’ experience of visiting and how stressful the process is (as discussed in C1), particularly the first time visiting or when starting at a new site. Participants were frustrated and often disappointed by different attitudes of staff within and between sites.
Children and young people asked for:
• Clearer and more welcoming processes and procedures.
• Clearer and consistent rules and attitudes within and between prison sites.
• Support and information throughout the custodial journey for children and young people experiencing familial imprisonment that is both consistent and age-appropriate to help them to understand the process and to allow space for questions and concerns to be raised.
C3: Compassion, respect and understanding
throughout the journey (within and beyond the prison walls)
‘I wouldn’t speak to anyone, for the first month that I knew he was in jail… I did not sleep. I didn’t go to school for a whole month… Like, I would not go to sleep. And if I tried to, I could not. Like, just knowing about it, I just couldn’t. Then one time I went to sleep, and one time I woke up, and I just thought, “Just get over it. It’s been a whole month.” – Noah, 11
Experiencing a family member going to prison can have a profound impact on the life of children and young people. For our participants, it impacted their education, their relationships, their health and their emotional wellbeing, particularly for those who concealed their situation due to fear of judgement. For our participants, the loss of a family member to imprisonment was felt acutely and their narratives, in places, reflected the stages of grief, eventually landing on ‘acceptance’.
Impact on health and wellbeing:
‘Yes, because she might feel down, but she can’t tell anyone why she’s feeling down. So she’s got to act like she’s fine.’ – Kelsey, 13
Many of the children and young people that we spoke to described affected sleep as a result of stress, worry and life disruption, as well as difficulty focusing in school. Anxiety was a strong theme that ran through the majority of our participant accounts, and anxiety was multi-faceted. In other words, participants described anxiety about the safety and wellbeing of their family member who is in prison, as well as other family members who are also experiencing the stress of the imprisonment, such as siblings or their other parent. Participants discussed concern for family members now taking on greater care-giving and financial responsibilities as a result of imprisonment (due to, for example, the loss of a household income, financially supporting the family member in prison, the costs associated with maintaining contact, and the loss of a primary care-giver).
‘I just worry about if it affects, like how much it does, because if she [mother] worries too much then she’ll just only think about all that.’ – Dean, 14
Participants highlighted that poor pay for jobs within the prisons make it impossible for people in prison to financially support themselves even if they are working, creating more need for financial support from their families outside prison. These concerns often lead to anxiety as well as a desire to not add further burden to other family members by sharing their own struggles. The confusion and uncertainty of the criminal justice system, as highlighted by C2, further exacerbates anxiety for children and young people with a family member in prison.
‘But we told them [younger brothers] he [imprisoned father] was in hospital at the beginning just because of the age and we didn’t want them telling all their friends in school. And then we sorted them a visit and then we just told them, but they didn’t react as bad as we thought.’ – Frankie, 16
Many participants described short to long term changes in their housing situation as a result of imprisonment. For the majority of participants, their family member resided in the same home as them, pre-custody. As a consequence of imprisonment, most participants then lived in single parent homes, and some had moved to live with grandparents. Two participants described the breakdown of their parents’ relationships as a result of imprisonment which, for one, led to the need to move house. Examples were also shared of participants taking on care-giving roles for younger siblings, some of whom were not aware that their family member was in prison.
Isolation, shame, stigma & concealment:
‘So, in my primary, if my grandma was picking me up, they would all just look at her after it happened. Because they would know.’ – Kelsey, 13
Children and young people described feelings of isolation as a result of having a family member in prison. The majority of participants concealed their familial imprisonment due to a fear of stigma and judgement of both themselves and their family member who is in prison. Concealing such information can be very stressful for children, who described having to think on the spot, remember what they’ve said in the past, keep up with past lies, and to always know how to answer questions by their friends about their family member. Participants shared feelings of distress as a result of fear of stigma and judgement about others finding out about their family member in prison, but also feeling guilty about keeping a secret from friends and lying. Examples were shared of bullying and harassment due to having a family member in prison.
‘Because I’m not bothered about people knowing about my dad because look, everybody knows. I can’t trust people. If someone knows something then everybody finds out.’ – Hannah, 14
Meanwhile, there were participants who had shared with friends that they have a family member in prison, to varying degrees. Some had told just one or two close friends and others had told more and were less worried about people finding out. Those who had friends who were aware of their familial imprisonment shared that they found their support very helpful. However, even those who had told others generally feared or expected judgement and stigmatization from those outside of their close friends and family. Additional anxiety and stress was caused by peers finding out that they had a family member in prison without their consent.
Professional support:
‘I don’t like talking to the school about stuff because you can’t trust them.’
– Hannah, 14
Participants made clear that the professionals that they work with and support them need to understand their individual experiences as well as the overall experience of familial imprisonment. Participants reflected that support received from social workers, school staff and third sector organisations was not always timely, age-appropriate, or what the child needed at the time. This point links to C2, consistency, as each child is different and will require tailored support which is best provided through relationship building with consistent and well-trained professionals.
Some positive examples of youth groups specifically supporting children with a family member in prison were shared by participants, but the majority of young people did not access or have access to such groups due to a combination of limited provision or capacity and, for one participant, concerns about concealment. One participant said if they could give one piece of advice to a person in a similar position to them, they would recommend joining a justice-involved focused youth group:
‘it’s
got everybody that has a family member in prison, and everyone would go, if you have that, and then you would just get to speak to people that’s in your position.’ – Jodie, 11
Thus, children and young people that we spoke to wanted to see big changes in societal attitudes towards prisoners and their families, and better understanding from their peers and all professionals who work with them, as well as opportunities to spend time with other children in similar circumstances to themselves.
Children and young people asked for:
• Greater care and compassion from all who work within the prison system towards families of people in prison, using a child-centred approach to visits as well as contact with the system.
• Training to increase awareness and understanding of what children and young people with an imprisoned family member go through, the impact that contact with the system has on them, and the positive impact that kindness and understanding from professionals can have on their experience.
• Greater recognition and understanding for the complex impact that familial imprisonment has on children and young people from all professionals who work with them.
• Greater and consistent support for children experiencing familial imprisonment that is tailored to individual circumstance and needs.
• Greater funding for charities who support the children and families of imprisoned people.
• Greater provision of targeted youth groups to support children who are touched by the criminal justice system to target isolation, shame and stigma.
Future directions
Changing attitudes on a societal level is vital.
We recommend:
1. Commissioned research
We propose a need for commissioned research which expands on what we have learnt. We need to understand the impact of imprisonment related to different familial relationships and roles.
Although we defined ‘family’ broadly and allowed children and young people to take part based on any relationship they considered to be family (as in Condry & Minson, 2021), for the majority of our participants, it was their father that was imprisoned (14 participants).
Longitudinal research is needed to:
1. Explore diversity in the experiences of children and young people who are further marginalised such as black and racially minoritised children and children with disabilities and neurodivergence.
2. Understand the experiences of children and young people who who do not visit either through choice or other factors such as distance or court orders.
3. Unpick the impact of children and young people’s contact with the criminal justice system from arrest to release of a family member.
2. Enhanced training offer
We strongly advocate for enhancements to the national prisoner officer training offer or additional Continuous Professional Development modules on family ties to strengthen the support provided on the ground in daily interactions with children, young people and families.
3. Adoption of the Three Cs Framework
We propose re-designing social visits through a child-centred lens. We also urge government departments with a responsibility for children and families to work together to adopt the Three Cs Framework for improving support, and reducing negative outcomes, for children and young people with a family member in prison.
References
Condry, R., & Minson, S. (2021). Conceptualizing the effects of imprisonment on families: Collateral consequences, secondary punishment, or symbiotic harms? Theoretical Criminology, 25(4), 540558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480619897078
Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, Koss MP, Marks JS. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. Am J Prev Med. 1998 May;14(4):24558. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00017-8. PMID: 9635069.
Labour Party (2024) Change: Labour Party Manifesto 2024, available online at https://labour.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Labour-Party-manifesto-2024.pdf
McCarthy, D., & Adams, M. (2017). Prison visitation as human ‘right’ or earned ‘privilege’? The differing tales of England/Wales, and Scotland. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 39(4), 403-416.
Ministry of Justice (2024). Official Statistics in Development: Estimates of children with a parent in prison, available online at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/estimates-of-children-with-aparent-in-prison
Minson, S. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 prison lockdowns on children with a parent in prison. Report, available online at https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/content/impact-covid-19-and prison-lockdownchildren-imprisoned-parent-uk.
Nugent, B. (2022). Paying the Price: The Cost to Families of Imprisonment and Release.
Payler, J., Cooper, V., & Bennett, S. (2024). Optimal development for the children of prisoners? How children with a parent in prison are supported and why it matters. Children & Society.
Young Minds (2018). Understanding trauma and adversity. Online resource: www.youngminds.org. uk/professional/resources/understanding-trauma-and-adversity.