The Forgotten Victims the Effects of Imprisonment on Families/Whānau

The Forgotten Victims – the Effects of Imprisonment on Families/Whānau

Paper presented at the Institute of Policy Studies Forum ‘Addressing the Underlying Causes of Offending: What is the evidence?’

Victoria University of Wellington, Old Government Buildings 26-27 February 2009

Dr Venezia Kingi Senior Research Fellow Crime and Justice Research Centre Victoria University of Wellington Introduction New Zealand has a high rate of imprisonment compared to other OECD countries. The recent Department of Corrections ‘Briefing for the Incoming Minister’ (November, 2008) noted that currently around 8,000 people are held in prisons, an increase of 50 percent over the total number in prison ten years ago. A peak population of 8,457 was recorded in September 2007.

This means that a growing number of families or whānau may have to struggle with the negative effects of having a family member in prison. The last prison census indicated around 26% of male prisoners and 47% of female prisoners had dependent children prior to being imprisoned (Department of Corrections, 2003). However, female prisoners were more likely to be living with and caring for their children than male prisoners (35% compared to 12%). This is an important factor when we consider that, in line with international trends, the New Zealand female prison population is increasing at a greater rate than for males (Department of Corrections, 2007).

The families or whānau of prisoners are a largely neglected and invisible group. They have been called the ‘forgotten victims’ (Light & Campbell, 2006) and those living a ‘silent sentence’ (ACT Legislative Assembly, 2004). Families or whānau also bear the social stigma of imprisonment (Deane, 1988; Kingi, 1999; NHC, 2008) and are often judged as ‘guilty by association’ (ACT Legislative Assembly, 2004). They are stigmatized not only within their communities but also in their interactions with official agencies and institutions. (Mills & Codd, 2007). Therefore, the imprisonment of a family or whānau member can have profound negative outcomes for families/whānau in general, and children in particular (e.g., Murray, 2007; Woodward, 2003; Hairston, 2003) who have the potential to become the next generation of offenders (ACT Legislative Assembly, 2004; Salomone, 2003).

Maintenance of family ties

It is well documented, both in New Zealand and internationally that, during imprisonment, the maintenance of a prisoner’s family ties is seen to serve three important functions: the maintenance of the family unit, the enhancement of the well- being of individual family members, and the facilitation of the prisoner’s post-release success (Barr et al, 2005; Deane, 1988; Hairston, 1991; Holt & Miller, 1972; Kingi 1999; Mills & Codd, 2007.)

However, while there is a recognition that strong family ties and community links are important factors in promoting effective resettlement and reducing reoffending by ex prisoners there are inherent contradictions in penal and social policies in relation to prisoners families. Families continue to experience a range of difficulties and challenges, with relatively little official support or recognition. Mills and Codd (2007) draw attention to the evolving role of the voluntary sector in this area. This is also the case in New Zealand where organisations such as Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Service (PARS), PILLARS, and Prison Fellowship play a vital role in supporting prisoners and their families/whānau.

2 Mills and Codd (2007), acknowledge the importance of social and psychological support that family ties offer offenders both during imprisonment and after release, which may help reduce re-offending. However, they also point at some inherent dangers of placing too high expectations on family members: for example, some families may themselves engage in criminal activities; some may not wish to maintain links with the offender; families may end up feeling responsible if rehabilitation does not occur; and importantly, families’ needs may end up being secondary and be neglected.

Mills (2004) adds the caveat that little is known about the social and psychological support that families can offer during the resettlement process. She also cautions that expecting family to play a significant role in desistance can have negative implications and place families that are already experiencing social and financial problems under further pressure. They may feel responsible or fear being blamed for an offender’s failure to ‘go straight’ or be expected to fulfil a ‘policing’ role. Mills goes on to warn against instrumentalising families so that any help provided to them is given on the basis of their value in crime prevention, rather than to meet their own (health, social, financial etc) needs.

The experience of imprisonment for families and whanau

Whilst it needs to be acknowledged that there are some families that are put in a better position by the removal of the offending family member – usually because they were being abused or living in adverse conditions because of the family member’s behaviour; there are many families/whānau for whom the offenders’ sentence brings about hardship and distress (Browne, 2005)

Overseas research (Smith et al, 2007) has described the poverty and disadvantage experienced by prisoners’ families and notes that these families were vulnerable to financial instability, poverty, debt and potential housing disruption following the imprisonment of a family member. Disadvantage associated with imprisonment included high rates of depression, physical illness (Smith et al, 2007). Families subsidised the imprisonment by sending prisoners money, clothing and electronic goods. While maintaining family relationships is recognised as significant in enabling the successful resettlement of prisoners, maintaining these relationships during imprisonment can be financially draining. At the root of their poverty is the reliance on welfare benefits.

UK research concluded that supporting a relative in prison is extremely demanding, both financially and emotionally (Condry, 2006). For example, visiting could be expensive and not being able to claim for transport costs in advance was a problem. Participants on low incomes described having to ‘go without’ in order to be able to visit or to buy items for the imprisoned relative.

Mills and Codd (2007), among others, argue that factors that may discourage prisoners’ families from attending prison visits include lack of information on how to arrange visits, facilities available to visitors and security rules and procedures. A survey of visits and family ties carried out at an English prison found that prisoners and families would welcome more information and advice or support on family issues, including help on

3 release (Pugh, 2005). A family liaison officer would fill this gap, the report argued, for example by providing a point of contact with families on the outside during a crisis, liaising with social services, advising about parental rights, encouraging participation in sentence reviews or planning or help link up with sources of help in the community.

A large scale survey of male prisoners carried out in the UK (Action for Prisoners’ Families, 2007) noted that it was not unusual to find that prisoners were absorbed by their own situation and showed little understanding of the problems faced by their families. They had a tendency to abdicate responsibility by insisting that their families (mainly mothers and female partners) were coping well. This perhaps is not surprising as the women went to great lengths to hide their problems from the family member in prison.

Other research has shown that women (mothers, sisters, grandmothers, wives and partners as well as aunts and daughters) act as the emotional linchpin and a source of emotional and practical support both for the prisoner and for the rest of the family (Condry, 2006). As a result these women were frequently caught between conflicting demands and pressures. They also suffered secondary stigmatization and shaming in their social interactions. Condry (2006) argues that such social negative responses stem from cultural and popular beliefs about familial blame and contamination.

Research indicates that families of prisoners can be easily socially excluded. It is a belief held by parts of the community that families themselves ‘breed’ criminals or that they are ‘guilty by association’, but there is no evidence that suggests families are inherently criminal, or that they should not be given support (for example, ACT, 2004 and Murray, 2007). In fact, many argue that recognition of, and support for, these families is essential.

Prisoners’ children

The effects on children have been a major focus of research. It has often been noted that it is virtually impossible to gauge the extent of the problem as information on the numbers of children of prisoners is not routinely collected internationally or here in New Zealand (e.g. see Kingi, 1999). It is also widely agreed that the experiences of children who have a parent in prison will differ according to which parent is imprisoned. The children of imprisoned fathers are more likely to be cared for by their mother or father’s partner, whereas the children of women prisoners tend to be looked after by extended family/whānau, her friends or placed in foster care (for example see - Caddle & Crisp, 1997; Johnston, 1995; and Prison Reform Trust, 1996)

These differential child care arrangements have also been found in New Zealand. According to the 2003 New Zealand prison census, the children of 79% of male prisoners were looked after by their current or ex-partner. In contrast, the children of approximately one fifth (21%) of female prisoners were cared for their by their current or ex-partners; a further 39% of women said their children were being looked after by their immediate families (Department of Corrections, 2003). The children of women prisoners

4 were also more likely to be in foster/State care than those of male prisoners (8% compared to 2%) (Department of Corrections, 2003).

Australian research (Woodward, 2003) found that prisoners’ children tended to be young with a significant proportion being less than six years of age. Children whose parents were imprisoned were more likely than children who did not have a parent in prison, to experience a range of serious long-term impacts including: developmental and behavioural problems (Johnston, 1995; Kingi, 1999); adverse mental health outcomes (Murray, 2005); increased exposure to infectious diseases; and an increased likelihood of contact with the justice system (Quilty, 2003). These children have been found to experience negative emotional reactions including fear, anxiety, anger, guilt, and confusion (Woodward, 2003).

The imprisonment of a parent can also affect children in a variety of indirect ways, including reduced family income, home and school moves, traumatic prison visits, disrupted relationships between prisoners and those who care for their children, stigma, shame and decreased social support (Murray 2005).

Murray and Farrington (2005) found that parental incarceration predicted delinquency among working class males in London up to their 30s, even after controlling for parental criminality. Moreover, Murray and colleagues (2007) carried out a cross-national comparison of two longitudinal studies in Sweden and England, to examine the role that parental criminality plays in predicting children’s criminal behaviour. Their study concluded that parental imprisonment was a stronger risk factor for offending in England than in Sweden. The authors posited that in Sweden the combination of shorter prison sentences, family oriented prison policies and welfare oriented juvenile justice policies, the advanced social welfare system and sympathetic public attitudes could have protected children from the harmful effects of parental imprisonment.

New Zealand research

The applicability of overseas research to New Zealand is unclear. While many of its lessons may well apply, we lack up-to-date evidence. New Zealand research on prisoners’ families is limited. Research by Deane (1988) identified difficulties with children, social isolation, and problems with mental and physical health. She also highlighted difficulties with housing (such as being unfairly treated by landlords), and practical difficulties with prison visiting (such as having to negotiate multiple forms of public transport with young children in tow). Financial hardship was another issue - with a potential source of income being lost but costs incurred in supporting the family member in prison. Kingi’s (1999) study that focused on the children of women in prison produced similar findings.

Those interested in outcomes for prisoners and their families in New Zealand still refer to Kingi’s and Deane’s research despite these being more than 10 years old which points to the necessity for further research in the area. Deane (1988) made a number of recommendations for better provision for the families of prisoners which focused on financial assistance to visit and the improvement of visiting conditions and facilities in

5 prisons. Kingi’s (1999) research had similar findings and concluded that the families of women in prison needed financial and emotional support and that there was a need for more information – on prison protocols (e.g. visiting), on their legal and welfare rights as caregivers of prisoners’ children.

Assessing the current situation is important to see whether there has been improvement in the provision of support, or whether the situation at the end of the 1990s remains. Anecdotal evidence from NZ organisations (for example, PILLARS and the Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Service [PARS]) supporting families of prisoners suggests that little improvement has been made, with families with a member in prison still struggling.

In conclusion

Families/whānau with one of their members in prison are an increasing group in New Zealand, but one on which there is no recent research. Yet there is evidence they can have a significant role in the re-integration of family members back into the community which will impact on the likelihood of them re-offending. Understanding the best way to support these families/whānau will assist them in this role.

A better understanding of the impact of custody on the families of prisoners could point to ways to improve the family environment. There is the potential to increase the likelihood of more positive outcomes for the family members - for instance in terms of health, education, employment, and more pro-social lifestyles. This is particularly important to counter significant negative intergenerational outcomes. These carry both social and financial costs. Supporting children and families is an investment in the future, particularly for children who have the potential to become the next generation of offenders (cf. Salomone, 2003).

None of the issues raised in this article are new, recent overseas research shows that many families continue to experience many of the difficulties documented by Morris (1965) over 40 years ago. If we are aware of the problems that prisoners’ families/whānau face why are we not doing something about these? There is a need for much more critically informed analysis of the potential contribution that families’ can make to an offenders’ community re-entry and desistance. This analysis must recognise the needs and the problems that prisoners’ families face in order to ensure that their contribution might be effectively strengthened and supported. Certainly families have a central and fundamental role to play but this is not always facilitated or supported by government policies and practice (Mills & Codd, 2007). We need to increase the visibility of the difficulties faced by prisoners’ families or whānau, and to give them a voice. In this way government when developing new policy, together with other organisations can consider their needs and the ways they can best be supported, and in the long-term empowered to support themselves.

6 References

ACT Legislative Assembly. (2004). The forgotten victims of crime: families of offenders and their silent sentence. Canberra: Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. Action for Prisoners Families (2007). Research on prisoners’ families – an update. addendum to Dr Browne’s paper of 2005. http://www.prisonersfamilies.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Information_and_research/R esearch%20on%20Prisoners%20Families%20Update.PDF Bahr, S., Harker Armstrong, A., Guild Gibbs, B., Harris, P, and Fisher, J. (2005) ‘The reentry process: how parolees adjust to release from prison’, Fathering Journal, Vol.3, No.3, pp243-265 Browne, D. (2005). Research on prisoners’ families – building an evidence base for best policy and practice. Action for Prisoners’ Families. http://www.prisonersfamilies.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Information_and_research/Liter ature%20Review%202005.PDF Caddle, D. & Crisp, D. (1997). Imprisoned Women and Mothers. Home Office Research Study 162. London: Home Office. Condry, R. (2006) ’Stigmatised women: relatives of serious offenders and the broader impact of crime’ in F. Heidensohn, (ed) Gender and justice: new concepts and approaches, pp96-120 (Devon: Willan Publishing) Deane, H. (1988). The social effects of imprisonment on male prisoners and their families. Wellington: Institute of Criminology (Victoria University of Wellington). Department of Corrections. (2003). Census of prison inmates and home detainees. http://www.corrections.govt.nz/research/census-of-prison-inmates-and-home- detainees.html Department of Corrections. (2007). Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill – background information for Law and Order Select Committee March 2007. Wellington: Department of Corrections. Department of Corrections. (2008). Briefing for the incoming Minister: November 2008. Wellington: Department of Corrections. Hairston, C. (1991). Family ties during imprisonment: Important to whom and for what? Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 18 (1), pp87-104 Hairston, C.F. (2003). ‘Prisoners and their families: parenting issues during incarceration’. In, J. Travis and M. Waul (eds.), Prisoners once removed: the impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families and communities. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press. Holt, N. & Miller, D. (1972). Explorations in inmate-family relationships. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Corrections.

7 Johnston, D. (1995). Child custody issues of women prisoners: A preliminary report from the CHICAS Project. The Prison Journal, 75 (2), pp222-239. Kingi, V. (1999). The children of women in prison. Doctoral thesis. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington. Light, R. and Campbell, B. (2006). ‘Prisoners’ families: still forgotten victims?’ Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 28: pp297-308. Mills, A. (2004) ‘Great Expectations?’: A review of the role of prisoners families. Paper presented to British Criminology Conference, Portsmouth, 30 July 2004 Mills, A. & Codd, H. (2007) ‘Prisoners’ Families’ in Y. Jewkes, Y. (ed) Handbook on prisons. pp 672-695. Devon: Willan Publishing. Morris, P. (1965). Prisoners and their families. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. Murray, J. (2005) ‘The effects of imprisonment on families and children of prisoners’, in A. Liebling, & S. Maruna, (eds) The effects of imprisonment. Devon: Willan Publishing. Murray, J. (2007). ‘The cycle of punishment: social exclusion of prisoners and their children’. Criminology and Criminal Justice 2007. Sage Publications http://www.sagepublications.com. Murray, J. and Farrington, D.P. (2005) ‘Parental imprisonment: effects on boys’ antisocial behaviour and delinquency through the life-course’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, pp1269-1278 Murray, J., Janson, C. & Farrington, D. (2007) ‘Crime in adult offspring of prisoners – a cross-national comparison of two longitudinal samples’. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, No.1, pp133-149 National Health Committee (2008). Review ofrResearch on the effects of imprisonment on the health of inmates and theirfFamilies. Wellington: National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability. Prison Reform Trust. (1996). Women in prison: recent trends and developments. London: Prison Reform Trust. Pugh, G. (2005). HMP Hollesley Bay: Visit & Family Ties Survey. England: Ormiston Children and Families Trust Quilty S. (2003) ‘Impact of prisons on the wider community: children in the first line of fire’, presentation to the Public Health Association of Australia Incarceration Conference. Salomone, J. (2003). ’Issues Paper 1 – Prevention of suicide and self-harm'. In, Towards Best Practice in Women’s Corrections: the low security prison for women 2001 – 2004. Perth, Western Australia: Department of Justice Smith, R, Grimshaw, R, Romeo, R & Knapp, M (2007) Poverty and Disadvantage among Prisoners’ Families. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

8 Woodward, R. (2003). Families of prisoners: literature review on issues and difficulties. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services.