Tipología

Moving on to look at the question of what are prisoners’ families for, and for whom, raises the question of who prisoners’ families are not, and why some, and their experiences, are invisible within both literature and policy and practice. In order to understand why, in this case, young people, sibling relationships and inter/intra-prison relationships tend to have been omitted when thinking about familial imprisonment we have to look at the policy in this area. In doing so we are then able to understand why the gaps that were discussed in the preceding sections of this chapter are there. This section of the thesis is not intended to be a comprehensive policy review but instead, elements of policy documents are drawn on to explain and illustrate the points made around the exclusion of certain groups when we think about families of prisoners and who exactly we mean in reality when we use this term.

Much of this section looks at the construction of families of prisoners by looking at prison and wider policy (e.g. the SPS Family Strategy and the Farmer Review) which is based around the ideas of encouraging desistance, or the reduction of reoffending. It then explores this in respect of the consequences which can arise where young people, siblings, or those who are also serving a prison sentence themselves are then not seen as groups who can support this behaviour.

Intergenerational, or interfamilial offending is something which is acknowledged and features within criminological literature, however this tends to be done in a quantitative way (e.g. Murray and Farrington, 2005; Farrington et al., 1996;

Farrington et al., 2001). There is little familial imprisonment research documenting this in a more qualitative way (see Da Cunha, 2008 for exception) and nor does it tend to be a focus of policy and practice.

Of the ten young people I spoke to as part of this research who were currently within a Young Offenders Institution (YOI), six had had a family member serving a period of imprisonment at the same time as they were serving their own sentence. Three were serving their sentence at the same time as their male parent (father or step-father) was serving a period of imprisonment within another prison and five had served a sentence along with their brother or

step-brother; four in the same YOI and one whose older brother was within an adult prison.

These young people spoke of a variety of different experiences: of reconnecting with family members they had lost contact with; to “closer” relationships; to simultaneous imprisonment with a sibling being “stressful”; or to knowing they were step-brothers but to having had little contact previously. None of these, however, are currently reflected in research on familial imprisonment, which instead tends to focus on prisoners’ family members who are outside of the prison walls.

The experiences of inter- and intra-prison family relationships, and specifically their impact on elements of distance or closeness within these relationships, are examined in more detail in Chapter 7. The intention here is simply to highlight that these families of prisoners exist and to reflect on how their absence from literature or policy, as with that of siblings above, may reflect and provide context for the latter question in this chapter’s title of “what are prisoners’

families for?”

While there is a human rights basis for recognising families of prisoners within policy and legal procedures, and this is sometimes referenced within policy documents, often the underlying basis is actually one of desistance or preventing reoffending. While families can play an (important) role in this, and are often supportive of their family member’s journey towards stopping reoffending, constructing them solely in this way can lead to an exclusion of some and a focus on others. A narrow co-opting of desistance theory and thinking by a prison system can also result in the terms “desistance” and “reducing re-offending”

being seen as synonymous. In fact, the former is a process which belongs to the individual undergoing it, although others may have an interest in it, while the latter tends to be the aim of the system itself. Where the focus is on reoffending rates the system’s needs are placed at the centre rather than those of family members, or even of the prisoners themselves.

Articles 3, 9 and 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (1998) all apply to children of

prisoners. They can be relevant both at the point of the parent’s sentencing and later in the process have an impact on the child’s rights to maintain a relationship with their parent while they are in prison. These rights focus on children and parents explicitly, though some are worded more generally to include “family” life so could be applied to wider family relationships such as siblings.

A discussion between two KIN members, Morven and Amie, at one of the group’s residential sessions shows how they felt about their role, and that of other agencies, including the prison, in respect of services provided during their brothers’ sentences as well as afterwards following release. Amie spoke about how she felt her family had been expected to provide support for her brother after his release and that there had been no other help for him, or them. She put this in the context of feeling that since they were seen as a “supportive”

family they had been expected to provide this support, rather than it being provided by, for example, social work (who provide what would be probationary services in England and Wales). Morven also commented on the expectation on family in her interview stating, “…because he had family on the outside nobody supported him, they were, like, well your mum and dad are there and it’s, like, but they’re not professionals…”.

Their differentiation in how families may be viewed, and the resulting differences in how they may be treated, ties in with Jardine’s (2018) work which cautions against constructing families solely as resources. She points out that while initiatives around family contact are, of course, welcome that there is a lack of recognition of how much families themselves contribute to their success through their own efforts and provision of material and emotional resources.

With little support themselves, and in a context of “austerity, cuts in services and widening inequalities” (p. 128) she cautions against the positioning of families of prisoners as supports, both during their family member’s sentence and as resources to aid their resettlement following its completion.

This instrumentalising language can be seen in key policy documents with a focus on families of prisoners, as can a differentiation between the “supportive”

families, such as Amie spoke of above who qualify as the “pro-social bonds”

within desistance theory (Maruna, 2001) and those who instead pose a ‘risk’ to this process. For example, the recent Farmer Review (2017), whose title itself centres the prisoner and their offending behaviour (“The Importance of Strengthening Prisoners’ Family Ties to Prevent Reoffending and Reduce Intergenerational Crime”) explicitly states: “A theme of the academic research which I also heard in my evidence gathering, was [the families] should not be

‘instrumentalised’ or ‘used’ in order to serve the aims of the criminal justice system…” (p.17). It goes on, however, to use the word ‘resource’ or ‘asset’ in relation to families of prisoners a number of times. In the Review’s foreword, families of prisoners are also described as “allies in the rehabilitation cause” (p.

4).

There also appears to be implicit judgements on which families are the ‘right’

families for whom contact should be encouraged and supported:

“Indeed, the nature of an offence may mean contact with family members is inappropriate and not beneficial to either a prisoner or his relative. Family members may be the victims of his criminal activity or strong influences provoking offending behaviour.” (p. 16)

“…positive family relationships are associated with reduced risk of reoffending” (p.18)

“Contact with family members may be detrimental to prisoners (for example if their families reinforce criminal activity)” (p.22)

There are obviously reasons why family contact may not always be appropriate, or in a child’s best interests, where, for example, the offending may have been against a family member or there may be child protection concerns. There is, however, a difference between preventing contact for these reasons and discouraging it due to concerns around the family member’s potentially negative impact on someone’s offending, where that person wishes to maintain and continue that relationship.

The Review does recognise family as wider than simply the nuclear family and that it can cover both extended family members and non-blood relations who provide support such as friends, but its focus on reoffending and ‘positive’

family relationships will still potentially exclude those which take place wholly within prison and which are explored later in this thesis.

The focus on the family as a resource or an asset to be sustained or encouraged while someone is serving a prison sentence can also impact on young people after their family member’s release. Liam spoke of how he had been visiting his dad while he was in prison but when his dad was released the relationship broke down:

“He came oot and disappeared again. So it was just like we were a rebound for when he was in prison and then when he got oot he just disappeared again…”

Scharff Smith (2014) noted that one of the prison officers he spoke to as part of his research used the term “yoyo” parents (p. 191) to describe behaviour similar to that which Liam is talking about above. This is where parents gain some control over otherwise chaotic lifestyles while they are in prison, or where the fact they have little to do in prison sees them take more of an interest in their child’s life than previously. On release however, they can revert back to previous behaviours leaving children disappointed. Though the staff noted only a few of the prisoners displayed this behaviour it is still salient to consider the potential harm that could result from this experience for children and young people.

Comfort (2008) also spoke of her participants’ experiences and the contrast between the “rosy outlook” (p. 169) which they had described while their partner was still incarcerated, compared to the reality following their release.

These disparities between hopes for release and the reality, as seen in Liam’s comments above, have been echoed by young people within other familial imprisonment research (e.g. Brown et al., 2001; Johnson and Easterling, 2015a;

Saunders, 2017). For one of the participants within Saunders’ (2017) research, the prison represented the possibility for them to reconnect with their parent

who would be in a specific place and accessible for regular contact, but what happens on release when this is no longer the case?

Where someone is within prison, contact with family members can become more important where they have more time and less demands to fill it with. They may have less access to drugs or alcohol, be away from friends and associates, and instead have a singular focus on family, including their children. The prison’s wish to encourage these relationships during a period of imprisonment can also place a focus on building these relationships up. On release, however, there can be the reintroduction of demands on the family member’s time or issues which they have not had to deal with while they were in prison. This, taken along with the removal of the support provided by the prison to enable prisoners to maintain these relationships, can result in them breaking down. This breakdown, of something which was encouraged and built up in prison, can then compound the potential harm of the family member’s imprisonment for young people if it occurs on someone’s release.

These Government, and prison specific, policies and reviews I have discussed will draw on academic research. They contain statistics on reduced reoffending rates for those individuals released from prison with active family relationships, as well as potential issues for families, and children specifically, of people in prison. This highlights the intertwined nature of policy and research: research focuses on family as certain kinds of partners and children; policy documents are written drawing on this research; further research flows from the increased interest in the area generated by these new policies. This is how the voices of others – like those experiencing sibling imprisonment, or whose child or grandparent is in prison – can come to be excluded. The focus on desistance, reducing reoffending, and a focus on ‘positive’ relationships and ‘pro-social’

bonds can see those who are in prison along with their family member also excluded. Armstrong et al. (2017) recognise how researchers can “produce the fields they study” (p. 21), and how this can then link into policy underlines the need for a level of reflexivity within research, as argued for in the previous chapter.

5.4 Conclusion

This chapter has explored who qualifies as being seen as ‘families of prisoners’, whether in research or policy and practice, and how the underlying purpose of the family in these areas can influence this construction. This has not in any way covered all potential family relationships and is not a comprehensive examination and full widening of this definition of what family is or can be to people in prison. It has, however, begun to do this through the focus on young people as a specific group, distinct from children more generally, on sibling imprisonment and drawing attention to the existence of families of prisoners where the young person and the family member are both in prison at the same time (something which is covered in greater detail in Chapter 7).

The chapter underlines the need to recognise young people as a specific subset of children. They may feel similar aspects of the experiences of a family member’s imprisonment to younger children, but their occupying of the liminal space between childhood and adulthood also gives them particular experiences.

They cannot always take advantage of bonding or children’s visits and the provisions within them, but equally do not have ‘adult’ relationships with their parents. This period of their lives is a transition, towards adulthood, into high school, towards a greater level of understanding of the situation and their family member’s perceived choice to behave as they do, and these transitions can all compound their experiences. Finally, practical differences arise in how young people live their lives compared to younger children, which can impact on the maintenance of a relationship with someone in prison.

This chapter also raises questions of who we see as children, whether from an age or relational basis, and questions the differences in the ways we are beginning to view young people in the criminal justice system themselves compared to those who instead have family members in the system. Already potentially labelled by their association with their imprisoned family member these young people can then become invisible, both within the visit room, where family now physically has to take place, and in the research which drives the policies which can shape their experiences.

Similarly, with sibling imprisonment, this is largely absent from academic literature, and policy and practice. The loss of these voices renders this group invisible, without a recognition of their unique experiences, and provision for them within, for example, prison visits. It also raises the issue of the need for a wider definition of who a ‘parent’ may be. This role is not solely fulfilled by those within the biological position of father or mother, or even a step-parent, but can also be fulfilled by a sibling. The loss of a sibling to a period of imprisonment can therefore be felt by a young person as both elements of parental and sibling imprisonment.

Looking at what families are for within the criminal justice system often sees them constructed in policies as resources or assets. The needs of the prison, or wider criminal justice system, are placed at the centre and the family are outside of this, to be drawn in or on when needed. While desistance theory includes elements of both the individual and the social (McNeill, 2012), its more narrow use within the prison system can result in a focus solely on the individual and a level of responsibilisation both on the person in prison to change, and more widely on their family members to support and ensure the success of this change. Young people can find themselves excluded where they are not the

‘right’ or ‘pro-social’ family member whose relationship should be encouraged.

Specifically, it excludes the idea of relationships where both the family member and the young people are in prison (something which is considered further in Chapter 7). The prison system can also co-opt desistance theory into being synonymous with their need to reduce re-offending, not only removing families from the centre of familial imprisonment discussions but essentially removing the prisoner from the centre of their own process and replacing their individual needs with those of the wider prison or criminal justice system.

This chapter has begun to broaden the range of people we might include when we say ‘families of prisoners’, rather than the typical focus on partners, and children as one 0-18 age group. It has also examined the question of why we are looking at them, potentially allowing familial imprisonment to be framed and discussed in a different way. The next chapter moves on to looking at the idea of

‘family’ more generally and how this group of young people have experienced it.

It will consider the impact of a family member’s imprisonment for these young

people, but will not do so in isolation, as may more often be the case. It will instead explore the variety of experiences of family, and the impact on these of a range of issues and absences, including those relating to imprisonment, but also relating to a parent’s substance and alcohol use, single parent families, changing working practices and extended family care arrangements. It will also discuss the idea of changing relationships between young people and their family members, including that of parentification (role reversal) and parent as peer (a horizontal rather than a vertical relation). The chapter will consider the changing nature of families, as well as how the role of a child can be constructed within a family context, and the inequalities inherent in some of the assumptions we make about what a family is and does, and how this can impact on young people’s experiences of a family member’s imprisonment.

6 Chapter 6 - Young People’s Experiences of Family

6.1 Introduction

The previous chapter introduced the idea of who the families of prisoners can be, focussing on including young people as a specific group, and sibling as well as parental imprisonment. It also highlighted the occurrence of intra- or inter-prison family relationships, where both the young person and their family

The previous chapter introduced the idea of who the families of prisoners can be, focussing on including young people as a specific group, and sibling as well as parental imprisonment. It also highlighted the occurrence of intra- or inter-prison family relationships, where both the young person and their family