Below are the common issues that family members of inmates may face and may struggle with
- Initial Grief from the loss
- Isolation and Deprivation
- Judgment
- Household and Financial Issues
- Children and Discipline
- Dip in Self Esteem
- Pressure from others to abandon the relationship/connection with the inmate
- Communication
- Infidelity
- Stigma
- Dealing with the legal system
- Lack of Intimacy and Affection
- Fear for family members safety
-(Brink, 2003; Carlos & Cervera, 1991a; Fishman, 1988; Girshick, 1994; Lowenstein, 1986; & Moerings, 1992)
The Stressors of Separated by Incarceration (SBI) Relationships
- According to Herman-Stahl, Kan and McKay (2008), partners of incarcerated individuals encounter several barriers to contact and communication that ultimately impact emotional connectedness and intimacy. Inmate partners are not often incarcerated near their families. Visitations are a costly expense, and the restrictions and conditions of the visiting environment are less than ideal. The hours allotted for visitation are minimal, the amount of movement and physical contact allowed hinders the couple’s ability to connect emotionally, and the lack of privacy during their encounter can be uncomfortable. Arditti, Lambert-Shute and Joest (2003) describe the separation of incarceration as an “ambiguous loss.” Because criminal behavior and imprisonment are not socially acceptable, partners of inmates are not able to publicly express sadness over the separation. This, in turn, augments feelings of grief related to the un-mourned loss. The partners of incarcerated individuals are often referred to as “prison widows.”
- A second stressor that SBI’s face is the need to assume the responsibilities once held by their romantic partners. Herman-Stahl, Kan and McKay (2008) state that women of incarcerated men are often required to transition into the role of primary caregiver, and become the sole financial provider of the household, often resulting in financial hardship. This, in turn, leads to feelings of anger and resentment. Children often face difficulty adjusting to the loss of a parent to incarceration, leading to acting out behaviors, which may pose an added strain on the parent left in charge. Most of the families impacted by incarceration are from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Mumola, 2000). Approximately 54% of incarcerated men in state prisons were the primary financial providers of their household before imprisonment (Glaze and Maruschak, 2008). The cost of their incarceration is an added expense. It may include attorney fees, travel expenses, collect calls from prison, money and supplies for the incarcerated partner (Arditti, 2005).
- Additional responsibilities as the primary caregiver and financial strain are understandably expected among SBI’s. However, given the lack of research, it is more difficult to understand the emotional and social consequences resulting from a partner being incarcerated. Moerings (1992) examined the experiences of fourteen women whose husbands had been incarcerated. The study analyzed the results through the lens of a Role Transitions Model. It asked the following questions: What role transitions does the wife go through? What strain does the transition entail? How does the woman react to them? The author found that role transitions of women, in the aftermath of the incarceration of their husbands, often resulted in significant changes in emotional well-being, sexual functioning and financial stability. The majority of the strain experienced from the role transitions that follow a husband’s incarceration is felt in the beginning of the significant event. The strain may result in sleeplessness, tearfulness, restlessness, loneliness, and fearfulness. This may be because many of these women are not equipped with the appropriate resources and coping tools to manage the added stressors. Oftentimes, they turn to maladaptive ways of dealing with the stress, such as substance use. As time goes on, some women learn to handle their new circumstances in healthier ways.
- According to the model, the process is as follows: Antecedent conditions lead to the need for role transitions. The role transitions cause strain. There are reactions to the strain of the transitions, which in turn lead to consequences. All of the steps in the process are affected by moderating factors, such as the attitude expressed in the woman’s surroundings. The model was determined to be helpful in the examination of the unique stressors of wives separated from their husbands by incarceration, but it did not take into account other factors that seemed common among them, such as stigmatization. The negative stigma attached to being a “prisoner’s wife” is a moderator that escalates the effects of the strain of transitioning roles. Wives are sometimes blamed for their husband’s predicament, are assumed to have known about his crime, or are expected to have been able to deter him from his criminal behavior. They not only face this with their initial interactions with police, but from their friends and family as well.
- Massoglia, Remster and Kind (2011) found that divorce is higher in populations that experience stressful life situations, including separation from a spouse and incarceration. Research suggests that incarceration is associated with divorce, but little is known about the reasons for this association. The stigma argument suggests that the negative stigma of incarceration is not only attached to the incarcerated individual, but with those involved in that individual’s life as well. The stress of this stigma may negatively affect their satisfaction with the relationship, leading to its dissolution.
- The separation argument is based on research with military spouses left behind when their significant other has been deployed. It suggests that physical separation leads to deficits in emotional interaction, increases the amount of labor in the spouse left behind, and may decrease compatibility due to changes in the respective spouses. The authors found that physical separation from a spouse is more associated with divorce than the stigma of incarceration. Physical separation limits the ability to maintain an emotional connection. The physical separation related to incarceration has the added stress of financial hardships and increased responsibility for the partner on the outside. Family and friends of wives with incarcerated husbands tend to offer minimal social support because of the stigma (Arditti et al., 2003).
The Stressors of Married while Incarcerated (MWI) Populations
- If minimal peer reviewed literature exists for the SBI population, it is non-existent for the MWI population. Like SBI’s, MWI’s must also endure the stress of being physically separated from their significant others. Similarly, they have to face the same significant barriers to maintaining contact with their imprisoned partner. These include costly visitations, less than ideal visiting conditions, minimal visitation hours, restrictions of movement and physical contact, and lack of privacy (Herman-Stahl, Kan and McKay, 2008).
- An article entitled ‘Dating a man in prison’ (2013) speaks about what to expect and the reality of dating a man in prison. Although this article is directed towards a female population of MWI’s, the advice may speak to the stressors experienced by both male and female MWI’s. The article says to expect high phone bills, long distance visitation, and promises of plans upon release. An MWI relationship requires a time and money commitment that may or may not be anticipated by individuals considering a relationship with an inmate. The article discusses the need to pay for prison talk lines that enable people to accept inmate call on their cell phones. If the inmate is a long distance away, there is the added cost of transportation for visitations that last only a short period of time.
- MWI’s must deal with the stress of fear of being perceived in a negative light if they disclose their relationship to others, and losing the support of their friends and family upon learning of their MWI relationship. An article written by an inmate, entitled ‘12 Tips to Dating a Prisoner,’ offers advice to men and women who have decided to seek out an incarcerated romantic partner. Walker (2015) argues that there are many inmates who are ready to commit to someone on the outside. However, he warns that there are also inmates who are looking to benefit from a romantic arrangement. He emphasizes the importance of patience, perseverance, transparency and good communication. His twelve tips offer some insight as to the unique stressors faced by an individual who is considering a romantic relationship with an inmate.
- Tip number one asks the question, “Have you asked yourself – Why a convict?” He asks individuals to list the reasons since these may provide a foundation to buffer the challenges of dating a person in prison. One of these challenges is the negative stigma associated with the prison population, and the even greater stigma of dating a prisoner one has yet to meet. Regardless of the lists of reasons, most individuals seem to feel labeled as “insane” for considering or engaging in a romantic relationship with an inmate. This leads them to seek support in online communities of other MWI’s. Tip number two advises individuals to get to know other people in a similar situation as a way of understanding all that goes into a prison relationship. He adds that other MWI’s may be able to empathize with the lack of physical contact and provide coping strategies that have worked for them.
- Another stressor experienced by MWI’s is the fear of the unknown. Because they did not meet their significant other in a more traditional manner, there are many questions left unanswered. The process of getting to know an inmate is challenging, given the previously mentioned barriers to communication. Therefore, it may be difficult to learn even basic information about the other person. More importantly, it may be difficult to determine whether the inmate is interested in the relationship in order to manipulate for money or items. ‘Dating a man in prison’ (2013) states that while romantic relationships may be beneficial in many ways to inmates, their partners on the outside may have to endure being emotionally and financially depended upon. It is difficult to really know if the inmate has sincere feelings and can be trusted. The author states that inmates will say all the things their partner wants to hear, but the truth can only be determined by their actions. MWI’s have to manage the possibility of being manipulated by their inmate partner and being confused about the personality of the partner they are learning about through minimal contact.
- Walker (2015) suggests to ask who is on the inmate’s visiting list. This information may serve to rule out the possibility of being used or manipulated. The author stated that the first warning sign is if the inmate refuses to show the approved visiting list. This may mean he or she has something to hide, including a family or other romantic partners. If the inmate has several friends of the opposite sex, then there is a greater likelihood of using these contacts as a means of receiving money or personal items.
- MWI’s can only guess as to the inmate’s character and honesty, and therefore have to take added precautions to protect themselves physically and emotionally. For some, there is stress and concern related to safety and not knowing whether the inmate poses a dangerous threat. Walker (2015) advises to not only ask about the inmate’s conviction, but about the circumstances that led up to the crime as well. In order to ascertain the level of recklessness and potential dangerousness, he asks to consider the number of times the inmate is placed in administrative segregation while incarcerated. This usually occurs after bad behavior and could suggest a red flag.
- In addition, MWI’s have to determine whether they are compatible with their inmate partners. The relative anonymity of a long distance relationship with a person they have not met allows for the development of often misinformed representations of the other. Therefore, they may encounter stress and disappointment upon learning that their partner does not meet those expectations. Walker (2015) advises to ask the question, “Are your expectations realistic?” For people who have never engaged in a relationship with an inmate, there may be an unrealistic idea of what the relationship will entail and the stress associated with it. He suggests that many individuals hope their inmate partner will be released from jail or prison and fix the wrongs in their lives. This expectation may be accentuated by inmates who make promises and paint an ideal picture of their future contributions. These promises may be genuine, but they may also be made in hopes of financial or even emotional support while they are incarcerated.
- In order to determine compatibility, Walker (2015) suggests to question what the inmate does with free time. Some inmates hold jobs while incarcerated. This information may answer some doubts about their ability to provide once released. Inquiring about family ties may also help paint a better picture of the type of partner he or she may make once released, or the types of responsibilities he or she will be willing to have. While SBI’s have a clearer sense of their inmate partner’s contributions when they are out of prison, MWI’s have to try to figure this out in other ways. Sexual compatibility is ever more difficult to ascertain since conjugal visits are not offered in most states. In order to try to determine sexual compatibility or potential issues, MWI’s must gather clues from their phone or letter conversations with inmates. If distance is not an issue, they may also be able to visit in person.