Current Research on Adults
Statistics on Incarceration and Relationships
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) (2015), on December 31, 2014 the United States held a total of 1,561,500 inmates in state and federal correctional facilities. For every 100,000 adults residing in the United States, 612 are currently imprisoned. Updated statistics regarding the marital status of incarcerated individuals are scarce. Unpublished data from the BJS Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities in 1979 and the BJS Survey of Inmates of Local Jails in 1983 suggested 22% of the prison and 21% of the jail populations were married (Zawitz, 1988). These numbers do not take into account the growth of the prison population in the United States since then. Pastore and Maguire (2005) cite a prison population growth of over 500% in the past 25 years, stating that the number of sentenced federal prisoners has increased from 21,539 in 1979 to 143,864 in 2004. In addition, BJS census data from 1979 and 1983 does not account for incarcerated individuals who are unmarried, but whose marital status can be characterized as ‘in a serious committed relationship.’ Therefore, it is fair to assume that a significant portion of the imprisoned population is either married or in a serious committed relationship.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) (2015), on December 31, 2014 the United States held a total of 1,561,500 inmates in state and federal correctional facilities. For every 100,000 adults residing in the United States, 612 are currently imprisoned. Updated statistics regarding the marital status of incarcerated individuals are scarce. Unpublished data from the BJS Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities in 1979 and the BJS Survey of Inmates of Local Jails in 1983 suggested 22% of the prison and 21% of the jail populations were married (Zawitz, 1988). These numbers do not take into account the growth of the prison population in the United States since then. Pastore and Maguire (2005) cite a prison population growth of over 500% in the past 25 years, stating that the number of sentenced federal prisoners has increased from 21,539 in 1979 to 143,864 in 2004. In addition, BJS census data from 1979 and 1983 does not account for incarcerated individuals who are unmarried, but whose marital status can be characterized as ‘in a serious committed relationship.’ Therefore, it is fair to assume that a significant portion of the imprisoned population is either married or in a serious committed relationship.
Solitary Confinement
Solitary confinement of prisoners exists under a range of names: isolation, control units, supermax prisons, the hole, SHUs, administrative segregation, maximum security, or permanent lockdown.
Prisoners can be placed in these units for many reasons: as punishment while they are under investigation; as a mechanism for behavior modification, when suspected of gang involvement; as retribution for political activism; or to fill expensive, empty beds, to name but a few.
Although conditions vary from state to state and in different institutions, systematic policies and conditions of control and oppression used in isolation and segregation include:
Increasingly, isolation units house the mentally ill who struggle to conform to prison rules.
An independent investigation from 2006 reported that as many as 64 percent of prisoners in SHUs were mentally ill, a much higher percentage than is reported by states for their general prison populations. Contrary to the perception that control units house "the worst of the worst," it is often the most vulnerable prisoners, not the most violent, who end up in extended isolation. AFSC's Healing Justice staff worked with 60 Minutes on the production of "The Death of Timothy Souders," a riveting testimony.
Numerous studies have documented the effects of solitary confinement on prisoners giving them the name Special Housing Unit Syndrome or SHU Syndrome. Some of the many SHU Syndrome symptoms include:
In testimony before the California Assembly's Public Safety Committee in August 2011, Dr. Craig Haney discussed the effects of solitary confinement: "In short, prisoners in these units complain of chronic and overwhelming feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and depression. Rates of suicide in the California lockup units are by far the highest in any prison housing units anywhere in the country. Many people held in the SHUs become deeply and unshakably paranoid, and are profoundly anxious around and afraid of people (on those rare occasions when they are allowed contact with them). Some begin to lose their grasp on their sanity and badly decompensate."
Solitary confinement of prisoners exists under a range of names: isolation, control units, supermax prisons, the hole, SHUs, administrative segregation, maximum security, or permanent lockdown.
Prisoners can be placed in these units for many reasons: as punishment while they are under investigation; as a mechanism for behavior modification, when suspected of gang involvement; as retribution for political activism; or to fill expensive, empty beds, to name but a few.
Although conditions vary from state to state and in different institutions, systematic policies and conditions of control and oppression used in isolation and segregation include:
- Confinement behind a solid steel door for 23 hours a day
- Limited contact with other human beings
- Infrequent phone calls and rare non-contact family visits
- Extremely limited access to rehabilitative or educational programming
- Grossly inadequate medical and mental health treatment
- Restricted reading material and personal property
- Physical torture such as hog-tying, restraint chairs, and forced cell extraction
- Mental torture such as sensory deprivation, permanent bright lighting, extreme temperatures, and forced insomnia
- Sexual intimidation and violence
Increasingly, isolation units house the mentally ill who struggle to conform to prison rules.
An independent investigation from 2006 reported that as many as 64 percent of prisoners in SHUs were mentally ill, a much higher percentage than is reported by states for their general prison populations. Contrary to the perception that control units house "the worst of the worst," it is often the most vulnerable prisoners, not the most violent, who end up in extended isolation. AFSC's Healing Justice staff worked with 60 Minutes on the production of "The Death of Timothy Souders," a riveting testimony.
Numerous studies have documented the effects of solitary confinement on prisoners giving them the name Special Housing Unit Syndrome or SHU Syndrome. Some of the many SHU Syndrome symptoms include:
- Visual and auditory hallucinations
- Hypersensitivity to noise and touch
- Insomnia and paranoia
- Uncontrollable feelings of rage and fear
- Distortions of time and perception
- Increased risk of suicide
- PTSD
In testimony before the California Assembly's Public Safety Committee in August 2011, Dr. Craig Haney discussed the effects of solitary confinement: "In short, prisoners in these units complain of chronic and overwhelming feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and depression. Rates of suicide in the California lockup units are by far the highest in any prison housing units anywhere in the country. Many people held in the SHUs become deeply and unshakably paranoid, and are profoundly anxious around and afraid of people (on those rare occasions when they are allowed contact with them). Some begin to lose their grasp on their sanity and badly decompensate."
Incarceration's Impact on Marriages
- Incarceration impacts over two million people at any given moment in the United States (Glaze & Herberman, 2013). Of those currently incarcerated about 25% are thought to be in an active marital relationship (Mumola, 2000). Currently, there is a paucity of research examining the relationships of couples separated by incarceration. Marital relationships are hard to sustain in the best of circumstances, however, the difficulty in maintaining a committed relationship when one partner is in prison becomes and an even greater challenge. The impact of the separation on the relationship cannot be minimized because it affects the functioning of both the imprisoned male and his partner who is forced to become totally self-reliant due to his absence. Thus, with the large number of incarcerated persons in relationships it is critical to examine the impact that incarceration can have on the formation, the stability, and the quality of marital unions.
- It is clear that during incarceration couples that are separated for any period of time are subject to an increase in marital pressure. These couples are forced to deal with many issues like problematic finances, loss of intimacy, and changing family structures that directly impact the sustainability of the relationship. Many times, the incarceration places couples at higher risk for divorce. Siennick, Stewart, and Staff (2014) examined the association between incarceration and divorce over a six-year period among 1,847 married young adults. These researchers used incarceration during the marriage as a predictor of relationship dissolution. They found that respondents who experienced an incarceration during marriage were at an increased risk of that marriage dissolving than did those who did not experience incarceration. Participants who were incarcerated during marriage showed less marital love, more economic strain, and more relationship violence. These marital problems accounted for 40% of the incarceration-divorce association. The findings of this study indicate that those couples who experience incarceration are more likely to divorce and experience greater marital problems.
- Some may argue that marriage is a hard relationship to maintain in any situation and that most couples, whether they are separated by incarceration or not, are still at risk for divorce. It appears that couples that are unable to have close contact and are faced to deal with the stigma of prison may have a higher divorce risk as compared to non-incarcerated couples. Lopoo and Western (2005) found that those men who were incarcerated were nearly twice as likely to divorce or separate compared to those who were never incarcerated (59% vs. 32%). The odds of divorce or separation are multiplied by 3.6 when a man is in prison. The average annual hazard rate for divorce is 4% among men who have not been incarcerated; incarceration is estimated to raise this risk to 13%. Although, this effect was not statistically significant for those post-release, indicating that it maybe the incarceration that is impacting the stability of marriages more so than any other factor.
- The turmoil that incarceration brings with it does not seem to be limited solely to the time span of incarceration. It appears that the turbulence and instability may persist even after the offender is reunited with his family. It may be that the separation is so damaging to the relationship that both partners are unable to repair core issues in the marriage. Apel, Blockland, Nieuwbeerta, and Schellen (2010) wanted to examine the causal impact of imprisonment on marriage dissolution. They used data from the Criminal Career and Life-Course Study, consisting of a sample of 2,790 imprisoned males from the Netherlands. In their sample by age 30, 40% of ever-imprisoned men were married. However, for those men married prior to incarceration, they had a divorce rate that was 56.8% higher than men with convictions but no prison sentence. The higher divorce rate lasted up to five years post release, indicating that the effects of incarceration on marriage leads to marital instability in which offenders may be unable to recover from until years after the incarceration.
- There are multiple factors that may influence why incarceration has such a profound effect on marriages. One theory is that incarceration impacts marriages due to the practical changes in contact and finances. Couples separated by incarceration are often limited to one face-to-face visit a day, if the partner is close enough or has the finances to make the trip daily to see their incarcerated spouse. Couples often experience financial strain, as one breadwinner is now unable to financially provide for the family. Schneller (1975) examined some of these factors when he studied the effects of imprisonment on the families of 93 inmates. He examined changes in social acceptance, change in economic status, and change in the degree of sexual and emotional frustration of the wife. The emotional-sexual change registered the highest frequency of adverse changes due to incarceration. Economic hardships were also subject to adverse consequences and were only mediated by the wife’s ability to obtain and continue employment. As one can imagine there is a tremendous amount of pressure placed on the non-incarcerated partner to maintain the finances as well as absorb the emotional and psychological difficulties associated with being married to an incarcerated man. Another factor that may impact the marriage of couples separated from incarceration is the role transition that couples experience when one partner leaves the home.
- Role transition can put particular stress on the partner who is left to care for the home and children. This partner is required to take on much larger responsibilities that she may not be equipped for. New roles for the non-incarcerated partner may include becoming the primary breadwinner, the sole disciplinarian, and primary caregiver. Moerings (1992) interviewed 14 women whose husbands were either suspected of or convicted for serious offenses and were serving time. He found that the wives of inmates experience role transitions as a result of their husband’s incarceration by having to take on the “Heavy Mother Role,” as she now has to be the mother and father. Many of the women had to rely on extended family or friends. For those who did not have social support outside of their husband felt increased feelings of isolation that often led to alcohol use, drug use, and depressive feelings. As one could imagine this role strain and the potential consequences could impact the quality and stability of the marriage.
- The majority of the current body of literature focuses on the effects of incarceration on the family unit, but little research is dedicated to examining the effects of incarceration on relationships between couples. Turney (2015) discusses the effects of incarceration using Family Stress Theory. She states that non-normative stress, such as incarceration, often leads to the deterioration of families. The available research speaks to the increased likelihood of divorce after incarceration. According to Family Stress Theory, divorce is a common consequence of incarceration. However, few researchers examine its impact on relationship quality prior to marriage dissolution. Therefore, Turney (2015) analyzed the association between recent and current paternal incarceration and relationship quality using the following measures: overall relationship quality, supportiveness, emotional abuse, and physical abuse.
- The results of the study suggested that both men and women reported lower relationship quality when men had experienced a recent incarceration. Women also reported reduced support, and increased emotional and physical abuse. Women reported lower overall relationship quality when their male partners were incarcerated in the past two years. Family Stress Theory provides some explanations for these results. The stress associated with incarceration includes financial hardship, stigmatization and poor mental health. Couples who choose to maintain a relationship after one partner has been incarcerated are faced with many challenges. Should the couple endure these challenges, the effects of the stress do not subside once the incarcerated partner has been released. In fact, reintroduction to society creates an additional stressor to overcome. Therefore, relationship quality does not seem to improve in the aftermath of a recent incarceration.
Incarceration's Impact on Families
- The average inmate serves 2.9 years behind bars (Laudano, 2010). Depending on the crime the sentence can range from 5 years for a violent crime, 2.2 years for a drug related crime, or 2.3 years for a property related crime (Laudano, 2010). This means that for those inmates in romantic relationship, they can expect to spend about three years separated from their significant other. Three years is a significant amount of time to be separated from someone you love.
- There are over two million people incarcerated at any given moment in the United States, with a large percentage of these persons engaged in some kind of romantic relationship with a non-incarcerated partner (Glaze & Herberman, 2013; Kecskes, 2014). Based on a special report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, it appeared that 22.2% of state and federal prisoners were married, 25.2% separated or divorced, 1.8% widowed, and 50.8% never married (Mumola, 2000). It is not clear how many nonmarried inmates are currently in relationships, or of the level of commitment and length, but in an Oklahoma sample, 50% of the inmate participants who were analyzed were not married but in some ongoing romantic relationship (Einhorn, Williams, Stanley, Wunderlin, Markman, & Eason, 2008). The other 50% reported being married (Einhorn, Williams, Stanley, Wunderlin, Markman, & Eason, 2008). That means, according to this sample, nearly all incarcerated persons were in some kind of romantic relationship.
- Evidence suggests these relationships seldom last. Divorce is higher in populations with stressful life situations, such as incarceration or separation from a spouse (Massoglia, Remster, & King, 2011; Travis, Cincotta, & Solomon, 2003). For example, Lyman (2005) found that when the incarcerated spouse is imprisoned longer than 12 months, 80% of the relationships in which the male partner is incarcerated, and all of the relationships in which the female partner is incarcerated, end in divorce. Other studies (e.g., Moerings, 1992; Schneller, 1975) have described substantial negative emotional, sexual, and financial changes, as well as role transitions and distress, in the relational dynamics of couples across the incarceration period of one of the partners.
- The relationship satisfaction of couples, in which one person is incarcerated, can have substantial impact on the inmate’s mental health and their behaviors in prison. For female inmates, a lack of social support is connected to greater symptoms of depression, hopelessness, anxiety, and lower self-esteem (Asberg & Renk, 2014). Specifically, women’s perceptions of their social support predicted their symptoms of depression and anxiety (Asberg & Renk, 2014). Findings have also indicated that female inmates in romantic relationships were likely to experience increased anger and hostility, as well as increased disciplinary problems while in prison (Jiang, Fisher-Giorlando, & Mo, 2005). It is likely that male inmates would have similar experiences. Disconnection from one’s partner can lead to a myriad of problems, but very few studies have looked at male prisoners and the effects of the separation from their significant other. Furthermore, a lack of social support from relationships outside of prison have been linked to increased monthly violent and drug/property related violations for both female and male inmates. (Jiang, Fisher-Giorlando, & Mo, 2005). The studies listed above assess the relationship satisfaction of couple’s based on the inmate’s perspective. Very few studies consider the perspective of the non-incarcerated partner.
- However, it appears that at least a portion of couples separated by incarceration manage to stay together, even after prison sentences of considerable duration (Kecskes, 2014). The nature and quality of romantic relationships in which one partner is incarcerated, and the risk and protective factors associated with positive outcomes among these relationships, are under-emphasized subjects in the forensic literature. Quantitative research that explores both the institutional and individual levels of prison misconduct has been rare, and even recent additions to the literature have ignored social support and relationship satisfaction variables (Camp, Gaes, Langan, & Saylor, 2003; Huebner, 2003; Wooldredge, Griffin, & Pratt, 2001). Social support, more specifically, a healthy marriage can have substantial positive impact on the incarcerated partner both inside prison and upon release.
- Several prison-specific studies have suggested that both male and female inmates who maintain strong family ties are better able to cope while in prison, have fewer disciplinary problems while incarcerated, and are less likely to recidivate after release from prison (Howser, Grossman, & Macdonald, 1983; Kemp, Glaser, & Page, 1992; Lanier, 1993). Married men, especially those who assumed responsible husband and parenting roles upon release, experienced more successful transitions from prison to home than did single men (Hairston, 1988; Hairston & Lockett, 1987). Among married men, those who reported having a happy marriage experienced more successful transitions than those who described their marriages as characterized by conflict (Fishman, 1986). Prosocial support mechanisms, particularly those originating outside the prison, may reduce the occurrence of official rule violations in prison (Gordon, 1999; Toch & Adams, 1989). In a meta-analysis conducted by Dowden and Andrews (1999), interpersonal variables, such as self-reported degree of affection in relationships, were the strongest predictors of offenders’ successful rehabilitation. However, as stated before, these studies examine relationship satisfaction from the perspective of the inmate and not the perspective of the non-incarcerated partner.
The Role of Social Support in Managing Negative Behaviors in Prison Populations
- Social support is seen as a protective factor for a person to not engage in criminal or anti-social activities (Leverentz, 2006). Marriage is an even stronger protective factor, for a person to not engage in criminal activities, because it might cause issues in the relationship. Incarcerated persons are, on average, separated from their significant other and social support systems for three years (Laudano, 2010). Incarcerated persons spend the majority of their time with other inmates or alone. Therefore, the impact of social support on incarcerated persons may have a more pronounced effect, as they value those connections more than those who have continual access to social support.
- Marriages may lead to a decrease in anti-social behavior due to the consequences criminal activities may have on the relationship. For example, a husband may not want to break a law for fear that it will cause arguments or hurt feelings within the relationship. Furthermore, marriages may provide recourses such as stable housing, two incomes, and positive social relationships that lead to decrease in the likeliness that someone will engage in criminal activities. If a person is getting their social and financial needs met through a relationship, they may be less likely to engage in criminal activities such a theft or assaults. Schellen, Apel, and Nieuwbeerta (2012) examined the relationship between marriage and crime in a high-risk sample of Dutch men and women. The researchers used data from the Criminal Career and Life-Course Study, yielding a sample of 4,615 persons. Being married is associated with a significant decrease in conviction frequency relative to being single. This was true for male as well as female offenders. Being married significantly lowers conviction frequency by 27 % among males and 55 % among females, on average and all else equal. Furthermore, criminal history prior to the marriage did not impact the effect of marriage. In fact, men with lengthy conviction histories benefited in a quite pronounced way from these marriages. It appears as if simply being married is a protective factor for those to not commit their first crime or for those with a criminal history to not re-offend.
- Marriage may protect people from acting in antisocial behaviors because of the fear of consequences or problems in the marriage. Furthermore, stable marriages may prevent those who have engaged in criminal activities in the past from continuing to engage in them. Once you are in a happy marriage, you may not want to engage in criminal behaviors for fear of upsetting the relationship or losing one’s partner. Sampson, Laub, and Wimer (2006) also theorized that it was not marriage alone that reduced crime but it was the stability of the marriage that reduces the potential for criminal behavior. They examined a sample of 500 high-risk boys who were followed until the age of 32.The researchers found that being married is associated with a significant reduction in the probability of crime, averaging approximately 35 percent across key models. There is something about being married, at least during the young adult years, which inhibits crime regardless of the quality of the marriage and even the criminal involvement of the spouse. However, in this study, marital quality was measured by marriage attachment based on answers to questions in an interview. No empirical measures of marital quality based on the perceptions of those in the marriage were given. Marriage appears to have an effect on the criminal behavior of non-incarcerated persons. Marriage may also have an effect on the behaviors of inmates while incarcerated.
- It has been theorized that it is not simply being married that reduces criminal behavior but that being in a good marriage is the causal factor that reduces criminal behaviors. Marriages rife with turmoil may lead to increases in conflict and tension within the relationship causing the marriage to no longer be as strong of a protective factor. Leverentz (2006) conducted qualitative interviews with 49 female ex-offenders and their romantic partners to explore the impact of romantic relationships on desistance. Desistance is defined as the cessation of antisocial or criminal behavior. The researchers found that relationships can lead to desistance or lead to re-offending, depending on when the relationship is examined. The findings indicate that relationships develop over time and are better understood as a process. The researchers stipulated that for a romantic relationship to be a deterrent to re-offending, the relationship must be strong. However, it is difficult to quantify what is meant by a strong relationship. Further research needs to target what are the specific factors that associated with a “strong” relationship.
- The behaviors of incarcerated persons are critical to study, not only to gain a better understanding into their motivations for their behaviors but also for the safety of the institutions. If links can be made between strong relationships and positive inmate behavior, institutions can implement more programs to foster these kinds of relationships. In order to examine the link between marriage and inmate behavior, Steiner and Wooldredge (2008) used data from 19,850 incarcerated males to examine the impact of the environment on inmate rule violations. The found a statistically significant effect of being married reducing the likeliness of an inmate engaging in an assault on an officer and on another inmate. Indicating that marriage can serve as a protective factor against violence for incarcerated males.
- Whether male or female, married inmates are not afforded the privileges of continuous contact with their marital partners. Married inmates therefore, may be less likely to violate rules in prison because of the potential for losing the minimal amount of contact they are able to have with their partners. Jiang, Fisher-Giorlando, and Mo (2005) posited that marriages could be used to explain inmate behavior both for male and female inmates. They examined the effect of social support on inmate misconduct on 9,107 inmates. They found that married inmates were less likely to commit rule violations than unmarried inmates. Being married decreased the expected rule violation rate by 14%. Social support was also significantly related to inmate’s participation in vocational programs and participation in religious groups, which increases their likeliness of successful reunification upon release.
- Marriages may not only reduce the number of rule violation; they may also increase the ability of the inmate to adjust to life in prison. While they may be unable to have continuous contact, just knowing the person is there and standing by them through incarceration may ease some of the stress that comes with adjusting to prison life. Similarly, Jiang and Winfree (2006) hypothesized that social support would reduce inmate monthly rule violations. Thirteen thousand two hundred and fifty-five interviews were completed with both male and female inmates. The researchers found that married male inmates were less likely to commit rule violations than were unmarried ones by 23%. Marital status was not significant for female inmates. Furthermore, they found that married male inmates make better adjustments to prison. Therefore, efforts made to maintain marital ties between inmates and their non-incarcerated partners benefit not only the couple but the institution as well. It appears as if simply being married leads to less rule violations in prison for both men and women. However, it is unclear as to whether the quality of the marriage further impacts inmate behavior. The studies presented indicate that marriage has an effect on inmate behavior but minimal research has been conducted examining the quality of the marriage and how that relates to inmate behavior.
- As stated previously, it may not be simply a marriage that leads to a decrease in antisocial or criminal behaviors. Inmates with better quality marriages may be less likely to break the rules, as they do not want to lose contact privileges or lengthen their sentence. In order to determine if the quality of social support makes a difference, Bales and Mears (2008) examined whether visitations whether from parent, spouse, significant other, child, relative, friend, or other would reduce recidivism in a sample of 7,000 inmates from the Florida Department of Corrections Offender-Based Information System. Inmates were separated as to whether they were male or female and whether they were White or Non-White. Recidivism was defined as whether inmates were convicted of new felonies resulting in sentences within two years following release. They found a greater reduction in the odds of recidivism among those who experiences spousal visitation compared with those who had no spousal visitation. Findings indicated that when comparing the different persons who could have visited, spousal visitation had the strongest effect with the frequency of visits associated with reduced recidivism. Interestingly, the effects of spousal visitation on recidivism were strongest for Non-Whites. The effect of marriage alone was not significant. The couple needed to experience visits with each other in order for the marriage to impact recidivism. Their findings suggest that it is not just being married but being able to communicate and interact with the partner that lends to marriage being a protective factor for criminal behavior.
Marital Satisfaction of Couple's Separated by Incarceration
- For the general population, greater relationship satisfaction has been linked to greater psychological well-being and physical well-being (Holt-Lunstead, Birmingham & Jones, 2008; Khanam, Abbas, & Moghal, 2010; Liu, 2009). Currently, only a handful of studies examine the relationship satisfaction of couples separated by incarceration. Couples separated by incarceration must maintain their relationship with a very limited amount of time for interaction. Visits are often few and far between, particularly if the non-incarcerated partner does not live close to the prison. Even if the person is able to visit frequently, visits can only happen once a day and are often limited to a few hours. Several studies have examined specific factors of the relationships of couples separated by incarceration, such as intimacy and loneliness.
- As one would imagine, it is hard to maintain intimate ties with a partner you are not able to be inmate with. Even during visitation many prisons have no contact rules that prevent couples from physically touching each other. Comfort, Grinstead, McCartney, Bourgois, and Knight (2005) examined how incarceration impacted couple’s intimacy. They interviewed 20 women who visit their incarcerated partners in San Quentin. Four types of visits take place at San Quentin: noncontact (during which the prisoner and his visitor are separated by glass and talk through a speaker system), Death Row (held in small cubicles containing the prisoner and his visitors), contact (held in cafeteria-style rooms in which prisoners and their visitors can walk around or sit next to each other), and family visits (overnight stays arranged for prisoners and their legal wives or other nuclear relatives that take place in specially designated trailers). Family visits are the only sanctioned forum for sexual interaction. Higher security inmates have to visit in enclosed spaced while the lowest security prisoners enjoy an outdoor area to visit. Women described their frustration with the rule enforcement and scrutiny of their potential for sexual interactions hurtful and frustrating. Many of the women voiced their frustration that no contact is allowed, as many stated they would not want to be sexual in such a dirty place, but they felt caressing a cheek or resting hands on shoulders are wholesome acts suitable to the maintenance of a relationship. The researchers found that the strict rules against touching while incarcerated lead to unprotected sexual intercourse and other high-risk behaviors following the release from prison. The findings of this study indicate that the lack of intimate contact during the incarceration period can have long-lasting impacts on the couple. Lack of intimate contact can exacerbate the loneliness and isolation that inmates experience. There is no place to experience or express emotional intimacy, which leads many inmates to feeling a great sense of alienation.
- Inmates are often housed in dorm rooms that are overcrowded but can feel an overwhelming amount of loneliness due to the lack of contact with their social support systems outside of prison. While inmates may form friendships or relationships with other inmates, loneliness can still prevail when thinking about one’s family and friends outside of prison. Rokach and Koledin (1997) examined the loneliness in a sample of 145 male offenders and 112 men from the general population. The researchers found that the level of loneliness was higher for inmates than men in the general population. Offenders scored significantly higher on the growth and discovery and interpersonal isolation factors. Those offenders who had a relationship and lost it (as a result of death or marital dissolution) more typically experience the pain and emotional distress, sense of alienation, and absence of intimacy that characterize loneliness.
- Based on theses studies one could conclude that increasing the amount of time that couples separated by incarceration spend together would increase their relationship quality. If it simply being around social support that the inmates are missing, increasing visitation time would override the effects of incarceration on couple’s relationship satisfaction. Carlson and Cervera (1991) examined the relationship between incarceration, coping, and support. They used a sample of 63 male inmates and 38 of their wives. Their sample was noted as predominantly non-white. The intervention sample participated in the Family Reunification Program (FRP) in an attempt to solidify and support family ties. The Family Reunification Program gave the families more visitation time with each other. All participants then went through a semi-structured interview as well as the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scales (FACES III) and the Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F-COPES). No significant difference was found between those who participated in the program and those who did not. One reason there may not have been a difference, is that the FRP program only increased the time that the couple spent together. The program did not do anything to increase the relationship quality of the couple.
- While the FRP did not improve the relationship quality, the same researchers Carlson and Cervera (1991) thought the FRP would impact the cohesiveness and closeness of inmates and their wives. For this study, they used a sample of 63 inmates and 39 wives with a large percentage of the sample being Non-White (78%). Cohesion scores for those receiving FRP and those who did not were in the normal range indicating the sample was comprised of family members with bonds and clear marital coalition. However, adaptability, which focuses on the ability of the marital system to change, was at the low end for inmates and wives in both conditions. This finding indicates rigidity in maintaining their former marital system prior to the incarceration. No statistically significant effect was found for participation in FRP, again indicating that an increase in visitation alone does not impact cohesion or closeness of a marital couple. While purely increasing face-to-face visitation time appears to have minimal impact on a marital couple’s relationship, programs that offer couples skills and tools to deal with the challenges of their unique situation may show improvement in the couple’s satisfaction.
- Couples separated by incarceration are faced with a myriad of challenges unique to their situation. It is not surprising that many of these couples may be ill equipped to deal with these challenges. Couples must maintain intimate connections with very little physical contact. Couples must raise children, if they have any, and maintain a household while physically separated. Also couples must have profound trust for their partners to be able to maintain relationships while not physically together. Programs designed to educate couples on how to cope with the stresses involved in staying married to an inmate may bolster the relationship quality of these couples. In order to enhance the relationship quality of couples separated by incarceration. Shamblen, Arnold, Mckiernan, Collins, and Strader (2013) implemented the Creating Lasting Family Connections Marriage Enhancement Program (CLFCMEP) to 230 married male inmates in the Kentucky Department of Corrections. Twenty married men were not given the intervention and were used as the comparison group. The CLFCMEP focuses on topics such as marriage enrichment, effective communication, refusal and conflict resolution skills, positive parenting techniques, and encouraging responsible and healthy attitudes towards substance use. Participants then completed a questionnaire about various relationship skills at three points (pre, post, follow-up). There was a significant difference between the intervention group and the comparison group for communication skills, conflict resolution skills, emotional awareness, and inter-personal skills, with those receiving the intervention having greater use of these skills. Furthermore, enhanced relationship skills were seen both in the incarcerated men and their wives for the intervention group.
- Any intervention that can increase dialogue about relationship issues such as conflict resolution, trust, and communication will be seen as positive interventional strategy as it gives the couple a place to voice their concerns and decreases the sense of isolation. Other marital enhancement programs such as the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program, developed by Einhorn, Williams, Stanley, Wunderlin, Markman, and Eason (2008) has been used to examine the effects of marriage education on couple’s where one partner is incarcerated. These researchers used a sample of 116 male and 138 female inmates in Oklahoma facilities. Chaplains and staff attended a 3-day Prevention and Relationship Education Program and implemented the program to the participants. The present findings suggest that participating in the workshop was related to higher levels of reported relationship confidence and dedication, positive changes in communication, more relationship satisfaction and friendship, lower levels of negative interactions, and feeling less lonely.
Benefits of Family Support on the Inmate
- The improvement in the quality of the marital relationship between offender and their wives increases the chances for a successful probation and reduces the likelihood of offender recidivism (Carlson & Cervera, 1991a).
- Families who participated in the Relationship Enhancement Program rated the program as very helpful in meeting their needs and reported high levels of satisfaction with the program **The program is described in the services section
- This case study found that the support of parents on a young woman whose partner was incarcerated prevented her from being vulnerable to social isolation and financial hardship (Reeves, 2011).
The Effects of Incarceration on Families and the Inmates
- Schneller (1975) found that the emotional-sexual change registered the highest frequency of adverse changes due to incarceration. Economic hardships were also subject to adverse consequences and were only reduced by welfare, public housing, and the ability of the wife to obtain and continue employment
- Prison wives use a variety of coping strategies, most commonly family support and religion, the need to preserve for the sake of children, maintaining a positive attitude, and substantial contact with extended families and neighbors (Carlson & Cervera, 1991b)
- Moerings (1992) found that wives of inmates experience role transitions in response to their husband’s incarceration by having to take on the Heavy Mother Role, as she now has to be the mother and father. They may then have to rely more heavily on their extended family. Moerings suggest that one of the most difficult situations can find themselves in is when they lose contact with friends. A lack of social support increases feelings of isolation. Isolation can lead to alcohol, drug use, and depressive feelings.
- One way to reduce the strain of role transitions is to begin to prepare for their new roles before the incarceration. Another way is to keep conflicting roles apart from each other. Meaning hiding a significant others incarceration and trying to operate under former and new roles can cause stress and strain. (Moerings, 1992)
- Those incarcerated have multiple psychosocial problems that need to be addressed such as drug abuse- 86% had polysubstance abuse, often report abuse or neglect in their childhood, depression, self-esteem, personal stress, aggression, problems with family, and problems with friends. (Sheridan, 1996)
- Most children with incarcerated parents experience a broad range of emotions, including fear, anxiety, anger, sadness, loneliness, and guilt. They may exhibit low self-esteem, depression, and emotional withdrawal from friends and family. They may also begin to act out inappropriately, become disruptive in the classroom, or engage in other antisocial behaviors. Often, their academic performance deteriorates and they develop other school-related difficulties. These emotional and behavioral difficulties have been linked to a variety of factors, including the stress of parent-child separation, the child's identification with the incarcerated parent, social stigma, and attempts to deceive children about their parents' incarceration. Child welfare workers are legally mandated to facilitate parent/child visits when such visits are not detrimental to the child. Visiting can decrease the stress of separation, enable children to maintain relationships with parents, and increase the likelihood of successful reunification. (Seymour, 1998)
- Children of incarcerated parents are at increased risk of out-of-home placement as well as intergenerational patterns of incarceration due to the increase poverty, trauma, stigmatization, and inadequate quality of care that often accompanies the incarceration of a parent (Johnson, Selber, & Lauderdale, 1998).
- Lindquist (2000) found that social relationships outside of prison are associated with higher levels of distress. Specially, married inmates report higher levels of depression and anxiety, and inmates with close social relationships inside jail report higher levels of hostility.
- These findings suggest that children whose fathers have been incarcerated receive less in financial support than their counterparts whose fathers have no history of incarceration. The incarceration of a father has substantial economic consequences for child well-being. Men with incarceration histories contribute approximately $1,300 less to their families than do men who have never been incarcerated. The analysis indicates that formerly incarcerated fathers make only small financial contributions to their children because of their diminished participation in the labor market and the instability of their family and romantic relationships (Geller, 2011).
- The impact of imprisonment on mental health is likely more fluid in nature, with women’s own physical health, social support, access to resources, maturity level, and life experiences playing significant roles in their immediate perceptions of mental health. Similarly, adaptation to incarceration, especially among women serving long sentences, likely plays a role in women’s perceptions of their mental health (Harner & Riley, 2012).
- Many of the women prison population have experienced violence and abuse and may mask this by problematic drug and/or alcohol use as well as self-injury. These are key areas that training programs for prison staff need to address (MacDonald, 2013)
The Effects of Visitation
- Marital ties can be reinforced and reaffirmed thought even minimal telephone contact. Even minimum contact can allow men the ability to maintain their roles as fathers and husbands and make decisions (Fishman, 1988)
- However, contact can be used to establish authority and dominance keeping wives in their own prison by putting their lives on hold until their husband comes back (Fishman, 1988)
- A study of 63 inmates and 39 wives compared those with conjugal visits and those without on their family cohesion and adaptability. Results showed cohesion scores for all groups were in the normal range indicating that family members remained bonded, have clear boundaries, and clear marital coalition. Adaptability was on the low end of for both groups suggesting are able to adapt even without the physical presence of the inmate (Carlson & Cervera, 1991a).
- Hensley, Koscheski, and Tewksbury (2002) found that conjugal visits did not reduce the likeliness of inmate on inmate violence (verbal or physical).
- While visitations have benefits they can also be difficult. Arditti (2003) found that families visiting inmates sometimes find that visits go really bad, sometimes go okay, and sometimes go good. The lack of physical contact, lack of privacy, long waits, and short visitations can make this experience problematic. She also found that the conditions of the jail and the treatment of the jail staff can turn a visit into a sour experience. She also noted that just because you show up to a visitation day does not mean that you will actually get to see the inmate. She also found that families relied on each other for support. Visiting families can connect with other visiting families since they experience the same difficulties.
- More than two thirds of the respondents reported that staying in touch with family was difficult, with the most frequently cited barriers to contact being that the prison was located too far away and that telephone calls were too expensive Visits from partners predicted higher post-release relationship quality and support for respondents who reported high levels of family relationship quality before prison and predicted lower levels of family relationship quality and support for those who reported low levels of family relationship quality before prison. The nature of the type of in-prison contact may also play a role in influencing post-release relationships, with in-person visits more critical for relationships with children and partners, and phone calls or mail more important for relationships with other family members. These findings suggest that prisoner relationships with family, and particularly children, can be improved through increased contact during incarceration but that visits with intimate partners can have a positive or negative effect, depending on the nature of family relationships prior to the respondent’s incarceration. Nonetheless, contact with family helps to improve the quality of family relationships and level of family support after release. (Vigne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005).
- Bales and Mears (2008) found that inmates who were visited while in prison were 30.7% less likely to reoffend upon release compared to inmates who were not visited. They also found that the amount of visitation made a difference; for each additional visit an inmate received the odds of reoffending declined by 3.8%. Spousal visitation had the largest effect but parent, friend, and non-family visits had an effect as well. Interestingly child visits were associated with a higher risk of re-offending.
- Dixey and Woodall (2012) found that although families are highly motivated to visit their loved ones, visits could be traumatic and unsettling. Seeing a loved one in that environment can cause anxiety, stress, and worry. Loved ones may feel angry and resentful at the system that took their loved one away. When the prisoners were interviewed they looked at visits as “one of [their] only highlights” and “something to look forward to. “ Visits for prisoners can elevate temporarily a prisoner’s well being and function as a buffer against the stressful prison environment. Some prisoners elect to not have their family visit and they feel strongly that their wish should be respected, as they made the decision to benefit the family member(s).
- Research shows that a visit should be viewed as a positive experience for both the woman and the visitor, as it allows time to see loved ones, share stories, maintain contact and can reduce stress. Reported positive experiences of past visits by women include a more optimistic self-evaluation of their own mental or physical health following visits and a positive influence on mood and emotional wellbeing, easing the often distressing nature of imminent release and resettlement into the community. WIP also report experiencing negative feelings and emotions leading up to, during, and after the visit indicating that the visiting experience is one filled with mixed emotions and is regularly described as ‘‘bittersweet.’’ Literature has identified that women experience an assortment of emotions following a visit, ranging from gratitude to envy. (Motte, Bailey, & Ward, 2012)
Fatherhood Behind Bars
- Children when fathers are incarcerated 40% experienced emotional and interactional difficulties and 20% experienced behavioral problems (Lowenstein, 1986)
- Incarcerated fatherhood was characterized by impotence and the inability to carry out fathering functions. Indeed, prison and the resultant loss of control relative to children was perceived as stripping a man of his fathering identity. For some inmates, incarceration was a catalyst for new fathering intentions. Being a good father after release centered around intentions of starting over and setting things right with children (and sometimes their mothers), getting close to children, “being there” for children, and “making a difference.” Men in the study provided thick description regarding their inability to have contact with their family members, the inability to help their families, particularly their children, and being “out of the loop” with regard to information pertaining to the family. Issues around a lack of control also extended to interactions with children’s mothers and are presented in the section on co-parenting. It is worth pointing out that men’s motivations for contact with their family members or children while imprisoned may not simply reflect a desire to be a part of children’s lives or a good father. Contact seemed to have specific benefits for the inmate rooted in the need to feel remembered, or as a welcome distraction from a highly routinized life “behind the fence.” (Arditti, Smock, & Parkman, 2005)
- Imprisoned men who are fathers have to create their own personalized fathering role script. 19 Men’s stated they felt they were “not very good at being a father” or “some trouble being a father” when in prison. Also, one quarter of the men felt some loss of the closeness with their child while in prison. The experience of being unable to make an economic contribution to family welfare hurt the father’s identity. The strain of “taking and not giving” and knowing that the family was suffering financially because of imprisonment was difficult to manage for those men who cared. For some men, being in prison had created a positive opportunity to end their criminal life-style and resurrect fatherly commitment and responsibility. Prison can offer a time of personal reflection for inmates and in some cases overcome alcohol and drug abuse. In prison, where direct contact is either impossible or limited, other forms of communication become more significant. Men describe how hearing the sound of their child could be significant in “getting me through the day.” They found a significant association between fathers’ perceived in-prison intimate couple relationship quality and frequency of visitation between fathers and their children. More than 80% of fathers who have at least monthly contact with their target child also report a “good” or “excellent” current intimate couple relationship. By contrast, 70% who never see their target child report a “very poor/poor” or “fair” current couple relationship (Clarke et al., 2005).
- While incarceration does, in the immediate sense, often succeed in interrupting the injurious activities of the incarcerated, it also interrupts the continuation or assumption of many activities that are beneficial to society. Indeed, fathers are unable to enact many of the supportive roles they play while incarcerated. This not only negatively impacts the child but also has great potential for negative impact on the father since he is unable to confirm his identity as a father (Dyer, 2005).
- 48% of men had some experience of the mothers of their children discourage their involvement as parents. They were not allowed to make decisions or interact with their children. Sometimes this was due to a new husband or boyfriend attempting to replace the father’s role. 74% of men had mothers encourage the men’s involvement despite incarceration. Empathy and emotional support for fathering opportunities were vital for the men during incarceration. 26% of the men said that they experienced both encouragement and discouragement. These fathers greatest fear was being isolated or replaced (Roy & Dyson, 2005).
- Any in-person contact as well as the occurrence and frequency of mail and phone calls were significant predictors of attachment to children after release (Vigne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005).
- The fathers in this study were clear that the best form of parenting support they could receive whilst in prison was help with maintaining contact with their children and families, with 75% of respondents emphasizing the need for longer, more frequent or less disturbed visits with their children. A further 18% referred to the need for additional support with managing as a parent in prison, in terms of further courses or general help in coping with the emotional difficulties of being a father in prison (Meek, 2007).
Mothering Behind Bars
- This study found that the girl scouts behind bars program increases and improves the quality of mother-daughter visits, and helps to preserve or enhance the mother-daughter bond. In addition, there is evidence that GSBB may enhance the daughters' sense of self and reduce some of their separation problems. Seventy percent of the mothers and 52% of the caregivers reported that the daughters suffered emotional problems (depression, sadness, anger); behavioral problems (withdrawal, crying, bed-wetting, rudeness, fighting, disobedience); and school problems (lowered grades, disobedience, suspension) in response to their mothers' incarceration (Block & Potthast, 1998)
- The typical incarcerated mother described by this investigation experiences a significant amount of stress and has multiple concerns about her children. Mothers’ stress, as measured by the Sense of Competence subscale of the PSI, indicated high levels of distress related to self-perceived skill and competence as a parent. Mothers in this sample evidenced significant psychological distress. Levels of anxiety, depression, and somatization were well above normative levels for a non-incarcerated sample. Mothers who reported more stress regarding visitation reported higher levels of overall emotional adjustment difficulties and anxiety. Inmates described numerous emotional consequences of visits, including the anxiety associated with waiting for the visit; worry over how children, caretakers, other inmates, and prison staff will act and react; distress that the visit will be too short or too long; and anxiety about how it will feel when the visit is over (Houck & Loper, 2002).
- They show us that a rupture in the mother’s attachment to her child moves her from anxiety to depression and then to despair. They remind us that mothers marginalized by society whether through poverty, imprisonment, mental illness, or immigration status nevertheless retain strong maternal ties and suffer greatly when separated from their children, with common responses. Conditions that maintain the attachment bond mitigate the impact of the separation for the mother: contact between mother and child; the mother’s control over some of the circumstances of the separation; the presence of support in her role as mother; the mother’s knowledge that her child is safe and in good hands; and the ability to find a larger purpose or meaning in the separation. With better attention to the mother’s experience, we can benefit both mother and child (Schen, 2005).
- The proportion of adult offspring who reported formal contact with the criminal justice system was small, but they were significantly more likely to have been convicted of a crime and to have served time on probation than the adult children of mothers who were not incarcerated. Similarly, maternal absence due to other reasons appeared to be of great importance, but the effect of maternal absence due to other reasons was smaller than mother’s absence due to maternal incarceration (Huebner & Gustafson, 2007).
- The data were organized into five main themes that seemed to permeate the mothers’ experience of motherhood in prison: 1) Motherhood in prison as a motive for survival; in this category children were used as boundaries of sanity: mothers struggle to maintain contact with the children. They sometimes take care of other women’s children within the prison. The final step was acknowledging motherhood 2) The sense of failure experienced by mothers in prison 3) Coping versus avoidance in the mother-child relationship during imprisonment; Which either was avoiding contact with the children or containing the pain and maintaining contact with the children 4) Motherhood in prison as a motive for change 5) The transition from questioning the right to be a mother to redeeming motherhood. (Shamai, & Kochal, 2008)
- The findings, however, are somewhat different from the common view that being in prison breaks off and damages the relationships between prisoners and their family members. According to the findings of this study, the prison experience, although painful, can contribute to an improvement in maternal functioning, even in cases where the parent–child relationship was problematic before imprisonment. (Shamai, & Kochal, 2008)
- Important for effective coping in prison is a mother’s need to maintain her maternal identity. Incarcerated mothers experience many anxieties related to unresolved issues with interim caregivers who care for the child during a mother’s incarceration. The mother in custody may begin to question their ability and competencies as a mother, leading to a downward spiral in self-esteem. A visit permits the female to regain her maternal role and lose the ‘‘prisoner’’ identity, suggested to be an extremely empowering and positive experience (Motte, Bailey, & Ward, 2012)
The Effects of Therapy on Incarcerated Persons
- The first author administered cognitive behavioral therapy to a group of nine prisoners. The intervention aimed at (a) identifying the individual triggering events that led to self-harm, (b) recognizing the thoughts and feelings that these motivating factors produced, (c) accepting the distorted thinking and the resultant emotions, (d) changing distorted thinking, (e) accepting and becoming comfortable with the more adaptive thoughts and emotions, and (f) developing alternative adaptive coping skills. The number of deliberate self-harm episodes was minimal during the therapy, and after intervention evaluations did not report any act of deliberate self-harm. There was also an improvement in the mean scores of the adaptive coping methods (Riaz & Agha, 2012).
- There has been support for art therapy as a valuable tool. Artistic expression is a fundamental component of prison. This is evidenced through craft shops, inmate-painted wall murals, decorative envelopes that inmates use to send letters to loved ones, and intricate tattoos designed and displayed with pride. The ability to create “good art” is a status builder and can earn respect and friendship for the artist from his or her peers. It has also been demonstrated that art making decreased the number of disciplinary reports written and recidivism as measured during a 6-month and a 2-year period of time. Incarcerated persons who participated in art therapy reported an elevation in mood, an improvement in attitude, and greater cooperation with the staff and their peers (Gussak, 2007).
- Art therapy affords a climate in which feelings of isolation and alienation can be dissipated, and a sense of belonging engendered. For the client in therapy, who is unable to relate easily to other people, who is also perhaps unable to relate to herself, the image making process may play a fundamental part in enabling her to begin to do so. To make something that can be seen can authenticate her experience and even her existence. In execution and content, the picture reveals evidence of the true person rather than how they choose to present or see themselves. In broadening the range of perceptual experiences and exercising imagination one ’ s mind doesn’t simply change; it grows. It grows not only because of the variety, but also through deepening and sharing experiences (Wylie, 2007).
- Group psychotherapy with offenders demonstrated unequivocal positive treatment effects across a range of outcomes. Specifically, positive treatment effects were noted for institutional adjustment, anger, anxiety, depression, interpersonal relations, locus of control, and self-esteem. The goals of group therapy are to: (1) Self-Exploration and Coping Skills--focuses on the importance of inmates' learning about oneself while developing effective coping skills such as, conflict resolution, impulse/anger control, appropriate self-esteem and assertiveness, managing stress and moods, and developing more realistic thoughts. (2) Group Relationship Building and Cooperation—focuses on interpersonal dynamics, as well as the development of relationships and coping skills within a cohesive, supportive group environment. (3) Substance Abuse--focuses on issues of substance abuse/dependency problems, and reducing addictive behaviors. (4) Prosocial Behavior and Healthy Lifestyle--focuses on the importance of preparing for life outside of prison to include personal growth and the acquisition of appropriate social skills, development of a healthy lifestyle (i.e., diet, career, and leisure activities), developing stress management skills, and processing existential issues (e.g., meaning of life outside of prison as a non-criminal). (5) Institutional Adjustment--refers to inmate's need to cope with their incarceration and deal with prison life, including coping with the existential issues of incarceration. (Morgan, Kroner, & Mills, 2006)
- Self-report measures indicated that music therapy assisted the participants in achieving increased levels of relaxation, a reduction in stress, and an increase in self-expression. Results suggested that song writing and song parody (substituting lyrics into pre-composed material) consistently allowed for self-expression, while vocal recreation (singing of familiar songs) and listening to songs being sung assisted in relaxation. Singing, writing songs, song parody, and listening to songs being sung, were all identified by the participants as assisting in the reduction of stress and levels of anger and frustration. Music therapy literature and results from this descriptive study report that music therapy can be used in the correctional setting to reduce tension and anxiety, while also increasing motivation and ties with reality (Lindforss, & Magnusson, 1997)
- For solution focused therapy recidivism was significantly lower for participants in the experimental group versus the control group (86% versus 60%) and less serious among experimental group participants. After 12 months 33% (7 persons) of the experimental group had not committed recidivist offenses. In the control group only10% (2 persons) had abstained from fresh crime.
Re-Entry Programs
- An adaptation of the evidence- based Creating Lasting Family Connections program was implemented with 144 married couples, where one spouse was incarcerated, in a southern state with particularly high divorce and incarceration proportions. The project was designed specifically to (1) increase the likelihood of marital stability and (2) promote marriage and relationship skills with this high-risk population. Twelve guided exercises were employed to strengthen marriage through learning open, non-defensive communication skills. The specific topical content and lessons of the CLFCMEP intervention were as follows: (1) job descriptions of parents and children in families; (2) a shared vision for a happy marriage; (3) roles in a marriage and raising children based on family experiences; (4) expressing and validating emotions and discuss differing beliefs; (6) learning to appreciate a partner’s strengths and weaknesses; (6) how your past family experiences may impact your current relationships; (7) how to listen and respond to your partner; (8) recognizing defenses in relationships; (9) recognizing your and your partner’s needs; (10) listening and validation skills; (11) practicing skills and conflict management; and (12) rediscovering romance. These skills are gained through the couple developing a shared vision, understanding positive and negative traits, personal and others’ past wounds and needs, active listening, expectations, compassion, romance, and learning to “fight fairly” by employing conflict resolution skills including mutual validation and respect. The group setting allowed for couples to learn from others by sharing hope and practice skills in a safe environment. Results suggested that married men exposed to the program had larger improvements in some relationship skills compared to a convenience sample of men not so exposed. Both husbands and wives exposed to the program exhibited similar and significant increases in relationship skills. The results were comparable to a Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program adaptation for inmates (Shamblen, Arnold, Mckiernan, Collins, & Strader, 2013).
- Women in the Welcome Home Ministries Program of this original cohort of 21 formerly incarcerated women, 18 (85.7%) have created healthy lives, participated in leadership roles in the program, and have not returned to jail or prison. Sixteen women are leaders in the program 8 years later, serving as peer mentor coordinators, community peer case managers, peer leaders on reentry support teams, and community outreach teams, and as prison chaplains. In addition, 15 women are advancing in their chosen professions and making contributions to local employers, excelling and being promoted to department heads, supervisors, and managers. WHM has served more than 400 women per year over 11 years. From October 1, 2004 through September 28, 2007, WHM entered data on 315 women. Of those women, 233 women were successfully contacted during a 6-month follow-up visit. At that time only 1.4% of the women reported using substances, and only 3.5% reported any involvement with the criminal justice system. These outcomes reflect fundamental markers of the program’s success (Warner-Robbins & Parsons, 2010).
- This study examines 122 ex-offenders who participated in Project Re-Connect, a 6-month, voluntary, prisoner-reentry program for inmates who served their maximum prison sentence. The needs most frequently self-identified by program participants prior to their return into the community included transportation, clothing, food, housing, and employment or vocational training. Of the inmates released from Missouri Department of Corrections prisons during the study period who were eligible to participate in Project Re-Connect, 39.7% chose to participate in the program. In examining characteristics of inmates who did and did not choose to participate in Project Re-Connect, program clients were more at risk across certain factors for having a difficult transition into their communities, including having committed a violent crime. Across other factors, including being older, being female, and having at least a high school education, inmates who chose to participate in the program were less at risk (Morani, Wikoff, Linhorst, & Bratton, 2011).
- Changes in sentencing and release policies have substantially increased the number of individuals, especially African American and Latino men, in the correctional system and the number who are released back to the community. Threats to successful community reintegration include lack of adequate housing, community and social supports, education, and employment; physical and mental health concerns; and substance abuse. A lack of resources and opportunities often contributes to incarceration and to difficulties after release (Woods, Lanza, Dyson & Gordon, 2013).
- Offenders who completed their sentences in prison were invited to participate in Project Re-Connect (PRC), a six-month, voluntary prisoner reentry program. Following participants' release from prison, PRC provided case management and direct monetary support to participants for up to six months. Survival analysis was used to compare recidivism rates between 122 PRC participants and 158 eligible non- participants. Analysis indicated that program participation and having a high school diploma or its equivalent were associated with reduced likelihood of new convictions, whereas substance abuse was associated with higher risk of subsequent convictions (Wikoff, Linhorst & Morani, 2012).
- Since 2003, the Cincinnati VA has provided reentry and outreach services to almost 400 veterans through the Incarcerated Veteran Outreach Program (IVOP). The IVOP focuses on delivering two kinds of service: (a) outreach and case management in correctional settings, and (b) linkage with medical and psychiatric services available at the Cincinnati VA Medical Center (VAMC) (Schaffer, 2011).
Family's Effect on Reunification
- Almost all interviewees shared the same story of emotional deprivation and abuse by their parents as well as by other family members. The family faces difficulties in assisting the recovered addict member to become a normative participant in the everyday life activities as he is overcoming his fears. This is especially true if there are no other family addictions or family involvement in criminal activity. Such difficulties increase when none of the family members participate in the addict’s treatment and are provided with no guidance toward reuniting with the addict/ex-addict. Most families of drug addicts share the same problems: lack of knowledge about how to deal with the recovered drug addict member. More problematic is the fact that most families are considered to be a part of the problem. Marriage (or another intimate relationship) can also be a source of negative support. When asked about problems with family members, almost all interviewees identified their spouse or girlfriend from before treatment. These relationships actually created stress rather than dissipating it. Detoxification and participating in a long-term treatment program creates expectations that the addict will be easily accepted back into the family and normative society. Problems arise when reuniting with a spouse creates conflicts that may be due to changes in role expectations. Of course, the spousal reactions were not unexpected. Certainly, past experience had shown them that addicts couldn’t be trusted, as they kept going back to their old habits, and as a result, the family and close friends had no patience with empty promises. The lack of faith the family has in the recovering addict can negatively affect the support provided once the addict is released from prison. Overall, about 75% of interviewees in this study experienced some level of difficulty in reuniting with their family. Usually, such difficulties led to the elevation of the stress experienced by the recovering addicts. Such stress can be implicated in the relapse to drug abuse as well as to further criminal involvement. For those who managed to stay clean, such conditions made their reintegration experience more difficult and, in many cases, caused additional fractures within the family life. Those who did make it either sought family consultation or decided to start a new life by breaking from what they defined as “ill relationships.” (Gideon, 2007)
Barriers to Reunification with Family and/or Society
- 1. Difficulty in locating incarcerated parents and getting them to court;
2. Difficulty in arranging visitation for incarcerated parents;
3. Lack of programs available to parents while incarcerated;
4. Costs of programs—unlike most counties, Los Angeles county does not pay for services (in counties where the child protection agency pays for services, there might be an equal protec- tion argument where a department pays for services for non-incarcerated parents, but not for incarcerated parents);
6. Lack of coordination for parents with pending criminal law matters between their dependency attorney and their criminal law attorney;
7. Adequate training of agency employees and parents’ and minors’ counsel;
8. Lack of knowledge or attention to parents’ immigration issues and the effect that these considerations have on dependency court outcomes. (Downing, 2012) - A number of participants cited obtaining personal identification such as a birth certificate, Social Security card, and driver’s license or state identification card as a significant challenge. Participants also cited finding employment, as well as transportation to employment, as significant barriers for successful reentry. Lastly, when provided information, many participants described receiving outdated and inadequate reentry and employment information. For HIV-positive participants, access to medication and avoidance of AIDS stigma were cited as central concerns during the reentry period. And as a result of a difficulty in accessing services to meet basic needs, many participants used drugs or engaged in sex for drugs, money, or transportation early in the community reentry process. Given the individual-level vulnerabilities of prisoners, they are more likely to reengage in risk behavior, which increases the risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV, reengaging in substance use, and recidivism. In addition, maintaining a persistent attitude in pursuing reentry programs and maintaining contact with friends and mentors in the reentry community were cited as crucial strategies. Avoiding negative community influences, remaining in safe environments, and maintaining sobriety were also seen as critical approaches to reentry (Luther, Reichert, Holloway, Roth, & Aalsma, 2011).
- In the area of education, the majority of youth surveyed expressed the desire to complete their high school diploma or GED upon their reentry, yet barriers such as lack of knowledge about credits and academic confidence were also present. Young women had slightly different perceptions of their educational needs and goals, as they expressed more confidence in their academic abilities and had slightly higher long-term educational aspirations. Our study findings highlight how young men in particular may be more in need of assistance to formulate and implement their educational plans. In the vocational arena, although less than half of the sample had prior job training or experience, youth across gender groups expressed a high level of certainty about their plans to seek and obtain employment after leaving camp. The young men expressed significantly higher wage expectations, and were also more likely to have plans to work right away rather than attending school. Further, they were more open to considering illegal activities in order to make money. Our findings indicate that young men may have some ambivalence about finding jobs that can meet their anticipated financial needs. To address this barrier, vocational counseling and mentoring may be critical to deterring young men from returning to illegal sources of income. Conversely, possible triggers for repeat criminal activity among the young women in the sample seemed to be more related to challenges experienced in their living environment. Reports of prior family and home instability were particularly high among the young women, including having a significant runaway history and prior involvement with the child welfare system. Moreover, the young women expressed more anxiety about their pending living situations and returning to their families (Fields & Abrams, 2010).
- Former inmates reentering non-institutionalized society face a number of challenges in procuring and maintaining stable employment. To start, former inmates tend to have low levels of educational attainment, little formal work experience, and other characteristics associated with poor employment prospects. The median reentering inmate is 32 years old and has finished a 21-month spell in prison. However, many of these inmates have served prior time, with fully 33 percent indicating that they have a prior felony incarceration (prior to the current spell). Certainly, many have also served time in local jails awaiting the adjudication of the charges leading to the current spell. Nearly three-quarters of released inmates are conditionally released, meaning that they are under the active supervision of the state’s community corrections system. Beyond this effect, incarceration is also likely to have a lagged impact on the employment prospects of former inmates. On the positive side, a spell in prison may straighten some men out, instilling a desire to avoid future prison spells and to live a conventional, law-abiding life. Such a positive impact is akin to what criminologists refer to as a specific “deterrent effect” of incarceration and may ultimately increase the employability of former inmates (Raphael, 2011).
- The predominant coping strategy for dealing with reentry barriers is avoidance. There is a defined process experienced by participants, which is initial optimism about release, followed by craving substances, facing practical barriers, and/or feeling overwhelmed. This eventually results in avoidance of managing problems and emotions and substance abuse relapse, which ends in recidivism. Because of this, clinical work with this population should in part focus on identification of healthy coping mechanisms to help individuals manage emotions and deal effectively with problems they will face during reentry and throughout life. A focus on both individuals who are currently incarcerated and those in the process of reentering society is imperative for services that help individuals to use healthy coping strategies. Clinical work within the correctional setting to help individuals prepare prior to release is important so that individuals can develop and use strategies before reentry. This is vital because many participants for this research noted that they knew of resources on the outside, but avoided problems rather than using available resources (Phillips & Lindsay, 2009).
- Through analysis of the focus groups, several significant themes emerged. Both formerly incarcerated persons and reentry service providers suggested that many obstacles begin well before the actual release date and extend far beyond it. Reentry providers shared many of the sentiments of the formerly incarcerated, particularly the challenging obstacles they face. Both groups additionally agreed on core themes about the overall system, the impact of geography, employment challenges and the perils of the transition process, but service providers offered more in depth narrative when discussing actual service delivery after discharge. Results of the focus group discourse echoed prior research emphasizing the pressures of denied supports and opportunities within the community. The articulated challenges for formerly incarcerated individuals, echoed by service providers, were a system of persistent and oppressive structures operating before, during and after discharge. Geography exacerbated inefficiencies in this system, due to dis- advantage and minimal resources, increased chances of arrest, and inhibited chances for a fresh start upon discharge. Indications of difficult transitioning into the community, including lack of preparation beforehand, necessary decision-making and relationship re-engagement at time of discharge, and poor linkages to community resources. Within these reentry environments, both the formerly incarcerated and service providers described resistance from employers to hire individuals with a criminal record. The importance of pre- release employment training on perceived employability of formerly incarcerated persons has been documented as has the potential value of other strategies like using labor market intermediaries and providing comprehensive lists of strengths/assets to combat employer aversion to hiring formerly incarcerated individuals. Formerly incarcerated individuals distinguished experiences of negative emotional stress from experiences of instability due to having a mental health disorder. Emotional well-being was linked to the pressures of finding housing, securing employment, and accessing needed services while also avoiding risky behaviors. Often, unsuccessful negotiation of the above obstacles left a feeling of hopelessness that prompted a “survival mode” or a “by any means necessary” approach to security, food, and shelter. Lastly, formerly incarcerated offenders described parole officers as an omnipresent force that was often more of a barrier than a resource for success (Bowman & Travis 2012).
- Barriers of Re-entry
-Housing, Employment, Finances, Health Care, & Termination of parental rights
Problems with traditional parole system
-Ineffective Supervisions, decisions up to parole officer’s discretion, lack of coordination and communication among agencies involved in re-entry plan.
Re-entry courts
-Although individual jurisdictions implement different variations, all Reentry Courts have six key components: (1) assessment and planning; (2) active oversight; (3) management of support services; (4) accountability to the community; (5) graduated and parsimonious sanctions; and (6) rewards for success
-Using Drug Courts as a standard, the likelihood that Reentry Courts will reduce recidivism is extremely hopeful. In March of 2010, the Center for Court Innovation released a report analyzing the effectiveness of the Harlem Reentry Court in reducing recidivism among its participants, marking the first nationwide study of its kind. The study found a 10% reduction in recidivism rates among participants within the court’s first three years of operation (McGrath, 2012).