Barefoot Research and Evaluation

This research was completed in October 2005 and is the subject of a current review.

In October 2006, the prison population rose to almost 80,000. The crime reduction and reduction of re-offending agenda has therefore never been so important.

The maintenance of family ties has been identified by researchers, policy makers and practitioners, as a major influence on whether an ex-offender chooses to re-offend (e.g. SEU, 2002, Hartworth and Hartworth, 2005). There are also other positive outcomes of maintaining family contact including, positive impacts on children, reducing future offending and re-offending, reducing social exclusion and decreasing the likelihood of self-harm and suicides amongst prisoners.

The seminal Woolf report (Woolf and Tummin, 1991) identified the important role that families play in the reduction of re-offending:

‘The disruption of an inmate’s position within the family unit represents one of the most distressing aspects of imprisonment … Enabling inmates … to stay in close and meaningful contact with the family is therefore an essential part of humane treatment. In these terms alone, the improvement of family ties must be a priority for the Prison Service. In addition, though, relationships with the family can contribute very positively on several levels towards the achievement of successful reintegration into society following release from prison. There is every reason to believe that the nature of a prisoner’s relationship with his or her family will be an important factor in determining whether he or she will succeed in leading a useful and law abiding life on return to the community. All this must reduce the likelihood of re-offending (Woolf and Tummin, 1991:401).

However, the numbers of visitors to prisoners is falling, despite the rising prison population.

There is, and has been, significant policy support for the maintenance of family links whilst a prisoner is in custody. The Home Office’s 1993 National Framework for the Throughcare of Offenders, identified that support was necessary in order to prepare the prisoner for safer release. Similarly, the HM Inspectorate of Probation’s Strategies for Effective Offender Supervision (1998), highlighted the importance of encouraging positive family relationships when working with offenders.

There are many areas of prison policy and statute which relate to visiting. For example, Prison Rules state that:

‘Special attention shall be paid to the maintenance of such relationships between a prisoner and his family as are desirable and in the best interests of both’ (4-1).

‘A prisoner shall be encouraged and assisted to establish and maintain such relationships with persons and agencies outside the prison as may, in the opinion of the Governor, best promote the interests of his family and his own family relationships’ (4-2).

There are many other policy and statute guidelines (see Hartworth and Hartworth, 2005) that demonstrate the importance that the prison estate attaches to maintaining family ties. Despite this however, the minimum requirement under the Prison Rules for visits is only two per month and the minimum duration of a visit is only 30 minutes (Cheney, 2002). On a national level, it does not seem that many prisons make the effort to provide additional provision for maintaining family contact over and above these statutory requirements (HIP, 2001). Even when there is additional provision, it is often infrequent and difficult for prisoners and families to access. This is demonstrated by the case studies in this article.

Despite this rationing on visits, not all prisoners receive all their statutory allocation for visits. For example, over half of prisoners held in prisons other than local prisons who live more than 50 miles away from their home area, do not receive two visits per month (Cheney, 2002).

The fact that many prisoners often do not receive many visits should not cause any consternation to the external observer, was it not for the case that research shows that visits are rated as extremely important by the majority of prisoners. Research by APF showed that although family contact was extremely important to prisoners, many men in their research were never visited (55% of prisoners had not received a single visit and only 16% had received two visits a month) and many had difficulty maintaining contact via telephone or letters (Murray, 2003a).

In summary, the prison service recognises the importance of maintaining family contact, the statutory visiting requirements appear to be inadequate, a significant proportion of prisoners do not receive their statutory quota of visits and maintaining contact appears to be extremely important to prisoners. Therefore, the question that needs to be asked is: why do prisoners not get their quota of visits?

Research indicates that the reasons why people are not visiting relatives in prison is that they experience significant difficulties in doing so. A prisoners’ survey (in HIP, 2001:90) indicated that 29% of men and 47% of women in prison experienced difficulties staying in touch with their friends and families during custody. The most common difficulties were:

All of these difficulties are corroborated by the case studies used in this article. Other difficulties were also raised. These included: the detrimental impact the visit has on children, caused by attitudes and behaviour of Prison Officers; the level of waiting involved; the psychological problems caused when leaving; and the cost involved.

In line with national trends, the number of visitors to the North East’s prisons is decreasing (see table 2), despite a rise in the regional prison population. There is one exception to this, at HMP Acklington, where there has been an increase in the number of visitors.

Source: Prison Service Monitoring System Statistics 2003-04 presented in NEPACS, 2004. *Holme House Visitor Centre Society.

Separation from a parent in prison can be extremely traumatic for a child, leading to problems with mental health, school performance and delinquency and inter-generational offending (Home Office, 2004; Tudball, 2000). Shaw (1992) demonstrates that children of imprisoned fathers tend to be socially, financially and educationally deprived, with the imprisonment itself exacerbating emotional and economic hardships.

Murray (2003b) notes that children suffer when a parent is in prison in a number of ways. Firstly, they are often already from vulnerable backgrounds and suffer further vulnerability and exclusion at school and in relation to the wider community. Secondly, (and in relation to the first point) the removal of a family member will mean they will have to cope with less support than they previously had and may have to take more family responsibilities. Thirdly, children who have a father in prison suffer a range of acute psychological difficulties (ibid, 2003b).

The SEU (2002) details research which shows 60% of prisoners’ families stated that they were less well off whilst a family member was in prison. The reduction in household income or the material wealth of the child also places further stresses on the child.

Hairston (1998) says that relationships between a child and a parent can not be put on hold. Hairston (1998) states that as children grow up, their memories fade and when there is no contact to support their relationship they begin to experience their parents as strangers. Such situations can lead to permanent, rather than temporary severance of family ties (ibid, 1998). However it should be noted that some children are positively affected by the removal of a family member, especially if that family member is violent or uncaring, and can flourish in the period of respite (Murray, 2003b).

Boswell and Wedge (2002) note that children of prisoners often experience disturbed behaviour such as persistent truanting, running away from home, delinquency, bed-wetting, lack of concentration and deep seated unhappiness.

Children have been noted (Boswell and Wedge, 2002) to be the secondary recipients of the decision-making and sentencing process. Shaw (1992) argues that the ideology that the offender should have thought about the consequences of their actions before offending, implies that it is acceptable for guiltless children to suffer if that is necessary for maximum general deterrence and general protection.

Research presented by Boswell and Wedge (2002) indicates that there is a strong correlation between separation from parents (usually fathers) before the age of 10 years and later conviction up to the age of 32 (as many as 59% of boys with a convicted parent were themselves convicted up to the age of 32).

In 1995, Save the Children published a comprehensive review of research, policy and practice in relation to prisoners’ children (Lloyd, 1995). Its findings emphasised the legal rights, both of children to go on being parented and of prisoners to continue parenting (ibid, 1995). In the report, they state that the interests of the child cannot be separated from any decisions made about issuing a custodial sentence to the parent or primary carer (ibid, 1995). They identify six underlying principles which Boswell and Wedge (2002) summarise as:

The SEU (2002) report states that although families are not always a positive influence on offenders, in the vast majority of cases they will have been entirely uninvolved in the prisoner’s criminal behaviour and in some cases, they may have been victims. Despite this, families often say they are assumed to be guilty by association (SEU, 2002).

There is strong evidence to support the role of the family in reducing re-offending. For example, the SEU (2002) is explicit in its recognition that maintaining family relationships can help to prevent prisoners re-offending and can assist them to successfully settle into the community. Heybourne (2004) states that prisoners who maintain good family relationships whilst in prison are six times less likely to offend than those who have not. Whilst Adalist-Estrin (2003), states that the family is probably this country’s most valuable weapon in fighting crime.

Families have been identified to be an underutilised resettlement resource (HIP, 2001). Nacro research (unpublished although submitted to the prison service in March 2000; The Needs of Prisoners’ Families) showed that 34% of men and 38% of women indicated that it would have helped if their families had been involved in sentence planning and preparation for release. The reasons demonstrated by the Nacro research were that they would have had a greater appreciation of their problems, would have had a say in what happened to them, been able to act as advocates on their behalf and helped them avoid relapse (HIP, 2001). Despite this, in only 9% of cases were families significantly involved in pre-release planning (ibid, 2001).

APF research (Heybourne, 2004) also shows that families’ involvement in resettlement work makes prisoners more honest in their assessment of the progress they are making in addressing their offending behaviour.

In research carried out by Noble (1995), it is demonstrated that less than half of the family members in her study were looking forward to the release of their relative in prison. Nearly all of them expected problems. Some spoke of being very nervous or terrified and none spoke of any involvement in preparation for release plans or courses (Noble, 1995). Heybourne (2004) also notes that research carried out by APF found that less than half of the families surveyed were looking forward to the release of their relative, nearly all families experienced problems and none spoke of any involvement in preparation for release courses. Katz (2003) noted that relatives of prisoners have complex and ambivalent feelings about having a family member back from prison, with all the joy, worry and tension that this brings into the family again.

‘The promotion of family ties within the prison system which is aiming for rehabilitation seems to be entirely focussed around the prisoners’ needs rather than around those of the family as a whole. The prospects for successful re-establishment of families where members would so choose must be greatly diminished by this’ (Noble, 1995:44).

In the light of the enormous (and substantiated) potential of family relationships to reduce future re-offending, there seems to be scant involvement of the families in any resettlement activities.

Boswell and Wedge (2002), report that visits are crucial to the continuation of family relationships, but are arguably damaging to children.

‘There are very many parents/carers and children who are committed to the process of continuing the father-child relationship throughout the prison sentence – and that they are willing to endure a series of hurdles and stresses in order to further this … however, ordinary visits cannot be guaranteed to be a positive experience, where as [special visits and family days] were almost universally described by all parties in appreciative terms’ (Boswell and Wedge, 2002:118).

‘Even where children do get to visit their dads, the experience can be very mixed. Children are generally very pleased to see their dads but, especially for young children, long waits, searches, sniffer dogs and seeing their father in a prison environment without much physical contact or play can be very distressing, confusing and scary’ (Murray, 2003b:3).

In the research by Boswell and Wedge (2002), one visiting family summarises the dilemma of visiting a father:

“An enormous gap opens up between dad and his children because of the prison. It’s a difficult choice, diabolical: to put children through the ordeal of visits into prison, or have them believe their dad isn’t interested in them? To visit or not to visit?” (Boswell and Wedge, 2002:117).

From the research presented in this section, it is evident that having a parent separated from the children and the family has many negative and damaging effects to all involved. Research has also shown, substantiated by the case studies in this article, that routine visits are also difficult and damaging for children and family members. However, families persevere visiting nonetheless. Indeed, Wood (2003) notes that despite attempts to distance prisoners from their families, ‘some prisoners still manage to maintain reasonably strong kinship ties’ (Wood, 2003:12).

However, it would appear that the difficulties experienced by families whilst visiting have resulted in less and less people visiting family members in prison.

It would seem logical, in the light of the evidence of the resettlement role of the family, that the prison estate should attempt to make it easier for visiting families. Indeed the policy and strategy evidence that is presented in the following section seems to support the maintenance of family ties, although some important policy documents appear to be unsure of how best to achieve this.

The report - Through the Prison Gate: A Joint Thematic Review by HIM Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation (HIP, 2001), is explicit in its recommendations to support family relationships whilst a family member is in prison. For example, in the context of resettlement work to reduce re-offending, it states that the prison service must pay more attention to locating prisoners close to home in order for links to be retained or built up with their family.

Within the chapter Seamless Sentence – Pre and Post Release, it states that less than half of the offenders that were sentenced to custody had an interview following their sentencing, the purpose of which was to identify any practical issues arising from imprisonment, such as concerns regarding childcare (HIP, 2001).

The report by the Government’s Social Exclusion Unit (SEU), Reducing Re-Offending by Ex-Prisoners (2002), is widely regarded as the standard by which to compare the efforts of prisons, probation and other organisations to reduce re-offending. From the very beginning, the report presents key findings which identify that many offenders are from socially disadvantaged groups, with weak family relationships.

Despite this evidence the SEU (2002) identifies that support and advice for families is limited. Visiting facilities are often inadequate and families are rarely involved in the process of tackling offending behaviour. The report estimates that 125,000 children have a parent in prison which adds to the inter-generational effects of custody.

SEU (2002) identifies that despite evidence from research about the resettlement role of families, at every stage of the Criminal Justice System, families are largely left out of the decision making process and rarely get the opportunity to support prisoners effectively.

In 2004, the Home Office published their response to the SEU (2002) report, Reducing Re-Offending National Action Plan. The report states ‘Maintaining family relationships can help prevent ex-prisoners re-offending and assist them to resettle successfully into the community’ (Home Office, 2004:37). The report also states that 43% of sentenced prisoners have lost contact with their family as a result of going to prison (ibid, 2004).

Although the report contains national policy recommendations, there are few practical recommendations for either regional or local agencies. There are no guidelines for supporting children and parents of prisoners, although there is one national action that advocates the National Probation Service to identify best practice in relation to the children and families of offenders in the community, with the aim of identifying a national framework.

The North East Regional Resettlement Strategy: Reducing Re-Offending (2004) published by Government Office North East is the region’s response to the SEU (2002) report and the National Action Plan (Home Office, 2004). Its main aim is directed at reducing re-offending by improving the strategic coordination in the delivery of services for offenders.

The Resettlement Strategy identifies each of the key resettlement components of the SEU (2002) as a Strategic Pathway. There is a total of seven Strategic Pathways. Strategic Pathway 4 concerns Family and Social Support and is intended to enable offenders to maintain and develop positive relationships with their family, partners and their home communities.

Although there is a recognition of the need to support family relationships, (see GONE, 2004) it does not specify the extent to which these services are provided. For example, who and how much training are officers receiving, the frequency and accessibility of family learning and how many family work posts are created in prisons. The absence of the specification of extent of existing services, the intended improvements and timetables of action, leaves the content of the Pathway a wish list. There is also no specification of a responsible authority in the prison service that will ensure this strategy is implemented.

However, the Resettlement Strategy’s aim can only be encouraged, especially as it states:

‘There is sufficient capacity within North East prisons to hold all North East based offenders within the region … This capacity allows for the effective delivery of a Regional Resettlement Strategy and local case management, better maintenance of family and community links …’ (GONE, 2004:12).

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Expectations (HIP, 2004) is an assessment tool that examines every aspect of prison life, from reception to resettlement. Each ‘expectation’ is set out in relation to domestic and international human rights. There are a total of 32 ‘expectations’ upon which individual establishments are assessed. The expectations range from access to telephones, to the requirement to have a visitor centre. The more pertinent expectations to this study are as follows:

The following case studies demonstrate what three male prisons (two adult male and one young offender institution) are doing to encourage and maintain family ties. The case studies include research with the prison service, the charitable organisations who administer the visitor centres and prisoners and visitors.

The number of prisoners HMP Acklington holds was 882 on the 14 March 2005. The prison receives approximately 50 visitors each day and shares a visitor centre with HMP YOI Castington.

Within the prison, there is a high level policy commitment to improving the visiting process and a recognition of the issues identified within the SEU (2002) report for the need to maintain family ties. This is coupled with an operational commitment to improving both normal visits and family visits. This includes:

The Governor stated that families have a very important role in reducing re-offending and in resettlement and likewise, the prison plays an important role in maintaining these relationships.

The Head of Operations stated that much of what the prison does in relation to visiting is driven by NEPACS. There are regular formal and informal meetings between the prison and NEPACS, resulting in good communication. The Head of Operations took a very pragmatic approach to improving visits and he felt that they must increase the quality of the routine two hour visit.

NEPACS administers the visitor centre which is intended to serve both HMP Acklington and HMP YOI (Young Offender Institute) Castington, although it is mostly used by visitors to the former. The main reason for this is the visitors to HMP Acklington access a ticket scheme whereby when they arrive they receive a ticket with a number on it representing their order in the queue. They can then go and get refreshments or sit in the waiting area. The visitors to HMP YOI Castington however, have to stand in a queue to secure their place and therefore wait in an unsheltered position outside of the YOI.

The visitor centres opening hours are from 12:30 pm to 4:30 pm Tuesday to Sunday. This corresponds to the visiting days and times at the prison, which are from 1:45 pm to 4:00 pm.

NEPACS does not simply facilitate visits through administering the visitor centre but they also provide practical and emotional support to visitors. They also run a telephone help line which provides information and support on any issues surrounding visiting.

NEPACS feels that they have a very good relationship with the prison. There has recently been a Voluntary Sector Forum created where agencies working in the prison meet to discuss various issues and network. The NEPACS coordinator sees this as a very positive development, as it allows her to know what services other agencies can provide to prisoners. This increases the options and ideas she can communicate to the families of prisoners. She believes that prisoners are far more likely to listen to a family member about something which is occurring inside the prison, rather than a Prison Officer. The coordinator sees one role of NEPACS being about resettlement and enabling families to work together.

The story of one prisoner illustrates the damaging effects of being located in a prison far away from his home. For the last 12 months this prisoner has received no visits from his family (a girlfriend and three children, aged 10, six and three) as they find it too far and too difficult to travel from Leeds. He previously served time at HMP Forest Bank in Manchester, where he served six months and received visits from his family every week.

Since he has arrived at the prison, he has split up with his girlfriend. He attributes the breakdown of the relationship as a result of his family’s inability to visit caused by the long distances involved. Despite making several attempts to get a transfer to a prison nearer to where his family lived, he has been unsuccessful.

Another prisoner explained that his family experience many difficulties when they visit, including the length of time it takes to travel on public transport, the expense and the stress it puts on the children. On one occasion it took his family almost 16 hours from leaving their house to returning (8:30am to midnight).

In addition to this, the prisoner stated that his family never receive their allotted visiting time. Due to the fact that it takes approximately 45 minutes to get from his wing to the visiting hall, the contact only lasts for one hour. Therefore, the family travel from Manchester on public transport which takes a round trip time of 15 hours for one hour contact time.

Naturally he believes that if he was in a prison nearer to his family, he would receive more visits. He feels that his family do have an impact on whether or not he chooses to re-offend, as it is difficult to witness what his family have to endure.

One prisoner felt that, as the prison is the furthest north in England, it should have better facilities for families that have to travel a long way to get there, as most families are exhausted by the trip.

The prisoners who had participated in the Fathers Inside course said it was beneficial to them. However, they all felt that the absence of opportunities to spend time with their children was a problem, as there was little point in learning life skills in theory if they could not be put in to practice. They suggested that more opportunities should be provided to allow fathers time with their children.

All of the visitors interviewed for the research spent considerable time visiting their relatives. Even for those who lived in the North East, visiting the prison often took the entire day; leaving early for several changes on public transport.

When the visitors arrive at the visitor centre they queue outside for between 30 minutes and an hour. The visitors arrive as early as possible so they can be the first in the visiting queue, enabling them to be one of the first into the prison and so spend as much time as possible with the person they are visiting. Once inside the visitor centre they wait for up to one hour and 15 minutes before going through the gate, the security and searches, which can take around 15 minutes. Once inside the visits room they often have to wait another 30 minutes before their prisoner arrives. When young children are brought to visit, the entire experience can be an ordeal.

Almost every visitor complained of having to wait outside the visitor centre before it opened in all weather conditions with no facilities, either for themselves or babies and children.

All of the respondents said that visiting was costly and none interviewed received financial assistance from the Assisted Prison Visits scheme. Some respondents did state that when their relative was in a prison further away, they would claim their money back but they no longer did so. This was attributed to a long delay in getting refunded, the scheme not refunding associated costs like refreshments, and the administration (i.e. filling in the forms and posting them). Even when visitors lived in the Newcastle area, visiting was still a costly exercise.

The visitors also had varying opinions on the attitudes of prison officers. Some found them to be acceptable and some found them to be very poor. A common consensus was that the attitudes of the prison officers varied depending on their moods or their work load, i.e. if they were busy they were likely to be considered rude. There were enough responses concerning the poor attitude of prison officers (“ignorant”, “degrading”, “arrogant”) to make their observations significant. Another visitor described waiting in the visits room for 55 minutes until an officer came and told her (without an apology) that they could not locate her husband.

Some respondents complained of not being able to touch their relatives during visits, citing that physical contact at the beginning and end of a visit was simply not sufficient. Futhermore, the physical contact that visitors are able to have with the prisoner was stated to be dependent on which officer was policing their area.

Several respondents stated that they felt that they are also treated like prisoners by the prison staff and the visiting process just adds to the difficulties of having a relative imprisoned. Many visitors felt like they were suffering more than the prisoner. Some of the respondents felt that it was necessary to share the difficulties of the visiting experience with the prisoner, stating that this was done in an attempt to discourage him from re-offending.

A final area of complaints cited by all of the visitors who responded, concerned the difficulty in booking a visit, with lines engaged for up to 45 minutes, or constant ringing tones.

HMP Acklington has made their commitment to maintaining family contact explicit, especially through the construction of the Family Centre. They also have a very close relationship with NEPACS, whom they invite to policy and planning meetings. The visitors centre is open to correspond to visiting times and although families queue outside for it to open, this is thought to be the result of the ticket scheme, as opposed to the hours that the centre is open. However, the research with the prisoners and their families demonstrates that the visitors often experience long and exhausting trips to visit their relatives, the visits can be restrictive (lack of physical contact) and they do not get their allotted time at visits. There are also difficulties associated with booking visits.

Depending on when the Family Centre is built and how accessible it is to prisoners and their families, some of these issues may be addressed but visits are currently the only way that prisoners at HMP Acklington can maintain family contact.

This prison is situated adjacent, and previously belonged, to HMP Acklington and houses long term young offenders between 16 and 21 years old. It also has a remand wing. It has an operational capacity of 406: approximately 240 young offenders and 160 juveniles. Visitors to Castington come from all over the country because it covers 42 Youth Offending Team areas.

The visitor centre is shared with HMP Acklington. The Young Offenders Institution receives approximately 36 visitors per day.

Visitors queue outside the prison gate to receive their allotted position in the queue to maximise the length of time they have with the relative they are visiting. There is no ticket system in operation (as with HMP Acklington) and NEPACS do not administer the booking in process. Thus, visitors cannot leave the queue to use the facilities at the visitors centre unless there is someone to keep their place. This means that visitors do not use the visitor centre and queue outside the prison, where there is no cover, in all weather conditions.

Senior policy staff at HMP YOI Castington recognise the importance of visitors and stated that they endeavour to keep prisoners local to make it easier for their families to visit. However, as the YOI covers 42 YOT areas, this is difficult.

The main concerns of the staff that administer the visits is drug smuggling. This concern was reinforced in July when a prisoner died of a heroin overdose, from drugs which were thought to be brought in via visits. Hence, security measures are strict and as meticulous as they are allowed to be. These measures include, if a drug dog has indicated on a visitor, they will be offered a closed visit; if on their subsequent visit the drug dog indicates again, they will be refused further visits.

The prison is explicit about the importance of maintaining family ties. They recognise the link between the reduction of re-offending, encouraging good behaviour and maintaining family contact.

The prison has a Family Links phone line which is a 24 hour line (staffed in the day and answer phone at night). It started in July 2004 and has had 178 calls to date on issues ranging from what can be sent into prisoners, bullying, depression and disabled parking, to concerned parents calling because they have not heard from their sons. They respond to these calls by either writing a memo to the prisoners or by going and seeing them in person. The Chief Inspector of Prisons rated this provision very highly.

The prison ran a Christmas party for fathers to enable them to spend some time with their children and partners. It lasted for two hours and there was food served. The prison bought presents for the fathers to give to their children. They had a total of 14 applications from prisoners which resulted in seven prisoners (five young offenders and two juveniles) and their families attending. All of the children were under four. After the event, the Safer Custody Unit planned to run more family events, but currently none have taken place.

There is a recognition by prison staff that provision for visits needs improvement and this includes provision for visitors waiting outside the prison before visits, the small and unwelcoming reception area and the inadequacy of the telephone booking system.

One prisoner who was interviewed received three visits per month, one from his father, one from his mother (who lives in Ferryhill) and one from his girlfriend (who lives in Middlesbrough) who both bring his two year old son. This prisoner is now over 21 and will shortly be getting transferred to an adult prison, probably outside of the North East, which would make it more difficult for his family to visit. He is putting an application to be transferred to HMP Kirklevington Grange which would make it easier for family visits.

When asked about the visits, he stated that the staff attitudes were good and the atmosphere was “OK” and he described the best things about visits being able to have physical contact with his son. However, he stated that he had to wait a long time before his family arrived at the visits room and they did not get the allotted time. When the visits do begin, the prisoners are not allowed to leave their seats and if their children are in the play area, this can result in the prisoner sitting with their backs towards their children for the entirety of the visit.

The prisoners who attended the Father’s Christmas Party said that the day was nothing like normal visits, particularly in relation to the contact that could be had with the family. During the Party, the prisoners were allowed to get out of their seats and play party games with their children and spend time with their partners.

Prisoners described the good things about the day as being allowed to get out of their seats and play with their child(ren) instead of sitting with their backs to them, as is the case throughout normal visiting times. Although seeing their children was deemed as important, all of the prisoners recognised being able to get involved with them made an enormous difference.

It was felt that the Christmas Party would have been even better if more people had attended the event, with prisoners who attended the party stating that few inmates were aware of the event. It was felt that the publicity was poor with one prisoner stating that they found a leaflet advertising the event on the floor by chance.

Prisoners stated that their families did have an impact whether they chose to re-offend. Reasons cited included wanting to improve themselves and be there for their children and not wanting to lose their partners as a result of going back to prison.

All of the families that were interviewed stated that they experience considerable difficulties and discomfort queuing outside the prison, with waiting outside being particularly difficult for children. One visitor stated that her children repeatedly became ill as a result of waiting in the cold and rain. This is particularly felt as the prison is located on an exposed site and experiences extreme weather conditions. Other visitors complained that they had travelled very long distances to get to the prison and waiting outside put additional stresses to a very long day.

Another problem experienced by the visitors were the cramped conditions in the foyer area, just inside the prison.

After (often) long journeys, waiting outside and then in cramped conditions, many visitors complained that they were not allowed to any physical contact with the prisoner. Furthermore, this was often made worse through closed visits because the sniffer dog had indicated they were carrying drugs. Many visitors had strong feelings about this, stating that they had never taken drugs and one respondent who worked in a hospital had a dog indicate her three times.

As with the HMP Acklington case study, the visitors also complained of the difficulties associated with the telephone booking system.

Prison policy at HMP YOI Castington is supportive of maintaining family contact and the intention to provide a positive experience at visiting time is good. However, this is not translated into meaningful practice. There have been no more family days after the Christmas Party despite the promises of more.

It is apparent from the testimonies of prisoners that the experience of a family visit (such as the Father’s Christmas Party) compared to the experience of a routine visit is extremely different. At a family visit, there is a more relaxed atmosphere, more physical contact, more time can be spent with both the partner and child(ren) and it is a more rewarding and fulfilling experience.

The prisoners also stated that there would be much demand from young fathers, many of which were not aware of the first family day.

The research at HMP YOI Castington also demonstrates that visitors to the prison both find it difficult to book a visit, to actually visit, as many have travelled significant distances, and experience many difficulties whilst visiting, not least waiting in the open for long periods of time, many with children. After this, they often experience shortened and unfulfilling visits.

HMP Holme House had 994 prisoners on the 22^nd April 2005 – six short of capacity. It includes a purpose built visitor centre that was part of the main prison build. There is also a small children’s play area in the visits room which has been closed for the last six months.

Visiting times at HMP Holme House are from 1:30pm to 3:45pm on Monday, Wednesday and Friday; from 1:30pm to 3:45pm and from 4:45pm to 7:15pm on Tuesday and Thursday; and from 8:30am to 11:30am and from 1:30pm to 4:30pm on Saturday and Sunday. It is the only prison in the case studies that has evening and weekend visits. They receive approximately … visits per day.

Convicted prisoners are allowed one, two hour visit per week, which is double the statutory requirement. Prisoners can also save their visits up, as they are valid for 28 days, and use them all in one week. This helps visitors who have a long way to travel.

The prison prides itself on its visiting policy and provision. HMP Holme House has a dedicated team of eight senior officers who manage the visits process. The prison feels that having a dedicated team means that relationships can be established with prisoners and their families, and that staff feel a level of ownership about the arrangements. The head of resettlement states that this is manifested in the visits room; where every effort has been made to create a different atmosphere in comparison to the rest of the prison.

The prison has a Family Learning Centre where prisoners and their families have the opportunity to engage in a Family Learning course together. This is a 16 week course which includes family visits. However, there are very few prisoners enrolled on the course due to restrictions on applications. At the time of the research being conducted, there were two prisoners on the Family Learning course out of a prison population of 996.

The head of security at the prison stated that security concerns need not interfere with additional visiting provision, as the prisoners experience the same rigourous security procedures at visits and at family days.

During the research, the attitudes of some visits staff in the prison was found to be concerning. One officer who worked on visits almost every day was very derogatory about the majority of visitors and prisoners, stating that the prisoner would not be interested in seeing their children if they were not accompanied by their partners. There were complaints by the prison officers of children getting bored and causing “incidents” which result in having to complete a health and safety report.

Similar to NEPACS, the Holme House Visitor Centre Society does not simply administer visits. They also provide practical, logistical and often emotional support to visitors.

The centre was built when the prison population was only 500 and was designed to cope with an associated number of visitors. As a result of a lack of space there is nowhere to deal with distressed visitors or those with specific needs, of which there are a number.

The lack of space also means that other support agencies cannot provide their services to visitors. The Citizens Advice Bureau and a health promotion organisation wanted to put on drop-ins but there was no space. If they had extra space such agencies could provide useful support to families.

Some visitors to HMP Holme House have an in-depth knowledge of the prison system because they have been visiting a family member for years, but others know very little. This latter group are not only traumatised by having a family member in prison but also because they do not know the practical arrangements and what to do. It may take several months before people come to terms with all of the implications of having a family member in prison. The centre supports them in this process of adjustment, either through face to face contact or through frequent phone calls.

During the research, several prisoners stated that when their children were often scared in the visits room as a result of the behaviour of the officers on duty. The children often witnessed incidents of violence between prison guards and prisoners which have long-term effects. Testimonies of other prisoners included babies being stripped naked in order to search their nappies for drugs, removing children’s shoes, fear of passing the sniffer dogs (many young children are afraid of dogs) and a general fear that they will not be ‘allowed’ in to see their fathers. This, together with not being able to have much physical contact with their fathers, results in a very confusing time for the visiting children.

All prisoners interviewed complained of not getting their allotted visiting time. For example, one prisoner explained that during a daytime visit (which begins at 1:30) the cell doors are not opened until the visiting hours begin. Due to security systems, it can take up to an hour to get from the cell to the visiting area, a distance that can be walked in five minutes.

One prisoner interviewed participated in the Family Learning course with his girlfriend and three year old son. He applied to participate for the family visits eight months previously and has been on the visits and associated course for six weeks of the 16 week course. His 10 month old daughter cannot attend the course, because there is an age limit imposed, with only children over 18 months old being allowed to attend. He regrets that he can not spend time with his youngest child and he also finds this confusing, as part of the accompanying course is about building relationships with very young babies.

At the Family Learning days, prisoners are allowed physical contact (kiss and cuddle) with their partners at the beginning and end of the visit. However, this does not reflect a normal relationship between parents who hold, touch and kiss each other frequently in front of their children.

The course is difficult for prisoners to access. Reasons given by the prison service included not being at the correct stage of the “Therapeutic Community course” and being judged a security threat. Many prisoners wanted to access the Family Learning but could not.

Approximately one third of visitors interviewed stated that they experience no problems whilst visiting partners or relatives in HMP Holme House. Two thirds of respondents said they did experience problems.

The most frequent complaints were the length of time it took to book a visit on the telephone and not getting their allocated visiting time with prisoners. Indeed, a very common complaint was how much waiting they did throughout the day, e.g. for buses, at the visitors centre and in the visits area before the visit began. Some visitors reported of frequently waiting for up to 30 minutes in the visits area. Another complaint for those that had children was that the children’s play area had been closed for several months, which meant their children had nothing to do. This together with being searched and not being allowed physical contact with their fathers made the visits very stressful for both the children and their carers.

Further areas for concern included the prison changing visiting rules with little or no notice, problems visitors have with forms of identification and the lack of an area for private and confidential discussion in the visitors centre.

Similar to the other two prisons in this article, HMP Holme House has laudable intentions with regards to visits and maintaining family contact. On paper, there is excellent provision with more than the statutory visiting provision and Family Learning days. Those people that have participated in Family Learning say how beneficial it is for all those involved, particularly for maintaining family relationships. However, getting on the course is almost impossible.

Both prisoners and families experience considerable difficulties at visiting times. Similarly to the previous case studies, visitors that reported difficulties when attempting to book visits and both visitors and prisoners reported the frustration of not receiving their full allocated visiting time. Furthermore, there are some disturbing reports of events that children are exposed to when visiting their parents, which compounds the difficulties they experience from being separated from their fathers.

The research for this article has demonstrated several important issues that are of importance to the prison service and policy makers in the criminal justice field. These are:

The research for this article has demonstrated several important issues that are of importance to the prison service and policy makers in the criminal justice field.

To answer the question of why is visiting declining when the prison population has risen, this evidence suggests that it is because visitors find it difficult to visit family members in the current system. From the beginning of the visiting process they encounter inadequate telephone booking systems and are faced with long and exhausting trips (with children). On arrival, they experience long queues, often intimidating security procedures, rarely receive their allocated visit time and have unsatisfactory contact with a member of their family that they have possibly not seen for weeks.

These difficulties are occurring despite major national, regional and prison-based policy which states that every endeavour is made to support the maintenance of family ties. When returning to the HIP 2004 Expectations list, out of total of 10 recommendations, only two have been found to have been fulfilled in some of the case studies presented here. Firstly, only three out of five prisons provided evening visits and family days were either unavailable, or difficult to access in three of the case studies. Secondly, a well run visitors centre was available in four out of five case studies.

Therefore, this research indicates that the main weakness in supporting and maintaining family relationships is the delivery setting, i.e. the individual establishments not doing what they are saying, or not doing what they are instructed they should be doing.

The Government has identified that the maintenance of family ties as a key factor in the reduction of re-offending and in resettlement (SEU 2002 among others). With the prison population having exceeded 77,000 the resettlement agenda has never been so important. Within this research, routine visits have been shown to be inadequate to maintain family contact. This is particularly relevant to the relationship between parent and child(ren). Against this backdrop, it would seem incredulous and shallow that the Government is saying that an initiative is important, that it is doing it, but on inspection it is not. It is also concerning that if it were not for voluntary sector research, such as this, that this would not have been identified.

Adalist-Estrin, A. (2003) Why Maintain Relationships?. Children of Prisoners Library, www.fcnetwork.org.

Boswell, G. and Wedge, P. (2002) Imprisoned Fathers and Their Children. Jessica Kingsley Publications, London.

Cheney, D. (2002) Visits, Letters and Telephone Calls, in The Prisoners Handbook, by Leech, M. and Cheney. D (eds), Waterside Press, London.

GONE (Government Office North East) (2004) North East Regional Resettlement Strategy: Reducing Re-Offending. Newcastle upon Tyne.

Hairston, C.F. (1998) The Forgotten Parent: Understanding the Forces That Influence Incarcerated Fathers’ Relationships With Their Children, in Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice and Change 77, 617-639, Washington, USA.

Hartworth, C. and Hartworth, J. (2005) Keeping Families Together: Maintaining Positive Relationships Between Children and Parents in Prison: A Study in the North East of England, Nacro, Manchester.

Heybourne, M. (2004) Presentation at the HM Prison Service, 2004, Report of the Conference on Prison Visits: Working Together to Make it Better. North East Area Office, Durham.

HIP (HM Inspectorate of Prisons) (2001), Through the Prison Gate: A Joint Thematic Review by HIM Inspectorates of Prisons and Probation. London.

HIP (HM Inspectorate of Prisons) (2004) Expectations: Criteria for Assessing the Conditions in Prisons and the Treatment of Prisoners. London.

Home Office (2004) Reducing Re-Offending National Action Plan, Home Office, London.

Katz, A. (2003) Inside Out – Prison and Parent-Child Relationships, Young Minds, www.youngminds.org.uk.

Lloyd, E. (1995) Prisoners Children: Research, Policy and Practice. Save the Children, London.

Murray, J. (2003a) Visits and Family Ties Amongst Men at HMP Camphill. Action for Prisoners’ Families, London.

Murray, J. (2003b) Fathers in Prison, Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.

Noble, C. (1995) Prisoners’ Families: The Everyday Reality, Ormiston Children and Families Trust, Ipswich.

SEU (Social Exclusion Unit) (2002) Reducing Re-Offending by Ex-Prisoners, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. London.

Shaw, R. (1992) Prisoners’ Children, What are the Issues? Routledge, London.

Travis, A. (2005) Early Release to Tackle Prisons Crisis, The Guardian, Friday 14^th October.

Tudball, N. (2000) Doing it Hard: A Study of the Needs of Children and Families of Prisoners in Victoria [Australia]. VACRO.

Wood, V. (2003) Embracing the Divide: An Ethnographic Study of a Prison’s Visitor Centre. MA Thesis, University of Durham.

Woolf, J. and Tummin, S. (1991) Prison Disturbances April 1990. Report of an Inquiry, HMSO, London.

[1] For a more comprehensive review see Hartworth and Hartworth, 2005.

[2] NEPACS stands for the North Eastern Prisoner Aftercare Society. They administer the visitor centres in the North East with the exception of the visitor centre at HMP Holme House

Wood, V. (2003) Embracing the Divide: An Ethnographic Study of a Prison’s Visitor Centre. MA Thesis, University of Durham.