A closer look at caregivers’ experiences
Research with prisoners’ families has indicated how the bulk of the familial responsibilities fall to women (Condry, 2007b; Codd, 2008). This attunes with research identifying children’s caregivers as grandparents and female relatives during maternal imprisonment (Caddle and Crisp, 1997). In England and Wales, research with grandmother-caregivers (Raikes, 2016; Baldwin, forthcoming) indicates the emotional challenges of looking after children in later life and with limited support. Following previous research with prisoners’ families (Condry, 2007a), feelings of stigma were also pervasive (Minson, 2018a). Undoubtedly, these studies have improved our understanding of some of the challenges and concerns of caring; however, as with women in prison (Rowe, 2011) and the children of prisoners (Laing and McCarthy, 2005), caregiving kin are not a homogeneous group with homogeneous experiences (Turanovic et al, 2012; Jardine, 2018). Although it is ‘known’ that most children are looked after within the family when the mother goes to prison, there is little evidence that shows how their families may be constructed or what their familial circumstances might look like before, during and after prison.
An important consideration is the way in which families construct ‘new family obligations’ (Hairston, 2009: 10) following a mother’s prison sentence. Of particular interest is the impact on domestic, relational and emotional circumstances, as well as the shifting roles and responsibilities as family members adapt their everyday, family practices to respond to the changed circumstances (Morgan, 2011). This relates to both the short-term renegotiations immediately after the mother is imprisoned and to changes in the long term to account for the continued absence, the children’s shifting needs and the experiences of navigating around the criminal justice system. Likewise, most children move home when their mother goes to prison (Caddle and Crisp, 1997; PRT, 2018) but little is known about the household into which the children move, including the presence of other dependants, such as the caregivers’ own children. Thus, awareness of the wider familial context surrounding the mother’s imprisonment will also help to unpack the nature and scope of caregiving experiences within the wider family. This includes further exploration of the role and positionality of children’s fathers, who are poorly explored in discussions of caregiving in this context (Flynn, 2011), either as sole caregivers to children or as a potential form of support to other caregiving relatives (for example, grandmothers). For instance, it may be appropriate to question the relationship that the father of Linda’s grandsons might have, and what role he might assume in the absence of their mother (see the Preface).
Kin caregivers might have – or have had – a close relationship with the mother in prison. Research refers to the ‘double’ pains of grandparents raising grandchildren in the absence of their own children, whether a temporary or permanent loss, and for whom they are grieving (Selwyn et al, 2013; Raikes, 2016). For the children of prisoners, this loss has been conceptualised as ‘ambiguous’ (Bockneck et al, 2009) as their parents can be emotionally present while physically remote (Boss, 2016). As such, the emotionality of the loss and separation that may be experienced by caregiving kin is worthy of further exploration. The research conducted in the US by Turanovic and colleagues (2012) indicates that parent-caregiver relationships influenced childcare arrangements and practices, including the maintenance of contact. Indeed, several studies in the US have highlighted the caregiver’s role as a ‘gatekeeper’ or facilitator of mother–child contact due to their central role in enabling communication during the prison sentence (Barnes and Cunningham Stringer, 2014; Tasca et al, 2016). It is because of this critical role in maintaining mother-child contact that research with caregiving kin needs to capture nuances in interpersonal relationships and family dynamics, which, as Codd (2008) argues, are more suited to qualitative research methods.
Existing literature strongly suggests that being in a position of providing kinship care (Selwyn et al, 2013) or in a prisoner’s family (SEU [Social Exclusion Unit], 2002; Christian et al, 2006; Codd, 2008; Dixey and Woodall, 2012) can involve significant strain on low-income families. The loss of income from the imprisoned person and financially supporting a prisoner – by sending money to a relative in prison or owing to the high costs of maintaining contact – can be burdensome. Likewise, child rearing brings its own set of financial requirements, from feeding and clothing children, to paying for nursery places and other essentials. Increased childcare responsibilities may impact a caregiver’s ability to participate in paid work and, as previous research suggests (Selwyn et al, 2013; Raikes, 2016), grandparent-caregivers may struggle to afford these necessities from their pension pots. Therefore, there is a need to expand our understanding of kin caregiving by qualitatively exploring the everyday lives, practices and perspectives of relatives who assume childcare responsibilities. A key part of this ought to focus on how the caregiving relatives perceive their roles and responsibilities, and how these insights will help to inform policy and practice by identifying what support they might receive – and also need.
Supporting prisoners’ families: policy, practice and wider society
Prisoners’ family ties have received considerable policy attention in recent years (Farmer, 2017; JCHR, 2019). This has come from the publication of several government documents (SEU, 2002), policy initiatives (Home Office, 2004) and prison policies (NOMS, 2011b) that have advocated the maintenance of family ties between prisoners and their relatives. This interest stems from a perspective that has gained legitimacy and which supposes that family ties can produce better outcomes for the prisoners and society. This is because families can function as a source of social capital, bringing social and relational connections, as well as practical support with housing and employment, to the prisoner’s development and resettlement process. The need to support family ties is too closely intertwined with discussions about reducing reoffending, which, unsurprisingly, is a social and economic anxiety of the government given that 64 per cent of people reoffended