“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY
OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS
IN VICTORIA
Author:
Nola Tudball, N.L.T. Consulting Pty Ltd
Editing:
Dragan Todorovic, N.L.T. Consulting Pty Ltd
Data Support
Rob Posselt, MacroPlan Pty Ltd
Publisher and Further Information:
VACRO, P.O. Box 14093, Melbourne Mail Centre Victoria 8001
Email: [email protected]
Web Site: www.vacro.org.au
© VACRO
ISBN: 0-9596450-2-0
March 2000
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWARD By The Hon. Mr Justice David Harper
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
v
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
xi
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2
OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................15
SAMPLING .................................................................................................................16
QUANTITATIVE DATA - THE QUESTIONNAIRE .........................................................17
QUALITATIVE DATA - FOCUS GROUPS .....................................................................18
UNDERSTANDING THE RESPONDENTS...............................................................19
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
6
OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................5
UNDERSTANDING THE EXTENT OF THE NEEDS...........................................................5
IMPACT OF IMPRISONMENT ON CHILDREN .................................................................6
IMPACT OF IMPRISONMENT ON THE PARENTING ROLE OF PRISONERS.......................9
IMPACT OF IMPRISONMENT ON FAMILIES AND CAREGIVERS ...................................10
SERVICE NEEDS AND RESPONSES .............................................................................10
FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICE SYSTEM IN VICTORIA ......................................13
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY..................................................................................15
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5
OVERVIEW OF THE VICTORIAN PRISON SYSTEM ........................................................3
VACRO’S WORK IN THE PRISON SYSTEM .................................................................3
OTHER RELATED RESEARCH ..................................................................................5
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
4
BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................1
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .............................................................................................1
OVERVIEW OF THE APPROACH ...................................................................................1
SCOPE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................2
CONTEXT ........................................................................................................................3
2.1
2.2
3
xxii
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS ......................................................................................19
GENDER AND AGE OF RESPONDENTS .......................................................................22
RELATIONSHIP OF CAREGIVER RESPONDENTS TO PRISONER ...................................23
NATURE OF IMPRISONMENT .....................................................................................24
IMPRISONMENT HISTORY .........................................................................................26
FAMILY BACKGROUND .............................................................................................29
CHILDREN .................................................................................................................33
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................36
PRISON VISITS AND CONTACT ..............................................................................37
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
FREQUENCY OF VISITS..............................................................................................37
TYPE OF VISIT ...........................................................................................................41
OTHER CONTACT – TELEPHONE CALLS AND LETTERS ............................................41
FREQUENCY OF TELEPHONE CALLS AND LETTERS ..................................................42
DIFFICULTIES WITH VISITS .......................................................................................44
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................49
PAGE i
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
7
DEALING WITH INCARCERATION........................................................................51
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
8
SEEKING ASSISTANCE – SUPPORT SERVICES ..................................................63
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
9
TELLING THE CHILDREN ...........................................................................................51
CAREGIVERS’ REACTIONS ........................................................................................53
PRISONERS’ REACTIONS ...........................................................................................55
CHILDREN’S REACTIONS ..........................................................................................57
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................62
WHAT WOULD HELP?...............................................................................................63
DISCUSSION GROUP COMMENTS ..............................................................................68
CURRENT SUPPORT USED .........................................................................................69
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................71
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE.................................................................................73
9.1
9.2
LIVING ARRANGEMENTS ON RELEASE .....................................................................73
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................74
10 RESPONDING TO CHILDREN’S NEEDS ................................................................75
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
OVERVIEW OF THE FINDINGS....................................................................................75
EXTENT OF THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN AFFECTED .................................................78
INTER-GENERATIONAL OFFENDING..........................................................................78
RECIDIVISM ..............................................................................................................79
FACILITATING EFFECTIVE CONTACT BETWEEN PRISONERS AND THEIR CHILDREN 79
DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH IMPRISONMENT ...................................................81
CURRENT SERVICE SYSTEM .....................................................................................82
CHANGING THE PARADIGM ......................................................................................83
11 IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH.......................................................87
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
CHILDREN OF FEMALE PRISONERS ...........................................................................87
CHILDREN RESIDING IN PRISON ...............................................................................88
THE NEEDS OF PREGNANT PRISONERS .....................................................................88
CHILDREN’S STORIES ...............................................................................................89
LONGITUDINAL STUDY .............................................................................................89
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................90
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1:
FIGURE 2:
FIGURE 3:
FIGURE 4:
PROPORTION OF MALE AND FEMALE PRISONERS IN THE SAMPLE BY PRISON
COMPARED WITH VICTORIAN PRISON SYSTEM CAPACITY ..............................21
DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH PRISON VISITS BY PRISON...........................48
ASSISTANCE THAT CAREGIVERS WOULD LIKE ................................................64
ASSISTANCE THAT PRISONERS WOULD LIKE ...................................................67
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1:
TABLE 2:
TABLE 3:
TABLE 4:
TABLE 5:
TABLE 6:
TABLE 7:
NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS BY PRISON ................................................................20
PROPORTION OF MALE AND FEMALE PRISONERS IN THE SAMPLE BY PRISON
COMPARED WITH VICTORIAN PRISON SYSTEM CAPACITY ..................................21
GENDER OF RESPONDENTS BY AGE – CAREGIVER RESPONDENTS.......................22
GENDER OF RESPONDENTS BY AGE – PRISONER RESPONDENTS .........................23
RELATIONSHIP OF CAREGIVER RESPONDENT TO PRISONER, BY GENDER OF
RESPONDENT ........................................................................................................24
TYPE OF INCARCERATION BY GENDER OF PRISONER ...........................................24
LENGTH OF SENTENCE ..........................................................................................25
PAGE ii
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
TABLE 8:
TABLE 9:
TABLE 10:
TABLE 11:
TABLE 12:
TABLE 13:
TABLE 14:
TABLE 15:
TABLE 16:
TABLE 17:
TABLE 18:
TABLE 19:
TABLE 20:
TABLE 21:
TABLE 22:
TABLE 23:
TABLE 24:
TABLE 25:
TABLE 26:
TABLE 27:
TABLE 28:
TABLE 29:
TABLE 30:
TABLE 31:
TABLE 32:
TABLE 33:
TABLE 34:
TABLE 35:
TABLE 36:
TABLE 37:
TABLE 38:
TABLE 39:
TABLE 40:
LENGTH OF INCARCERATION BY GENDER ........................................................26
FIRST TIME IN PRISON ......................................................................................27
PREVIOUS YOUTH TRAINING CENTRE SENTENCE ............................................28
CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF PRISONERS ........................................................30
CULTURAL BACKGROUND OF CAREGIVERS .....................................................31
LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF PRISONERS AS A CHILD .......................................31
FAMILY HISTORY OF IMPRISONMENT ...............................................................32
RELATIONSHIP OF PRISONER WITH INCARCERATED FAMILY MEMBER ...........33
NUMBER OF CHILDREN BY AGE .......................................................................34
RELATIONSHIP OF RESPONDENT TO CHILDREN ................................................34
LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF CHILDREN ...........................................................35
FREQUENCY OF VISITS......................................................................................38
REASONS FOR INFREQUENT VISITS BY CHILDREN, PRISONER AND CAREGIVER
RESPONDENTS...................................................................................................40
TYPE OF VISIT ...................................................................................................41
OTHER CONTACT – TELEPHONE CALLS AND LETTERS ....................................42
FREQUENCY OF TELEPHONE CALLS BY PRISON, CAREGIVERS RESPONSE .......43
DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH PRISON VISITS FOR CAREGIVERS AND
PRISONERS ........................................................................................................45
DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH PRISON VISITS BY PRISON...........................47
EXPLANATION GIVEN TO CHILDREN FOR THEIR PARENT’S ABSENCE .............51
REASON FOR NOT TELLING CHILDREN ABOUT IMPRISONMENT.......................52
POSSIBLE REACTION OF CHILDREN TO KNOWLEDGE OF THE IMPRISONMENT .53
CAREGIVERS’ CONCERNS .................................................................................55
PRISONERS’ CONCERNS ....................................................................................57
CHILDREN’S PERCEPTION OF THEIR PARENT’S IMPRISONMENT.......................58
OBSERVED DIFFERENCES IN CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOUR ....................................60
SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT CHANGES IN CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOUR....61
ASSISTANCE THAT CAREGIVERS WOULD LIKE ................................................63
ASSISTANCE THAT PRISONERS WOULD LIKE ...................................................66
CURRENT SUPPORT USED BY CAREGIVERS ......................................................70
SOURCE OF SUPPORT ........................................................................................70
TYPE OF SUPPORT RECEIVED............................................................................71
PLANNED LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF RELEASE .............................................73
LIVING ARRANGEMENTS ON RELEASE BY LENGTH OF TIME INSIDE ...............74
REFERENCES
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
APPENDIX 3
PROFILE OF PRISONS USED IN SURVEY
CONSENT FORM AND PARTICIPANTS’ INFORMATION
QUESTIONNAIRES
PAGE iii
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
PAGE iv
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Foreword
by The Hon Mr Justice David Harper
President VACRO
If truth is the first victim of war, one of the first victims of crime is objectivity in the
debate about punishment. No topic of general interest is tackled with less reason or
reasonableness. No subject is more vulnerable to rank political opportunism, media
irresponsibility or meanness of spirit. And it is the latter which particularly affects the
families, including the innocent children, of prisoners. They, too, are the victims of
crime.
We should not need extensive research to tell us that the children of prisoners are
often very adversely affected by the punishment inflicted upon the parent. Yet such
is our tunnel-vision when looking at crime and punishment that we ignore the
obvious. We clamour for increasingly harsh penalties as we call for more
consideration for the victim and less for the criminal. In doing so we do not spare a
thought for the families of those whose punishment we so vigorously demand.
Several observations are pertinent in this context. While it is obvious that
imprisonment of a parent will often impact adversely on the children of the prisoner,
we need to know much more before we are in a position to formulate an adequate
response. This has been a neglected area of study in Victoria and internationally.
It is a matter for shame that a society which (understandably) gives imprisonment a
central place in its system of punishments not only makes no attempt to provide
specific assistance to the innocent victims of this policy, but does not even seek
information about them or their needs. Humanity is adept at defining what it wants.
Its record in addressing the adverse consequences which the satisfaction of those
wants may generate elsewhere is, by contrast, pathetic.
“Doing It Hard” is a small but very important step towards correcting the imbalance.
The study provides the hard data which proves that “children of prisoners are a group
the specific needs [of which] have developed as a direct consequence of parental
imprisonment”, that “specific service responses are required” and that these
responses are at present either non-existent or inadequate: paragraph 10.8. Its
conclusions emphasise the benefits of addressing their needs in breaking the cycle
of offending. VACRO is proud to be associated with the research and with the report
"Doing It Hard”, which has resulted from it. Our task now is to do what we can to
address the needs which the report has graphically identified. In doing so, we will
benefit not only the families of prisoners, but ourselves.
VACRO is to be congratulated for initiating the research and I wish them success in
following through its recommendations.
PAGE v
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
PAGE vi
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
VACRO acknowledges the vision and support of Anne Kantor who, over many years,
has contributed invaluable insight and assistance to many of our projects. Her
generous contributions have made this important report possible.
The Sisters of the Good Shepherd also contributed to the funding of this research.
They, too, support VACRO and are greatly appreciated.
PAGE vii
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
PAGE viii
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
VACRO commissioned N.L.T. Consulting Pty Ltd to undertake this research in 1999,
with the report being written by Nola Tudball.
Many people have contributed to this study. This study was made possible by Judy
Lazarus’s wisdom, experience and vision for improving the services provided for
children and families of prisoners.
The knowledge and support of the VACRO staff in ensuring that the survey tool was
relevant was critical. The hard work of Leonie Poynter in undertaking the many
interviews with caregivers and prisoners ensured that interviews were conducted with
sensitivity and astuteness. The work of Janine Murray and Anne Rosewood in
conducting interviews and group discussions is also appreciated.
The generosity of Ann Cunningham in making available her research notes, literature
review and critical comments on the report, is most appreciated.
The support and critical comment of the staff and prisoners at Melbourne
Assessment Prison in assisting to develop the questionnaire is also greatly
appreciated.
A special thankyou is due also to Kelvin Anderson for his critical comments on the
draft report, and to David Hall for his support throughout the process.
The support and assistance of staff and management at the six prisons: Melbourne
Assessment Prison, Port Phillip Prison, Fulham Correctional Centre, Loddon
Regional Prison, Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre and Tarrengower
Prison, meant that the study could be undertaken with ease. Their concern for the
needs of children of prisoners was reflected in their support. Their concern for the
welfare of the interviewers was particularly appreciated.
Most importantly, we want to thank the prisoners and caregivers who contributed to
this study. It was difficult for them at times as many painful issues were raised. We
trust that their efforts will result in better outcomes for their children, and the children
of other prisoners, in the future.
PAGE ix
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
PAGE x
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The Victorian Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (VACRO) is a
non-profit, non-denominational community organisation whose mission is the care of
offenders, ex-offenders and their families. VACRO has been working with prisoners
and their families for over 127 years. During this time, it has formed a belief that the
“children, who have a parent in custody, do it hard when compared with children in
the general community.” However, little research, focusing directly on issues
affecting prisoners’ children, has been undertaken in Victoria.
This research was commissioned by VACRO to identify specific areas of need of
prisoners’ children. The primary aims were to assess the needs of children of
imprisoned parents in Victoria and to investigate the most appropriate ways in which
VACRO can respond to these needs.
The research was conducted in selected prisons across Victoria. The prisons were
selected to provide a range of the type of services available within the State, for both
male and female prisoners, and included maximum, medium and minimum security
level facilities. Both privately and publicly operated facilities were included.
Prisoners who are accommodated at the prisons listed below, and their families,
were included in the survey. These were:

Melbourne Assessment Prison (M.A.P.)

Port Phillip Prison (P.P.P.)

Fulham Correctional Centre (Fulham)

Loddon Regional Prison (Loddon)

Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre (M.W.C.C.)

Tarrengower Prison (Tarrengower).
A total of 221 prisoners and caregivers of prisoners’ children participated in this
research. One hundred and ninety-one (191) interviews, using a questionnaire, were
conducted at these facilities – 111 with prisoners (101 male and 10 female) and 80
with caregivers of prisoners’ children, who were visiting prisoners. Additionally, 30
prisoners were consulted through two focus groups, one held at Tarrengower Prison
and one at Port Phillip Prison. These groups concentrated on service responses.
It is important to note that children were not interviewed in this study. As this was the
first study of its kind in Victorian prisons, initial investigation of the needs of children
through surveying parents and caregivers was considered to be critical.
Methodology
Prisoners with children and caregivers of prisoners’ children were randomly selected
for interview. The criteria for participation in the study for prisoners were being a
parent and having had contact with their child(ren) within the past 12 months. There
was no matching of caregivers interviewed with prisoners who were interviewed.
Both groups were independently and randomly sampled.
PAGE xi
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
The questions focussed on the key issues that VACRO wished to explore. These
were:
1. Understanding the Respondents

overview of the respondents

nature of imprisonment

imprisonment history

family background

children.
2. Prison Visits and Contact

overview of visits and contact

difficulties with visits.
3. Dealing with Incarceration

prisoners’ reactions

caregivers’ reactions

children’s reactions.
4. Planning for the Future

living arrangements on release.
5. Seeking Assistance – Support Services

what would help

current supports used.
To provide additional information on specific concerns of mothers in prison and
support services that would assist families, two discussion groups were held - one at
Tarrengower Prison and one at Port Phillip Prison. A total of approximately 30
prisoners were consulted through these groups.
Other Related Research
Very little research has been conducted in Australia regarding the needs of children
and families of prisoners. In fact, only three significant studies have been
undertaken, two in New South Wales and one in Queensland (Hounslow, et al, 1982,
Standing Committee on Social Issues, Legislative Council, Parliament of New South
Wales, 1996, Cregan and Aungles, 1997). Importantly, no assessment of the needs
of children and families of prisoners has been undertaken in Victoria recently. The
only other study focussing on the needs of prisoners’ families in Victoria was
undertaken in 1964 (Zalba, 1964). Prisoners at Pentridge Prison and their wives
were interviewed for this study.
Significant research has been undertaken in other countries. The literature review for
this study examined the research in Great Britain, the United States of America and
Australia. The key findings of this research are summarised below.
PAGE xii
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
1. No reliable estimates of the extent of need
It is difficult to assess the extent of the needs of children of prisoners because no
formal statistical information is collected within prison systems regarding the
children of prisoners.
2. Behavioural and emotional responses of children
Imprisonment has a profound effect on children and there is considerable
consistency between the findings of the few studies which have examined these
effects. The behavioural and emotional effects on children identified include:

fear and anxiety

uncertainty about the justice system

sadness

belief that they did something wrong that caused the parent to leave

anger and guilt

confusion about their parent’s behaviour and the conflict between this and
how they have been taught to behave themselves

physical symptoms, such as increased health problems

regressive behaviour, such as bed-wetting

shame and isolation (Seymour, 1997).
3. Effect on development
Studies also highlighted the effects on development of children, particularly young
children. Johnston (1995) concluded that the normal developmental stages and
growth milestones can be influenced by the trauma of imprisonment of a parent,
resulting in aggressive behaviour, learning difficulties and maladaptive behaviour
patterns, including offending behaviour.
4. Disruption to care
Many children experience disruption in their care when a parent is incarcerated.
This may be the result of the primary caregiver being arrested or going to prison,
or a consequence in changes in economic circumstances for the family that can
result in forced re-location for the children and family. Multiple placements, care
provided outside the child’s normal community, with unfamiliar caregivers, or in
foster care, or loss of the family home, were found to be common experiences for
children of incarcerated parents (Zalba, 1964, Baunach, 1979, Koban, 1983,
Johnston, 1991 & 1992, The Howard League for Prison Reform, 1993).
5. Social stigma and secrecy
Research conducted by Cregan in Queensland and reported in Cregan and
Aungles (1997), concluded that the stigma of crime and the socially isolating
effects on families is central to many of the difficulties that children and families
face in dealing with imprisonment.
PAGE xiii
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
6. Impact of imprisonment on the parenting role of prisoners
The difficulties for imprisoned parents, particularly mothers, have been relatively
well documented (Lowenstein, 1986, Shaw, 1987, Hairston, 1991, Johnston,
1991, Bloom, 1995, Hairston, 1995, O’Connor, 1996, Richards and McWilliams,
1996, Johnston, 1995, Caddle and Crisp, 1997, Cregan and Aungles, 1997).
These studies have highlighted a range of parental concerns, including:

the impact of parent-child separation, particularly when the mother is
imprisoned

the impact that incarceration may have on the lives of children, including
possible offending behaviour and difficulties at school

the disruption to care, particularly if children are placed in substitute care

loss of parental authority over their children

the economic impact on the family, particularly if the main income earner in
the family has been imprisoned

lack of communication with their children – losing touch

sense of powerlessness.
7. Impact of imprisonment on families and caregivers
Some studies have examined the needs of families of prisoners. However, as
Cregan and Aungles (1997) pointed out, families continue to face problems with
the criminal justice system. They argue that this is a consequence of:

social effects – financial hardship, disruption of prison visiting, loss of
“couple” status, prisoners’ insecurity and disrupted schooling for children

institutional effects – difficult interactions with custodial staff, learning the
rules of the prison, difficulty in obtaining information about the prison
system, “child unfriendly” visiting centres, lack of awareness of support
services for families

personal (physical and psychological health) – exhaustion, confusion,
depression and insecurity, children acting out, including being involved in
criminal behaviour, rejection of parental authority.
8. Service needs and responses
A range of service responses to meet the complex and special needs of children
and families of prisoners have been developed in the U.S.A. and Great Britain.
Importantly, these responses provide integrated and comprehensive services,
focussing on the parenting needs of prisoners, the emotional and developmental
needs of children and the need to support and maintain the relationship between
children and their imprisoned parent.
Overview of the Findings
1.
Sample Population
PAGE xiv
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA

Respondents in the study had a total of 365 children. The majority of these
children were under the age of 10 (71%).

A total of 191 respondents were interviewed – 80 caregivers and 111
prisoners, with a further 30 prisoners consulted through discussion groups.

The composition of the sample was consistent with the Victorian prison
population and represented six percent of that prison population.

The majority of respondents identified their cultural background as
Australian. Six percent identified themselves as Aboriginal or Torres Strait
Islander.

The majority of respondents were aged between 20 and 34 years.
2.
Previous Offending History

Forty-one percent (41%) of prisoners interviewed, and those referred to by
the caregiver respondents, had been in prison previously.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of prisoners interviewed, and those referred to by
the caregiver respondents, had served a Youth Training Centre (YTC)
sentence – 40% of males and 28% of females.
3.
Family History

A high proportion of prisoners interviewed, and those referred to by the
caregiver respondents, lived in single parent families as a child, with many
indicating more than one living arrangement as a child.

Thirty percent (30%) lived apart from at least one of their parents as a child –
living alone, in substitute care, with relatives or in boarding school.

A total of 40 percent (40%) of respondents indicated that the prisoner had a
relative who had been imprisoned. Most of these were close family
members – parent, sibling, son, grandparent, cousin and uncle.
4.
Prison Visiting

The majority of respondents, both prisoners and caregivers indicated that
their children visited the prisoner frequently – weekly, fortnightly and monthly.

The main reason given for children not visiting regularly was that the
caregiver did not want them to do so. Travel problems were also a
significant barrier to visiting.

The most difficult aspect of visits identified by both prisoners and caregivers
was that children get bored during visits. Other concerns included:
 no or limited access to play equipment
 lack of access to an outdoor area
 lack of privacy with the prisoner for caregivers
 lack of opportunity for the prisoner to spend time alone with his/her
children
 atmosphere of visits creating tension
 prison restrictions on movement of the prisoner
PAGE xv
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA

waiting times for visits at some prisons.
PAGE xvi
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
5.
Dealing with Incarceration

The most frequently raised concern by prisoners was that they missed their
children.

Prisoners were also concerned about “not being there for the children” and
“not knowing what was happening with the children”.

Caregiver respondents were primarily concerned that it had become more
difficult communicate with the prisoner (their partner) since the imprisonment
had commenced.

Parenting issues were of concern to caregiver respondents in particular – not
being able to get a break from the children, coping alone, making decisions
alone and managing the children’s behaviour.

Other concerns included:
 children not wanting neighbours or friends to know about their
parent’s imprisonment
 concern that the relationship between the child(ren) and the prisoner
was becoming distant
 how to tell the children about the prison sentence
 concern that the children would be singled out or ostracised at school

6.
children missing their parent who was in prison.
Children’s Responses

Sixty-two percent (62%) of respondents indicated that there had been some
negative changes in their children’s behaviour since the prison sentence
commenced.

Other behavioural changes observed included:
 more anger and aggression
 problems at school
 being quiet and withdrawn
 being difficult on visits
 resenting the prisoner

being “paranoid” about the police.

The most common view of children, as indicated by their caregivers and
prisoner parents, was their parent was “naughty” or had “done wrong”.

While the majority of respondents had told their children that their parent was
in prison, almost a third (31%) had provided another explanation for their
parent’s absence or had said nothing.

Some respondents indicated that their children perceived their imprisoned
parent as a “victim” of the justice system – he had been “set-up”, it was
“unfair”, he was a “hero”.
PAGE xvii
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
7.
Support Services

Almost half of the caregivers (49%) depended upon their family members
and friends for support. Approximately one in five (21%) indicated that they
used more formal support services. The others either did not require support
or did not seek assistance.

The most frequently raised need for support was the opportunity to speak
with an independent person who understood the prison system.

Support for families at home was considered to be important.

Prisoners believed that a range of support services provided within the prison
was important. This included the opportunity to play with their children in a
more normal environment, relationship counselling and parenting and child
development education.
Living Arrangements on Release
8.

The majority of caregivers expected the prisoner to go home to live with the
family (76%) while less than half (47%) of prisoner respondents expected to
do this.

A high proportion of prisoners (73%) who were sentenced for 2 years or less
expected to return home to live with their children and families or have
contact with their children but not live with them.
Implications of the Results
1. Lack of planning for services
Victoria does not collect information about prisoners as parents.
The
consequence of this is that it is not possible to estimate accurately the number of
children in Victoria who are affected by a parent being in prison. To facilitate
effective service planning and delivery, it is important to have accurate knowledge
of the numbers of children who may require support.
2. Inter-generational offending
These data present a disturbing outlook for children of prisoners. Based on the
family history of their parents, the children of prisoners are more likely than
children in the general community to:

be imprisoned themselves

have changes in their living arrangements, including living apart from their
families

develop a negative perception of the justice system.
3. Recidivism
A high proportion of prisoners had been in prison previously, with many also
having served a Youth Training Centre sentence.
Comments from caregivers and prisoners indicated that there was an acceptance
by many that the prisoner would continue to return to prison and this was an
accepted part of their lives. Some prisoners regarded living in prison as easier
than living in the community. There was a disturbing perception by several
PAGE xviii
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
respondents, particularly prisoners, that there was “no hope” for them –
imprisonment was a way of life for them and some chose this for themselves.
This pattern of living and response to the imprisonment can give a strong
message to children that serving a prison sentence is part of life – it was the
culture for some families. This was also reflected in the strong pattern of intergenerational offending.
4. Facilitating Effective Contact between Prisoners and their Children
Concerns regarding contact and visits related to general comments about visiting
and more specific issues relating to the regulations at particular prisons. These
can be summarised as follows:

prison visit centres are not conducive to enhancing positive parent/child
interactions

the facilities in visit centres generally contribute to increased difficulties in
the interactions between parents and their children on visits eg, crowded
rooms, inappropriate behaviour of some prisoners, lack of adequate play
equipment (both inside and outside), lack of healthy food in canteens

the distance that families have to travel for visits, and the associated costs,
increase the stress involved in undertaking prison visits and contribute to
decreasing contact between parents and their children

some prison regulations associated with contact, such as seating
arrangements and times of access for telephone calls, contribute to the
tension of visits for children and inhibit contact between prisoners and their
children

families are often disadvantaged by the security classification system
which determines where prisoners reside

many children are prevented from visiting their parents in prison because
of family conflict and the consequent unavailability of an adult to
accompany children on visits.
Consideration needs to be given to making visit centres more child-friendly in
ways that do not impinge on security, eg, pictures on the walls, colour schemes
that enhance the atmosphere for children.
Difficulties Associated with Imprisonment
A high proportion of respondents indicated that they had observed negative
behavioural responses in their children since the imprisonment commenced (62%).
There may be a number of contributing factors, including:

the caregiver’s reactions to the imprisonment

the caregiver’s response to being a single parent

increased financial pressures on the family

a change in the children’s lives – possible changes in living arrangements or
school

grief response to the absence of their parent
PAGE xix
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA

pressure associated
whereabouts

the response to the arrest of their parent and the impact of the court process,
particularly if these had been traumatic and well publicised in the media.
with
maintaining
secrecy
about
their
parent’s
Children’s knowledge and perceptions of their parent’s imprisonment were also
important. A high proportion of respondents indicated that one of the most difficult
aspects of dealing with the imprisonment was how to tell the children. This was
reflected the large number of respondents who had provided another explanation to
the children about their parent’s absence or had told the children nothing. An
atmosphere of mistrust and deception may develop if children find out that their
parents have lied to them.
Seeking Assistance
The majority of those interviewed did not seek assistance with their family difficulties
or managing the problems they faced in dealing with the incarceration. This was
often because they had difficulty in talking about their problems and felt ashamed of
their situation.
While a range of support services for families is provided within the community, the
majority of these services have high waiting lists and are unable to meet community
demand. These services have several difficulties in meeting the needs of families
and children of prisoners:

They often do not have the expertise and knowledge of the complexities of
working with children of prisoners.

Many of these services are targeted primarily at children regarded as at risk
of abuse or removal from their families. This means that many families are
fearful of approaching services themselves or are unable to access the
services until the difficulties within the family are extreme.

Families are often reluctant to seek support from these services, due to the
their reluctance to speak about the imprisonment.

The service provision operates in isolation from the prison system and thus is
not able to address the needs of children in a holistic manner. This
particularly relates to concerns regarding contact with the parent in prison
and opportunities to develop and enhance the relationship between the
children and their imprisoned parent.
Specifically, the following service needs have been identified through this research:

specialist counselling services for children

specialist counselling and support for caregivers of prisoners’ children

relationship counselling that can be conducted in the prison

family-oriented visiting centres within the prison

support groups for children of prisoners

support groups for prisoners who are parents

support groups for caregivers of prisoners’ children and families
PAGE xx
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA

child development education for prisoners

practical parenting education for prisoners, with opportunities to learn and
develop with their children as part of the program

opportunities for prisoners and their children to play together in a supportive
environment

support for children to visit their parents in prison without their caregiver, in
order to spend time alone with their parent

opportunities for prisoners to participate more fully in decision-making for their
children and so take some responsibility for their care.
While some of these services are currently being provided, mostly by VACRO and
some other agencies, service delivery is largely ad hoc and there is an absence of
planning for the unique needs of the children and families of prisoners.
Meeting the Needs of Children and Families of Prisoners
There is a need to develop integrated and holistic services, operated by
organisations that have expertise in working in the prison system and are staffed by
professionals who understand the difficulties that confront children and families of
prisoners. These services need to:

be linked with the range of support programs offered within prisons

include a range of service options and approaches for families and
children

be linked to a range of community-based supports for families and children

be comprehensive in their approach

be able to respond to the complex and varied needs of the children of
prisoners.
In addition to these service responses, the needs of children who spend holidays in
the prison with their parents were highlighted in the research. The lack of activities
for young people was raised as a concern. Activities in the local area, or specific
activities within the prison for these young people to be involved in with their parents
or on their own, would assist to foster more positive relationships and minimise the
sense of the children being “locked up”.
Changing the Paradigm
The cycle of offending behaviour needs to be broken. While integrated service
delivery can assist in addressing the needs of the children and prisoners, there is a
critical need to consider the response of the judicial system to offending behaviour.
Options to be considered include:

alternatives to imprisonment, whether these are community-based
correctional orders, development of alternative prison models or other
diversionary programs

recognition of the impact of offending behaviour and imprisonment of a
parent on children

consideration of the needs of children of prisoners in the sentencing process.
PAGE xxi
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
The primary focus of the prison system is the care and welfare of prisoners.
However, this research has highlighted the strong inter-connection between
prisoners and their children and the impact of imprisonment on children, including
future offending behaviour. If the prison system is to focus on rehabilitation and not
just punishment, interventions that focus on the prisoner within the context of his/her
family must occur.
This implies a paradigm shift for prisons – moving from a focus on
the care of the prisoner alone to focussing on the care of the
prisoner and his/her family.
This includes consideration of:

pre- and post- release programs, to support prisoners in being re-united with
their families

developing more child-friendly visiting areas

family circumstances in the placement of prisoners

enhancing and developing opportunities for positive interaction between
prisoners and their children, including access to telephones at times when
children are available, providing books and other activities and healthy food
in the canteen.
Implications for Further Research
This study is just a first step in understanding the needs of children of prisoners in
Victoria and developing appropriate service responses to meet these needs. The
following are highlighted as areas that require further examination and that can build
on the data collected in this research:

examination of the special needs of children of female prisoners

research into the needs children residing in prison

the parenting needs prisoners, particularly those whose children reside with
them

research into the needs of pregnant prisoners, including pre- and post-natal
support services

listening to the children of prisoners and involving them in further research

developing a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of
imprisonment and understanding the impact of these effects over several
years.
PAGE xxii
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
List of Recommendations
Recommendation 1
That VACRO present a case for collecting information on the parental status of prisoners to the
Department of Justice. The model used by the Forensic Psychiatric Services in Victoria could be
extended to the whole of the Victorian prison system.
Recommendation 2
That VACRO pursue the development of early intervention programs, aimed at supporting children
and breaking the cycle of offending, within selected prisons in Victoria. These programs need to
be:

supported by the Department of Justice and the individual prisons

adequately funded

evaluated in both the short and long term

incorporate research components into the service design.
Recommendation 3
That VACRO discuss the outcomes of this research with the Department of Justice with a view to:

shifting the paradigm of prisons from care of the prisoner alone, to care of the prisoner
and his/her family and

establishing an integrated approach to breaking the cycle of offending behaviour.
This implies consideration of:

alternatives to imprisonment

development and funding of programs and services within prisons that focus on early
intervention

pre and post release programs that support the relationship between prisoners and their
children

maintaining family contact in sentencing and placement of prisoners

specific programs for children and young people who stay with their parents in prison.
Recommendation 4
That VACRO investigate opportunities to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the needs of
children whose mothers have received a custodial sentence.
Recommendation 5
That VACRO investigate opportunities to undertake research into the needs of pregnant women in
prison and the pre- and post- natal support provided to them.
Recommendation 6
That VACRO investigate opportunities to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the needs of
children residing in prison with their parents, either permanently or on a short-term basis during
school holidays.
Recommendation 7
That VACRO incorporate research components in the design and implementation of any service
delivery models developed to further address the needs of children of prisoners, including:

strategies for documenting children’s stories

development of a longitudinal study to examine the impact of imprisonment on children
over time.
PAGE xxiii
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
1
Introduction
1.1
Background
The Victorian Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (VACRO) is a
non-profit, non-denominational community organisation whose mission is the care of
offenders, ex-offenders and their families. VACRO has been working with prisoners
and their families for over 127 years. During this time, it has formed a belief that the
“children, who have a parent in custody, do it hard when compared with children in
the general community.” However, little research, focusing directly on issues
affecting prisoners’ children, has been undertaken in Victoria.
This research was commissioned by VACRO to identify specific areas of need of
prisoners’ children. The primary aim was to investigate the most appropriate ways in
which VACRO can respond to these needs.
1.2
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to:

provide data and analysis to inform VACRO’s service planning and delivery

add to contemporary knowledge and assist decision making in this relatively
neglected area, through dissemination of findings

assist VACRO in validating its hypothesis that there are significant service
gaps in programs to address the needs of children who have a parent in
custody

provide an informed view of the direction and types of services that VACRO
can implement.
1.3
Overview of the Approach
1. Examine relevant literature that provides insights into the development of
appropriate research methodology.
2. Analyse relevant Australian and international literature regarding the needs of
families and children of prisoners.
3. Analyse other data and statistics that provide a profile of the prisoners and their
families.
4. Develop and implement a methodology that focuses on action research and is
inclusive of all key stakeholders.
5. Analyse the needs of families and children of prisoners.
6. Undertake consultation with relevant individuals, groups and organisations
providing a range of support services for families in the community.
7. Provide an overview of the range of family support services available in the
community and analyse how these may meet the identified needs of prisoners’
families and children.
8. Make recommendations to VACRO regarding the key elements required in a
support service for families and children of prisoners.
PAGE 1
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
1.4
Scope of the Study
The research was conducted in selected prisons across Victoria. The prisons were
selected to provide a range of the type of services available within the State, for both
male and female prisoners, and included maximum, medium and minimum security
level facilities. Both privately and publicly operated facilities were included.
Prisoners who are accommodated at the prisons listed below, and their families,
were included in the survey. These were:

Melbourne Assessment Prison (M.A.P.)

Port Phillip Prison (P.P.P.)

Fulham Correctional Centre (Fulham)

Loddon Regional Prison (Loddon)

Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre (M.W.C.C.)

Tarrengower Prison (Tarrengower).
A total of 221 prisoners and caregivers of prisoners’ children participated in this
research. One hundred and ninety-one (191) interviews were conducted at these
facilities, using a survey – 111 with prisoners (101 male and 10 female) and 80 with
caregivers of prisoners’ children, who were visiting prisoners. Details of the sampling
are contained in Section 4. Additionally, 30 prisoners were consulted through two
focus groups, one held at Tarrengower Prison and one at Port Phillip Prison. These
groups concentrated on service responses.
This study did not examine the needs of women who give birth while in prison or the
needs of children who are living in prison with their mothers. However, one
respondent did have her children living with her and several women involved in the
focus group had their children staying with them during the school holidays. It is
considered that the needs of these groups are so complex that they should be
considered separately. A study of children residing in the prison system should form
the basis of future research.
It is also important to note that children were not interviewed in this study. As this
was the first study of its kind in Victorian prisons, surveying parents and caregivers
was considered to be critical in the first instance.
PAGE 2
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
2
Context
2.1
Overview of the Victorian Prison System
The prison system in Victoria is comprised of a mix of both publicly and privately
operated facilities. There are a total of 13 prisons – 10 public and 3 private. Two
facilities accommodate female prisoners - one private and one public; the remaining
facilities accommodate male prisoners.
The Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner in Victoria reported that the
daily average number of male prisoners in 1997-98 was 2,545, compared with a daily
average of 147 female prisoners, for a total of 2,692 prisoners. The system had a
capacity of 2,951 beds in 1997-98, with 163 beds for women and 2,788 beds for male
prisoners. Of these, 45% of the total were provided by the private sector: 43% of
male beds and 77% of female beds in the Victorian Prison system.
The facilities across the State provide a range of specialist and mainstream services,
within maximum, medium and minimum security level facilities. A more detailed
profile of the six prisons where interviews for this survey were conducted is contained
in Appendix 1.
2.2
VACRO’s Work in the Prison System
VACRO was formed in 1872 as the Discharged Prisoners’ Aid Society, with the aim
of providing assistance to prisoners on their release. Over time, VACRO has
changed its focus to working more with prisoners’ families, while continuing its work
with ex-prisoners and providing programs and services to prisoners still serving their
sentences. The range of programs and services provided by VACRO includes:

support programs for the families of persons charged with major crimes

support programs for families of persons charged with sex offences

drug and alcohol education for families of offenders

Bendigo Prison drug treatment program – family service

prisoner welfare and practical support

prisoner information and help line

family liaison services at Fulham Correctional Centre, Port Phillip Prison and
Melbourne Assessment Prison

development of a volunteer support program.
This research will provide valuable quantitative and qualitative information for
VACRO in developing further its programs and support services for children and
families of prisoners.
PAGE 3
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
PAGE 4
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
3
Other Related Research
3.1
Overview
The information on related research and studies contained here is not intended to be
a comprehensive literature review. Rather, the selected studies provide a context for
this work and insights into the development of services in the United States and
Great Britain, which are two of the English-speaking countries that have addressed
the needs of children of prisoners in some way.
Very little research has been conducted in Australia regarding the needs of children
and families of prisoners. In fact, only three significant studies have been
undertaken, two in New South Wales and one in Queensland. The key findings of
these studies are highlighted in this section. Importantly, no assessment of the
needs of children and families of prisoners has been undertaken in Victoria recently.
Only one other study, focussing on the needs of prisoners’ families, appears to have
been undertaken in Victoria, in 1964 (Zalba, 1964). Prisoners at Pentridge Prison
and their wives were interviewed for this study.
There is also little documentation on the services provided in Australia for children of
prisoners. This does not necessarily mean that services are not available. Rather, it
is a reflection of the resources that have been committed to the documentation of
such work and the integration of services across the country. However, it is
important to note, that very few services in Victoria provide specialist services that
address the needs of children of prisoners. This is highlighted in Section 8 of this
report.
The research reviewed here specifically addresses the key areas that have been
investigated in this needs assessment. These are:

impact of imprisonment on children, including their responses to visiting and
any behavioural changes, perceived by caregivers of prisoners’ children

impact of imprisonment on the parenting role of prisoners

impact of imprisonment on caregivers of prisoners’ children

service needs and responses for children and caregivers of prisoners’
children.
3.2
Understanding the Extent of the Needs
Significantly, no formal statistical information, regarding the children of prisoners, is
collected within the prison system. This was noted in Hounslow et al (1982) and in
the NSW Standing Committee on Social Issues report, “Children of Imprisoned
Parents”, published in 1997 and also in research of the Children of Prisoners Support
Group in NSW (1997). This has also been the case in studies in Great Britain and
the United States (Matthews, 1983, Shaw, 1987, Lloyd, 1995, Johnston, 1995, in
Gabel and Johnston, 1995, Beatty, 1997). While estimates of the numbers of
children of prisoners have been made in many of these studies, no reliable statistics
are available within Australia and most importantly for this study, within Victoria.
PAGE 5
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
The Legislative Council Standing Committee on Social Issues (1997) estimated that
60% of female prisoners in NSW were parents at the time of their incarceration. No
estimates were made for male prisoners. The NSW Government now aims to
redress the problem of lack of data through implementing the recommendation of the
Standing Committee to collect data on children of prisoners (NSW Government,
1998).
A 1982 study for the NSW Government, conducted by Hounslow et al (1982:1), was
the first significant examination of the needs of children of prisoners in Australia and
arguably, in English-speaking countries. The report noted:
Child punishment is often the other side of the coin to parental
imprisonment. This is one of those shadowy corners of the criminal
justice system seldom spotlighted. In our society, prisoners are
marginalised; their spouses and adult friends isolated and hidden;
while their children – to all intents and purposes – are invisible.
(Hounslow, et al, 1982:1)
The recommendations of this 1982 study were based on the principle that children
have an inalienable right to be adequately cared for in their dependent years, and to
develop and maintain those interpersonal relationships which are the major vehicle of
such emotional and physical care. (ibid, 1982: 167) In particular, it emphasised:
3.3

the importance of the rights of children to continue to be cared for in a
familiar community with known, significant adults

adequate support being provided to their carers

preserving the rights and abilities of the prisoner to remain a functioning
parent, with the only limitation on such rights and responsibilities being that
he/she does not live with the children.
Impact of Imprisonment on Children
3.3.1 Emotional and Behavioural Responses
Imprisonment of a parent has a profound affect on children. Several studies have
examined the impact on children, but many of these used relatively small samples,
inadequate comparison groups or lacked standardised assessments procedures
(Seymour, 1997). In addition, as with this study, most have relied on self-reporting
by incarcerated parents, with no direct contact with children (Gabel and Johnston,
1995).
The Standing Committee on Social Issues (1997) observed that the lack of research
into the children of prisoners appears to be a world-wide phenomenon, suggesting
that this is related to the relatively low status of prisoners, particularly female
prisoners. Hounslow et al (1982) suggested that:
This dearth of information is not accidental. It is both convenient
and necessary, because those who uphold the prevailing legal and
penal ideology simply cannot afford to consider what happens to
prisoners’ kids. Any recognition of their plight strikes at the very
notion of “justice”, “innocence” and “guilt” upon which this ideology
is founded. (Hounslow et al, 1982:1)
PAGE 6
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
There is considerable consistency in the conclusions of the studies that have been
conducted.
Most of these studies highlight the trauma, grief and distress
experienced by children. While some studies related this to similar reactions of
children who experience the death of a parent, or children suffering loss of a parent
who goes to war (Larman, 1997, Johnston, 1992), or to parental separation through
divorce (Boudouris, 1996), these analogies are inadequate. They do not take
account of the stress associated with the social stigma and isolation that often results
from parental imprisonment. The uncertainty and disruption that frequently occurs in
children’s lives, as families adjust to the loss of a caregiver and/or primary incomeprovider further increases the trauma. The additional stress of keeping secret about
the whereabouts of a parent also contributes to the distress experienced by children
(Standing Committee on Social Issues, 1997).
The Howard League for Penal Reform (1993) conducted a study where they asked
children, participating in their programs for mothers and children, what they had told
their friends about their mother’s absence, about where they were living and about
their feelings. They concluded that the answers revealed “a level of distress and pain
previously ignored” (Howard League for Penal Reform, 1993:21). The League
concluded that the needs and best interests of children are not currently given
enough consideration by the criminal justice system.
In one of the first studies to examine the impact of imprisonment on children, Sack et
al (1976) examined children’s reactions to a parent’s imprisonment within a
psychosocial context. They reported that prisoners’ wives observed a range of
changes in their children’s behaviour and reactions to their father’s imprisonment.
These impacted on most areas of their lives and included:

sense of loss

more disruptive and aggressive behaviour

reduced levels of obedience

decrease in performance at school

sadness

fear

“anti-social” behaviour.
More recent studies have observed similar reactions. Seymour (1997) indicated that
children experience a broad range of emotions and behavioural responses when
their parents go to prison. These include:

fear and anxiety

separation anxiety:
 worry that they have been abandoned or that they will never see the
parent again
 worry that the remaining parent will also disappear

nightmares

fear of strangers

fear of being alone
PAGE 7
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA

uncertainty about the justice system

sadness

belief that they did something wrong that caused the parent to leave

anger and guilt

confusion about their parent’s behaviour and the conflict between this and
how they have been taught to behave themselves

physical symptoms, such as increased health problems

regressive behaviour, such as bed-wetting

shame and isolation.
3.3.2 Effects on Development
The age of children when their parents are incarcerated is also critical (Johnston,
1995, Seymour, 1997). The impact of separation for children, particularly separation
from mothers for very young children, can result in attachment problems and critical
developmental delays, (Johnston, 1995, Hairston, 1991, Kantor, 1997). Similarly, the
reactions of older children and adolescents are related to their developmental growth.
Johnston (1995) concluded that the normal developmental stages and growth
milestones can be influenced by the trauma of imprisonment of a parent, resulting in
aggressive behaviour, learning difficulties and maladaptive behaviour patterns,
including aggressive offending behaviour.
Parental crime, arrest, and incarceration interfere with the ability of
children to successfully master developmental tasks and to
overcome the effects of enduring trauma, parent-child separation,
and an inadequate quality of care. The combination of these
effects produce serious long-term outcomes, including
intergenerational incarceration. (Johnston, 1995 in Gabel and
Johnston, 1995:84)
In one of the few studies where children have been interviewed, Kampfner (1995)
assessed the responses of children whose mothers had been imprisoned. She found
that children were traumatised by their experiences of maternal crime, arrest, and
incarceration.
”They showed symptoms associated with acute post-traumatic
stress disorder. However, their circumstances – including the
social stigma attached to maternal incarceration, caregivers’ wellintentioned efforts to protect them from trauma-related cues, and
their lack of emotional supports – combine in ways that make it
difficult for them to overcome the effects of trauma…. They have
the right to have the enormity of that loss acknowledged and should
be given appropriate forms of help to enable them to recover”.
(Kampfner, 1995 in Gabel and Johnston, 1995:84)
3.3.3 Care of Children
In addition to the response to separation and the community reaction to
incarceration, many children experience disruption in their care when a parent is
incarcerated. This may be the result of the primary caregiver being arrested or going
PAGE 8
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
to prison, or as a consequence in changes in economic circumstances for the family
that can result in involuntary relocation for the children and family. Multiple
placements, care provided outside the child’s normal community, with unfamiliar
caregivers, or in foster care, or loss of the family home were found to be common
experiences for children of incarcerated parents (Zalba, 1964, Baunach, 1979,
Koban, 1983, Johnston, 1991 & 1992, The Howard League for Prison Reform, 1993).
The Standing Committee on Social Issues (1997) found that imprisonment of a
parent could cause massive upheaval and dislocation for a child.
In the case of the imprisonment of a sole carer (usually the case
when a mother is imprisoned) it can mean a change in caregiver,
home, school, community and friendship network. For some
children it can mean entry into the substitute care system and the
possibility that they will be made wards of the state. (Standing
Committee on Social Issues, 1997: 53)
3.3.4 Social Stigma and Secrecy
Several studies have highlighted the impact on children when they are forced to hide
the fact that their parent is in prison (Standing Committee of Social Issues, 1997,
Beatty, 1997, Johnston, 1995). The Standing Committee on Social Issues (1997:54)
found that this secrecy could place an enormous burden on a child and compound
the trauma of separation from the parent.
However, Johnston (1995) reported that social stigma or shame has not been
regarded as a significant concern for imprisoned parents or a significant factor in
producing the effects of parental incarceration in several recent studies (Bloom &
Steinhart, 1992, Johnston 1991, 1992, 1993). This has not been confirmed in
Australian research. Research conducted by Cregan in Queensland, reported in
Cregan and Aungles (1997), concluded that the stigma of crime and the social
isolating effects on families is central to many of the difficulties that children and
families face when dealing with imprisonment.
3.4
Impact of Imprisonment on the Parenting Role of
Prisoners
The difficulties for imprisoned parents, particularly mothers, have been well
documented (Lowenstein, 1986, Shaw, 1987, Hairston, 1991, Johnston, 1991,
Bloom, 1995, Hairston, 1995, O’Connor, 1996, Richards and McWilliams, 1996,
Johnston, 1995, Caddle and Crisp, 1997, Cregan and Aungles, 1997). These studies
have highlighted a range of parental concerns, including:

the impact of parent-child separation, particularly when the mother is
imprisoned

the impact that incarceration may have on the lives of their children, including
possible offending behaviour and difficulties at school

disruption to care, particularly if children are placed in substitute care

inability to control or protect their children

loss of parental authority over their children
PAGE 9
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA

the economic impact on the family, particularly if the main income earner has
been imprisoned

lack of communication with their children – losing touch

sense of powerlessness.
The importance of developing positive contact between the family and the prisoner
was seen as critical in supporting prisoners and ensuring that family ties were
maintained.
3.5
Impact of Imprisonment on Families and Caregivers
Many studies have examined the needs of families of prisoners. However, as
Cregan and Aungles (1997) pointed out, families continue to face problems with the
criminal justice system. They argue that this is a consequence of:

social effects – financial hardship, disruption of prison visiting, loss of
“couple” status, prisoner’s insecurity and disrupted schooling

institutional effects – difficult interactions with custodial staff, learning the
rules of the prison, difficulty in obtaining information about the prison system,
“child unfriendly” visiting centres, lack of awareness of support services for
families

personal (physical and psychological health) – exhaustion, confusion,
depression and insecurity, children “acting-out” - including being involved in
criminal behaviour and rejection of parental authority.
Johnston (1995) indicated that caregivers of prisoners’ children have an enormously
difficult task:
“They must not only provide for the children’s material needs, but
often must also explain parental absence, develop and maintain a
caregiver-child relationship (or a sole parent relationship)1, develop
and maintain a caregiver-parent relationship, foster parent-child
communication, support parent-child prison visits, and/or work
toward family reunification.” (Johnston and Gabel 1995:113)
3.6
Service Needs and Responses
Weintraub (1976) argued that families of prisoners are in situations of “acute
disequilibrium”, requiring a range of services.
Several innovative programs focussing on supporting children and families of
prisoners have been developed in Great Britain and the U.S.A..
The Howard League for Penal Reform in Great Britain developed a program
focussing on mothers and children at Holloway Prison. This program includes
extended day visits and prison visits in a child-centred environment. This centre is
similar to a community centre where mothers and children can join together in
activities ranging from swimming to painting and reading to roller-skating ( Howard
League for Penal Reform, 1993).
1
The insertion is by the writer of this report.
PAGE 10
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
“The scheme gives mothers the chance to take responsibility for
their own children and goes some of the way to giving women back
some self esteem. Not only are these visits beneficial for the
mother, they also mean that some of the damage of separation
experienced by the children can begin to be repaired.” (ibid:6)
Boudouris (1996) surveyed a range of programs for incarcerated mothers and their
children in 50 states across the U.S.A., the District of Columbia and Canada. He
concluded that the most effective programs for strengthening the parent-child
relationship included:

improved conditions for visiting

children’s centres where prisoners and children can develop parent-child
bonds through play and learning together, with support provided

strengthening parent-child relationships through interaction

inmate training in parenting and early childhood education

improved prenatal care

referrals to other social services

marriage counselling

parenting programs

programs that focus on the prevention of child abuse

extended family visit programs

children’s activities

seminars dealing with family relationships.
Boudouris (1996) highlighted the effectiveness of the Mamas and their Children
(MATCH) and Papas and their Children (PATCH) programs. These programs
included opportunities to transport parents to centres where they could visit in a
“homelike” atmosphere. These programs offer:

parenting classes

individual counselling

liaison with family services and juvenile courts

holiday and birthday programs

books, read on to tapes by parents, that children can listen to when not with
their parents.
Other successful programs included home-based services for families:

case management

support groups for children

support groups for caregivers

tutoring, training in problem-solving techniques
PAGE 11
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA

family visits

overnight stays for children

children’s centres

community-based correctional facilities for mothers, where they can live with
their children while they serve their sentences

conjugal visits

prison nurseries.
Johnston (1995) identified five elements of successful intervention programs to assist
children and families of prisoners. These were:

crisis nurseries in prisons for children residing with their mothers

therapeutic visitation with families at home by specialist staff

arrest-related services

therapeutic intervention services for children

services that address parent-child separation.
Johnston (1995) also highlighted the importance of support for caregivers of female
prisoners’ children.
Other important aspects of services included:

parent education

parent empowerment services – parenting education provided by former
incarcerated parents

peer support and education

treatment programs.
Considerable work has been undertaken by the Home Office in Great Britain to
improve the opportunities for contact between women prisoners and their children. In
a review conducted in 1997, the Chief Inspector of Prisons highlighted some key
programs operating in British prisons for women and recommended that many of
these innovations be implemented across the system,. These innovations included:

telephones located in private areas with free phone cards provided

streamlined processes for booking visits

child centred visiting centres

family Contact Development Officers in female prisons, as the first step to
implementing across the whole of the system

opportunities for family visiting to occur in the community.
Additionally, Johnston and Gabel (1995) indicated that services need to be directed
towards the root causes of domestic violence, as well as assisting prisoners and their
families in achieving peaceful reunification. This is particularly the case for male
prisoners.
PAGE 12
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
3.7
Family and Children’s Service System in Victoria
A range of services for family and children is available within Victoria. These include
universally available services such as maternal and child health services, play groups
and pre-schools. Support with child care is also available, although limited access is
available to child care fee-assisted places for social support and relief. Other
services include in-home support and family counselling services within community
health centres and other non-government, usually church-based counselling and
family support services.
Many of these services have long waiting lists and all are only partially funded by the
state government. Policy directions over the past five years have targeted many
family support services to families where children are deemed to be at risk of abuse
or removal from their families or have come to the attention of the child protection
system. Therefore, families of prisoners often avoid approaching these services
themselves or access services at the point at which their family difficulties have
become complex or extreme. Other services include specialist psychiatric and
psychological services available through public hospitals and schools.
Both public and private psychology services are available in the community to
support children of prisoners. However, access to these services is limited for
families by:

the cost (private services)

waiting lists (public services)

families’ reluctance to use mainstream services because of the stigma
attached to imprisonment

families’ reluctance to talk about their situation with people who do not
understand the prison culture.
VACRO is the only organisation within Victoria that has specialist knowledge of, and
expertise in, working with the issues facing children of prisoners. This knowledge
has developed through direct work within the prison system and working with families
and children of prisoners over many years. As a consequence, the organisation is
able to provide comprehensive and integrated services. However, at the time of
writing, insufficient resources preclude the potential of the agency to develop these
services.
PAGE 13
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
PAGE 14
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
4
Research Methodology
4.1
Overview
This research was conducted in selected Victorian prisons during September and
October 1999. The prisons selected are broadly representative of the Victorian
prison system. The criteria used to select the prisons included:

mix of privately and publicly managed prisons

range of security levels – maximum, medium and minimum security levels

female and male prisons

city and rural prisons.
4.1.1 Overview of the Prisons
Six prisons were selected for this study. An overview of these prisons is listed below,
with a more detailed description contained in Appendix 1.
1. Melbourne Assessment Prison: All newly sentenced male prisoners and some
remand prisoners are held at this facility. This is a Government-operated facility,
located in central Melbourne.
2. Port Phillip Prison: This maximum-security facility for male prisoners is owned
and operated by Group 4 Securitas, a private company, and accommodates
remand and sentenced male prisoners. This is located in outer-suburban
Melbourne (Laverton).
3. Fulham Correctional Centre: This facility, privately owned and operated by
Australian Correctional Management Pty Ltd (A.C.M.) is a medium and maximum
secure prison for male prisoners.
It is located in the country (Sale),
approximately 3 hours drive from Melbourne.
4. Loddon Regional Prison: Medium and minimum-security male prisoners are
accommodated at this Government-operated facility, located in rural Victoria
(Castlemaine), approximately 2 hours travel from Melbourne.
5. Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre: All newly sentenced and remand
female prisoners are accommodated at this prison. This facility is privately
owned and operated by Corrections Corporations Australia Pty Ltd (C.C.A.) and
is located in outer-suburban Melbourne (Deer Park).
6. Tarrengower Prison: This Government-operated prison for female prisoners is a
minimum-security facility, located approximately 2 hours from Melbourne in rural
Victoria (Maldon).
4.1.2 Prison Co-operation
The research was conducted with the active cooperation of prison management in all
prisons. This support included:
PAGE 15
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA

collaboration in the development of the questionnaire

advertising the study, within the secure and non-secure areas of the prisons,
to inform both prisoners and visitors of the study

assistance in identifying prisoners who were parents and were willing to
participate in the study

organisation of and participation in discussion groups

active support and encouragement in conducting the study

feedback and comment on the report.
The study had the approval of the Department of Justice Ethics Committee.
4.2
Sampling
4.2.1 Method
Prisoners with children and caregivers of prisoners’ children were randomly selected
for interview. Participation in the study was based on individuals’ willingness and
interest. All those interviewed were requested to sign a Consent Form, which
explained the purpose of the study, the nature of the interview, confidentiality
requirements and a contact number for follow-up if the interview proved to be
distressing (see Appendix 2).
The criteria for participation in the study for prisoners were being a parent and having
had contact with their child(ren) within the past 12 months.
Interviewers attended the prisons on the busiest days for visits. As visitors arrived,
they were informed of the study and their permission to participate was requested.
The only criterion used for caregiver participation was the participant having active
involvement in the care of a prisoner’s child. In addition to these caregivers, family
members who attend support groups at VACRO were also invited to participate in the
study.
There was no matching of caregivers interviewed with prisoners who were
interviewed. Both groups were independent, random samples.
4.2.2 Limitations
Caregivers
The sampling was confined to those caregivers who were visiting prisoners or using
VACRO services. It is very difficult to contact caregivers away from the prison.
Access to addresses is restricted and confidentiality concerns prevented this method
being pursued. It was also considered that establishing contact with caregivers
through prisoners would bias the responses.
Children
Children were not interviewed for this research. There were two primary reasons for
this:
PAGE 16
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
1. As no investigation of the needs of children and families of prisoners has been
undertaken in Victoria recently, VACRO decided that an initial investigation was
required to set the parameters. To achieve this, focussing on the views of
caregivers and prisoners was seen as an important first step.
2. Ethical concerns about interviewing children without specialist resources. The
resources available for this research did not extend to this.
4.2.3 Size of Sample
A total of 111 prisoners and 80 caregivers were interviewed through the
questionnaires. A further 30 were consulted through 2 discussion groups at
Tarrengower Prison and Port Phillip Prison. This means that a total of 221 people 141 prisoners and 80 caregivers, were consulted for this study.
4.3
Quantitative Data - The Questionnaire
4.3.1 Rationale for Using a Questionnaire
A questionnaire provided the most efficient mechanism for collecting the information
in the shortest time possible. It also ensured that there was consistency in the
responses, thus enhancing the reliability of the data. The questionnaire was
administered through an interview. The rationale for this included:
1. Reliability in the completion of the questionnaire – Interviewees were not required
to complete the form on their own and return it. This meant that there was a
100% completion rate by those who wished to participate.
2. Consistent approach – Interviews were conducted by a maximum of 4
interviewers, with the majority being administered by 2 people. Any interpretation
of the questions or bias in relation to the way in which questions were asked was
minimised.
3. Support for interviewees – It was clearly recognised by the researchers that
discussing family issues could be distressing for both prisoners and caregivers.
Administering the questionnaire through an interview provided support and followup assistance if necessary.
4. Universal participation – By conducting interviews, individuals with literacy
problems were able to participate.
4.3.2 Development of the Questionnaires
The questionnaires were developed in consultation with VACRO staff, prison staff at
Melbourne Assessment Prison (M.A.P.) and a group of prisoners at M.A.P.. This
consultation identified the key issues to be addressed through the questionnaires and
assisted in the development of multiple-choice options.
The questionnaires were tested with prisoners and caregivers prior to finalisation.
The two questionnaires asked similar questions of both prisoners and caregivers.
Copies of these are contained in Appendix 3.
PAGE 17
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
The questions focussed on the key issues that VACRO wished to explore. The
results are presented in line with these key themes in the following sections. These
were:
1. Understanding the Respondents

overview of the respondents

nature of imprisonment

imprisonment history

family background

children.
2. Prison Visits and Contact

overview of visits and contact

difficulties with visits.
3. Dealing with Incarceration

prisoners’ reactions

caregivers’ reactions

children’s reactions.
4. Planning for the Future

living arrangements on release.
5. Seeking Assistance – Support Services
4.4

what would help

current supports used.
Qualitative Data - Focus Groups
Once the questionnaires were completed, preliminary assessment of the data
indicated that further information was required to understand better which services
would be the most helpful in supporting prisoners and their families. In addition to
this, only 10 female prisoners had participated in the surveys. It was considered that
further consultation with female prisoners was required.
Two discussion groups were conducted - one at Tarrengower Prison and one at Port
Phillip Prison. A total of approximately 30 prisoners were consulted through these
groups. The comments from these groups are incorporated into the analysis.
The group at Tarrengower Prison was conducted during school holidays, when
several adolescent children were staying with their mothers in the prison. While not
formally part of the survey, these young people asked to participate in the group and
also formed an informal group of their own with a VACRO staff member. The
researchers considered that their insights were particularly valuable. Consequently,
the notes of this group have also been included. Specific reference to these is made
in Section 6 and 7 of this report.
PAGE 18
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
5
Understanding the Respondents
The following abbreviations are used throughout all the tables.
P.P.P.
M.A.P.
Loddon
M.W.C.C.
F.C.C.
Tarrengower
Port Phillip Prison
Melbourne Assessment Prison
Loddon Regional Prison
Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre
Fulham Correctional Centre
Tarrengower Prison
In reading the tables and data presented in this section, it is important to note the
following:
5.1

Percentages used throughout the presentation of the results are proportions
of the number of respondents, regardless of the number of responses to
individual questions.
This means that all percentages for caregiver
responses are proportions of 80, the number of caregiver respondents, and
for prisoners, proportions of 111, the number of prisoner respondents.

In several instances, the number of responses exceeds the total number of
respondents. This is because some respondents gave more than one
response to individual questions.

The information from focus groups is not included in the quantitative data
analysis.
Number of Respondents
A total of 80 caregivers and 111 prisoners completed the questionnaires – 101 males
and 10 females. This represents four percent of the total capacity of the Victorian
prison system – four percent of the male population and six percent of the female
population. All data on the Victorian prison system are sourced from The Office of
Correctional Services Commissioner (1999).
Table 1 shows a breakdown of the respondents by prison. The capacity of the
prisons is used as the total prisoner population, rather than the actual numbers of
prisoners in the prison system, even though not all prisons are filled to capacity at all
times. This is because the average number of prisoners in the system available at
30/6/98 (the most recent figures available) did not include a full year of operation of
Port Phillip Prison, as this prison did not operate for the full financial year (1997-98).
The prison system has a total capacity for 2,951 prisoners – 2,788 male prisoners
and 163 female prisoners. The sample was selected from the six prisons listed
above. These six prisons have a capacity of 1,860 prisoners – 1,697 male prisoners
and 163 female prisoners. The male prisons used represent 61 percent of the total
capacity of prisons for males in the state and 100 percent of the female population.
Table 2 shows the percentage of male and female prisoners in the sample by prison,
compared with the total percentage of male and female prisoner beds in Victoria.
This is illustrated in Figure 1. This indicates that the sample was over-represented
by prisoners from M.A.P. – 43 percent of the male sample compared to 10 percent of
PAGE 19
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
the total male prisoner capacity. The proportion of males in the sample compared to
the Victorian prison population is within 5 percent of the capacity for each prison.
The proportion of female prisoners in the sample was 50 percent from M.W.C.C.
(77% for Victoria) and 50 percent from Tarrengower (23% for Victoria).
No caregivers were interviewed at Tarrengower Prison. On the day that interviews
were scheduled for this prison, only 2 prisoners with children had visits. In addition to
this, visits can last up to six hours. Consequently, it was decided to exclude
Tarrengower from caregiver interviews.
A comparison between the sample of caregivers and the number of caregivers
involved in the lives of children of prisoners in Victoria cannot be made, as no data
are available for the State.
Table 1:
Number of Respondents by Prison
Caregivers
Percentage
Percentage
of Total
of Total
Prison
Male/Female
1 Victorian
Capacity
Victorian
Prisoner
Prisoner
2
Population
2
Population
Prisoners
% of Total
% of Total
Male/Female
No. Prisoner
Sample
Sample
Population
No.
%
No.
%
%
P.P.P.
42
53%
19
17%
19% (male)
600
32%
22% (male)
Loddon
10
13%
13
12%
13%(male)
250
13%
9% (male)
M.A.P.
9
11%
43
39%
43% (male)
274
14%
10% (male)
F.C.C.
15
19%
26
23%
26%(male)
600
32%
22%(male)
M.W.C.C.
3
4%
5
5%
50% (female)
125
7%
77% (female)
Tarrengower
0
0%
5
5%
50% (female)
38
2%
23% (female)
VACRO
1
1%
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total
Responses
80
100%
111
100%
1.
2.
1,887
Source: Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner, 1999
Percentage of Total Victorian Prisoner Population, calculated as percentage of prison capacity, ibid
PAGE 20
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 2:
Proportion of Male and Female Prisoners in the Sample by Prison
Compared with Victorian Prison System Capacity
Sample Male
Population
Sample
Female
Population
Percentage of Total
Male/Female Victorian
Prisoner Population
P.P.P.
19%
0%
22%
Loddon
13%
0%
9%
M.A.P.
43%
0%
10%
F.C.C.
26%
0%
22%
M.W.C.C.
0%
50%
77%
Tarrengower
0%
50%
23%
100%
100%
Total
Responses
Figure 1:
Proportion of Male and Female Prisoners in the Sample by Prison
Compared with Victorian Prison System Capacity
90%
80%
Percentage
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
P.P.P.
Loddon
M.A.P.
F.C.C.
M.W.C.C.
Tarrengower
Sample Male Population
Sample Female Population
Percentage of Total Male/Female Victorian Prisoner Population
PAGE 21
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
5.2
Gender and Age of Respondents
5.2.1 Caregivers
Table 3 shows the gender of caregiver respondents by age. The majority of
caregiver respondents were female – 76 (95%) compared with 4 male respondents
(5%).
The majority of caregiver respondents were aged between 20 and 34 years of age,
with 52 respondents (65%) in this age group. Nineteen percent (19%, 15
respondents) were aged 20 – 24 years, 22 respondents (28%) aged 25 – 29 years
and 15 respondents (19%) aged 30 - 34 years. Five respondents were aged over 50
years (6%). No respondents were under 20 years of age.
Table 3:
Gender of Respondents by Age – Caregiver Respondents
Male
%
Female
%
Totals
%
15-19
0
0%
0
0%
0
0%
20 - 24
0
0%
15
20%
15
19%
25 - 29
2
50%
20
26%
22
28%
30 - 34
0
0%
15
20%
15
19%
35 - 39
0
0%
9
12%
9
11%
40 - 44
0
0%
8
11%
8
10%
45 - 49
0
0%
3
4%
3
4%
50 - 54
0
0%
2
3%
2
3%
55 - 59
1
25%
1
1%
2
3%
60 - 64
0
0%
1
1%
1
1%
No response
1
25%
2
3%
3
4%
Total Responses
4
100%
76
100%
80
100%
5.2.2 Prisoners
The age and gender of prisoner respondents was similar to the Victorian prison
population (see Table 4). The majority of prisoner respondents were aged between
20 and 34 years (63%, 70 respondents). This compares with Victoria (as at 30/6/98)
of 57 percent of the total prisoner population being in this age range.
For male prisoner respondents, 64 percent (64%, 64 respondents) were aged
between 20 and 34 years, compared to the Victorian male prison population, which
indicated that 67 percent of the male population were aged in this range.
A slightly higher proportion of females were in the same age range for the sample,
compared to the Victorian female prisoner population during the same period of time
(60% of sample, 53% of Victorian female prisoner population).
PAGE 22
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 4:
Gender of Respondents by Age – Prisoner Respondents
Proportion
of Victorian
Male
1
Population
Male
Female
Proportion
of Victorian
Female
1
Population
Proportion
of Victorian
Prisoner
1
Population
Totals
No.
%
%
No.
%
%
No.
%
%
15 - 19
5
5%
3%
0
0%
7%
5
5%
3%
20 - 24
13
13%
19%
1
10%
13%
14
13%
19%
25 - 29
28
28%
21%
1
10%
20%
29
26%
21%
30 - 34
23
23%
17%
4
40%
20%
27
24%
17%
35 - 39
17
17%
12%
3
30%
13%
20
18%
12%
40 - 44
10
10%
9%
0
0%
15%
10
9%
10%
45 - 49
4
4%
7%
1
10%
8%
5
5%
7%
No answer
1
1%
N/A
0
0%
N/A
1
1%
N/A
Total
Responses
101
100%
10
100%
111
100%
1
5.3
As at 30/6/98 (The Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner, 1999)
Relationship of Caregiver Respondents to Prisoner
Table 5 shows the relationship of the caregiver respondent to the prisoner they were
visiting on the day when they were interviewed. All of these respondents were
involved actively in the care of at least one of the children of the prisoner they were
visiting.
The majority of respondents were the partners of the prisoner – 62 (76%)
respondents. Eight percent (8%, 6 respondents) were the ex-partner of the prisoner,
while 7 respondents (9%) indicated that they were the son or daughter of the
prisoner.
For the male respondents, 2 were the partners of prisoners, one was a son of the
prisoner and the fourth was the father-in-law.
PAGE 23
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 5:
Relationship of Caregiver Respondent to Prisoner, by Gender of
Respondent
Male
Female
Totals
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Partner
2
50%
59
78%
61
76%
Son / Daughter
1
25%
6
8%
7
9%
Ex-partner
0
0%
6
8%
6
8%
Sister
0
0%
4
5%
4
5%
Son-in-law
1
25%
0
0%
1
1%
Niece
0
0%
1
1%
1
1%
Total Responses
4
100%
76
100%
80
100%
5.4
Nature of Imprisonment
5.4.1 Type of Incarceration
The majority of prisoners interviewed, and those referred to through the caregiver
responses, were sentenced (75%, 144 responses).
Seventy-four percent (74%, 131 responses) of male prisoners in the sample were
sentenced, compared to 85 percent (85%) of the Victorian male prisoner population.
The proportion of sentenced female prisoners in the sample was also higher than
Victorian female prisoner population – 93 percent (13 responses) compared to 78
percent (78%) across Victoria.
Not all unsentenced prisoners in the State reside in prisons. Some are held in police
cells.
Table 6:
Type of Incarceration by Gender of Prisoner
Proportion
of
Victorian Female
Male
Prisoners
%
Proportion
of all
Victorian
1
Prisoners
Male
%
No.
%
%
No.
%
%
No.
%
%
Sentence
131
74%
85%
13
93%
78%
144
75%
85%
Unsentenced
46
26%
15%
1
7%
22%
47
25%
15%
Total
177
100%
100%
14
100%
100%
191
100%
100%
1.
%
Proportion
of
Victorian Totals
Female
Prisoners
As at 30/6/98 (The Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner, 1999). Provisional
figures only.
PAGE 24
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
5.4.2 Length of Sentence
Table 7 shows the length of sentence for prisoners. The length of sentence of the
respondents is based on the full sentence imposed, not the expected time to serve
before parole. These figures are compared to the data for Victorian prisoners –
“expected time to serve” (The Office of Correctional Services Commissioner, 1997).
The majority of prisoners interviewed received sentences of less than 12 months
(29% of sample - 50% of female prisoners and 24% of male prisoners). This is a
lower proportion than the Victorian prison population, where 67 percent (67%) of
females and 42 percent (42%) of male received sentences of less than 12 months.
Nineteen percent (19%, 19 respondents) of male prisoners received sentences of
between 1 and 2 years and 25 percent (25%) between 2 and 5 years. For female
prisoners, this was 10 percent (10% - 1 respondent) and 20 percent (20% - 2
respondents).
Only 2 percent (2%) of prisoners in the sample received sentences of more than 10
years, compared with the Victorian prison population of 10 percent (10%).
Table 7:
Length of Sentence
% of
Victorian
Male
1
Prisoners
Male
Female
% of
Victorian
Female
1
Prisoners
Totals
% of all
Victorian
1
Prisoners
No.
%
%
No.
%
%
No.
%
%
Up to 3 Months
2
2%
6%
0
0%
15%
2
2%
7%
3-6 Months
13
13%
16%
1
10%
22%
14
13%
6%
6-12 Months
9
9%
20%
4
40%
30%
13
12%
16%
1-2 Years
19
19%
17%
1
10%
13%
20
18%
20%
2-5 Years
25
25%
22%
2
20%
9%
27
24%
17%
5-10 Years
12
12%
10%
2
20%
7%
14
13%
21%
More than 10 years
2
2%
7.5%
0
0%
3%
2
2%
10%
Not relevant
19
19%
0
0%
19
17%
Total Responses
101
100%
10 100%
111 100%
1 As at 30/6/98 (The Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner, 1999). Provisional figures only.
5.4.3 Length of Incarceration
A third of prisoners involved in the survey, either interviewed directly or referred to by
the caregivers (32%, 61 respondents), were in prison for less than 3 months at the
time of interview (see Table 8). Sixty-nine percent (69%, 131 respondents) had been
in prison for less than 12 months at the time of the survey. A further 15 percent
(15%, 29 respondents) had been incarcerated for 1 to 2 years and 25 respondents
PAGE 25
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
(13%) for 2 to 5 years. Only 3 respondents (2%) had been imprisoned for more than
5 years at the time of the survey.
The sampling method focussed on prisoners who had been visited by their children
or had had some contact with them over the past twelve months. This is likely to
have eliminated many prisoners who have been imprisoned for longer periods (more
than 5 years) and thus may have lost contact with their children. In addition to this,
prisoners who had children over the age of 16 years were also excluded from the
survey.
Table 8:
Length of Incarceration by Gender
Male
Female
Totals
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Up to 3 Months
57
32%
4
29%
61
32%
3-6 Months
29
16%
2
14%
31
16%
6-12 Months
37
21%
3
21%
40
21%
1 – 2 Years
28
16%
1
7%
29
15%
2 – 5 Years
22
12%
3
21%
25
13%
More than 5 Years
3
2%
0
0%
3
2%
No response
1
1%
1
7%
2
1%
177
100%
14
100%
191
100%
Total Responses
5.5
Imprisonment History
Some indication of the imprisonment history of the prisoners involved in the survey
was developed through questions relating to whether this was the first time in prison
and Youth Training Centre (YTC) history. These results are contained in Tables 9
and 10 below.
5.5.1 First Time in Prison
Forty-one percent (41%, 78 respondents) of prisoners interviewed and those referred
to by the caregivers had been in prison previously (see Table 9). This represents 40
percent (40%) of male respondents and 57 percent (57%) of female respondents.
The Office of Correctional Services Commissioner (1997) reported that on average,
64 percent (64%) of male prisoners and almost 62 percent (62%) of female prisoners
had been in prison previously.
PAGE 26
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 9:
First Time in Prison
Male
%
Female
%
Totals
%
Yes
70
40%
8
57%
78
41%
No
103
58%
6
43%
109
57%
Don’t know
1
1%
0
0%
1
0.5%
No answer
3
2%
0
0%
3
2%
177
100%
14
100%
191
100%
Total Responses
While the proportion of respondents who had been in prison previously was lower
than the Victorian prison population, this still represents a significant trend of repeat
incarceration. This is illustrated further through the comments of several prisoners
who described themselves as “habitual offenders”. In particular, the sense that there
was no chance of changing one’s offending behaviour was evident in the comments.
One 25 year old father of a 2 year old indicated:
“There is no hope for me. This is my eleventh time in prison or
Youth Training Centre. I feel more comfortable here. I’ll just keep
coming back.”
Another prisoner indicated:
“I’m an habitual offender. There is no hope for me. I’m not going to
change. It upsets my missus. She’s really thin, has bulimia, gets
really tired with the kids and I’m no help to her.”
For some prisoners, it is easier to live in prison than in the community. The
pressures of seeking work, coping with living in the community and the
responsibilities and expectations of being a parent are removed for them. This is
illustrated in these comments from prisoners:
“It’s much easier for prisoners than for our families. We have a roof
over our heads, we know where our next meal is coming from. Our
partners have to manage with limited finances and care for the
children on their own.”
“It’s easier for me to be in prison. I don’t have to think about how I’ll
get a job. I don’t have to make decisions for myself – my life is
mapped out for me in here.”
“I’m institutionalised. I’m going to keep coming in. I live my free life
and I live my locked-up life.”
Many of the families of these prisoners have adjusted to this and do not expect it to
change. One caregiver, a grandmother caring for the children of her imprisoned son,
commented:
“I’ve been coming to visit these places [prisons] for years. I visited
his dad before him. He’s not going to change – we just get on with
PAGE 27
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
it. I bring the children because they should have a dad, but he
doesn’t take the responsibility.”
For others, the adjustment has been difficult. One caregiver commented, referring to
her husband:
“I know there are pressures for him, but it’s easy in here for him.
The children never saw him before – he was always at work. Now,
he can read the paper every day, play tennis, relax. I have to make
all the decisions for the children – I’m a sole parent. We had to
move house and the children had to give up so many things,
including changing their school. I live with my parents now and it’s
really hard. I’ll get used to it, I suppose.”
Multiple prison sentences impact significantly on the relationships between the
children and their parents. This can contribute to a weakening of the commitment of
the prisoner to continue to be a parent and to undertake a role as a responsible
parent. This can lead to confusion for children, who can come to regard prison as
the normal way of living. As one caregiver indicated:
“My ex-husband has been in and out of prison for 13 years. The
children don’t know him – he is not committed to them. I bring them
in to visit him because I think they should have the opportunity to
see him. But, I don’t want them to think that prison is normal or a
good way to live.”
5.5.2 Youth Training Centre History
A total of 37 percent of all respondents, prisoners interviewed and prisoners referred
to by caregivers (37%, 74 respondents), had served a Youth Training Centre (YTC)
sentence. Forty percent (40%) of males had served a YTC sentence, while 28
percent (28%) of females had been imprisoned in a YTC.
Table 10:
Previous Youth Training Centre Sentence
Male
%
Female
%
Totals
%
Yes
70
40%
4
28%
74
37%
No
99
56%
7
50%
106
57%
Don’t Know
8
4%
3
22%
11
6%
177
100%
14
100%
191
100%
Total Responses
PAGE 28
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
5.6
Family Background
5.6.1 Cultural Background of Respondents
The majority of prisoners indicated that their cultural background was Australian
(69%, 77 respondents) (see Table 11). A direct comparison with the Victorian prison
system data is not possible because the Office of Correctional Services
Commissioner collects this data in relation to “Country of Birth”. However, the
sample is consistent with the total population in the Victorian prison system, where
77 percent of prisoners indicated that they were born in Australia (as at 30/6/98, ibid).
It is important to note that respondents were not asked their country of birth. The
cultural background with which people identify was considered to be a more useful
framework. This also takes into account people from Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander background.
The highest cultural group in the sample, other than Australian, indicated by
prisoners, was Aboriginal or Torres Strait islander (7 respondents, 6% of prisoners
interviewed – 6 male prisoners, 6% and 1 female, 10%). The Office of the
Commissioner of Correctional Services (1999) reported that 4.5 percent (4.5%) of the
female population identified themselves as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and
approximately 5 percent (5%) of male prisoners.
‘Other English speaking’ refers to people who regard their cultural background as
English, Irish, Welsh, South African, Canadian, New Zealander or American. Five
percent (5%, 7 prisoners) indicated that their background was “other English
speaking”. Three percent (3%, 3 prisoners) indicated that they were Vietnamese and
Croatian respectively.
The survey was conducted in English and thus respondents needed to have a
reasonable grasp of English to participate.
PAGE 29
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 11:
Cultural Background of Prisoners
Male
Female
Totals
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Australian
70
69%
7
70%
77
69%
Aboriginal/Torres Strait
Islander
6
6%
1
10%
7
6%
Other English Speaking
5
5%
0
0%
5
5%
Vietnamese
2
2%
1
10%
3
3%
Croatian
3
3%
0
0%
3
3%
Romanian
2
2%
0
0%
2
2%
Maori
2
2%
0
0%
2
2%
Lebanese
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Italian
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Greek
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Turkish
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Chinese
0
0%
1
10%
1
1%
Filipino
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Maltese
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Bosnian
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Dutch
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Polish
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Indian
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Russian
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
101
100%
10
100%
111
100%
Total Responses
Table 12 shows the cultural background of the caregiver respondents. The majority
of these respondents were again Australian (75%, 57 respondents) followed by
“other English speaking” (11%, 8 respondents). There were 2 respondents
respectively from Maltese and Italian background, with other backgrounds
represented by one respondent only.
PAGE 30
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 12:
Cultural Background of Caregivers
Female
%
Male
%
Totals
%
Australian
57
75%
2
50%
59
74%
Other English Speaking
8
11%
1
25%
9
11%
Italian
2
3%
0
0%
2
3%
Maltese
2
3%
0
0%
2
3%
Aboriginal
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Vietnamese
0
0%
1
25%
1
1%
Filipino
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Croatian
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Macedonian
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Romanian
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Yugoslav
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Unknown
1
1%
0
0%
1
1%
Total
76
100%
4
100%
80
100%
5.6.2 Living Arrangements of Prisoner as a Child
Respondents were asked to indicate with whom the prisoner had lived as a child (see
Table 13). The respondent population was characterised by a family history of living
in single parent households or in substitute care – either formal substitute care or
with friends or relatives. The total percentages indicated are greater than 100
percent, as several respondents indicated more than one living arrangement.
Percentages are calculated as a proportion of the total number of respondents (191
respondents).
Thirty-seven percent (37%, 70 respondents) indicated that they had lived with both
parents; while 50 percent of respondents (50%, 96 respondents) indicated that the
prisoner had lived in a single parent family – living with either his or her mother or
father.
Twelve percent (12%, 23 respondents) indicated that the prisoner had lived in
substitute care. This was described as “foster care” or “boys’ homes”. A further 17
percent indicated that the prisoner lived with grandparents, other relatives, with
friends or in boarding school (17%, 32 respondents).
Four respondents indicated that the prisoner had lived alone or had lived on the
streets since he or she was a teenager (2%).
These figures indicate that 59 respondents or 31 percent (31%) of prisoners involved
in the survey lived apart from one of their parents as a child – living alone, in
substitute care, with relatives or in boarding school. Half of the respondents indicted
that they had lived in single parent households (50%, 96 respondents).
Table 13:
Living Arrangements of Prisoners as a Child
PAGE 31
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Prisoners
Caregivers
No.
%
With either mother or father
47
42%
49
With both parents
48
43%
In foster care / substitute care
17
With grandparents
Total
No.
%
61%
96
50%
22
28%
50
26%
15%
6
8%
23
12%
12
11%
5
6%
17
9%
With relatives
7
6%
4
5%
11
6%
With friends
1
1%
1
1%
2
1%
Boarding school
2
2%
0
0%
2
1%
Lived alone (since a teenager)
2
2%
0
0%
2
1%
Lived on streets (since a teenager)
2
2%
0
0%
2
1%
Unknown
0
0%
3
4%
3
2%
Total Responses
138
90
208
5.6.3 Family History of Imprisonment
The sample was characterised by a disturbing pattern of family history of
imprisonment. Forty percent of both prisoner and caregiver respondents indicated
that the prisoner had a relative who had been imprisoned (40%, 78 respondents).
These figures are illustrated in Table 14.
These 78 respondents were asked to indicate the relationship of the imprisoned
relative to the prisoner. Several respondents indicted that more than one relative had
been in prison – 102 responses (see Table 15). Most of these were close relatives –
parents, siblings, grandparents, son, cousins or uncles.
Table 14:
Family History of Imprisonment
No.
%
No
105
55%
Yes
78
40%
Don't know / No response
8
8%
Total Responses
191
PAGE 32
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 15:
Relationship of Prisoner with Incarcerated Family Member
No.
Father
21
Mother
5
Brother
43
Sister
10
Son
1
Grandparent
1
Cousin
3
Uncle
11
Other relative
7
Total Responses
5.7
102
Children
5.7.1 Number of Children
The prisoners and caregivers interviewed in this study had a total of 365 children
(see Table 16). This represents an average of approximately 2 children per prisoner,
although several participants indicated that they had 3 – 4 children, with one
indicating that he had 10 children. There may have been some overlap between the
caregivers and prisoners, i.e., some caregivers interviewed may have been the
partners of prisoners interviewed. As both groups were randomly selected and no
matching was done between the groups, this cannot be estimated.
The majority of children whose parents and/or caregivers were interviewed were
under the age of ten – 258 children (71%). Thirty-eight percent (38%) of the children
were aged 0 – 4 years and 32 percent (32%) were aged 5 – 9 years. This is to be
expected given that the majority of caregivers and prisoners interviewed were
between the ages of 20 and 34 years.
PAGE 33
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 16:
Number of Children by Age
Prisoner Respondents
No.
%
0-4
60
32%
5-9
68
10 - 14
Caregiver
Respondents
Total Children
%
No.
%
80
48%
140
38%
37%
50
30%
118
32%
33
18%
32
19%
65
18%
15 - 16
13
7%
6
4%
19
5%
>16
12
6%
11
7%
23
6%
Total
186
100%
179
100%
365
100%
5.7.2 Relationship of Respondent to the Children
The majority of prisoner respondents were the parents of the children (96%, 107
respondents) with the remaining prisoner respondents regarding themselves as the
parent of their partner’s children (14%, 15 respondents). The majority of caregivers
were the parent of the children (80%, 64 respondents) with the remaining caregiver
respondents being the parent of their partner’s children (9%), the grandparent of the
children (10%) or another relative (8%) (see Table 17). The percentages in the table
are calculated as proportions of the number of caregiver and prisoner respondents
(80 and 111 respectively).
The total number of prisoner and caregiver responses are higher than the number
interviewed because several respondents defined themselves as the parent of the
child, as well as indicating that the children were their partner’s children.
Table 17:
Relationship of Respondent to Children
Caregiver
Respondents
Prisoner
Respondents
No.
%
No.
%
Your own children
64
80%
107
96%
Grandparent
8
10%
Partner's children
7
9%
15
14%
Other relative
6
8%
Total Responses
85
122
PAGE 34
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
5.7.3 Living Arrangements of Children
The majority of children were living in single parent families, with one of their parents
(80%, 64 respondents), most frequently their mother. The remainder were living with
relatives or a partner of the prisoner (see Table 18).
Table 18:
Living Arrangements of Children
No.
%
With their mother / father
64
80%
With grandparents
8
10%
With their father / mother
who is my partner
5
6%
With relatives
2
3%
With friends
1
1%
Total Responses
80
100%
PAGE 35
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
5.8
Summary
A total of 191 respondents completed the surveys - 80 caregivers and 111 prisoners (101
males and 10 females). This represents 7% of the total capacity of the Victorian prison
population.
The prisoners and caregivers interviewed in this study had a total of 365 children.
The sample was selected from six prisons across the state, a mix of privately and publicly
managed prisons.
The majority of caregiver respondents were female – 76 (95%) compared with 4 male
respondents (5%). Three of the latter were carers of children of female prisoners.
The age and gender of prisoner respondents were similar to the Victorian prison population.
The majority of prisoner respondents were aged between 20 and 34 years (63%, 70
respondents). This compares with Victoria (as at 30/6/98) with 57% of the total prisoner
population being in this age category.
The majority of children whose parents and/or caregivers were interviewed were under the
age of ten – 258 children (71%). 38% of the children were aged 0 – 4 years and 32% were
aged 5 – 9 years.
The majority of prisoner respondents (96%) were the parents of the children with the
remaining regarding themselves as the parent of their partner’s children. The majority of
caregivers (80%) were the parent of the children with the remaining identifying themselves as
being the parent of their partner’s children, the grandparent of the children or another relative.
The majority of children (80%) were living with one of their parents. The remainder were
living with relatives or a partner of the prisoner.
Forty-one percent of prisoners interviewed, and those referred to by caregiver respondents,
had been in prison previously (40% of male respondents and 57% of female respondents).
A total of 37% of prisoners - 40% of males and 28% of females, either interviewed or referred
to by caregivers, had served a Youth Training Centre (YTC) sentence.
The majority of caregiver respondents were aged between 20 and 34 years of age (65%).
Nineteen percent (19%) were aged 20 – 24 years, 28% were aged 25 – 29 years and 19%
were aged 30 - 34 years. Five respondents were aged over 50 years (6%). No respondents
were under 20 years of age.
The majority of caregiver respondents identified their cultural background as Australian (75%)
as did the prisoner respondents (69%). Six percent (6%) identified themselves as Aboriginal
or Torres Strait Islander.
Several respondents indicated more than one living arrangement as a child – 37% indicated
that the prisoner had lived with both parents, 50% had lived with only one parent and 31%
lived apart from one of their parents as a child – living alone, in substitute care, with relatives
or in boarding school.
The sample was characterised by a disturbing pattern of family history of imprisonment. Forty
percent of both prisoner and caregiver respondents indicated that the prisoner had a relative
who had been imprisoned (40%, 78 respondents). Most of these were close relatives –
parents, siblings, grandparents, son, cousins or uncles, with several respondents indicating
that more than one relative had been in prison.
PAGE 36
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
6
Prison Visits and Contact
Several questions were asked regarding prison visits and contact between children
and prisoners. These related to:

Frequency of visits

Type of visits

Reasons for infrequent visits

Difficulties with visits

Contact apart from visits – telephone calls and letters
In addition to the specific questions, several prisoners and caregivers made
additional comments regarding visits. These comments are also included in this
section.
6.1
Frequency of Visits
Table 19 indicates how often children visited prisoners. The total number of
responses is higher than the number of prisoners interviewed or referred to by
caregivers because different circumstances applied to different children, i.e., some
visited and others didn’t. The percentages are calculated as a proportion of the total
number of respondents.
Forty percent of respondents (40%, 77 respondents) indicated that their children
visited the prison weekly and a further 13 percent (13%, 24 respondents) visited
fortnightly. Twenty-four percent (24%, 46 respondents) indicated that the children did
not visit and 7 percent (7%, 12 respondents) had no contact with their children.
Fourteen percent (14%, 27 respondents) visited monthly or less.
The ‘other’ responses (4%, 8 respondents) related to:

partner was banned from prison visits and thus was unable to bring the
children to visit

children were living with his partner in prison

children had not visited yet

children visited when they could

day release for the prisoner on a monthly basis substituted visits to the prison
by the children

children had visited only once (prisoner had only recently been incarcerated).
PAGE 37
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 19:
Frequency of Visits
No.
%
Weekly
77
40%
Fortnightly
24
13%
Prisoner had no contact with the
children
12
7%
Monthly
13
7%
Once or twice a year
9
5%
Every 2 months
5
3%
Other
8
4%
Children do not visit
46
24%
Total
194
If children visited less than monthly, respondents were asked to indicate why children
did not visit more frequently and to explain this in more detail. Table 20 shows the
responses for both caregivers and prisoners. The figures in the table only relate to
children who did not visit frequently (93 respondents). The total number of
responses is higher than the number of respondents, as several respondents gave
more than one response (102 responses).
For the majority of respondents, the main reason for children not visiting was that
their primary caregiver or the prisoner did not want them to visit - the person looking
after them did not want them to do so (33 responses), the prisoner or the caregiver
interviewed did not want them to visit (24 responses) or the prisoner’s partner did not
want them to visit (5 responses), a total of 62 responses. “Difficult family
relationships” (12 responses) and “caregiver refusing to bring the children in” (13
responses) were cited as the reasons for this. A further 3 respondents indicated that
there was no one to bring the children in.
Several respondents indicated that they did not want their children to visit. The
reasons given for this were:

prison was an unsuitable environment for children (7 responses)

the nature of the offence (4 responses)

children get bored (1 response)

too difficult to supervise the children (1 response).
Travel problems were cited as significant barriers to children visiting (31 responses).
The main travel problem was that the distance was too great to travel (21
responses). Travel costs were also identified as a barrier (10 responses). Several
caregivers indicated that they had moved house to be closer to the prisoner.
A number of children did not visit because the prisoner or caregiver did not want the
child to know that their parent was in prison (9 responses). Other respondents were
PAGE 38
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
concerned that the children and/or the prisoner were upset during visits and thus
visits were infrequent (6 responses).
Issues related to the management of the prisons were not regarded as significant
barriers for not attending visits, with only two respondents indicating that the prison
restrictions on visits and attitude of staff prevented frequent visits. The prison
restriction comment related to Port Phillip Prison (prisoner unable to leave his seat)
and the comment regarding staff referred to M.A.P.
Several respondents indicated that the children did not want to come (5 responses).
The reasons for this were that the children get upset, or find non-contact visits too
difficult. Some respondents stated that the children were uncomfortable in prison (2
responses).
Other reasons given for not attending visits were:

Children were angry with the prisoner

Children don’t behave during visits

Child is deaf and doesn’t travel well.
PAGE 39
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 20:
Reasons for Infrequent Visits by Children, Prisoner and Caregiver Respondents
Too
Person looking I don't
Children are
My partner
Children I need some
Transport difficult to
after them
want
uncomfortable
doesn't want don't want privacy with
problems supervise doesn't want them to
in prison
them to come to come my partner
them
them to come come
Total
Travel costs too great
0
9
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
Distance too great to travel
0
20
0
1
0
0
0
0
21
Prison restrictions on visits - chairs
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Nature of offence
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
4
Difficult family relationships
0
1
0
9
1
1
0
0
12
Caregiver refusing to bring children in
0
0
0
11
0
2
0
0
13
Prison not a suitable environment for
children
0
0
0
4
3
0
0
0
7
Treatment of visitors by prison staff
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
Non - contact visits too hard
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
3
Don't want children to know that
father / mother is in prison
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
9
No one to bring them in
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
3
Children / prisoner get upset
0
0
0
0
4
1
1
0
6
Children get bored
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
None
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
7
Other
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
4
Total Responses
2
31
1
33
24
5
5
1
102
PAGE 40
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
6.2
Type of Visit
Overwhelmingly, contact visits were the main type of visits for children. For prisoners
where only non-contact (‘box’) visits applied, several respondents indicated that they
would not bring children. Four percent (4%, 7 respondents) indicated that children
came to both contact and non-contact visits. These were primarily at M.A.P. (see
Table 21). Total prisoner responses in the table are greater than the number of
prisoner respondents. Some prisoners indicated changes which had occurred in the
visiting arrangements over time. Percentages are calculated as proportions of the
number of caregiver and prisoner respondents.
Table 21:
6.3
Type of Visit
Caregivers
Prisoners
Total
No.
%
No.
%
Contact
68
85%
60
54%
128
65%
Non-contact
1
1%
4
4%
5
3%
Both
3
4%
4
4%
7
4%
Children do not visit
8
10%
47
42%
55
28%
Prisoner is ineligible
for visits
0
0%
1
1%
1
0.5%
Total responses
80
100%
116
%
196
Other Contact – Telephone Calls and Letters
The majority of all respondents indicated that they had telephone contact and wrote
and received letters from their children, with 50 percent of all respondents indicating
that they have telephone calls and 38 percent indicating that they have contact by
mail, a total of 88 percent of respondents (see Table 22). Some respondents
indicated that the children were too young for these forms of communication to be
appropriate.
Seventy-one percent of prisoners (71%, 79 respondents) indicated that the children
had telephone contact and 58 percent (58%, 64 respondents) wrote letters. A higher
proportion of caregivers indicated that the children had telephone contact (86%, 69
respondents) and 59 percent of caregiver respondents (59%, 47 respondents)
indicated that the children wrote letters (see Table 22). Percentages in this table are
a proportion of the total number of respondents surveyed – 111 prisoners and 80
caregivers.
PAGE 41
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 22:
Other Contact – Telephone Calls and Letters
Caregivers
Prisoners
Total
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
Telephone calls
69
86%
79
71%
148
50%
Letters
47
59%
64
58%
111
38%
No other contact
5
6%
20
18%
25
9%
Not relevant / too
young
3
4%
6
5%
9
3%
Total responses
124
169
293
Several respondents made comments about contact with the children.
regarding telephone calls and letters related to:
Issues
1. Prison Times. For school age children, telephone calls are difficult during the
week because the times of telephone access for prisoners do not correspond with
the times at which children are at home. Additionally, some prisoners indicated
that they wanted to “say goodnight” to their children, but were unable to ring later
in the evening.
2. Cost of Calls. Reverse charge calls are not permitted. Some prisoners indicated
that they had insufficient funds to contact their children by telephone. The cost of
STD calls was also seen as a problem and thus contact with children was limited
for some prisoners.
It is important to note that reverse charge calls were previously available in prisons.
These were stopped by the prison administration because many families were unable
to meet the cost of the calls and did not feel comfortable in refusing to accept the call
from the prisoner.
6.4
Frequency of Telephone Calls and Letters
Table 23 shows the frequency of telephone calls by prison. The majority of prisoners
had some telephone contact with their children (77%) with most having contact once
a week or more (71% across all prisons). Eighteen percent (18%) of prisoners had
no telephone contact with their children and a further 3 percent (3%) had children
who were too young.
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of respondents at Port Phillip Prison indicated that there
was telephone contact between the children and their father once a week or more.
M.W.C.C. and Tarrengower also had high percentages of frequent telephone contact
(88% and 80% respectively). Seventy-six percent (76%) of respondents at Fulham
received telephone calls at some time, with seventy-one percent (71%) receiving
calls at least once per week. At M.A.P., 62 percent (62%) of prisoners received
telephone calls at least weekly with a total of 65 percent (65%) receiving some calls.
This is lower than expected. This prison is the first point of contact with the system
for all prisoners and thus one would expect that the need or desire for telephone
PAGE 42
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
contact would be quite high. Loddon Prison was slightly lower, with 59 percent (59%)
of prisoners receiving calls at least weekly, with a total of 68 percent (68%) receiving
some calls.
Table 23:
Frequency of Telephone Calls by Prison, Caregivers Response
1
2
P.P.P.
M.A.P.
Loddon
F.C.C.
M.W.C.C.
Tarren.
Several times a
day
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
3
Daily
33
14
5
10
4
0
0
66
More than once
per week
8
10
5
9
1
3
1
37
Weekly
12
6
3
10
1
1
0
33
Sub Total
53
32
13
29
7
4
1
139
87%
62%
59%
71%
88%
80%
100%
71%
Fortnightly
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
6
Monthly
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
Every two
months
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
Once or twice a
year
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
Sub Total
56
34
15
31
7
4
1
151
92%
65%
68%
76%
88%
80%
100%
77%
0
4
0
0
0
1
0
5
There are no
4
calls
5
14
7
10
1
1
0
36
Sub Total
5
18
7
10
1
2
0
41
Sub Total %
8%
35%
32%
24%
13%
40%
0%
21%
Total
Responses
61
52
22
41
8
5
1
196
Sub total %
Sub total %
Too young
1.
2.
3.
4.
3
Tarrengower
Refers to individuals interviewed at VACRO
Includes “too young” and “depends on money”
Includes “no contact”
PAGE 43
Unknown Totals
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
6.5
Difficulties with Visits
Concerns regarding visits were more intense for caregivers than for prisoners (see
Table 24) although there was consistency in the major concerns for both groups.
The most difficult aspects of visits identified by both prisoners and caregivers was
that children get bored during visits – 49 percent (49%) of caregiver respondents, 30
percent (30%) of prisoner respondents, a total of 38 percent (38%, 72 respondents).
The next most frequently raised concern was no or limited access to play equipment
(25% prisoner respondents, 40% of caregiver respondents). Lack of access to an
outdoor area during visits was also concerning – 26 percent (26%) of caregiver
respondents and 14 percent (14%) of prisoner respondents, a total of 19 percent
(19%).
For caregivers, the second most frequently raised concern was the lack of
opportunity to communicate with their partner during visits and lack of privacy with
their partner – 44 percent (44%) of respondents. However, this was not of such
concern to prisoners, with only 12 percent (12%) of prisoners indicating that this was
a concern for them. Caregivers were also more concerned about the opportunity for
children to spend time alone with their parent, with 34 percent (34%) of caregiver
respondents raising this as a concern. Fourteen percent (14%) of prisoners were
concerned about this issue.
Both prisoner and caregiver respondents were concerned that the atmosphere of
visits creates tension (25% of caregivers, 22% of prisoners, a total of 23%).
Body searches, particularly of children and waiting times for visits were also
concerning for caregiver respondents (13% and 10% respectively). Prison rules
regarding prisoners being confined to their seats was also a problem, with 8 percent
(8%) of both caregivers and prisoners raising this as a difficulty.
Transport and distance from the prison was again raised as a difficulty. The travel
concerns related to the distance that families had to travel and the associated
problems with this – cost, time, particularly travelling with small children, access to
public transport and the cost of travel. Fourteen percent (14%) of caregivers raised
transport as a difficulty and 5 percent (5%) of prisoners, a total of 8 percent (8%) of
all respondents.
PAGE 44
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 24:
Difficulties Associated with Prison Visits for Caregivers and Prisoners
Caregiver
Responses
Prisoner
Responses
Totals
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
39
49%
33
30%
72
38%
35
44%
13
12%
48
25%
No access to play equipment
32
40%
28
25%
60
32%
Not much time for kids to spend alone with their
parents
27
34%
15
14%
42
22%
Visits aren't long enough
22
28%
6
5%
28
15%
No access to outdoor area
21
26%
15
14%
36
19%
Atmosphere of visits creates tension
20
25%
24
22%
44
23%
Visits aren't frequent enough
16
20%
4
4%
20
10%
Leaving visit
14
18%
8
7%
22
11.5%
Transport access / cost / time /distance
11
14%
5
4.5%
16
8%
Body searches
10
13%
3
3%
13
7%
Waiting a long time for visits
8
10%
1
1%
9
5%
Negative staff attitude
7
9%
1
1%
8
5%
Prison rules - father unable to move from seat
6
8%
9
8%
15
8%
Children can't make noise
3
4%
3
3%
6
3%
Children get upset
0
0%
6
5%
6
3%
Cannot hear or touch children (box visits)
0
0%
3
3%
3
2%
Lack of supervision for the children
0
0%
2
2%
2
1%
Family dynamics
1
1%
0
0
1
0.5%
Irrelevant (too young)
1
1%
2
2%
3
2%
I don't have any problems
8
10%
16
14%
24
13%
The children don't visit
4
5%
42
38%
46
24%
Children get bored
Not much chance to communicate /
lack of privacy with my partner
Total Responses
285
239
524
As the visiting arrangements vary from prison to prison, a breakdown of the
difficulties associated with prisons is presented in Table 25. This is illustrated in
Figure 2.
Concerns with children being bored, limited or no access to play equipment and lack
of access to an outdoor area were raised in relation to all prisons, with the exception
of Tarrengower, although concern was raised there about the safety of the play
equipment at this prison.
Respondents raised more difficulties in relation to Port Phillip Prison than other
prisons, although this was not the prison with the highest number of respondents.
Difficulties related to the atmosphere of visits and the fact that prisoners are not
permitted to move from their seats. The visiting regulations at Port Phillip are unique
PAGE 45
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
in the prison system in Victoria. Prisoners have to earn the right to move from their
seats during visits. This usually takes 15 weeks. This means that prisoners are
unable to play with their children or interact with them, other than speaking to them.
These restrictions have been introduced at Port Phillip, a maximum security facility,
as a means of controlling the traffic of contraband into the prison. This issue is
discussed in more detail in Section 10 of this report.
Other difficulties at Port Phillip related to waiting times for visits. In some instances,
this was as long as 2 hours.
The atmosphere of visits was of concern at M.A.P.
One respondent at M.A.P., one at Loddon and 5 respondents at Port Phillip, raised
concerns about a negative attitude of staff towards visitors.
Comments made by caregivers and prisoners also highlighted difficulties with visits.
Seventeen prisoners and 28 caregivers commented on visits. Again, the comments
related primarily to the visiting arrangements at Port Phillip Prison. These related to
the prison regulations, the crowded visitors area, lack of access to play equipment
and an outdoor area and the waiting times. Caregivers with young children were
particularly concerned about the waiting times.
One prisoner commented on the canteen facilities at Fulham, indicating that the food
was not healthy for children. This made it difficult to give the children lunch,
particularly after the long journey for the visit.
Several respondents also commented on the behaviour of children during visits. This
related to parents not controlling their children, boredom of the children and lack of
play equipment. This contributed to the atmosphere of tension on visits. One
prisoner suggested that separating older and younger children was necessary, as
older children often interacted negatively with younger ones.
One prisoner also indicated that sexually explicit behaviour between prisoners and
their visitors made it difficult for children to be in the same visiting area.
PAGE 46
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 25:
Difficulties Associated with Prison Visits by Prison
P.P.P. M.A.P. Loddon Fulham M.W.C.C. Tarrengower Unknown
1
Totals
No.
%
Children get bored
33
8
12
17
1
0
0
71
37%
No access to play equipment
35
6
11
6
0
1
0
59
31%
Not much chance for kids to
spend alone with their parent
25
7
3
4
1
0
1
41
21%
Atmosphere of visits creates
tension
22
9
4
6
1
1
0
43
23%
No access to outdoor area
18
8
6
3
0
0
0
35
18%
Visits aren't long enough
20
5
1
0
1
0
0
27
14%
Lack of privacy with partner
when the children are
present
15
1
5
3
0
0
1
25
13%
Not much chance to
communicate with my
partner when children are
present
11
3
4
5
0
0
0
23
12%
Leaving visit
4
5
1
9
1
0
1
21
11%
Visits aren't frequent enough
13
5
1
0
0
0
0
19
10%
Prison rules - father to
remain seated
9
3
0
2
0
0
0
14
7%
Transport - access, cost,
time
8
0
2
3
0
0
0
13
7%
Body searches
9
0
0
1
1
1
0
12
6%
Waiting times
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
4%
Staff
5
1
1
0
0
0
0
7
4%
Children can't make noise/
safety of play areas
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
2%
Children get upset
2
1
0
2
0
0
0
5
3%
Irrelevant too young
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
1%
Family dynamics
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0.5%
Cannot touch/hear in box
visits
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1%
Lack of supervision for the
children
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1%
I don't have any problems
3
6
4
5
2
3
0
23
12%
The children don't visit
9
23
3
6
3
1
0
45
24%
255
93
58
75
11
7
3
500
Total Responses
1
Refers to individuals interviewed at VACRO
PAGE 47
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Figure 2:
Difficulties Associated with Prison Visits by Prison
40
35
30
Number
25
20
15
10
5
0
t
t
t
.
s
s
s
a
ff
h
h
n
ty
er
er
sit
i ts
es
on
e.
ic
m
se
ta
en
ea
re
re
he
fe
ug
ug
vi
tn
tn
is
e
si
p
s
m
th
a
m
r
r
S
d
l
c
i
a
o
m
v
o
l
n
t
r
u
i
a
r
n
a
ip
t
to
x
ng
t
pa
pa
ob
te
/s
g
ith
en
ch
yn
oo
vi
d
te
h
h
s
se
w
in
pr
e
ge
qu
bo
g
ge
d
t
t
d
t
a
e
e
n
i
i
i
t
e
s
t
e
n
i
y
t
n
e
n
a
in
w
w
th
d
a
ily
ne
y
Le
fin
lo
or
ou
re
re
no
W
qu
lo
la
m
't
re
te
ar
or
cy
o
sp
Bo
on
ld
f
e
ld
e
a
t
p
c
a
n
i
a
e
i
r
a
c
n
k
f
e
F
s
ic
d
a
/h
iv
a
t
to
on
its
Ch
Ch
sar
n'
es
Tr
m
pr
un
en
ch
is
le
isi
s
c
e
ss
t
f
p
v
t
u
'
r
v
u
m
i
c
e
o
s
r
r
n
s
a
a
to
c
m
of
to
Vi
pe
ca
o
ck
e
on
ac
ot
i ts
co
u
r
a
s
N
s
s
n
n
i
s
i
o
e
L
n
id
to
f
V
re
N
Pr
ph
rk
Ca ck o
ild
ce
h
os
fo
n
a
C
m
e
La
ch
At
nc
a
h
ch
uc
h
m
c
t
u
No
r
bo
t
No
m
ed
P.P.P.
M.A.P.
Loddon
F.C.C.
PAGE 48
M.W.C.C.
Tarrengower
Unknown
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
6.6
Summary
Forty percent (40%) of respondents indicated that the children visited their parent in prison
weekly and a further 13 percent (13%) visited fortnightly.
Twenty-four percent (24%) indicated that the children did not visit and 7 percent (7%) had no
contact with their children. Fourteen percent (14%) visited monthly or less often.
For prisoner and caregiver respondents whose children did not visit regularly, the main
reason was that the caregiver of the children did not want them to do so. Travel problems
were also a significant barrier to regular visiting, with distance and costs being the main
difficulties.
Children tended to come mainly to contact visits, with several respondents indicating that they
would not bring children to non-contact visits.
The majority of prisoners and caregivers indicated that contact was made by telephone at
least weekly (71%). Some differences occurred across the prisons in the sample, with the
highest proportion of at least weekly contact occurring at Port Phillip Prison (87%) and the
lowest at Loddon Prison (59%).
Several respondents indicated that it was difficult for prisoners to speak with school aged
children by telephone because children are usually at school at the times when prisoners
have access to the telephone.
The most difficult aspect of visits identified by both prisoners and caregivers was that children
get bored during visits. Other concerns included:

no or limited access to play equipment

lack of access to an outdoor area

lack of privacy with the prisoner for caregivers

lack of opportunity for the prisoner to spend time alone with his/her children

atmosphere of visits creating tension

transport difficulties – cost, distance, access, time.
PAGE 49
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
PAGE 50
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
7
Dealing with Incarceration
7.1
Telling the Children
Respondents were asked what they had told their children about their parent’s
absence. Fifty-nine percent (59%, 113 responses) had told their children that their
parent was in prison. However, a high proportion (64 responses, 34%) had provided
another explanation to the children about their parent’s absence or had told the
children nothing.
If respondents had not told the children about their parent’s imprisonment, they were
asked:

what was the reason for withholding this information

their view of children’s possible reactions to knowledge of their parent’s
imprisonment.
This information is presented in Tables 26 – 28. The figures in these tables do not
correspond to the number of respondents, as several respondents indicated that
different explanations had been given to different children in the family.
Table 26 outlines the explanations given to children regarding their parent’s absence.
As with other tables, the percentages are calculated as proportions of the total
number of respondents surveyed. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of respondents had
provided another explanation to their children, the most popular being that their
parent was working interstate (52 responses). Six percent of respondents (6%) had
told their children nothing (12 responses). A further four percent of respondents (4%,
8 responses) indicated that they did not know what their children had been told.
Several children were regarded as too young – 12 percent.
Table 26:
Explanation Given to Children for their Parent’s Absence
No.
%
He/She is in prison
113
59%
He/She is working interstate
31
16%
He/She is in hospital
8
4%
Holidays
8
4%
Other explanation
5
3%
Nothing
12
6%
Irrelevant / too young
24
13%
I don't know
8
4%
Total Responses
209
Table 27 shows the reasons given by the 44 respondents as to why they had not told
the children that their parent was in prison. The primary reason given was that the
PAGE 51
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
children were too young (47 responses). Given that 73 percent (73%) of
respondents had children between the ages of 0 - 4 years, this is hardly surprising.
However, in some instances, the children were older but were still considered too
young to be told their parent was in prison.
Some respondents indicated that they did not want their children to know because
they were likely to tell others (12 responses); others felt that it would be too hard for
the children if they knew (10 responses) while some respondents did not specify a
reason – just that they did not want the child/ren to know (10 responses). Other
reasons given were:

children would not understand (5 responses)

schooling may be affected (4 responses)

mother doesn't want them to know (2 responses)

children would feel uncomfortable (3 responses)
Table 27:
Reason for Not Telling Children about Imprisonment
No.
Too young
47
I don’t want others to know – child/ren is likely to tell
12
Too hard for the child
10
I don't want them to know
10
Child/ren wouldn't understand
5
May affect schooling
4
Child would feel uncomfortable
3
Mother doesn't want them to know
2
No response
7
Total Responses
100
Table 28 shows respondents’ views of their children’s possible reactions to knowing
about their parent’s imprisonment. These respondents had not told their children
about their parent’s imprisonment. Several felt that their children would be upset (7
responses). To avoid this reaction, they considered it easier to not tell the child/ren.
Others felt that the child would “be alright” if he/she was told (7 responses). Others
stated that they did not want others to know (2 responses) while one person felt that
his child already knew without being told.
PAGE 52
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 28:
Possible Reaction of Children to Knowledge of the Imprisonment
No.
7.2
Too young
37
Would be very upset and unhappy
7
Child will be alright
7
I don’t want others to know
2
Knows I’m in gaol without being told
1
No Response
13
Total Responses
67
Caregivers’ Reactions
Respondents (both caregivers and prisoners) were asked to indicate what had been
hard for them since the prisoner had commenced his/her incarceration. Individuals
gave multiple responses to the question (see Table 29). Seventy-six percent of
caregiver respondents (76%, 61 of the caregiver respondents) felt that it was hard to
communicate with the prisoner (their partner) since the imprisonment commenced.
The next most frequently faced difficulty was that children did not want neighbours or
their friends finding out their parent was in prison (65%, 52 respondents), followed by
what and how to tell the children, and concern that the relationship between the
prisoner and the children was becoming distant (48%, 38 responses). The children
missing their parent and the respondent missing the prisoner were also common
responses (40%, 32 responses, and 33%, 26 responses, respectively). A quarter of
respondents (25%, 20 responses) were concerned about the children being singled
out or picked on at school.
Parenting issues were also common – not being able to get a break from the children
(24%), making decisions about the children (25%), coping with prison and family
issues (21%) and managing the children’s behaviour and/or reactions (14%).
Other concerns included the prisoner feeling that the children did not need him/her
anymore (13%), or had forgotten him/her (6%, 5 responses). Fourteen percent
(14%) of respondents felt that their whole family was “doing time” (14%, 11
responses).
The “other” category referred to feeling guilty, financial problems and missing the
birth of the baby.
Comments by caregiver respondents reflected similar issues. Several respondents
spoke of the difficulties of being a single mother and wanting to have contact with
their partner when they were having difficulties with the children, dealing with day-today issues on their own or just simply needing a break.
PAGE 53
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
“I wish I could ring him when I have difficulties with the children –
emergencies, children upset.”
“It’s tough being a single mum – giving birth and coping alone with
a young baby.”
Some comments reflected the loneliness and sadness of dealing with the
incarceration from a personal perspective:
“I feel grief-stricken”
“I feel insecure and afraid”
One respondent spoke about the trauma and impact on the whole family. She
indicated that her relationship with her husband had broken down because of his
criminal behaviour. She stated that she could no longer trust him.
“I want people to listen to my issues, not just tell me that I’m doing
well. The problems get more difficult over time and it gets harder to
speak about them.”
Transport issues and travel to the prison for visits were again raised as a difficulty in
the comments of caregivers. Transfer of prisoners to prisons located long distances
from where the family lives created stress for the children and family and made it
very difficult for the children to maintain contact with their parent. Accommodation
when visiting prisons in the country also added to the cost. This was particularly the
case for Fulham Correctional Centre in Sale.
Other respondents spoke about the upheaval that incarceration had on family life.
Several respondents indicated that the change in the family’s financial situation had
resulted in the family moving house, children changing schools and missing out on
things that they had had previously.
Young people consulted at Tarrengower prison also raised concerns about transport
difficulties, indicating that the cost of travel prevented them from visiting more
frequently. They also felt wary about the prison environment, although this was
minimised at Tarrengower, as they got to know other prisoners and staff.
PAGE 54
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 29:
Caregivers’ Concerns
Totals
%
Its hard to communicate with my partner (the prisoner)
61
76%
The child(ren) don't want friends, neighbours finding out that their parent is in prison
52
65%
What / how to tell child
38
48%
Relationship between children and prisoner is becoming distant
38
48%
Children miss him / her
32
40%
I miss him/her
26
33%
Children picked on/singled out at school
20
25%
Making decisions about the children
20
25%
I don't get a break from the children
19
24%
Coping with prison and family issues
17
21%
My whole family is doing time
11
14%
Managing the children's behaviour/reactions
11
14%
The prisoner feels that the kids don't need him/her any more
10
13%
My children are taking on parental roles
8
10%
It hasn't been hard
8
10%
Feel children have forgotten him
5
6%
Nice if I could ring when I want to
5
6%
Family and friends don't understand
5
6%
Emotional adjustment
4
5%
Juggling work and being a parent
4
5%
Lonely
4
5%
Travelling
2
3%
Leaving the visit
2
3%
Had to give up work
2
3%
Family prejudice
2
3%
Daily routine
2
3%
Other
4
5%
Total
411
7.3
Prisoners’ Reactions
The range of issues raised by prisoners about what was hard for them since being
inside was smaller than the caregivers - 317 responses compared with 411
responses for caregivers (see Table 30). The issues that were hard for prisoners
were also quite different from those of the caregivers of the children. The most
frequently raised concern for prisoners was that they missed their children and family
(83%, 92 responses). This was by far the most frequently mentioned issue. This
may be a refection that the prisoners, being mostly males, had greater difficulty in
expressing their concerns. It may also be a consequence of their lack of direct
PAGE 55
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
involvement in caring for the children and thus the issues are not as difficult for them.
However, this may also confirm that families in fact face many more difficulties in
coping with the imprisonment than face prisoners.
The next most commonly raised concern was “not being there for the children” (38%,
42 prisoner responses). Not knowing what was happening for the children was also
raised frequently (23%, 25 responses).
Nineteen percent (19%) of prisoner respondents indicated that it was hard to
communicate with the children while a further 12 percent said that the whole family
was “doing time”.
Comments by prisoners indicated the variations in prisoners’ perceptions of the
realities facing their families on the outside and dealing with issues associated with
their incarceration. Several prisoners spoke about their distress at the loss and
separation from their families, particularly their children. Several others considered
their imprisonment to be unfair for the children.
These prisoners did not
acknowledge responsibility for their own actions.
Other prisoners recognised that their actions had been detrimental to their children.
Several were quite distressed and did not know how to deal with these concerns with
their children and their partners. One prisoner indicated:
“Our needs are simple – we have a roof over our heads, food to eat
and our physical needs met. It’s not the same for our families. My
family has had to move house, struggle financially and cope with
what others think. It’s tough for them, particularly the children. And
it’s my fault.”
Some prisoners were concerned about their children’s perceptions of the police and
the justice system, particularly if:

they had experienced a police raid and/or arrest of their parent

prison staff had been rude to them or

they had experienced a body search on entering the prison.
Prisoners consulted through the discussion groups indicated that they felt a sense of
helplessness in relation to parenting. This was particularly the case for female
prisoners. These prisoners also raised concerns about household management.
Several of these prisoners had adolescent children who were living with their fathers.
Frequently, the children were required to take on the major responsibility for
managing the household. This was difficult for them and they often were uncertain
as to what to do.
Male prisoners indicated that it was embarrassing for their families to seek help.
Their families tended to spend considerable energy in hiding the fact that their
partner and/or father was in prison. They were ashamed and did not want to seek
help from any professionals, relying instead on other family members or simply not
dealing with their concerns.
PAGE 56
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 30:
Prisoners’ Concerns
Totals
%
I miss the children/family – missing one another
92
83%
Not being there for them
42
38%
Not knowing what's happening with my children
25
23%
It's hard to communicate with the children
21
19%
My whole family is "doing time"
13
12%
What and how to tell the children about me being in prison
11
10%
Making decisions about the children
11
10%
Maintaining a relationship/communication
10
9%
Coping with prison and family issues
10
9%
Can't see children grow up
10
9%
Feeling isolated or alone
9
8%
Managing the children's behaviour/reactions
7
6%
I feel that the children don't need me anymore
5
5%
Lack of child visits
5
5%
Children being singled out or picked on
4
4%
It hasn't been hard
4
4%
Financial situation/care for child
4
4%
Officers using children to threaten you.
2
2%
DHS issues
2
2%
Child making claims mother is abusing
2
2%
My children taking on a parent role
1
1%
Saying goodbye at end of visits
1
1%
Children's studies affected
1
1%
STD phone calls make it hard
1
1%
Total Responses
7.4
293
Children’s Reactions
Respondents were asked to indicate what their children’s reactions were to their
imprisonment (see Table 31). The most common response of respondents was that
the children considered that their parent was “naughty” or had “done wrong” (32%, 65
respondents). Seventeen percent indicated that they did not know that the parent
was in prison (17%, 34 responses).
Eight respondents (4%) indicated that the children felt that their parent had been “set
up”, 5 (2%) indicated that the children felt it was “unfair” and a further 3 respondents
said that the children considered their parent to be a “hero” (2%). These responses
are linked to a perception of the prisoner as a ‘victim’ of the justice system.
PAGE 57
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
A further 3 respondents (2%) indicated that the children blamed themselves for their
parent’s imprisonment.
Table 31:
Children’s Perception of their Parent’s Imprisonment
No.
%
He/She has been naughty/done wrong
65
32%
They don't know he/she is here
34
17%
He/She was "set up"
8
4%
It's unfair
5
2%
Disappointed
4
2%
Doesn't like it
4
2%
He/She is a hero
3
2%
Blame themselves
3
2%
Confused
2
1%
Want father/mother to come home
2
1%
Scared of me being in prison
2
1%
Upset
2
1%
Knows that allegations are not true
1
0.5%
Thinks I work here
1
0.5%
Understands the circumstances of the offence
1
0.5%
Blames the defacto
1
0.5%
Accidental
1
0.5%
Disgusted
1
0.5%
Not against him
1
0.5%
Irrelevant (too young)
37
18%
Don't know
26
13%
No Response
1
1%
Total Responses
205
7.4.1 Behavioural and Emotional Responses of Children
Respondents were asked to identify any behavioural changes that they had observed
since the prisoner had been inside (see Table 32). Many respondents indicated
more than one behavioural change. The percentages in the table are calculated as a
proportion of the total number of respondents (191 respondents). This means that
the figures do not equal 100 percent.
The most commonly observed change was more difficult behaviour (41% of
respondents, 78 responses). This was followed by angry and/or aggressive
behaviour (19%, 37 responses). School problems (15%), being quiet and withdrawn
(9%) and being difficult on visits (7%) were also commonly observed changes in
behaviour. Other comments related to issues about difficult behaviour – clinging
behaviour, showing off, dominating, and regression.
PAGE 58
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Several responses were prisoner only – “get away with more”, “not enough discipline”
(6%, 12 responses), child being unsettled with the prisoner, resenting the prisoner
and feeling “paranoid” about the police.
Only two comments related to positive changes in the children’s behaviour. Two
respondents indicated that the children were more affectionate since their parent had
been in prison, while one other respondent indicated that the behaviour of the child
had improved.
Taking into account the children who were considered too young, no responses,
“don’t know” and the situations where behaviour had improved (61.5%) of
respondents indicated that there were some negative changes in their children’s
behaviour since their parent had been in prison.
PAGE 59
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 32:
Observed Differences in Children’s Behaviour
No.
%
Difficult behaviour
78
41%
Angry / aggressive
37
19%
Having problems at school
28
15%
Quiet / withdrawn
17
9%
Difficult on visits
14
7%
Get away with more - not enough discipline (prisoner only comment)
12
6%
Crying
10
5%
Child(ren) don't want others to find out
9
5%
Child clinging to mother
7
4%
Don't respect mother
6
3%
Wetting Pants - regression
6
3%
Child(ren) show off about having a parent in prison
4
2%
Dominating
4
2%
Eating problems
4
2%
Taking on a parent role
3
2%
Very Active
3
2%
Unsettled if he has contact with me (prisoner only comment)
2
1%
Child resents me
2
1%
More affectionate
2
1%
Paranoid about police
1
0.5%
Sleeping problems
1
0.5%
Depressed when leaving visits
1
0.5%
Asks a lot of questions
1
0.5%
Behaviour has improved
1
0.5%
Irrelevant (too young)
23
12%
Haven't noticed any changes
15
8%
Don't know
30
16%
No response
2
1%
Total Responses
323
Children’s concern for their imprisoned parent’s welfare was also important. One
young person who participated in the discussion group indicated that she worried that
her mother would get hurt in the prison. There was a need for children to see their
parent’s living environment, so that they could feel less worried about them.
Comments from caregivers included:
PAGE 60
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
“The children are very worried about where their dad is and what
it’s like in prison – is he okay?”
“The children want to see his bedroom and living area – they want
to see where their father lives.”
One respondent spoke at length about her stepson’s reactions to his father’s
imprisonment. His father was serving a long sentence and had been in prison for
over 10 years. Her stepson, now 14 years old, had committed several offences,
including offences with violence. His behaviour had been aggressive and difficult
since his father had entered prison. The school counselling service and other
services had been involved, but the caregiver felt that essential concerns regarding
the young person’s distress, sadness and disappointment with his father had not
been addressed. She also considered that her stepson had mixed messages in
relation to the law. He considered his father to be a “hero” for his crime and time
served in prison and had little respect for the justice system.
7.4.2 Sources of
Behaviour
Information
about
Changes
in
Children’s
Respondents were also asked to indicate how they had learnt about the changes in
their child(ren)’s behaviour. This is shown in Table 33 (note: more than one
response from several respondents). The majority of respondents had seen the
behavioural changes themselves or had been told about them by their partner.
Twenty-three respondents indicated that there are no problems (9% of respondents)
and a further 24 indicated that their child/ren were too young (10%). Seventy percent
of respondents indicated that there were some problems however. Percentages are
calculated as a proportion of 191, the total number of respondents.
Table 33:
Sources of Information about Changes in Children’s Behaviour
No.
%
I have seen the behaviour myself
87
46%
My partner told me
41
21%
Other family members/friends told me
34
18%
School told me
17
9%
Child told me
3
1%
Caregiver told me
2
1%
Staff in prison told me
1
0.5%
Irrelevant (too young)
24
13%
There are no problems
23
12%
Don't know
5
3%
No response
13
7%
Total Responses
250
PAGE 61
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
7.5
Summary
The most frequently raised concern for prisoners was that they missed their children and
family (83%).
The next most commonly raised concern by prisoners was “not being there for the children” –
38% of prisoner respondents. Not knowing what was happening for the children was also
raised frequently (23%).
Seventy-six percent (76%) of caregiver respondents felt that it was hard to communicate with
the prisoner (their partner) since the imprisonment commenced.
The next most frequently faced difficulty for caregiver respondents was that children did not
want neighbours or their friends finding out their parent was in prison (65%), followed by what
and how to tell the children and concern that the relationship between the prisoner and the
children was becoming distant (48%). The children missing their parent and the respondent
missing the prisoner were also common responses (40% and 33% respectively). A quarter of
respondents (25%) were concerned about the children being singled out or picked on at
school.
Parenting issues were also common – not being able to get a break from the children (24%),
making decisions about the children (19%), coping with prison and family issues (21%) and
managing the children’s behaviour and/or reactions (14%).
The most commonly observed change in children was more difficult behaviour (41%). This
was followed by angry and/or aggressive behaviour. School problems (15%), being quiet and
withdrawn (9%) and being difficult on visits (7%) were also observed changes in behaviour.
Other comments related to issues about difficult behaviour – clinging behaviour , showing off,
dominating, regression. Several responses were prisoner only – “get away with more: not
enough discipline” (6%), child being unsettled with the prisoner, resenting the prisoner and
feeling “paranoid” about the police.
A high proportion (34%) had provided another explanation to the children about their parent’s
absence or had told the children nothing.
Sixty-two percent (62%) of respondents indicated that there were some negative changes in
their children’s behaviour since their parent had been in prison. This included more difficult
behaviour (41%), more aggressive (19%), problems at school (15%) and quiet and withdrawn
(9%).
PAGE 62
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
8
8.1
Seeking Assistance – Support Services
What Would Help?
8.1.1 Caregivers
Caregivers and prisoners were asked what support services they would like to assist
them with the problems they had identified earlier. Nineteen percent (19%) of
caregivers indicated that they did not want any help (see Table 34). The most
frequently raised support required was the opportunity to speak with an independent
person who understands the prison system (23 respondents, 29%). The next most
commonly raised need was a support group for people in the same situation as the
respondents (20%, 16 respondents).
Counselling for children and counselling within the prison for the caregiver and
his/her partner were also regarded as necessary, with equal numbers of respondents
indicating that these were needed (15%, 12 respondents). Ten respondents
indicated that they wanted parenting programs (13%) and seven respondents
considered that a counsellor available during visits would be helpful (9%).
This information is presented in Figure 2.
Table 34:
Assistance that Caregivers Would Like
No.
%
Opportunity to speak to an independent person who
understands the prison system
23
29%
Support group for people in my situation
16
20%
I don't want any help
15
19%
Counselling for the children
12
15%
Counselling provided in prison for me/partner
12
15%
Parenting programs
10
13%
Counsellor available on visits
7
9%
Financial assistance
4
5%
Travel assistance
3
4%
Help with kids
2
3%
Counselling for prisoner
1
1%
Shorter sentence
1
1%
Family visits
1
1%
Drug rehabilitation
1
1%
Total Responses
108
PAGE 63
os
Su
pp
or
tg
PAGE 64
Dr
ug
s
ris
on
er
kid
nc
e
vis
its
reh
ab
ilit
ati
on
Fa
mi
ly
rs
en
ten
ce
gf
or
p
Sh
ort
e
Co
un
se
lin
ist
a
wi
th
el
as
s
He
lp
Tr
av
Fin
an
ci a
l
Percentage
Figure 3:
pe
ak
to
an
ind
rou
ep
pf
en
or
de
pe
nt
op
...
le
in
my
sit
ua
Id
tio
on
n
't w
Co
a
C
nt
un
ou
an
se
ns
yh
lin
e
lin
gp
elp
gf
rov
o
rt
ide
he
di
ch
np
ild
ri s
ren
on
for
me
/pa
rtn
Pa
er
ren
t
ing
Co
un
pro
se
gr
lor
am
av
s
ail
ab
le
on
vis
its
Op
po
rtu
nit
yt
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Assistance that Caregivers Would Like
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
8.1.2 Prisoners
Not surprisingly, the prisoners’ focus for addressing previously raised concerns was
on the prison environment and ways to be more actively involved in their children’s
lives (see Table 35). A better environment and facilities for visits was considered to
be the most helpful for addressing the concerns of prisoners (13%, 14 respondents).
This was followed closely by counselling to be provided in the prison for the prisoner
and his/her partner (12%, 13 respondents), a counsellor available on visits (11%, 12
respondents), a parents/family day at the prison (11%, 12 respondents), an
opportunity to speak to an independent person who understands the prison system
(10%, 11 respondents), support groups (10%, 11 respondents) and family visits (9%,
10 respondents).
Eleven respondents were unsure about what would be helpful (10%).
Eight respondents felt that parenting programs would be helpful (7%). Several
people also wanted assistance for the children with visiting, an independent person
who could accompany them on visits (7%).
This information is illustrated in Figure 4.
PAGE 65
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 35:
Assistance that Prisoners Would Like
No.
%
Better environment / facilities for visitors
14
13%
Counselling provided in prison for me and partner
13
12%
Counsellor available on visits
12
11%
Parents / Family day
Opportunity to speak to an independent person who
knows the prison system
Not sure
12
11%
11
10%
11
10%
Support group for people in my situation
10
9%
Family visits
10
9%
Parenting programs
8
7%
Someone to bring my child in to see me
8
7%
Financial support
7
6%
I don't want any help
6
5%
Counselling for the children
5
5%
Travel assistance
5
5%
To be out of prison
5
5%
Concessions and STD phone calls
4
4%
Children to stay in prison with me
3
3%
Counselling for prisoner
2
2%
Help with kids
2
2%
Help with accommodation and work once released
2
2%
Having contact with school and teachers
2
2%
Other
6
5%
Total Responses
158
PAGE 66
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Figure 4:
Assistance that Prisoners Would Like
14%
12%
Percentage
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
r
s
s
s
e
e or t
l p en c e on
ls
er
r e on
rs
i ts
..
i t s ay . .
al h m one k i d r . . . he r t h
i t o d p. v i s l y d pe. t s u at i v i s r am e m p p y he i l dr t an r i s
c
O
s
c
t
e
h
p
g
u
i
u
e
s
y
ne w i pr i w i t nc t ea
on am ent
No sit mil pro o s al s t an e ch ssi t of
an
r
o
t
ho on f or
y
e bl e
i
fo
p
a
a
F
d
n
h
u
g
c
p
t
l
/
n
F ti n
s r m la
m
el or k and
i n an w a
e e o D pr i s ng
r
e
e
H
s
i
n
v
i
l
o
d
t
t
i
p
w
f
n
i
t
n
il
fo v a
n
e
ili
r a o b ST i n
d hoo
el
le
re ch
Fi on' ing
T
s
n
p
a
ac son r a are ind
d
T
y
f
c
a
P my
un
P an
I d s el
ta
eo
an
n hs
t / pr i el o
n
s to s Co
t
io
g
s
i
rp
t
o
u
n
en i n
t
n
n
o
a
w
i
f
io
n
k
Co
br
nm d Cou
od c t
s s dr e
up
ea
o
m nt a
r o v i de
e
t
o
i
l
p
r
i
c
s
e
n Ch
nv r o
om c o
tg
to
on
c c ng
Co
re gp
or
e
y
a
e
t
p
i
m
tt
p
ni
lin
i t h av
So
Be s e
Su
w
r tu
H
n
o
lp
u
pp
He
Co
O
s
vi
PAGE 67
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
8.2
Discussion Group Comments
8.2.1 Services
Young people who participated in the discussion group at Tarrengower indicated that
they wanted a counselling service for children of prisoners. They felt that people in
the community, including school counsellors, generally did not understand the issues
that they faced. They felt that it would be useful for school support staff to visits
prisons, to help them understand the issues more and develop a greater
understanding of the environment that prisoners and their children live in. Peer
support for young people was also considered to be important.
The discussion groups with prisoners highlighted a range of possible service
responses. These included:

information about family law and child protection matters, including knowing
their rights and responsibilities

information, prior to incarceration, about the regulations and opportunities
regarding children living in prison and greater support in obtaining permission
for children to live with them in the prison

greater availability of counselling services for families and prisoners within the
prison, including the opportunity for relationship counselling

support for bringing children into the prison for visits when this support was
not available within families

opportunity for children to express their own views and concerns in a safe
environment

support services visiting children and families at home. This would include
offering a range of services, including counselling and support with domestic
management

support group within the prison to discuss parenting concerns and ways of
being a parent while in prison

community education regarding criminality and the impact of imprisonment on
children

specialist counselling and support services for children by people who
understand the prison system

opportunity for older children (15 years and over) to come to the prison not
escorted by an adult

consideration of the family situation in sentencing and classification.
8.2.2 Prisoner Responses
Prisoners had several suggestions to address issues relating to visits and improved
contact. This included:

open days for families at the prison – Family Fun Day with a range of
activities for children
PAGE 68
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA

access to local holiday programs and resources for older children staying in
the prison over school holidays

opportunities to spend time with mother doing activities within the prison,
particularly for older children

participate in the prison farm activities

visits at country prisons during the week for families who cannot attend at
weekend

opportunity to telephone children after school – more flexibility and
coordination between prison hours and the school/care hours of children

opportunities for parents to play with their children on visits in a more normal
environment

education for parents in child development and responding to development
needs

opportunity for children to give some of their own work directly to their parent a picture or other craft work

opportunity to read a story to the children, using the readers from school or
other books

healthy food to be provided in the canteen during visits.
It is important to note that these suggestions are those of prisoners. Any adoption of
these suggestions, particularly open days within prisons, would need to take account
of security within the prison and the safety of children. It may not be possible to
consider these within a maximum-security facility.
8.3
Current Support Used
Caregivers were asked what support was available to them, who provided this
support and what type of support they received. Likewise, prisoners were asked this
in relation to the caregivers of their children (see Tables 36 – 38).
The majority of caregivers indicated that they received support in coping with the
imprisonment of their partner/parent of the children (57%, 109 responses)2. Most
caregivers depended upon their family members and friends for support (48%, 28
responses). Twenty-one percent of respondents indicated that they used more
formal support services (21%, 40 responses). Of these, 5 percent (5%, 10
responses) used VACRO and 4 percent (4%, 8 responses) used unspecified support
services. The other services used included the Department of Human Services,
school, counsellor, the local priest and a local church support agency (see Table 37).
There was a marked difference between the type of services that respondents
indicated would be helpful to them and the type of services that they actually used.
Fifty-seven percent (57%, 110 responses) received general support, emotional or
moral support and help with baby sitting. This is consistent with the majority of
support coming from family and friends. Thirteen percent (13%, 24 responses)
sought support for physical needs – financial, accommodation and travel assistance.
2
The number of responses is greater than the number of respondents because more than
one response was given by some respondents.
PAGE 69
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
The remaining services received were counselling, foster care and support with
decisions.
Table 36:
Current Support Used by Caregivers
No.
%
Yes
109
57%
No
61
32%
Don't know
14
7%
Partner in gaol also
4
2%
No answer
3
2%
191
100%
Total Responses
Table 37:
Source of Support
No.
%
Family Member
75
39%
Friends
18
9%
VACRO
10
5%
Support services
8
4%
Aboriginal services
4
2%
Women's health centre
4
2%
School
4
2%
Counsellor
4
2%
DHS
3
2%
The clock tower (specific service)
2
1%
Local priest
1
0.5%
Total Responses
133
PAGE 70
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 38:
Type of Support Received
No.
%
General Support
42
22%
Emotional / Moral support
39
20%
Babysitting
29
15%
Financial support
15
8%
Counselling / Group support
11
6%
Accommodation
7
4%
Travel assistance
2
1%
Foster care
2
1%
Decisions
2
1%
No response
2
1%
Total Responses
8.4
151
Summary
The most frequently raised need for support was the opportunity to speak with an
independent person who understands the prison system (29%).
The majority of caregivers received support (57%). Most caregivers depended upon their
family members and friends for support (49%). Very few respondents indicated that they
used more formal support services (21% of all respondents).
Prisoners were concerned that children be provided with the opportunity to express their own
concerns with people who understand the prison system.
Support for families at home was considered to be important.
Prisoners believed that a range of support services provided within the prison was important,
including the opportunity to play with their children in a more normal environment, relationship
counselling and parenting and child development education.
PAGE 71
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
PAGE 72
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
9
Planning for the Future
9.1
Living Arrangements on Release
The majority of caregivers expected the prisoner to go home to live with the family
(76%) while 47 percent (47%) of prisoners expected to do this (see Table 39). The
numbers in this table do not equal the total number of respondents because some
respondents considered different circumstances for different children.
A higher proportion of prisoners (37%, 48 respondents) indicated that they intend to
keep contact with their children, but not go home to live.
Seven prisoners indicated that they would be assuming sole responsibility for the
children (4%).
Those who didn’t know where they would live included prisoners who had lengthy
sentences, some who were expecting extradition interstate for other offences,
deportation to their country of birth and families where the prisoner and caregiver’s
relationship had ended during the prison sentence. This represented 7 percent (7%)
of respondents.
Only 4 prisoners (2%) did not expect to have contact with their children on release.
Reasons given for this included not expecting to be released (a life sentence), a DHS
accommodation order, a restraining order and the child not wanting to have contact.
“Not relevant” refers to prisoners who were not sentenced.
Table 39:
Planned Living Arrangements of Release
Caregivers
Prisoners
No.
%
Totals
%
Come/Go home to live with the family
61
76%
61
47%
Keep contact with children but not live with them
15
19%
48
37%
Assume sole responsibility for children
2
3%
5
4%
Expect no contact with the children
0
0%
4
3%
Don't know
2
3%
11
10%
No response
0
0%
1
1%
Total Responses
80
PAGE 73
130
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Table 40 shows the expected living arrangements on release by the length of time
that the prisoner had spent in prison. Not surprisingly, a high proportion of prisoners
who were sentenced for 2 years or less expected to return home to live with their
children and families or have contact with their children but not live with them (73%).
Very few prisoners expected to have no contact with their families (2%, 4
respondents). The total figure in this table is higher than the number of respondents
because some prisoners gave more than one response, indicating different
arrangements immediately after release and in the longer term.
Table 40:
Living Arrangements on Release by Length of Time Inside
Keep in contact
Come home
Expect
with children Assume sole
Uncertain
to live with
no
but not live responsibility
family
contact
with them
Totals
%
Up to 3 months
19
7
1
0
0
27
14%
3 - 6 months
15
9
1
4
1
30
16%
6 - 12 months
20
6
0
1
0
27
14%
1 – 2 years
22
10
1
0
0
33
17%
2 - 5 years
23
8
3
1
2
37
19%
Sub Total
99
40
6
6
3
154
More than 5 years
8
7
0
4
1
20
10%
No Response
2
1
0
0
0
3
2%
Not relevant
10
10
1
1
0
22
12%
Total Responses
119
58
7
11
4
199
9.2
Summary
The majority of caregivers expected the prisoner to go home to live with the family.
Only four prisoners (2%) did not expect to have contact with their children on release.
Reasons given for this included not expecting to be released (a life sentence), a DHS
accommodation order, a restraining order and the child not wanting to have contact.
A high proportion of prisoners who were sentenced for 2 years or less expected to return
home to live with their children and families or have contact with their children but not live with
them (73%).
PAGE 74
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
10 Responding to Children’s Needs
This research has highlighted a range of concerns regarding the needs of children of
prisoners. This section outlines the key findings and focuses on ways in which these
needs can best be addressed in the future, using the experience of other Englishspeaking countries as outlined in the literature review (Section 3).
The
recommendations made are addressed to VACRO, the organisation that
commissioned this report. It is clearly recognised that these recommendations have
an impact on the Victorian prison system and the operation of individual prisons. It is
anticipated that the issues raised here will be addressed across the system.
10.1
Overview of the Findings
1. Sample Population

Respondents in the study had a total of 365 children. The majority of these
children were under the age of 10 (71%).

A total of 191 respondents were interviewed – 80 caregivers and 111
prisoners, with a further 30 prisoners consulted through discussion groups.

The majority of respondents identified their cultural background as Australian
(75% of caregivers, 69% of prisoners). Six percent identified themselves as
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.

The majority of respondents were aged between 20 and 34 years (65% of
caregivers and 63% of prisoners).
2. Previous Offending History

Forty-one percent (41%) of prisoners interviewed, and those referred to by
the caregiver respondents, had been in prison previously.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of prisoners interviewed, and those referred to by
the caregiver respondents, had served a Youth Training Centre (YTC)
sentence – 40% of males and 28% of females.
3. Family History

A high proportion of prisoners interviewed, and those referred to by the
caregiver respondents, lived in single parent families as a child, with many
indicating more than one living arrangement as a child.

Thirty percent (30%) lived apart from at least one of their parents as a child –
living alone, in substitute care, with relatives or in boarding school.

A total of 40 percent (40%) of respondents indicated that the prisoner had a
relative who had been imprisoned. Most of these were close family
members – parent, sibling, son, grandparent, cousin and uncle.
PAGE 75
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
4. Prison Visiting

The majority of respondents, both prisoners and caregivers indicated that
their children visited the prisoner frequently.

The main reason given for children not visiting regularly was that the
caregiver did not want them to do so. Travel problems were also a
significant barrier to visiting.

The most difficult aspect of visits identified by both prisoners and caregivers
was that children get bored during visits. Other concerns included:
 no or limited access to play equipment
 lack of access to an outdoor area
 lack of privacy with the prisoner for caregivers
 lack of opportunity for the prisoner to spend time alone with his/her
children
 atmosphere of visits creating tension
 prison restrictions on movement of the prisoner

waiting times for visits at some prisons.
5. Dealing with Incarceration

The most frequently raised concern by prisoners was that they missed their
children.

Prisoners were also concerned about “not being there for the children” and
“not knowing what was happening with the children”.

Caregiver respondents were primarily concerned that it had become more
difficult to communicate with the prisoner (their partner) since the
imprisonment had commenced.

Parenting issues were of concern to caregiver respondents in particular – not
being able to get a break from the children, coping alone, making decisions
alone and managing the children’s behaviour.

Other concerns included:
 children not wanting neighbours or friends to know about their
parent’s imprisonment
 concern that the relationship between the child(ren) and the prisoner
was becoming distant
 how to tell the children about the prison sentence
 concern that the children would be singled out or ostracised at school

children missing their parent who was in prison.
PAGE 76
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
6. Children’s Responses

The most common view of children, as indicated by their caregivers and
prisoner parents, was their parent was “naughty” or had “done wrong”.

While the majority of respondents had told their children that their parent was
in prison, almost a third (31%) had provided another explanation for their
parent’s absence or had said nothing.

Some respondents indicated that their children perceived their imprisoned
parent as a “victim” of the justice system – he had been “set-up”, it was
“unfair”, he was a “hero”.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of respondents indicated that there had been some
negative changes in their children’s behaviour since the prison sentence
commenced.

Other behavioural changes observed included:
 more anger and aggression
 problems at school
 being quiet and withdrawn
 being difficult on visits
 resenting the prisoner

being “paranoid” about the police.
7. Support Services

Almost half of the caregivers (49%) depended upon their family members
and friends for support. Approximately one in five (21%) indicated that they
used more formal support services.

The most frequently raised need for support was the opportunity to speak
with an independent person who understood the prison system.

Support for families at home was considered to be important.

Prisoners believed that a range of support services provided within the prison
was important. This included the opportunity to play with their children in a
more normal environment, relationship counselling and parenting and child
development education.
8. Living Arrangements on Release

The majority of caregivers expected the prisoner to go home to live with the
family (76%) while less than half (47%) of prisoner respondents expected to
do this.

A high proportion of prisoners (73%) who were sentenced for 2 years or less
expected to return home to live with their children and families or have
contact with their children but not live with them.
These results highlight several key issues for children of prisoners and indicate that it
is important to address the needs of this special group of children in the community.
PAGE 77
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
10.2
Extent of the Number of Children Affected
Three hundred and sixty-five (365) children were represented in the sample. The
sample represented seven percent (7%) of the total prison population in Victoria. It is
difficult to know what proportion of prisoners are parents. However, if one assumes
that 50 percent of the total prison population are parents, and using the number of
children in this sample as an indicator, there may be as many as 3,000 children
directly affected by the imprisonment of a parent at this point in time. This excludes
the thousands of other children whose parents have been in prison at some time.
There may be many more children affected, particularly if one takes account of the
fact that the average number of children of the prisoners in the study was two.
Victoria does not collect information about prisoners as parents. To facilitate
effective service planning and delivery, it is important to have accurate knowledge of
the numbers of children who may require support. This information is currently
collected by the Forensic Psychiatric Services in Victoria for the prisoners with whom
they work. The model used by this service could be extrapolated across the whole of
the Victorian prison system.
Recommendation 1
That VACRO present a case for collecting information on the parental status of
prisoners to the Department of Justice. The model used by the Forensic Psychiatric
Services in Victoria could be extended to the whole of the Victorian prison system.
10.3
Inter-generational Offending
Forty percent of prisoners and caregivers indicated that a relative of the prisoner had
been in prison, with the majority of these being a close family member. While this
issue requires further research, particularly taking into account offending history
which did not result in a custodial sentence, there appears to be a strong relation
between family history of incarceration – inter-generational offending.
The living arrangements of prisoners as children are also important in this context.
Several respondents indicated more than one living arrangement as a child, with 30
percent (30%) indicating that they had lived apart from at least one of their parents as
a child – either living alone, in substitute care, with relatives or in boarding school.
Children’s reactions to and perceptions of imprisonment are also linked to this. Eight
percent (8%) of respondents indicated that their children considered their imprisoned
parent to be a ‘victim’ of the justice system in some way or looked up to him/her - he
had been “set-up”, it was “unfair”, he was a “hero”.
These data present a disturbing outlook for children of prisoners. Based on the
family history of their parents, the children of prisoners are more likely than children
in the general community to:

be imprisoned themselves

have changes in their living arrangements, including living apart from their
families

develop a negative perception of the justice system.
PAGE 78
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
10.4
Recidivism
Forty-one percent (41%) of prisoners interviewed and those referred to by the
caregivers, had been in prison previously, while 37 percent (37%) of respondents
had served a Youth Training Centre (YTC) sentence.
Comments from caregivers and prisoners indicated that there was an acceptance by
many that the prisoner would continue to return to prison and this was an accepted
part of their lives. Some prisoners regarded living in prison as easier than living in
the community. There was a disturbing perception by several respondents,
particularly prisoners, that there was “no hope” for them – imprisonment was a way of
life for them and, in fact, some chose this for themselves.
This pattern of living and response to imprisonment can give a strong message to
children that serving a prison sentence is part of life – it was the culture for some
families. This was also reflected in the strong pattern of inter-generational offending.
10.5
Facilitating Effective Contact between Prisoners and
their Children
Contact between prisoners and their children was examined through assessing
telephone and letter contact and visiting arrangements. The majority of prisoners
had contact with their children on a regular basis through telephone calls and a high
proportion had regular visits. This is not unexpected, given that one of the criteria
used in the sampling was to interview prisoners who had had some contact with their
children during the past 12 months.
Concerns regarding contact and visits related to general comments about visiting and
more specific issues relating to the regulations at particular prisons. These can be
summarised as follows:

prison visit centres are not conducive to enhancing positive parent/child
interactions

the facilities in visit centres generally contribute to increased difficulties in the
interactions between parents and their children on visits eg, crowded rooms,
inappropriate behaviour of some prisoners, lack of adequate play equipment
(both inside and outside), lack of healthy food in canteens

the distance that families have to travel for visits, and the associated costs,
increase the stress involved in undertaking prison visits and contribute to
decreasing contact between parents and their children

some prison regulations associated with contact, such as seating
arrangements and times of access for telephone calls, contribute to the
tension of visits for children and inhibit contact between prisoners and their
children

families are often disadvantaged by the security classification system which
determines where prisoners reside

many children are prevented from visiting their parents in prison because of
family conflict and the consequent unavailability of an adult to accompany
children on visits.
PAGE 79
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
The researchers understand the constraints of the prison environment and recognise
that many of the current regulations are in place for security reasons. However, a
balance needs to be found between the security requirements of the prison and the
need for family contact. Consideration needs to be given to making visit centres
more child-friendly in ways that do not impinge on security, eg, pictures on the walls,
colour schemes that enhance the atmosphere for children. Other aspects that could
be considered include:

Provision of more healthy food in the canteen – Several parents raised
concerns about managing the behaviour of their children on visits. While this
may be associated with the tension of the visit and boredom for the children,
many of the children also eat extremely large amounts of sweets during the
visits because there are few food choices available in the canteen. This can
contribute to the extremely active and difficult behaviour of children. This is a
particular issue in medium and minimum security prisons, where there are
visits of up to six hours in duration.

Waiting times for visits – Waiting times at some prisons can be as long as two
hours. This is stressful for families, particularly those with young children.
This waiting time is often in addition to a one–two hour travel time.
Consideration could be given to an appointment system or other
administrative changes that can reduce waiting times.

Opportunity for interaction between prisoners and their children – Some
prisoners indicated that they wanted to be involved with their children through
reading stories on visits or having the opportunity to receive a picture that
their children had drawn and talk about it with them. Providing books in the
visit centre, particularly school readers, and allowing prisoners to receive a
child’s picture (cleared by security) may be ways of achieving this without
jeopardising security.
10.5.1
Travel Constraints
Travel to prisons for visits was a common concern for both prisoner and caregiver
respondents. The location of the prisons across Victoria inevitably poses issues for
some families in relation to travel. While some travel assistance is available for
families, this is limited. There are also accommodation costs for families who travel
large distances, eg, travelling from Geelong to visit a prisoner in Sale. There is a
need to examine the options and funding opportunities to assist families with travel.
It may also be possible to take into account the family situation when considering the
placement of prisoners.
10.5.2
Family Conflict
For children who did not visit regularly, the main reason given was that the caregiver
of the children did not want them to do so. While it is important to respect the rights
of families to make decisions for their children especially those associated with
protecting them and supporting their positive development, there may be some
situations where positive contact with a parent in prison is jeopardised due to conflict
between the prisoner and the children’s caregiver. Children, particularly older
children, may want or need to maintain contact with their parent in prison and are
prevented from doing so because of the family dynamics. There is a need to
consider options for these children, including the possibility of establishing alternative
prison visiting arrangements.
PAGE 80
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
10.6
Difficulties Associated with Imprisonment
Prisoners and caregivers of prisoners’ children raised a number of difficulties that
children and families have faced since the incarceration commenced. These
concerns related to:

children’s behavioural reactions

maintaining relationships with children

maintaining relationships with partners and dealing with the effect of the
breach of trust that often occurs as a consequence of offending behaviour

dealing with parenting issues, both for the prisoner and the caregiver

managing the day-to-day parenting issues.
A high proportion of respondents (62%) indicated that they had observed negative
behavioural responses in their children since the imprisonment commenced. There
may be a number of contributing factors, including:

the caregiver’s reactions to the imprisonment

the caregiver’s response to being a single parent

increased financial pressures on the family

a change in the children’s lives – possible changes in living arrangements or
school

grief response to the absence of their parent

pressure associated
whereabouts

the response to the arrest of their parent and the impact of the court process,
particularly if this has been traumatic and well publicised in the media.
with
maintaining
secrecy
about
their
parent’s
Children’s knowledge and perceptions of their parent’s imprisonment were also
important. A high proportion of respondents indicated that one of the most difficult
aspects of dealing with the imprisonment was how to tell the children. Thirty-four
percent (34%) had provided another explanation to the children about their parent’s
absence or had told the children nothing. An atmosphere of mistrust and deception
may develop if children find out that their parents have lied to them.
The majority of those interviewed did not seek assistance with their family difficulties
or managing the problems they faced in dealing with the incarceration. This was
often because they had difficulty in talking about their problems and felt ashamed of
their situation.
Prisoners can lose touch with their children. When they are not involved in the dayto-day issues of their children’s lives, it is easy to misunderstand their children’s
reactions and to respond inappropriately. In addition to this, the research has
highlighted the high proportion of prisoners who lived apart from their own families as
children. This may impact on their ability to understand and respond to their
children’s needs, due to a lack of consistent parenting role models.
PAGE 81
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
10.7
Current Service System
The Department of Human Services, Victoria, partially funds an integrated network of
family support services (Family Support Service Program). This includes family
counselling and in-home support services. The State government also funds a range
of support services for children and young people, including child psychologists and
counsellors within Community Health Centres and child and adolescent psychiatric
services. Other support services are available within schools and through local
government. The majority of these services have high waiting lists and have difficulty
meeting the needs of the communities within which they are located. In addition to
this, many of these services are targeted primarily at children regarded as at risk of
abuse or removal from their families. This means that many families are fearful of
approaching services themselves or are unable to access the services until the
difficulties within the family are extreme..
These services also have several difficulties in meeting the needs of families and
children of prisoners:

They often do not have the expertise and knowledge of the complexities of
working with children of prisoners.

They lack awareness of the culture of the prison system.

Families are often reluctant to seek support from these services, due to their
reluctance to speak about the imprisonment.

The service provision operates in isolation from the prison system and thus is
not able to address the needs of children in a holistic manner. This
particularly relates to concerns regarding contact with the parent in prison
and opportunities to develop and enhance the relationship between the
children and their imprisoned parent.
The following service needs have been identified through this research:

specialist counselling services for children

specialist counselling and support for caregivers of prisoners’ children

relationship counselling that can be conducted in the prison

family-oriented visiting centres within the prison

support groups for children of prisoners

support groups for prisoners who are parents

support groups for caregivers of prisoners’ children and families

child development education for prisoners

practical parenting education for prisoners, with opportunities to learn and
develop with their children as part of the program

opportunities for prisoners and their children to play together in a supportive
environment

support for children to visit their parents in prison without their caregiver, and
to spend time alone with their parent

opportunities for prisoners to participate more fully in decision-making for their
children and to take more responsibility for their care.
PAGE 82
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
VACRO, as the only organisation operating in Victoria that currently has the expertise
and experience in working with families of prisoners, is limited in developing
comprehensive and integrated services, due to lack of resources.
While some of these services are currently being provided, mostly by VACRO and by
some other agencies, service delivery is largely ad hoc and there is an absence of
planning for the unique needs of the children and families of prisoners.
10.8
Changing the Paradigm
The findings of this research are consistent with other research conducted in
Australia, Great Britain and the United States of America (see Section 3). It has
highlighted that children of prisoners are a group with specific needs. The evidence
indicates that these needs have developed as a direct consequence of parental
imprisonment. As such, specific service responses are required. The research has
also highlighted the absence of specialist services and the lack of resources to
address adequately these unique needs in an integrated manner.
The economic and social costs of neglecting the needs of these children cannot be
calculated. However, it is clear that parental imprisonment has an impact on:

the likelihood of children of prisoners being incarcerated themselves as
adults

child offending behaviour

limiting employment opportunities for parents, both the prisoner and the
caregiver

education and socialisation of children.
It is also clear that when a parent has been imprisoned on more than one occasion,
the problems of these children are compounded and the opportunities to develop and
build a relationship with their imprisoned parent are diminished. A culture of
imprisonment appeared to permeate some families.
10.8.1
Services
There is a need to develop integrated and holistic services, operated by
organisations that have expertise in working in the prison system and which are
staffed by professionals who understand the difficulties that confront children and
families of prisoners. Similar programs and services in Great Britain and the U.S.A.
(eg MATCH and PATCH programs, family visiting centres) have been outlined in
Section 3 of this report. These services need to:

be linked with the range of support programs offered within prisons

include a range of service options and approaches for families and children

be linked to a range of community-based supports for families and children

be comprehensive in their approach

be able to respond to the complex and varied needs of the children of
prisoners.
PAGE 83
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
In particular, there is a need to consider early intervention programs for children and
their families. These programs need to focus on breaking the cycle of offending and
changing the culture of imprisonment that exists within many families. Specifically,
the focus of early intervention needs to be on:

building and enhancing the self esteem of children

educating caregivers and prisoner parents about child development and
parenting skills

enhancing the self esteem of prisoners and caregivers

providing positive role models and support for caregivers

providing opportunities for children to deal with their feelings about the
imprisonment of their parent

providing opportunities for socialisation, normalisation and integration for
children, eg attending play groups and kindergarten in the community

encouraging and supporting the strengths and skills of children and their
families.
Recommendation 2
That VACRO pursue the development of early intervention programs, aimed at
supporting children and breaking the cycle of offending, within selected prisons in
Victoria. These programs need to:

be supported by the Department of Justice and the individual prisons

be adequately funded

be evaluated in both the short and long term

incorporate research components into the service design.
10.8.2
Justice System Responses
The cycle of offending behaviour needs to be broken. While integrated service
delivery can assist in addressing the needs of the children and prisoners, it is critical
to consider the response of the judicial system to offending behaviour. Options to be
considered include:

alternatives to imprisonment, whether these are community-based
correctional orders, development of alternative prison models or other
diversionary programs

recognition of the impact of offending behaviour and imprisonment of a
parent on children

consideration of the needs of children of prisoners in the sentencing process.
PAGE 84
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
10.8.3
Prison System Responses
The primary focus of the prison is the care and welfare of prisoners. However, this
research has highlighted the strong inter-connection between prisoners and their
children and the impact of imprisonment on children, including future offending
behaviour. If the prison system is to focus on rehabilitation, and not just punishment,
interventions that focus on the prisoner within the context of his/her family must
occur.
This implies a paradigm shift for prisons – moving from a focus on
the care of the prisoner alone to focussing on the care of the
prisoner and his/her family.
This includes consideration of:

pre- and post- release programs, to support prisoners in being re-united with
their families

developing more child-friendly visiting areas

family circumstances in the placement of prisoners

enhancing and developing opportunities for positive interaction between
prisoners and their children, including access to telephones at times when
children are available, providing books and other activities and healthy food
in canteens.
In addition to this, the needs of children who spend holidays in the prison with their
parents were highlighted in the research. The lack of activities for young people was
raised as a concern. These young people need something to do, both to relieve their
boredom and to foster more positive relationships with their parents, as well as
minimising the sense of “being locked up”. These activities could be in the local area
or within the prison. Employment of specialist staff, such as youth workers, to
develop specific programs for these young people and support them would assist.
PAGE 85
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
Recommendation 3
That VACRO discuss the outcomes of this research with the Department of Justice
with a view to:

shifting the paradigm of prisons from care of the prisoner alone, to care of
the prisoner and his/her family and

establishing an integrated approach to breaking the cycle of offending
behaviour.
This implies consideration of:

alternatives to imprisonment

development and funding of programs and services within prisons that focus
on early intervention

pre- and post- release programs that support the relationship between
prisoners and their children

maintaining family contact in sentencing and placement of prisoners

specific programs for children and young people who stay with their parents
in prison.
PAGE 86
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
11 Implications for Further Research
It is important to note that there was considerable consistency between the results of
this survey and other research conducted in Great Britain, the U.S.A. and New South
Wales. However, this study is just a first step in understanding the needs of children
of prisoners in Victoria and developing appropriate service responses to meet these
needs. This section outlines some of the further work that is identified by this study.
11.1
Children of Female Prisoners
This study had few women represented in the sample. This is primarily because
women chose not to participate. It may also be influenced by the fact that VACRO
works mainly in the male prisons. It has a very good reputation with male prisoners
and is well known in these prisons. It is not as well known in the main female prison
in Victoria, M.W.C.C.. Studies in the United States and Great Britain also contend
that female prisoners are more reluctant to participate in studies relating to their
children, as they are concerned that the welfare of their children may come under too
much scrutiny by authorities (Gabel and Johnston, 1995).
Most children whose fathers receive a custodial sentence remain in the care of their
mothers. The children of female prisoners frequently experience much more
disruption, as their mothers are more likely to be the primary caregiver at the time of
their imprisonment (Standing Committee of Social Issues, 1997, Home Office, 1997).
There is an increase in the female prisoner population across the English-speaking
world, including Australia (Johnston, 1995, Farrell, 1998). This means that although
the degree of disruption for children of female prisoners has probably increased, no
research has been undertaken in Victoria to assess these needs specifically.
Critical aspects of any further research into the needs of female prisoners should
take into consideration:

care and placement of children while their mother is in prison

support provided to mothers in prison to maintain their parenting role

communication and interaction between caregivers of the children and their
mother in prison

opportunities to support female prisoners in their role as parents

examination of alternatives to imprisonment.
Recommendation 4
That VACRO investigate opportunities to undertake a comprehensive assessment of
the needs of children of mothers who have received a custodial sentence.
PAGE 87
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
11.2
Children Residing in Prison
In Victoria, there is opportunity for children to reside with their parents in prison, if this
is assessed as being in the best interests of the child. The children living in the
prison system on an on-going basis tend to be pre-school children and infants, living
with their mothers. Several older children stay with their mothers during school
holidays. No children have resided with their fathers in the Victorian prison system.
It was a clear decision in designing this study to exclude this group from the sample
population. The needs of these children were considered to be unique, warranting
special attention and research consideration.
Although children have been permitted to stay in Victorian prisons for almost ten
years, there has been no specific research to examine the needs of the children,
apart from internal policy reviews within the corrections system. There is an urgent
need to consider the needs of these children within the prison system. Such a study
should consider the following aspects:

the particular needs of pre-school children

the impact on children

the needs of the parents of these children

the needs of older children, particularly adolescents

examination of the resource implications for addressing the needs of these
children within the prison.
Recommendation 5
That VACRO investigate opportunities to undertake a comprehensive assessment of
the needs of children residing in prison with their parents, either permanently or on a
short-term basis during school holidays.
11.3
The Needs of Pregnant Prisoners
Closely related to the issues of children who reside in prison, are the needs of
pregnant women in prison and the pre- and post- natal support provided to them.
Little or no research has been undertaken in this area in Australia. There is a need
to pursue further these issues in more detail.
Recommendation 6
That VACRO investigate opportunities to undertake research into the needs of
pregnant women in prison and the pre- and post- natal support provided to them.
PAGE 88
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
11.4
Children’s Stories
As with much of the research into the needs of children of prisoners, children were
not directly interviewed in this study. One way of involving children is to listen to their
stories. The stories of children are important. They provide important and valuable
insights into the situations that children face and help us to understand more about
their emotional reactions and needs. It also provides an important opportunity for
children to express their own views. This was demonstrated by the Howard League
research (1993), outlined in Section 3.
It is important to hear from children, to assist in developing more relevant services.
There is a need for this to be undertaken in Australia and in Victoria. It is important
that this work be conducted in conjunction with skilled professionals who have
already established trusting relationships the children. This work needs to be
incorporated into support services for the children of prisoners.
11.5
Longitudinal Study
The impact of imprisonment on children and families cannot be over-stated. This
research has only skimmed the surface of identifying the enormous changes that
face children and families when a parent is incarcerated and children’s reactions to
these changes. The data collected in this research represent a snapshot – there is a
need to look at the impact of imprisonment over time. It is important to develop a
more comprehensive understanding of the effects of imprisonment and to understand
the impact of these effects over several years. This is particularly important when
examining the effects on children in the context of their developmental changes.
Recommendation 7
That VACRO incorporate research components in the design and implementation of
any service delivery models developed to address the needs of children of prisoners,
including:

strategies for documenting children’s stories

development of a longitudinal study to examine the impact of
imprisonment on children over time.
PAGE 89
“DOING IT HARD” – A STUDY OF THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF PRISONERS IN VICTORIA
11.6
List of Recommendations
Recommendation 1
That VACRO present to the Department of Justice a case for collecting information on the parental
status of prisoners. The model used by the Forensic Psychiatric Services in Victoria could be
extrapolated across the whole of the Victorian prison system.
Recommendation 2
That VACRO pursue the development of early intervention programs within selected prisons in
Victoria aimed at supporting children and breaking the cycle of offending. These programs need to
be:

supported by the Department of Justice and the individual prisons

adequately funded

evaluated in both the short and long term

incorporate research components into the service design.
Recommendation 3
That VACRO discuss the outcomes of this research with the Department of Justice with a view to:

shifting the paradigm of prisons from care of the prisoner alone, to care of the prisoner
and his/her family and

establishing an integrated approach to breaking the cycle of offending behaviour.
This implies consideration of:

alternatives to imprisonment

development and funding of programs and services within prisons that focus on early
intervention

pre and post release programs that support the relationship between prisoners and their
children

maintaining family contact in sentencing and placement of prisoners

specific programs for children and young people who stay with their parents in prison.
Recommendation 4
That VACRO investigate opportunities to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the needs of
children whose mothers have received a custodial sentence.
Recommendation 5
That VACRO investigate opportunities to undertake research into the needs of pregnant women in
prison and the pre- and post- natal support provided to them.
Recommendation 6
That VACRO investigate opportunities to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the needs of
children residing in prison with their parents, either permanently or on a short-term basis during
school holidays.
Recommendation 7
That VACRO incorporate research components in the design and implementation of any service
delivery models developed to further address the needs of children of prisoners, including:

strategies for documenting children’s stories

development of a longitudinal study to examine the impact of imprisonment on children
over time.
PAGE 90