And Justice for All: Families & the Criminal Justice System

Sample and Data Collection

The data were collected from a qualitative study about how families and communities are affected by incarceration. We conducted both observations, from August 2001 to March 2002, and in-depth interviews, from September 2001 to March 2002. While these data were collected over a decade ago, we do not believe the processes studied are historically bound. To the contrary, our findings are enhanced by the fact that the study was conducted during an early wave of research about incarceration’s impact on families (Sampson, 2011), when there was less emphasis on examining the nuanced nature of both the costs and potential benefits of incarceration. In analyzing the data with an eye for agency and resilience, we place the work within later waves of research.

The primary data collection strategy for the study involved observation techniques that informed the development of interview questions as the study progressed[1]. The current study consisted of 200 fieldwork hours, including observation at prison-family support group meetings and observation on five bus rides, each covering a 24-hour period to two upstate New York prisons between 250 and 300 miles from New York City. The support group provided an initial introduction to the issues and concerns of a subset of prisoners’ family members and served as a point of entry into the research setting of the prison buses, which involved nearly 800 people on Friday and Saturday evenings who were riding buses from New York City to prisons throughout the state (see Christian, 2005, for a detailed description of the bus rides).

In addition to the observation, open-ended, in-depth interviews were conducted with 19 family members of prisoners who were selected based on both their willingness to be interviewed and to include a range of family relationships. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview questions were designed around specific topic areas such as visiting patterns; changes in family life after the prisoners’ incarceration; how children adjusted to the incarceration and any problems they faced; and connections to neighborhood activities, programs, and other social support services.

The race and ethnicity of the sample was African American (n=15) and Latino (n=4); 18 were females and one was male, with an age range from 20 to 63 years. These demographic characteristics of the sample closely paralleled the demographic composition of the riders on the buses, which reflected the overrepresentation of African Americans and Latinos in the New York state prison population at the time of the study, accounting for 51 percent and 31 percent, respectively (Bernstein & Davis, 2000).

The study participants who were interviewed had varying relationships with the prisoners they were visiting: Six were wives, four were mothers, six were girlfriends, one was a friend, one was a sister, and one was a brother. This sample represents a range of prison and family relationships and further highlights the need to examine relationships other than only those with wives or girlfriends. In this study, siblings and parents were a significant part of the prisoners’ family connections. The families of male prisoners were chosen for this study, recognizing that the processes highlighted would likely differ when studying the experiences of women’s families (Casey-Acevedo & Bakken, 2002; Einat, Harel-Aviram & Rabinovitz, 2013). Moreover, seven of the study participants had multiple incarcerated individuals in their lives (i.e., an incarcerated husband and son, two incarcerated sons, and an incarcerated brother and boyfriend). Pseudonyms are used for all family members and incarcerated individuals.

Data Analysis

The processes of data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously and interactively following a grounded theory method. Data were analyzed continually using open and axial coding (Creswell, 2012) to identify emerging concepts and themes, which influenced future directions for data collection. In addition, memos and analytic notes were written during data collection and analysis to document the theoretical decision-making process (Maxwell, 2012; Richards, 2009).

During the observation periods, it was particularly important to assure that data were being collected systematically; therefore, early sets of field notes and interview transcripts were given to colleagues for feedback about potential biases. Field notes from observation periods included descriptions of what was occurring in the setting, as well as theoretical-reflective note sections (Richards, 2009). Subsequently, field note documents and interview transcripts were read and content-coded for recurring concepts and patterns, which then led us to identify the various demands on prisoners’ family members.

Initial coding led to the generation of multiple demands faced by prisoners’ family members. We were particularly interested in obligations related to sustaining the relationship with the incarcerated individual, navigating family life, and negotiating other people’s expectations of the relationship. We then analyzed the data to further explore these processes by type of relationship (romantic partner, parent, friend, or sibling) and how family members demonstrated agency and resilience when fulfilling multiple and, at times, competing obligations.

Caretakers: Negotiating Needs

Caretakers’ relationships with prisoners can be best characterized as ones of unbalanced reciprocity. Beyond relying on caretakers for emotional support, prisoners often depended on family members on the outside for material needs. While strenuous, caretakers generally managed these demands through their negotiations with—and received understanding from—the incarcerated individuals. Caretakers provided support and companionship to the incarcerated man by writing letters, accepting collect phone calls, and visiting him in prison; they provided assistance with prison administrators and sought information regarding attorneys and parole, while simultaneously caring for family members who were not incarcerated, like children. Family members placed special importance on this caretaker role during the incarceration period because of its potential to enable the man to succeed upon his release from prison (Christian & Kennedy, 2011; Mears et al., 2012). While recognizing the significant toll caretaking may have on their own life, an orientation toward the future (i.e. release) enabled family members on the outside to withstand the pains of the present, finding ways to mitigate its demands and conserve their own resources.

The caretaker’s role involved providing support and encouragement to the prisoner, often during visits at the prison, which required time to get there and be present for the visit. While contact can be sustained through phone calls and letter writing, friends and family members understood the significance of in-person visits. For example, Anna, a friend of an incarcerated man who had been in prison for three years, described the dilemma she faced as she tried to provide him companionship and explained that visiting required her to plan carefully, particularly budgeting the money needed for visits:

Anna described the man she visited as a childhood friend and said they “grew up on the block together.” She was adamant that they were not intimately involved. While acknowledging that her friend “broke the law” and must face the consequences of his actions, she also felt compelled to provide encouragement during his incarceration because she believed it would make a difference upon his release from prison. She notably bounded their relationship and what she was willing to provide for him by emphasizing that they were friends and not intimate partners, and by stating that she only visited once in a while.

A different family member, Shanice, married her husband after he had served five years of his sentence of eight to sixteen years. At the time of the interview they had been married for three years, and she explained how she made decisions regarding her own life that would serve as a foundation for her husband’s release:

Shanice’s caretaking involved readying both her and her husband for the release period, including preparing for the barriers her husband would likely encounter, especially when trying to find a job. It is particularly noteworthy that this family member framed the incarceration in an advantageous light, as a time when she could pursue goals of her own that would “build a foundation” for the couple once her husband was released.

Jose, whose brother had been incarcerated for seven years of a thirty- year sentence, waived to the adult system at the age of 15, identified the emergence of competing obligations, as his personal goals might have been compromised by his desire to provide care for his brother. Like the women described above, he felt the need to support his brother by visiting him, particularly because no one else was doing so. Yet, he had to make important decisions about how to balance this demand with opportunities for himself.

Jose faced a dilemma because he could not be in two places at once. He knew that if he got another job to meet his own personal needs, he would not be able to provide his incarcerated brother with the level of support that he would have liked and that he knew his brother had come to expect. Yet, he took a proactive approach by having conversations with his brother about potential changes in his visiting frequency, trying to secure his brother’s support for the decision. While he ultimately acknowledged that his brother “wasn’t too keen with that idea,” the act of preparing his brother for the change, and listening to his reaction, was a means of negotiating a difficult process of potentially having less contact with his brother.

Family members faced heightened caretaking responsibilities with interconnected obligations when they had multiple incarcerated family members in their lives. Rosa, a mother with two incarcerated sons, described how she managed her dilemma of making decisions about which of her sons to visit:

This mother had difficult choices to make about which of her sons would receive her support by way of visitation. She made a calculated decision that the son serving the longer sentence needed her more than the son with the shorter sentence, and so she enhanced caretaking for one son compared to the other. Furthermore, her behavior demonstrated how simultaneously managing these responsibilities required her to make sacrifices in her obligations to one son for the benefit of the other. Her rationale for the decision, “Larry needs me more than Sean” was a justification that made the situation more tolerable. Such caretaking here was focused on a future- oriented agenda for the son who was not to be released soon, as maintaining her caretaking role with him allowed the mother to cope with his lengthy incarceration and eventual release, which she perceived as much more uncertain than for the son with the shorter sentence.

Family members with children also assumed emotional caretaking in their lives outside of the prison as they tried to help children understand what had happened to the incarcerated parent and to give them a sense of security about the future. One wife, Renee, whose husband had been incarcerated for five years of a twenty-five year sentence, had three sons ages 12, 10, and 5. She remarked:

Another mother, Maria, whose husband had been incarcerated for eleven years, referring to her children, an 11-year-old son and 8-year-old daughter said:

Here, Maria employed a number of strategies to manage her children’s questions about their father. She was particularly cognizant of the hurtful nature of the situation and the need to explain it in a language they could understand. She was also careful to frame their father’s behavior in a “hate the sin, not the sinner” type ofGstoryline. Perhaps for her, as well, she could accept the one mistake her husband made, as opposed to other incarcerated people who may be habitual offenders. Distinguishing her husband from those who had served repeated sentences is similar to the desensitization techniques adapted by many of the adolescents in Easterling and Johnson’s (2015) study as a way of coping with their parent’s incarceration.

Maria further explained the implications of her husband’s incarceration and how she was able to manage with the help of family and friends, even though she valued self-reliance:

She acknowledged the help she had received from family members in raising her children, but she also emphasized that her husband’s absence was a loss for which there was no compensation.

The duality—and often conflicting responsibilities—in managing multiple roles in different relationships, alongside seemingly overwhelming emotional obstacles, were frequent occurrences for family members of prisoners. The act of caretaking involved not only emotional and psychological resilience but it also complicated the financial aspect of the tenuous role as economic provider. Despite these difficulties, caretakers found ways to reassure both the incarcerated individual and family members on the outside that they were capable of managing the situation and that they could benefit from the approaches they had devised to do so.

Economic Provider: Multiple Contexts of Financial Obligations

In addition to providing care for the prisoner and other people in their lives, family members assumed the responsibilities of economic providers, which in many respects was an extension of caretaking. When a family member was incarcerated, the role of economic provider became more taxing, as it required balancing the financial demands of maintaining a household with the financial obligations of being involved with the prisoner.

Family members worried about specific financial obligations connected to incarceration, including the costs of visiting at prisons (e.g., transportation, buying food in visiting halls, and overnight accommodation, if necessary), accepting collect phone calls from the prisoner, paying attorney fees, purchasing items to send to the prisoner, and/or providing cash for the incarcerated individual’s commissary account (Braman, 2004; Christian, Mellow, & Thomas, 2006; Grinstead, Faigeles, Bancroft, & Zack, 2001). Fulfilling these obligations was challenging enough, but when family members combined the roles of economic provider to enhance the prisoner’s wellbeing with the requirement of being an economic provider for themselves and other family members on the outside, these obligations created conflicting responsibilities, requiring creative strategies, such as scaling back or severing contact with the incarcerated individual, prioritization of activities, and self-care.

One participant’s experience provided a vivid example of the roles and obligations tied to being an economic provider for an incarcerated person, while also being an economic provider for other family members. Her situation illustrated the consequences of a failure to devise sufficient management strategies. Grace was the wife of a man incarcerated under a 25-year-to-life sentence, and together, they had six children, aged 2 to 18. Grace visited her husband in prison regularly during the first three years of his incarceration. At times, she took all or some of the children, but more often than not, she visited alone because of the expenses and other commitments involved in taking the children to the visits. She suddenly severed all contact with her husband for a 3-year period because of the multiple forms of strain that began to swell as an economic provider:

On the one hand, with the conflict in time and financial allocation of resources, family members strived to maintain connections with their imprisoned partner such that the money they spent visiting or providing for the imprisoned member did not deplete their finances. On the other hand, family members clearly must respond to their out-of-prison economic responsibilities, which in some cases are not met to the liking of either the imprisoned individual or other individuals who are aware of the family members’ actions. As such, family members engaged in cost-benefit analyses to negotiate how they would prioritize the allocation of their time and resources. At some point, family members either continued to be the economic providers for the prisoner and increased their stress to the point of damaging other non-incarceration-related relationships and resources, or because of diminishing emotional and financial compensations, they limited or ended their relationship with the prisoner as it was originally configured. Some family members were proactive in attempting to avoid the level of strain Grace experienced, but this was not always possible, and they adapted to their circumstances as their realization of the demands grew.

Another woman, Sharon, described the commitments of being the economic provider and the aspects of life that may have suffered in the process, as illustrated in the following field note excerpt:

While clearly it was hyperbolic to describe the money spent enacting the economic provider role for an incarcerated person as “yacht money,” this participant nonetheless recognized that in providing for her incarcerated husband over a twenty-year period, with five children to support in the process, she faced a number of conflicting roles, obligations, and choices about how to allocate her resources.

Responding to the economic provider role in a different way, another participant, Cindy, the wife of a prisoner with three sons, described how she prioritized her obligations:

For Cindy, setting clear priorities (her and her children’s welfare) and maintaining boundaries with her husband (having regular contact, but restricting it to visiting rather than accepting expensive collect phone calls) was crucial to the maintenance of their relationship. By pointing out all that she did give her husband, such as visiting with their children and providing him with clothing and money for his commissary account, she highlighted the reciprocity and resilience necessary for sustaining a manageable relationship. She gave her husband a lot, but she also expected him to reciprocate by understanding the parameters of what she was able and willing to do. She accepted that he may have been disappointed with her decision. However, Cindy ensured that her own social support system was strong through her relationship with her mother, a form of prioritization and self-care.

In demonstrating her own resilience, Cindy understood that other family members of incarcerated individuals made different choices and had different expectations about how to manage their situations. From her perspective, those who skillfully navigated the economic provider role, however, recognized and accepted that they did not fulfill all aspects of the role and, in fact, embraced their limitations by successfully exercising agency in setting parameters.

Relationship Manager: “We Try to Involve Him”

While the structure and dynamics of family life were severely altered by incarceration, family members exercised agency in roles of caretaker and economic provider, as well as in the role of relationship manager. They worked to mitigate the liminality in their lives by defining the parameters of their relationships with the incarcerated individuals, while still involving them in family life and acquiring resources and capital to assist them in the process. To effectively navigate the role of relationship manager, family members involved the prisoner in routine family life without sacrificing their own sense of empowerment and status within the family (Comfort, 2008; Fishman, 1990).

The following field note excerpt described one family member’s perspective about how maintaining her relationship with her husband compelled her to stay connected to him, even when he was transferred to a prison further away from New York:

Like many family members, this wife drew a contrast between her own commitment to her husband and their relationship, and the lack of commitment to relationships exhibited by the women who were “running around” (perhaps being unfaithful or engaging in activities other than maintaining the relationship with the incarcerated partner). Through this conceptualization of a “good wife” and devoted partner, Rita was simply fulfilling her marriage vows by visiting her husband, even when he was in a prison far from home. Further, she did not discuss visiting as a burden or obligation, but rather as a natural extension of her commitment to her husband. By framing the demands of visiting as a part of her life and relationship, she was able to continue, even while acknowledging the burdensome aspects of the relationship. This woman’s resilience is evident in her willingness to accept the changes in her relationship with her husband and doing the best she could to be a devoted wife within the constraints of his confinement, rather than viewing their circumstances as an obstacle.

In another example, keeping the family together was a priority for Renee, a prisoner’s wife, who did so by involving her husband in family decision-making.

By emphasizing that their family was not “broken” due to imprisonment, this participant highlighted the value of alternative means of maintaining the family relationship. Similar to Comfort’s (2008) finding that families re-create domestic life in prison, this participant managed the family relationship by including her husband in discussions and seeking his input about important decisions. Despite her implicit understanding of her husband’s absence, her family was able to mitigate the loss. Nevertheless, there was inherent tension in fulfilling the relationship manager role.

The role of relationship manager required defining the parameters of the relationship and managing others’ expectations about what those boundaries should be. At the same time that they engaged in the role of keeping the family together, relationship managers contended with those who questioned their dedication to this role. Sharon, a wife with five sons explained:

Hence, being a relationship manager required family members to endure the stigma associated with taking their children to prisons (Foster & Hagan, 2009). They actually may agree with others’ critiques, but even in light of the downside of exposing children to prisons, the benefits of preserving family ties outweighed the costs of disappointing those who might judge them. It is also noteworthy that this mother framed her sons’ need to understand what their father had “been through,” emphasizing the demands he faced as an incarcerated person, rather than those they faced as family members.

One mother of an incarcerated man, Margie, explained how other people experiencing the incarceration of a family member may serve as a support system. While walking down the street prior to her interview with the first author, she was stopped by a woman who told her that her son had been released from incarceration. Margie explained:

Family members of prisoners had the arduous task of managing relationships on the inside that were beyond their control because the institution, despite efforts to facilitate family contact with incarcerated individuals (Hoffmann, Dickinson, & Dunn, 2007), implemented and enforced guidelines and requirements that impeded maintaining and improving the relationship. With this barrier, family members also managed their relationships with their children, non-incarcerated confidants, and others in their social network, while frequently balancing the outside relationships with the incarcerated relationship.