'Pains of imprisonment': narratives of the women

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2009.00659.x

‘Pains of imprisonment’: narratives of the women partners and children of the incarcerated cfs_659

196..205

Wing Hong Chui Associate Professor, Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Correspondence: Wing H. Chui, Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong E-mail: [email protected] Keywords: criminology/criminal justice, parenting/parenthood, research with children, social work (international) Accepted for publication: September 2009 Published online: December 2009

A B S T R AC T This paper focuses on an important line of inquiry in contemporary criminal justice social work research: the collateral consequences of incarceration in the Chinese context. It gives an insight into the impact of incarceration on families from an insider’s perspective. An analysis of interviews with 10 partners and 10 children yielded three major themes concerning the impact of imprisonment: the problems associated with the imprisonment of a family member, the coping strategies used and views on the importance of maintaining family ties. It is hoped that this study will give practical guidance regarding what should be done, and how, to reduce the negative consequences brought about by the absence (temporary or permanent) of the imprisoned on their families, including both their partners and vulnerable children.

INTRODUCTION Current research indicates the increasing number of people in prison, so logically, there will be a corresponding increase in the number of partners and children of the incarcerated (King 1993; Kazura 2001; Magaletta & Herbst 2001; Schen 2005; Codd 2008; Comfort 2008). When parents become caught up in the criminal justice system, their partners, children and significant others are, by extension, affected, and this affect is significant (Reed & Reed 1995; Pollock 1998; Greene et al. 2000). The unintended consequences of parental imprisonment on children are not easy to remedy nor easy to reconcile with traditional notions of justice that are heavily focussed on punitive ends such as incarceration. According to Shaw (1992), ‘the justice system is based on the principle of acquitting the innocent and punishing the guilty, consequently those who uphold it cannot afford to accept that by imprisoning a mother or a father they may punish the innocent child more than the criminal parent’ (p. ix). Anecdotal evidence has indicated that children with at least one parent in prison are at greater risk of suffering from anxiety and depression (Snyder et al. 2001), and that parental imprisonment predicts

196

Child and Family Social Work 2010, 15, pp 196–205

delinquency and anti-social behaviour during the course of children’s lives (Murray & Farrington 2005). Tulloch (1998), writing from the perspective of the inmates and their partners, argued strongly that families encounter a wide range of psychological, emotional and financial problems when one of their members is locked up, as well as after his or her discharge. Therefore, Tulloch recommended that more tangible (such as financial support and temporary accommodation) and intangible (such as emotional and psychological support) help should be made available to the affected families of the incarcerated. However, research on the impact of incarceration is non-existent in Hong Kong. There are no statistics on the family and the parental status of prisoners available to the public because the prison authorities in Hong Kong do not routinely include this specific information in their records. Because of the lack of information, it remains unknown how many prisoners have partners and children outside the prison wall, and the characteristics of prisoners with children. While it is beyond the scope of this paper to estimate the actual number of partners and children of the incarcerated in Hong Kong, it examines the impacts of imprisonment, thereby stimulating

© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Impact of imprisonment W H Chui

more discussion among criminal justice professionals to address the needs and problems of the prisoners’ families. This paper is divided into five sections. The first section gives a brief account of Hong Kong’s penal system. The second reviews the literature examining the impact of incarceration on families and the third outlines the methodology of the study. The fourth section reports the qualitative research findings of the study; data are presented in the form of direct quotes to illustrate how imprisonment has impacted their lives. The concluding section discusses the implications for correctional policy, programmes and research in relation to reducing the unnecessary harm caused to the families of the incarcerated in the Hong Kong context. A B R I E F OV E R V I E W O F T H E P E N A L SYSTEM IN HONG KONG In addition to retribution, deterrence, incapacitation and restoration, the ethos of rehabilitation plays a significant role in sentencing and dealing with convicted criminals in Hong Kong (Chui 2001; Chui & Lo 2008). While the Social Welfare Department administers two community sentences, the probation order and community service order (see Chui 2008), the Correctional Services Department is responsible for managing correctional institutions (see Lo 2008). The intended goal of the community sentence is to ‘help offenders reintegrate into the community as lawabiding citizens through counselling, supervision, social skills training and social work intervention (Director of Social Welfare 2007). The custodial sentence requires the offender to be locked up in a penal institution, and the mission of the Correctional Services Department is committed to detain both remanded persons and sentenced prisoners to its custody ‘in a decent and healthy environment, and [to] provide comprehensive rehabilitative services in a secure, safe, humane and cost effective manner, so as to enhance the physical and psychological health of prisoners, protect the public and help reduce crime’. Therefore the ultimate goal of the custodial sentence is to reintegrate prisoners into the society upon their discharge. In contrast to the social work approach adopted by the Social Welfare Department, Lo (2008) has described the Correctional Services Department as a disciplinary force, administering a detention centre, drug addiction treatment centres, rehabilitation centres, training centres, and minimum, medium and

197


maximum security prisons for offenders aged 14 years or above. Official statistics from the Correctional Services Department (2008) show that there are 10 946 persons detained in custody at the end of 2007, and 6505 of them are male prisoners. The most common types of offence amongst both male and female prisoners are ‘offences against property’ and ‘offences against local laws’; examples of the former offence type include theft, robbery and burglary and examples of the latter are serious immigration offences (Hong Kong Correctional Services 2007). Despite Hong Kong’s low crime rate, Broadhurst et al. (2008) have commented the incarceration rate is high: According to the [Seventh United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems] survey, [Hong Kong] also has a moderately high incarceration rate per 100 000 of 176.8 in 2000, higher than Japan (48.2), France (87.3), Italy (93.7), Australia (113.1), England & Wales (123.1), and South Korea (134.2), but was notably lower than Malaysia (339.9), Thailand (368.0), Singapore (411.5), and the United States of America (638.1). (p. 59)

According to section 48 of the Prisons Rules (Chapter 234A), no persons, other than the relatives and friends of a prisoner, shall be allowed to visit him or her except by special authority. Such visits by relatives and friends shall, subject to such restrictions as may be imposed for the maintenance of discipline and order in the prison and for the prevention of crime, be allowed in the manner following: (i) they shall be allowed to visit a prisoner twice a month and no more than three persons shall be allowed at one time; (ii) the visits of the relatives and friends of a prisoner shall be recorded in a book kept for that purpose and the visits shall be limited to 30 minutes on each occasion; (iii) a prisoner shall be visited in the presence of an officer of the Correctional Services Department; (iv) the Superintendent shall fix the days and times for visits which shall be publicly notified at the gates of the prison; (v) visitors shall not be admitted until they have recorded their names and addresses, their relationship to or connection with the prisoner they wish to visit; (vi) the Superintendent may, in special cases, extend the duration of a visit; (vii) the Superintendent may permit any convicted prisoner to see his relatives or friends for the purpose of making arrangements respecting his property or for any other special reason; and (viii) the Superintendent may allow a prisoner who is entitled to a visit to write a letter instead of receiving such visit.



A R E V I E W O F L I T E R AT U R E In an edited collection titled Prisoners’ Families, Light (1989) illustrated how the families of prisoners ‘do their time’ in three phases, namely ‘coming to terms’, ‘keeping in touch’ and ‘surviving the sentence’. The trial process places tremendous strains on the defendants and their family members, and partners have to cope with the immediate changes and challenges brought about by imprisonment. It is important to note that the trial process can sometimes stretch over several months, even years, extending the stress for family members who are uncertain of what to expect. While they must deal with a myriad of emotions, such as isolation, fear, anxiety, grief, loss and powerlessness, they (especially women) attempt to keep their partner’s incarceration secret for fear of being labelled and stigmatized (O’Keefe 2000). When the family breadwinner is incarcerated, families may experience financial difficulties, with significant reductions in financial income. Most families of inmates are already disadvantaged financially and incarceration compounds these difficulties. If prisons are not located near prisoners’ families, transportation, even in metropolitan or urban areas, can be lengthy and costly (see e.g., Hairston 2001; Mazza 2002). The costs of telephone calls, legal bills and child support also amplify the economic strains on a family (Arditti et al. 2003). Many of the remaining parents are forced to leave paid work, and caregivers subsequently struggle to fulfil family responsibilities. Furthermore, reliance on welfare not only fails to subsidize family needs sufficiently, but also promotes feelings of disempowerment and helplessness (Seccombe 1999). In times of financial hardship, it is not uncommon for prisoners’ families to have to turn to public assistance. In Hong Kong, there are no specific restrictions on public assistance for ex-prisoners and their families because of their conviction. While some partners yearn for unattainable love and affection (O’Keefe 2000), others are better off using imprisonment to dissolve their marriages. Jorgensen et al. (1986) reported that the families of prisoners were dysfunctional and that violence, where the women and children were often abused and maltreated, was part of their daily lives before incarceration (cited in O’Keefe, 2000). It was noted that incarceration during marriage significantly increases the risk of divorce or separation (Lopoo & Western 2005). The common reasons for marital breakdown are numerous: abusive reasons (such as alcohol and drug use problems), affective reasons (including loss

198


of intimate feelings within a relationship because of years of separation and communication problems) and external factors (such as financial reasons) (Wolcott & Hughes 1999). Poehlmann (2005) examined the concurrent relations between contact with children, perceived family relationships, early experiences of relationship disconnection and trauma, and maternal depressive symptoms among 94 incarcerated mothers with children aged between 2 and 7 years in the USA. This analysis revealed that most mothers experienced intense distress when initially separated from their children. It also showed that fewer visits from children, trauma and early experiences of relationship disconnection were associated with elevated maternal depressive symptoms. Boswell & Wedge (2002) conducted interviews with imprisoned fathers, their wives or partners, their children and prison staff. They found that 1 in 12 fathers had no visits from their children; the reasons for this varied from not having enough time to the dangers posed by other inmates. The prisoners shared their feelings, including those of helplessness and guilt about being a father in prison, and about their childhood experiences of their fathers and its impact on their own fathering styles. While the majority anticipated negative effects of imprisonment, they confirmed their intentions to improve the father–child relationship after their discharge. The mothers or carers and the children themselves discussed the social, financial, emotional and developmental effects brought about by the absence of fathers. Apart from face-to-face contacts with the father, receiving and writing letters, looking at photographs, giving presents, sending cards, having telephone calls, and playing tape and video messages from their fathers were mentioned as other means of continuing the father–child relationship. METHOD A qualitative, phenomenological approach was chosen as an appropriate method to address the following question: What is the impact of imprisonment on families? A phenomenological approach aims at understanding a particular issue or subject matter from the perspective of those being studied (Creswell 1998; Heidegger 2005). Bruyn (1966, p. 90) opined that ‘phenomenology serves as the rationale behind efforts to understand individuals by entering into their field of perception in order to see life as these individuals see it’. An understanding of their lived



experiences from an insider perspective or allowing the voice to be heard is more valuable than simple calculations measuring their feelings, emotions and ideas. Hardly any attempts have been made to listen to the voices of the family members of incarcerated parents in Hong Kong. Indeed, several commentators have called them the ‘invisible’ victims who are discriminated against simply because of their affiliation with a criminal (Blake 1990; Girshick 1996; Codd 2008). In this respect, every attempt was made in this study to allow them to speak freely and candidly in the face-to-face interviews. The current study adopted a purposive sampling method. Ten partners of ex-prisoners were recruited; their ages ranged from 31 to 46, the average being 38.4. These research participants were recruited from a non-governmental organization which provides social work and counselling services to the families of

prisoners or ex-prisoners. As shown in Table 1, all but two of the participants were still married; however, half of the eight intact families admitted to being dysfunctional. Among the participants, 6 of 10 women reported that they married in Mainland China and subsequently moved to Hong Kong. These women said that relatives and friends in China arranged their marriage and that they were ignorant of their partner’s prior criminal history. The child participants in this study were 10 children aged between 5 and 18 (see Note 1). As shown in Table 2, there were 6 male and 4 female child participants and all but one were full-time students. Only four of these children were born in Mainland China; the rest were born in Hong Kong. When asked whether they had visited their fathers in prison, only four recalled ever having done so. Three child participants mentioned that they no longer kept in touch

Table 1 Sample demographics of the partner/wife of the incarcerated* Partner/wife* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Marital status

Place of marriage

Visits the partner during his imprisonment

Intact

Mainland China

Intact Divorced Intact Intact Intact Divorced Intact Intact Intact

Mainland China Hong Kong Hong Kong Mainland China Mainland China Mainland China Mainland China Hong Kong Hong Kong

Yes (visits four times a month, each visit lasts 30 minutes; sends letters) No Yes (regular 30-minute visits) Yes (monthly visits, sends letters and photographs) No Yes (regular visits, send letters and photographs) No No Yes (irregular visits, sending letters and photographs) Yes (regular visits with the children)

*To ensure the anonymity of the research participants, some demographic information has been altered.

Table 2 Demographics of the children of the incarcerated

Child

Gender

Place of the birth

Visits to the father in prison

Current contacts with the father

1 2 3 4 5* 6 7* 8 9 10*

Male Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male

Mainland China Hong Kong Mainland China Mainland China Hong Kong Hong Kong Hong Kong Hong Kong Mainland China Hong Kong

No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes

No Yes No Yes (occasionally) Yes Yes Yes No Yes (poor relationship) Yes

*Please note that the interviews with Child 5, 7 and 10 lasted no more than 20 minutes, whereas the rest of the interviews lasted for at least 30 minutes, the longest session being 70 minutes long.

199




with their fathers who were now discharged from prison. This may be due to the fact that their parents were now divorced or separated. Those who agreed to participate in the study initially received an information sheet outlining the aims of the study and how the data generated from the interview would be used. Both verbal and written consents were obtained prior to the commencement of the semi-structured interview. The research participants under 18 years of age who volunteered for this study were asked to give their consent, and additional consent from the parents of participating children was also required. Intensive interviewing is well suited to obtaining information about sensitive and emotional matters and, therefore, is potentially beneficial to this type of research (Minichiello et al. 1990; Mason 2002). Interviews were conducted individually, and the participants were reimbursed with HK$50 in supermarket vouchers for their time and their travelling expenses. A significant portion of the interactions with participants was spent building a rapport, especially with the children involved.This aided the development of trust and openness for later discussions on personal matters. A guide that included open-ended questions was constructed and used to structure the interview from information gathered from the literature, particularly the research project conducted by Boswell & Wedge (2002) in England and Wales.With the permission of Boswell and Wedge, several research instruments were adopted in the current study. In addition, meetings with front line practitioners who work with ex-offenders and provide their families with help aided in the discussion of the appropriateness of the interview guide questions. Examples of open-ended questions asked in the semi-structured interviews with the partner of those incarcerated included: ‘What effects did the imprisonment of your father have on you?’, ‘How did you cope after your partner/father was incarcerated?’ and ‘How did you maintain ties with your partner/father?’ Elaboration and clarification was requested whenever there were contradictions in the responses. This helped in cross-checking and clarifying the messages the participant wanted to convey within a non-judgemental context. A female research assistant with 11 years social work experience of working with women and children in deprived communities conducted some of the interviews with the female participants. The average length of the individual interviews with the partners was 180 minutes; whereas, the average time the children spent talking with the researcher was 40 minutes.

200


All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Qualitative data were analyzed using the computer software programme nVivo. This programme facilitated the management of data as well as the open axial and selective coding. Using an approach based upon thematic analysis (Boyatzis 1998), three broad themes were identified: ‘perceived impact of imprisonment’, ‘coping with imprisonment’ and ‘ways of maintaining family ties’. Selected quotations from the interviews will be cited to illustrate the participants’ views of the impact of the imprisonment of their partners or fathers. N A R R AT I V E S O F T H E PA R T N E R S AND CHILDREN Perceived impact of imprisonment The strongest theme to emerge in the data was the financial impact on the partner. Most partners of the incarcerated had no previous work experience, implying their dependence on their husbands to provide an income and to maintain the household. In most cases, the imprisonment of the sole breadwinner of the family left partners under significant financial strain. They often had to find a way to provide for their whole family and to deal with the children’s expenses, such as food, clothes and school fees. For example, one participant said, ‘I felt very worried at that time . . . financially . . . had to eat, had to pay rent . . . everything needed money. It was a hard time.”The children interviewed also worried that they were a burden on their mother. One child explained the impact of financial difficulties: ‘My mum was very poor and she had no income as she had no job. My uncles gave money to my mum, but she was ashamed about taking money.’ In addition, visitation expenses for travelling to and from the prison appeared to have taken a financial toll on the partners. One participant stated, ‘It cost me a lot of money. I brought [the children] there only when my husband wanted to see them.’ The sudden separation from the partner often caused strains in the marriage. Several women claimed to have maintained a good relationship with their husbands; one said, ‘It’s kind of hard to live on your own. Life is very different when you have to stand on your own feet and you no longer rely on someone . . . I just didn’t know what the future held for us because he was given a five-year prison sentence.’ They admitted feeling extremely lonely and isolated while bearing sole responsibility for the problems in their own lives. The women participants admitted



developing emotional problems, including feelings of guilt, anger, denial and confusion. Furthermore, one said, ‘I questioned many times whether I had done something wrong. I didn’t know that he was involved in criminal activities. I also questioned whether he was my husband, and whether I was meant to be with him . . . I must admit that I am still madly in love with him [smiling].’ Partners with an unhappy marriage believed that imprisonment gave them ‘a fantastic excuse’ to initiate divorce proceedings. One partner said, ‘I don’t see how we could have a future. I don’t see any benefit in prolonging the torture between me and [my ex-husband].’ An immediate consequence of the incarceration of partners in a family was marriage break-up and separation. The research reflected the general themes in the literature, as most participants reported that the time that the men spent in prison separated from their families appeared to have a detrimental effect on the father–child relationship. One woman said, ‘His dad went to prison when he was in primary [grade] two or three. He is not angry with his dad . . . but due to [the time his father was in prison], he has become distanced from his dad.’These poor relationships seemed to be exacerbated by the aggressive behaviour of the fathers towards the children.The following experience following a father’s release demonstrates this: ‘He saw his father always hitting me and throwing things on the floor [and] he didn’t like it.’ The interviews revealed a significant emotional impact on the partners and children of incarcerated individuals. One partner said, ‘Sometimes, when the doctors knew I was in a bad (emotional state), I saw them once a month. When my emotions were stable, then it was once in three months . . . it depended on how well I was controlling my emotions.’ Another said, ‘The children, without their father who can make them happy, just don’t listen to me.’ Predictably, most of the children articulated a sense of loss regarding the incarceration of their fathers. One child said, ‘My dad used to take me home after school, but now he can’t. He used to ask me about my performance at school . . . I feel abandoned and isolated without my dad.’ The children interviewed were very aware of their mother’s distress during the incarceration of their father. As a result, one child refrained from expressing her distress to her mother: ‘As my mum is already hiding many things in her heart, I don’t want to tell her that I miss him.’ However, a few partners reported that the experience had had no negative impacts on them. For example, they reported that they had felt some relief

201


after their husbands were incarcerated, as the men had been a financial burden before the time of their arrest: ‘As he took drugs, I worried about whether he would be caught by somebody. I worried because he didn’t bring money home. When he was in prison, I felt very relaxed.’ Whilst acknowledging the poor marital and father-child relationships, they considered that this was due to the fact that they had not lived together long enough. Similarly, two of the children reported no effects from their father being imprisoned; this was most likely because of a deficient or non-existent father–child relationship prior to imprisonment. One child said, ‘Actually, I’m used to being separated from my dad from when I was living in Shenzhen.’ Coping with the effects of imprisonment The families of the incarcerated in this study were forced to cope with a wide range of psychological, emotional and economic stress. For those who disclosed their partner’s incarceration and their financial difficulties, the response from families was either supportive or a reaction of shame and ridicule. In one case, a participant’s cousin was so sympathetic that he helped her prepare documents to apply for Hong Kong residency during her husband’s imprisonment. Some cases reported family members as being valuable emotional supports: ‘Sometimes I found that his family members . . . his elder brother and his wife couldn’t help me . . . but I felt a release after sharing with them.’ However, in other cases, the caring of families increased the pressure on the partner, as one participant explained: ‘My family knows where my husband is and they said that it’s better for me not to see him anymore.’ One participant claimed that her relationship with her siblings had gone ‘from bad to worse’ because she had asked for their help with accommodation and money so many times. She recalled her experience: ‘I just can’t remember how many times I begged my brothers and sisters for money to feed my kids . . . I wouldn’t blame them for not willing to lend me more money because they have done their part. Their generosity is not unlimited and they also have their own families to look after.’ When most of the participants had exhausted informal support, they turned to formal support. Some expected the Correctional Services Department to provide prisoners’ families with tangible and immediate help. One participant said, ‘The Government should take the lead in offering help to those who are



in need. I know that my husband deserves to be in jail for what he did . . . but do we deserve to be punished by the penal system? . . . The [authorities] should help to rehabilitate offenders and help their families to adjust after they are locked up . . . If I didn’t get the help from [a Centre run by a non-governmental organization], I might have had to steal and live on the streets.’ Another theme that emerged from the data was the children’s fear of discrimination from their peers and people in general as a result of their father being in prison. Taunting and exclusion at school were the main concerns of the participants. One teenager said, ‘I quit school when I was 12 because my classmates were not nice . . . saying that my father was a criminal. They looked down on me. So did the teacher.’ The biggest issue was the shame that it would bring on them. They chose to keep their father’s imprisonment secret and lived with the pressure of keeping the truth hidden. One said: ‘I lied to my teacher. I told him my father was staying in hospital.’ Ways of maintaining ties with the incarcerated Amongst those who perceived themselves as having a good relationship with family members and whose families were intact the first common response was to use visits as a means of ‘maintaining ties’ and ‘showing mutual support to each other’. Other ways of staying in touch with the imprisoned included making local and international telephone calls, letter writing and sending family photographs to their partners in prison. They appreciated the value of using these supplementary methods of communication. However, they believed that they could not reveal their intimate feelings or share secrets in a letter, because they were worried that the correctional staff members might open and read it before delivering it to the recipient. One partner commented, ‘I could not express my feelings or ask my husband what was going on inside. You never know when [the prison officers] are going to inspect and read your letter’. A considerable number of the partners did not write to their husbands because of their literacy problems, having never received a formal education. However, one partner had made an effort to tackle her illiteracy: ‘I grew up in a rural area [on the Mainland]. As a child, I received only two years of schooling, and then started working. How can you expect me to read and write fluently? [My husband] sent me letters all the time and he told me that it is one of the prisoners’ rights to send and receive letters. He knew that I could

202


not read Chinese at all, but he insisted on writing letters to me. . . . My children are both very young, one is six and the other is three. I have no relatives here to help.Then, I asked a [social worker] in a family centre to do me a favour. She was very helpful, but usually I just asked her to write what I told her once a month or sometimes once every two months. I felt bad about asking too much, although she said that she didn’t mind at all.’ As shown in Table 2, only 4 of the 10 children reported visiting their fathers in prison. These four children were very scared and quiet during the visit. This was partly due to the fact that they were intimidated by the correctional staff standing beside them, and also because they were discouraged by the limited time allocated to the visits. One child said, ‘I understood that my mum wanted to tell my dad what was going on in the family. I let her do the talking because I could feel that she needed someone to talk to. In fact, I wanted to tell my dad a lot about myself and my experiences, but I didn’t. I wanted to tell him how much I missed him and how much I wanted him to take me to the park, but I didn’t . . . I often told him I was a good boy and behaved well.’ In many respects, most of the participants who regularly visited their imprisoned family members saw the visit as a symbol of continued family support.They genuinely believed that these short visits helped the inmates to ‘maintain their responsibilities as fathers’ and to ‘express concern and care for their children when they met’. One partner stated, ‘My kids are living in a single-parent family while [my husband] is in jail. My boys need a father figure and I cannot play a dual role. I also want my boys to accept their father when he is released from prison.’ However, as shown in Table 1, a few of the partners who participated in this study reported meeting their family members in prison on an irregular basis. One of the three partners explained why she did not take her children to see their father regularly: ‘First, I work as a manual labourer in a fast food restaurant. I have to work long hours almost seven days a week. Second, the children are still very young, and they do not need to know where their father is. I just tell them that he is working in China, and may return home in a few years time. The children are just interested in having fun and should focus on their studies. Maybe they are still too young to understand. Also, the prison environment is not child-friendly at all . . . I am worried that the guards look at my children as if they are ‘problematic’ and ‘delinquents’.That is not nice!’This excerpt illustrates, to a certain extent, a mother’s



worries about their children being stigmatized and labelled, even though this anxiety was, in this case, based on speculation. Indeed, another partner shared similar observations: ‘I had nasty experiences when dealing with the prison staff. Whenever I lined up for a visit, the staff always looked at me as though I was bringing drugs and prohibited items into the jail. They not only searched my handbags, but also treated me like another suspect or prisoner. They giggled amongst themselves after searching my belongings. I was embarrassed by all of these small gestures. In fact, I was very intimidated by the prison environment. So, what was the point of visiting [my husband]? We could not talk too much and we stuck to safe topics only. Somehow, I was not motivated to talk to him because there were “Big Brothers” [that is closed-circuit television] everywhere. Gradually I chose to visit him only if necessary, especially on those red-letter days.’ Some child participants who were born in Mainland China said that they were ‘in the dark’ about the whereabouts of their father in Hong Kong. They had not seen their father frequently prior to their migration. One child elaborated further, ‘My dad was not at home. I grew up with my mum in China. I just knew that he stopped visiting us for a long while. However, he might suddenly appear several months later. Due to the physical distance between us, I don’t think I know him and he doesn’t want to know who I am either.’ A mature child participant frankly admitted that he did not see any reason for visiting his father and disliked being associated with his father when he was locked up. He recalled what he had been through in the last few years: ‘Once my dad was incarcerated, I had no one to rely on. My mum abandoned me when I was very young. My uncle and grandparents hated my dad and said that they couldn’t look after me and refused to let me stay at their places. I was around 13 or 14 . . . I had no choice but to drop out of school. I had nowhere to go, and I then started to associate with delinquent peers. . . . It was no use seeing him in the prison, and he wouldn’t be able to help anyway. Every day I learnt how to survive and stand on my own feet. I totally forgot about his existence.’ As shown in Table 2, while 6 of the 10 children never visited their imprisoned fathers, it is important to note that their decision was not necessarily based on their personal choice. Several commented that visiting their fathers in prison was problematic, as the children were not able to visit frequently enough. One of them described his feelings: ‘I want to see him, but I have no time. It’s like losing a member of my family.

203


Usually it’s my mum who asks me if I want to see him. . . . I cry at home secretly when I think of him.’ DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION In many respects, the findings of this qualitative study of the effect of incarceration on families in Hong Kong are consistent with those studies conducted in western countries (Blake 1990; Woodward 2003; Bernstein 2005). Evidence from this study shows the negative impact of incarceration on the financial and emotional development of prisoners’ partners and children. In this study, a considerable number of prisoners’ partners and children were reluctant to disclose the imprisonment of husbands and fathers, even when they faced financial difficulties, feelings of isolation and fears of discrimination. However, it is important to note that a small number of families perceived no impact on their lives after the imprisonment of a family member.They attributed this to the lack of a stable and close family relationship prior to the incarceration. Most lived outside Hong Kong while their family members were imprisoned.While this finding requires further investigation, given the exploratory nature of the current study, it challenges the assumption of universal negativity of the incarceration of a family member. It also points to the importance of studying the nature and circumstances of a family in assessing potential impacts of a member in criminal custody. Research participants reported use of both informal and formal support to deal with detrimental outcomes associated with the imprisonment. They preferred to deal with their problems themselves; only after exhausting all possible avenues of support from relatives and friends did they seek assistance from formal organizations. This was partly due to an ignorance of the services provided for prisoners’ families, and also from the fear of being shamed and stigmatized by the public. Recently, however, increasing pressure has been placed on family members to support the imprisoned during their incarceration and resettlement.This study shows that a considerable number of prisoners’ families are not equipped to deal with the negative consequences of a family member’s incarceration. Policies should take into account the financial and emotional burden placed upon the carers of children affected by parental incarceration. For example, when prison sentences are handed down, the prisoners’ partners or carers who need immediate psychological and financial support should be well informed where and how to obtain counselling services and emergency relief, respectively. In Hong Kong, a booklet or pamphlet that



contains all these information and contacts is yet to be compiled. Improved coordination between relevant service providers (such as housing, mental health, welfare and education) and between governmental and non-governmental agencies is necessary to meet the changing and varied needs of prisoners’ families. When the two participating groups were asked about how they maintained their family ties, three main responses were given, ranging from ‘desperately yearning to see the loved ones’, to ‘only if I [or they] have time’ and ‘no expectations at all’. It appears that it is the quality of the family, marital and father–children relationships that primarily determines the perceived value of maintaining ties with the imprisoned. The partners used visits as the primary and preferred means of maintaining ties with the imprisoned family member. Other means of contact, such as letter writing and making telephone calls, were used. Consistent with the findings of the study of Boswell & Wedge (2002) in England and Wales, similar means of communications were used by imprisoned fathers to maintain ties with their families, thereby demonstrating their responsible fatherhood to their children. But prisoners in Hong Kong are not allowed to make telephone calls unless their request is approved by the authorities. This study also showed that few children reported visiting their imprisoned fathers. The two reasons for this were the lack of a child-friendly prison environment and the interruption that would be caused to their education. During the interviews, the children stated that they did not have much say in the timing and frequency of the visits, even though they would have liked to visit their fathers in prison more.Their sense of powerlessness is worth our attention, and ways should be identified to empower these children to express their wishes. Specific strategies are needed to promote the importance of maintaining family contacts with prisoners; for instance, a greater awareness amongst parents about the impact of parental incarceration on children is required, with a focus on improving communication methods. It was unsurprising to note that mothers regarded the prison environment as unsuitable for children.There is a need for improved facilities to accommodate child visits as well as for guidance on when and how to inform children about parental incarceration (Taylor 1999; Steering Committee’s Report to the Justice Cabinet Committee 2005). In conclusion, this study documented clear evidence to support the claim that families of the incarcerated require closer attention. Correctional officers, social workers and policymakers alike should review the adequacy and appropriateness of the existing ser-

204


vices for prisoners’ families. While the main purpose of a prison sentence is to rehabilitate the convicted persons, the problems and needs of their families should not be overlooked. As evidenced in this study, most families of the incarcerated were forced to face difficulties when their partners or fathers were incarcerated. Their needs have been largely ignored in public policy documents, but these needs should be taken into account by the relevant authorities that oversee penal and correctional services and policies in Hong Kong. Organizations such as the Law Reform Commission, the Correctional Services Department, the Social Welfare Department, the Department of Justice and various non-governmental organizations, are examples of relevant authorities that aim to improve the social and emotional well-being of prisoners and their families. AC K N O W L E D G E M E N T S Many thanks go to the staff of the Jockey Club Home Circuit of the Society of Rehabilitation and Crime Prevention who assisted with the recruitment of research participants. The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers’ comment on the earlier version of this manuscript. REFERENCES Arditti, J.A., Lambert-Shute, J. & Joest, K. (2003) Saturday morning at the jail: implications of incarceration for families and children. Family Relations, 52, 195–204. Bernstein, N. (2005) All Alone in the World: Children of Incarcerated Parents. New Press, New York. Blake, J. (1990) Sentenced by Association: The Needs of Prisoner’s Families. Save the Children, London. Boswell, G. & Wedge, P. (2002) Imprisoned Fathers and Their Children. Jessica Kingsley, London. Boyatzis, R.E. (1998) Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Broadhurst, R., Lee, K.W. & Chan, C.Y. (2008) Crime trends. In Understanding Criminal Justice in Hong Kong (eds W.H. Chui & T.W. Lo), pp. 45–68. Willan, Cullompton, Devon. Bruyn, S.R. (1966) The Human Perspective in Sociology. PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Chui, W.H. (2001) Theoretical underpinnings of communitybased sentences and custody for young offenders in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Law Journal, 31, 266–282. Chui, W.H. (2008) Community sentences. In Understanding Criminal Justice in Hong Kong (eds W.H. Chui & T.W. Lo), pp. 201–223. Willan, Cullompton, Devon. Chui, W.H. & Lo, T.W. (eds) (2008) Understanding Criminal Justice in Hong Kong. Willan, Cullompton, Devon.



Codd, H. (2008) In the Shadow of Prison: Families, Imprisonment and Criminal Justice. Willan, Cullompton, Devon. Comfort, M. (2008) Doing Time Together: Love and Family in the Shadow of the Prison. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Correctional Services Department (2008) Statistics – Population in Penal Institutions. Correctional Services Department, Hong Kong. Creswell, J.W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Traditions. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Director of Social Welfare (2007) Services for Offenders. Social Welfare Department, Hong Kong. Girshick, L.B. (1996) Soledad Women: Wives of Prisoners Speak Out. Praeger, Westport, CON. Greene, S., Haney, C. & Hurtado, A. (2000) Cycles of pain: risk factors in the lives of incarcerated mothers and their children. The Prison Journal, 80, 3–23. Hairston, C.F. (2001) Prisoners and Families: Parenting Issues during Incarceration. Jane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago. Heidegger, M. (2005) Introduction to Phenomenological Research. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN. Hong Kong Correctional Services (2007) Annual Review 2007. Correctional Services Department, Hong Kong. Jorgensen, A., Santos, H. & Warren, R. (1986) Addressing the social needs of families of prisoners: a tool for inmate rehabilitation. Federal Probation, 50, 47–52. Kazura, K. (2001) Family programming for incarcerated parents: a needs assessment among inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 32, 67–83. King, A.E.O. (1993) The impact of incarceration on African American families: implications for practice. Families in Society, 74, 145–153. Light, R. (ed.) (1989) Prisoners’ Families. Bristol and Bath Centre for Criminal Justice, Bristol, UK. Lo, T.W. (2008) Custodial sentences and correctional services. In: Understanding Criminal Justice in Hong Kong (eds W.H. Chui & T.W. Lo), pp. 224–247. Willan, Cullompton, Devon. Lopoo, L.M. & Western, B. (2005) Incarceration and the formation and stability of marital unions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67, 721–734. Magaletta, P.R. & Herbst, D.P. (2001) Fathering from prison: common struggles and successful outcomes. Psychotherapy, 38, 88–96. Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative Researching, 2nd edn. Sage, London. Mazza, C. (2002) And then the world fell apart: the children of the incarcerated fathers. Families in Society, 83, 521–529. Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E. & Alexander, L. (1990) In-depth Interviewing: Researching people. Longman Cheshire, Melbourne. Murray, J. & Farrington, D.P. (2005) Parental imprisonment: effects on boys’ antisocial behaviour and delinquency through

205


the life course. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1269–1278. O’Keefe, L. (2000) The partners of prisoners: their reality, how they contribute to the criminal justice system and prisoner rehabilitation and how we can assist. Paper presented at the Women in Corrections: Staff and Clients Conference, 31 October–1 November 2000. Australian Institute of Criminology and Department for Correctional Services South Australia, Adelaide. Poehlmann, J. (2005) Incarcerated mothers’ contact with children, perceived family relationships, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 350–357. Pollock, J.M. (1998) CounselingWomen in Prison. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Prison Rules (Chapter 234A) of the Laws of Hong Kong. Reed, D.F. & Reed, E.L. (1995) Children of incarcerated parents. Social Justice, 24, 152–169. Shaw, R. (ed.) (1992) Prisoner’s Children: What Are the Issues? Routledge, London. Schen, C.R. (2005) When mothers leave their children behind. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 13, 233–243. Seccombe, K. (1999) So you think I drive a Cadillac? Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA. Snyder, Z.K., Carlo, T.A. & Mullins, M.M.C. (2001) Parenting from prison: an examination of a children’s visitation program at a women’s correctional facility. Marriage and Family Review, 32, 33–61. Steering Committee’s Report to the Justice Cabinet Committee (2005) Children of Prisoners Project. Government of South Australia, South Australia. Taylor, V. (1999) Florida law requires prisons to improve visiting conditions. Corrections Journal, 3, 3–4. Tulloch, R. (1998) Growing Strong: A Resource Manual forWorkers and Agencies, Supporting Women Partners and Families of Child Sex Offenders. Offenders Aid and Rehabilitation Services, South Australia. Wolcott, I. & Hughes, J. (1999) Towards understanding the reasons for divorce (Working Paper No. 20). Melbourne, Vic., Australian Institute of Family Studies. Woodward, R. (2003) Families of prisoners: Literature review on issues and difficulties (Occasional Paper No. 10). Canberra, ACT, Department of Family and Community Services.

N OT E 1 Because of the considerable age difference among the child participants, the depth and quality of the interview data with each participant varied. In addition to age, other factors such as their relationship with the father and their apprehension about what a prison was had an impact on their responses to the questions asked in the interview.
