Relationships for incarcerated individuals

Incarcerated individuals' relationships are the familial and romantic relations of individuals in prisons or jails. Although the
population of incarcerated men and women continues to increase,[1] there is little research on the effects of incarceration on inmates'
social worlds. However, it has been demonstrated that inmate's relationships play a seminal role in their well-being both during and
after incarceration,[2] making such research important in improving their overall health, and lowering rates of
recidivism.[3]

Contents
Non-romantic social support
Surrogate families
Religion while incarcerated
Education while incarcerated
Intimate partner relationships
One incarcerated partner IPRs
Benefits Kingston Pen Visiting
Barriers
Divorce
Barriers to future IPRs
Benefits of heterosexual IPRs
Characteristics of homosexual IPRs
Incarcerated individuals as parents
Growing numbers
Children of incarcerated parents
Parent-child contact
Financial impact
Relationships and reoffending
Social context upon release Deborah Peagler behind glass
Social costs as deterrents
Visitation
Marriage and family
See also
References
External links

Non-romantic social support

In an effort to ameliorate life in prison, inmates will often utilize different methods of social support. Some of the more salient of
[4][5][6]
options for inmates is to form surrogate families, participate in religious activities, and enroll in educational programs.

Surrogate families
To combat the negative side effects of incarceration, such as loneliness and seclusion, many inmates seek out surrogate families for
support.[4][7][8] Inmates emulate familial units by taking on different roles, such as father, mother, daughter, son, etc. Titles are given
to those who participate in the family . These titles ascribe meanings to indicate either homosexual relationships (e.g., husband and
wife) or platonic but caring relationships (e.g., mother and daughter). These temporary familial formations are more prevalent in
female prisons than their male counterparts.[9] Although, some argue that male prison gangs fulfill a similar role.[10]
Overall, surrogate families can offer a wide range of social support for inmates, such as aiding in conflict resolution, protection, and
providing feelings of belongingness.[4][7][8] Further, these surrogate families may be one of the few methods female inmates utilize to
garner social support since females are more likely than men to serve sentences in prisons that are far from their loved ones.[11]
However, some research suggests that these surrogate families can often create more anger and frustration for inmates than seeking
support through other avenues (e.g., vocational, educational, or religious).[12][13] Furthermore, newer inmates are more likely to seek
out these formations than long-term inmates,[9] suggesting that these formations have beneficial short-term outcomes but become a
hindrance as time passes.

Religion while incarcerated

Religious services in the prison environment have a long-standing history. Penitentiaries were first established in the United States by
religious leaders who sought to rehabilitate lawbreakers by repenting for their sins.[14] Since that time, religion has developed with
of to inmates.[15]
the prison systems to become one of the most prevalent and available forms of rehabilitation and programmingfered
Overall, this availability is often utilized by the prison population. For example, during a one-year period in 2004, 50% of male
inmates and 85% of female inmates attended at least one religious service or activity.[5] Time spent utilizing religious opportunities
and studies has more positive associations with inmates’ mental health and behavior than their nonreligious counterparts,
demonstrated by higher scores on self-reports of self-satisfaction and confidence as well as lower rule violations.[5][12][13][14][16]
Possible reasons may be that spending time away from prison cells in the prison chapel offers inmates time to bond with like-minded
individuals and to find acceptance and support.[17] Religion also provides prisoners with a sense of security and helps prisoners
choose prosocial behaviors over violent or maladaptive strategies.[5][16] Finally, religious services in the prison setting offer an
,[18] thus allowing inmates a rare chance to feel safe and welcomed.
environment that restricts criminal or antisocial behavior

Education while incarcerated

Many prisons offer educational programs, such as vocational skill building, literacy programs, GED certifications, and college
courses. These programs offer inmates a chance to improve self-confidence, break up prison life monotony, improve quality of life,
and decrease chances of reoffending once back in civilian life.[6][19] This prosocial support, much like religion, has been associated
with better prison behavior (i.e., fewer rule violations) and better mental health.[20] Further, once enrolled in educational programs,
prisoners report a change in attitude towards life, improved self-esteem, confidence, and self-awareness and felt that without these
programs their anger, frustration, and aggression would increase.[21] However, some research posits that prison-level support
systems, such as education programs, provide more social support and thus more prosocial benefits for women than men.[22] This
could be because women are relationship-oriented and women’ [22]
s prison environment is less based on coercive power structures.

Intimate partner relationships

Romantic relationships, sexual or otherwise, heavily influence the experiences and psychological health of incarcerated individuals.
Varying forms of intimate-partner relationships (IPRs) both with fellow inmates and non-incarcerated individuals may furnish
support and/or additional stressors for the incarcerated person. Topics to consider regarding IPRs of incarcerated individuals include:
types of relationships, barriers to IPRs (relationship development and intimacy maintenance), positive and negative outcomes of
IPRs, and the sexual practices therein.[23]

One incarcerated partner IPRs

The most prevalent research on the topic on intimate-partner relationships pertains to heterosexual romantic relationships with one
incarcerated partner. Due to recent judicial rulings in the United States, homosexual married couples in the United States receive
equivalent spousal privileges as heterosexual married couples regarding criminal trials and testifying.[24] These rights are reflected
regarding contact with spouses while incarcerated (e.g. conjugal visits). That being said, California, Connecticut, New York, and
Washington are the only four states that allow conjugal visits.[25] Therefore, IPRs with one incarcerated partner will be referred to as
such regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple.
Benefits
Prison-specific research indicates that both male and female inmates who maintain strong family ties, including romantic partners,
are better able to cope while in prison, have fewer disciplinary problems while incarcerated, and are less likely to recidivate after
release from prison.[26] For example, inmates who reported having a happy marriage experienced more successful transitions back to
their community at end of their sentence than those who described marriages with high levels of conflict.[27] In the interest of
preventing recidivism, programs aimed at developing IPRs and increasing intimacy are gaining momentum to reduce the strain on
inmates’ and their partners’ relationships. These programs, such as PREP: Marriage Education for Inmates, attempt to provide
.[28]
couples with strengthening and coping skills, such as making the most of time spent together

Barriers
Separation of romantic partners due to incarceration leads to unique stressors on IPRs. Much of this strain is due to limited and
inadequate settings for face to face contact with the inmates’ significant other.[23] However, it is not only the physical separation of
incarceration that puts stress on couples. The unique hardships of incarceration faced by one partner, and the forced independence
within the general community faced by the other can create a psychological distance between them as well. The combination of both
physical and psychological distance can place enormous strain on an inmate’s external IPR.[27] This strain is furthered by the stigma
.[29]
associated with incarceration, which limits sources of social support from the couples’ community

Divorce
Thus it may be unsurprising that many IPRs are terminated while one partner is incarcerated. The salient determinant of divorce is
physical separation from a spouse.[30] This is especially pertinent to situations wherein physical contact is limited by distance or
difficulties with the facility’s visitation procedures. Among visitors to prisons there is widespread dissatisfaction, regardless of age or
ethnicity, with regulations pertinent to visiting their significant others, such as dress inspection. Visitors also expressed explicit anger
over the visitation procedures that they considered to be demeaning, illogical, or unpredictably enforced. Examples of this include
visitors whose attire is deemed inappropriate must change their clothing or forfeit their visit for that day and policing for any “hint”
of sexual suggestion. Correctional officers confirm that these criteria are not consistently enforced.[23]

Given the difficulty in visitation, and restricted contact with their partners, it is perhaps expected that many couples face the issue of
infidelity while one is incarcerated. The ability to remain faithful to an incarcerated individual is often correlated to the length of the
sentence; the longer the sentence the more likely that infidelity will occur . Further, despite expressions of loyalty, several romantic
partners of incarcerated individuals confirmed that they maintain connections with potential partners in case their current
relationships fail. When asked to report their perspectives on cheating, many incarcerated individuals reported that they could
empathize with an unfaithful significant other if the actions occurred during their separation. However, many also stated that they
[27]
would prefer not to know if infidelity had occurred.

Barriers to future IPRs

Consequences of incarceration on IPRs also exist for individuals who enter prison without a preexisting relationship, as well as those
who exit following IPR dissolution. Previous inmates are placed at a significant disadvantage for assuming mainstream social roles
upon reentry into the community, particularly romantic relationships. Separation from the community, stigma associated with time in
prison, and fewer employment opportunities decrease the likelihood that ex-inmates will marry. Thus, incarceration has a lasting
impact on one’s ability to engage in, and maintain, IPRs.[29]

Benefits of heterosexual IPRs

Prisoners may also engage in IPRs with fellow offenders during their incarceration. While most prisons are heterogeneous in the sex
of their inmates, there are some facilities that house both men and women; within such institutions there are cases where heterosexual
married couples are held in the same location. This situation is globally rare, but drawing attention due to the benefits it provides
inmates. For instance, inmates in these relationships experience a lower level of romantic loneliness, a higher level of sexual
satisfaction, as well as increased quality of life compared to inmates in external IPRs or inmates with no partner. This suggests that
inmates in the same prison will benefit from developing IPRs with other inmates. In the rare instances where inmates are permitted
contact with incarcerated members of the opposite sex, non-marriage IPRs are shown to be beneficial for the inmates’ interpersonal
and psychological state.[31]

Characteristics of homosexual IPRs

The final form of IPR to consider is a same-sex relationship between inmates in a gender specific facility. Previous research has
demonstrated differences between the manifestations of homosexual IPRs in male and female prison settings. Such differences
include relationship characteristics where women were found to create more stable interpersonal relationships and engage in fewer
forced or coerced sexual interactions compared to incarcerated men. However, there has been more recent evidence to suggestion that
[32]
homosexual IPRs in women’s facilities are beginning to look more like those prototypically represented in male facilities.

It is not atypical to become involved in homosexual relationships, see LGBT people in prison, while in prison.[33] Most instances of
IPRs between incarcerated individuals are identified as consensual sexual activity as opposed to genuine romantic love. In fact,
women in prison report that sincere romantic attachment between inmates is the exception rather than the norm. According to inmate
self-report, the benefits of consensual sexual relationships are primarily economic in nature. For example, one may engage in such a
relationship for the exchange of resources, such as commissary goods and money, or due to loneliness (deprivation of heterosexual
intercourse).[32] The description of these relationships closely reflects what has been reported to typically occur in men’s prisons, see
Situational sexual behavior. For example, incarcerated males endorsed that those who participate in consensual sexual contact often
[33]
do so due to the deprivation of heterosexual intercourse or in exchange for favors (e.g. status and protection).

Incarcerated individuals as parents

Incarceration often has major effects on individuals’ relationships with their family members, and the impact that incarceration has on
these relationships is seminal in understanding the well being of these individuals as well as their family members. This impact is
especially salient in the parent-child dynamic that is created when a mother or father is introduced to the justice system. This dynamic
is become more and more pervasive, given the lar [34]
ge and growing numbers of parents currently incarcerated.

Growing numbers
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2010), “An estimated 809,800 prisoners of the 1,518,525 held in the nation’s prisons at
midyear 2007 were parents of minor children…accounting for 2.3% of the U.S. resident population under 18 (p 1).[34] ” In fact, in
2007, half of all incarcerated individuals were parents.[35] This number has grown exponentially since 1991, with the number of
[35]
incarcerated men who endorsed being fathers increasing by 76%, and the number of mothers increasing by 122%.

Correctional Populations in the United States 1980-2008

Children of incarcerated parents
The number of children with incarcerated parents has increased over the past 25 years. 1 in every 28 children (3.6 percent) has a
parent incarcerated,[36] two-thirds of these parents are incarcerated for non-violent offenses. Although there are many children who
feel as though they have experienced loss due to their parents being in prison, there are more instances where black and Latino
children are forced to live with the consequences of their parent's actions. Compared to the 1 in 110 white children who have at least
[36] The mental effects
one parent incarcerated, 1 in 15 black children and 1 in 41 Hispanic children have a parent who is incarcerated.
children of incarcerated parents are comparable to that of children who have lost their parent due to death or divorce.[37] These
children are more likely to experience an increased risk for mental health problems compared to other children their age.[37] The
mental health problems are connected to the social stigma that they encounter when their parents are arrested, or when their peers
find out that of their parent’s incarceration. Because of this fear that children will experience mental disparities, some parents and
caregivers hide their incarceration from the children by telling them that the parent is on vacation or that they went away to
college.[37] These lies foster an overwhelming amount of stress and confusion on the child once they find out the truth. Age and
gender is another factor that influences how children cope and react to their parent being incarcerated. Young children tend to
develop mental and emotional trauma. Children between the ages of 2 and 6 are prone to feelings of separation anxiety, traumatic
stress, and survivor’s guilt. Early adolescents may grow up and be unable to cope with future trauma, they develop poor concepts of
themselves, and when faced with minor stress that might be unable to cope. As children get around the ages of 11-14 their reaction to
their parent’s incarceration starts to reflect in their behavior.[36] Males are more likely to express aggression and acts of delinquency,
while females tend to internalize their emotions by acts of seeking attention.[36] As these children become adults from the ages of 15-
18, they prematurely take on the dependency, and tend to disconnect from their parents.[36] This will lead to acts of criminal behavior
and ultimately a cycle of incarceration.

Children who are able to communicate with their parents are less likely to experience psychological and behavioral problems.[37]
Through having contact with their parents, they are able to have a better understanding of their parent’s situation, and are less likely
to commit crime that will land them in the same situation. Although having a relationship with incarcerated parents are important for
the child, it is also understood that this can have an adverse impact on the child. Children who are in contact with their parents will
experience an emotional roller coaster.[37] At times children are angry at the fact that they could not be with their parents, causing
them to act out or become emotionally withdrawn. Parent contact gives children a sense of hope in reuniting with their parents. This
contact also allows for an smoother transition back into the child’
s life once the parent is released.

Parent-child contact
Not only are there large and growing numbers of parents in prison or jail, the effects of incarceration on their familial relationships
have associations with strong negative outcomes.[34] For example, many women who are incarcerated endorse being single mothers,
and are often labeled as inadequate providers for their children during and after their time in prison or jail.[34] In fact, 52% of
incarcerated mothers report living in a single-parent household compared to 19% of incarcerated fathers.[34] Unlike many male
inmates, whose children are likely to remain in the care of their wives or girlfriends, incarcerated females are at very high risk of
losing their children to the State.[34] The separation and lack of contact with their children that these women endorse has been
described as damaging to their mental health.[2] Studies on mothers post-release have underscored this conceptualization by
demonstrating that healthy mother-child relationships have positive impacts on depression symptoms and self-esteem. In other words,
healthy relationships with their children appear to improve women’s emotional health during and after their time involved in the
justice system.[38]

Further, as time goes on incarcerated parents are less likely to have contact with their children.[35] A nationwide study in 2004
demonstrated that “more than half of parents housed in a state correctional facility had never had a personal visit from their
[35] " The lack of contact is likely due in part
child(ren), and almost half of parents in a federal facility had experienced the same (p. 7).
to parents often being housed far from their places of residence. In fact, in 2004, only 15% of parents in state facilities and 5% of
parents in federal facilities were incarcerated within a 50-mile radius of the homes at the times of their arrest.[35] Contrast these
numbers with the 62% of parents housed in a state correctional facility, and 84% of parents living in federal correctional facilities
who endorsed living more than 100 miles from their homes at the time of their arrest. Such distances indicate that incarcerated
[35]
parents often live too far from home to see their children on a regular basis.
Some protective factors have been identified to increase inmate’s well-being while separated from their children. Such factors include
forms of remote contact, such as phone calls or written letters.[39] Studies have shown that remote contact can serve as a practical
alternative to visitation in reducing parental stress, and distress in regard to mothers’ feelings of capability as a parent. Further
, Clarke
et al. (2005) demonstrated that fathers in prison endorsed remote contact, over visitation, as ideal contact with their children because
such contact offers an opportunity to show commitment to their relationship in a controlled manner. Therefore, remote contact may
offer incarcerated parents an avenue to demonstrate their parental competency and commitment in a controlled manner without the
hindrance of proximity.[40]

Some public libraries have started programs that provide opportunities for incarcerated parents to foster the parent-child relationship.
For example, the Arapahoe Library District in Colorado works alongside the Arapahoe County Detention Center to connect
incarcerated parents with their children through books. The "Begin with Books" program "provides incarcerated parents with a
children's book that the library will mail to the child," along with a note and an optional video of the parent reading the book aloud
for their child.[41]

Financial impact
The financial burden of being a parent behind bars also perpetuates high amounts of stress that can affect overall well being.[42] For
example, incarcerated mothers who endorse being the primary caretaker of their children often receive limited resources from their
social network outside of the prison or jail.[42] A woman’s social network is typically engendered with the costly responsibility of
raising her children during her sentence, meaning that she receives far less financial support than other women who do not seek
childcare from their social system.[42]

Further, families under financial stress before a parent’s incarceration are likely to experience increased difficulty in staying in
contact with the individual.[43] In a 2008 study of incarcerated mothers, results demonstrated that women who were at risk due to
young age, unemployment, being a single parent, and low education were less likely than other inmates to have their children visit
during their prison sentence.[43] This difficulty is likely due to the high cost of contact with incarcerated individuals.[44] For example,
a study done in 2006 found that families in certain areas of the Bronx were spending 15% of their incomes each month in order to
stay in touch with incarcerated family members.[44]

This financial burden is exacerbated by the fact that there is reduced opportunity for employment after incarceration for both men and
women.[45] The reduced ability of parents to receive legitimate income means that the family has less access to essential resources.
Such predicaments increase parents vulnerability to become involved in drugs, prostitution, and theft for income,[45] thus
encouraging the cyclical nature of incarceration and further disruption of the family system.

Though some relationships have protective factors that buf

fer against re-entry into the criminal justice system, others contribute to the
propensity to re-offend. Relationships among families, peers, communities, and romantic partners all contribute in a unique way to
.[46][47][48]
predict how successfully an individual reintegrates into society

Relationships and reoffending

Though some relationships have protective factors that buf
fer against re-entry into the criminal justice system, others contribute to the
propensity to re-offend. Relationships among families, peers, communities, and romantic partners all contribute in a unique way to
predict how successfully an individual reintegrates into society[46][47][48]

Social context upon release

Upon release, the communities that offenders find themselves in can impact the success of reentry. It is often the case that offenders
are released into areas that are socially isolated and low in resources. These disadvantaged neighborhoods are shown to be a risk
factor for recidivism.[47] The result is an inability to use social networks in order to integrate into new communities and use social
relationships to advance employment opportunities.[49] Furthermore, researchers have theorized that placement of offenders in
disadvantaged neighborhoods where members of the community have weak attachments to their jobs likely exposes newly released
prisoners to social circumstances that are conducive to criminal activity.[50] It has further been theorized that disadvantaged
neighborhoods to which offenders are released are often low in informal control, resulting in less informal sanction for deviant
behaviour, which can open the pathway for re-offending.[51] Social disorganization further provides a poor “normative environment “
(p. 170),[52] as there is a presence of conflicting information of moral standards. When prisoners are released into their pre-
incarceration environment, there exists the potential to re-initiate contact with negatively social influences, possibly leading towards
re-offending.[53]

Social costs as deterrents

[54][55] Offenders who enter the
Many have proposed that the need for social contact is essential to human well-being and functioning.
prison system are forced to re-arrange their social connections with fellow inmates and correctional staff.[48] Specifically, when first-
time offenders experience the negative social impacts of incarceration, these experiences serve to deter individuals from reoffending
and have been identified as the social costs of imprisonment.[48] Common experiences that result in the pain of social costs during
incarceration include deprivation of social contact with the outside world (e.g. family and friends), loss of autonomy, and negative
social interactions within the confounds of incarceration (i.e. physical violence).[48][56] Research on first-time offenders indicates
that the most costly social pain experienced within these populations is the deprivation of contact with persons outside the prison
[48]
facility, highlighting the importance of positive social associations outside of prison walls as deterrents of recidivism.

Visitation
Visitations by significant social contacts(e.g. family members, peers) can serve as reminders of positive associations with the outside
world. Social constraints, isolation, and traumas experienced while incarcerated may contribute to risks in recidivism,[57] and
fective in protecting against these factors.[46] Research indicates that visitation
visitation by significant persons are, to some degree, ef
from significant others and spouses are most effective in reducing recidivism, followed by visits from friends and non-spousal family
members.[46] However, findings indicate that after 3 to 4 visits, the positive effects of visitation on recidivism decreases.[46] This can
potentially be attributed to the reduction in pain from social costs due to lack of social deprivation. Visitation during incarceration
assists in maintaining social ties, which are essential to the availability of social support, social networking to acquire resources, and
[58]
in turn successful reentry upon release from prison.

Marriage and family

The role of marriage has been investigated in relation to recidivism. Research indicates that early marriages (age at marriage) that are
cohesive in nature can be protective against recidivism.[59] Individuals who engage in less recidivistic behaviour are also less likely
to be divorced or separated, or to have engaged in impulsive decision-making to marry.[59] These findings indicate that while
marriage alone is not a protective factor against re-offending, marriages with strong foundations and entered with consideration have
to potential to reduce recidivism. The association between healthy marriages and reduced recidivism has initiated marriage and
relationship skills educational programs for incarcerated population to prepare them for reintegration, such as The Oklahoma
Marriage Initiative.

Similarly, community-based family strengthening models have been implemented in order to promote connectedness among family
members so as to better support relatives who might be at risk to re-offend.[54] As research has indicated family connectedness to be
an important factor in psychological well-being and positive outcomes, emphasis on imparting knowledge about the experience of
incarcerated family members is of high importance in order to maintain high levels of social support within the family system.[54]
Results from these programs indicate that a focus on connectedness within families was associated with gains in relationship skills, as
[54]
well as recidivism, demonstrating the importance of familial support and understanding in desistance.

See also
African-American family structure#Black male incarceration and mortality
References
1. Carson, A.; Golinelli, D."Prisoners in 2012 - Advance Counts"(http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p12ac.pdf) (PDF).
bjs.gov. Department of Justice. Retrieved 25 September 2014.
2. Travis, J. (2003). Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families and
communities. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press. p. 76. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
3. Bales, W.; Mears, D. (2008). "Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism?".
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency . 45: 287–321. doi:10.1177/0022427808317574(https://doi.org/10.11
77%2F0022427808317574).
4. Owen, B (1998). In the mix: Struggle and survival in a women’
s prison. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
5. O'Connor, T (2004). "What works, religion asa correctional intervention: Part I.".Journal of Community Corrections.
14 (1): 11–27.
6. Hunter, G; Boyce, I (2009). "Preparing for employment: Prisoner's experience of participating in a prison training
programme". The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice. 48 (2): 117–131. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2008.00551.x(http
s://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-2311.2008.00551.x) .
7. Crandford, S; Williams, R (1998). "Critical issues in managing female of
fenders". Corrections Today. 60: 130–134.
8. Ward, D; Kassebaum, G (1965).Women’s Prison. Edison, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
9. MacKenzie, D; Robinson, J; Campbell, C (1989). "Long-term incarceration of female fenders:
of Prison adjustment
and coping". Criminal Justice & Behavior. 16: 223–238. doi:10.1177/0093854889016002007(https://doi.org/10.117
7%2F0093854889016002007).
10. Ziatzow, B; Houston, J (1990). "Prison gangs: The North Carolina experience".Journal of Gang Research. 6: 23–32.
11. Lindquist, C; Lindquist, C (1997). "Gender dif
ferences in distress: Mental health consequences of environmental
stress among jail inmates".Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 15 (4): 503–523. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-
0798(199723/09)15:4<503::aid-bsl281>3.0.co;2-h(https://doi.org/10.1002%2F%28sici%291099-0798%28199723%
2F09%2915%3A4%3C503%3A%3Aaid-bsl281%3E3.0.co%3B2-h) .
12. Levitt, L; Loper, A (2009). "The influence of religious participation on the adjustment of female inmates".American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 79 (1): 1–7. doi:10.1037/a0015429 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0015429).
13. Loper, A; Gildea, J (2004). "Social support and anger expression among incarcerated women".Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation. 38 (4): 27–50. doi:10.1300/j076v38n04_03(https://doi.org/10.1300%2Fj076v38n04_03).
14. Clear, T; Sumter, M (2002). "Prisoners, prison, and religion: Religion and adjustment to prison".Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation. 35: 125–156. doi:10.1300/j076v35n03_07(https://doi.org/10.1300%2Fj076v35n03_07).
15. Clear, T; Stout, B; Dammer, H; Kelly, L; Hardyman, P; Shapiro, C (1992). "Prisoners, prisons, and religion: Final
report". Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 3: 75–86.
16. Greer, K (2002). "Walking an emotional tightrope: Managing emotions in a women's prison".
Symbolic Interaction.
25: 117–139. doi:10.1525/si.2002.25.1.117(https://doi.org/10.1525%2Fsi.2002.25.1.117).
17. Dammer, H (2002). "The reasons for religiousinvolvement in the correctional environment".Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation. 35 (3–4): 35–58. doi:10.1300/j076v35n03_03(https://doi.org/10.1300%2Fj076v35n03_03).
18. Kerley, K; Matthews, T; Blanchard, T (2005). "Religiosity, religious participation, and negative prison behaviors".
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 44: 443–457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x(https://doi.org/10.1
111%2Fj.1468-5906.2005.00296.x).
19. Ryan, T; McCabe, K (1994). "Mandatory versus voluntary prison education and academic achievement".The Prison
Journal. 74 (4): 450–461. doi:10.1177/0032855594074004005(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0032855594074004005) .
20. Gaes, G; McGuire, W (1985). "Prison violence: The contribution of crowding versus other determinants of prison
assault rates". Journal of research in crime and delinquency. 22 (1): 41–65. doi:10.1177/0022427885022001003(htt
ps://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022427885022001003) .
21. Tootoonchi, A (1993). "College education in prisons: The inmates' perspectives".Federal Probation. 57: 34–35.
22. Jiang, S; Winfree, L (2006). "Social support, gender
, and inmate adjustment to prison life insights from a national
sample". The Prison Journal. 86 (1): 32–55. doi:10.1177/0032885505283876(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F003288550
5283876).
23. Comfort, M.; Grinstead, O.; McCartney, K.; Bourgois, P.; Knight, K. (2010). ""You can't do nothing in this damn
place": Sex and intimacy among couples with an incarcerated male partner". The Journal of Sex Research. 1 (42):
3–12. doi:10.1080/00224490509552251(https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00224490509552251) .
24. "Attorney General Eric Holder Delivers Remarks at the Human Rights Campaign Greater Nework Y Gala" (https://ww
w.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-eric-holder-delivers-remarks-human-rights-campaign-greater-new-york-ga
la). U.S. Department of Justice. 10 February 2014. Retrieved 20 December 2017.
25. "Do Mississippi inmates have the right to conjugal visits?"(http://www.gulflive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/04/do_missis
sippi_inmates_have_th.html). Alabama Live LLC. Associated Press. 8 April 2015 . Retrieved 20 December 2017.
26. Howser, J.; Grossman, J.; Macdonald, D. (1983). "Impact of family reunion program on institutional discipline".
Journal of Offender Counseling. 8: 27–36. doi:10.1300/j264v08n01_04(https://doi.org/10.1300%2Fj264v08n01_04).
27. Harman, J. J.; Smith, V. E.; Egan, L. C. (2007). "The impact of incarceration on intimate relationships".Criminal
Justice and Behavior. 34: 794–815. doi:10.1177/0093854807299543(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F009385480729954
3).
28. Einhorn, L.; Williams, T.; Stanley, S.; Wunderlin, N.; Markman, H.; Eason, J. (2008). "PREP Inside and Out: Marriage
Education for Inmates".Family Process. 3 (47): 341–356.
29. Lopoo, L. M.; Western, B. (2005). "Incarceration and the formation land stability of marital unions".Journal of
Marriage and Family. 67: 721–734. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00165.x(https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1741-3737.
2005.00165.x).
30. Massoglia, M.; Remster, B.; King, R. D. (2011). "Stigma or separation?: Understand the incarceration-divorce
relationship". Social Forces. 90 (1): 133–155. doi:10.1093/sf/90.1.133 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fsf%2F90.1.133).
31. Carecedo, R. J.; Orgaz, M. B.; Frenandes-Rouco, N.; Faldowxski, R. A. (2011). "Heterosexual romantic relationships
inside of prison: partner status as predictor of loneliness, sexual satisfaction, and quality of life".
International Journal
of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology . 55 (6): 898–924. doi:10.1177/0306624x10373593(https://doi.or
g/10.1177%2F0306624x10373593).
32. Greer, K. R. (2000). "The Changing Nature of Interpersonal Relationships in a Women's Prison". The Prison Journal.
80: 442–468. doi:10.1177/0032885500080004009(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0032885500080004009) .
33. Kirkham, G. L. (2000).Bisexuality in the United States: Homosexuality in Prison(https://books.google.com/books?hl
=en&lr=&id=EwcABAApgR8C&oi=fnd&pg=P A250&dq=homosexuality+in+prison&ots=VYEnSif8Q1&sig=ptOaRQW5
OrmUynyA349YAIXoSqQ#v=onepage&q=homosexuality%2520in%2520prison&f=false). Chichester, West Sussex:
Columbia University Press. p. 250.
34. Guerino, P.; Harrison, P.; Sabol, W. "Prisoners in 2010" (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p10.pdf)(PDF). bjs.gov.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved 25 September 2014.
35. Schirmer, S.; Nellis, A.; Mauer, M. "Incarcerated parents and their children: Trends 1991-2007" (http://www.sentencin
gproject.org/doc/publications/publications/inc_incarceratedparents.pdf) (PDF). www.sentencingproject.org. The
sentencing project: Research and advocacy for reform . Retrieved 25 September 2014.
36. "FAQs About Children of Prisoners"(https://www.prisonfellowship.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/FAQs-About-
Children-of-Prisoners.pdf)(PDF). Prison Fellowship. Retrieved 20 November 2016.
37. De Masi, Ph.D., Mary E. D; Bohn, MPH, Cate e Tuten (2010). "children with incarcerated parents A Journey of
Children, Caregivers and Parents in New York State" (http://ccf.ny.gov/files/2413/7968/3887/ChildIncarceratedParent
s.pdf) (PDF). Council on Children and Families.
38. Walker, E. (2011). "Risk and protective factors in mothers with a history of incarceration: Do relationships buf
fer the
effects of trauma symptoms and substance abuse history?". Woman & Therapy. 34 (4): 359–376.
doi:10.1080/02703149.2011.591662(https://doi.org/10.1080%2F02703149.2011.591662) .
39. Loper, A.; Carlson, L.; Levitt, L.; Scheffel, K. (1009). "Parenting stress, alliance, child contact, and adjustment of
imprisoned mothers and fathers".Journal of Offender Rehabilitation. 48: 483–503. doi:10.1080/10509670903081300
(https://doi.org/10.1080%2F10509670903081300) .
40. Clarke, L.; O'Brien, M.; Godwin, H.; Hemmings, J.; Day , R.; Connolly, J.; Van Leeson, T. (2005). "Fathering behind
bars in English prisons: Imprisoned fathers' identity and contact with their children".
Fathering: A Journal of Theory,
Research, and Practice About Men as Fathers . 3: 221–241. doi:10.3149/fth.0303.221 (https://doi.org/10.3149%2Fft
h.0303.221).
41. Dowling, Brendan (2007). "Public Libraries and the Ex-Of
fender". Public Libraries. 46 (6) – via British Library
Document Supply Centre Inside Serials & Conference Proceedings.
42. Collica, K. (2010). "Surviving incarceration: T
wo prison-based peer programs build communities of support for
female offenders". Deviant Behavior. 31 (4): 314–347. doi:10.1080/01639620903004812(https://doi.org/10.1080%2
F01639620903004812).
43. Poehlmann, J; Shlafer, R; Maes, E; Hanneman, A (2008). "Factors associated with young children's opportunities for
maintaining family relationships during maternal incarceration".Family Relations. 57: 267–280. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3729.2008.00499.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1741-3729.2008.00499.x) .
44. Christian, J; Mellow, J; Thomas, S (2006). "Social and economic implications of family connections to prisoners".
Journal of Criminal Justice. 34: 443–452. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.05.010(https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jcrimjus.20
06.05.010).
45. James, G.; Harris, Y. (2013). "Children of Color and Parental Incarceration: Implications for Research, Theory
, and
Practice". Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development . 41 (2): 68–81. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2013.00028
(https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fj.2161-1912.2013.00028) .
46. Mears, D.; Cochran, J.; Siennick, S.; Bales, W
. (2012). "Prison visitation and recidivism,".Justice Quarterly. 29 (6):
888–918. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.583932(https://doi.org/10.1080%2F07418825.2011.583932) .
47. Morenoff, J.; Harding, D. (2014)."Incarceration, prisoner reentry, and communities" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm
c/articles/PMC4231529). Annual Review of Sociology. 40 (1): 411–429. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145511(ht
tps://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-soc-071811-145511) . PMC 4231529 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P
MC4231529).
48. Windzio, M. (2006). "Is there a deterrent effect of pains of imprisonment?: The impact of 'social costs' of first
incarceration on the hazard rate of recidivism".Punishment & Society. 8 (3): 341–364.
doi:10.1177/1462474506064701(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1462474506064701) .
49. Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor
. New York, New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, Inc.
50. Drakulich, K. M.; Crutchfield, R. D.; Matsueda, R. L.; Rose, K. (2012). "Instability
, informal control, and criminogenic
situations: Community effects of returning prisoners". Crime, Law and Social Change. 57: 493–519.
doi:10.1007/s10611-012-9375-0(https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10611-012-9375-0) .
51. Rose, D. R.; Clear, T. R. (1998). "Incarceration, social capital, and crime: Implications forocial
s disorganization
theory". Criminology. 36: 441–480. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01255.x(https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1745-912
5.1998.tb01255.x).
52. Shaw, C. R.; McKaw, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas, a study of rates of delinquents in relation
to differential characteristics of local communities in American cities
. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago
Press.
53. Kirk, D.S. (2009). "A natural experiment on residential change and recidivism: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina".
American Sociological Review. 74: 484–505. doi:10.1177/000312240907400308(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F000312
240907400308).
54. McKiernan, P.; Shamblen, S.R.; Collins, D.A.; Stradler, T.N.; Kokoski, C. (2012). "Creating lasting family connections:
Reducing recidivism with community-based family strengthening model". Criminal Justice Policy Review. 24 (1): 94–
122. doi:10.1177/0887403412447505(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0887403412447505) .
55. Rocque, M.; Biere, D. M.; Posick, C.; MacKenzie, D. L. (2013). "Unraveling change: Social bonds and recidivism
among released offenders". Victims & Offenders. 8 (2): 209–230. doi:10.1080/15564886.2012.755141(https://doi.or
g/10.1080%2F15564886.2012.755141).
56. Adams, K. (1992). "Adjusting to prison life".Crime & Justice. 16.
57. Hochstetler, A.; DeLisi, M.; Pratt, T.C. (2010). "Social support and feelings of hostility amo
ng released inmates".
Crime & Delinquency. 56: 588–607. doi:10.1177/0011128708319926(https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001112870831992
6).
58. Bales, W.D.; Mears, D.P. (2008). "Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism?".
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency . 45: 287–321. doi:10.1177/0022427808317574(https://doi.org/10.11
77%2F0022427808317574).
59. Laub, J. H.; Nagin, D. S.; Sampson, R. J. (1998). "T
rajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and
the desistance process".American Sociological Review. 63 (2): 225–238. doi:10.2307/2657324 (https://doi.org/10.23
07%2F2657324).

External links
BJS - Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children[1]
BJS - Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002[2]
 Children of Incarcerated Parents - Factsheet[3]
Lowering Recidivism Through Family Communication[4]
NCSL - Children of Incarcerated Parents[5]
Prison Reentry in Perspective[6]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relationships_for_incarcerated_individuals&oldid=861643244

"

This page was last edited on 28 September 2018, at 22:49(UTC).

Text is available under theCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of theWikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.