Feeling the pains of imprisonment, just without the bars:

How incarceration affects loved ones in Canada

Incarceration is often talked about as though it
only has an impact on the person imprisoned
(Hannem, 2011). But many people who are
incarcerated have loved ones on the outside:
partners, parents, children, friends; incarceration can
affect all of their lives. Because there is not much
attention paid to these loved ones and families of
those inside, they are sometimes called a hidden or
invisible population (Coulthard, 2010;
Cunningham & Baker, 2004). This isnt a small
group of people. Researchers estimate that in Canada
there may be hundreds of thousands of children who
have an incarcerated parent, for example (Bayes,
2003; Coulthard, 2010; Withers & Folsom, 2007).

This complex benefits the rich and powerful

governments, big businesses, law enforcement
and acts as a form of social control (Ware, Ruzsa, &
Dias, 2014). Despite being talked about as though it
is meant to rehabilitate and make society safer,
incarceration does neither (Rittenhouse, 2016). It is
bad for prisoners health (Ware et al, 2014), and the
impacts on their loved ones is just one of the many
ways that it harms the broader community.

Some researchers argue that using alternatives

to incarceration would be a good way of avoiding its
negative effects, especially on children and on the
communities most targeted for imprisonment (Bayes,
2007; Cunningham & Baker, 2003, 2004; Ka Ni
The following pages highlight some of the
Kanichichk, 2015). Many more researchers call for
effects of incarceration on this hidden group, based reform to the corrections system, for education, and
on the available research in Canada. The impacts
for making supports available to prisoners loved
include emotional and mental distress, isolation,
ones. Rittenhouse challenges the notion that
financial hardship, stigma, and more. The effects can incarceration is inevitable as a system of control, and
vary: the impact of incarceration on families can be advocates accountability and responsibility outside
different depending on whether the loved one has
of a framework of exclusion (Rittenhouse, 2016). As
harmed a family member (Hannem & Leonardi,
a result, this review focuses on community strategies
2014). Aboriginal people are also more likely to be for counteracting the impacts of incarceration on
incarcerated than others, and its more likely that
loved ones, and the research is reviewed according
their kids will be taken away by the state if they are to these themes:
(Eljdupovic et al., 2013; Ka Ni Kanichichk, 2015).
Community-based supports for adults
What families and friends with an incarcerated loved
and kids (p. 2-3)
one share is the reach of the prison industrial
complex into their relationships, their homes,

Independent, reliable sources of

workplaces, and daily lives, with harmful effects.

information (p. 4)

Incarceration is part of the

prison industrial complex that

also includes policing, the legal
system as whole, and the
targeting of certain communities.
Review by Julie Chamberlain
Artwork by Peter Collins

Community-based financial resources

(p. 5)
Rittenhouse: A New Vision
http://www.rittenhouseanewvision.com/
https://www.facebook.com/Rittenhouseanewvision

Rittenhouse: A New Vision 1

Community-based social supports

Incarceration affects families and loved ones in many
ways that could be addressed through communitybased social supports. Family members experience
isolation, stigma, and painful emotions such as guilt,
shame, and embarrassment. As a result many say that
they would benefit from supportive contact with nonjudgmental community, especially those who share
the experience of having a loved one incarcerated.
Supports could take many forms: family members
report that support groups, counselling, online forums,
and cultural and spiritual care are all helpful
(Bruynson, 2011; Hannem & Leonardi, 2015; Ka Ni
Kanichichk, 2015). Researchers especially
recommend making family counselling available to
parents and children during and after incarceration
(Bayes, 2003; Jenner, 2009; Ka Ni Kanichichk, 2015).
Some also suggest piloting community-based
restorative justice processes for families that are
dealing with victimization as well as incarceration
(Hannem & Leonardi, 2014).

Addressing impacts of
incarceration on loved ones in
Canada

Isolation
One of the most common impacts of a loved ones
incarceration is isolation. Family members feel alone
and like nobody will understand them (CFCN, 2015).
Along with those feelings, they often purposely isolate
themselves, hiding the experience from other people
to protect themselves. As one woman says, I live a
double life. None of my co-workers or my friends or
anyone know, really, the life I lead...that my husband
is in jail...Everything is hidden (CFCN, 2015, p. 7).
The isolation takes a heavy toll on emotional wellbeing, secrecy can be a lot of work to maintain and
increases feelings of shame, and which makes it
difficult to access support (Cunningham & Baker,
2004; Hannem, 2011; Hannem & Leonardi, 2015;
Jenner, 2009).

Stigma
One of the reasons that isolation is so common is the
stigma connected to having a loved one who is
incarcerated. The stigma can come from all directions:
from the public, from the corrections and legal
I made a decision to seek out people I knew I could
systems, and from family and friends (Coulthard,
trust, who knew me, you know, as a person they
2010; Hannem, 2009, 2011). People judge and assume
knew me, and to tell them my situation. And when I
about what incarceration means, including that the
started doing that, I started getting support"
person inside must be bad and manipulative, and that
Family member [Canadian Families and Corrections
their loved ones outside should not maintain a
Network (CFCN), 2015, p. 6]
relationship with them (CFCN, 2003; Hannem &
Leonardi, 2014). For women, the stigma is shaped by
Emotional distress
dominant ideas about their roles and responsibilities.
Family members struggle with a lot of difficult
Women tend to be ridiculed and held responsible for
emotions when a loved one is incarcerated, and the
the actions of their male partners. Mothers can be
impact on their mental well-being is significant. They especially ostracized when their sons are incarcerated,
often grapple with trauma related to the arrest and to and treated as though it is their fault (Hannem, 2009,
the loss of their loved one to incarceration. That loss is 2011). Non-judgemental social support, especially
complicated because society doesnt often
from those with shared experience, is needed to
acknowledge it, and there is very little support
counteract these impacts, to make sense of them, and
available (Hannem & Leonardi, 2015).
to ease the pain that they cause.

Rittenhouse: A New Vision 2

Addressing impacts of
incarceration on loved ones in
Canada

Community supports for kids

Children who have an incarcerated loved one also

need non-judgemental, community-based social and
emotional supports. Children specify that they need
the chance to be with other kids who understand their
experiences and who can spend time with them
without judgement or stigma (CFCN, 2015;
Cunningham & Baker, 2003; Withers, 2007). They
suggest that communities should support youth-led
social programs, so that young people can mentor
each other (CFCN, 2015; Withers, 2007). Kids also
need community support and attention to make sure
that they are safe, and that their caregivers have the
support that they need (Cunningham & Baker, 2003).
When kids are able to maintain their relationships
with loved ones inside, its also often better for
everyone involved (see for example Bayes, 2003; Ka
Ni Kanichichk, 2015, Vacheret, 2005). Yet programs
and resources for children are rare and dont have
stable funding (Hannem & Leonardi, 2015).
Communities can play an important role by
anticipating and responding to childrens needs.
When a parent is incarcerated, children are
especially affected. They experience much of the
same isolation, stigma, and emotional distress as
adults, though they may show it in different ways
(Coulthard, 2010; Cunningham & Baker, 2003, 2004;
Dubeau, Barrette, & Lafortune, 2015; Jenner, 2009;
Ka Ni Kanichichk, 2015). I felt a lot of guilt, shame,
and embarrassment, says one young person whose
parent was incarcerated (CFCN), 2015, p. 13). Kids
might shut down emotionally, as one mom who was
incarcerated shares: They didnt want to talk to
anyone about anything. A lot of anger issues in the
younger ones" (Ka Ni Kanichichk, 2015, p. 25).
Depending on their age, children can be very
confused, and fear that their loved one will go away
again (Ka Ni Kanichichk, 2015). They can also be
vulnerable to bullying and struggles at school (CFCN,
2015; Cunningham & Baker, 2003, 2004). As one

person who was eight years old when her stepdad was
incarcerated reflects, Children are not guilty of the
crime their loved one was convicted of. Many people
seem to forget this fact" (Withers, 2007, p. 17).
If a childs mother is incarcerated, the impacts
can be especially serious and destabilizing
(Cunningham & Baker, 2003). Mothers are more
likely to be the custodial parent, and if she is
incarcerated, kids are more likely to face major life
changes such as changes in caregiver, where they live,
where they go to school, and disconnection from other
family and friends (Cunningham & Baker, 2003).
Women who are incarcerated are also often mothers
of young children, sole parents, or have a partner who
is also in prison (Vacheret, 2005). Children are much
more likely to be taken by child welfare services if
their mother is incarcerated even for a short time,
which can have long-term consequences (Cunningham
& Baker 2003; Elizabeth Fry of Peterborough, 2014;
Jenner, 2009). This is especially true for Aboriginal
families (Ka Ni Kanichichk, 2015).
My daughter forgot who I was. When I seen her,
she was so shy of me, she didnt know who I was.
And my wife was telling her, this is your father,
and so I would never wish this on no one. It hurt
me so bad"
Father who had been incarcerated
(Ka Ni Kanichichk, 2015, p. 26).

Kids also face the added burden of societal fear

that they will be just like their parents, and are on a
path to incarceration themselves (Coulthard, 2010;
Cunningham & Baker, 2003; Withers & Folsom,
2007). Thus they can experience a sort of precriminalization that labels them as potential threats, a
special kind of stigma reserved for the young. Support
programs specifically for kids could help counteract
these negative impacts.

Rittenhouse: A New Vision 3

Independent, reliable information

People who have an incarcerated loved one are often
struggling to get by with little or no information. This
lack of information about all aspects of incarceration
contributes to worry, stress, frustration, and practical
problems. As a result, one of the top things families
and researchers call for is help to understand and
navigate the legal and corrections systems (Bruynson,
2011; CFCN, 2015; Hannem & Leonardi, 2015). This
help could take many forms, such as a phone line that
people could call, or an online forum specific to
Canada that is easy to find with a quick search. Such
information and supports need to be available across
Canada (Hannem & Leonardi, 2015).
The sources of information must be independent
and community-based, because many of the impacts
that loved ones face come directly from the legal and
corrections systems. A major point of tension occurs
when families visit prisoners, for example. Many
report being the target of suspicion, hostility,
harassment, and humiliation from corrections staff
(Bruynson, 2011; Canadian Families and Corrections
Network, 2003; Coulthard, 2010; Hannem, 2011;
McCuaig, 2008). This is amplified if the guards dont
like the prisoner, or if they are incarcerated for a drug
offense or something particularly taboo. Women who
visit can face sexual harassment (McCuaig, 2008).

Addressing impacts of
incarceration on loved ones in
Canada

They argue that corrections staff need education about

how important family and friends are to
rehabilitation and what the effects of poor treatment
can be (Bayes, 2003; Coulthard, 2010; Cunningham &
Baker, 2003, 2004; Withers, 2003). However, the
research also reveals that some families, including
children, develop an analysis of the penal system as
unjust, and learn to distrust authority (Coulthard,
2010; Cunningham & Baker, 2003; Hannem, 2009,
2011; McCuaig, 2008).
Prison visits and correspondence can be
frustrating. Families are expected to know all the
rules, while nobody seems to be responsible for
telling us the rules"
Person with incarcerated loved one (Hannem &
Leonardi, 2015, p. 21)

Independent sources of information could

support families analysis of their experiences while
giving crucial guidance on practical matters such as
preparing for the ion scanners when visiting federal
institutions (Hannem, 2011; McCuaig, 2008). The
scanners are a frequent source of distress and
restricted and cancelled visits, under the guise of
institutional security. Practical information about
Researchers frequently point out the gap
coping with notoriety could also be a focus, as the
between Correctional Service Canadas stated goals
and policies and the way families are actually treated Canadian research reveals that people with an
incarcerated loved one are deeply impacted by media
(Coulthard, 2010; Hannem, 2011; McCuaig, 2008).
coverage and the online traces of their encounters with
the legal system. This can be devastating to
"When I look my name up now, on the internet,
reputation, employment, and life chances (CFCN,
what do I get? The newspaper article or the article
whereby the day the SWAT team showed up and the 2015). Community support and sources of information
court case. Thats my name. Im a Real Estate agent. could respond to all of these needs with compassion,
guidance, and practical coping strategies.
So, you want to talk about an impact?
Woman whose partner is incarcerated
(CFCN, 2015, p. 17)
Rittenhouse: A New Vision 4

Community-based financial supports

When a loved one is incarcerated, it can have a
dramatic financial impact. Financial distress can result
from the loss of a family members income (CFCN,
2003; Lafortune, Barrette, & Brunelle, 2005), as well
as from increased expenses (Bruynson, 2011;
Hannem, 2011; Hannem & Leonardi, 2014). Many
expenses are specific to the costs of visiting and
talking over the phone with people incarcerated in
Canada. Families find that covering those costs is
necessary to keeping their families together (Hannem,
2011), and they say that financial support would help
them to maintain contact (Bruynson, 2011; Hannem,
2009, 2011).
Because there is evidence that family contact
helps control prisoners during and after incarceration
(Derkzen, Gobeil, & Gileno, 2009; Vacheret, 2005;
Withers & Folsom, 2007), researchers tend to call on
the state to make phone communication and visits
more affordable, since it is in their interest (see Bayes,
2007 and others). Communities could also pool
resources to support each other independently through
a community-based fund or services to support visits.

Addressing impacts of
incarceration on loved ones in
Canada

Though Private Family Visits are cherished by those

on the outside, these too can be prohibitively
expensive because of restrictions about where food
must be bought (Hannem, 2011; Vacheret, 2005).

Phone calls
The cost of phone calls in the Canadian prison system
is one of the biggest complaints of people who have
an incarcerated loved one. It is so expensive and
restricted that some find it punishes them as well as
their loved one (Hannem, 2011). Many researchers
call for decreasing the cost to make frequent
communication more accessible (Bayes, 2007;
Withers, 2007). Over the past years there have been
adjustments to how phone calls are regulated and paid
for, but it remains a major source of financial stress
(Bruynson, 2011; Hannem, 2011). Family members
report having to choose whether to call or to visit, for
example, because they cant afford to do both
(Bruynson, 2011).
Families cope with the financial strains however
they can. One woman whose partner is incarcerated
jokes about the weight she has lost since hes been in.
Visiting
She then reveals I dont eat healthy at all because I
Visiting prisoners at Canadian institutions can be so
dont have the extra money to be able to go get like a
expensive as to be impossible (Hannem, 2011; Jenner, full load of groceries (Bruynson, 2011, p. 49). The
2009; Ka Ni Kanichichk, 2015). Institutions are
financial burden of incarceration can be heavy
frequently many hundreds of kilometres away from
regardless of a familys prior financial status
where families live so that visiting means long trips
(Hannem, 2011). Increasing community support for
requiring a car, expensive public transportation, and
visiting and communicating with loved ones could
days taken off work. Even so, visits might be
ease some of the strain and minimize the tough
cancelled at the last minute by the institution
choices that families are making about how to cope
(Bruynson, 2011; Hannem, 2011).
each day.

Rittenhouse: A New Vision 5

References
Bayes, S. (2003). A snowballs chance: Children of offenders
and Canadian social policy. Vancouver, BC: Elizabeth
Fry Society of Greater Vancouver.
Bayes, S. (2007). Acknowledging and reaching children of
prisoners. Canadian Association for Young Children,
32, 915.
Bruynson, K. (2011). Experiences of partners of male
prisoners (M.A.). University of Ontario Institute of
Technology, Canada.
Canadian Families and Corrections Network. (2003). One day
at a time: Writings on facing the incarceration of a
friend or family member. Canadian Families and
Corrections Network.

Hannem, S., & Leonardi, L. (2015). Forgotten victims: The

mental health and well-being of families affected by
crime and incarceration in Canada. Canadian Families
and Corrections Network.
Jenner, L. M. (2009). Maternal incarceration: Exploring the
impact on children (M.A.). Ryerson University,
Toronto.
Ka Ni Kanichichk. (2015). A pilot study examining the
connection between child welfare and incarcerated
Aboriginal parents and their children through narrative
inquiry. Winnipeg: Ka Ni Kanichichk Inc.
Lafortune, D., Barrette, M., & Brunelle, N. (2005).
Lincarcration du pre: Exprience et besoins des
familles. Criminologie, 38(1), 163.

Canadian Families and Corrections Network. (2015). Coping

over time. Canadian Families and Corrections Network. McCuaig, E. (2008). Doing time on the outside: Managing
relationships with imprisoned men (M.A.). University
Coulthard, J. (2010). Parental incarceration and the ties that
of Ottawa, Canada.
bind: Children of offenders as collateral damage
(Ph.D.). McGill University, Canada.
Cunningham, A., & Baker, L. (2003). Waiting for mommy:
Giving a voice to the hidden victims of incarceration.
London, ON: Centre for Children and Families in the
Justice System, of London Family Court Clinic.
Cunningham, A., & Baker, L. (2004). Invisible victims: The
children of women in prison. Voices for Children &
Centre for Children & Families in the Justice System.
Derkzen, D., Gobeil, R., & Gileno, J. (2009). Visitation and
post-release outcome among federally-sentenced
offenders (No. R-205). Correctional Service Canada.
Dubeau, D., Barrette, M., & Lafortune, D. (2015). Fathers
behind bars: A participatory action research project to
support father involvement following incarceration. In
A. Devault, G. Forget, & D. Dubeau (Eds.), Fathering:
Promoting positive father involvement (pp. 160186).
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Eljdupovic, G., Mitchell, T., Curtis, L., Jaremko Bromwich,
R., Alison, G.-B., Courtney, A., & Fry, B. (2013).
Incarcerating Aboriginal mothers: A cost too great. In
G. Eljdupovic & R. Jaremko Bromwich (Eds.),
Incarcerated mothers: Oppression and resistance (pp.
4358). Bradford, ON: Demeter Press.
Hannem, S. (2009). Marked by association: Stigma,
marginalisation, gender and the families of male
prisoners in Canada (Ph.D.). Carleton University,
Canada.
Hannem, S. (2011). Stigma and marginality: Gendered
experiences of families of male prisoners in Canada. In
A. Doyle & D. Moore (Eds.), Critical criminology in
Canada: New voices, new directions (pp. 183217).
Vancouver, Toronto: UBC Press.
Hannem, S., & Leonardi, L. (2014). Family-victim research:
Needs and characteristics: Ontario Region. Canadian
Families and Corrections Network.

Rittenhouse. (2016). Vision, mission & background. http://

www.rittenhouseanewvision.com/
Vacheret, M. (2005). Private family visits in Canada, between
rehabilitation and stricter control: Portrait of a system.
Champ pnal/Penal Field, (Vol. II).
Ware, S., Ruzsa, J., & Dias, G. (2014). It cant be fixed
because its not broken: Racism and disability in the
prison industrial complex. In L. Ben-Moshe, C.
Chapman, & Carey, A. (Eds.), Disability incarcerated:
Imprisonment and disability in the United States and
Canada. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Withers, L. (2003). A strategic approach and policy document
to address the needs of families of offenders: Safety,
respect, and dignity for all. Kingston, ON: Canadian
Families and Corrections Network.
Withers, L. (2007). Time together: A survival guide for
families and friends visiting in Canadian federal
prisons.
Withers, L., & Folsom, J. (2007). Incarcerated fathers: A
descriptive analysis. Correctional Service Canada.

Rittenhouse: A New
Vision
526 Richmond St E,
Toronto, ON
M5A 1R3
ph: 416-972-9992
fax: 416-920-4314
rittenhouse@ hotmail.ca
April 2016

Rittenhouse: A New Vision 6