Managing Barriers to Visitation Together: Prisoners’ Families Active in Support Groups

Abstract

Although extensive research documents the causes and impacts of incarceration, its effects on families remain underexplored. Prison visitation can help maintain social bonds during incarceration; however, distinct barriers and restrictive policies often negatively affect visitors. This qualitative study examines how family members navigate and manage barriers to visitation through their involvement in support groups. Approximately 100 h of participant observation were conducted at monthly Citizens for Prison Reform (CPR) meetings, related groups, and events in one Midwestern U.S. state. Interviews with 31 family members were also conducted to explore their participation in support groups. Findings reveal three themes that participants described as ways in which support group membership helped address barriers to visitation: informational support, emotional support, and advocating for (policy) change. These were facilitated by the various advantages and disadvantages that come with membership (normalization, learning strategies, motivation, and emotional burnout). Findings also demonstrate that prisoners’ families can be a vital source of knowledge and information for correctional departments and other criminal justice stakeholders, yet they continue to remain unrecognized and thus underutilized. The importance of correctional systems listening to prisoners’ family members and forming working relationships with them is discussed, along with policy suggestions that promote family connectedness.

1. Introduction

An estimated 1.25 million individuals were held under state or federal correctional authority at the end of 2023 (Mueller and Kluckow 2025). This corresponds to an imprisonment rate of 360 per 100,000 U.S. residents, down 25% from year-end 2013 (479 per 100,000) (Mueller and Kluckow 2025). However, with incarceration rates increasing sevenfold between 1970 and 2010 (Clear and Frost 2013), some insist that the U.S. continues to suffer from the effects of imprisonment and the collateral consequences of mass incarceration (Alexander 2012; DeFina and Hannon 2013).

Each of these 1.25 million incarcerated individuals leaves behind a family system (Boppre et al. 2022). Two nationally representative studies found that an estimated 45% of the U.S. population has had a family member incarcerated at some point in their lives (Elderbroom et al. 2018; Enns et al. 2019). These results illustrate how heavily we rely on incarceration as a criminal legal strategy and how having a family member incarcerated is “a ubiquitous experience in the United States” (Enns et al. 2019, p. 10). Incarceration potentially affects tens of millions of family members, significant others, and friends on the outside in a myriad of ways (Trahan and Evans 2020). These individuals are left behind to deal with the financial consequences of imprisonment and the loss of emotional and familial support (Trahan and Evans 2020).

The social costs of mass incarceration are well documented and extend to families and the communities in which they live (Boppre et al. 2022; see Kirk and Wakefield 2018 for a review). A growing body of literature documents the adverse effects of incarceration on families (Boppre et al. 2022), including increased financial burdens (DeHart et al. 2018; Pleggenkuhle et al. 2018; Tasca et al. 2011), mental and physical health deficits (DeHart et al. 2018; Elderbroom et al. 2018), adverse social and behavioral outcomes (Foster and Hagan 2009; Tasca et al. 2011), and disruption of family bonds (Beckmeyer and Arditti 2014; Elderbroom et al. 2018).

One process underlying families’ experience with incarceration that deserves more attention is visitation, as it helps families maintain social bonds (Boppre et al. 2022). Although the effects of visitation have been extensively studied and empirically supported using quantitative methods, successful visits are preceded by distinct stressors (Boppre et al. 2022). To begin, distance, travel time, and costs pose recurring barriers to visitation (Christian 2005; Tasca et al. 2016; Tewksbury and DeMichele 2005; Trahan and Evans 2020). A majority of those incarcerated in state prisons remain over 100 miles from their families (Duwe and Clark 2017; Homer 1979; Nagel 1973; Rabuy and Kopf 2015; Schirmer et al. 2009). However, once they arrive at the correctional facility, various factors continue to discourage visitation and make it difficult for visitors to see their incarcerated loved ones (Christian 2005; Trahan and Evans 2020).

In addition to travel time and expenses, family members, significant others, and friends must navigate administrative barriers and the complex process of learning a facility’s rules and procedures to make the most of their brief visits (Trahan and Evans 2020). Because safety and security are paramount, visitors are required to adhere to strict dress codes, pass through metal detectors or scanners, and continually conform to institutional rules and regulations of conduct that can be intimidating and vague yet cause enormous amounts of anxiety and worry (Pleggenkuhle et al. 2018; see also Arditti 2002, 2005; Boppre et al. 2022; Boudin et al. 2013; Braman 2004; Christian 2005; Comfort 2003; Duwe and Clark 2017; Fishman 1990; Garneau and Lehalle 2021). If visitors fail to adhere to institutional rules and regulations, staff can deny entry before a visit (Pleggenkuhle et al. 2018; Trahan and Evans 2020).

However, these rules can vary over time and by institution, and these changes may not always be communicated to visitors regularly (Arditti 2002, 2005; Comfort 2003; Duwe and Clark 2017; Pleggenkuhle et al. 2018). Previous studies have also documented how correctional staff’s treatment of visitors can hinder visitation (Arditti 2002). Recognized as secondary prisonization, this refers to bearing the burden of a less intense version of security rules, surveillance, and confinement on those who visit their incarcerated loved ones (Trahan and Evans 2020), thus making them “quasi-inmates” (Comfort 2003, pp. 79, 103). Aware of the stigma and shame already felt by family members of prisoners, combined with a get-tough mindset that warily views visitation more as a privilege than a right, Comfort (2003) argues that their treatment from arrival to a visit to their departure is analogous to the prisonization of their incarcerated loved ones’ experience.

It is also the process in which the prison alters the routines, relationships, emotions, appearance, and worldview of those who visit (Boppre et al. 2022; Ryan et al. 2025). This process further embeds families in the prison subculture (Comfort 2003) and, in turn, “… doesn’t make it comfortable to go visit” (Boppre et al. 2022, p. 10). As a result, visitation and other prison-related processes become normalized (Boppre et al. 2022). A major consequence of this normalization is that incarcerated persons and their families may feel helpless under the power and control of state authority, due to increased surveillance, degradation from staff, lack of privacy, restrictions on physical contact, long waiting times, and poor visiting conditions that are noisy, crowded, and unsanitary (Boppre et al. 2022; see also Arditti 2012; Comfort 2003, 2008; Fasah 2018; Hutton 2016).

Incarceration is a highly stressful experience not only for prisoners but also for their family and friends. Although several scholars have examined prison visitation from the family member’s perspective (Aiello and McCorkel 2018; Boppre et al. 2022; Casey-Acevedo and Bakken 2002; Christian 2005; Christian and Kennedy 2011; Christian et al. 2006; Comfort 2003, 2008; Hutton 2016; Tartaro and Levy 2017; Tewksbury and DeMichele 2005; Trahan and Evans 2020), more remains to be discovered about how family members navigate and manage the visitation process despite these barriers. There has been recent interest in the interpersonal exchanges between family members and friends of the incarcerated (Tasca et al. 2016), as well as in the formation of prison visitation communities (Trahan and Evans 2020). For instance, using social exchange theory, Trahan and Evans (2020) found that when the correctional facility does not provide accessible information about visitation policies, other visitors may be the only available source of information—both inside and outside of prison. Similar interpersonal exchanges have been documented among visitors through the repeated shared experience of “riding the bus” together to a prison in upstate New York (Christian 2005).

Prison scholars in the United Kingdom have long recognized family members of prisoners as the “forgotten victims” of the criminal justice system (Codd 1998; Light 1993; Light and Campbell 2007; Matthews 1983). Despite the acknowledgment of their struggle, however, research continues to show a lack of provision and responsibility for the needs of prisoners’ families (Light and Campbell 2007). In response to their social exclusion from the public and chronic neglect by correctional departments, some have formed their own support groups (Codd 1998). Therefore, another type of interpersonal exchange and prison visitation community is the creation of support groups. These groups could also provide peer guidance to prisoners’ families (Cox 2019). Support groups exist throughout the U.S., in individual states and cities, but are not always available in some jurisdictions (Boppre et al. 2022). Typically, support groups are initiated by family members or nonprofit agencies and are primarily used on Facebook (Boppre et al. 2022) or in person (Condry 2013; Cox 2019). Others have explored how individuals turn to online support websites, such as Prison Talk Online (PTO), to request and receive support during their loved one’s incarceration (Hinck et al. 2019). Additional findings have demonstrated resilience in their responses to one another, helping them understand and cope with this experience (Hughes-Kirchubel and Buzzanell 2026).

Recent ethnographic explorations have examined online virtual family support groups (Umamaheswar 2024). Drawing on 8 months of observations of meetings and in-depth interviews with family members with incarcerated loved ones (N-27), Umamaheswar (2024) shows how family members cultivated and leveraged networks of support to develop social connections, knowledge, skills, and resources needed to cope with familial imprisonment. To begin, participants described the stigma and shame that motivated them to seek out support. Next, Umamaheswar (2024) explores how the online virtual family support group offered participants opportunities to construct social capital by connecting them with others in similar positions. In turn, participants converted this social capital into a distinctive form of what Umamaheswar (2024) describes as cultural capital by relying on one another to gain the knowledge, skills, and resources they need to navigate and manage institutional bureaucracies as they confronted the everyday challenges of familial incarceration.

Only a select few have examined the direct experiences of family members active in face-to-face support groups and how these experiences may shape their perceptions of visitation and their relationship with their incarcerated loved one (Condry 2013). Research on these support groups has provided an initial understanding of the benefits of membership and how family members of prisoners can address their emotional and informational needs (Condry 2013; Pocinki 2024; Sharratt et al. 2014).

For instance, acknowledging the strong focus on support groups for children of incarcerated parents, Condry (2013) is one of the few to consider support groups for family members (identified here as “self-help organisations” [sic]) and the benefits of membership. Condry (2013) interviewed mothers, sisters, wives, a daughter, a grandmother, an aunt, and a father, all recruited through a support group for families of serious offenders called Aftermath. This group was created when its founder, through volunteer work supporting victims of crime, became aware of the need to support relatives of serious offenders (Condry 2013). One participant described members of this group as “There’s people [in Aftermath] in the same boat. They know exactly what’s hitting your heart, what you’re thinking, what you’re feeling, how you feel, and it’s just amazing to have somebody there that knows exactly” (Condry 2013, p. 154). Although this group is no longer active, Condry (2013) concluded that, during its tenure, interviews with members reflected progress and a sense of moving forward from an initial point of devastation, with much of that progress driven by the family members themselves. These individuals reported taking pride in the strength of their prisoner–family relationships and the level of family bonds maintained (Condry 2013).

Another support method introduced in the UK is the Offenders’ Families Helpline, a free and confidential service that provides information and emotional support to family members and friends of offenders at any stage of the criminal justice system (Sharratt et al. 2014). The Helpline received 10,000 telephone calls and 145,000 unique visitors to its website. Researchers evaluated the extent to which the Helpline met families’ support needs, as well as its impacts and outcomes on family members. Results showed that the Helpline was a crucial, highly effective service in meeting families’ support needs, with four themes emerging.

First, many respondents felt they had “… nowhere else to turn” and experienced relief and reassurance when they discovered the Helpline (Sharratt et al. 2014, p. 33). A second theme that emerged was that by calling the Helpline, family members could have several of their questions about the criminal justice system answered, thus meeting their informational needs. Third, the Helpline helped families cope by recognizing their emotional needs. Finally, the fourth theme discovered was that simply knowing that the Offenders’ Families Helpline existed seemed to make a difference. Families reported that the Helpline team listened to their concerns and perceived the experience as genuine and non-judgmental (Sharratt et al. 2014).

Findings also demonstrate that while the Helpline helped fill an essential gap in support services, particularly by alleviating negative emotional consequences, it does not always guarantee success in meeting family support needs. Although Sharratt et al. (2014) concluded that further research was needed to understand the Helpline website’s impacts and outcomes on family members, their findings show how family members of prisoners build and use support networks to meet their informational and emotional needs.

More recently, Pocinki (2024) interviewed respondents across the United States (N = 13) who created support groups for families of incarcerated individuals. Some of these participants also held executive leadership roles within these organizations (Pocinki 2024). Describing the experience of doing time on the outside, they remind us that support for family members and those on the outside becomes necessary because of the relationship changes, stigma, and psychological harms that result from having a loved one incarcerated (Pocinki 2024). Notably, Pocinki (2024) frames incarceration in times of loss and grief, and specifically, disenfranchised grief. Losing a member to incarceration is a common shock to communities in the United States, which suggests disenfranchised grief is a systemic social issue (Pocinki 2024). Overall, their findings show how support groups provide space for families to grieve without judgment, which can assist in re-framing the grief experience, as well as provide resources, tools, and a community for coping with a loss that is not typically acknowledged by the public—losing someone to incarceration (Pocinki 2024). Two major themes emerged surrounding the role of support groups: (1) generating resilience through community, and (2) enfranchising grief. Pocinki (2024) describes how support groups can act as framing institutions by structuring how families respond to incarceration, teaching them how to adjust their emotions, finances, and responsibilities, and combating the stigma they face from others. Furthermore, support group leaders act as framing agents, helping members interpret incarceration, reduce stigma, and legitimize feelings that may not be understood or reciprocated in most social settings (Pocinki 2024). Participants ultimately indicated that building a collective identity by creating and maintaining a support group increased relief and validation, decreased isolation, and strengthened their drive to help others in their position (Pocinki 2024).

This qualitative study examines how participation in support groups for prisoners’ families can not only help navigate and manage barriers to visitation but also aid in addressing these barriers through their involvement. This study contributes to the prison visitation literature through participant observation of a Midwest support group for prisoners’ families (Citizens for Prison Reform [CPR]) and in-depth interviews with some of its members. Additional participants, not active in CPR, were involved in at least one type of support group for prisoners’ families, including faith-based fellowships, support groups for particular offenses, participation in social media (public and private Facebook groups and Twitter/X), and/or additional online forums.

A total of 31 interviews were conducted with parents (54.8%), spouses/intimate partners (41.9%), and siblings (3.2%) with incarcerated loved ones about their involvement in support groups, how they use them, advantages and disadvantages of membership, and if membership helped address barriers to visitation. Using grounded theory, the results identify three themes participants described as ways support group membership helped address barriers to visitation: informational support, emotional support, and advocating for (policy) change. These were shaped by the advantages and disadvantages of membership (normalization, learning strategies, motivation, and emotional burnout). Over time, several participants took on leadership roles in these support groups, became more active in prison reform and advocacy, and helped facilitate support group meetings. This led some family members to address visitation barriers through statewide policy efforts, such as participating in Annual Legislative Education Day and/or voluntarily serving on the Family Advisory Board (FAB).

More importantly, findings also demonstrate that prisoners’ families do not necessarily have to face barriers to visitation and the incarceration experience alone, and that, by “rallying together,” social change can be made. More importantly, family members of prisoners can be a vital source of knowledge and information for correctional departments and other criminal justice stakeholders, yet they continue to remain unrecognized and thus underutilized. The importance of correctional systems listening to prisoners’ family members and forming working relationships with them is discussed, along with policy suggestions that promote family connectedness.

2. Materials and Methods

Expanding on previous examinations of prison visitation from the perspective of family members (Boppre et al. 2022; Christian 2005; Garneau and Lehalle 2021; Tasca et al. 2016; Trahan and Evans 2020) and support group involvement (Condry 2013), this study used a qualitative research design. Data collection occurred in two phases. Phase I focused on exploring the topic and collecting data primarily through participant observation of the support group, Citizens for Prison Reform (CPR). Preliminary results confirmed concepts and themes previously identified in the literature and informed the development of additional research questions about barriers to visitation and support group membership among prisoners’ families.

Phase II allowed for additional participant observation of CPR meetings, as well as related support groups and prison reform/advocacy groups. In-depth interview responses from family members of prisoners involved in these groups were also collected during this phase of the study. The following research questions were asked:

• How do family members of prisoners navigate and manage the visitation process?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of membership in a support group for family members of prisoners?
• How can membership in a support group help address barriers to visitation?
• How can membership in a support group assist in addressing visitation policy?

2.1. Procedure

Data for the current study come from a convenience sample of approximately 100 h of participant observation of support groups for prisoners’ families and interviews with some of their members (N = 31). As this involves data from human subjects, university IRB approval was obtained (IRB-151022).

Support groups were identified by contacting organizations for family members and friends with incarcerated loved ones in Michigan. Selection criteria for support groups required that: (1) The group focus on serving prisoners’ families and/or have a mission related to the prisoner–family relationship; (2) Support group members must be at least 18 years old to be included for observation; and (3) The group be free and open to the public to attend. This led to the discovery of Citizens for Prison Reform (CPR), a grassroots nonprofit organization founded in 2012 and voluntarily led by prisoners’ family members. Observations of similar support groups and/or prison reform/advocacy initiatives included the Family Advisory Board (FAB), Michigan Chapter of Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (MI-CURE), and Prison Fellowship (PF).

Interview participants were primarily recruited through a flyer advertisement and through purposive, convenience, and snowball sampling techniques. A hard copy of this flyer was placed on the literature table at monthly CPR meetings and distributed at a PF meeting. A digital copy of this flyer was also posted on public and private Facebook group pages for CPR and related online support groups, such as Humanity for Prisoners (HFP) and Michigan Families Along for the Ride (Michigan Families). Board members of CPR and FAB also distributed copies of this flyer as part of recruitment efforts.

Participants were also recruited in person by asking members of CPR and related support groups if they would be interested in participating in the study during the announcements portion of meetings. Selection criteria for interview participants required that: (1) Participants must be at least 18 years old at the time of the study; (2) Must have a partner or family member currently incarcerated within a state correctional facility, or a partner or family member that has been incarcerated within the past 12 months; (3) Must have visited their incarcerated loved one within the past 12 months; and (4) Must be currently active with a support group for family members of prisoners, or have attended a meeting within the past 12 months. Participants who reported being active in online support groups and/or private Facebook groups for prisoners’ family members were included in the sample.

Using a semi-structured interview guide, participants were asked a variety of open-ended questions about their relationship with their incarcerated loved one, barriers to visitation, their visitation experiences, and support group membership. Interview responses ranged from approximately 45 min to 3 h, with the average interview taking about 100 min to complete (1 h and 47 min). Prior research on prison visitation and informal conversations between the researcher and support group members during monthly CPR meetings informed the development of the interview schedule. Several broad categories provided the starting point for creating questions inductively, including how family members plan or organize their visit (navigating the visitation process); how they handle barriers they face along the way (managing the visitation process); how can being active in a support group aid in addressing barriers to visitation (advantages and disadvantages of support group membership); and how can being involved in a support group aid in addressing prison visitation policies (advocacy).

Participant observation of support group meetings and related events was documented through written field notes, memos, jottings, and sketches to capture the theoretical decision-making process (Maxwell 1996). Documents and handouts made available to support group members were also collected. After each meeting or event ended, field notes and memos were digitally transcribed. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Before transcription began, the researcher listened to the raw audio of the interviews and wrote corresponding memos for each participant. Similarly to participant observation, this process helped generate initial themes from participants’ responses. These memos also helped identify patterns among interview participants.

Data analysis was facilitated by NVivo software and proceeded in several stages. First, the transcripts were read and reread to become familiar with the data and to correct any errors. Second, the data were openly coded (Charmaz 2014) to generate topics, resulting in a range of emergent codes and initial themes related to visitation and support group membership. Upon review and reflection, open codes were refined and further conceptualized through axial coding.

2.2. Sample

A total of 36 observation cases were collected, equating to approximately 100 h of participant observation. Although related support groups were recognized alongside CPR, nearly two-thirds (63.8%) of participant observation data came from monthly CPR meetings and related events. Twenty-three observations were recorded associated with CPR: Seventeen monthly meetings, three annual Legislative Education Day sessions, and three Annual Meeting events. Participant observation data for the remaining third (36.1%) were provided by related support groups and prison reform/advocacy groups: eight quarterly FAB meetings, four bimonthly MI-CURE meetings, and one bimonthly meeting of Prison Fellowship, a religion-based group focusing on prisoner reentry services in the Metro Detroit area.

As members present at CPR meetings and related events were not asked to disclose any personal or identifiable information, attendee demographics such as gender, age, and race could only be observed casually. Regardless, members of CPR presented as being overwhelmingly white (non-Hispanic) and older. Only some people of color (fewer than 5 per meeting) were regularly present at monthly meetings. However, more people of color were present at Legislative Education Day and Annual Meetings because these events were more significant and occurred only annually. Membership appeared to be evenly distributed between female and male attendees. However, headcounts indicated that more females regularly attended monthly meetings. Representation of the CPR Board of Directors is also majority female. Out of thirteen Board members, eight are female, thus comprising two-thirds of the board (61.54%).

A total of 31 interviews were conducted after participants were recruited and met the selection criteria. Interviews were conducted primarily face-to-face (N = 23) at participants’ households. Some interviews could not be conducted face-to-face and were therefore conducted via an online video chat service (N = 3) or over the phone (N = 5). Descriptive statistics for sampled interview participants echo the demographics of participant observation in support group meetings. Overall, the vast majority of participants were female (83.9%) and white/non-Hispanic (80.6%), and most were middle-aged or senior citizens (67.7% were between 50 and 80 years of age). Participants ranged in age from 22 to 81 years, with an average age of 52.9 years. Nearly three-fourths of the sample (70.9%) obtained a baccalaureate degree, and over one-third (35.5%) completed a graduate degree. See Table 1 for the names and demographics of interview participants, including gender, age, race, relationship to their incarcerated loved one, and the support groups they are active in.

Table 1. Interview Participants (N = 31).

Name 1	Gender	Age	Race	Relationship to Incarcerated Loved One	Support Group Membership 2
Alicia	Female	44	Black	Girlfriend/Boyfriend	CPR, FAB
Ann	Female	56	White	Wife/Husband	CPR
Betty	Female	50	White	Fiancée/Fiancé	None
Charles	Male	80	White	Father/Son	CPR
Connie	Female	78	White	Mother/Son	CPR
Denise	Female	53	White	Wife/Husband	HFP
Dilara	Female	61	White	Mother/Son	Michigan Families, CPR
Edith	Female	67	Black	Mother/Son	Prison Fellowship
Elaine	Female	45	White	Girlfriend/Boyfriend	HFP
Francine	Female	22	Black	Girlfriend/Boyfriend	CPR (Facebook)
Geri	Female	60	White	Mother/Daughter	HFP
Heidi	Female	44	Other	Wife/Husband	CPR (Facebook)
Jacob	Male	69	White	Father/Son	CPR, MCJ
Jane	Female	32	White	Wife/Husband	CPR
Jenae	Female	27	White	Fiancé/Fiancée	HFP, Michigan Families
Jordan	Male	68	White	Father/Son	FAB
Justine	Female	37	White	Daughter/Father	HFP
Katherine	Female	62	White	Mother/Daughter	CPR (Facebook)
Keith	Male	56	White	Father/Son	CPR, FAB, FPP
Kristy	Female	70	White	Mother/Son	CPR, MCJ
Maggie	Female	40	White	Wife/Husband	HFP
Marlene	Female	57	Black	Mother/Son	DPTF
Melanie	Female	41	White	Wife/Husband	CPR (Facebook)
Melinda	Female	50	White	Mother/Daughter	CPR (Facebook)
Meredith	Female	55	White	Mother/Son	CPR, MCJ
Monica	Female	63	White	Mother/Son	CPR, FAB
Morgan	Male	51	White	Father/Son	CPR (Facebook)
Reba	Female	55	Hispanic	Sister/Brother	CPR
Sarah	Female	55	White	Mother/Son	CPR (Facebook)
Sharon	Female	61	White	Wife/Husband	HFP
Theresa	Female	31	White	Wife/Husband	HFP

¹ To maintain privacy, all study participants (N = 31) were given a pseudonym. ² See Appendix A for full description of each support group as well as acronyms. While over half of participants (N = 19) are involved in Citizens for Prison Reform (CPR) in one form or another, participants who only utilized their Facebook page are denoted by the label CPR (Facebook).

The sample included various relationships. Over half the sample were in parent–child relationships (54.8%), most of whom were mothers visiting their sons (25.8%). The second-highest parent–child relationship was fathers visiting their sons (16.1%), representing the prisoner–family relationship for all male participants interviewed (N = 5). Three mothers (9.7%) visited their daughters, and one daughter visited her incarcerated father. Nearly the other half of the sample (41.9%) comprised participants in a spousal relationship or intimate partnership with a prisoner. Out of the thirteen participants with an incarcerated partner, most were wives visiting their husbands (25.8%), while three were girlfriends visiting their boyfriends (9.7%). The remaining two women were fiancées visiting their soon-to-be (incarcerated) husbands (6.5%).

Participants were also asked what security level their incarcerated loved one was housed in at the time of the interview, as the number of visitation opportunities, including days and times, is determined by the level assigned by the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). According to MDOC Visiting Standards (2018), prisoners housed in Level I are permitted eight visits per month, any or all of which can take place on the weekend; Level II are allowed seven visits per month, but only two of the allowable visits may be on the weekend; Level IV are permitted five visits per month; Level V are allowed only four visits a month, similar to prisoners placed in Segregation. Those housed in Security Threat Groups (STG) I and II are restricted to three or two monthly visits, respectively.

A majority of sample participants whose incarcerated loved ones were housed were at the lowest levels, Level I (35.5%) and Level II (61.3%). On the other hand, nearly one-fourth of participants (N = 7) disclosed that over the years they have visited their incarcerated loved one, their security level has dropped from Level IV to Level II or Level II to Level I. Although this decrease in security level may have changed visiting days or hours for some, all participants reported that the number of times they could visit per month increased at the time of their interview.

2.3. Theoretical Framework

Constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz 2014) provided the theoretical framework for both data collection and analysis, enabling the interpretation and explanation of the identified patterns and themes. Constructivist grounded theory adopts the inductive, comparative, emergent, and open-ended approach originally developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967), but it challenges the method’s positivist epistemology and rigidity, calling instead for a more flexible approach that also centers the researchers involved (Charmaz 2014). In other words, this theory recognizes that concepts and theories are constructed by researchers out of narratives that are in turn constructed by research participants who are trying to explain and make sense of their experiences and/or lives, both to the researcher and themselves (Charmaz 2014; Corbin and Strauss 2008).

Charmaz (2014) and several others (Clarke 2005, 2007, 2012; Conrad 1990; Ellis 1995; Richardson 1993) have argued that researchers are a part of what they study, not separate from it, and thus analytic directions arise from how researchers interact with and interpret their comparisons and emerging analyses rather than from external recommendations or from inherent meanings in data. Constructivist grounded theory also critiques the notion of a neutral observer and a value-free expert (Charmaz 2014). Charmaz (2014) reiterates: “If, instead, we start with the assumption that social reality is multiple, processual, and constructed, then we must take the researcher’s position, privileges, perspective and interactions into account as an inherent part of the research reality It, too, is a construction” (p. 13). Therefore, research acts are not given; they are constructed through our positionality (Charmaz 2014).

2.4. Positionality of the Researcher

Data were originally collected by a white female who began attending CPR meetings a few years before the study was developed. The researcher’s demographics differ from the participants’, mainly in age, education level, and income. Notably, the researcher has experienced parental incarceration; however, they did not have first-hand experience with visitation. Because of this lived experience, they were invited to serve on the Family Advisory Board (FAB), which meets quarterly with the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) to discuss visitation and family connectedness policies and practices. This shared experience, along with the study’s participatory design, likely helped build rapport with participants but may also have shaped the interpretation of the findings.

As traditional scientific approaches encourage the researcher to be as distant or “neutral” as possible, they tend to remain cold and unavailable to oppressed and/or disempowered individuals or groups. When research is conducted in this conventional manner, it does not necessarily yield accurate information about subjugated populations. Often stigmatized and ignored by politicians and the public, family members and friends of prisoners arguably constitute a stigmatized population who are “socially marginalised” [sic] (Jardine 2017) yet may be able to enact social change by increasing their knowledge and power together as a group. The researcher’s positionality as a support group member, combined with their unique standpoint as a child of an incarcerated parent, brings a certain kind of situated knowledge (Haraway 1988, 2003) to the research design, data collection, and analysis process. Thus, it is crucial to address these positions and reflect on how each role, or combination of roles, can impact or construct (Charmaz 2014) this research.

3. Results

A total of 30 interview participants reported being active in a support group (in person or online). Each of the included participants had varying levels of involvement and membership. Table 2 describes the frequency of themes and subthemes related to support group membership that appeared across interview transcripts. Results from qualitative coding demonstrate how prisoners’ families who are active in support groups navigate and manage the visitation process together through three themes: informational support, emotional support, and learning how to advocate for (policy) change.

Table 2. Support Group Membership by Interview Participants (N = 30) ¹.

	Frequency	Percent
Visitor Experience
Novice (First incarceration)	27	90.0%
Expert (Have experienced one or more sentences)	4	13.3%
Seasoned (Have visited one year or more)	29	96.7%
Support Group Membership
Citizens for Prison Reform (CPR)	12	40.0%
CPR (Facebook)	7	23.3%
Detroit People’s Task Force (DPTF)	1	3.3%
Family Advisory Board (FAB)	4	13.3%
Humanity for Prisoners (HFP)	7	23.3%
Michigan Citizens for Justice (MCJ)	3	10.0%
Michigan Families Along for the Ride (online)	3	10.0%
Prison Fellowship (PF)	1	3.3%
Other online groups	2	6.7%
Advantages and Disadvantages of Membership (RQ2)
Normalization	8	26.7%
Learning Strategies	13	43.3%
Motivation	12	40.0%
Emotional Burnout	6	20.0%
Addressing Barriers Through Support Groups (RQ3)
Informational Support	22	73.3%
Emotional Support	10	33.3%
Advocating for (Policy) Change	13	43.3%
Addressing Barriers Through Policy (RQ4)
Active in Legislative Education Day (LED)	10	33.3%
Active in Family Advisory Board (FAB)	4	13.3%

¹ Out of 31 interview participants, only 1 admitted to not using any support groups to aid in the visitation process. Thus, frequencies and percentages were calculated based on the 30 interview participants who utilized support groups.

This is possible through the interplay of the various advantages and disadvantages of support group membership. Although participants utilized different support groups and for a variety of reasons, including those only available online, three main advantages of membership were recognized: normalization, learning strategies, and motivation. While few disadvantages were identified, one major drawback was the emotional burnout experienced by longtime members and those serving in leadership positions within CPR and FAB. As emotional support temporarily soothed some of the emotional barriers to visitation participants expressed, additional complexities and challenges remained in maintaining their relationship not only with their incarcerated loved one, but with outside family members as well.

Results will be largely discussed within the first three themes. First, informational support centers on the information and learning strategies support group members share during meetings to aid in navigating and managing the visitation process and what helps them complete a visit with their incarcerated loved one. Second, emotional support focuses on how family members can better understand the criminal justice (and carceral) system, as well as their relationship with their incarcerated loved one. Third, while participants ultimately determine their level of involvement and how they use support groups, it was observed that longtime support group members and those who assumed leadership roles began to advocate for (policy) change by addressing barriers to visitation through criminal justice policy and reform efforts. Related support group events (Legislative Education Day [LED]) and working groups (Family Advisory Board [FAB]) are briefly discussed; however, the third theme of advocacy will be further explored in a separate manuscript.

3.1. Informational Support

One of the first skills family members gain from support group membership is informational support. Interview participants described informational support as the knowledge and insight gained from coping with the overwhelming experience of navigating the visitation process and incarceration in general. Monthly CPR meetings, as well as their Facebook page, allow members to request and share information about the incarceration experience, including information related to the visitation process and communicating with their incarcerated loved one. Family members would also use meetings to discuss the various barriers to visitation they have faced along the way. During these discussions, it is common for other members to share which strategies have worked for them—or have not—when visiting, and specifically which facility, at what time, and with whom. Sharing these strategies, both the good and the bad, helps family members learn from one another and, in turn, become more knowledgeable about the visitation process.

Twenty-two (N = 22) interview participants (73.3%) reported receiving informational support from support groups, whether in person or online. For example, two participants both expressed how much they have learned by becoming involved with CPR over the past couple of years:

I have learned from the meetings. I have learned from information handouts, speakers, experiences, etc. That leads me to looking up more information and becoming more familiar with the MDOC website, their monthly newsletter, and their policy directives. I had no idea 11 years ago!—Charles (80M, Father who visits son).

You learn from each other. You tell stories and … lately we have lots of experience that we can give to other people who don’t have the experience. But in the beginning, it was the other way around. So, learning visiting rules and mail policies was helpful.—Jacob (69M, Father who visits son).

Online support groups were also helpful in providing informational support. For instance, Melanie (41F, Wife who visits husband) described how useful the CPR Facebook page was. She could not attend monthly meetings but utilized it regularly and read the information posted and shared to their feed. Melanie appreciates that she at least has this outlet, as it helps keep her informed:

I’m just really glad I found it. Hearing the people and what they’re talking about, you know, “What’s your experience with this or whatever?” It’s someone listening and someone that can do something. I can learn things about the prison system and things I wouldn’t know how to look up, but I think I should know.

Heidi (44F, Wife who visits husband) stays connected through other private Facebook groups geared towards prisoners’ wives. Although she mentioned how she “stays away from the drama,” she still finds their posts useful for information:

I’m in several groups, and I take it or leave it depending on what’s going on. I stay connected to the ones in the state—not for the drama or the gossip—but just for the information. Because, unfortunately, there is no outgoing information from the DOC. MDOC is not forthcoming about things the way a bunch of nosy-ass prison wives can be, right? [laughs] So if somebody hears something here—and you take it with a grain of salt—but there’s probably some truth to it. So, I stay connected.

Jenae (27F, Fiancée who visits her intimate partner) is also involved in this group, and she explained how staying connected helped her navigate the visitation process: “It gives you insight because these girls are located around the world. We help each other out and navigate so much through each other. It always helps. We’re always navigating in that way.”

In addition to providing informational support for the visitation process, each monthly CPR meeting focuses on a specific topic related to incarceration and features a speaker. Speakers have ranged from leaders of other support groups and organizations, former state legislators, judges, formerly incarcerated people, community health workers, and mental health specialists. Some topics covered include drug addiction and community responses to treatment, mental health and incarceration-related trauma, restorative justice, the commutation process, the transition to parole, and issues surrounding sex offenders and the registry.

Another advantage to gaining informational support is that inviting these speakers has also helped members become more knowledgeable about mass incarceration and the criminal justice system. Reba (55F, Sister who visits her brother) expressed that she appreciates obtaining accurate information and increasing her knowledge through the invited speakers: “It’s a learning curve. With CPR, you have everything spelled out. And those meetings—I really benefit from those and the speakers we’ve had.”

Informational support also came from the learning strategies that CPR and other support group members would share during meetings or post in online spaces. Nearly half of the sample (43.3%) described instances where learning strategies from their support group involvement, whether in person or online. In turn, these advantageous tips and tricks helped family members challenge the barriers they face each time they visit, especially those related to institutional barriers and inconsistent rules and regulations. For example, once he finally got connected with CPR, Keith (56M, Father who visits his son) explained how he became more aware of visitation issues and how they can vary from facility to facility. This helped him prepare to travel to a new prison when his son was transferred to a facility much further away, requiring more time and cost to travel:

It made me more aware that there are a lot more issues going on out there at different facilities that I had no idea about. It made me more apt to make sure I cover all my bases when he’s transferred before I walk in the door, whereas before, I might not have, so it’s changed in that way. I make sure I have all the details when I’m going to a new place to visit.

Over time, Keith transitioned to a seasoned visitor, and due to his position on the CPR Executive Board, he became a trusted resource for other family members of prisoners. Meredith (55F, Mother who visits her son) stated how she was aware of CPR when her son first went in and how she initially reached out to Keith for help: “I sent him an email, and he wrote a lengthy response that had lots of helpful information in it. While I had already found this information online, I appreciated how organized it was and the time he took to write back to me.”

CPR monthly meetings provided the time and space for family members to come together and discuss issues related to maintaining social bonds with your incarcerated loved one, as well as the impacts of incarceration on family households. For instance, during one meeting, members discussed how a 15 minute phone call can cost up to $15 in Michigan. Lois (CPR President) shared in that meeting, as well as a quarterly FAB meeting held the very next month, how she would purchase credits at the maximum amounts to avoid a higher surcharge: “Lois mentioned that in order to save some money, she deposits the maximum amount of money possible ($99.99) to pay a processing fee of $6.95. Any deposits over $100.00 require an $8.95 processing fee” (FAB quarterly meeting, 27 January 2017).

In another monthly CPR meeting, she highlighted other topics and strategies the group has discussed that other support groups have not: “PTSD and post-incarceration TSD; how to makes families aware that ‘it’s not over’ and life continues; the need to recognized psychological/emotional barriers when incarcerated loved ones are released back home; and connecting offender success, reentry, families, and mental health together” (CPR monthly meeting 16 June 2018).

Online support groups also provided a space for prisoners’ families to learn from one another. This was the case for Heidi and the private Facebook page she used geared towards prisoners’ wives: “I think it was helpful in the beginning just to try to figure out what to expect when I had never done this before and didn’t know what to expect.”

3.2. Emotional Support

As family members continue to navigate the visitation process, they may not always have a successful visit. When feelings of strain and frustration arise due to secondary prisonization, CPR members can offer each other emotional support. One-third of the sample (33.3%) reported receiving emotional support through membership in a support group. Related themes highlight various emotional support prisoners’ families provide one another in relation to visitation and the incarceration experience: normalization, motivation, and how a constant performance of emotional labor can lead to some participants feeling exhaustion and emotional burnout. They also faced complexities and challenges in maintaining their relationship with their incarcerated loved ones. It did not help that maintaining the prisoner–family relationship did not always result in a healthy relationship with outside family members, both immediate and extended. At the beginning of each meeting, CPR members are encouraged to introduce themselves and share a little about who they are, their incarcerated loved one, and what brought them to the group. These introductions usually lead to members sharing their personal experiences related to the visitation process and the impacts of incarceration. While some updates from members are positive, most express anger, frustration, and disbelief toward the negative things they have encountered when trying to visit or dealing with prison administration: “It’s gotten so depressing that I’m starting to believe inhumanity is part of the process” (CPR monthly meeting, 21 July 2018).

To help alleviate this negativity, members offer encouragement and motivate one another by sharing similar experiences or strategies that have elicited a more favorable response or led to a more successful visit. This allowed for bonding between members as they learned how to manage barriers to visitation together. Keith, a CPR and FAB Executive Board member, recognized their powerful potential as a group: “We [family members] have no leverage. We don’t have political power or formal representation with MDOC. But together, we can make a difference.” Lois reiterated this sentiment during a monthly meeting recognizing her relationship with other CPR members: “… a lot of these people are my family” (CPR monthly meeting, 19 May 2018). CPR has also hosted sharing circle meetings to discuss how family members are feeling and to conduct an emotional check-in with one another. These types of meetings can help alleviate the pain and anger felt by some participants. At the very least, sharing circle meetings allowed family members to acknowledge their emotions and vent in a safe space.

Other support groups also provided emotional support. While she did not necessarily need the informational support, Edith (67F) joined Prison Fellowship for emotional support after her son was incarcerated for a second time. She appreciated being able to reach out to fellow members in times of need as other members have reached out to her: “That is why finding a support group is so crucial. We need to have compassion for one another. One thing—you never know—it could happen to you. Getting in trouble is so easy.”

Like informational support, online support groups also provide emotional support for their members. Melinda (50F), who visits her daughter, used both the CPR Facebook page and Michigan Families Along for the Ride, especially after realizing how many others were in a similar situation. She enjoyed seeing others getting involved in prisoner advocacy, as she has previously been an advocate for survivors of domestic violence. Melinda explains how she will share specific posts to spread awareness and support to others: “It’s refreshing to me the two pages I have found. You know, I’ll share this on my page, and maybe somebody else can understand. Somebody I know.” Heidi appreciates the support available to her through the prisoners’ wives’ group she is a part of. Although she does not regularly engage in this Facebook group, she stays connected and realized that a support system is always there if she needs it:

When it works well, there’s a lot of support. I think it’s a place where people can go and vent and stress and like, “Hey, this is normal. What do you think? Have you gone through this? Who’s on lockdown? That kind of stuff.”

Maggie (40F), who is involved with Humanity for Prisoners, started her own Facebook page to bring awareness to her husband’s case and other wrongful conviction cases. She describes how people commenting and sharing her page can provide emotional support for her and her husband:

They like to, you know, come on our page to send us an email or message of support, and that’s really encouraging because it’s not just me saying, “Yes, my husband is innocent.” There are people who have sent us messages asking, “How in the hell did this even happen?” So that encourages me. It helps me keep going forward.

3.2.1. Normalization

Akin to Condry’s (2013) discussion of how family members would engage in “normalising [sic] accounts” of the violent crimes committed by their incarcerated loved ones, support group members reported a feeling of normalization and recognizing that it is okay to have a person you love in prison. Having a sense of normalcy assisted participants in coping with feelings of shame, stigma, and guilt related to having an incarcerated loved one and how it has impacted their lives. This was the case for approximately a quarter of participants (N = 8, 26.7%) who reported experiencing a sense of normalcy through support group membership. For example, Charles (80M) and Connie (78F), a married couple who visit their son, had never experienced the criminal justice system before and their son’s incarceration shocked them. Feeling secretive and protective of this information, Connie eventually accepted their situation as “the new normal” and that they must figure out how to maintain a relationship with their son while he is in prison. Joining CPR has helped them with this process. Connie shared how she and her husband’s lives have changed, but talking about it with others who are going through the same thing helps:

This is the new normal. Our world was turned upside down when our son went to prison. And about two years later, our daughter died from pancreatic cancer. So, we are trying to normalize the catastrophic situations that are our lives. These are our lives. But it helps a lot regarding normalizing—to talk with others. I think Citizens for Prison Reform is unique in that its big focus is to be able to talk. Whether it’s before, after, or during the meeting—to be able to talk and to understand. If we were to tell a neighbor, they would have no understanding. In fact, they might not believe us. We choose very carefully who we talk with.

Viewing CPR as her family, Monica (63F) explained how other members encouraged her not to be ashamed about her son’s imprisonment. Her feelings of shame and stigma have subsided a bit, allowing her to feel more “normal” about the situation: “I feel a bit more normal because there are other people that can actually relate to what I’m going through, which is really nice.” Jacob (69M) and Kristy (70F), another married couple who visit their son, also felt this way when they initially joined CPR, but more so when they got involved with Michigan Citizens for Justice (MCJ). This helped them specifically connect with other family members who have an incarcerated loved one with a sex offense or who is on the sex offender registry list. Because they are cautious in what groups they involve themselves in and the people they socialize with, finding MCJ in addition to CPR was satisfying for them:

There is some shame involved, and you don’t feel that free to talk to the average citizen about it … so finding a group of like-minded people where you can talk about it—the years, the problems—and they will understand is very satisfying. Plus, I’m hoping that by having people in numbers coalesce around an issue, perhaps things can be improved or changed. That we can advocate for change.

Edith found similar support and a sense of normalcy when she joined Prison Fellowship. Feeling a mixture of shame, anger, and embarrassment, becoming a member of this group helped her accept her current situation:

A lot of times, you feel that stigma of having someone incarcerated, and when you’re with these groups, they make it okay for you to love whoever your person is—and you need that. You need to know that it’s okay that you love this person and that you’re not going to give up on them.

Although she does not attend monthly CPR meetings, normalization was also a part of online support groups. Jenae explained how private Facebook groups and other social media outlets have helped her connect with others, particularly women, in similar situations. She explained what she gets out of these online groups and how helpful they are for her:

There’s a lot of support because all these people—they don’t judge you. You know you can talk about “This is what happened at the visit today …” and “Does anybody have an idea of who I can contact to take care of this problem or incident that I just had?” They’re resourceful, you know. They’ll be like, “You need to write this person, you need to explain the situation, and you need to do this, and they don’t judge you. They give you support and advice, and it’s really—it’s so much easier. Before, I wanted to talk about my visit, but nobody understood. These women you can talk to. It’s good to talk to people that understand.

This group was also helpful for Heidi, which helped her cope with her husband’s incarceration as she was also concerned about judgment from others now that she is a “prison wife.”

But it got me through for a while because then, at least, I was around some level of normalcy, and because nobody in my world knew, I didn’t have anything about it that was normal or accepted, and it was really lonely for that period of time.

3.2.2. Motivation

Coming to terms with the normality of having an incarcerated loved one led to some participants providing words of motivation through a shared understanding of their situation (N = 12). When family members were feeling sad, frustrated, or apathetic about the visitation process and the challenges of having a loved one in prison, others were there to listen and provide advice and encouragement. Thus, another advantage that helped provide emotional support was the motivation family members continually offer one another through support group membership. Edith recognized the motivation she received from other members of Prison Fellowship: “From going to these meetings, I learned that they need this support, you know, to keep their heads on straight. It’s important on both sides to keep each other going.”

Keeping each other going was a sentiment that motivated others to stay involved in support groups and give back. Being able to share the knowledge gained from visiting his son with others motivated Keith to retain membership with CPR and stay involved:

Even if there’s nothing specific happening or working towards anything specific in any given moment, it still inspires me … just the fact that there are so many people out there every day dealing with this, and even though I know it—going in there and hearing them and talking about things that other people are doing—even if I’m not directly involved—it still inspires me. Even if it’s just me answering an e-mail from somebody that no one’s ever going to know about—it still gives me that extra little kick in the butt, so I think personal inspiration is really where it’s at for me.

Kristy echoed this sentiment and explained how she enjoyed being able to share her knowledge and pay it forward to others:

Three things I get from the support group are the emotional support, the informational support, and the honor and gratitude that I feel for being able to help other people. That I’ve been put in a situation where I can help someone else makes me feel good to be able to help someone else. Finally, that together, we are more powerful and maybe change something.

Notably, even when family members feel discouraged by the visitation process, Lois reminded other CPR members of the importance of recognizing when they can help another family: “I know it’s discouraging when we can’t move forward, but … these are the moments that help me keep going.”

A few participants (N = 3) even went so far as to express how vital their support group membership is, describing it as a “lifeline” or “lifesaver” for them. This helped them better cope with an incarcerated loved one and helped motivate them to maintain visitation. Monica explained:

It’s a lifesaver! Because if I have questions or say, “This is what happened …” or “Have you encountered this at this facility?” or “Give me some input on how I should handle this officer? Should I report this, or is there going to be retaliation?” At least you’ve got something you can throw these ideas out at.

Edith used similar language when describing her membership with Prison Fellowship: “Like I said, it was my lifeline. Everybody who has somebody incarcerated needs to be a part of a support group because it just makes a difference in how you’re able to maneuver your life because your life is different.”

3.2.3. Emotional Burnout

While few disadvantages of support group membership were recognized by participants, one negative aspect was emotional burnout. One-fifth of participants (N = 6) reported experiencing burnout and questioned how long they could continue in their leadership roles due to the additional emotional labor they performed for other family members who asked for help, as well as for their own incarcerated loved ones. For instance, one CPR monthly meeting (21 July 2018) was devoted to discussing emotional burnout and how family members could address it. Suggestions included: “Consolidating support group efforts with other community groups and statewide organizations for assistance to possibly achieve strength in numbers through recruitment efforts.”

Lois, who created CPR in 2012 and served as President up until 2019, recognized how “… families have been on their own when it comes to navigating and managing visitation” (CPR monthly meeting, 19 May 2018) yet began questioning her capacity to keep devoting time and energy to both the group and the cause. This led her and other CPR board members to hold a special monthly meeting to address burnout and how to cope with it. While the group did not come up with any concrete solutions, one member overheard at the following month’s meeting seemed to sum up the group’s feelings after years of attempting to bring attention to family connectedness through various reform and advocacy efforts: “The lack of success is very draining.” (CPR monthly meeting, 16 June 2018).

Family members of prisoners already perform high amounts of emotional labor. For participants active in support groups, and especially those in leadership roles, this led to their constant performance of emotional labor for themselves, their incarcerated loved ones, and other prisoners’ families and their incarcerated loved ones. Recognized as seasoned visitors and reliable sources of information, Lois (President) and Keith (Vice President) voluntarily serve as the main points of contact for CPR. In their limited spare time, they answer phone calls, emails, and other inquiries from family members in need of assistance. Although he is happy to help, Keith confirms this as one disadvantage of support group membership:

They want it all tied up in a little bow. Just like any other volunteer thing, people will suck every minute out of your day for the rest of your life if you let them. To help them with their one little piece of the pie, you know. So that’s a disadvantage. I can do this, and I can really help, but I can’t do this for everybody. You may be selling people short, but you have no choice, so it adds a whole new dimension to the emotional aspect of you dealing with your thing. Or sometimes people have a legitimate problem, and they want you to go to bat and pitch and bitch about this—and you think, “Well, no, I’ve got my own inmate to worry about having to possibly be retaliated against or my name’s attached to something.” So that’s a whole other dimension most people don’t have to worry about.

Emotional burnout also affected Family Advisory Board (FAB) members. Although the group has been informally meeting with MDOC since 2013, members wondered, “How much more can we do? Are we truly being listened to, or how much of this is just busywork to make ourselves feel like change is occurring?” (Jordan, FAB quarterly meeting, 19 May 2017). Heidi, who was planning on joining FAB when it was created, realized how immersed she has become in the incarceration experience and decided to take a step back to reassess her priorities:

I was going to be part of the Family Advisory Board as an out-of-state person. My opinion was needed, but it was really hard for me to get to meetings. So, I try to get involved in those ways to make some changes, and it’s ironic because I’m so sick of prison, I am so sick of prison. And yet, I have all of this that I have to do something with, so I end up completely surrounded.

Some participants discussed some of the complexities and challenges in maintaining their relationship with their incarcerated loved ones and how this largely led to a healthy relationship with outside family members. For instance, some family members described how they have a greater appreciation for time once they sat down with their incarcerated loved one, a few others (N = 5) admitted how committing all this time to visiting and maintaining a relationship with them simultaneously took time away from other activities and being present for additional family roles. Dilara (61F, Mother who visits her son) explained:

I can only visit him on weekends, and it takes a whole day to have a visit. Time is a barrier because I work during the week and it’s so far away to visit, which leaves me little time to get things done around the house and see other family members. All my family is, you know, in other cities. So it limits my contact with them, too.

Reba comes from a large family and shares how adhering to her visitation schedule took time away from her other family members and even time away from her own children:

It took away a lot of [outside] family time. You have to plan accordingly; you might not be able to attend a family outing or a family picnic because your loved one wants to see you. I never wanted to disappoint my brother and not come. There was a lot of things I missed, or I couldn’t go to that involved my daughters.

These responses indicate that, despite the benefits of quality time during visits, the additional time commitment of the visitation process had a strong potential to take time away from other activities and from devoting time and resources to the family member’s life in the community (Christian et al. 2006). In turn, this could affect the social bonds and social capital available to prisoners’ families due to weaker ties in their community.

At the same time, negative feelings arose for approximately half of the participants, such as anger, resentment, and depression. More importantly, these feelings arose at different times over the course of visitation for different participants. For instance, although Jordan (68M, Father who visits his son) is a longtime visitor, he admitted to experiencing major depression in the past year, which started to affect visits with his son:

I’m always looking forward to seeing my son, so that’s a good thing. Although lately I’ve been in a clinical depression, so I’ve been very concerned about how I’m going to make him feel. So, it’s been more difficult lately going to visit him.

One participant recognized how depressing the situation was but suppressed these feelings in order to be there for her incarcerated son: “It could lead me to be very depressed if I let myself think about it because things seem so hopeless. And I can’t succumb to that. I have to be there to help my son through this” (Dilara). Reba, who had spent 12 years visiting her brother, expressed her anger at the entire situation. Like Edith, she was the sole family member who maintained regular visits. While she admitted she loves her brother, she expressed anger and frustration over dealing with his incarceration in the first place: “I’m so angry. It’s just a mix of thing: ‘How did we get here?’ ‘Why do I have to go and do this?’ ‘I have to be away from home.’ I get myself so worked up that I have stomach problems.”

Experiencing a wide range of emotions led some participants to describe having an incarcerated loved one similar to “being on an emotional rollercoaster.” For instance, Edith admitted she felt sad when she thinks about visiting her son and all the barriers involved in getting there in the first place, but at the same time, she is both happy to see him and nervous that something will go wrong during the visit: “It’s just an emotional roller coaster. You’re trying to enjoy your visit without feeling anxious by looking at the clock on the wall. You also have to mentally and emotionally prepare yourself to leave when it’s time to go. It’s a lot to handle.” These feelings lingered and were constantly on family members’ minds. Connie explained:

My emotions range from sadness to fear. Once in a while I feel grateful for one tiny thing that may have been positive or may have been helpful, but there is a lot of fear, apprehension and what’s going to happen next. The unknown. And it just lingers.

Even once their incarcerated loved ones were released, participants’ emotions remained. Reba shared how she started to see a therapist in the past couple of years and continues to do so now that her brother has been released on parole: “Therapy! Therapy, oh my gosh. I feel like I had a nervous breakdown when he went to prison. I don’t remember certain parts of it, and some parts I do. Sometimes it felt like a dream. It was so stressful. Even now it’s like you’re on an emotional rollercoaster.”

Findings related to emotional support and burnout demonstrate that in addition to the physical barriers of distance, cost, time, and institutional barriers, prisoners’ families must deal with negotiating a range of emotions (Tewksbury and DeMichele 2005) that can arise related to the incarceration experience. This confirms how incarceration can be a stressful and disruptive experience for family members (Hairston and Lockett 1987), often forcing them into a state of emotional crisis (Sack et al. 1976; Schwartz and Weintraub 1974). Despite some participants reporting positive feelings, maintaining visitation also produced levels of strain for both the inmate and visitor (Arditti 2002; Christian 2005; Fishman 1990; Pleggenkuhle et al. 2018) as well as feelings of anxiety, worry and mental exhaustion (Pleggenkuhle et al. 2018; see Christian 2005; Comfort 2003, 2008). At one point, Reba likened her incarceration experience to posttraumatic stress disorder: “That has been one of the biggest, hardest things I’ve put my family through. My health has deteriorated because of all this. I feel like I have PTSD.”

3.3. Advocating for (Policy) Change

Once informational and emotional support was gained, it was observed how longtime support group members and those who assumed leadership roles in support groups eventually formed a politicized identity by learning how to become advocates for their incarcerated loved one. Interview participants discussed how they feel obliged to give back to others, share the information and knowledge they have gained through their involvement, and rally together for social change. Nearly half the sample (43.3%) reported being involved in prison reform and advocacy efforts, including CPR’s Annual Legislative Education Day (33.3%) and the Family Advisory Board (13.3%). A more detailed account of these advocacy efforts will be explored in a separated manuscript. For now, however, a brief summary of these findings will be shared in this section.

For example, Alicia (44F, Girlfriend who visits her boyfriend) shared how passionate she has become about issues surrounding mass incarceration: “I want them to understand what mass incarceration is. The impact of people not being involved and what that means.” Since getting involved in CPR and FAB, Alicia has been spreading awareness and is intentional about using her voice to show others how representation matters and the importance of getting involved in local politics. Edith felt the same way and eventually started taking political action through writing and signing petitions: “I have assisted in a few petition campaigns organized by Prison Fellowship concerning zero-tolerance visitation policies.”

Recalling the informational support available to them through their support group membership, participants explained that they now felt sufficiently informed to recognize the need for additional prison reform and advocacy. For instance, Meredith summarized one benefit of having an incarcerated loved one and going through the incarceration experience: “The biggest blessing in all of this is that our eyes were opened wide to the huge need in reform.” This has helped both her and her husband to get involved and take action through advocacy groups for those on the sex offender registry and their family members. Working alongside Jacob and Kristy, she has been able to spread her advocacy beyond Michigan Citizens for Justice to the national level through her membership with the National Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (NARSOL). Together, Meredith explains how she and Kristy feel that they are making a positive difference in people’s lives:

Kristy and I feel that we are an integral part of the support group, and we see that we’re making a difference in these guys’ lives … You can see it gives them hope just knowing that other people care. So that’s the beauty. I don’t think I would have done something as meaningful with my life had this situation not happened.

Reba echoed a similar sentiment when discussing her feelings about mass incarceration and the criminal justice system in general. Being involved with CPR for the past seven years has not only helped increase her knowledge, but has also helped her use her voice to speak up, spread awareness, and educate others:

CPR has really opened my eyes. They’ve given me an avenue to talk to people and educate them about our prison system. And to educate our politicians. I’m not ashamed my brother went to prison. I was at first, but now I don’t have a problem sharing. I don’t do it for the accolades; I do it because it’s the right thing to do.

While she is not involved in CPR or Legislative Education Day, Maggie did realize the importance in becoming an advocate and applying public pressure in order to get things done. That is the main reason why she created the Facebook page for her husband and uses it to spread awareness to others:

The only way prison visitation is going to get better is through public pressure. And it would take a lot of people getting together—and actually pushing that forward—because without that public pressure … nothing will change. If anything, it can only get worse because they keep implementing all these different policies that aren’t making it any better.

Jenae engaged in a similar response by creating a YouTube channel and Twitter account to help advocate for her fiancé and spread awareness about his case:

I post and share all day long: I am on Twitter or in the reform groups sending out his petition and sending it out … I’ve sent his petition to governors and governors in other states. I’ve sent to other leaders and people working in the prison reform movements. I’ve sent it out so much and I have advocated for him so much that it’s literally consumed my life … I hope we can all stand up together and make these changes. It’s more than a money issue; it’s a people issue.

Overall, findings demonstrate that prisoners’ families are better able to navigate and manage the visitation process through both the informational and emotional support they receive from support group membership. In other words, findings demonstrate how family members of prisoners can address barriers to visiting together by joining support groups and advocating for (policy) change. In turn, some members may undergo a second process of socialization in which they learn to advocate for their incarcerated loved ones. This was primarily done by forming strategic relationships with prison administration and state legislators, attending CPR’s Annual Legislative Education Day to discuss prison policy and reform efforts, and/or voluntarily serving on the Family Advisory Board.

While detailed results from the fourth research question will be addressed in a separate manuscript, the results shared thus far are consistent with previous findings indicating a strong sense among prisoners’ families that visitation serves as a means of monitoring or watching the prison system (Christian 2005). Like Christian (2005), family members “believe that when a prisoner does not receive visits, it is a sign that no one cares about him, which gives prison personnel free license to treat him however they wish” (p. 41). In addition to “watching the system,” families who visit feel that the system is not accountable to anyone. One interview participant (Dilara) gave a similar account: “They don’t care! The prison system is not accountable to anyone that I know of. They do as they please and they don’t really care. The only thing that can stop them is probably lawsuits because they don’t answer to anyone else.”

4. Discussion

This study explored prisoners’ families active in support groups and how membership aided them in navigating and managing the visitation process, as well as learning how to cope with having a loved one incarcerated in prison. Results from qualitative analysis suggest that prisoners’ families encounter a variety of barriers to visitation. However, those involved in support groups saw substantial advantages in the informational and emotional support they received, which helped them normalize their situation and motivated them to continue attending visits.

Support groups provided a safe space where family members can ask questions, receive advice and guidance on a particular situation, vent over the incarceration experience, and bond with others in the same situation. As most sample participants were experiencing incarceration for the first time, these groups were vital for receiving learning strategies to help them better understand, navigate, and manage the visitation process. Online support groups were still helpful in providing information and answering questions for participants who could not attend CPR meetings or other related support groups in person. A safe space, whether in person or online, helped build trust and reciprocity among participants in the sample. As a result, the trust and reciprocity made through informational support helped cement a strong foundation for emotional support.

As previous research has documented how “the prison system does not make it easy to visit” (Boppre et al. 2022), sample participants also discussed the shame, stigma, and secondary prisonization they experienced related to the visitation process. Thus, CPR and related support groups also provided a therapeutic outlet to process the range of feelings that can arise when having an incarcerated loved one. CPR also hosted sharing circle meetings to perform an emotional check-in with one another and allow discussion of how family members are feeling. These meetings helped alleviate the pain, anger, and frustration experienced by some participants. At the very least, sharing circle meetings allowed family members to acknowledge their emotions and, again, to vent in a safe space. Two advantages of support group membership assisted with emotional support (normalization and motivation).

Sample participants discussed how the emotional support they received validated the “normalcy” of their situation. In other words, there should be no shame or embarrassment about having an incarcerated loved one because so many others are going through the same experience. This is not to say that family members accept the “normalcy” of incarceration in their day-to-day lives, but more so that support groups “make it okay to love for you to love whoever your person is” because incarceration is “normal” and “accepted” among these individuals. These results are similar to how family members active in “self-help organisations [sic]” would engage in “normalizing [sic] accounts” of violent crimes committed by family members convicted of serious offenses (Condry 2013). These results also attest to recent surveys documenting nearly 1 in 2 adults (45%) of the U.S. population has ever had a family member incarcerated (Elderbroom et al. 2018; Enns et al. 2019). Feelings of normalization allowed family members to justify their visit. This helped motivate them to keep visiting their incarcerated loved ones despite the barriers they continuously experienced. These accounts of informational and emotional support, through normalization and motivation, align with the framing institutions and framing agents Pocinki (2024) describes, as well as the social and cultural capital family members gain through support groups (Umamaheswar 2024), whether in person or online.

While few participants reported any disadvantages of support group membership, one negative aspect was emotional burnout. Primarily experienced by seasoned support group members, the results from observations of CPR and FAB meetings and in-depth interviews revealed that those who have served a significant amount of time in voluntary Board of Directors positions are exhausted by the emotional labor required to lead these groups. Some members are also irritated and discouraged over the lack of progress in implementing helpful policies and practices surrounding visitation and family connectedness. Therefore, some are left feeling emotionally burnt out and questioning if they can continue their involvement. These results point to how a lack of support and understanding from prison officials can lead to prisoners’ families fighting an uphill battle and, to some extent, to their wits’ end. It also confirms the recognition of prisoners’ families as “forgotten victims” (Codd 1998; Light 1993; Light and Campbell 2007; Matthews 1983).

Expanding Morris’ (1965) work on prisoners’ families in Britain, Matthews (1983) examined communication options, including visits, home leave, and correspondence. Notably, Matthews (1983) surveyed programs and support services available to families through either the Probation Service or the voluntary sector. Discovering a severe lack of support and inclusion led Matthews (1983) to coin the term “forgotten victims” to describe family members of prisoners (Light 1993). Sadly, prisoners’ families tend to be easy to forget because the public maintains a deserving/undeserving view of victims (Matthews 1983). In other words, while victims of violent or personal crime have experienced improvements in available support systems, prisoners’ families have not, as they are typically implicated through “guilt by association” and thus considered undeserving of support (Light 1993; Matthews 1983).

In examinations of American jails, similar concerns have been documented that visitors feel a sense of degradation and stigmatization when visiting due to their association with their incarcerated loved one (Arditti 2002; Sturges 2002). Others have more recently described family members and friends of prisoners as “socially invisible” (Lehalle 2017). Due to their exclusion from both the public and correctional departments, these “forgotten victims” tend to remain invisible as they navigate the visitation process alone and mainly without the guidance of others. Recently, Pocinki (2025) incorporates a theoretical approach of symbiotic harms to explore shared experiences of families across the criminal justice system and agentic responses to harm, ranging from small acts of resistance to activism. The data reveal symbiotic harms in four key areas: financial and medical burdens, emotional adjustments, status disclosure, and negative experiences within prison walls (Pocinki 2025). However, support group participants’ practices of agency demonstrated resilience and a potential pushback against emotional burnout. When times get tough or frustrating, these members found self-care empowering, engaged reflexively with processes of stigmatization, developed strategies to counter harms, and reframed setbacks as blessings (Pocinki 2025). Indeed, there were many times in CPR and FAB meetings when members learned to “celebrate the small wins,” as some would say (Keith and Jordan). Another potential solution to emotional burnout, especially among those in leadership positions, is to establish support groups for families of incarcerated people, facilitated by trained professionals who can offer evidence-informed therapeutic guidance, prioritize participants’ safety, and intervene when necessary to address unhealthy behaviors or unsafe situations (Umamaheswar et al. 2025).

4.1. Policy Recommendations

Overall, findings from this study suggest four significant directions for policy. First, this study agrees with previous recommendations that corrections systems can use a wide range of strategies to help reduce barriers to visitation. These include but are not limited to housing incarcerated individuals closer to their communities; improving public transportation efforts to and from facilities; expanding visitation to 7 days a week and offering flexible hours for visitors who work; making facilities more child-friendly by providing childcare as well as books, toys, games and other activities in the visiting room; allow for overnight family visiting or consider furloughs so incarcerated individuals can visit their families on the outside; and lifting visitation bans (Cochran et al. 2014; see also Bakker et al. 1978; Casey-Acevedo and Bakken 2002; Ella Baker Center for Human Rights 2015; Light 1993; Tewksbury and DeMichele 2005).

Correctional systems should also consider outreach and educational efforts for prisoners’ families before, during, and after incarceration. These efforts should focus on providing families with information about the significance of social support for those incarcerated, how to navigate visitation rules, and the logistical challenges associated with visitation (Cochran et al. 2014). Implementing some or all of these efforts to promote visitation would help foster the prisoner–family relationship and family connectedness. In turn, investing in policies, programs, and practices that increase visitation can help form and/or strengthen social ties, thereby providing more opportunities to solidify social bonds. In other words, if prison officials are concerned with improving the overall health and well-being of incarcerated individuals, expanding their educational and employment opportunities, and reducing recidivism, they should make visiting more accessible, more affordable, and more frequent.

Next, correctional officers and prison staff should receive specialized training to better understand family connectedness and the importance of visitation. Increased understanding can also be achieved by appointing a social worker or departmental representative for prisoners’ families. Notably, FAB representatives have suggested both options to MDOC, using models similar to the Family Services Program operated by the Washington State Department of Corrections. Washington has acknowledged the vital role families play during incarceration and the reentry process and has since strived to identify the challenges faced by prisoners’ families and provide support and services relative to their needs.

In addition to offering Family-Centered Programming, this program has created a professionalized position known as Family Service Specialist. While only four of these positions operate across all Washington correctional facilities, Family Service Specialists work with prisoners’ family members to provide information about family-centered activities and events, help them navigate the correctional system, connect them to services, and assist in finding what they need. This program provides a more customer-service-oriented approach for prisoners’ families, which would be a positive change from most correctional departments’ current lack of available services. Providing continuity of care to prisoners’ families may make them feel more welcome when they arrive for visits, which can, hopefully, lead to an environment that is more accepting and respectful of their needs. It is essential to address visitor satisfaction, as results from this study confirm the fear and anxiety treatment by prison staff can cause.

Third, the results also demonstrate the vital need for correctional systems to listen to prisoners’ family members and to form working relationships with them. Providing a more welcoming and understanding atmosphere is an excellent place to start. However, prison officials should examine if recidivism and offender success models incorporate opportunities for family connectedness. Family members of prisoners are an underutilized and essentially untapped source of knowledge. Thus, they should be consulted in the drafting and amending of visitation policies and those concerning the prisoner–family relationship. Being more inclusive towards prisoners’ families and other visitors may directly impact social support for their incarcerated loved ones. Still, it may also provide the social support they need to maintain their visits.

However, these are not new issues; several policy recommendations were made in the 1970s, when Bakker et al. (1978) suggested that correctional departments listen to the needs of prisoners’ families and help with transportation and travel expenses. Schafer (1989, 1991) echoed similar recommendations surrounding visitor application, visitor processing, contraband, conduct, and dress codes. When these requests went unanswered, Casey-Acevedo and Bakken (2002) again reminded prison administration and state governments of the need to expand resources “… because families and friends of inmates do not have the means to visit” (68). Over twenty years later, results from this study confirm, yet again, the need to listen to prisoners’ families.

Finally, as evidence increasingly points to the benefits of prison visitation, it is important to consider what results could mean for future sentencing practices and policies. These practices and policies should also support family connectedness during incarceration. For instance, should a prison be located too far away for a family to travel, or if they prove themselves to be indigent and cannot afford the costs associated with visitation, then more significant use of intermediate punishment might be called for. Placing the offender on probation, house arrest, or day release or day reporting would be ways to mete out punishment without necessarily taking them away from their home, family, and community.

This would also create additional opportunities to include prisoners’ families in both the discussion and decision-making process and to use their knowledge and expertise to develop beneficial policies for everyone involved. As Lois and other CPR and FAB members repeatedly reminded MDOC administration, “The real punishment is keeping families apart.” Recognizing the active nature of family relationships means families can no longer be seen as “collateral” or “unintended” victims of the criminal justice process (Jardine 2018). At the same time, however, Jardine (2018) reminds us that the erosion of reciprocal family practices is an inherent and deliberate part of the restrictions on liberty imposed by a prison sentence. This also relates to secondary prisonization (Comfort 2003, 2008) and family-hostile visitation policies and practices that continue to fail (Colby 2026). Focusing on families affected by imprisonment also raises more challenging questions about the purpose and effect of this particular form of punishment and how such a severe and forced interruption to family life can legitimately be imposed (Jardine 2018).

4.2. Limitations and Future Research

The findings of the current study are not without limitations. To begin, results cannot be generalized because the sample demographics do not reflect Michigan’s population or its prison population. Specifically, demographics for both participant observation and interviews indicated greater racial/ethnic homogeneity (80.6% white), an overwhelming number of female respondents (83.9%), higher socio-economic levels (35.5% reported income over the state median of $66,986), and higher levels of education when compared to the general population of Michigan (70.9% of participants have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 32.1% of state residents). While the population of Michigan remains nearly three-fourths white (72.4%), the Black/African American population (13.6%) was not adequately represented in the sample, nor were those who identify as Hispanic and/or Latino (5.6%). Other racial and ethnic groups of color present in the state that were not accurately sampled include Asian (3.3%), American Indian and Alaska Native (0.6%), Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander (0.03%), and residents who identify as being two or more races (6.3%) (United States Census Bureau 2023).

As for the state’s prison population, the sample is skewed towards white (and majority female) individuals who visit men. Thus, the prison visitation experiences in this dataset do not accurately represent Michigan prisoners. For instance, while the state prison population is indeed nearly all-male (94.6%), white prisoners comprise 44.1 percent of this group. This is far less than the 53.1 percent of Black men and women incarcerated within MDOC prisons. Unlike gender, race variables for incarcerated loved ones were not explicitly captured, and therefore, the race or ethnicity of prisoners being visited cannot be assumed or identified.

However, these results are not surprising given the purposive sampling and selection criteria for interview participants. The sample size is small, and the results may be biased, but this is not atypical of qualitative research or previous studies examining prisoners’ families (Boppre et al. 2022; Christian 2005; Condry 2013; Trahan and Evans 2020). Condry (2013) reported similar demographics in her sample of relatives of serious offenders, which was also primarily comprising white women visiting imprisoned men. This is a significant limitation, as diversity and inclusion remain a concern for support group members. Because some participants expressed dismay in not seeing themselves or feeling represented in the support groups included in the sample1, racial demographics and dynamics of support group membership should be further examined, especially those focusing on issues that disproportionately affect people and communities of color, like mass incarceration.

If more Black participants and people of color were included in the sample, findings from this study would have perhaps demonstrated how racial barriers affect visitation. Extant literature on visitation has highlighted how incarcerated minority individuals typically have fewer years of formal education, socioeconomic disadvantage, and have had more frequent contact with the criminal justice system when compared to incarcerated white individuals (Cochran et al. 2014). Their potential visitors—including family and community members—are likely to share these characteristics. (Cochran et al. 2014). Therefore, incarcerated minority groups may experience less visitation because their outside social ties have fewer social and economic resources and experience greater difficulty navigating and managing the visitation process (Cochran et al. 2014). It is strongly recommended that future research explore the racial dynamics of visitation.

A second limitation is that participants in support groups and those interviewed for this study were self-selecting, as they actively chose to participate. In other words, participants who did not visit were excluded from the study. Some family members, and children in particular, may have limited or no contact with their incarcerated loved one or parent for legal, logistical, safety and security, or personal-choice reasons. Those who do not visit also need support and may experience similar benefits from membership in these or similar support groups. This particular population of prisoners’ families needs further examination to understand the complexities of the prisoner–family relationship.

Christian et al. (2006) highlighted some of these issues in their examination of the social and economic implications of family connections to prisoners. However, they primarily discussed the juxtaposition that most prisoners’ families find themselves in, which has been recognized as the “double bind” of choosing whether to maintain connections with their incarcerated loved one, or to devote time and resources to the family’s life in the community (Christian et al. 2006, p. 450). Similar results were found, as no participant interviewed or observed in this study admitted to stopping visits because they lost interest. Choosing not to visit was not an option for a majority of the sample. However, at least three interview participants (Edith, Monica, and Sarah) admitted that they contemplated temporarily stopping visits. These individuals said they did not enjoy visiting due to the time and high cost involved or because it was their loved ones’ second incarceration. They reportedly had less patience or sympathy the second time around.

Other family members (Melanie, Monica, and Reba) described instances in which they had to “do without” and delay making purchases for themselves or the household to continue affording visits. Trade-offs between spending time with children and other family members outside of incarceration were also noted. Reba was one of the few family members who visited her brother during his incarceration. While some of her family members did not understand or support her visits, the time she spent with him and her involvement in CPR took away from attending her daughters’ events and family gatherings. Similarly, Jordan’s daughter felt frustration over a lack of relationship with her father due to the time he devoted to visiting and maintaining a relationship with his son, her incarcerated brother. At the time of the study, he was working on repairing their relationship.

These circumstances certainly influenced visitation but did not stop it. Thus, another recommendation for future research is to focus on the complexities of the prisoner–family relationship and the various trade-offs that family members endure and negotiate to maintain their regular visitation schedule. However, this may create a catch-22 situation where social bonds may be strengthened for the prisoner during their incarceration, but at the potential cost of stifling or depleting the financial or economic capital of their family member. Decreased levels of economic capital could lessen the likelihood of success post-release. There is, however, a flip side to this predicament. Even though previous scholarship has recognized how prisoners’ families have small social networks they can draw from to help them overcome barriers to visitation (Pleggenkuhle et al. 2018), results from this study suggest that while family members of prisoners are losing social capital financially, perhaps their involvement in support groups like CPR can help them make gains in social capital politically.

Furthermore, it is vital that we also hear from the family members who do not have a connection to their incarcerated loved one or those who have chosen to terminate their relationship with them. Results may provide more insight into the shame and stigma related to incarceration and how prisoners’ families both internalize and externalize this shame. Perhaps one form of externalization is the stopping or refusal to visit.

Relatedly, future research should also explore the negative impacts of emotional burnout. At times, participants questioned the time, effort, and energy they put into their support group membership with little to no reward or change in their visitation circumstances. Recall how frustrated Jordan felt after one Family Advisory Board (FAB) meeting where the same issues were being discussed over and over without any actionable efforts from the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC): “Are we truly being listened to, or how much of this is just busywork to make ourselves feel like change is occurring?” (Jordan, FAB quarterly meeting, 19 May 2017). This can result in some family members feeling underappreciated, used, or placated by departments of corrections, especially after working so hard to build trust and a working relationship. While much of the prison visitation literature touts the importance of families in reducing recidivism and as sources of information for correctional departments, some family members may not want to take on this role, welcome the added pressure, or do not wish to be used as a tool in this way. Thus, research efforts should also explore family members of prisoners who avoid support groups or who were once part of a group but left for these types of reasons. This would be valuable as a majority of participants also shared that there were times that speaking up for their incarcerated loved one or filling out a comment card on how the visit could have been better resulted in microaggressions or retaliation from correctional officers. Again, the prisoner–family relationship is complex. Combined with perceptions of secondary prisonization, it could be argued that the relationships family members have with correctional departments are also highly complex, thus impacting their support group membership and involvement.

Third, as with previous examinations of prisoners’ families (Trahan and Evans 2020), the types of prisoner–family relationships present in the sample are limited in scope. For example, only one sibling relationship was captured (sister/brother), and only three out of 31 participants visited incarcerated women (mother/daughter). Including additional types of prisoner–family relationships is crucial, such as extended family, friends, pen pals, and volunteers. These relationships were difficult to capture in the current research setting because administrative rules and policy directives strictly defined which individuals were considered “immediate family members” and thus approved to visit.

It is also important to point out that although prisoners’ families often experience similar stresses, there is growing appreciation that families of prisoners, including partners and friends, are not a homogeneous group (Murray and Farrington 2008). More knowledge is needed on how family members of prisoners are defined, the types of relationships they form, and the unique lived experiences surrounding the prisoner–family relationship before, during, and after incarceration. This relates to the “fluidity” Jardine (2017) describes and reminds us that “it is immediately clear that there is no single model of families affected by imprisonment” (7): families may include children from both current and previous relationships; multiple generations of families that span across households and countries; and those who identify friends as chosen family (Finch 2007). Families are diverse, fluid, and highly individual (Jardine 2017). Future explorations of prisoners’ families should adopt a relational perspective that allows for individual variance and recognizes that the nature and quality of family ties may shift over time (Jardine 2017). Jardine (2018) also calls on criminologists interested in prisoners’ families to clarify how they define and operationalize “family” and how it connects to their participants’ lived experiences.

As this study focused on state prisons and did not inquire about visitation in county jails or federal correctional facilities, it is also important to consider these areas, as visitation in Michigan county jails is primarily limited to non-contact video visits. There was grave concern among sample participants that state prisons would begin implementing video visitation. While MDOC has denied this form of visitation across state facilities, family members remained anxious about the direction the future of visitation is moving. If both correctional departments and policymakers would listen to family members, they might learn more about their preferences for how visits are facilitated. For instance, Tartaro and Levy (2017) found that when given a preference for their visitation modality, family members reported they would accept a video visit rather than no visit. Still, if allowed to have a face-to-face visit, this was their overwhelming preference.

Visitation in federal prisons is also essential to examine, as these facilities are scattered across the United States, making it more difficult for family members to visit. Due to the distance involved, video visitation may be more of a viable option for some prisoners’ families. Regardless, the increased distance imposed by the sparse locations of federal facilities likely aggravates existing barriers to visitation. It is also recommended that future research compare and contrast visitation across types of correctional facilities, as well as the modality of visitation they receive, whether face-to-face or non-contact through video conferencing. These examinations should also include private prisons, as little is known about the visitation process within these correctional spaces.

Another recommendation for future research is to expand examinations of online support groups and how prisoners’ families use social media platforms such as Facebook, X/Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, and others to seek informational or emotional support, or to advocate online for their incarcerated loved one. As some participants engaged with only online support groups, more attention should be paid to how family members of prisoners access these groups virtually. This study did not collect online data or engage with any Facebook groups for prisoners’ families, but future studies should do so. How family members of prisoners utilize social media could easily warrant its own study, given its popularity, convenience, and the variety of free, publicly available platforms.

An additional benefit of using multiple social media platforms is that users can link accounts and spread information and awareness to a global audience. For example, some Instagram accounts have gained notoriety for providing an outlet to share families’ incarceration experiences and to discuss what it is like to have a loved one behind bars. One account, @strongprisonwives, has 14,000 followers and has recently reached 501(c)(3) non-profit status. They are a support network created to help prison wives and families defy stigma and reduce recidivism. By “joining the family,” wives and families gain online access to information and emotional support and can also volunteer their time and get involved in the organization.

Although outside the purview of this paper, a third theme present in the data is advocacy. Support groups also provided opportunities for prisoners’ families to get involved politically by learning how to become an advocate for their incarcerated loved ones and address barriers to visitation through legislative means. Despite losses in economic capital due to the high costs of visitation, family members of prisoners may be able to offset these losses through their advocacy efforts and increased political capital. A separate manuscript is currently being written to share and discuss these results; however, it is also recommended that advocacy and mobilization among prisoners’ families be explored further.

Appendix A.1. Description of Support Groups

Appendix A.1.1. Citizens for Prison Reform (CPR)

Citizens for Prison Reform is a grassroots, family-led initiative that engages, educates, and empowers those affected by crime and punishment to advance their constitutional, civil, and human rights. It is an organization made up of prisoners’ loved ones and concerned citizens and assists prisoners’ families and friends in navigating the corrections system. Formed in 2011 by a mother whose 15-year-old son was incarcerated in an adult prison, CPR originally began as a letter-writing campaign in 2008 aimed at educating state legislators and spreading awareness of the treatment of juveniles in the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) adult prison system.

CPR holds monthly educational and support meetings in Lansing and is operated entirely by volunteers. They also organize and host Legislative Education Day each year at the Michigan State Capitol, bringing together family members, friends, advocates, formerly incarcerated individuals, and state legislators. CPR is currently funded by private donations and small grants and became a nonprofit organization with 501(c)(3) status in September of 2012.

In addition to monthly meetings, CPR also engages in a fair amount of online participation, as several members live more than 2 h away from Lansing and cannot attend every meeting. By making meeting recordings available for download on its website and using social media platforms such as Facebook and X/Twitter, members can stay in touch virtually when they cannot attend meetings in person regularly. More importantly, online access can further expand membership not only statewide but also nationally and globally. For example, CPR’s public Facebook group currently has 5416 members, more than any other support group observed in the sample. Some members have even presented at the Connecting 4 Justice International conference (formerly known as the International Prisoner’s Families Conference). A total of twelve (N = 12) interview participants are currently active members of CPR, with three of these participants also holding positions on the CPR Board of Directors. If you count interview participants who use the CPR Facebook page, the number increases (N = 19).

Appendix A.1.2. Detroit People’s Task Force (DPTF)

Detroit People’s Task Force is a private, non-profit, community collaborative organization. Marlene (57F, mother of an incarcerated son) formed it in early 2009 to investigate crime labs after it became publicly known in April 2008 that the Detroit Police Department Crime Lab had falsified forensic testing.

Their objectives are:

• Free the wrongfully convicted.
• Stop the destruction and mishandling of forensic evidence.
• Prosecute the law enforcement personnel responsible for past and present abuses.
• Compel independent oversight of law enforcement and forensic laboratories.
• Separate forensic laboratories from law enforcement agencies.

This organization also serves as a prisoner advocate to improve the quality of life and the social and economic circumstances of those wrongfully convicted and their families.

Overall, the mission of the Detroit People’s Task Force (DPTF) is to serve as a liaison between civil and governmental entities as well as the community, in order to provide programs and services in such areas as housing, legal and social issues, awareness, and prevention education (i.e., substance abuse, diseases, job training, etc.). They also address neighborhood rehabilitation by providing low-cost, single-family, and multi-family housing and related services for low- to moderate-income tenants or buyers.

Appendix A.1.3. Family Advisory Board (FAB)

An extension of the Family Participation Program pilot, the Family Advisory Board was created and held its first quarterly meeting with the MDOC administration in May 2015. Meetings continue today and are held in downtown Lansing in a conference room located within the Department’s main office building. Like CPR and FPP, board members carry out their work on a volunteer basis. The board intentionally includes family members of prisoners, returned citizens, and those impacted by incarceration at some point in their lives. In addition to meeting quarterly with the Legislative Liaison to MDOC, FAB members hold monthly conference calls and take on intermittent work assignments and/or research to promote family connectedness and maintain prisoner–family relationships across MDOC facilities. Four (N = 4) interview participants currently volunteer or have volunteered as FAB members.

Appendix A.1.4. Family Participation Program (FPP)

The Family Participation Program was created as a grant-funded project by members of CPR. Lois, the mother who started CPR, was selected as a 2014 Soros Justice Fellowship recipient to continue this work. Her aim was to implement a family support network within MDOC correctional facilities. Thus, FPP was launched within four pilot prisons across Michigan: Ernest C. Brooks Correctional Facility and West Shoreline Correctional Facility in Muskegon; Macomb Correctional Facility in New Haven; and Central Michigan Correctional Facility in St. Louis. Within these facilities, volunteer family advocates were trained to work with families visiting at the pilot sites, as well as any families or loved ones referred to the program via email or phone. Workshops were also held in various communities in Lansing, Metro Detroit, and Muskegon, aimed at reaching those currently dealing with incarceration and individuals who want to help those who are incarcerated.

In short, FPP focuses on “helping families and other loved ones of the incarcerated navigate the system, get connected, and stay connected.” FPP meets its goals by providing a space where families of prisoners feel supported and have the tools to have a more positive experience. However, when funding for FPP ended, CPR continued the work FPP had started. Families originally connected through FPP continue to receive assistance from trained volunteers, but workshops are no longer held. Instead, CPR encourages family members to attend monthly meetings and get involved with the group if they are able. Funding to provide full-time support to families is currently being sought, and efforts to expand the FPP are planned once additional funding is obtained. One (N = 1) interview participant in the sample also serves as an FPP volunteer in addition to their work with CPR and the Family Advisory Board (FAB).

Appendix A.1.5. Humanity for Prisoners (HFP)

Founded in 2001 by a defense attorney, Humanity for Prisoners (HFP) is a nonprofit organization that provides, promotes, and ensures personalized, problem-solving services for incarcerated people to alleviate suffering beyond simply administering their sentences. They focus particularly on wrongful convictions and prisoners’ overall health and wellness. For instance, their “action with compassion” plan relies on a team of volunteers across professional fields to address issues surrounding medical care, terminal illness, mental illness, disability issues, and preparation for upcoming reviews, hearings, or meetings with the parole board. Because 90% of Michigan prisoners will eventually be released, a major goal of HFP is to provide practical assistance to help citizens prepare for reentry.

Although this organization does not host monthly support group meetings, HFP has a strong presence in northern and western Michigan and frequently works with prisoners incarcerated in Upper Peninsula facilities. Similarly to CPR, they also have a strong online presence. In addition to an informative website, members can connect with one another via a public Facebook group. Eight (N = 8) interview participants were active in HFP and cited this group for helping them navigate and manage the visitation process, for providing them with education and awareness towards mass incarceration and the criminal justice system, and in turn, eventually learning how to better deal with their incarcerated loved one’s sentence.

Appendix A.1.6. Prison Ministry Support/Re-Entry Group (Prison Fellowship)

Prison Fellowship is the world’s largest Christian nonprofit organization for prisoners, former prisoners, and their families. It also advocates for justice reform. Their mission “… seeks to restore those affected by crime and incarceration by introducing prisoners, victims, and their families to a new hope available through Jesus Christ.” They typically accomplish this through trainings to inspire churches and communities—both inside and outside of prison—to support the restoration of those affected by incarceration.

Outside of prison, this group collaborates with churches, para-church organizations, and local service providers to support families with incarcerated loved ones and people affected by crime. One such collaboration is with Hope Community Church in Detroit, Michigan, whose Prison Fellowship chapter is known as the Prison Ministry Support/Re-entry Group. Meetings are held twice a month on the first and third Friday evenings. Beyond their church involvement, members of this support group focus on prisoner reentry in the Metro Detroit area and on connecting parolees and their families to community resources. Although several members of this group were recruited to be interviewed, only one participant (N = 1) completed an interview and was active in this group.

Appendix A.1.7. Michigan Chapter of Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants (MI-CURE)

MI-CURE is a chapter of the national grassroots justice reform organization CURE and takes a bottom-up approach by not hiring professional leaders. Instead, it typically draws leaders from formerly incarcerated individuals, as well as their family members and friends. Thus, members of CURE are also largely prisoners, ex-prisoners, and family members and friends of prisoners. Members work to educate and inspire individuals to advocate for themselves and for improvements in the Michigan criminal justice system. They do this by publishing a quarterly newsletter, distributing self-help literature, and hosting an annual membership meeting.

MI-CURE and CURE do not advocate on behalf of individuals, provide legal assistance, or direct services. They operate on small budgets, without paid staff, to ensure leaders and members act in their best interests. Another important feature of CURE is that it is secular, and everyone should feel welcome, regardless of religious beliefs or affiliation.

The President of MI-CURE currently publishes newsletters from her home in Kalamazoo, and Board Members hold bi-monthly meetings in Lansing. Notably, this group is very small but reaches many people affected by incarceration across Michigan through its quarterly newsletters. Although no MI-CURE members were interviewed for this study, the researcher volunteered her time to the Board, which provided additional insight into barriers to visitation and MDOC policies and practices. Other board members have previously been involved in CPR and continue to update the group on visitation and family connectedness issues. Approved meeting minutes for MI-CURE proved beneficial for triangulating participant observations and interview responses.

Appendix A.1.8. Michigan Citizens for Justice

Michigan Citizens for Justice (MCJ) is an advocacy and support group for Michigan sex offenders and their families. The mission of MCJ is to “provide support, encouragement, and information that will be a positive tool for working together to reform the current law and policies, so that they will be fact-based and will not only promote public safety, but honor human dignity, and offer holistic prevention, healing, and restoration.” MCJ’s overall goals are to provide support, advocacy, and public education. As an affiliate of Reform Sex Offenders Laws, Inc., it is also one of 50 organizations in the nationwide movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States.

Support groups are peer-led and provide a safe space where rejected and hurt people can be part of a community. Monthly meetings are currently held in Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo. While support group crossover was observed between CPR and MCJ members, given the nature of this group and the need for increased privacy, meetings for this specific support group were not observed. However, three (N = 3) interview participants were members of this group and were able to discuss at least some of the benefits of being a member of MCJ.

Appendix A.1.9. Michigan Families Along for the Ride with Pride

Another virtual space for family members to connect, Michigan Families Along for the Ride with Pride is a private Facebook group for families with incarcerated loved ones in the MDOC. It serves as a safe place to ask questions, seek and learn how MDOC facilities work, find support, and simply talk. A take on the phrase “ride or die,” this group recognizes that they are riding alongside their incarcerated loved one with pride and not ashamed of their sentence. The group currently has 1271 members. Like Michigan Citizens for Justice, this online support group is not accessible to protect members’ privacy. A small number of interview participants (N = 4) disclosed utilizing this private Facebook group in addition to their membership in CPR or other related support groups.