Imprisonment and the Redistribution of Harm Across Families and Wider Relationships

Abstract

This study examines the impact of imprisonment on the families of incarcerated men in England and Wales. Drawing on mixed-methods survey data collected in collaboration with the Prison Advice and Care Trust (PACT), the research is based on responses from 42 participants. The sample comprised 21 partners/spouses, 11 parents, 5 adult children, 2 siblings, 1 other relative and 1 friend of an incarcerated individual, with 1 participant preferring not to disclose their relationship. The study explores the financial, social, emotional and relational consequences associated with imprisonment. Findings indicate that financial strain was a significant pressure for many participants, driven by loss of income alongside the costs associated with maintaining contact. Participants also described experiences of stigma, social withdrawal, emotional distress and changes to family responsibilities, highlighting the multiple challenges associated with imprisonment for family members. Consistent with emerging research highlighting the wider emotional and psychological consequences of imprisonment for family members, the findings suggest that these pressures were often experienced as interconnected aspects of participants’ experiences rather than in isolation. The study illustrates the value of the symbiotic harms framework for understanding the relational and interconnected dimensions of family members’ experiences of imprisonment in a UK context and highlights the practical and emotional labour involved in maintaining family relationships during imprisonment. The findings underscore the importance of recognising families as individuals directly affected by imprisonment and by the wider consequences of penal policy.

1. Introduction

Imprisonment is often conceptualised as a punishment experienced by the individual who has been sentenced. However, a growing body of research demonstrates that the consequences of imprisonment extend beyond prison walls, affecting those connected to the incarcerated individual, particularly family members (Beckett and Goldberg 2022; Breen 2008; Codd 2019; Condry and Minson 2021; Hood and Gaston 2022). These wider effects have been conceptualised in different ways within the literature, including as collateral consequences (Hagan and Dinovitzer 1999), secondary punishment (Comfort 2008; Codd 2019) and, more recently, symbiotic harms (Condry and Minson 2021). Collectively, these perspectives highlight how the effects of imprisonment are experienced within everyday family life.

Existing research has identified a range of adverse outcomes for families of imprisoned individuals, including financial strain, social stigma and emotional distress (Beckett and Goldberg 2022; Hood and Gaston 2022). The loss of income associated with imprisonment, alongside the costs of maintaining contact through visits, phone calls and financial support, can place considerable pressure on households (Dickie 2013; Prison Advice and Care Trust (PACT) 2023). Families may also experience stigma, marginalisation and social withdrawal, often driven by fear of judgement from others (Condry and Minson 2021; Gilani 2023). These social pressures are frequently linked to emotional distress, with increased levels of anxiety, depression and isolation reported among those supporting an incarcerated loved one (Hood and Gaston 2022). Research has also highlighted the interconnected nature of these experiences. Drawing on a mixed-methods study of prisoners’ families, Comfort et al. (2017) argue that the financial, social and emotional costs associated with imprisonment frequently overlap and are often experienced simultaneously, suggesting that the effects of imprisonment are often experienced across multiple areas of family life. Recent scholarship has continued to highlight the emotional and psychological burdens experienced by family members, suggesting that the practical demands of maintaining relationships, providing support and navigating criminal justice processes can have significant implications for wellbeing (Evans and Trahan 2024). Although financial strain and the experiences of children have received more attention, Evans and Trahan (2024) argue that the emotional and psychological consequences experienced by wider family members remain comparatively underexplored.

Children have been identified as a particularly vulnerable group, with parental imprisonment associated with emotional, behavioural and educational difficulties (Murray et al. 2009, 2014; Robertson 2007). However, the effects of imprisonment extend beyond children and are experienced across wider family networks, including partners, parents and other relatives. Imprisonment can reshape family relationships and responsibilities, often requiring remaining family members to adapt to the absence of the incarcerated individual and take on new roles within the household (Rodriguez and Turanovic 2018).

Recognition of the importance of family relationships has also become increasingly visible within criminal justice policy. Lord Farmer’s review argued that “poor family relationships can be a major source of disruption in the estate” (Farmer 2017, p. 77) and highlighted the importance of strengthening family ties to support rehabilitation and reduce reoffending. This emphasis is reflected within His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS’s) Strengthening Prisoners’ Family Ties Policy Framework (His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service 2019), which recognises the importance of family relationships in supporting rehabilitation, reducing reoffending and maintaining wellbeing during imprisonment. Under this framework, prisons are required to develop Family and Significant Other (FASO) Strategies to support people in prison in maintaining meaningful relationships with those important to them. Additional support is also available through initiatives such as prison visitor centres and the Assisted Prison Visits Scheme. While these developments demonstrate recognition of the importance of family relationships, policy discussions have often emphasised the role that families play in supporting prisoner wellbeing, rehabilitation and resettlement. Less attention has been paid within policy to how imprisonment affects family members themselves and how these impacts are experienced across everyday family life.

By contrast, a body of research has documented the negative consequences of imprisonment for families. However, less attention has been given to how different forms of harm are experienced and understood in relation to one another within everyday family life. Research suggests that financial pressures, stigma, emotional distress and relationship difficulties frequently overlap (Condry and Minson 2021; Evans and Trahan 2024). Drawing on mixed-methods survey data collected in collaboration with PACT, this study examines the financial, social and emotional consequences of imprisonment for family members and wider relationships. Particular attention is paid to how participants described the relationship between these experiences. The study contributes to broader discussions concerning the relational nature of penal harm and the wider social reach of punishment.

2. Literature Review: The Impact of Imprisonment Beyond the Individual

Research has shown that the impact of imprisonment is not confined to the individual but also affects those connected to them, particularly family members. These wider consequences have been documented across a range of areas, including financial pressures, social stigma, emotional distress and changes to family relationships (Beckett and Goldberg 2022; Codd 2019; Condry and Minson 2021; Hood and Gaston 2022). Earlier work also brought attention to how these harms may be overlooked and experienced across multiple areas of everyday family life (Ferraro et al. 1983). Hagan and Dinovitzer (1999) drew attention to the collateral consequences of imprisonment for families and communities, arguing that imprisonment may generate financial hardship, stigma, disruptions to family life and wider forms of social disadvantage that extend beyond the incarcerated individual. Wakefield and Wildeman (2013) have similarly demonstrated how imprisonment can increase family instability and intensify existing social inequalities, particularly among already disadvantaged families. Collectively, this has contributed to growing recognition that the effects of imprisonment are embedded within social and relational contexts and cannot be understood solely through the experiences of the incarcerated individual.

Within the literature, several concepts have been used to capture these wider impacts. One of the most frequently cited is that of “collateral consequences” (Hagan and Dinovitzer 1999), which refers to the unintended effects of punishment on individuals other than the offender. Similarly, the notion of “secondary punishment” (Codd 2019; Comfort 2008) has been used to describe the ways in which family members experience the effects of imprisonment as a form of indirect or extended punishment. These concepts have been influential in drawing attention to the broader reach of penal power, highlighting that the impact of imprisonment extends into the social and relational spheres in which individuals are embedded. However, these conceptualisations have also been subject to critique. Condry and Minson (2021) argue that terms such as “collateral consequences” and “secondary punishment” are limited in their ability to fully capture the nature of these harms. The term “collateral” may imply that such harms are incidental or secondary, potentially obscuring their significance. Similarly, describing these experiences as “punishment” may be misleading, as family members have not committed an offence and are not subject to formal sanction. While these terms draw attention to the seriousness of these experiences, they may not fully reflect the ways in which harm is experienced within families.

Comfort’s (2008) concept of secondary prisonisation further developed understanding of the relational effects of imprisonment by examining how family members become drawn into prison routines, rules and institutional processes. Rather than experiencing imprisonment solely through separation, family members may encounter forms of institutional regulation and constraint through visitation, communication and ongoing engagement with the prison system. This perspective highlights how imprisonment can shape the everyday lives of family members through their interactions with penal institutions and has been influential in developing more relational understandings of imprisonment’s wider consequences.

In response to these limitations, Condry and Minson (2021) propose the concept of “symbiotic harms” to better capture the interconnected nature of these experiences. Rather than viewing the effects of imprisonment as separate or parallel consequences, this approach emphasises that harms are embedded within relationships and unfold through ongoing interactions between individuals. It highlights that harms are experienced through relationships rather than in isolation and may move between family members, change over time and be shaped by wider social and economic contexts. While earlier concepts such as collateral consequences and secondary prisonisation drew attention to the wider reach of imprisonment, symbiotic harms places greater emphasis on the relational and interconnected nature of these experiences. This is particularly relevant to the present study, which is concerned with how family members describe and understand the financial, social and emotional consequences associated with imprisonment. More recent scholarship has similarly highlighted the interdependent nature of family experiences, suggesting that financial, emotional and social consequences frequently overlap and are often experienced simultaneously rather than occurring as distinct forms of disadvantage (Evans and Trahan 2024).

The concept of symbiotic harms also draws attention to the uneven distribution of these effects. Families of prisoners are often situated within broader patterns of social and economic disadvantage, and the impacts of imprisonment may compound existing pressures linked to poverty, gendered care responsibilities and limited access to support (Condry and Minson 2021). Ethics-of-care scholarship has highlighted how caring responsibilities are often shaped by social expectations surrounding care, support and relationship maintenance, with women frequently expected to undertake emotional and relational labour within families and communities (Gilligan 1982; Tronto 1993, 2013). This observation echoes earlier work by Wakefield and Wildeman (2013), who argue that imprisonment frequently intensifies pre-existing vulnerabilities and contributes to wider inequalities in family wellbeing. Understanding imprisonment as a relational process therefore requires attention not only to interpersonal dynamics but also to the wider contexts in which families are embedded. This broader perspective is reflected in the work of Comfort et al. (2017), who draw on mixed-methods data from families of incarcerated individuals to argue that the costs of imprisonment extend across financial, social and emotional domains. Importantly, they suggest that these costs are often experienced simultaneously and may compound one another over time. Rather than treating different forms of disadvantage as separate outcomes, their findings highlight the value of understanding imprisonment as a process that can reshape multiple aspects of family life concurrently.

3. Methods

3.1. Study Design

This study employed a mixed-methods survey design to examine the impact of imprisonment on families and wider relationships of incarcerated men in England and Wales. Quantitative data was used descriptively to provide contextual information about participants’ experiences, while qualitative data formed the primary basis of the analysis and interpretation. This approach enabled the study to capture the breadth and depth of participants’ experiences, with particular attention to how different forms of harm were experienced within these contexts.

3.2. Participants

Participants were recruited in collaboration with PACT, a UK-based charity that provides support to people in prison and their families. The organisation works directly with families affected by imprisonment through prison visitor centres, family services and community-based provision, providing access to individuals with direct experience of supporting an incarcerated family member. Recruitment was facilitated through a gatekeeper, with the survey distributed via the organisation’s social media platforms and through posters placed in visitor centres at three male prisons in the Southeast of England.

While this approach enabled access to participants with relevant lived experience, it is acknowledged that the sample may reflect those already engaged with support services. A total of 42 participants, aged 18 and over, took part in the study. All participants had a male family member or close contact currently serving a custodial sentence in England and Wales. The sample comprised 21 partners/spouses, 11 parents, 5 adult children, 2 siblings, 1 other relative and 1 friend of an incarcerated individual, with one participant preferring not to disclose their relationship. Demographic data were collected on participants’ age group and relationship to the incarcerated individual. Participants represented a range of adult age groups, with the largest proportion aged between 35 and 44 years. Information relating to gender, ethnicity and socio-economic background was not collected.

3.3. Data Collection

Data was collected through an online survey hosted on Jisc Online Surveys. The survey incorporated both closed and open-ended questions designed to explore the financial, social, emotional and relational impacts of imprisonment on families and support networks. Closed questions generated descriptive quantitative data regarding participants’ experiences, whilst open-ended questions provided opportunities for participants to elaborate on these experiences in their own words. The survey remained open for four weeks and was distributed through PACT’s social media platforms and visitor centres at three male prisons in the Southeast of England. This approach is well suited to accessing dispersed and hard-to-reach populations, where recruitment constraints often result in smaller sample sizes (Porter and Gavin 2024).

Emotional impacts were assessed through self-report survey items asking participants whether they had experienced increased feelings such as anxiety, depression, loneliness, stress, shame or hopelessness following imprisonment. These items were included to capture participants’ perceptions of emotional change and do not constitute validated clinical screening measures. The survey was developed specifically for this study following a review of the literature on the family consequences of imprisonment. The survey incorporated questions relating to financial circumstances, social experiences, emotional wellbeing, family relationships and, where relevant, the experiences of children affected by imprisonment. The full survey instrument is provided in the Supplementary Materials.

3.4. Data Analysis

Quantitative data was analysed descriptively using the summary outputs generated by Jisc, including frequencies and percentages. These findings were used to contextualise and support interpretation of the qualitative themes. Given the exploratory nature of the study and the relatively small sample size, the quantitative analysis was not intended to produce generalisable findings, but rather to provide contextual insight into the range and patterning of participants’ experiences.

Qualitative data was analysed using thematic analysis following the six-phase approach outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). This involved familiarisation with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and producing the final analysis. Analysis began with repeated reading of participants’ responses, followed by the development of initial codes across the dataset. Codes were then reviewed and organised into broader themes relating to financial strain, social and emotional impacts, and changes to family relationships and responsibilities.

Consistent with Braun and Clarke’s (2021) conceptualisation of reflexive thematic analysis, themes were developed through the researcher’s interpretation of patterns across participants’ accounts rather than treated as objectively emerging from the data. For example, while participants described financial hardship, emotional distress and changing family responsibilities in different ways, the analysis interpreted these experiences as interconnected aspects of family members’ experiences of imprisonment. Themes were refined through repeated engagement with the dataset and relevant literature to ensure they captured recurring patterns across participants’ accounts.

3.5. Ethics

Ethical approval for the study was obtained through the University’s ethics committee. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained at the outset of the survey. Participants were informed of their right to withdraw prior to submission, and no identifying information was collected. Given the potential sensitivity of the topic, participants were provided with information about relevant support services upon completion of the survey.

4. Findings and Discussion

This section presents the findings from the mixed-methods survey. The analysis focuses on how participants described the impact of imprisonment across their everyday lives. Three interconnected themes were identified: financial strain, social and emotional impact, and the reorganisation of family life. While presented separately for clarity, these themes were closely linked, with participants frequently describing how different pressures emerged in relation to one another within the context of family life.

Table 1. Summary of key quantitative findings by theme (N = 42).

Theme	Summary of Key Quantitative Findings
Financial strain	Household income decreased for many participants, with 14 (33%) reporting that their income had largely decreased and 11 (26%) reporting that it had somewhat decreased. Costs associated with maintaining contact were common, including spending on canteen items (41, 98%), phone or video calls (36, 86%) and prison visits (34, 81%).
Social and emotional impact	Increased emotional strain was widely reported. Thirty-five participants (83%) reported increased stress, 34 (81%) increased anxiety, 32 (76%) increased depression and 31 (74%) increased loneliness following imprisonment.
Reorganisation of family life	Thirteen participants (31%) reported that their personal level of responsibility had largely increased following imprisonment. Eighteen (43%) stated that responsibilities previously undertaken by the incarcerated individual had been taken over by themselves, while eight (19%) reported that some responsibilities remained unfilled. Support networks were reported as somewhat weakened by nine participants (21%) and largely weakened by seven (17%).

provides a summary of the key quantitative findings that informed the thematic analysis presented below.

4.1. Financial Strain

Financial strain was consistently described as one of the most immediate consequences of imprisonment and was frequently discussed alongside wider social, emotional and relational pressures. Of the 42 participants, 14 (33%) reported that their income had “largely decreased” and 11 (26%) reported that it had “somewhat decreased”. Participants also reported ongoing expenditure associated with imprisonment, including spending on canteen items (41/42, 98%), phone or video calls (36/42, 86%), and travel for visits (34/42, 81%). These findings suggest that financial strain emerged through the combined effect of reduced income and increased costs.

Participants’ accounts illustrate how this shift was experienced in everyday life. One participant described “losing an income and then having to leave my job due to my mental health. Now I survive on universal credit,” while another referred more simply to a “loss of earnings coming into the household.” Others highlighted the scale of adjustment required, noting “monthly income being halved, so having to pay all bills myself” and “running a household on a single income, when my other half was the main income.” These accounts suggest that financial strain extended beyond a temporary disruption, instead reflecting a restructuring of household responsibility, in which participants were required to absorb financial roles previously shared or undertaken by the incarcerated individual. In this sense, imprisonment did not simply remove income but redistributed financial responsibility within the household. This reflects Codd (2019), who highlights how the economic consequences of imprisonment are often absorbed within families, requiring adjustments to household roles and responsibilities.

Alongside income loss, participants described the ongoing costs associated with maintaining contact. These were often presented as routine and unavoidable. For example, participants referred to “helping with his canteen and phone calls and 4-hour drive,” and “the cost of visiting and adding money to their account for canteen and phone credit.” Travel was frequently highlighted, with one participant noting, “I do a 200-mile round trip twice a month.” These accounts suggest that maintaining relationships required sustained financial input, positioning families as active participants in supporting the material conditions of imprisonment. This is in line with Christian et al. (2006), who highlight the financial demands associated with maintaining contact with an incarcerated individual. In this context, financial strain was not only experienced as a loss of income but also through the ongoing expectation to provide financial support.

These findings also highlight the tensions associated with maintaining family relationships during imprisonment. While contact is often framed as beneficial for incarcerated individuals and important for sustaining family bonds, participants’ accounts suggest that maintaining this contact can create additional financial pressures for those providing support. Similar findings were reported by Comfort et al. (2017), who found that families frequently absorbed the financial costs associated with visits, telephone contact and supporting imprisoned relatives. The authors argue that these costs can be understood not only as financial expenditures but also as investments in sustaining family relationships and supporting future reintegration. This reflects wider research indicating that families frequently absorb the practical and economic costs associated with imprisonment, including travel, communication and material support (Trahan and Evans 2020; Evans and Trahan 2024).

This sense of obligation is particularly visible in participants’ descriptions of financial decision-making. One participant stated, “sending money to my son when I was financially unstable but couldn’t let him know or stop sending money. I went hungry,” while another described having “to cut out a lot of things so that I can put money into his canteen each week.” These accounts demonstrate how financial strain was closely tied to feelings of care and responsibility. This suggests that financial strain was experienced not simply as an economic outcome, but as an experience closely connected to care, responsibility and emotional ties. This is consistent with Condry and Minson (2021), who argue that harms are experienced through relationships rather than in isolation.

For some participants, these pressures escalated into more severe forms of hardship. One described “paying back legal fees losing all savings and investments,” while another reported, “when my partner got sent to prison, I was unable to pay rent and lost my home. I am now homeless.” Others described ongoing uncertainty, including “just hoping I’ll have enough to get by.” These experiences indicate that financial strain could extend beyond reduced disposable income to affect housing stability and financial security. In this respect, the findings align with existing research identifying the broader economic consequences of imprisonment for families (Beckett and Goldberg 2022; Dickie 2013).

Importantly, participants rarely described these financial pressures in isolation. Accounts of debt, housing insecurity and financial uncertainty were frequently discussed alongside emotional distress, responsibility for others and concerns about maintaining family relationships. This supports Condry and Minson’s (2021) argument that the harms associated with imprisonment are relational and interconnected rather than discrete outcomes. It is also consistent with Comfort et al. (2017), who argue that the financial, social and emotional costs associated with imprisonment frequently overlap across family life. Participants often described financial strain alongside wider social and emotional pressures, suggesting that these challenges were experienced as interconnected aspects of everyday family life.

At the same time, there was some variation in experience. A small number of participants described limited disruption, for example, “very little… we are lucky enough to have enough money to subsidise his spending.” While less common, these accounts suggest that financial strain is mediated by pre-existing economic circumstances, reinforcing the idea that the impact of imprisonment is uneven and shaped by broader social context. Taken together, these findings suggest that financial strain was experienced as more than an isolated economic pressure. Participants’ accounts indicate that reduced income, ongoing costs and a sense of responsibility to continue providing support shaped everyday decisions, priorities and household responsibilities. In this respect, financial strain was closely connected to wider social and emotional pressures within family life.

4.2. Social and Emotional Impact

While financial strain was often described as an early and significant consequence of imprisonment, participants’ accounts indicate that its impact extended beyond economic concerns into social and emotional life. A key pattern within the data was the emergence of social withdrawal, experiences of stigma and emotional distress, which were frequently described alongside one another.

A prominent feature of participants’ accounts was a reduction in social participation following imprisonment. Many described withdrawing from everyday social activities and interactions. For example, one participant stated, “I don’t go out anymore,” while another explained, “I don’t shop in my local area I don’t go out anymore I stopped my gym classes I don’t want to see or talk to anyone.” Others similarly described “locking myself away from others, not talking to people” and becoming “agoraphobic and totally isolated.” These accounts suggest that withdrawal from social life was a common experience, reflecting a shift away from previously routine forms of interaction and a broader disengagement from community life. This is in line with Codd (2019) and Gilani (2023), who highlight how imprisonment can be associated with stigma and marginalisation, which may contribute to reduced social participation.

Participants frequently linked this withdrawal to concerns about judgement and stigma. Several described avoiding situations where they might be questioned about their circumstances, including “Prefer not to go out as I get questioned as to where my other half is” and “I don’t go out as much so that no one can ask where my partner is.” Others referred more broadly to a “fear of comments and gossip.” In some cases, this was accompanied by deliberate concealment, with one participant stating, “I am so embarrassed that we have not told anyone,” and another noting, “Don’t want to mix as don’t want to share the details with everyone but equally don’t want to lie.” These accounts suggest that stigma was not only experienced externally, but actively shaped participants’ behaviour, contributing to reduced social interaction and limiting opportunities for support. In line with Breen (2008), concealment may restrict access to informal support networks, increasing isolation and reliance on a smaller number of relationships. These findings also reflect more recent research on stigma by association, which suggests that family members may experience judgement, stereotyping and social exclusion because of their relationship to an incarcerated individual (Evans et al. 2023). In this respect, participants’ efforts to conceal their circumstances can be understood not simply as individual choices, but as responses to anticipated stigma and fears of social judgement.

Alongside these social impacts, participants reported emotional strain. Quantitative findings indicated that 35/42 participants (83%) reported increased stress, 34/42 (81%) increased anxiety, 32/42 (76%) increased depression and 31/42 (74%) increased loneliness following imprisonment. These patterns were reflected in qualitative responses, where participants described feeling “lonelier” and “not feeling happy or confident in socialising.” Others referred to more severe experiences, including “panic attacks and severe depression” and “fear of my colleagues finding out.” These accounts suggest that imprisonment was associated with a range of emotional responses, from reduced wellbeing to more acute psychological distress. This is consistent with Hood and Gaston (2022), who identify increased stress and anxiety among families of incarcerated individuals, and with Murray et al. (2009), who highlight the emotional impact of separation and disruption. Recent research has similarly highlighted the emotional and psychological burdens experienced by family members, suggesting that imprisonment may create ongoing pressures associated with maintaining relationships, managing uncertainty and navigating the practical realities of imprisonment (Evans and Trahan 2024).

Participants’ accounts indicate that social and emotional pressures were closely interconnected. In several cases, emotional distress appeared to contribute to social withdrawal, as illustrated by a participant who stated, “It has made me feel depressed, so I don’t really want to socialise. It saves people asking questions.” Others described avoiding interaction due to anxiety, including “deal with everything in silence as don’t know how people will take it.” Some participants described reduced social interaction and emotional distress together within their accounts, suggesting that these experiences were closely intertwined. This finding supports arguments that the harms associated with imprisonment are often relational and interconnected rather than discrete experiences (Condry and Minson 2021). It is also consistent with Comfort et al. (2017), who posit that the financial, social and emotional costs associated with imprisonment frequently overlap across family life. Social withdrawal, stigma and emotional distress frequently appeared together within participants’ accounts, highlighting the interconnected nature of these experiences.

4.3. Reorganisation of Family Life

Beyond the financial, social and emotional impacts discussed previously, participants’ accounts indicated that imprisonment also reshaped the organisation of everyday family life. Rather than being experienced as a temporary disruption, imprisonment often altered household responsibilities, support networks and family relationships in more sustained ways. Participants described taking on additional responsibilities, adapting routines and renegotiating relationships in response to the absence of the incarcerated individual. This reflects Rodriguez and Turanovic (2018), who argue that imprisonment can fundamentally reshape family roles and responsibilities, as remaining family members adapt to the absence of the incarcerated individual.

A prominent theme within the data was the redistribution of responsibilities across family members. Quantitative findings showed that 13/42 (31%) participants reported their personal level of responsibility had “largely increased,” while 18/42 (43%) stated that responsibilities previously undertaken by the incarcerated individual had been taken over by themselves. In contrast, 8/42 (19%) reported that some responsibilities remained unfilled. These findings suggest that participants frequently described absorbing additional practical and emotional labour following the imprisonment of their family member. Participants’ qualitative accounts illustrate how these changes were experienced within everyday life. One participant explained that their “role changed from earner to both earner and primary carer of a devastated son,” while another described “doing everything on my own.” These accounts highlight how imprisonment often concentrated multiple responsibilities onto one individual, particularly around caregiving, emotional support and financial provision. Rather than responsibilities being shared across a household, participants described managing these pressures alone following the imprisonment of their loved one.

These responsibilities may also be understood through a gendered lens. Ethics-of-care scholarship has highlighted how caring responsibilities are often shaped by social expectations surrounding care, support and relationship maintenance, with women frequently expected to undertake emotional and relational labour within families and communities (Gilligan 1982; Tronto 1993, 2013). Given that the prison population in England and Wales is overwhelmingly male, the practical, emotional and organisational work associated with maintaining family relationships during imprisonment is likely to fall disproportionately on women. Participants’ accounts of assuming additional caregiving responsibilities, coordinating visits and providing ongoing emotional support reflect the forms of care labour identified within this literature.

In several cases, participants also described taking responsibility for maintaining prison contact and organising practical arrangements associated with imprisonment. One participant noted that “it has been challenging to arrange visits as other visitors don’t have transport and don’t get along, so I have to facilitate the arrangements and transport.” This suggests that maintaining contact often required considerable practical effort, with family members coordinating visits, arranging transport and managing relationships between different family members. Contact with the imprisoned individual was therefore not simply a matter of emotional commitment but also involved ongoing practical responsibilities. This finding also resonates with Comfort’s (2008) concept of secondary prisonisation, which highlights how family members may become drawn into the routines, demands and institutional realities of imprisonment through their ongoing efforts to maintain contact and support incarcerated relatives. Comfort et al. (2017) similarly observed that family members often undertook substantial practical, emotional and financial labour to sustain relationships during imprisonment, suggesting that the work of maintaining family ties frequently falls upon those outside prison walls. Recent research has similarly highlighted the often unrecognised labour undertaken by family members in sustaining contact and supporting incarcerated relatives, suggesting that responsibility for maintaining family relationships frequently falls upon a relatively small number of individuals within the family network (Evans and Trahan 2024).

The findings also indicate that imprisonment reshaped wider support networks and family relationships. A total of 9/42 participants (21%) reported that their support networks had somewhat weakened following imprisonment, while 7/42 (17%) described them as largely weakened. In comparison, 9/42 (21%) reported somewhat strengthened support networks and 2/42 (5%) described them as largely strengthened. A further 9/42 (21%) reported no change in their support networks, while 4/42 (10%) were unsure and 2/42 (5%) preferred not to say. These findings suggest that participants described both weakened and strengthened relationships following imprisonment, highlighting variation in how support networks were experienced.

For many participants, imprisonment contributed to the breakdown or weakening of relationships. Participants referred to the “distancing of some extended family,” while another stated that their “support network is non-existent.” Others described how “nobody wants to help they just want to know what’s going on” and “I have lost friends because I’ve stuck by my partner.” These accounts suggest that participants not only experienced the absence of the incarcerated individual, but also the loss or withdrawal of wider social support. In this sense, imprisonment disrupted not only immediate family dynamics, but also broader relational networks that families may otherwise rely upon during periods of difficulty. This supports Breen’s (2008) argument that stigma and concealment can intensify pressure within family relationships by reducing access to external support networks. It also reflects more recent research suggesting that stigma by association may contribute to the weakening of social ties and reduce opportunities to access informal forms of support (Evans et al. 2023; Evans and Trahan 2024).

At the same time, some participants described relationships becoming stronger following imprisonment. One participant stated that “family are closer,” while another explained that their “good friends have become my family.” Others referred to supportive parents and strengthened relationships with selected individuals who did not judge their circumstances. This suggests that imprisonment did not uniformly weaken relationships, but instead contributed to a reorganisation of support systems, where some relationships deteriorated while others became more significant. In some cases, participants appeared to rely more heavily on a smaller number of trusted relationships, highlighting the adaptive ways in which families responded to changing circumstances.

Importantly, participants’ accounts suggest that these changes to family dynamics were closely connected to the financial and emotional pressures discussed in earlier themes. Increased responsibilities often emerged alongside financial hardship, emotional distress and social withdrawal, indicating that participants frequently experienced these pressures together within everyday family life. Participants described managing additional caregiving, financial and organisational responsibilities while also coping with stigma and uncertainty. This finding lends support to the concept of symbiotic harms (Condry and Minson 2021), which emphasises the interconnected and relational nature of the consequences associated with imprisonment. It is also consistent with Comfort et al. (2017), who argue that the financial, social and emotional costs associated with imprisonment frequently overlap across family life. In this respect, imprisonment reshaped not only practical responsibilities, but also the wider functioning of family relationships.

5. Conclusions

This study has examined the impact of imprisonment on the families and wider relationships of incarcerated men in England and Wales, drawing on mixed-methods survey data to explore how these effects are experienced in everyday life. While the negative consequences of imprisonment for families are broadly established (Codd 2019; Condry and Minson 2021; Hood and Gaston 2022), this research has moved beyond identifying individual impacts to examine how different forms of harm are experienced and understood in relation to one another. The findings suggest that financial strain, social withdrawal, emotional distress and changing family responsibilities were often described by participants as interconnected aspects of their experiences rather than as isolated outcomes.

The study also highlights the relational nature of imprisonment. Participants described how financial hardship, emotional distress and increased responsibilities frequently coincided, while changes to support networks and family relationships shaped these experiences. In doing so, the findings illustrate the value of the symbiotic harms’ framework (Condry and Minson 2021) for understanding how family members experience and make sense of the consequences of imprisonment. Condry and Minson (2021) argue that harms associated with imprisonment are experienced relationally, may move between family members and are shaped by wider social and economic contexts. The present findings provide strongest support for the relational and interconnected dimensions of the framework. Across all three themes, participants frequently described financial, emotional and relational pressures as interconnected aspects of their experiences rather than as isolated consequences of imprisonment. The findings also suggest that these experiences were shaped by broader social and economic circumstances, including financial resources, access to support networks and existing caregiving responsibilities. The findings are also consistent with Comfort’s (2008) concept of secondary prisonisation, which highlights how family members can become drawn into the practical and emotional demands associated with imprisonment. Participants’ accounts suggest that the consequences of imprisonment extend beyond separation alone and are closely connected to the ongoing work of maintaining relationships, providing support and navigating the realities of imprisonment. The findings also resonate with more recent arguments that the emotional and psychological consequences of imprisonment for family members are closely intertwined with practical and relational pressures rather than existing as separate experiences (Evans and Trahan 2024).

The findings also have implications for policy and practice. Despite increasing recognition of the importance of family relationships within rehabilitation and resettlement policy, families themselves often remain peripheral within criminal justice responses (Codd 2019). While maintaining family contact is frequently framed as beneficial for prisoners, participants described the emotional, financial and organisational labour required to sustain these relationships as largely falling upon family members themselves. The findings therefore suggest a need for greater recognition of the pressures experienced by families affected by imprisonment, alongside more coordinated forms of support that address financial, social and emotional needs in an integrated way. This may include strengthening existing provision through Family and Significant Others (FASO) strategies, prison visitor services and financial assistance schemes such as the Assisted Prison Visits Scheme, alongside wider access to community-based support. Greater recognition of these wider relational impacts may assist in developing more holistic and family-informed approaches to imprisonment and post-release support.

As an exploratory study based on a relatively small, self-selecting sample recruited through a family support organisation, the sample is not representative of all families affected by imprisonment. Information relating to the incarcerated individual, including offence type, sentence length, time served and previous imprisonment history, was not collected. These factors may influence how families experience imprisonment and therefore represent an important limitation of the study. Those engaged with PACT may have greater support needs, maintain more sustained contact with the incarcerated individual, or be more likely to seek assistance in response to financial, emotional or practical difficulties. Participants connected to support services may therefore differ from family members who are not engaged with such organisations. It is also possible that individuals experiencing higher levels of distress or burden were more motivated to participate in the study. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted as reflecting the experiences of a particular group of family members affected by imprisonment rather than the experiences of all families. In addition, the cross-sectional design captures participants’ experiences at a single point in time and cannot establish how different forms of harm develop or interact over time. This limitation is particularly important when considering the concept of symbiotic harms, which emphasises how harms may evolve, shift and be experienced across relationships over time. Consequently, the findings are best understood as illustrating how participants described and experienced the relationship between different forms of harm, rather than demonstrating cumulative or causal processes. Furthermore, demographic information relating to participants’ gender, ethnicity and socio-economic background was not collected, making it impossible to explore variation across different groups. Future research may usefully examine how experiences differ across sentence length, offence type and stages of imprisonment, and how harms are experienced across different family relationships over time. Longitudinal and family-based research designs may be particularly valuable for examining how experiences evolve and are understood across family relationships.

Overall, this study highlights that the effects of imprisonment extend beyond the incarcerated individual and are experienced across family relationships. The findings suggest that family members frequently experience financial, emotional and relational pressures simultaneously, underscoring the importance of recognising families as individuals directly affected by imprisonment and by the wider consequences of penal policy.