Unpacking support: A strengths-based investigation into the needs of incarcerated individuals’ loved ones

Universal impacts of incarceration

The experience of being confined in U.S. prisons is found to have deleterious effects on incarcerated individuals’ physical and mental health (McKay and Tadros, 2022). Compared to the general population, those incarcerated have higher rates of COVID-19 incidence and mortality (Leibowitz et al., 2021), cardiovascular disease (Gonzales and Henning-Smith, 2017; Kajeepeta et al., 2020), depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), personality disorders and suicidal ideation (Kao et al., 2014; Mahoney and Daniel, 2006). The stigma and experience of a prison sentence is also found to lead to housing insecurity, unemployment, and instability for those returning home (Visher and Travis, 2011). The collateral consequences of incarceration are vast for those directly justice-involved.

A growing literature finds that those simply connected to the carceral experience by way of family, community, or relationship experience collateral consequences as well. LOIs experience diminished mental health issues due to the transitions brought on by incarceration that include anxiety, depression, and an increase in health risk behaviors (Cassidy et al., 2010; Kajeepeta et al., 2020; Provenchera and Conway, 2019; Turney and Halpern-Meekin, 2020). In addition to health disparities, those impacted by incarceration experience relational and financial challenges.

For children, incarceration eliminates physical closeness with the parent, which can weaken attachments (Bretherton, 2010; Shlafer and Poehlmann, 2010; Wakefield and Wildeman, 2013; Yaros et al., 2018). Insecure attachments between parent and child, along with adverse experiences created by parental incarceration, such as financial insecurity and lack of supervision, can have detrimental effects on children’s behaviors and future relationships (Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2017; Shlafer and Poehlmann, 2010). Children of incarcerated parents may also experience feelings of abandonment and be forced to navigate the stressors experienced by the non-incarcerated parents (Western and Smith, 2018).

Guardians face difficulties as well when a co-parent is incarcerated or faces employer discrimination upon release. Data finds that most fathers, prior to incarceration, provide both in-kind and financial support to their children and their co-parents (Pearson and Thoennes, 2016). Absent this assistance, many co-parents in the community are forced to independently take on the financial burdens of everyday life as well as the costs of their loved one’s justice involvement, that is, court fees, fines, and lawyer dues (Bruns, 2020; Copp and Bales, 2018; Tadros et al., 2022; Tadros and Presley, 2022). This can require non-incarcerated partners to find additional jobs, utilize public assistance, or request the help of loved ones (Bruns, 2020; Turney, 2015). Co-parenting decisions are also made difficult through communication challenges brought on by the various carceral barriers that limit visitation time and monetize phone calls and emails (Boen, 2020; Bruns, 2020; Durante et al., 2022; Turney and Goodsell, 2018).

Additionally, couples who experience the incarceration of their partner often experience relationship dissatisfaction and emotional issues due to physical separation (Einat et al., 2015). Stress and trauma can result from feelings of frustration, lack of support due to physical distance, and lack of intimate moments (Einat et al., 2015; Fredman et al., 2017). Given the multilevel effects of incarceration, it is critical to identify the needs of those impacted by incarceration to mitigate the difficulties faced during and after the carceral experience.

The need for support

The literature examining the impact of incarceration on LOIs often focuses on the difficulties LOIs experience, such as those mentioned above, with few highlighting the coping mechanisms LOIs engage in or asking directly what LOIs need (Comfort et al., 2016; Grieb et al., 2014; Turanovic et al., 2012). Most often, researchers employ LOIs’ voices to identify barriers and then synthesize these findings to make inferences on LOIs’ needs. The limited studies that do take a strengths-based approach by directly asking LOIs how they navigate identified barriers find that one of the greatest needs, as well as greatest protective factors against stress and negative outcomes is support.

Support is found to be vital for the well-being of couples, caregivers, and children experiencing the incarceration of a loved one. How support is operationalized varies across studies; some identify enhanced telephone and video communication and in-person visitation with the incarcerated individual as key mechanisms for support (Comfort et al., 2016; Einat et al., 2015). Financial and in-kind support is also discussed as keys to success, including assistance with transportation to and from the prison, housing, childcare, and after-school programming (Comfort et al., 2016; Tadros and Finney, 2018, 2019). Other studies identify needs for emotional and psychological support through friends, family, school counselors, and support groups (Comfort et al., 2016; Turney, 2019). Social support from other LOIs in the community who can commiserate and share ideas, insights, and resources is a particularly salient need identified across several studies (Comfort et al., 2016; Tadros et al., 2023a, 2023b; Turanovic et al., 2012).

Because of the social stigma associated with incarceration (Braman, 2004), many LOIs experience a “courtesy stigma” due to their proximity to the carceral experience (see DeShay et al., 2021). As a result, many LOIs have noted difficulties locating in-person social support from similarly situated individuals (Comfort et al., 2016). A growing literature finds that online forums and groups have become increasingly popular for LOIs to garner support and advice (Tadros et al., 2023a; Tadros and Presley, 2022; Umamaheswar, 2021). For researchers, collecting data from an online forum is a particularly equitable methodology, as it allows individuals to share in a space that is free of researcher influence and bias. Of course, any public representation of self, whether through face-to-face interviews, survey responses, or forum posts, has the potential for disingenuity or selectivity in what is disclosed or discussed. However, the supportive and non-judgmental environment curated by the page’s regulations and guidelines is likely to encourage honesty and candidness. The availability of the platform also creates a dataset unbound by a specific point in time, which likely facilitates a more accurate and fully encompassing representation of needs, as the findings are organic and not dependent upon researchers’ assumptive questions.

Our study seeks to understand the social support that is both received and shared across members of the Facebook group Inmate Support State & Federal (Incarcerated Loved Ones). The aim of this study is to highlight both the needs of LOIs, as stated by LOIs, as well as the ways LOIs provide support and advocate for one another. With these examples, professionals working with this population can obtain a more holistic picture of the LOI experience to become better advocates and identify strengths to leverage in their work together.

Participants

The data was collected from an online Facebook group, “Incarcerated Loved Ones.” This group consisted of 16.3 k members primarily located in the U.S., although the group does not exclude those from other counties. The group was created for the purpose of providing encouragement, advocating for reform, and informing members on issues related to the criminal legal process. In order to access the group, one must obtain permission from the group administrator by answering two questions: (1) Do you agree to read and follow the rules? And (2) Do you have an incarcerated loved one and if not why do you wish to join? It is a closed group and all members must agree to five rules which include being kind and courteous, no promoting or selling, respecting the privacy of members, no profanity, and no asking for money. Due to this being a closed group, some of the researchers had to join the group to gain access. The researchers were transparent in their rationales, discussed in detail below, for joining the group when probed by the administrator.

Data collection procedures

First, the researchers received Governors State University’s Institutional Review Board approval for the current study. The lead researcher discussed the study with the administrator of the closed group and gained approval before starting data collection. The lead researcher has conducted previous studies with this group; thus, the administrator and researcher have had several conversations. The group administrator did a Facebook live discussion explaining the research to group members with the intention for them to feel safe and comfortable as well as to inform them that the researchers’ goal is to gain a better understanding of their experiences.

Since the Facebook group was private group and we were not able to receive informed consent from all 16,000 participants, we have anonymized the data to protect group members and preserve a sense of safety in a space where they turn for help and support for complex personal issues (Umamaheswar, 2021). We recognize, however, that simply providing pseudonyms may not afford complete anonymity since readers may be able to infer identity due to the details conveyed in the post. Therefore, we have also redacted the age, dates, and locations mentioned in the posts to protect the privacy of those included in the dataset.

The current dataset was created by copying individual posts from the Facebook group “Incarcerated Loved Ones” during the time period of July 1st to October 1st of 2021 into an excel sheet. This time frame was chosen due to the recency of the posts, as data collection began during that period. Although there were over a thousand posts during this time frame, for the current study, we only pulled posts into our database that included six specific keywords signaling support: “need” (n = 151), “should” (n = 40) “hope” (n = 67), “suggest” (n = 11), “want” (n = 98), and “question” (n = 70). The keywords encompassed the various classes of each word, for example “hope” included “hopefully,” “hoping,” “hopeful,” “hopes,” and “hopeless.” These words were selected after careful thought from the researchers about how people ask for what they want and need. These inclusion criteria resulted in a database of 441 posts, some of which had multiple keywords within a single post. However, we eliminated an additional four posts that included these terms, but were written by group administrators about rules and therefore did not reflect the LOI experience. For example, one administrator wrote, “The rules can be seen at the top of our page under ‘ABOUT’...If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to any of the admins on this page.” The term “question” is included here but does not reflect support, so the quotation was eliminated. As a result of these inclusion and exclusion criteria, we ended up with a final n of 437 posts.

Analytic strategy: thematic analysis

Qualitative research seeks to understand a phenomenon, based on those who are experiencing it (Braun and Clarke, 2006). When looking at the importance of support on LOIs, experiential evidence provides crucial insight into the issues faced by this population, as well as how to best address them. One way in which to conduct this qualitative research is through thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is a foundational tool in qualitative research that identifies common meanings between themes over a single interview or sets of interviews (Braun and Clarke, 2006; Mojtaba et al., 2013). The purpose of utilizing thematic analysis is to examine narrative data from personal stories and break them up into smaller sets of descriptive data, to create the results (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis was the best methodology for our study due to the hyperfocus on thematic similarities between data (each individual post). This helps create a more personal and realistic data set that reflects the participant’s points of view and allows for the development of concrete and specific solutions to these individualized problems. Once we had all of the relevant needs-related posts compiled into a document, we uploaded the document into ATLAS.ti, a qualitative analysis software. Once in ATLAS, we open-coded each post, synthesizing the post into one or two words we felt best captured the sentiment of the content (Thornberg and Charmaz, 2014). This process resulted in 27 codes, including logistical question, need encouragement, seeking advice, and venting. We then organized all codes by subject, which resulted in three main themes: Connection, Information Seeking, and Advocacy Resources.

Connection

One of the most common themes identified (n = 302 posts) was the desire for group members to connect with one another by sharing updates, seeking advice, and displaying gratitude. Many group members simply wanted a platform where they could express themselves and tell their story while not explicitly asking for advice or commentary. This was often expressed through venting, or sharing thoughts without asking a specific question in the post. The group was a cathartic space for participants to share both positive news and feelings of despair. For example, one group member shared,

I cant believe its been already three months that my love of my life gain[ed] his wings im still struggling everyday because i miss him so much and our children miss him my five year old grandaughter talks about him a lot she was a papaws girl and always will be never in a lifetime i thought he would die in the prison system but he did but he knew he wasnt coming home he has told me babe my heart isnt gonna make it another ten years and i just didnt wanna believe him and he was right. its so hard at times too fouss [focus] and get up out of bed at times i just wanna lay in bed all day but i keep pushing myself because of our [redacted age] son and our grandaughter im sorry everyone for venting.

In contrast, another group member shared a positive update regarding her son stating,

Off the charts with excitement my son seen his counselor today they are reducing his charges so he will be eligible to come home 3 months early it has been and exhausting rollercoaster ride and family members have to endure my life was turned upside down in a blink of and eye stood by our son all the way I hope and pray this will turn his life around and learned from this horrific experience that nobody should ever endure god is watching over him I do believe is the answer !!!!!

While these group members did not specifically solicit or offer advice in their storytelling, other members incorporated words of encouragement in their updates, “Found out my love will be home [redacted date] possibly sooner!!!! Ahhhh God is Good!! Great positive things coming!!...Never give up hope beautiful souls!! There is light! Xoxo.”

Some group members told their story and then specifically requested support or stories from individuals who had experienced similar traumas. For instance, one group member stated,

Hello! I’m new to this. My boyfriend is incarcerated in [redacted state] and I’m in [redacted state. He’s been gone since just after I found out I was pregnant (5 weeks) and now she’s 4 weeks old. It’s been rough with him gone mentally, physically, emotionally, and financially. He just got sentenced to 18 months which is a total miracle because the state wanted 5 years. He’s got a few months before he’ll meet our daughter and I’m nervous and excited. We’ve not been together very long but neither of us has felt like this about anyone. I just worry that his past will continue to haunt our future. He’s an addict and he was originally incarcerated because he relapsed here in [redacted state]. He had a warrant we wanted to take care of in [redacted state] but I had found out I was pregnant so we didn’t know what to do. That was forced when he relapsed and caught charges here. When he gets back he’ll have a year of probation here which worries me. He’s also a felon now so jobs may be tricky.... I’m really just looking for some encouraging stories and support and I’m willing to offer support in return.

The concept of support was often presented as reciprocal, with members both offering and soliciting motivation, emotional validation, or advice. Members asked for advice on a host of topics from issues relating to co-parenting to relationship conflict. One member wrote,

My ex husband is in county jail and he wants me to bring his kids to see him. He has been in there 3 weeks today. Anyways can anyone give me advice on this. My kids are [redacted ages]. My [redacted age] knows his dad is in jail but is scared to go see him. (He is afraid he is going to jail) I try to explain that he would be going there and leaving but he isn’t going to understand. I think it’s better to take them now rather than later. Any advice will help.

Another group member asked,

Should I be able to have my LO’s Fb password. He makes a big deal when I ask to see it??? I feel he is hiding something from, he claims he will let me see it when it’s his last year in prison……..but what I don’t get is he lets someone else check his fb that I don’t even know?????.. I need some good insight.

The issues members brought up were always related to the impacts of the carceral experience and would likely be difficult to understand for those not directly affected by the criminal legal system. Isolation is a common experience for many LOIs who experience secondary stigma and feel as if no one can relate (Hannem, 2011; Hannem and Leonardi, 2014). The group provided a space where individuals did not have to contextualize at length or provide much background information, because the assumption was that others in the group could relate and therefore understand. Members expressed feeling seen by other members in ways potentially beyond the scope of outsiders’ abilities.

The group was originally created in 2015 and some members have been active participants for many years. As a result, some members have made connections and shared stories throughout the entire carceral process, leading to expressions of gratitude for the consistent support. For example, one group member shared a photo,

Captioned: Jodi, I just wanted to share with you and the group that my husband is home! You have all helped me through so much in this nightmare. Our appeal was denied and has just been sent to our state Supreme Court. Nothing is free in this system, but he is home for now. Thank you all for the guidance and prayers. I love you guys.

Another group member shared,

my son is finally out on bond with house arrest that I get to pay for. He can’t work, among other things, but I am happy that he is finally out of jail. Something really needs to be done about Pre-trial confinement. I am thankful for the safe space this group allows me to have. Thank you all for your stories, as you motivate me more than you know.

Many expressed how the Facebook group was the only place members felt safe to express themselves or felt heard and respected. This highlights the need for more supportive communities that allow cathartic release and advice-sharing void of judgment and are characterized by personal understanding through shared experience.

Criminal legal information seeking

Beyond seeking more personal advice, many group members often posted logistical inquiries relating specifically to criminal legal processes. Through the posts, it became clear that navigating the criminal legal system as an LOI is incredibly difficult, particularly when there are multiple facets of the system to navigate including judicial proceedings, prisons, and the re-entry process.

Advocacy and activism

The proximity LOIs have to the flaws of the criminal legal system led many to become activists, publicly seeking justice for the injustices exposed to them. Group members shared links to petitions and social media campaigns. Within the theme, the codes activism and resources were found in 41 posts. In sharing these links, individuals aimed to draw attention to the issue at hand, generate action, and empower other LOIs to speak out for a shared cause. One group member shared a petition link accompanied by the post,

I would appreciate it so much if y’all could help me get my dad out of prison. He has been in there for too long…he got life +10 years. Please read up on his story and sign the petition. I am [redacted age] now and he has been gone for 17 years of my life now & I just want my dad back. PLEASE HELP ME RECEIVE MORE ATTENTION.

Another group member shared a petition link stating, “Say his name #[redacted name]. He’s partially paralyzed and was convicted of a bank robbery with 0 evidence to prove that this crime was ever committed. We need everyone’s help and assistance with getting him home to his family and love ones. #Justice & #FreedomFor [redacted name].”

LOIs were politically active as well, advocating for change on a systemic level,

Help those with Felony Robbery become eligible for Good Time Credits by amending the Code of [redacted state] § 18.2–58. Even if your loved one is not currently serving time for Robbery, join us in solidarity of this issue, let us band together to fight for change, so that further amendments and much needed progressive reform can follow suit. (Please remember that this is not an amendment to the Good Time Bill). This is our opportunity to push for further criminal justice reform in the [redacted state] This is only the beginning of our journey. We seek further improvements and amendments to the current system that will enhance the lives of those currently serving time in the state, as well as help their loved ones waiting for them at home. Please help us advocate for this issue. Sign the petition here:

Despite feeling confused, uninformed, and frustrated, LOIs demonstrated persistence in their desire to understand, learn, and help their justice-impacted loved ones, other LOIs, and broader society.

Limitations

Although this study has a variety of strengths, we aim to be transparent about the limitations that coincide with our methodology and this study as a whole. First, data collection was limited to those who have internet access, a Facebook account, and members of this particular group. There may be individuals of a lower socioeconomic status who were excluded due to lack of access to the internet and therefore their perspectives are not reflected in this data. Facebook also may not provide a representative sample of the overall population.

Additionally, the use of deidentified secondary data (i.e. previous Facebook posts) meant that demographic information, including gender, race, and socioeconomic status were not collected for this study. Therefore, we do not know if demographics may have impacted results. Expanding the limited inclusion criteria of key terms could have also allowed for more posts and therefore more data. Further, for the purpose of uniformity across the data, we did not include emojis or pictures, so some of the posts’ meaning could have been lost. Similarly, we may not have captured all the needs of these loved ones as the inclusion criteria for the posts needed to have at least one of the following words within it, “need,” “should,” “hope,” “suggest,” “want,” and “question”; thus, posts without these words were excluded. Therefore, we may be missing out on more information. Last, the public nature of the group, despite being a closed group, might shape the types of posts and information that is shared. Thus, although many individuals were very open about their experiences, some may be reluctant to share certain information.

Future directions

The national move to decarcerate is active yet slow. Until there are new systems in place that make the carceral experience and its broad collateral consequences obsolete, it is necessary to address the needs of LOIs. The information drawn from this study informs both macro and micro level change. While group members found the informal information provided in the Facebook posts to be helpful, without verification from professionals, there is potential for some of the advice to be misleading or even false. Implementing local resource centers where LOIs can consult experts on criminal legal proceedings and receive accurate and valid information at no cost provides a viable way to address LOIs’ concerns and questions. Providing LOI-led training to clinicians who work with LOIs as well as to criminal legal actors could provide a deeper understanding of how to best work with this population and allow this population to be a source of practical support for future clients.

Future studies may focus on other informal social platforms where LOIs communicate with one another or offer assistance in order to test whether the findings here are consistent across different LOI groups and to add any further nuanced definitions of support. Additionally, research into federal or state level programs that work with families of those incarcerated is necessary to determine if the programs and services that exist are adequate in addressing the needs of this population as identified here. Further, we encourage researchers examining populations involved or connected to the carceral system to take a strengths-based approach, identifying the negative impacts of incarceration as well as highlighting the ways these populations overcome and navigate such difficulties.