key: cord-0819134-j5qzons8
authors: Flynn, Catherine; Bartels, Lorana; Dennison, Susan; Taylor, Helen; Harrigan, Susy
title: Contact experiences and needs of children of prisoners before and during COVID‐19: Findings from an Australian survey
date: 2021-08-22
journal: Child Fam Soc Work
DOI: 10.1111/cfs.12873
sha: de4b703b103a79926d3ad7f8797533a849d71dbe
doc_id: 819134
cord_uid: j5qzons8

Most of the research examining children visiting a parent in prison indicates that visits have a positive impact on children's well‐being, their connection to the imprisoned parent and the parent themselves. However, the COVID‐19 pandemic brought about a significant change to prison visits worldwide, with limits or bans on face‐to‐face contact. Understanding the experiences and needs of children during this period remains limited. This paper presents the findings of a survey of 84 carers of 184 children across Australia, investigating children's experiences of contact with their imprisoned parent both before and during COVID‐19 restrictions. Although most carers reported maintaining contact during restrictions, a range of difficulties were noted: reduced availability; the effect of prison‐based issues, including lockdowns; and the suitability of video/telephone visits for young children. Some described the benefits of videoconferencing, including reduced travel time and cost, and not needing to take children into a prison environment. Despite this, respondents typically described the negative impact of restrictions, and lack of physical contact, on children's emotional well‐being. Our findings suggest that, for video visiting to be successful, it should be complementary to in‐person visits, tailored to the needs of children, with support offered to families.

commonly resulting in caregiving by mothers (Flynn, 2013) . What is known about these families is that psychological, social and economic stress is common; this is then exacerbated by the 'costs' of imprisonment, including reduced work and/or income and the additional costs of financially supporting the imprisoned person Trotter et al., 2015) . It is perhaps then unsurprising that only about half of all imprisoned parents receive visits from their children (Glaze & Maruschak, 2010) . This has an impact on family connectedness and can affect parents' ability to parent or remain involved with their child during and after prison (Arditti et al., 2005) . Specific barriers to visiting have been identified in relation to 'getting there' or 'being there' (Flynn, 2014) . The known, intersecting, challenges to 'getting there' relate to distance and cost. Research describes prisoners being held long distances from their homes (e.g. see Pierce, 2015) , creating additional financial and time stress for families when visiting (Dennison et al., 2014; Pierce, 2015; Scharff Smith & Jakobsen, 2014) .

Although this pattern has been described across a range of countries, it has particular relevance to Australia, in jurisdictions with low populations in a large geographical area (e.g. Dennison et al., 2014) .

Additional costs associated with visiting, including the need to purchase expensive and unhealthy food from vending machines, as well as food during the journey to the prison, have also been reported anecdotally and observed by some of the authors in practice.

Families who overcome these barriers still need to confront and negotiate 'complex administrative procedures and regulations' (Ryan et al., 2020 (Ryan et al., , p. 1059 , including criminal history and identity checks, booking systems, clothing requirements and drug detection procedures, before they are allowed entry to the prison. They are then confronted with an environment commonly described as hostile and intimidating (e.g. see Scharff Smith & Jakobsen, 2014) , lacking appropriate child-friendly facilities (Bartlett & Eriksson, 2018) and privacy (Pierce, 2015) . As argued by Ryan et al. (2020 Ryan et al. ( , p. 1059 , '[p] risons are not designed with visitors in mind'. The provision of poor visiting facilities has resulted in some imprisoned parents not wanting visits to occur (Dennison et al., 2017) . Additionally, strained family relationships, and hostility between ex-partners, may result in carers not being willing to bring children to visit-gatekeeping parent-child contact (Tasca, 2016) . More recent research (Arditti et al., 2021) has highlighted the complexity and shifting nature of these relationships, and how mothers in particular are actively engaged in both motherwork and prisonwork, making decisions which balance protecting children and supporting the incarcerated person. Beckmeyer and Arditti (2014, p. 130 ) described face-to-face, inperson visits as the 'most proximal form of contact' for families. What this contact actually looks like, however, varies considerably by jurisdiction, the institution's level of security and the security classification/risk of the prisoner, and the architecture itself. Face-to-face visits can include standard visits, with minimal physical contact; extended family visits; child-only visits; and box/non-contact visits.

For children, visiting allows them to see and communicate directly with their family member, reducing fears for safety and wellbeing (Flynn, 2014) . Horgan and Poehlmann-Tynan (2020, p. 400 ) claimed that '[c]ontact visits, when the parent and child can see each other in person and can hug and hold hands, are the most meaningful form of social interaction supporting family relationships'. Such contact also allows parents and children to either continue, or work on rebuilding, their relationships (Tasca, 2018) , which may result in better adjustment for children (e.g. see Trice & Brewster, 2004) . This is not to suggest that all contact is beneficial, however, with a range of factors influencing the contact experience. Prison visitation policies, practices and environments can be detrimental for children (Arditti, 2003; Poehlmann et al., 2010) . Prison visits may also be traumatizing for children who do not want to leave their incarcerated parent at the end of the visit (Arditti & Few, 2008) . Interviews with the children of imprisoned fathers also reveal that many felt fearful about visiting the prison and some did not feel safe there, feared the other prisoners or, in cases of domestic violence, feared visiting their incarcerated parent (Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008) . However, when the child has a positive relationship with the parent and where visits provide for meaningful contact in a safe environment, it is generally understood that visits are good for children, families, those in prison and the prison itself.

There are also a range of ways that non-contact connections can be maintained between imprisoned parents and their families, including letter-writing, phone calls and email. In Australia, phone calls can only be made by the prisoner out to the family, not in. All methods are typically limited, in terms of frequency and time; are costly; and are subject to surveillance. Pre-pandemic, Cramer et al. (2017) identified video visits as offering the opportunity to address key challenges with visiting, notably distance and cost. Turanovic and Tasca (2019) suggested that this type of visiting may also reduce the risk of secondary prisonization, by virtue of avoiding the physical prison environment. However, little is known about video visits. In Australia, research in Victoria and New South Wales (NSW) on responses to children when their primary carer was imprisoned indicated that only one out of 151 parents interviewed in 2012-2014 had accessed this type of visit, despite this service reportedly being on offer in both states (Trotter et al., 2015) .

In the United States, by contrast, video visits have been in place, and growing, over the past decade. In 2015, such visits were reportedly being trialled in more than 500 prisons/jails across 44 states/districts, although some visitors still have to travel to the prison setting to engage in a video visit (Rabuy & Wagner, 2015) . Practical challenges with these visits are also emphasized, such as poor quality, cost and availability, as well as visits ending abruptly (Cramer et al., 2017) . Rabuy and Wagner (2015) described some jails using video visits, then banning face-to-face visits, as part of the contract with the company providing the video visit technology. Horgan and Poehlmann-Tynan (2020) described considerable backlash against this, noting that some US states have now legislated to ensure that video contact cannot replace face-to-face visits. They contended, however, that video chat may be an effective and developmentally appropriate means of contact for children with imprisoned parents, where face-to-face visits are not possible. They suggested that the visual element of this medium creates more meaningful contact than the telephone for children under 8 years, who may not have the verbal and cognitive abilities required to engage by telephone, without visual cues and facial expressions. They also suggested that video chat can create a greater sense of physical closeness at a distance.

COVID-19 spread across the globe from early 2020 and was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 11 March 2020. The WHO (2020) also provided guidance on preventing and responding to COVID-19 in prisons, noting the potential for 'huge mortality rates' (Summers, 2020, p. 1) . Concerns were noted at that time about the challenges presented by both the environment and the prison population. Prisons are commonly overcrowded; in Australia, the average occupancy level is 112% (World Prison Brief, 2020).

Hence, these environments bring inherent difficulties in prevention, adequate hygiene, physical distancing and infection control. People held in prison also face specific risks, with compromised health, chronic health conditions, increased rates of mental illness and substance dependence, increasing their vulnerability to COVID-19 (Prison Reform International, 2020) . • access to and the types of visits;

• the challenges in maintaining contact;

• factors affecting visiting;

• perceptions of the availability and quality of contact between the child(ren) and imprisoned family member;

• self-reported coping, as well as observations on how both the child(ren) and imprisoned family member were coping; and

• suggestions for improvements to visiting.

For analytic purposes, we present the data about the eldest child in each family (the 'principal child'). Data were analysed using univariate descriptive analysis, as well as Fisher's exact test for examining associations between key categorical variables and McNemar's test for change in respondents' perceptions of contact availability and quality of interaction before and during COVID-19 (for this latter test, responses were collapsed into good/very good and poor/very poor).

responses. Content analysis was chosen to analyse these responses, as this approach is the most suitable for mapping data, particularly where structured questions are used, where the aim is to systematically describe and quantify trends (Bryman, 2015) . Given the focus on descriptive and manifest content, one coder completed this task.

Most respondents (85.5%) reported on visiting patterns both before and during COVID-19, as their family member had been in prison before March 2020. Nearly all respondents were women (98.8%, n = 83), and most were the mother of the child(ren) they were caring for (83.3%), whereas the imprisoned person was the child(ren)'s father. The next most common caring role was grandparent (8.3%).

The most common respondent age group was 30-39 (40.5%), followed by 20-29 (32.1%). Most respondents (83.0%) identified as non-Indigenous. Whereas few identified as having any type of disability or chronic illness (4.8%), 16.7% (n = 14) of their children were described as needing regular help with daily activities, due to disability or chronic illness. This is considerably higher than in the community population, where 7.4% of children aged 0-14 have some type of disability (AIHW, 2020). Table 1 displays the characteristics of the principal child for each respondent/family. Table 1 , almost 60% of children were male, 32.1% were aged 5-9 and 30.9% were under school age. Almost one-third (30.9%) were Indigenous, mirroring their persistent overrepresentation in the Australian prison system (ABS, 2020). A small percentage (6.0%) usually spoke a language other than English. In addition, for 16 children (19.0%), the imprisoned person had been the primary carer.

Of the 75 respondents whose family member was in prison pre-COVID-19, most (n = 65; 86.7%) stated that they had no problems with visiting before the COVID-19 restrictions. This is highly unexpected, given the well-established research, both in Australia and internationally, indicating that visiting is problematic. There are some possible methodological explanations for this. Firstly, the timing and focus of the survey. It may be that respondents were focused on their experiences during COVID-19 and completed the survey during the height of the restrictions, at a time of considerable stress, which may have made any previous difficulties seem less important. Secondly, given our recruitment strategies, it is possible that those who completed the survey were those in contact with support services and were receiving assistance to maintain contact, missing out on those for whom pre-COVID barriers to visiting had a significant impact.

However, we cannot confirm these speculations. Ten respondents identified multiple problems with visiting prior to COVID-19. These were distance to prison and cost of transport (both n = 7), visits too stressful and unable to come at visiting times (both n = 3), lack of transport and other issues (both n = 2) and prison lockdowns (n = 1).

Given what is known about challenges for families of getting to visits (e.g. see Flynn, 2014) , it is unsurprising that the main issues were about distance and the cost of transport. Although only a small number of respondents noted travel as a problem, this issue was also captured elsewhere in the survey; 41.7% (n = 35) of respondents indicated that they were travelling at least 2 h to get to the prison for visits. It was further noted that only 55.6% of this group were frequent visitors, compared with 87.5% of those whose travel was under 2 h (P = 0.008).

The survey also sought to determine how families maintained contact before the COVID-19 restrictions, with a specific focus on the type of contact (face-to-face and other). Of the 75 respondents whose family member was in prison pre-COVID-19, 10 (13.3%) reported that no visits took place. Of those who did visit with children, contact consisted predominantly of face-to-face visits (n = 64; 98.5%). Other types of contact included supported play (n = 9; 13.8%), box visits (n = 2; 3.1%) and 'other' types of visits (n = 4; 6.2%). Four respondents (5.3%) reported that no other types of contact took place between children and their imprisoned family member.

Seventy-one respondents (94.7%) reported on other forms of contact pre-COVID. Of these, most reported phone calls as an alternative form of contact (n = 68; 95.8%), followed by letters (n = 42; 59.2%). Skype (the type of videoconferencing then generally in use in Australian prisons) was not used at all, although one respondent (1.4%) reported using some other undescribed form of contact.

We sought to understand how well-prepared respondents felt for the changes to visiting, as a result of COVID-19 restrictions, by asking them to rate the information they received from the prison about these changes. The vast majority (78.0%, n = 82) reported that the information from the prison about the changes was either very poor (n = 43; 52.4%) or poor (n = 21; 25.6%). Whereas 20.7% (n = 17) felt the quality of information was good, only 1.2% (n = 1) considered it very good. contact. These are summarized in Figure 1 . Multiple responses were possible.

Of those describing problems, most reported multiple problems.

As is evident from Figure 1 , most of the identified problems related to prison facilities, including prison lockdowns (n = 34; 68.0%), shortened time for visits (n = 33; 66.0%) and poor/no access to video visits at the prison (n = 25; 50.0%). One-half of the respondents who indicated problems, however, described the children as not wanting to participate in non-face-to-face visits (n = 25). A small number of respondents noted 'other' issues, including poor communication from the prison about visiting and the impact of lack of physical contact for children.

Of the 84 respondents whose family member was imprisoned was quite different to that observed for availability of contact discussed above. McNemar's test indicated that the change in the proportion of good/very good ratings following the COVID-19 restrictions was not statistically significant (P = 0.065). As seen in Tables 2, 24 (49.0%) of the 49 respondents who rated the pre-COVID quality of interaction as good/very good changed their ratings to poor/very poor. A similar percentage (48.0%) of the 25 respondents who initially perceived the quality of interaction as poor/very poor changed their ratings to good/very good following the COVID-19 restrictions. Therefore, there were similar proportions of positive and negative changes.

Although just under three-quarters of respondents (n = 61, 72.6%) reported no positive elements to contact after visits were suspended, it is important to note that 27.3% (n = 23) did describe some positive aspects (multiple responses were possible). The latter are summarized in Figure 2 , presented as number of respondents, due to the small size of this subgroup.

The main positives identified were the reduced time/cost involved, not needing to travel to the prison and subsequently not needing to take the children into a prison environment. Some identified that video visits were more private and less distracting for children than face-to-face contact in a visits centre. Eight respondents noted 'other' positives; these included children being able to show their parent things around the house, for example, pets, garden and activities; the imprisoned parent being able to participate in the child's bedtime routine; and reduced concern about a child with a traumatic brain injury being 'restless and unsettled' during a visit.

Respondents were asked to describe what they considered to be the effects of the COVID-19 prison visiting restrictions on the health and well-being of the children for whom they were caring. Seventy-six responses were provided; some indicated multiple effects on children.

These responses were thematically analysed and are summarized in Only two carers (2.6%) said the changes had no impact, whereas seven participants (9.2%) described some positive effects brought about by these changes, reflecting the data highlighted in Figure 3 .

These related to the children not having to travel to the prison: Some specifically noted that the lack of face-to-face contact was not only affecting the child, but the bond between the parent and child:

My kids are feeling very detached from their dad and do not even want to take his calls.

Not interacting with his father and not being able to build a relationship.

My son will lose the bond with his father and will not know who he is.

Respondents were asked to assess how well the children were coping with the changed prison contact arrangements, with 69% (n = 55) disagreeing/strongly disagreeing that the children were coping. The reasons identified for children not coping largely reflect the data provided about changed visiting conditions and the associated difficulties.

The first issue was the lack of physical contact: The availability and consistency of contact for children was also an issue:

Only allowed one visit per week and before, when there were no visits at all, it has had long-lasting attachment issues on the child and she has ongoing trust issues and ongoing nightmares.

For some families, the changed visiting conditions meant no contact at all:

We have been waiting on approval for our visits to take place, now approved last week so can go to Zoom visit now (after 6 months) and they can be 30 minutes, if the regional Internet connection is adequate.

Seventy-seven people provided some response to this open question.

Responses can be broadly categorized into re-instigation of contact visits, improvements to non-contact visits and the provision of nonprison-based supports for children. These are summarized in Figure 4 . (Note: These suggestions were provided during the 2020 lockdown; some of these measures were subsequently implemented in some jurisdictions.)

Improving non-contact visits was a core focus of the suggestions, including increasing both the time allocated to and frequency of these visits. With regard to the time allocated for both phone and video calls, this seemed to vary significantly among participants. The survey did not specifically ask respondents to specify the time allowed for phone or video calls; this information was provided incidentally, but it can be gleaned from these responses that most children had less contact time with the imprisoned person since the introduction of visiting restrictions than previously.

Some saw shortened time on phone/video calls as not particularly suitable for children:

Longer phone calls. 6 mins is not enough time for a child.

More face time, 25 min once a week not enough.

Video calls … longer than 20 minutes.

Longer visiting sessions, because they start getting used to dad being on a screen and time's up.

The frequency of visits was also seen as problematic, with respondents calling for more video calls (e.g. a second Zoom call each week, especially for children under 12). Others noted some more specific and child-focused approaches that would improve non-contact visits,

notably the times at which these are offered, as well as what can be done during these visits, to make them more child-friendly and accessible:

Daily access to phone during before and after school time for prisoners with children under 12.

Extend phone timeslock-in is 2 pm [and] school finishes at 3 pm.

Phone calls at night to say goodnight. Getting their dad to read them a book and recording it.

Whereas visiting is not a panacea for all family problems nor is it necessarily beneficial for all children, in many instances, visits between parents in prison and their children has been shown to support the parent-child relationship (Beckmeyer & Arditti, 2014) and in some circumstances allow this to be rebuilt (Tasca, 2018) . Visiting can help parents to retain a connection to their identity as a parent (Hutton, 2016) and enable better engagement with their children after release (e.g. see Visher, 2013) .

Although regular and frequent visiting, supported by regular phone contact, was common among survey respondents, pre-COVID-19, consistent with previous research, those having to travel 2 h or more to the prison clearly experienced additional challenges, visiting less frequently. Considerable numbers of families (41.7%) fell into this category; of note is the additional burden for families in rural and remote areas, with Indigenous families disproportionately affected.

It is reasonable to assume that the introduction of video visiting would address the challenges of travel time/distance. However, though 75% of respondents reported having these visits with their imprisoned family member, poor or no access to videoconferencing at the prison was not uncommon (n = 25). And although phone calls, a well-established medium, were the most frequent and regular form of contact, ongoing problems with poor or no access were also described by one-quarter of respondents (n = 21). That so many carers reported problems is concerning, given that the suspension of face-to-face visits has meant that phone or video calling was the only real-time contact option. As noted earlier, videoconferencing between individuals in prison and their loved ones was not common practice in Australia prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, efforts to quickly introduce videoconferencing capabilities may have led to limited facilities being provided, with ad hoc procedures put in place to guide and promote their usage. It is also likely that these problems were shaped, at least in part, by specific prison practices. This has been noted to be the case in the United Kingdom (Prison Reform Trust, 2020), with good practices driven by the goodwill and interest of individual staff or centres, rather than on accepted and widespread best practice. Although it was beyond the remit of this study to examine such practices, it would seem pertinent for supportive and meaningful contact to be prioritized by prisons, given what is known about the short-and longer term benefits of family support for prisoners and their children, as discussed above. Where face-to-face visiting is not possible, prisons and staff should show commitment to alternatives, such as video visits, with resources provided to ensure regular and high-quality non-contact visits. Of specific concern are the families who need to travel longer distances and are at risk of less regular contact; they should be given specific consideration, both in terms of additional support to enable visiting to occur and prioritizing for video visits.

Video visits, for some respondents, did address specific barriers to parent-child contact, by not having to travel or take children into what is known to be a hostile (e.g. see Ryan et al., 2020) and noisy (e.g. see Beckmeyer & Arditti, 2014) prison environment. Correspondingly, some carers were positive about visits occurring in a calmer home environment. Despite this, more than one-third indicated that the non-contact visiting options, in particular video visits as the alternative to face-to-face visits, were not suited to children's developmental needs, especially for younger children. Some specifically noted that their children did not want to engage in such visits. Although this is in contrast to Horgan and Poehlmann-Tynan's (2020) suggestions about the suitability of this modality for children aged 0-8 years, nuanced data from our survey explain this more fully. Key problems described related to the timing of visits (sometimes only offered when children were away from the home, e.g. at school); the focus on verbal interaction, which was not engaging or meaningful, particularly for preschool-aged children; the shortness of these calls; and, importantly, the lack of physical connection.

Constructively, the data indicate that, where these issues could be addressed (physical contact aside), carers felt that the children and imprisoned person were able to engage more fully in the video visit;

this also allowed a sense of normality and for parents and children to feel closer (Horgan & Poehlmann-Tynan, 2020) . Examples of this were video calls being offered at a time when children were home and where the imprisoned family member was able to participate in childfocused interactions (e.g. children showing their artworks or activities in the home) or be a part of household routines (e.g. bedtime or reading a story together). That video visiting holds both possibilities and challenges is reflected in the analysis, which shows equivocal results with regard to carers' perceptions of the quality of parent-child contact during COVID-related visiting restrictions.

Whereas face-to-face contact is considered the most meaningful form of parent-child contact (Beckmeyer & Arditti, 2014) suggested as a way to enhance the quality of video visits between a child and their incarcerated parent (Charles et al., 2021; Peterson et al., 2019) . Currently, little is done by correctional services to support carers. Arditti et al. (2021) , based on their research with women carers, suggest that counselling or psychological support, provided by services with specialist knowledge of the justice system, may assist mothers in negotiating relationships and bolster their well-being and that of their children. It may also aid caregivers in making decisions around the type of contact that is most beneficial for the children in their care and how to support children during periods when that contact is unavailable.

Although not an evident issue in this study, being mindful of the impact of poverty on access to technology must also be taken into consideration. Given the often-high levels of disadvantage experienced by families of prisoners, families may also need support to access videoconferencing facilities in their communities if they are not readily available in their home. This could be achieved by prisons working together with community agencies to support families on the outside. Access to video visits could also be enhanced by using, for example, platforms that are freely accessible on a tablet or smartphone. They should also supplement, rather than replace, inperson visits (Cramer et al., 2017) .

We recognize the limitations of our study. The sampling method meant that there was uneven representation across Australia. In addition, as discussed, only 13% of respondents reported problems visiting before COVID, which does not reflect the experiences detailed in the literature review. We also recognize that accessing respondents through This includes both children in the community and the imprisoned person. Furthermore, although 75% of carers reported having some contact via video visits, these were not readily available in all prisons.

Families living more than 2 h away from prisons reported challenges that pre-date the COVID-19 restrictions, which do not seem to have been specifically identified and responded to with the range of noncontact visiting options available. Families with young children also present distinct needs and highlight the need to tailor non-contact options to ensure supportive and ongoing parent-child contact.

Overall, this study supports the use of video visiting, complementary to in-person visits, to support parent-child contact while a parent is in prison. However, it also raises a number of policy and practical implications; if videos are to live up to their potential, a range of actions are required. These include:

• a commitment from prison services to face-to-face visits as the main form of contact, where possible;

• specific attention to prioritizing video visits for families who live considerable distances from where their family member is imprisoned;

• tailoring video visits to children's needs, including the specific needs of children with disabilities;

• ensuring visits are of significant length to facilitate meaningful interaction; and

• consideration of skill building for both adults and children to ensure effective video visits with children.

The pandemic forced sudden changes on practically every aspect of modern life, and correctional systems were clearly not exempt from this. In Australia, as in many other countries, the rapid changes included expanding the use of technology to substitute for in-person family visits. The challenge now for correctional agencies is to reap the benefits such technologies can provide while acknowledging their limitations and recognizing that there is no substitute for a child being able to hug their incarcerated parent in person.

Forthcoming). COVID-19 and prisons: The Australian experience

Locked doors and glass walls: Family visiting at a local jail

Maternal distress and women's reentry into family and community life

Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of incarceration for families and children

Maternal mediation in the context of fathers' incarceration and reentry

It's been hard to be a father": A qualitative exploration of incarcerated fatherhood

Corrective services. Australia

Corrective services. Australia

Australian Capital Territory Inspector of Correctional Services

Staying connected: The impact of digital exclusion on people living on low-incomes and the community organisations that support them

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare

How fathers construct and perform fathering in a liminal prison space

Implications of in-person visits for incarcerated parents' family relationships and parenting experience

Social research methods

Lessons from the field: Developing and implementing an intervention for jailed parents and their children

Parent-child visiting practices in prisons and jails: A synthesis of research and practice

Understanding how incarceration challenges proximal processes in father-child relationships: Perspectives of imprisoned fathers

My life is separated": An examination of the challenges and barriers to parenting for indigenous fathers in prison

Tablet computers have kept prisoners in touch with family during COVID-19

Mothers facing imprisonment: Arranging care for their adolescent children. Women and Criminal Justice

Getting there and being there. Visits to prisons in Victoria À the experiences of women prisoners and their children

Concerns about positive COVID-19 cases in Victorian prison system

Parents in prison and their minor children (NJC 222984)

In-home video chat for young children and their incarcerated parents

Visiting time: A tale of two prisons

The importance of early life touch for psychosocial and moral development

Children of incarcerated parents: Challenges and resiliency, in their own words

Model practices for parents in prisons and jails: Reducing barriers for families while maximizing safety and security

Male inmate perceptions of the visitation experience: Suggestions on how prisons can promote inmate-family relationships

Children's contact with their incarcerated parents: Research findings and recommendations

Global prison trends

How prisons are responding to Covid-19

Screening out family time: The for-profit video visitation industry in prisons and jails. The Prison Policy Initiative

Indigeneity prisoner visitation and reincarceration in Australia: The association between visits in prison and reincarceration for indigenous and nonindigenous people

Visiting in prisons: Staff, children, conditions and practice

Everyone will be contaminated": Prisons face strict coronavirus controls. The Guardian

The gatekeepers of contact: Child-caregiver dyads and parental prison visitation

The (dis)continuity of parenthood among incarcerated fathers: An analysis of caregivers' accounts

The effects of maternal incarceration on adolescent children

The impact of incarceration on children's care: A strategic framework for good care planning

Inmates' experiences with prison visitation

Incarcerated fathers: Pathways from prison to home

Stronger collaboration, better health: Global action plan for healthy lives and well-being for all

Preventing COVID-19 outbreak in prisons: A challenging but essential task for authorities

Highest to lowest -Occupancy level

Contact experiences and needs of children of prisoners before and during COVID-19: Findings from an Australian survey

This research was commissioned and supported by SHINE for Kids.

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.