The COPING Project - Today Monitor

When a parent goes to prison, the court sentences one person, but the effects reach the whole family. Children lose daily contact with a mother or father, often with no warning and little explanation. Many face stigma at school, financial hardship at home, and confusing or frightening visits to prison. For decades these children were barely visible in research, policy, or criminal justice practice. Advocates called them the “forgotten victims” or the “hidden victims of imprisonment.”

The COPING project was one of the most important attempts to change this. COPING stands for Children of Prisoners, Interventions and Mitigations to Strengthen Mental Health. It was a large international research study carried out between 2010 and 2012 and co-funded by the European Commission under the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). It looked at the mental health, wellbeing, and resilience of children aged 7 to 17 who had a parent in prison, in four countries with very different social and penal traditions: the United Kingdom (England and Wales), Germany, Romania, and Sweden.

This article explains what the COPING project was, why it was needed, how it was designed, what it found, and how its recommendations shaped later European thinking about children with imprisoned parents. It is written for social workers, teachers, prison staff, policymakers, researchers, students, and families who want a clear, practical understanding of the study and its relevance today.

Table of Contents

Why a Project Like COPING Was Needed

A large population that nobody was counting

Across Europe, hundreds of thousands of children are separated from a parent by imprisonment every year. A figure of around 800,000 children in the European Union is widely cited by child welfare organisations. The true number is uncertain, and that uncertainty is part of the problem. Most prison systems do not record whether a new prisoner has children, how old they are, or who is caring for them.

Several factors keep these children hidden:

No routine data collection. Courts and prisons focus on the person convicted, not their dependants.
Fear of disclosure. Imprisoned parents often worry that saying they have children could lead to social services intervening or the children being taken into care. Families may hide the imprisonment to avoid shame.
No institutional owner. Children of prisoners fall between government departments. Justice ministries manage prisons, health ministries manage mental health services, and education and child welfare services work separately. Nobody has clear responsibility.
Reliance on the voluntary sector. In most countries, almost all specialised support came from non-governmental organisations, often small and poorly funded.

Earlier research had important gaps

Before COPING, most studies on children of prisoners came from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Scandinavia. Longitudinal research had linked parental imprisonment with a higher risk of antisocial behaviour, mental health problems, drug use, and poor school performance. These studies were valuable, but they had limits that COPING set out to address.

Much of the evidence came from parents or professionals rather than from children themselves. Many studies focused only on harm and risk, with little attention to why some children cope well. Comparative research across countries with different prison systems and welfare models was almost absent. And very little work linked children’s needs to the services actually available to them.

A deficit-focused view of children

Much earlier research described children of prisoners mainly in terms of risk: future offending, behavioural problems, school failure. This framing can be stigmatising. It can suggest that these children are destined to follow their parents into crime, which is neither accurate nor helpful. COPING deliberately adopted a different starting point.

What the COPING Project Was

Funding and timeframe

COPING was funded under the Health theme of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme, the EU’s main research funding instrument at the time. The project ran for three years, from January 2010 to the end of 2012, and finished with an end-of-project conference where findings and recommendations were presented to policymakers, practitioners, and researchers.

Coordination and partners

The project was coordinated by the University of Huddersfield in the United Kingdom, with Professor Adele Jones leading the overall research. It brought together universities and non-governmental organisations in each of the four countries. This mix of academic researchers and practitioners was deliberate: NGOs that worked directly with prisoners’ families helped recruit participants, build trust, and make sure findings turned into practical recommendations.

Children of Prisoners Europe, known at the time as Eurochips, took part as a pan-European umbrella organisation. It helped spread the findings beyond the four study countries. The network later described COPING as its biggest achievement up to that point.

Core aims

COPING had several connected aims:

To describe the characteristics of children with an imprisoned parent in the four countries.
To assess their mental health and wellbeing using standardised, internationally recognised tools.
To understand resilience: which factors help some children cope well despite the imprisonment of a parent.
To capture the experiences and views of children directly, in their own words.
To map existing services and interventions for these children and judge how well they matched children’s real needs.
To produce evidence-based recommendations for policy and practice at national and European levels.

A Child-Centred, Positive Psychology Approach

The most distinctive feature of COPING was its theoretical framing. The researchers described it as a child-centred, positive psychology approach.

Child-centred

Being child-centred meant treating children as research participants in their own right, not as subjects described by adults. Children were surveyed and interviewed directly, and their views about what helped and what hurt were central to the analysis. This reflects the principle in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that children have the right to express their views on matters affecting them and to have those views taken seriously.

Positive psychology and resilience

Positive psychology looks at strengths, coping resources, and wellbeing, not only at symptoms. In COPING this meant asking not just “how much harm does parental imprisonment cause?” but also “what protects children, and how can that protection be strengthened?”

Resilience in this sense is not a fixed trait that some children have and others lack. It is a process that depends on relationships, environment, and support. A child’s resilience can be built up or worn down by the people and institutions around them. This framing has direct policy value. If resilience depends on things like stable care, honest communication, and good contact with the imprisoned parent, then prisons, schools, and welfare services can change outcomes by changing how they act.

How the Research Was Done

COPING used a mixed-methods, multi-stage design. Each stage built on the one before.

Stage one: literature review

The project began with a review of existing research on children of prisoners, mental health, and resilience, together with a review of the legal and policy context in each country. This set the baseline and showed where the gaps were.

Stage two: a large survey

The second stage was a questionnaire-based survey of children with an imprisoned parent and their non-imprisoned parents or carers. The age range was originally planned as 11 to 16 years, but it was widened to 7 to 17 so the study could speak about a much larger share of affected children. The team also made a deliberate effort to include children living in state care, a group that is often especially vulnerable and especially hard to reach.

The survey reached 737 children from 479 families, producing 1,347 individual questionnaires from children and carers. Two standardised tools were central:

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). This is a widely used screening tool for child mental health. It covers emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity and inattention, peer relationship problems, and prosocial behaviour. Parents complete it about their child, and children aged 11 and over can complete a self-report version. Because it is used in so many countries, it allowed comparison with national population norms.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. This short measure looks at how children value themselves, which is an important element of wellbeing and resilience.

The survey also asked about everyday life: health, school, friendships, holidays, contact with the imprisoned parent, and what children felt they needed.

Stage three: in-depth interviews

From the survey group, the researchers selected children for face-to-face interviews. In each country the target was about 40 interviews with children, 40 with their carers, and 40 with the imprisoned parents. Children were chosen from across the full range of SDQ results, from those with few difficulties to those with many. This meant the interviews could explore both vulnerability and resilience, not only the most troubled cases.

The team aimed for a balance of boys and girls, a spread of ages, and a meaningful share of cases where the imprisoned parent was the mother. This mattered because maternal imprisonment is often more disruptive: mothers are more often primary carers, and children are more likely to have to change home or carer when a mother goes to prison. Because women are a small minority of prisoners in all four countries, this required deliberate effort.

Across all four countries, 349 interviews were completed with children, carers, and imprisoned parents. Altogether, COPING gathered evidence from more than 1,500 children and adults.

Stage four: mapping services

In parallel, the project mapped the services and interventions that existed for children of prisoners in each country. These were then assessed against the evidence about children’s needs. The question was simple: does the support that exists match what children actually need?

Stage five: stakeholder consultation

Finally, the researchers held consultations with stakeholders in the four countries and beyond. These included practitioners, NGOs, prison officials, and policymakers. The aim was to test whether the findings applied more widely, to collect further views on children’s needs, and to judge whether existing support and criminal justice processes were aligned with those needs.

Why These Four Countries?

The choice of the UK, Germany, Romania, and Sweden was strategic. The four countries differ in incarceration rates, penal philosophy, welfare systems, cultural attitudes to family and crime, and the level of support available to prisoners’ families.

United Kingdom (England and Wales). England and Wales has one of the highest imprisonment rates in Western Europe. At the time of the study, it also had a relatively active voluntary sector supporting prisoners’ families, with visitor centres, helplines, and family support programmes, though provision varied a lot from prison to prison.

Germany. Germany has a lower imprisonment rate and a federal structure in which prison policy is largely a matter for the individual states. Practice regarding family contact and visiting therefore differed by region. Visiting time for prisoners was often limited, which shaped children’s contact with their parents.

Romania. As a newer EU member state still going through post-communist reform, Romania faced serious economic pressures, high levels of family poverty in some regions, and limited specialised services. Large distances between prisons and family homes, combined with travel costs, made visiting especially difficult for many families.

Sweden. Sweden represents the Nordic welfare model, with a lower imprisonment rate, generally shorter sentences, a strong child rights tradition, and more developed public welfare services. Even so, specialised support for children of prisoners still relied heavily on NGOs.

Comparing these contexts let the researchers separate effects that seem to follow from parental imprisonment itself from effects shaped by national systems. It also allowed them to identify good practice in one country that could be adopted elsewhere.

Key Findings of the COPING Project

1. Children of prisoners face significantly higher mental health risks

The central finding was clear. Children with a parent or carer in prison were at significantly greater risk of mental health problems than their peers in the general population. Comparing SDQ scores with national norms showed that a larger share of children of prisoners scored in the ranges that indicate emotional, behavioural, or social difficulties.

The difficulties showed up in several areas: emotional problems such as anxiety, sadness, and worry; behavioural difficulties; problems with peers; and in some cases school difficulties. Older children, particularly those of secondary school age, appeared especially vulnerable, which researchers linked to the pressures of adolescence, greater awareness of stigma, and the social importance of peer acceptance at that age.

At the same time, the picture was not uniform. Many children were coping reasonably well, and a large number reported positive self-esteem. This is exactly why the resilience framing mattered: the same event led to very different outcomes depending on what surrounded the child.

2. Imprisonment is a process, not a single event

Interviews showed that children are affected at every stage of the criminal justice process, not just after sentencing. Key moments of stress included:

Arrest. Some children witnessed their parent being arrested, sometimes at home, sometimes violently or at night. These experiences could be frightening and stay with children for a long time.
Remand and trial. Uncertainty about what would happen, and sometimes media coverage, added stress.
Sentencing and the first weeks. The sudden loss of a parent and changes to routine, finances, and sometimes housing or carer were especially hard.
The sentence itself. Ongoing separation, the experience of prison visits, and the strain on the remaining carer.
Release and resettlement. Return of the parent is often hoped for but can be difficult. Family roles may have changed, and children may need time to rebuild trust.

This finding pushed the project toward recommendations that cover the whole justice process, including police practice at arrest and court consideration of children at sentencing.

3. Contact with the imprisoned parent matters a great deal

When children were asked what they needed most, the clearest answer across all four countries was help visiting their parent in prison. Good-quality contact with the imprisoned parent was one of the strongest factors linked to children’s wellbeing.

But many children experienced visits as difficult. Common problems included:

long and expensive journeys to distant prisons;
short and inflexible visiting times, often during school hours;
intimidating security procedures, including searches;
noisy, crowded, or unwelcoming visiting halls with nothing for children to do;
rules that prevented physical contact such as hugging;
staff who did not always treat children with warmth or respect.

Phone contact was also important but often limited by cost and prison rules. Children valued being able to talk to their parent regularly, especially on days that mattered to them.

4. Honest, age-appropriate communication protects children

Many families tried to protect children by not telling them where the parent was. Children were told their parent was working abroad, in hospital, or away for some other reason. COPING found that secrecy usually did more harm than good. Children often sensed that something was wrong or found out the truth from others, and this could damage trust and increase anxiety.

Children who received honest explanations suited to their age generally coped better. They could make sense of what was happening, ask questions, and get support. Families, however, often needed help knowing how and what to tell children, which became an important area for recommendations.

5. Stigma and shame are a major burden

Stigma was a powerful theme. Children described fear of others finding out, bullying or teasing at school, being excluded by peers, and feeling different. Some felt they had to keep a family secret, which isolated them from friends and teachers. Media reporting of a parent’s crime could make things worse, especially where children’s names or photographs appeared or the family was easy to identify locally.

6. The caregiver is the cornerstone of resilience

In all four countries, the support of the non-imprisoned parent or other caregiver, and of extended family, was crucial to children’s resilience. A stable, warm, and responsive carer could buffer much of the harm. But these carers were often under heavy strain themselves: managing on reduced income, raising children alone, coping with their own emotions, dealing with practical consequences of the imprisonment, and often facing stigma too. Supporting carers was therefore one of the most effective ways to support children.

7. Family violence and other adversities shape outcomes

Parental imprisonment rarely happens in isolation. Many children had experienced other difficulties before the imprisonment, such as poverty, parental substance misuse, or family violence. COPING found that exposure to family violence had a negative effect on children’s wellbeing. This complicates simple conclusions. For some children, imprisonment removed a harmful presence; for most, it meant losing a loved parent. Services therefore need to assess each child’s situation individually rather than assume one standard response fits all.

8. Schools can be a source of help or harm

School was an important setting in children’s lives. A teacher who knew about the situation and responded with understanding could provide real support and a safe place. But many children did not tell anyone at school, fearing stigma. Where schools were informed, responses varied: some were supportive, others were not, and some children felt exposed. The researchers concluded that schools need awareness, guidance, and sensitivity to support these children without singling them out.

9. Services are patchy and uncoordinated

The mapping exercise found a wide range of services across the four countries, but they were often not designed specifically for children of prisoners. Provision was patchy, poorly coordinated, and reached only a relatively small share of affected children. Most specialised support came from NGOs, which depended on short-term funding.

There was no mainstream, statutory provision targeted at this group. Children of prisoners did not appear as a distinct group in most national child welfare or mental health strategies.

10. Good practice exists and can be shared

Despite the overall gaps, COPING identified many examples of good practice by NGOs in all four countries. These included child-friendly visiting arrangements, family days in prisons, visitor centres offering information and emotional support, support groups for children, parenting programmes for imprisoned parents, helplines and information for families, and training for prison staff and teachers. These examples showed that improvement was realistic and could be adapted across borders.

Country Differences in Brief

While the core findings were consistent, national context shaped children’s experience in important ways.

In Sweden, a stronger welfare system and child rights culture helped, but children still reported stigma and difficulties with contact, which shows that a good welfare state alone does not solve the problem.

In the United Kingdom, the voluntary sector offered relatively developed family support in some places, but the high prison population, long distances to some prisons, and inconsistent practice between establishments meant many children went without help.

In Germany, the federal structure produced variation, and limited visiting time was a recurring concern for maintaining parent–child relationships.

In Romania, poverty, distances, and limited specialised services were significant barriers, and the economic consequences of imprisonment could weigh especially heavily on families.

These differences reinforced a key message: outcomes for children are not only determined by the imprisonment itself but also by the systems that surround it.

The COPING Recommendations

The findings were turned into a set of actionable recommendations at national and pan-European levels. They covered every stage of the criminal justice process and every institution that touches the lives of these children.

Arrest and policing

Police should consider the presence of children when planning arrests and, where possible, avoid arresting parents in front of their children.
If children are present, officers should act calmly and sensitively, and ensure children are immediately cared for by a suitable adult.
Police should have protocols for identifying and informing services about dependent children.

Courts and sentencing

Courts should take into account the impact of a sentence on the defendant’s children, including when considering custody versus community alternatives.
The best interests of the child, as set out in Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, should be considered in decisions affecting the parent.
Where a custodial sentence is unavoidable, its effects on children should be planned for.

Prisons and contact

Child-friendly visiting should be standard: welcoming visiting spaces, play areas, activities, and refreshments.
Visiting hours should be flexible and available outside school hours, including weekends and holidays.
Searches and security procedures should be carried out in a child-sensitive way.
Family days and extended visits where parents and children can spend relaxed time together should be offered.
Phone calls between prisoners and their families should be affordable and accessible, with options such as video calls where possible.
Prisoners should, where possible, be placed close to their families.
Prison staff should receive training on children’s needs and behave in a respectful, child-friendly way.
Prisons should record whether prisoners have children and use this information to plan support.

Information and communication

Families should receive clear information about the justice process, prison rules, and visiting.
Carers should be supported to explain imprisonment honestly to children in an age-appropriate way.
Materials designed for children, such as books and leaflets, should be available.

Schools

Teachers and school staff should be trained to recognise and support children with a parent in prison.
Schools should be alert to stigma and bullying and protect children’s privacy.
Children should be able to choose whether and with whom they share their situation.

Health and social services

Mental health and child welfare services should recognise children of prisoners as a group with specific needs.
Early identification and support should be available, rather than waiting for problems to escalate.
Carers should have access to practical, financial, and emotional support.

Media

Media outlets should report on crime and imprisonment in a way that protects children’s identity and avoids stigma.

National and European policy

Governments should develop coordinated strategies that bring together justice, health, education, and social services.
NGOs supporting children of prisoners should receive stable, long-term funding.
Data on children affected by parental imprisonment should be collected systematically.
Good practice should be shared across countries, and European institutions should promote common standards.

The Legacy of the COPING Project

Raising visibility

COPING was the first study of its scale in Europe to involve children with imprisoned parents so directly, and to compare their situation across several countries using common methods. It moved the conversation from anecdote and advocacy toward robust, comparative evidence. That evidence gave NGOs, child rights organisations, and policymakers a stronger basis for arguing that these children deserve attention.

Influencing European standards

The findings contributed to a wider movement in Europe that culminated in the Council of Europe’s Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)5 concerning children with imprisoned parents. This recommendation, adopted by the Committee of Ministers, asks member states to respect the rights of these children throughout the justice process, including in arrest, sentencing, prison contact, and preparation for release. Many of its themes, including child-friendly visits, consideration of children at sentencing, staff training, and the importance of maintaining the parent–child relationship, closely mirror the COPING recommendations.

COPING also fed into the international child rights debate that recognised children of incarcerated parents as a distinct group under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, building on the principles of the best interests of the child, the right to maintain contact with a separated parent (Article 9), and the right to be heard (Article 12).

Shaping practice

Across Europe, prison systems and NGOs have increasingly introduced child-friendly visiting rooms, family days, video calls, parenting programmes for prisoners, visitor centres, and information materials for children. Advocacy campaigns by Children of Prisoners Europe and its member organisations continue to draw on the knowledge base that COPING helped build. The project’s resilience framing also influenced how services are designed, with a stronger emphasis on strengthening protective factors rather than only managing risk.

Shaping research

COPING demonstrated that it is possible and ethical to do large-scale research directly with children of prisoners, that standardised tools like the SDQ can be used across countries for comparison, and that combining surveys, interviews, service mapping, and stakeholder consultation produces a rich, policy-relevant picture. Later studies of children with imprisoned parents in Europe and elsewhere have built on this model.

Limitations Worth Understanding

A fair assessment of COPING should also acknowledge its limitations, which researchers themselves were aware of.

Sampling. Because there are no national registers of children with imprisoned parents, participants were recruited through prisons, NGOs, and services. Families in contact with these services may differ from those who are not, so the sample cannot be fully representative.
Cross-sectional design. The survey captured children at one point in time. It could show that children of prisoners face higher risk, but it could not fully separate the effect of imprisonment from earlier adversities or follow children over years.
National comparability. Each country used its own normative ranges for the SDQ, which made comparison with national populations meaningful but also introduced some variation between countries.
Four countries. The study covered four very different contexts, but Europe is diverse, and findings may play out differently elsewhere.

These limitations do not undermine the core conclusions. The consistency of findings across four very different countries, and their alignment with research elsewhere, gives them considerable weight.

Why COPING Still Matters

The issues COPING studied have not gone away. Children continue to experience the arrest and imprisonment of parents across Europe, and many still face the same barriers: distance, cost, inflexible visiting, stigma, and lack of coordinated support. The project’s message remains relevant for anyone working with these children:

Parental imprisonment is a significant risk to children’s mental health, but harm is not inevitable.
Resilience can be built through stable caregiving, honest communication, good contact with the imprisoned parent, and supportive schools and services.
Every institution in the justice process, from police to prisons, has a role to play.
Small changes, such as a welcoming visiting room or a teacher who understands, can make a real difference.

Practical Takeaways for Different Readers

For parents and carers: Honest, age-appropriate explanations generally help children more than secrecy. Supporting regular contact with the imprisoned parent, where safe and appropriate, can protect children’s wellbeing. Carers should also look after themselves and seek support from family, friends, or organisations working with prisoners’ families.

For teachers: Be aware that some pupils may have a parent in prison without anyone at school knowing. Watch for changes in behaviour, mood, or attendance. Respond with discretion and let children decide what to share. Address bullying firmly.

For prison staff and managers: Visits are among the most important moments in these children’s lives. Child-friendly spaces, respectful treatment, flexible times, and family days make a measurable difference. Recording whether prisoners have children helps plan support.

For social workers and health professionals: Recognise children of prisoners as a group at higher risk and consider parental imprisonment in assessments. Support for the carer is support for the child.

For policymakers: Coordinate across justice, health, education, and welfare; fund NGO services sustainably; collect data; and build children’s interests into decisions about arrest, sentencing, and prison regimes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does COPING stand for?
COPING stands for Children of Prisoners, Interventions and Mitigations to Strengthen Mental Health.

When did the COPING project take place?
It ran from 2010 to 2012 as a three-year project.

Who funded the COPING project?
It was co-funded by the European Commission under the Health theme of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7).

Which countries took part?
The United Kingdom (England and Wales), Germany, Romania, and Sweden.

Who led the research?
The project was coordinated by the University of Huddersfield in the UK, working with university and NGO partners in each country, with Children of Prisoners Europe (then Eurochips) as a pan-European partner.

How many people were involved?
The project gathered evidence from more than 1,500 children and adults. The survey included 737 children from 479 families, and 349 in-depth interviews were carried out with children, carers, and imprisoned parents.

What age were the children?
Children aged 7 to 17 took part.

What tools were used to measure mental health?
The main tools were the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, combined with in-depth interviews.

What was the main finding?
Children with a parent in prison were at significantly greater risk of mental health problems than their peers, but resilience varied widely and depended strongly on caregiving, communication, contact with the imprisoned parent, and the support of schools and services.

What did children say they needed most?
Across all four countries, the top need was help visiting their parent in prison.

What changed as a result?
COPING’s evidence and recommendations contributed to wider European efforts, including the Council of Europe’s Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)5 concerning children with imprisoned parents, and to practical improvements such as child-friendly visiting, family days, and better staff training in many prison systems.

Conclusion

The COPING project gave children of prisoners something they had rarely been given before: a voice in research and a place in European policy debate. By listening directly to more than a thousand children and adults across four very different countries, it showed that parental imprisonment poses a serious risk to children’s mental health, but also that the right support can help many children cope and even thrive.

Its most lasting contribution is a shift in perspective. Children of prisoners are not simply at-risk youngsters to be monitored. They are children with rights, relationships, and strengths, whose wellbeing depends on how police, courts, prisons, schools, and welfare services choose to act. The evidence COPING produced remains a practical guide for anyone who wants to make sure that a parent’s sentence does not become a punishment for their child.