Proceedings of the First
National Conference on the
Family and Corrections, April 24-27, 1988, Sacramento,
California
© Copyright
1989, Family and Corrections Network
PART III RESEARCH ON THE FAMILY AND CORRECTIONS
Current
Views of Inmate Visiting
Lawrence A. Bennett, Ph.D.
While there seems to be an
acceptance of the value of family ties and visits with inmates (Holt
and Miller, 1972), there is a dearth of information about either
what is going on in the prisons across the United States or what
correctional administrators think about inmate visiting. To obtain
an estimate of what's currently happening in the field, all fifty
states, four U.S. territories, the Federal Bureau of Prisons and the
District of Columbia were surveyed.
Background Literature
A current review of the
literature produced results very similar to the findings of past
investigators; namely, there are very few studies available about
inmate visits and the relationships of such visits to institutional
adjustment, program participation, continuation of the marriage or
general post-institutional adjustment. Most articles available tend
to be descriptive and deal with either the assumed positive effects
of visiting on inmate adjustment (e.g., Morris, 1965; Cobean and
Power, 1978; Fox, 1981), the problems of the suffering of the family
as the result of incarceration of the male breadwinner (e.g.,
Brodsky, 1975; Schneller, 1975, Hinds, 1981), or the difficulties
encountered by families in obtaining services, especially visiting
assistance (e.g., Fishman and Cassin, 1981). A now famous study by
Holt and Miller (1972) found that those who consistently received
visits from relatives or friends tended to have a more favorable
parole outcome. In fact, based on outcome during the first year
following release, six times as many prisoners who had no visitors
had failed, as compared to those who had frequent visits from at
least three different relatives or friends. Similar findings had
been reported earlier by Glaser (1964), which indicated a parole
success rate of 74 percent for those with active and sustained
visits from family, as compared to 43 percent for those without
visits. Parole violation rates were inversely related to the number
of family visits in a study of 17,000 men paroled over a 20 year
period (Ohlin, 1954), with the parole violation rate of 66 percent
for those with no visits, compared with 26 percent for those who had
2 or 3 visits per month.
All of these studies suggest a
strong relationship between no visits and poor post-institutional
adjustment, but while showing a consistent trend, still only depict
a correlational relationship. Causality cannot be determined from
these studies. However, the work of "M-2" presents somewhat stronger
evidence, because they approached the problem with the predictive
hypothesis that providing visitors would have a positive impact.
They started with the question, "Can anything be done about visits
for those who would ordinarily not receive any?" "M-2" sponsors
seemed to think so. Over a number of years, that organization has
managed a program of recruiting and training volunteers to match
with inmates who have limited social ties.
In the most recent study of their
program (EMT, 1987), 622 inmates released to parole in California
between July 1983 and June 1985 were evaluated at the 6- ,12- and
24-month follow-up periods. At each follow-up period, the
relationship between some visits vs. none and parole success was
statistically significant. In addition, it was found that the number
of visits played a vital role (at 12 months, for example, 68.5
percent of those who had received 12 or more visits had satisfactory
outcomes, as compared to 38.7 percent for those who had received no
visits). Thus, it seems clear that there is a strong relationship
between visits and parole outcome and between the degree of contact
and parole success.
Conjugal or Private Family
Visiting
The attitudes about conjugal
visiting exhibit some strange turns. The positive view of such
programs was early presented by Hopper (1969), while Johns (1971)
felt that even the positive attitudes would not result in action,
and outlines the reasons for his belief. These include: 1) the
negative attitudes of inmates who would be unable to participate; 2)
the lack of available facilities (which are not likely to be made
available); 3) the severity problems of administration especially
regarding security, abuse of power, and common law relationships; 4)
the lack of strong administrative support; 5) the sexual nature of
conjugal visits (not in tune with the culture of the times - too
degrading for the wife); and 6) possible additional children born to
"inadequate families", requiring support from public welfare.
Balough surveyed 52 wardens (1964) and found that only 13 percent
approved. Shortly thereafter, Vedder and Kind (1965) found nearly
twice the percentage of positive responses from 49 directors of
state or federal correctional operations.
In terms of studies of level of
activity in this area, little objective information is available,
and is quite dated (Markely, 1972; Burstein, 1977). Hayner (1972)
reported that at the time of his contact, two jurisdictions had
operational private family visiting programs, with two others in the
planning stage.
More recently, the Federal Bureau
of Prisons (1981) investigated private family visiting via a task
force. They looked at the operation of such programs in Minnesota,
New York and California. They felt the program, despite the
statements about the family, placed too great an emphasis on sex and
failed to serve long termers, and that a furlough program would
serve to meet the needs of those serving short periods of
incarceration. The final recommendation from that effort stated that
private family visiting not replace nor supplement the home furlough
of the Bureau, but suggested that family visiting might be tested on
a well researched basis for those serving longer periods in prison.
Findings
The findings presented here are
based upon responses from 56 jurisdictions representing some 895
institutions. A 100 percent return was achieved for the survey,
although a few call-backs were required for a few participants.
Questionnaires were completed by directors of corrections in only a
few cases; most were completed by central office staff members.
Thus, attitudinal measures must be accepted with the assumption that
subordinates completing the questionnaire reflect in a general way
the values of departmental policies.
Importance of Inmate Visiting
Respondents were asked to rate
their view of the importance of inmate visiting. Of the 54
responding to the item scaled from 1 to 10 (10 being the highest),
the ratings ranged from 5 through 10 with the median and mode at 10,
with a mean of slightly over 9. Judging by the manner in which two
respondents marked their questionnaire, some seemed to want to rate
visiting at about 12 on a scale from 1 to 10. Thus, it would appear
that most departments of corrections place a high value on inmate
visiting.
Attitudes Toward Private Family
Visiting
Few respondents from
jurisdictions that did not have private family visiting indicated
any interest in exploring the development. Only one jurisdiction
without a program expressed positive interest, and that was an
organization that had proposed a plan for the legislature, but the
issue was not pushed for budgetary reasons.
Each of the eight jurisdictions
that had an operational program were asked to react to a list of
specific gains that might be derived from the program. The item most
endorsed were, "Improve inmate morale and attitude" and "Reduce
disciplinary problems," with seven positive responses. These were
closely followed by, "Better participation in institutional
programs" and "More positive planning for parole," with five and
four endorsements. Only one jurisdiction reported the view that
Private Family Visiting might reduce homosexuality, while two
departments indicated that they felt that such a program would
strengthen family ties and result in fewer sexual assaults.
The Number and Nature of Private
Family Visiting Programs
Eight jurisdictions have a
program of private family visiting somewhere in their department.
"Private family visiting" as used here, was defined as a man and a
woman being alone with their family for a period of time, usually
including overnight. It includes conjugal visits, but might also
include, in addition to children, other significant family members
such as parents, aunts and uncles, etc. The level reported marks a
major expansion over the level of a few years ago (some of these
programs are in early start-up phases), but falls considerably below
the level suggested by the information in the Directory
published by the American Correctional Association (1987). From a
quick review of that document, one would conclude that 18
jurisdictions (16 states and 2 territories) had private family
visits in at least one of their adult institutions. The difference
would seem to be related to definitions of the program. Even with
the seeming clarity of the definition presented above, there were
some ambiguous responses.
Historically, two programs
existed prior to 1970, three came into operation during the
1970-1980 decade, and three have been initiated since 1980.
In all, some 43 correctional
institutions seem to be involved. The number of visits during 1986
varied from an estimate of approximately 100 for one department to
over 40,000 visits for another jurisdiction. Most seem to group in
the 3,000-5,000 range, with the most typical response being around
3,000.
Organizationally, most programs
place the responsibility at the institutional level and under
treatment programs. One jurisdiction has the operation centralized
under the jurisdiction of the religious department, which may be
valuable in ameliorating any negative public reactions to the
program.
Most programs are now a part of
regular state budget appropriations, although some were initiated
with donations. Currently, only two jurisdictions are heavily
dependent on donations, and one of those receives some budgetary
support. One jurisdiction supports its program by charging a nominal
rent for the facilities used.
The programs have not been
without their problems. In responding to a check-list of possible
problems, jurisdictions indicate that problems encountered have
arranged from drugs and other contraband to falsification of records
(each indicated by four jurisdictions). One jurisdiction indicated
no problems, one indicated escape problems, and one jurisdiction
with more extensive experience reported, "All of the above."
Apparently, these problems were appropriately dealt with through
administrative and procedural adjustments, as all presently active
programs indicate a continuous operation since initiation.
Discussion and Conclusions
Inmate visiting continues to be
of special concern to the correctional field, with almost all
respondents rating this program at the high end of a value scale.
Reflecting this commitment, the vast majority of the jurisdictions,
as noted in a earlier report (Bennett,1987), have managed to
maintain a fairly high level of support for inmate visiting, with
length of time per week available for visits remaining the same or
increasing in a vast majority of the jurisdictions responding. This
was achieved despite tight budgets and ever increasing prison
populations. Along similar lines, most of the jurisdictions were
able to increase the number of visits per month allowable per inmate
over 1980 levels. However, since only 70 percent of the correctional
systems were able to increase the space available for visiting at a
pace matching the increase in inmate populations, one can only
speculate that the increased number of visits are taking place in a
somewhat more cramped situation. Support for this view is provided
by the finding that of the 17 jurisdictions unable to keep up with
space demands, 14 (82%) managed to maintain 1980 levels of length
and frequency of visits.
The attitude toward conjugal or
private family visiting is very positive for those who have
operational programs, but quite unaccepting by those without
programs. The growth of such programs has been slow but steady, with
programs operational in only two jurisdictions prior to 1970,
increasing to eight at the present time - an operational program
being defined as a jurisdiction within which at least one
institution has a program involving private family visiting.
Despite the many reasons put
forth as to why such programs cannot work (see for example Johns,
1971), those jurisdictions with programs seem to feel the values far
outweigh the problems and inconveniences of such efforts. However,
given the lack of interest on the part of those not participating it
seems doubtful that the concept will expand rapidly beyond its
present level.
References
American Correctional
Association. 1987 1987 Directory. College Park, Maryland:
American Correctional Association.
Balough, Joseph K. 1964 "Conjugal
visitations in prison: A sociological perspective." Federal
Probation 28:52-58.
Bennett, Lawrence A. 1987 "What
has happened to prison visiting? Current use of a rehabilitative
tool." Paper presented at the annual meeting, American Society of
Criminology, Montreal, Canada.
Brodsky, Stanley. 1975
Friends and Families of Men in Prison. Lexington,
Massachusetts: Heath.
Burstein, Jules Q. 1977
Conjugal Visits in Prison. Lexington, Massachusetts: Heath.
Cobean, S. C. and P. W. Power.
1978 "Role of the family in the rehabilitation of the offender."
International Journal of Offender Therapy 22:22-28.
EMT Associates. 1987
Evaluation of the M-2 Sponsors Program: Final Report.
Sacramento, California: EMT Associates.
Fishman, Susan H. and Candice J.
M. Cassin. 1981 Service for Families of Offenders: An Overview.
Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.
Fox, Greer L. 1981 "The family
and the ex-offender: Potential for rehabilitation." In Susan Martin
et. al. (eds.), New Directions in the Rehabilitation of Criminal
Offenders. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Glaser, Daniel. 1964 The
Effectiveness of a Prison Parole System. New York: Bobbs,
Merrill.
Hayner, Normal S. 1972 "Attitudes
toward conjugal visits for prisoners." Federal Probation
36:43-49.
Hinds, L. S. 1981 "Impact of
incarceration on low-income families." Journal of Offender
Counseling Services and Rehabilitation 5:5-12.
Holt, Norman and Donald Miller.
1972 Explorations in Inmate-Family Relations. Sacramento,
California: Department of Corrections Research Division.
Hopper, C. 1969 "Sex in prison:
The Mississippi experiment." In Conjugal Visiting. Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Johns, D. R. 1971 "Alternatives
to conjugal visiting." Federal Probation 35:48-52.
Markley, C. 1973 "Furlough
programs and conjugal visiting in adult correctional institutions."
Federal Probation 36:19-26.
Morris, P. 1965 Prisoners and
Their Families. New York: Hart Publishing Co.
Ohlin, Lloyd E. 1954 "The
stability and validity of parole experience tables." Doctoral
dissertation, University of Chicago.
Schneller, D. P. 1976
Prisoner's Family - A Study of the Effects of Imprisonment on the
Family of Prisoners. San Francisco: R & E Research Associates.
Vedder, C. and P. Kind. 1965
Problems of Homosexuality in Corrections Chicago: Charles
Thomas.
U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Prison System. 1981 Task Force Report on Family
Visitation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Prisons.
Regulating Parent-Child Communication in Correctional Settings
Creasie Finney Hairston, Ph.D.,
and Peg McCartt Hess, Ph.D.*
____________________________________________
*The authors acknowledge the assistance of Roger
Hershberger in data processing and analysis.
The maintenance of
prisoner-family ties and parent-child bonds is increasingly becoming
recognized as an important corrections and social services objective
(Holt & Miller, 1970; Howser & McDonald, 1982; Leclair, 1978).
Research has demonstrated the importance of frequent visiting
between separated parents and their children to the well-being of
parents and children and to the eventual reunification of separated
families (Fanshel & Shinn, 1978; Greif, 1979; Hess, 1987; Lanier,
1987, and Wallerstein, 1983). Parenting programs and children's
centers are being established in correctional settings, reflecting
the emerging interest in prisoner-family ties (Adalist-Estrin, 1986;
Brozan, 1986; Hairston & Lockett, 1987).
Despite the recognition of the
importance of parent-child communication in correctional settings,
there has been no systematic review of current policies regulating
such communications. Prisoner-family communication policies
demonstrate, however, the value states place on the maintenance of
prisoners' family relationships and on parent-child contact.
Policies provide the context for visiting practices and procedures
in individual institutions and provide guidance for the allocation
of resources, such as staff and space, for visiting. They inhibit or
facilitate the development of family programs in institutions and
the ability of private agencies to serve the prison population.
Policies, in addition, provide
clarity for parents, children, and children's caretakers concerning
visiting eligibility, conditions, and purposes. It is, therefore,
important to examine the content of visiting policies nationally in
order to identify existing patterns, assess variations from
established standards, and determine whether policies support
innovative program efforts.
This paper summarizes the results
of a 1988 national survey of state policies governing parent-child
communication in correctional settings. Information covers the
eligibility requirements for children visiting parents in prison,
the accessibility of visiting to children and other family members,
and the prison visiting environment.
Methodology
We requested a copy of all
policies governing family communications generally and parent-child
communications specifically in correctional institutions from the
Commissioner of Corrections in each of the fifty states, the
District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. Four states
(Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, and Texas) failed to provide any
policy information. Idaho, Kentucky, and Michigan sent policies
specific to only one aspect of communication, such as furloughs or
telephones. Two states (Montana, West Virginia) sent policies for a
specific institution, rather than state-wide policy directives. The
policies obtained from the remaining 41 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam and the Virgin Islands (44 jurisdictions) form the
basis of these findings. Throughout the report the term "states" is
synonymous with jurisdictions.
Results
Few state policies directly
address parent-chiid relationships. Most states, however, have
regulations specific to children, and all have policy statements
which regulate contacts between prisoners and families. The
following aspects of parent-child visits are covered by state
policies: 1) visiting eligibility, 29 states; 2) frequency of
visits, 28 states; 3) length of visits, 30 states; 4) visit
schedules, 32 states; and 5) supervision/activity during visits, 35
states.
Eligibility
The most common eligibility
requirement for children visiting an inmate is that they be
accompanied by an adult. Table 1 indicates the ages for which a
child visitor must be accompanied and the adult who must accompany
the child.
As can be seen by viewing
Table 1, the age for which children must be accompanied varies
considerably. The stipulation that children under age 18 must be
accompanied by an adult is the most prevalent age requirement and is
found in 16 state policies. Fourteen states permit children younger
than 18, however, to visit unaccompanied. Under 17, under 16, and
under 12 are the ages for which accompanying adults are specified by
state policy.
Table 1
PERSONS ACCOMPANYING CHILDREN VISITING
Child's Age Requiring No.of States with
Accompanying Person* Policy Requirement
Under 18 must be accompanied 16
Under 17 must be accompanied 2
Under 16 must be accompanied 6
Under 12 must be accompanied 4
Children's age not specified 2
Accompanying Person Specified As**
Person on visiting list 15
Child's parent or legal guardian 10
Inmate's adult relative 5
"Responsible" adult 6
Adult not defined 3
*States may have more than one age requirement given.
**States may specify adults in more than one category.
Variations also exist regarding
who must accompany children to visits. Ten states require that the
child be accompanied by his or her custodial parent or legal
guardian. Fifteen states require only that the accompanying adult be
on the inmate's approved visiting list. Six state policies refer
simply to a responsible adult. Other eligibility requirements
governing children's visits include: child's custodial parent or
legal guardian must give approval for the child's visit (16 states);
the child must be on the inmate's approved visiting list (13
states); and child must show positive identification (5 states).
Visit Schedule, Frequency and
Length
Visiting accessibility is
generally limited. In many states, no minimum standards for visiting
accessibility are set, and relevant decisions are left to the
discretion of the institutional administrator. In those states where
standards are set, minimum, maximum, or absolute standards may be
specified. Policy requirements regarding visiting schedules,
frequency, and length are depicted in Tables 2,
3, and 4 respectively.
Sixteen states, or about one-half
of those states with policy requirements regarding visiting
schedules, leave these decisions to the discretion of the
institution. All of the 16 states with specific standards, however,
provide for visiting on weekends. A few permit some combination of
weekends with holidays, evenings, or weekdays.
Table 2 provides a summary of the number of states adhering to
different types of visiting schedules.
Table 2
TIMES AND DAYS VISITS ARE PERMITTED
Times/Days No. of States with
Policy Requirements
Discretion of institution* 16
Weekends only 3
Weekends and holidays only 3
Weekdays and weekends only 2
Weekends, weekdays, and evenings (not holidays) 1
Weekdays, weekends, holidays (no evenings) 2
Weekends or evenings or both (no days, holidays) 1
Weekdays, weekends, evenings and holidays 4
*Phrases used include based on number of visitors, size
of visiting area, and security considerations;
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays will be emphasized;
depends on time, space, and security; permitted at
reasonable times.
Policies governing the frequency
with which inmates may have visits vary considerably from state to
state. The most prevalent pattern is to leave this area of policy to
the discretion of the institution. As indicated in
Table 3, 17 states give institutions discretion over visiting
frequency. Sixteen states fail to provide policy directives
regarding visiting frequency. Among those that set specific
standards, there is no commonly accepted visiting frequency. An
inmate may be permitted as few as two visits per month to as many as
six per week.
Table 3
VISIT FREQUENCY
Visit Frequency No. of States with
Policy Requirements
Discretion of institution* 17
1 per week 3
2 per week 4
2 per month 2
6 per week 1
4 or 2 per month by inmate
classification 1
No stated policy 16
*Phrases used include limitations will be imposed only
to avoid chronic overcrowding; established consistent
with resources available; limited only as necessary to
accomodate all visitors.
The length of the visit is also
an area that is left to the discretion of the institution or is not
addressed as a policy issue. Among those states which have policies,
the length of a visit is sometimes restricted to as little as one
hour. Twelve states specifically give each institution the authority
to set visiting lengths, while 14 fail to address the issue. Seven
states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Mississippi, New York,
Tennessee and Washington) identify special or extended visits for
children and other family members. Data on visiting length are
displayed in Table 4.
Table 4
PERMITTED OR REQUIRED VISIT LENGTH
Visit Length No. of States with
Policy Requirement
Discretion of institution* 12
Specified maximum or minimum length:
1 hour minimum 3
4 hours per week 2
1.5 hours maximum 2
2 hours per week 1
1 hour maximum 1
3 hours 1
Extended/overnight 1
Special or extended visits (Alaska, California,
Colorado, Mississippi,
New York, Tennessee,
Washington)
No stated policy 14
*Phrases used include, for example, limited only as
necessary to accommodate all visitors; each facility
shall develop procedures; limited only by institutional
schedules, space, and personnel constraints.
Visiting Environment
Regulations governing the
visiting environment focus primarily on the type of contact or
activity permitted during the visit. Thirty-five states have policy
directives in this area, but only three states (Missouri, New York
and South Carolina) provide, as a matter of policy, activity centers
or areas for children while visiting. A few states, such as Hawaii,
Tennessee, Maine, and New York identify the need for an informal,
relaxed visiting atmosphere and permit socially acceptable physical
contact. Other states, including Virginia and Nebraska, restrict
physical touching to a handshake, embrace or kiss at the beginning
and end of the visit. Although children are not specifically
included in most statements that restrict physical contact such as
hugging and holding, neither are they excluded from them. Six states
do indicate, however, that small children may sit on an imnate's
lap.
Children are mentioned in 18
state policies governing prison visiting rooms. In most instances,
the focus is on the adult visitor's or inmate's responsibility for
supervising children and controlling their behavior. In at least
four states, failure to control children's behavior is reason for
termination of the visit.
Conclusions
Parent-child relationships are
rare state corrections policies. The data, furthermore, suggest that
policies governing visiting are seldom developed with attention to
the special needs of children, the importance of parent-child
attachments, or the nature of complex family networks. For example,
frequent visiting between separated parents and children has been
consistently demonstrated to be a major factor in the well-being of
parents and children during a separation, in the reunification of
separated families, and in decreased recidivism of inmates.
Corrections policies, however, severely restrict a child's visiting
accessibility.
The frequency with which a child
may visit a parent is limited, as is the length of time the two may
spend together. The identification of an adult who may have little
or no interest in the inmate as the sole source of approval for the
child's visit or as the only adult who may accompany the child on
the visit further restricts a child's access to an incarcerated
parent. The restrictions placed on social interactions between
parents and children during visits and the focus on discipline and
control of children without provision of child-centered activities
further serve as barriers to the strengthening and maintenance of
parent-child attachments.
The lack of attention to minimum
standards and expectations for parent-child contact suggests that
family communication is not valued, and that the rights of neither
inmates nor children and families are respected. Vague discretionary
directives can lead to inattention to parent-child communication,
inadequate allocation of resources for visiting, and serious
inconsistencies in the treatment of inmates and their families.
These data indicate a wide variation in policy, broad discretion
regarding visit practice, and severe restrictions to access.
Overall, they reflect a system-wide problem with serious
implications for family oriented programs. Without greater vision
and direction at the highest policy levels, the goals of
strengthening family relationships during imprisonment, reunifying
families upon release, and reducing recidivism remain largely
illusory.
References
Adalist-Estrin, Ann. 1986
"Parenting...from behind bars." FRC Report, Family Resource
Coalition No. 1
Brozan, Nadine. 1986 "Prisoners
learn how to be good fathers." New York Times (September
29).
Fanshel, David and Eugene Shinn.
1978 Children in Foster Care: A Longitudinal Investigation.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Greif, Judith. 1979 "Fathers,
children, and joint custody." American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry 49:311-19.
Hairston, Creasie Finney and
Patricia Lockett. 1987 "Parents in prison: New directions for social
services." Social Work 32:162-164.
Hess, Peg. 1987 "Parental
visiting of children in foster care: Current knowledge and a
research agenda." Children and Youth Services Review
9:29-50.
Holt, Norman and Donald Miller.
1970 Explorations in Inmate Family Relationships.
California: California Department of Corrections.
Howser, James F. and Donald
MacDonald. 1982 "Maintaining family ties." Corrections Today
August:96-98.
Lanier, Charles. 1987 "Fathers in
prison: A psychosocial exploration." Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Montreal, Canada.
Leclair, Daniel P. 1978 "Home
furlough program effects on rates of recidivism." Criminal
Justice and Behavior 5:249-259.
Wallerstein, Judith. 1983
"Children of divorce: The psychological tasks of the child."
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 53:230-243.
Prison
Visitors: A Profile
Virginia V. Neto
Traditionally, criminal justice
research has focused on offenders, on their keepers, and recently on
victims of crime. Little attention has been paid to a class of
secondary crime victims-prison visitors. The offender's family and
friends are affected not only by the incarceration of the offender
but also by their own interaction with correctional institutions. As
part of an evaluation of prison visitor centers in California, a
sample of visitors was interviewed at three prisons. The data reveal
the characteristics of prison visitors, their problems, and their
unmet needs. The findings lead to recommendations to improve
conditions for visitors.
Background
The families and friends of
prisoners have often been viewed by correctional workers as
potential problems and possible risks for importing contraband or
facilitating escapes. Yet many institutional staff acknowledge that
a prisoner's family and friends in the community may have a positive
influence on the inmate's behavior in prison as well as his later
adjustment after release. A well-known California study supported
this position (Holt and Miller, 1972).
At about the same time, Catholic
Social Services of Marin County (California) established The House
at San Quentin, which offered visitors hospitality, transportation,
and other needed services. Other organizations, such as Friends
Outside, opened visitor centers at other prisons. To coordinate
these efforts, Centerforce, a non-profit agency, was established. At
the time of our program evaluation, nine visitor centers were
operating with Centerforce as the fiscal agent on contract with the
California Department of Corrections. The prison population was
about 27,000.
Over the last five years the
Centerforce network has expanded greatly because of four factors: 1)
a great increase in the number of state prison commitments, 2) an
increase in the length of prison sentences; 3) new prison
construction; and 4) a law that requires every prison in the state
to be served by a visitor center. In Spring 1988, there were 15
visitor centers serving more than 68,000 prisoners.
Methodology
The study of Centerforce, which
was funded by the San Francisco Foundation and the National
Institute of Corrections, gave us the opportunity to conduct
interviews with a systematic sampling of prison visitors. By design,
we selected three prisons that differed in terms of geographic
location, security level, community characteristics, and
organizational structure of the visitor centers themselves. We
assumed that, although policies are made at the state level,
visiting practices are controlled at the institutional level.
McMahon reported similar conclusions after an assessment of support
services to inmates' families in New York state (McMahon, 1987).
Institutions within a state
differ notably in their visiting policies and practices for any or
all of the following reasons: security level of inmates,
institutional climate, administrative philosophy, staffing patterns,
location of the prison, and community involvement. How these factors
influence visiting and visitors will become apparent in the
discussion to follow. We will refer to the three institutions as San
Quentin, Norco, and Susanville.
1) San Quentin, the well-known
maximum security prison, we can justifiably label old, tough,
strict, and inhospitable, but fortunately located in the San
Francisco Bay Area.
2) The California Rehabilitation
Center known as Norco is located in the "prison valley" of Southern
California. It began as a therapeutic center for civil drug addict
commitments. The administration building is a former art deco hotel
on a hilltop overlooking the valley (when the smog permits). Male
prisoners live in barracks at the foot of the hill.
3) The California Correctional
Center at Susanville was a medium security institution in the
mountains of Northern California, often isolated by heavy snowfall
in the winter months.
At each site, two subsets of
visitors were interviewed: 1) visitors who were standing in line to
be processed, and 2) visitors who were using the services of the
visitor center. Each visitor was interviewed only once. Items
related to characteristics of the visitors were identical on both
questionnaires. Visitors at the centers were asked additional
questions regarding the quantity and quality of services utilized.
Each site presented unique
circumstances that restricted the length of the interview at the
prison. The sheer volume of individuals being processed at San
Quentin and Norco allowed only two to three minutes with each
respondent. At Susanville, where the volume was substantially lower
and waiting time was minimal, most visitors were more anxious to be
processed than interviewed. In contrast, interviews conducted in the
visitor centers were more relaxed, enabling respondents to be more
reflective and critical in their comments.
A time to interview visitors was
selected when visiting volume would be high and nothing atypical
would be occurring, such as a holiday or inclement weather. Data
were collected on a Saturday and a Sunday, during peak hours, at
both the prisons and the centers. In San Quentin and Susanville,
researchers stationed themselves at the first entry point. In San
Quentin, this area was known as "the tunnel" or "in the tube," a
cramped, enclosed hallway where visitors lined up to wait their turn
to check in and be searched. In Susanville, visitors walked into a
roomy reception area with places to sit and wait. At Norco, visitors
were interviewed inside the waiting room after they had been
processed and were sitting at a table waiting for the inmates to
appear.
Only one member of each visiting
group was interviewed. A group was defined as all individuals who
had come together to visit the same inmate. The spokesperson for the
group was the person most closely related to the inmate, such as the
wife or parent. In instances where there was a language problem, the
spokesperson was that individual who could communicate most
effectively in English. In every group where a father or a brother
was present, an attempt was made to interview him. However, there
were very few male visitors and, despite special efforts, most men
were reluctant to be interviewed, usually deferring to a woman in
the group.
In total, 315 visitors were
interviewed - 151 at San Quentin, 114 at Norco, and 5O at
Susanville. The data we are about to discuss represent the visitor
most closely related to the inmate; the person who visits weekends
and most likely has the most vested interest in the welfare of the
inmate.
Visitor Characteristics
Nine out of ten visitors were
women, usually the wife (42 percent), mother (14 percent), or
girlfriend (11 percent) of an inmate. Even in the women's unit at
Norco, most visitors were also women. Respondents ranged in age from
15 to 80 - the average being 35 years. The most common age group
tended to be late 20's to early 30's. At Susanville it was
particularly evident that younger women (19-22) had relocated to
that remote area in order to be closer to their spouses. Even at San
Quentin, where inmates were somewhat older, visiting wives were
consistently young. This observation raises several questions: Do
wives tend to visit less the longer their spouse is incarcerated?
Does the family unit dissolve over time? Do prison marriages involve
younger women?
Four out of ten visitors made the
trip alone. Another 40 percent came in groups of two or three. Many
who did not travel alone were accompanied by children. Over half of
the respondents said they "usually" or "sometimes" brought children
with them. Of those children who were actually visiting at the time
of our interviews, 56 percent were six years old or younger.
Visitors cited various reasons for not bringing children, including
costs of transportation and hotels, difficulty in handling children
on the bus or in the visiting room, or reluctance to expose the
children to the prison environment. Many gave reasons not directly
related to the prison, such as the child's not wanting to get up so
early or having to go to school.
Visitor Profile
The emerging profile of the
visitor is that of a young woman, living in the general area,
driving a vehicle, alone or accompanied by a child between the ages
of 1 and 9 years. She visits the prison a couple of times a week in
order to see her husband. These young women revealed a strong sense
of mission and purpose, namely, that of being with their loved ones,
no matter what their hardships. Some had relocated to be closer to
their husbands, and still others had traveled from institution to
institution, resettling each time the inmate was transferred.
The Visiting Context
Context refers to the external
and internal conditions which affect visiting. The external context
refers to those conditions affecting the visitors before they
actually reach the prison gates, such as distance from home and
available means of transportation.
Getting there: For some visitors
this is the major hurdle. The vast majority of visitors (70 percent)
traveled by car. Given the economic status of many visitors, their
cars were not always dependable, whether owned or borrowed. Public
transportation usually meant a Greyhound bus that stopped a few
miles or more away from the prison.
Those prisons located in urban
areas required the shortest trips. Over 60 percent of the visitors
to San Quentin traveled 50 miles or less; over 80 percent of the
Norco visitors traveled 150 miles or less - roughly two to three
hours by car. In contrast, at Susanville, over half of the visitors
traveled between 151 to 600 miles, and another 16 percent covered
more than 600 miles. For example, an 80-year-old woman had spent 10
hours on a Greyhound bus in order to visit her son for a few hours.
Both distance and lack of a car
reduce visitation. On a typical day, men whose families do not live
near the institution are much less likely to have visitors,
particularly in the case of Susanville, where the trip itself may
take an entire day. Only in Susanville did the majority of visitors
(64 percent) stay overnight. There, the logistics and the costs of
transportation and overnight accommodations were especially
problematic. Less than 10 percent of the visitors sought overnight
accommodations at the other prisons.
Frequency of visiting: As might
be expected, visitors who travel shorter distances visit more
frequently. Over half of all visitors to Norco and San Quentin came
one to five times per week, compared to one-third of the visitors to
Susanville. In addition to distance, roads to Susanville are often
closed because of snow during the winter months. At the time of the
study, Susanville was a short term institution, so relatives often
realized that they would make only one trip during the inmate's
stay. As a consequence, Susanville had a much greater proportion of
first-time visitors than the other prisons.
Internal Conditions
Internal variables refer to those
features within the institution which may affect the visitor, the
inmate, and the visit itself. Each prison has its own system of
processing and clearance of visitors. At San Quentin and Norco,
where the volume of visitors was very high, there were a number of
issues which visitors identified as major concerns, namely, long
waits, paper work mixups and physical searches. Waiting ranged from
30 minutes to several hours, contingent upon proper completion of
paper work, sufficient documentation, and timely transfer of records
from one prison to another.
The metal detector at San Quentin
was so sensitive that it required visitors to remove their shoes,
jewelry, and any metal item in clothing. A woman wearing a metal
underwire bra or a wedding band that cannot be removed from her
finger would be denied visiting until the offending item was removed
and she could pass satisfactorily through the metal detector. One
elderly woman was asked to remove an orthopedic corset with metal
stays before she was allowed entry. Several visitors to San Quentin
identified the long walk from the first checkpoint to the second as
a hardship, in particular during inclement weather since umbrellas,
crutches, and walking canes are not allowed.
Inconsistent application of rules
and regulations was a major concern of visitors to Norco. This may
have been due to the fact that the visiting room was used as a
training ground for new prison staff recruits. Typically, guards
spent three months at the visiting room desk learning the procedures
and then were transferred. Other visitors thought that rules varied,
depending on the officer on duty.
The visiting room itself has
great impact on the quality of the visit. Overcrowding was a major
concern of visitors at San Quentin and Norco. Others indicated that
the vending machines were inadequate in the selection offered, lack
of nutritional items, and high cost. This was a strong concern,
since most persons visited all day and had to rely on the machines
as the only source of food. Other visitors were concerned about the
high noise level, smokiness, and unclean or inadequately supplied
restrooms.
It is interesting to note that
although the rules and regulations at San Quentin were far more
rigid than at Norco, many more Norco visitors found the rules
problematic. Visitors understand that rules and restrictions are
necessary and are willing to accept and abide by such rules, but
when the rules begin to appear arbitrary and inconsistent, visitors
become frustrated. Long-time visitors may learn the rules only to
have them change abruptly due to new administrative policies or a
changing of the guards. It is this element of uncertainty, of not
knowing if they will get to visit, that discourages many.
About 5 percent of all visitors
stated that prison staff caused problems. These persons found the
attitudes of the officers to be dehumanizing and punitive, as if
punishing the visitor for the inmate's crime. Some women in
inter-racial relationships felt that they were being harassed by
white officers who disapproved of such relationships. Harassment can
take various forms, such as selective enforcement of rules about
"touching" in the visiting room. This attitude was voiced by one
guard who stated that he did not like to see "ethnic" men touching
white women.
Some visitors discussed problems
related to bringing children, such as the lack of anything for
children to do during the visiting time, especially since toys and
books were not permitted.
When asked about the problems
they encountered in visiting, many visitors (32 percent) were unable
to respond. In light of some of the obvious discomforts, such as
noisy, smokey, and crowded rooms and lengthy waits, it amazed the
researchers that visitors were not more vocal when given the
opportunity to voice their complaints. Even when encouraged, they
often seemed timid and hesitant. This type of response exemplifies
not only the passivity and acceptance characteristic of many
visitors, but perhaps an attitude that they, as relatives of
inmates, must accept a certain amount of adversity and not make any
trouble.
Services Used by Visitors
We must remember that these
visitors were already being served by the Centerforce visitor
centers. Nearly three-fourths of those interviewed had heard about
the local center, and 72 percent of those were familiar with the
kinds of services provided. Approximately half of all visitors
surveyed were current or former recipients of services. Hospitality
was a major component - providing both food and a place for visitors
to wait before and after visiting. Supplying a change of clothes was
an important service for visitors wearing jeans or "provocative"
clothing, who would otherwise be refused a visit. The centers also
provided information, referrals, and transportation.
Unmet Needs of Visitors
The visitor centers did not meet
all of the visitors' needs. Visitors wanted to see improvement in
processing, in visiting conditions, rules and regulations, child
care, and transporation. Clear informational brochures, updated
information, and a toll-free hot-line would greatly improve the
visitor's understanding and facilitate visiting. First-time
visitors, in particular, said that if they had known the rules
before coming, it would have been much easier for all concerned.
Prison staff saw it as the inmates' responsibility to inform their
families and friends about the rules, but the inmates tended to feel
that they had enough to contend with in the daily madness of prison
life without taking on that added responsibility.
Policy Implications
All parties - center directors,
visitors, inmates, and prison staff - agreed on four major needs:
reliable information, more efficient processing, expanded services
for visitors, and improved communication. The first two have been
overtaken by the incredible growth in the prison system, but the
latter two have been and continue to be accomplished. The network of
prison visitor centers has not only grown to keep pace with the
prison expansion, but has also required each center to provide
designated services, such as child care, transportation, information
and referral. A model Visiting Liaison Committee at Susanville is
being replicated at each site. The committee brings together staff
from the prison, the visitor center, and inmates or visitors to
discuss on-going policy and problems.
Centerforce has been successful
in developing visitor centers which operate independently of but
cooperatively with the Department of Corrections. The original
grassroots model has been modified to provide a strong central
agency, capable of meeting the professional needs of its own staff
and of the visitors they serve, as well as working effectively with
the Department.
In states which are
geographically smaller or less populous than California, the needs
of visitors may differ. Each state must assess its own situation,
but can use the California model as a starting place to provide the
missing link between the visitor and the prison.
TABLE 1. SELECTED VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS\1
San CRC, Susan- Total\2
Characteristics Ouentin Norco ville (n=315)
(n=151) (n=114) (n=50)
Sex
Female 87.4 86.8 84.0 87.3
Male 12.6 13.2 12.0 12.7
Ethnicity
White 44.7 55.2 56.0 48.6
Black 35.3 22.9 20.0 27.6
Hispanic 16.7 28.6 20.0 20.6
Relation to Inmate
Wife 43.1 43.5 38.0 42.4
Girlfriend 10.9 9.6 16.0 11.3
Parent 15.3 13.9 30.0 17.2
Friend\3 14.6 7.0 12.0 11.3
\1 Combines all visitors interviewed at the prisons
and the centers.
\2 Total number responding to questionnaire. Actual
number may vary slightly on a specific item.
\3 Friend includes M-2 visitors.
TABLE 2. ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF INMATES AND VISITORS*
San Quentin Norco Susanville
Inmate/Visitor Inmate/Visitor Inmate/Visitor
White 32.4 44.7 31.6 55.2 32.5 56.0
Black 40.7 35.3 32.2 22.9 35.3 20.0
Hispanic 24.1 16.7 24.3 28.6 30.1 20.0
TABLE 3. AGES OF CHILDREN*
Age San Norco Susanville Total
Quentin (n=146) (n=50) (n=340)
(n=144)
0-11 mos. 8.3 2.7 8.0 5.9
1-3 yrs. 27.8 28.0 32.0 28.5
4-6 yrs. 21.5 20.5 18.0 20.6
7-9 yrs. 23.6 16.4 10.0 18.5
10-13 yrs. 15.9 21.2 18.0 18.5
14-17 yrs. 2.8 11.0 14.0 7.9
TABLE 4. FREQUENCY OF VISITING*
Frequency San Quentin Norco Susan- Total
(n=148) (n=110) ville (n=308)
(n=50)
1-5 times per week 57.5 56.4 32.0 52.9
2-3 times per month 13.0 11.9 10.0 12.1
Once a month 11.0 10.9 12.0 11.1
6 times a year 2.0 .9 10.0 2.9
7-10 times a year 0.0 1.8 0.0 .7
2-5 times a year 0.7 3.6 6.0 2.6
1-2 times a year 4.8 1.8 4.0 3.6
First times 11.0 12.7 26.0 14.0
TABLE 5. SERVICES USED BY VISITORS*
Services San Quentin Norco Susan- Total
(n=277) (n=86) ville (n=418)
(n=55) **
A place to wait 24.5 15.1 12.7 21.1
Food/meals 24.9 4.6 12.7 19.1
Clothing 14.8 23.3 0.0 14.6
Information 10.1 17.4 16.4 12.4
Referrals 5.8 3.5 7.3 5.5
Child care 7.2 3.5 5.5 6.2
Transportation 5.8 24.4 27.3 12.4
Lodging 3.6 4.6 14.5 5.3
Emergency 0.7 2.3 0.0 1.0
Other 2.6 1.2 3.6 2.4
**Exceeds 167 because of multiple responses.
TABLE 6. AREAS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT*
San Ouentin Norco Susan- Total
(n=132) (n=111) ville (n=297)
(n=54)
Processing 31.8 11.7 0.0 18.5
Visiting conditions 21.1 15.3 13.0 17.5
Visitor treatment 2.3 1.8 0.0 1.6
Travel 6.1 .9 20.4 6.7
Rules and regulations 9.8 24.3 13.0 15.8
Children's issues 4.5 8.1 5.5 6.1
Miscellaneous 0.0 0.0 11.1 2.0
Don't know/nothing 24.2 37.8 37.0 31.6
*All numbers reflect percentages.
References
Adalist-Estrin, Ann. 1986
"Parenting ... from behind bars." FRC Report, Family
Resource Coalition No. 1.
Brozan, Nadine. 1986 "Prisoners
learn how to be good fathers." New York Times (September
29).
Fanshel, David and Eugene Shinn.
1978 Children in Foster Care: A Longitudinal Investigation.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Greif, Judith. 1979 "Fathers,
children, and joint custody." American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry 49:311-19.
Hairston, Creasie Finney and
Patricia Lockett. 1987 "Parents in prison: New directions for social
services." Social Work 32:162-164.
Hess, Peg. 1987 "Parental
visiting of children in foster care: Current knowledge and a
research agenda." Children and Youth Services Review
9:29-50.
Holt, Norman and Donald Miller.
1970 Explorations in Inmate Family Relationships.
California: California Department of Corrections.
Howser, James F. and Donald
MacDonald. 1982 "Maintaining family ties." Corrections Today
August:96-98.
Lanier, Charles. 1987 "Fathers in
prison: A psychosocial exploration." Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Montreal, Canada.
Leclair, Daniel P. 1978 "Home
furlough program effects on rates of recidivism." Criminal
Justice and Behavior 5:249-259.
Wallerstein, Judith. 1983
"Children of divorce: The psychological tasks of the child."
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 53:230-243.
Fathers in
Prison: A Psychosocial Exploration
C. S. Lanier.
________________________________________
Thanks go to Kathleen S. Linehan, Ph.D., Susan G.
Philliber, Ph.D., and William W. Philliber, Ph.D., for
analysis of data as well as ongoing assistance and
support.
While much attention has been
given to mother-child relationships, father-child relationships and
their impact upon the well-being of imprisoned men have been
virtually ignored. The present study attempted to fill the research
void on incarcerated fathers.
It is reasonable to assume that
fathers in prison who are unable to maintain healthy relationships
with their children are negatively affected with at least the same
psychological ailments as are noncustodial fathers in the free
world. The primary purpose of this research was to describe
incarcerated fathers and the problems that confront them.
This project took place in an all
male maximum-security prison in Napanoch, New York. A total of 302
out of 376 questionnaires was obtained, with a response rate of 80
percent. The data were gathered via interview during a week-long
survey conducted at the prison in January, 1987.
The demographic characteristics
of the sample are equivalent in most instances to the prison
population from which it was drawn. The sample characteristics also
are representative of the entire New York prison population.
Additional information was elicited in order to provide a clearer
picture of the incarcerated father and the problems that confront
him in maintaining a viable relationship with his children.
There were two independent
variables regarding the status of the father-child relationship: (a)
as it existed before the father was imprisoned; and (b) as it
existed at the time of assessment. Four dependent variables -
anxiety, depression, somatic complaints, and fathers' concerns -
were used; fathers' concerns was thought to be indicative of a
milder, less clinically obvious form of depression. Approximately
two-thirds of the respondents said that they were fathers. Most
reported that they were the biological fathers, while the remaining
were legal stepfathers. Furthermore, there was a mean of 2.6
children per respondent. For the most part, the children were
between the ages of 6 and 18 years of age.
A comparison of fathers with
nonfathers indicates that they were equivalent on most
characteristics. Not surprisingly though, fathers were more likely
than nonfathers to be married. In addition, fathers were older, and
on the average had served more prison sentences than their
nonfathering counterparts.
Most men reported having had high
levels of closeness, involvement, and contact with their children in
the period before they were sent to prison. In contrast, current
levels show sharp reductions on all three dimensions of the
father-child relationship. Thus, the status of the father-child
relationship is quite likely to deteriorate for many fathers during
incarceration.
Many fathers never enjoy physical
proximity to their children. A majority of the fathers never see
their children, or see them less than once a month for regular day
visits. However, a greater percentage of fathers are able to
maintain some degree of interaction with their children through
nonproximal means of communication. For example, almost 80 percent
reported receiving mail from their children.
Fathers who enjoy a greater
degree of interaction with their children also perceive themselves
as being closer, more involved, and in more contact with them.
Overall then, a father is significantly more likely to perceive the
father-child relationship in a positive light if he maintains not
only physical interaction with his children, but verbal interaction
as well.
Still, a large number of
incarcerated fathers reported that they were unable to maintain a
relationship with their children through any means. Numerous reasons
were given, such as lack of transportation, not enough money,
children too young to read or write, or a desire to hide the fact
that the father was in prison. Interference from the children's
mother was most often reported as a major factor in weakening the
father-child bond.
Regression analyses have
demonstrated that some incarcerated fathers are adversely affected
psychologically by the status of the father-child relationship.
Depression and fathers' concerns were significantly and negatively
related to the status of the father-child relationship. Those
fathers who perceive the relationship with their children as poor
are more likely to suffer negative psychological consequences. No
statistically significant relationships appeared for anxiety or
somatic complaints. It may be that it is adaptive for some prisoners
to deny anxiety and somatic complaints. Several recommendations are
in order:
First, an educational-therapeutic
program should be implemented for incarcerated fathers. This program
could consist of formal classes, lectures, and periodic seminars or
workshops dealing with parenting issues. At the same time,
individual or group counseling should be offered to help the
incarcerated father cope with the loss of family relationships.
Second, a pool of trained
mediators should be made available to help resolve visitation
difficulties between the incarcerated parent and his children's
mother or other surrogate caregiver. The mediators also could
arrange the assistance of social services if that were necessary to
initiate or maintain regular father-child interaction.
Third, a legal service for
parents behind bars could be instituted for those cases where
mediation fails. The primary purpose of this service would be to
legally assist, where necessary, incarcerated parents in their
efforts to maintain healthy and constructive relationships with
their children.
This paper illuminates some of
the problems confronting incarcerated fathers. Hopefully, this
research will not only inform imprisoned parents, their
nonincarcerated parental partners, their children, and all
participants in the criminal justice system about the problems
facing the incarcerated father and his children, but encourage
future study as well.
Effects of
an Integrated Visitation/Educational Program
on Development of Parenting Skills for Incarcerated
Female Offenders
Luz S. Bolivar
The Project REACH Children's
Center at the Georgia Women's Correctional Institution is designed
to strengthen the quality of mother-child relationships through a
special visitation and parenting educational program. The program's
goal is to contribute to the mother's rehabilitative process and to
the children's physical, emotional and psychological development.
The program has four components: the Children's Center; supportive
services for inmates and their families; training in parenting and
early childhood education; and development of handcrafts.
Since it opened in December 1985,
the Center has been the site of more than 618 children's visits, has
offered supportive services to more than 321 inmate- mothers, and
has awarded 249 certificates in parenting and early childhood
education. The author conducted research in 1987 to evaluate the
effects of the program. Predictive hypotheses included: 1) positive
correlation between program participation and the alteration of
parental expectations and child rearing practices; 2) development of
positive mother-child verbal and non-verbal interactions, and 3) an
increase of the mother's self-concept. The sample consisted of 60
mothers selected from the prison population. An experimental design
using the pre-post control group model was implemented. Thirty
mothers were assigned to the experimental group and 30 to the
control group. Experimental group subjects were required to
participate in the Project REACH program for at least one year.
Data were collected in two
phases: the baseline or pre-test and the final phase or post-test,
administered five months later. Four instruments were used to
collect data: 1) The Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI) (Bavolek
1983), which measures parenting attitudes; 2) The Tennessee
Self-Concept Scale (TSCS) (Fitts, 1964), which measures
self-concept; 3) A Behavioral Observation Checklist (BOC) (Bolivar
1987, adapted from Wodarski, 1983), which measures positive and
negative mother-child interactions; and 4) The Parenting Profile
Form (PPF) (Bolivar, 1987), which assesses subjects'
sociodemographic characteristics.
The hypotheses were confirmed in
that the experimental group obtained higher scores than the control
group on all post-test measures. Results showed that the
experimental group (REACH participants) had: 1) more positive child
rearing attitudes in regards to parental expectations, empathy,
family roles, and alternatives to corporal punishment; 2) more
positive verbal and non-verbal interactions; and 3) a higher overall
total Self-Concept and Family Self. All comparisons presented in
this study were statistically significant at either the .05 and .01
statistical levels.
These study findings suggest that
the program is an effective rehabilitation tool. The author
recommends more liberalized parent-child visiting hours, allocation
of funds for children's programs, broader community involvement and
a more responsive/favorable attitude from legislators toward
implementation of programs for the strengthening of family ties. The
author also urges replication of this study in other settings.
References
Bavolek, T. 1983 Parental
Imprisonment and Child Socialization: Progress Report #1.
Washington, D.C.: Departments of Psychology and School of Social
Work, Howard University.
Fitts, W. 1965 Tennessee Self
Concept Scale Manual. Nashville: Counselor Recording and Tests.
Wodarski, S. 1983 Therapy for
Moms in Prison. Boston: Beadon.
Women Who
Love Criminal Offenders: A Psychosocial Survey
Rocco D'Angelo, Ph.D.andGlen
McCleese
Introduction
Service programs in the field of
corrections traditionally focus their efforts on the individual
offender, while very little attention is given to spouses, children,
parents, relatives, and other significantly related individuals
whose well-being is often placed in jeopardy as a result of the
offender's incarceration.
When a man goes to prison, the
members of his family inevitably experience a severe strain,
especially the woman (Schwartz and Weintraub, 1974). Not only must
the woman establish a new life, care for her children, and withstand
the type of social criticisms that can occur as a result of the
crime committed by her loved one, but she must also learn to cope
with the unfamiliar and often frightening court and prison systems
in order to maintain meaningful contact with him (Holt and Miller,
1972).
The purpose of this paper is to
examine various problems encountered by both the women who are
either married or closely related to the incarcerated offenders and
the children of these individuals. It will also attempt to examine
the experiences and attitudes of the women and children through a
series of interviews which were conducted by both authors with these
women.
Importance of Inmate Family
Relationships
Imprisonment produces a double
crisis for the family: "demoralization plus dismemberment" (Hill,
1965). The dismemberment is obvious, since the family must adapt to
the temporary loss of a significant member. Problems encountered by
the woman and children are similar to those encountered when a
family member dies, but there is one important difference: the man
is still very much alive and will one day probably return to the
family. In addition, his absence from the family has usually been
caused by acts which are socially unacceptable. Thus, at the same
time that a family is dealing with the shock of dismemberment, it
must deal with shame caused by the incarceration (Schwartz and
Weintraub, 1974).
Another problem area for the
woman is that she cannot receive the necessary support or input from
her husband concerning family matters. She is trying to come to
grips with her new role in relationship to her husband and her
children, as well as defining what the relationship of her husband
will be with the family. Many women find it appropriate to maintain
a family structure in which the father is still symbolically "the
head of the household" (Schwartz and Weintraub, 1974). Thus, when
the wife is allowed to write and visit her husband, decisions are
often brought for his approval. This can cause the women intense
stress when there is a disagreement between the man and the woman
around family decisions (Schwartz and Weintraub, 1974).
A study by Morris (1965)
examining the daily practical problems encountered by inmates'
families established the main difficulties as stigmatization,
finances and housing, management of children, and visits with the
incarcerated relative. The situation has not really changed since
Morris's report. The psychological stress experienced by women is
often self-deprecating. They may wonder if they contributed to their
husband's plight, or berate themselves for nagging, fighting, or
telling criminal justice too much or too little (Schwartz and
Weintraub, 1974). If there are children in the family, the mother
must also cope with their reactions to losing a father (Howard,
1982). Like mothers, children may feel it is their fault that their
father has left, and may interpret his absence as a cessation of
love (Friedman and Esselstyn, 1965). The child also must somehow
resolve hostility and guilt directed at the mother for not holding
on to the father. The child's own anxieties and fears are often
compounded by the mother's intense emotional upheaval (Schwartz and
Weintraub, 1974).
What can be said about the effect
of close relationships that inmates have with females outside of the
institution of marriage? Do they offer any potential for benefiting
the inmate's social adjustment while in prison or afterward? Is
there any potential good or redeeming value that can be accrued to a
woman who commits herself to a relationship with an inmate? What
motivates someone to attach themselves to another, realizing they
cannot be together for some time - maybe a very long time? Women who
love inmates, unlike their unsympathetic peers, may describe such a
commitment as a measure of their love, which they believe is
reciprocated even if others cannot appreciate how. There may be a
sense of psychological or mental security that they may derive from
sharing in such a love, even when the possibility and opportunity
for physical consummation is remote. But the important question is:
What potential, if any, is there for modifying the unsociable,
self-defeating behavior of criminal inmates? Does such a
relationship offer similar potential for inmate behavior
modification that has been attributed to inmates' families? Such a
question is worthy of exploration, since many correctional
counselors and therapists believe that meaningful socialization
provides a key to prisoner reform.
Historically, very few social
service agencies, either governmental or private, have identified
families of incarcerated individuals as needing specific
information, counseling or other supportive services (Bakker, Morris
and Jarvis, 1978). They need basic information in order to
restructure their lives during the absence of the father and to be
prepared for his eventual return to the family. This cannot be
accomplished without learning how to deal with the correctional
system while they are restructuring their lives (Weintraub, 1976).
Holt and Miller (1972) indicate that strong family ties can have a
positive influence on offenders during, as well as after,
imprisonment. Considering that the family is a crucial resource in
the life of offenders, the more we can do to assist families in
functioning adequately and to preserve the security they represent
to incarcerated offenders, the greater the chances of enhancing the
stability of the offender and maintaining his positive outlook. We
need to learn more about how this can be done through the family
unit. The specific objective of this research was to develop a
comprehensive psychosocial profile of spouses of incarcerated
offenders that encompasses their personal experiences and problems,
attitudes and needs that will provide clues for developing services
useful to this needy population and beneficial to loved ones who are
incarcerated.
A Survey of Inmate's
Relationship with Females
This research was planned as a
qualitative study based on a survey of personal case histories.
Interviews were held with a purposive sample of subjects who were
married or intimately related to incarcerated offenders (common law
relationships, girlfriends and fiances). The subjects were located
with the help of voluntary organizations, correctional institutions
and by personal referral. In each case the women constituted the
offender's main link to the community. Although the original intent
of the researchers was to focus the study on the family unit with
emphasis on the mother, frequent encounters with non-married women
that had formed intimate relationships with incarcerated offenders
suggested an important and somewhat overlooked person in the
offender's social network. Therefore, the eligible population for
the study was defined to include legal spouses as well as common-law
and intimate relationships formed by consent of both parties. An
initial sample of thirty-five individuals agreed to participate in
the study. Beginning in the fall of 1986, twenty-seven individuals
were interviewed, six women withdrew from the study and two
individuals postponed their interviews for personal reasons.
Subjects were contacted, explained the nature of the study project,
given consent forms to sign and were then interviewed in social
agencies located in different areas of Columbus, Ohio. The
interviewers utilized a semi-structured schedule with many
open-ended items. Questions encompassed data covering: (a)
individual and family characteristics; (b) personal and family
reactions to the incarceration; (c) interactions with the offender
while incarcerated; and (d) contacts with the correctional facility.
Responses were analyzed qualitatively, categorized for description
and, in some cases, ranked. No attempt was made on arriving at hard
and universal conclusions. The exploratory purpose of this research
favored identifing dominant traits or characteristics that affected
the lives of these subjects and, through them, their incarcerated
relatives or loved ones. Consequently, the findings may be viewed as
impressionistic but rooted in empirical observation. It is hoped
that useful questions have been generated by this research. Its
limitations in both internal and external validity, it is also
hoped, will be compensated for by explorations in areas that are
usually overlooked in research focused on the problems associated
with our correctional system and the administration of justice.
Research Findings: Selected
Characteristics of Females
The subjects were twenty-seven
women who were married or intimately related (anticipating marriage)
to incarcerated offenders sentenced to serve from two years to life.
Offenders were convicted for a variety of crimes ranging from drug
peddling to manslaughter, but the finding of this research will
focus on their relationships to women. The median age of the women
was between 35 and 40. Their education level as a whole was less
than high school level, but one-third of the subjects had college
degrees or better. Two-thirds of the women were black, while the
rest were white. Of those women that had children, the average
number was between three and four. Their major source of income was
from public welfare and assistance from relatives and friends; forty
percent of the women were employed. The types of problems they
experienced varied considerably according to their marital status,
the ages of children and their personal circumstances, but the most
stressful aspect of their experience was dealing with the social
isolation that comes with the incarceration; next was the management
of children. Often the absence of the father combined with a
dramatic loss of economic resources and severely undermined the
survival capacity of family members. The high stress levels
experienced by children were often revealed by black moods, unruly
attitudes in the home, destructive behaviors toward themselves, as
well as others, and school problems. In this sample, a few mothers
specifically attributed drug use and pregnancy of teenagers to the
father's incarceration. Immediate family members, including
children, were identified as the most helpful individuals during the
peak of the crisis, but this was not the case with extended
relatives, who often reflected disapproving social attitudes.
Ministers and support groups were also consistently mentioned as
helpers. Social workers and social agency personnel received
unfavorable evaluations as a rule.
Maintaining Relationships in an
Oppressive Environment
A prevalent theme heard in
discussions with spouses regarded the many barriers that existed or
seemed to be placed in the way of families visiting and
communicating with their incarcerated members. Traveling to and from
the correctional facility was considered impossible on any regular
basis if one lived on a public welfare budget. Dependent families,
therefore, had to rely on relatives and friends for transportation;
not too many of them were available. Even when transportation was
available, sometimes unreliable information or lack of information
from the correctional facility interfered with regular visitations.
The reaction to the prison environment was often very negative and
clearly articulated: "We are treated just like criminals!" Women
frequently complained of being robbed of their dignity. "We are
serving time just like they are!" exclaimed another women,
frustrated by years of such visitations. Spouses appeared to
identify personally with the particular offense committed by their
incarcerated mates. Consequently, it was not implausible for them to
regard their spouse's sentence as something they shared very
personally. Likewise, one can appreciate the dynamics that cause
these women to carry a heavy burden of guilt and feel intimidated by
the authority of the correctional system. On top of this
self-depreciation, the indifference of the correctional system to
the stressful reality that confronts relatives made matters more
difficult. Unfortunately, the community outside of the correctional
facility is no more compassionate or considerate of the offender's
family. There are no specific established resources to help this
troubled population, and funds to establish any kind of programs for
them are hard to come by.
Chainlinking: A Process of
Building and Maintaining Local Supports
Although the original thrust of
this study was to focus on the situation of the offender's family,
researchers became interested in the process social network
construction that went on while the offender was incarcerated. When
blood-based relationships were not functional or available in a
number of cases, an auxiliary network of relationships with
non-blood related social contacts was substituted for the role
traditionally taken by a blood relative. This occurred in a couple
of instances when inmates on furloughs initiated acquaintances with
female participants in a ministry-sponsored support group. In other
instances, visitors brought friends with them to a correctional
facility visitation who established a relationship with a second
inmate, and they eventually paired off by themselves. This process
of annexing new relationships to an existing relationship was termed
"chainlinking," because of the interdependence between members of
the social network. An important aspect of the chainlinking process
is that it is perceived to be mutually beneficial to the inmate side
as well as the visitor side. This can be seen in a pair of
illustrations. Illustration I [omitted] represents the customary
situation, in which inmates communicate with blood and close
relatives, and the corrections facility restricts its own
communication with relatives and does not enter into the process of
constructing a supportive social network that is potentially
beneficial to both inmates and their relatives. In the conventional
arrangement, correctional officials confine their communications to
the inmate system, and visitors tend to rely on the informal system
of communication for information. In Illustration II [omitted], the
social network and communication channels between inmates and
visitors has expanded through chainlinking. The correctional
institution priorities have not changed, but the potential support
social network of inmates has expanded, increasing relationships
with members of the community. Likewise, opportunities for
socialization for those occupying visitors roles have increased and
serve a need-meeting function. The researchers learned that women
who entered relationships with inmates were often those who had
previous unsuccessful or disappointing relationships with males in
their past, and saw this as a unique opportunity to re-establish a
relationship with a male with some controls.
The chainlinking process has
emerged under the repressive administration of the corrections
institution because it meets the needs of both inmates and visitors
for human contact with sympathetic individuals. While there may be
some inherent shortcomings to such a stigmatized network, the fact
speaks for its potential as a socializing device. Without the
chainlinking process, communication would be much more restricted,
and pressures on inmates would be greater without opportunities for
socialization. Many professionals in the human service fields would
acknowledge that increasing an inmate's points of contact with the
outside, by the initiative of the inmate, is recognized as a
positive indicator. It should also be kept in mind that inmates'
More startling than the distress of spouses and relatives of inmates
is the relative disinterest that helping professions have displayed
toward these vulnerable populations. Historically, the development
of the social work profession and corrections have followed a
parallel course. Strained by different philosophies, social workers
practicing in criminal justice settings have found themselves
polarized between social work's compassion and the correctional
system's reliance on authority and force (Brennan et al., 1983).
Social workers in correctional systems exist to serve the needs of
the correctional structure. While there is much rhetoric heard today
about community treatment and ecological practice, correctional
treatment has not really budged beyond the scenario depicted by
Elliot Studt (1977) over a decade ago, in which the correctional
institution represented a microcosm, with inmates engaged with staff
in treatment processes aimed at preparing offenders to meet the real
world upon their release from confinement. The correctional facility
is regarded by realists as a training facility for crime and vice.
The movement to return offenders to the community as quickly as
possible was influenced by dangerous conditions of overcrowding in
prisons and the prohibitive costs of building more prisons. Until
some future time when families of inmates are treated more humanely
by the correctional system and viewed as important social resources
to help in the offender's social adaptation, social workers will
need to combine their resources with religious groups, volunteer
workers and other community groups to lobby and become activists for
change. With this in mind, the following recommendations are offered
as modest objectives to be sought to improve conditions for families
of incarcerated offenders:
-
To promote the formation of a
nationwide advocacy group consisting of a consortium of
professionals and service groups to establish a positive
rationale with common objectives and standards for delivering
services to families of incarcerated offenders.
-
To develop training
institutes and workshops in convenient locations to better
prepare professionals (social workers, ministers, corrections
social service workers, counselors, etc.) and volunteer workers
to be sensitive to the needs and concerns of inmate families.
-
To develop resources and make
provisions for distributing emergency food, clothing, shelter,
child care, funds and transportation amenities without needless
red tape or eligibility processing.
-
To find ways to establish
peer support groups and recruit sponsors in a variety of
community settings that provide a diversity of ethnic, cultural,
religious, secular and philosophical orientations that suit the
special needs of inmate families.
-
To engage in more research
and become more knowledgeable about the chainlinking process as
a social network building mechanism, and to evaluate its
potential for providing support services for inmates and their
families.
-
To promote research that will
teach us more about the disabling and debilitating effect that
incarceration of parents and other family members has on the
family unit, and to learn more about ways to prevent the
deterioration and decline of family functioning.
-
To establish a general code
of ethical principles, values and desirable conditions that will
serve as a universal guide for professional workers in dealing
with families and former inmates of correctional facilities for
the purpose of restoring the former inmate and his or her family
to maximum functioning.
References
Bakker, Laura J., Barbara Morris
and Laura Jarvis. 1978 "Hidden victims of crime." Social Work
23:143-148.
Brennan, Thomas P., Amy Gedrich,
Susan Jacoby, Michael Tardy and Katherine Tyson. 1986 "Forensic
social work: Practice and vision." Social Casework
67:340-350.
Friedman, Sidney and Conway
Esselstyn. 1965 "The adjustment of children of jail inmates."
Federal Probation 29:39-47.
Hill, Reuben. 1965 "Generic
features of families under stress." Crisis Intervention.
Howard Parod, (ed.). Family Service Association of America.
Holt, Norman and Donald Miller.
1972 Explorations in Inmate-Family Relationships.
California Department of Correction Report, Sacramento, California.
Howard, Jeanne. 1982 Basic
Issues in Child Welfare Practice: A Handbook for Students and
Beginning Workers. Department of Human Services, Columbus,
Ohio.
Morris, Pauline. 1965
Prisoners and Their Families. New York: Hart Publishing Co.
Schwartz, Mary C. and Judith
Weintraub. 1974 "The prisoner's wife: A study in crisis."
Federal Probation 38:20-26.
Studt, Elliot. 1977 "Crime and
delinquency: Institutions." Encyclopedia of Social Work,
17th Ed., Vol. I: 208-213.
Weintraub, Judith. 1976 "The
delivery of services to families of prisoners." Federal
Probation 40:28-31.
CONTRIBUTORS
Lawrence Bennett, Ph.D. Director
of Adjudication and Corrections Division, National Institute of
Justice. Dr. Bennett has held positions as a parole agent,
vocational counselor, correctional counselor and clinical
psychologist. He has taught a wide variety of courses and has
published extensively in the field of criminal justice.
Luz I. Bolivar is a student in
the Masters in Criminal Justice Program at the University of South
Carolina. She is a counselor and Project Research Coordinator at the
Georgia Department of Corrections.
Marion L. Borum is currently
Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Department of Correctional
Services. He has also served as a Deputy Superintendent,
Superintendent, and Assistant Commissioner. During his tenure,
Deputy Commissioner Borum has spearheaded a wide variety of inmate
program improvements in education, healthcare, counseling, and human
services. Of particular note, are the enhanced services which inmate
families enjoy due, in large measure, to his efforts.
Rocco D'Angelo, Ph.D. is
currently a professor and serves as chairperson of the Research
Teaching Group at the Ohio State University College of Social Work.
He has authored numerous articles and scholarly papers on adolescent
runaways, teenage pregnancy, adolescent-parent conflict, and
families of inmates.
Creasie Finney Hairston, Ph.D. is
Professor and Associate Dean, Indiana University School of Social
Work and Vice-President, Parents in Prison, Inc., Nashville,
Tennessee. Dr. Hairston is a researcher and program development
consultant in the area of families and corrections. Her recent
articles on families and corrections appear in Child Abuse and
Neglect: The International Journal, Federal Probation,
and Social Work.
Peg McCartt Hess, Ph.D., ACSW, is
Associate Professor, Indiana University School of Social Work in
Indianapolis, Indiana. She has practiced and teaches in the area of
services to families with children. The author of several articles
on family visiting of children in foster care, she is the co-author
of the book Family Visiting in Out-of-Home Care: A Guide to
Practice to be published by the Child Welfare League of America
in the Fall, 1988.
C. David Howell, Major, is
Executive Director for the Salvation Army Correctional Services
Department in Ottawa, Ontario. All Salvation Army criminal justice
programs and activities are under his direction. A further
responsibility is that of National Correctional Services
Representative whereby he represents the Army's Territorial
Headquarters in federal government related ministries and other
national organizations in the Ottawa area.
C.S. Lanier, Jr. recently
received a Master's Degree in Sociology from the State University of
New York at New Paltz. For his Master's Thesis he conducted research
on fathers in prison in an attempt to explore some of the problems
confronting this prison subgroup. He has been instrumental in
generating the Eastern Fathers Group, an educational and mutual
support program for incarcerated fathers at the Eastern Correctional
Facility (New York).
Velma LaPoint, Ph.D. is Assistant
Dean, School of Human Ecology, Howard University. She teaches
courses in child development, family relationships, and social
policy analysis. She has published several articles and scholarly
papers.
Glen McCleese, B.S.W. is
coordinator of the Marion County (Ohio) Halfway House. He is a
certified alcohol counselor who has published and made conference
presentations on the topics of homelessness and alcoholism.
Mr.McCleese is currently enrolled in graduate studies at the Ohio
State University College of Social Work.
Virginia Neto is a criminal
justice consultant who has conducted research and evaluation studies
on varied aspects of criminal justice, including parole, probation,
community alternatives, women offenders, corrections, and victims'
rights.
Joseph Ossmann has served as the
Executive Director of the Friends Outside National Organization
since 1979. In that role he directly oversees the organization's
twelve prison representatives and provides consultation and
direction to nineteen chapters in three states. He is active in
numerous criminal justice associations and is the immediate past
president of the National Association on Volunteers in Criminal
justice.
Sister Elaine Roulet is Director
of the Children's Center at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility
in New York. The Center is a model program which has received
national recognition for its service. Sister Roulet also administers
several homes for homeless women and for children of inmates. Her
presentation was made possible through the financial support of the
National Institute of Corrections.
Ruth Rushen, Special Liaison,
Office of the Attorney General(California) serves as an advisor on
all phases of corrections and as liaison to California's minority
communities. She also served as Vice-Chair of the California Parole
Board and Director of the CDC. She was responsible for establishing
the contract between CDC and community resources such as Centerforce,
a prison visiting center.
Debbie Smith is a consultant with
Overload Business Services, Altadena, California. She is also active
in advocacy and support services for families involved in the
corrections system.
Return to
Proceedings page
Published by:
Training Resource Center
Department of Correctional Services
Eastern Kentucky University
202 Perkins
Richmond, Kentucky 40475-3127
Phone (606) 622-1497
Fax (606) 622-6264
|
