CHAPTER V
RESEARCH REPORT N0. 46
EXPLORATIONS IN INMATE-FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
Norman Holt
Associate Social Research Analyst
Southern Conservation Center
Donald Miller
Associate Social Research Analyst
Los Angeles Research Unit
Research Division
California Department of Corrections
Sacramento, California
January 1972
CHAPTER V, THE EFFECTS OF FAMILY AND SOCIAL TIES
ON THE INMATE'S BEHAVIOR IN PRISON
One reason often given for encouraging inmates to maintain contact with their families is the positive effect such contacts are thought to have on their performance in the institution. It is felt that the family is likely to encourage the inmate to conform to the prison routine and rules if for no other purpose than to have him paroled sooner. In addition, the inmate who maintains a strong interest in outside friends and family is thought to be less involved with and less committed to the inmate social system and all that it entails. The outside ties are supposed to provide him with a different point of reference and source of emotional support making it less necessary for him to seek out and become involved with other inmates. The pro-social "Square John," for example, is often viewed as someone with a wife and family anxiously awaiting his release. This chapter will examine the influences that varying levels of contact with the outside world have on three areas of the inmate's prison experience, (1) disciplinary problems, (2) participation in prison programs, and (3) plans and preparation for parole.
Disciplinary Problems
In a study of the relationship between visiting and rule infractions in a Florida correctional institution, Lembo divided a random sample of 100 inmates into those who had and had not received any visits during their first six months of incarceration and compared their disciplinary records. While a difference of nine percentage points was noted in the expected direction, the differences were not large enough to be statistically significant. Lembo concludes by saying "no statistically significant relationship has been shown between the amount of disciplinary infractions committed and the inmate's personal contact with the outside community. The demonstrated occurrence can be regarded as merely a chance variation to be expected in a random sample."1/
The limitations of Lembo's study, including the relatively small sample size, the short period of imprisonment, and the grossly dichotomized categories together with the percentage difference obtained suggested, however, that the hypotheses of "more contact = fewer disciplinaries" might possibly be supported in another study. In the interest of designing a more adequate approach, the authors of the present study classified disciplinary infractions into three categories as opposed to using the total number of rule infractions. The sample was also divided into groups on the basis of the number of visitors received. Those without visitors were separated in turn into those who received letters and those with no contact at all with the outside world. As a further control, the sample was divided into first termers and recidivists. Table 15 presents the results of this analysis.
In line with Lembo's results, no major differences were found in the number of disciplinary reports among the groups defined in terms of number of social contacts. About half of the six groups had no infractions. The only exception seems to be the greater concentration of first termers with no contacts in the extreme disciplinary group with three or more infractions. Thirty-one percent of those with no contacts at all were in this group, compared to 22% for the total sample. The conclusion that this group is an exception was substantiated by the greater likelihood that its members would be transferred as disciplinary problems. They received twice as many of these transfers as those with one or two visitors (15% compared to 7%). Neither of these relationships, however, existed among the recidivists.
When those receiving different numbers of visitors were evaluated by the custodial staff, no significant differences were reported. About three-fourths of each group were not seen as custodial problems, with only 8% of the total sample posing a moderate or major problem. A comparison of disciplinary problems among first termers and recidivists is interesting. The parole violators and multiple termers are considerably less likely to cause trouble for the institution. They were only half as likely to be transferred as disciplinary problems, more likely to maintain clean disciplinary records, and less than half as likely to be considered by the custodial staff as major or moderate problems.
TABLE 15
NUMBER OF FAMILY AND FRIENDS VISITING THE INMATE,
BY NUMBER OF PRISON TERMS, NUMBER OF
DISCIPLINARY REPORTS RECEIVED, GENERAL
CUSTODIAL EVALUATION, AND TYPE OF DEPARTURE
(In Percentages)
|
|
First Termers |
||||||
|
No Contacts |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total |
|
|
None |
50% |
47% |
45% |
46% |
44% |
44% |
46% |
|
One |
11 |
23 |
18 |
22 |
25 |
25 |
22 |
|
Two |
8 |
9 |
16 |
5 |
10 |
16 |
11 |
|
Three or More |
31 |
21 |
22 |
27 |
21 |
15 |
22 |
|
Custodial Evaluation |
|||||||
|
No Problem |
73% |
75% |
81% |
71% |
66% |
72% |
73% |
|
Slight Problem |
19 |
20 |
14 |
18 |
21 |
21 |
19 |
|
Moderate or Major Problem |
8 |
5 |
5 |
11 |
13 |
7 |
8 |
|
Type of Departure |
|||||||
|
Disciplinary Transfer |
15% |
13% |
7% |
7% |
16% |
5% |
10% |
|
Total Number* |
(26) |
(78) |
(74) |
(90) |
(68) |
(61) |
(397) |
|
|
Recidivists |
||||||
|
No Contacts |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total |
|
|
None |
60% |
63% |
54% |
57% |
46% |
55% |
56% |
|
One |
16 |
12 |
23 |
17 |
15 |
15 |
17 |
|
Two |
5 |
10 |
6 |
6 |
10 |
3 |
7 |
|
Three or More |
19 |
16 |
17 |
20 |
28 |
27 |
20 |
|
Custodial Evaluation |
|||||||
|
No Problem |
73% |
78% |
70% |
82% |
79% |
73% |
76% |
|
Slight Problem |
24 |
21 |
27 |
15 |
13 |
24 |
21 |
|
Moderate or Major Problem |
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
8 |
3 |
3 |
|
Type of Departure |
|||||||
|
Disciplinary Transfer |
5% |
6% |
4% |
6% |
8% |
3% |
5% |
|
Total Number* |
(37) |
(83) |
(69) |
(65) |
(39) |
(33) |
(326) |
* 170 cases from the sample were excluded from this table because no information was available on the number of their prison terms
Program Participation
In addition to the extent to which he poses a custodial threat to the institution, another measure of the inmate's performance is the breadth of his involvement in prison programs, particularly those which are thought to have some rehabilitative qualities. To consider this dimension of the prison experience, information on participation in the following six areas was obtained for each inmate in the sample: (1) work, (2) vocational training, (3) school, (4) religion, (5) group counseling, and (6) self-help groups. Overall ratings of how constructively the inmate had used his prison time were also obtained from the inmate's caseworkers. Table 16 shows the relationship between the ratings of program participation and the numbers of social contacts. The caseworkers generally saw no differences in the way inmates with few outside contacts used their time compared to those with numerous visitors. In the total sample, 22% were rated as having made poor use of their prison stay and about half as having used it constructively.
All groups had similar proportions, about 40%, with above average work grades but there appears to be some tendency for those with an abundance of visitors to have also an abundance of average or below average work ratings. Sixty-six percent of those with four or more contacts rated average or below, 12% above the percentage for the total group. A majority of each group did not attempt any vocational training. When it was attempted, however, those with multiple visitors seemed to have a more satisfactory performance in it. While 29% of those with more than three visitors achieved average or above average grades in vocational courses, only 19% of those without contacts performed this well. This relationship, however, did not hold true with success in academic education, as all groups achieved at about the same level in that area.
Maintaining outside contacts seems to have some relationship to the regularity of attending church services. While only 14% of the isolates were regular goers, 22% of all the other groups combined attended on a weekly basis. Those without contacts along with those only receiving mail seemed to participate in and benefit less from group counseling. Only 26% of the isolates were listed as actively participating and benefiting from counseling compared to 40% for the total group. Similarly 41% of the isolates were listed as definitely not benefiting compared to 34% of the total.
TABLE 16
INMATE PARTICPATION IN PRISON PROGRAMS BY THE
NUMBER OF VISITORS RECEIVED AND TYPE OF PROGRAM
(In Percentages)
|
|
Caseworkers' Overall Evaluation |
||||||
|
No Contacts |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total |
|
|
No Information |
7% |
9% |
6% |
11% |
5% |
8% |
8% |
|
Time Not Used Wisely |
23 |
22 |
22 |
20 |
23 |
24 |
22 |
|
Neutral |
26 |
27 |
24 |
20 |
25 |
21 |
24 |
|
Positive Use of Time |
44 |
42 |
48 |
49 |
47 |
47 |
46 |
|
Total |
(74) |
(192) |
(170) |
(170) |
(126) |
(111) |
(843) |
|
Work Record in Institution |
|||||||
|
No Contacts |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total |
|
|
No Information |
12% |
6% |
3% |
4% |
7% |
3% |
5% |
|
Above Average |
40 |
46 |
45 |
40 |
40 |
31 |
41 |
|
Average or Below |
48 |
48 |
52 |
56 |
53 |
66 |
54 |
|
Total Number |
(74) |
(192) |
(170) |
(170) |
(126) |
(111) |
(843) |
|
|
Vocational Training |
||||||
|
No Contacts |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total |
|
|
No Information |
17% |
5% |
6% |
3% |
5% |
6% |
5% |
|
No Training Attempted |
61 |
65 |
68 |
66 |
61 |
58 |
66 |
|
Attempted but Not Successful |
3 |
7 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
|
Attempted with Average or Above Average Success |
19 |
23 |
20 |
24 |
27 |
29 |
23 |
|
Total |
(74) |
(192) |
(170) |
(170) |
(126) |
(111) |
(843) |
|
|
Academic School |
||||||
|
No Contact |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total |
|
|
No Information |
12% |
8% |
12% |
11% |
13% |
13% |
11% |
|
No School Attempted |
46 |
46 |
48 |
41 |
39 |
41 |
44 |
|
Attempted but Not Successful |
8 |
6 |
6 |
8 |
11 |
8 |
8 |
|
Attempted with Average or Above Average Success |
34 |
40 |
34 |
40 |
37 |
38 |
37 |
|
Total |
(74) |
(192) |
(170) |
(170) |
(126) |
(111) |
(843) |
|
|
Religious Attendance |
||||||
|
No Contacts |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total |
|
|
No Information |
16% |
11% |
9% |
9% |
12% |
10% |
11% |
|
No Church Attendance |
55 |
48 |
48 |
54 |
55 |
52 |
51 |
|
Seldom Attends |
15 |
17 |
20 |
13 |
10 |
17 |
16 |
|
Regular Attendance |
14 |
24 |
23 |
24 |
23 |
21 |
22 |
|
Total |
(74) |
(192) |
(170) |
(170) |
(126) |
(111) |
(843) |
|
|
Group Counseling |
||||||
|
No Contacts |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total |
|
|
No Information |
18% |
14% |
11% |
5% |
12% |
9% |
11% |
|
Active Participation and Benefits |
26 |
38 |
44 |
47 |
37 |
41 |
40 |
|
Little Participation but Benefits |
15 |
12 |
14 |
16 |
18 |
15 |
15 |
|
Little or No Participation and No Benefits |
41 |
36 |
31 |
32 |
33 |
35 |
34 |
|
Total |
(74) |
(192) |
(170) |
(170) |
(126) |
(111) |
(843) |
|
|
Self-Improvement Groups |
||||||
|
No Contact |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total |
|
|
No Record of Participation |
66% |
57% |
46% |
48% |
47% |
38% |
50% |
|
Alcoholics Anonymous |
24 |
36 |
44 |
41 |
43 |
51 |
41 |
|
All Other Clubs |
10 |
7 |
10 |
11 |
10 |
11 |
9 |
|
Total |
(74) |
(192) |
(170) |
(170) |
(126) |
(111) |
(843) |
Self-improvement groups were divided into Alcoholics Anonymous and a residual category including such things as Gavel Club, Teen Challenge, or Yoke Fellows. While exactly half of the inmates in the sample had not participated (on record at least) in any of these groups, there are wide variations in participation among inmates with different numbers of contacts. Two-thirds of the isolates were not involved in any self-improvement group, while almost two-thirds of those receiving four or more visits were involved in such groups. Almost all the difference between the isolates and the others, however, is accounted for by participation in Alcoholics Anonymous. Even those receiving only letters show a difference in membership in Alcoholics Anonymous of 12% over the "no contact" group.
Plans and Preparation for Parole
The major purpose of Parole Board hearings as defined by statute is to evaluate the inmate's readiness for parole. In addition to his actual institutional performance, consideration is given to the adequacy of his parole plans. An inmate is thought to have a better chance for parole success if he has some financial resources, a job waiting for him, and a "healthy" residence plan. At the other end of the scale are the "cold turkey" cases with little money on the books, no place to stay, no job leads, and few job skills.
In order to investigate the relationship between outside social ties and resources for parole, data were collected on (1) job prospects, (2) money available for parole, (3) status of driver's license, and (4) residence plans. For about half the cases, the caseworkers also made an overall judgment of the adequacy of the parole plans. These data are presented in Table 17. Caseworkers were much more likely to evaluate as "poor" the parole plans of the "no contact" group and somewhat more likely to render this judgment for the plans of those who only received letters. While 29% of those with four or more visitors were rated as having good plans for parole, this was true of only 9% of those without visitors. Among the few cases where the caseworkers stuck their necks out and predicted parole failure, inmates with no contacts or letters only were over-represented.
TABLE 17
INMATES’ PREPARATION FOR PAROLE BY NUMBER OF VISITORS,
CASEWORKERS’ EVALUATION AND TYPE OF RESOURCES
(In Percentages)
|
|
Caseworkers' Evaluation of Parole Plans |
||||||
|
No Contacts |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total |
|
|
No Information |
59% |
56% |
49% |
56% |
53% |
50% |
53% |
|
Good Parole Plans |
9 |
9 |
21 |
20 |
25 |
29 |
19 |
|
Neutral Parole Plans |
9 |
14 |
15 |
12 |
10 |
15 |
13 |
|
Poor Parole Plans |
23 |
21 |
15 |
12 |
12 |
6 |
15 |
|
Total Number |
(74) |
(192) |
(170) |
(170) |
(126) |
(111) |
(843) |
|
Caseworker Predictes Parole Failure |
14% |
13% |
6% |
5% |
7% |
5% |
8% |
|
Total Number |
(74) |
(192) |
(170) |
(170) |
(126) |
(111) |
(843) |
|
|
Job Prospects |
||||||
|
No Contacts |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total |
|
|
Claims Membership in Union |
32% |
23% |
32% |
24% |
37% |
30% |
29% |
|
Total Number |
(74) |
(192) |
(170) |
(170) |
(126) |
(111) |
(843) |
|
Current Job Offer on File |
15% |
18% |
21% |
23% |
29% |
34% |
23% |
|
Total Number |
(74) |
(192) |
(170) |
(170) |
(126) |
(111) |
(843) |
|
|
Account Money in Inmate's Account |
||||||
|
No Contact |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total |
|
|
Less than $20.00 |
43% |
36% |
26% |
30% |
33% |
29% |
32% |
|
$20.00 - $79.00 |
34 |
43 |
49 |
48 |
46 |
40 |
44 |
|
$80.00 or More |
23 |
21 |
25 |
22 |
21 |
31 |
24 |
|
Total Number |
(74) |
(192) |
(170) |
(170) |
(126) |
(111) |
(843) |
|
|
California Drivers' License |
||||||
|
No Contacts |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total |
|
|
No Information |
12% |
8% |
8% |
3% |
2% |
6% |
6% |
|
Has Valid License |
15 |
10 |
19 |
16 |
14 |
17 |
15 |
|
Never had a California License |
18 |
13 |
6 |
8 |
9 |
8 |
10 |
|
Expired but is Renewable |
34 |
38 |
38 |
37 |
40 |
40 |
38 |
|
Outstanding Tickets or Other Problems to Getting a License |
8 |
19 |
24 |
24 |
30 |
26 |
23 |
|
No License, Renewability Unknown |
13 |
12 |
5 |
12 |
5 |
3 |
8 |
|
Total Number |
(74) |
(192) |
(170) |
(170) |
(126) |
(111) |
(843) |
|
|
Proposed Residence |
||||||
|
No Contacts |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total |
|
|
Establish Independent Residence |
61% |
49% |
34% |
29% |
19% |
14% |
34% |
|
Live with Parents |
12 |
18 |
30 |
34 |
43 |
39 |
29 |
|
Live with Wife |
9 |
7 |
21 |
17 |
22 |
23 |
16 |
|
Live with Brother or Sister |
5 |
10 |
8 |
7 |
8 |
12 |
8 |
|
Other, No Information |
13 |
16 |
7 |
13 |
8 |
12 |
12 |
|
Total Number |
(74) |
(192) |
(170) |
(170) |
(126) |
(111) |
(843) |
There is no clear relationship between claiming union membership and the number of visitors received. A different picture emerges when the actual job offers on file are the focus. The number with such offers increases steadily from 15% to 34% as the number of visitors increases. Each additional visitor appears to increase the likelihood of receiving a job offer by between 2% and 5%.
Those without contacts and, to a lesser extent, those receiving mail only were also more prevalent among those with very little money in their accounts. The actual differences in the availability of money for parole are even greater, since those with outside contacts have a ready source of loans upon release. However, for the isolated inmate the prison account will usually represent all the money he will have available aside from the small release allowance. Forty-three percent of the isolates in this sample had less than $20.00 available at the time of the Parole Board hearing compared to only 29% of the four or more visitor group.
The "no contact" group was more likely never to have had a California driver's license but also less likely to have a license which was encumbered with such things as outstanding traffic tickets. About one-fourth of those receiving visitors had such licensing problems.
The major difference in parole plans between the six groups, as might be expected, was in residence plans. The majority of those with no contacts and half of those receiving only letters planned to live alone in such places as boarding houses, motels, and apartments, while only 14% of those with more than three visitors planned to live alone. Between 30% and 43% of those with visitors were going to live with parents, and over 20% were hoping to reside with their wives. Residing with parents accounted for 12% of the "no contact" group and with wives 9%. One might ask, however, how realistic such plans were in view of the fact that these parents and wives weren't even writing letters to the inmates. Each additional visitor decreased by 5% or more the number who planned to establish independent residence.
What difference does the fact that those with strong family ties have better parole plans make in the actual granting of parole dates? To examine this question, the authors computed the average time for each offense beyond the minimum for eligibility for parole served by all those paroled from the institution during the prior three years. A comparison was then made of the time served to the Parole Board hearing for each inmate in the study with the average times served. Since the Parole Board at the time of the study was granting parole dates up to 12 months in advance, anyone who was within 12 months of the average time was considered to be a likely candidate for parole. For example, the average robbery case paroled during the previous three years served 22 months more than his minimum term. Thus, if a robber in the study sample had served 15 months more than his minimum at the time of his hearing, he was considered a good candidate for parole, since a parole date seven months in advance would have given him the average prison term. Data on the relationship between the strength of family ties and the receiving of parole dates are presented in Table 18. Parole violators appearing before the Board for consideration of reparole are excluded from the table.
For those inmates who had served at least the average amount of time for their offenses, the number of outside contacts and the associated differences in the quality of parole plans seemed to make little difference. Those without contacts were as likely to be granted parole as those with two or three visitors (49%). On the other hand, having family ties proved to be very important for those inmates appearing before the Board with less than the average time served and therefore a lower probability of being paroled. While only 17% of the "no contact" group with less time served received parole dates, over 30% of the other groups received them. For the "isolate." having served enough time increased his chances for parole by almost three times, while it less than doubled the chances of the groups with outside contacts.
TABLE 18
INMATES GRANTED PAROLE DATES BY
NUMBER OF VISITORS RECEIVED AND TIME SERVED
COMPARED TO THE AVERAGE
(In Percentages)
|
|
Parole Dates Granted |
||||||
|
No Contacts |
Letters Only |
One Visitor |
Two Visitors |
Three Visitors |
Four+ Visitors |
Total Average |
|
|
Served the Average* Time or More |
49% |
61% |
56% |
49% |
50% |
57% |
54% |
|
Total Number |
(35) |
(84) |
(78) |
(77) |
(54) |
(51) |
(379) |
|
Served Less than the Average Time |
17% |
27% |
23% |
36% |
37% |
32% |
30% |
|
Total Number |
(12) |
(26) |
(31) |
(33) |
(27) |
(22) |
(151) |
* Compared to the average of similar cases paroled from the same institution during the preceding three years. Parole violators excluded from both groups.
Summary and Discussion
The data presented in this chapter support some hypotheses and refute others. Prison officials may be disappointed to learn that even numerous contacts with family and friends have little value as a controlling influence on behavior. A few differences in behavior were noted in program areas, but these differences did not appear to be very important. The major difference between the six groups, representing varying levels of outside contacts, was in their ability to get together constructive parole plans, as reflected in having a definite job to go to, a place to stay with family members, and some money to begin parole. These more constructive parole plans, in turn, seemed to increase the Parole Board's willingness to take a chance on those with numerous visitors when less than the average time had been served.
The authors expected to find a negative relationship between the number of disciplinary reports and the number of visitors. Conventional wisdom points to the family as the focus of social control. If crime in general or prison rule violations in particular are viewed as breakdowns in social control, then strong family ties should help shape the inmate's behavior in a conforming direction. However, with the exception of a small group of isolated individuals with three or more disciplinaries, the anticipated effects were not present.
Such expectations may have been unjustified in the first place and based more on value judgments of family life than on logic. After all, the same inmates who are now receiving visits must have had much closer contact with their families before being incarcerated. Such contact didn't seem to have the effect of inducing conformity then, at least not enough to keep them from committing crimes and going to prison.* (* Suggested in conversation by F.W. Forden, Regional Administrator, Parole and Community Services Division.) The possibility also exists that for some inmates maintaining close family ties can make "doing time" very hard. This could lead to psychological anguish and depression which, in turn, could create custodial problems. It is not too difficult to imagine an inmate in this position becoming short tempered, disagreeable, and uncooperative. Also, in some cases the relationships in question played an important part in the inmate's original criminal behavior either by directly reinforcing criminal values or creating conflicts of such a nature that non-conforming behavior resulted. Where turbulence in a home has contributed to delinquent patterns or such patterns were sanctioned by siblings and friends, the continuation of these relationships shouldn't do much to encourage conformity to prison rules. The importance of this is emphasized in data presented by Glaser.2/ Parolees who were living with their wives had a 29% higher rate of success on parole when no discord with the wife was reported. Similarly, those living with parents and experiencing discord had 7% more failures than in homes where no discord was reported.
Another process should be considered. It may be that many inmates simply compartmentalize their institutional experience from their outside relationships to such an extent that neither is allowed to seriously influence the other. The Sunday afternoon visits and the Wednesday night letter writing may occupy their own special place and be viewed as irrelevant to the daily prison routine. In a way this interpretation is supported by the general absence of increased program participation by inmates who have strong outside ties. There should have been a considerable difference between those without contacts and those with multiple visitors if the family was a strong general motivating force. As we saw, however, the only program areas in which increased contact led to increased participation were exactly those activities in which the family might have a very direct and vested interest, vocational training and Alcoholics Anonymous. Certainly parents who were previously supporting a son because of his lack of job skills would be greatly interested in his completing a vocational course and might be expected to bring pressure to bear on the son to achieve this end. Also, the wife of the alcoholic inmate might have a strong interest in his attending Alcoholics Anonymous and might even make a continuation of their relationship contingent on his further participation.
In contrast to the minor distinctions found in institutional performance between those with few and those with many social ties, fairly large differences were noted in their ability to secure job offers and establish constructive residence plans. The better plans of those with more social ties are taken cognizance of by the Parole Board in granting release dates. The importance to parole success of having a firm job offer is open to question, but convincing evidence has been gathered in support of the importance to parole success of being paroled to residence with a wife, parents, or family members. Among male adult federal prisoners released in 1956, 49% of those who planned to live alone subsequently failed on parole compared to only 25% who went to live with wives and 35% who left to reside with parents.3/ In a three year follow-up study of residents released to outpatient status from the California Department of Corrections' institution for addicts under civil commitment, Bass found that those who lived with legal wives performed significantly better. While only 21% of the former addicts who were residing with their wives could be expected on the basis of the performance of all releases to complete three years in outpatient status, 37% actually reached this standard. 4/
In this chapter, it has been pointed out how better parole plans are associated with more numerous visitors. The Parole Board, in turn, tends to give the cases with better parole plans special consideration at a time when they have only a remote chance for parole. Both of these judgments are based on the prediction that the better plans, and the more numerous contacts which go with them, are associated with better parole outcome. The following chapter investigates the relationships of these factors to parole outcome.
1/ Lembo, J., "The Relationship of Institutional Disciplinary Infractions and the Inmates' Personal Contact with the Outside Community." Florida Division of Corrections (Feb.) 1969, p. 6, mimeographed.
2/ Glaser, Daniel, The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System, New York: The Bobs-Merril Co., Inc., 1964, p. 379.
3/ Glaser, ibid.
4/ Bass, Richard, Narcotic Addict Outpatient Program, Research Report No. 36, Research Division, California Department of Corrections, Sacramento, California, September 1969.