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 |
||||