Chapter VI

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 VI. INMATE SOCIAL TIES AND PAROLE OUTCOME

The preceding chapters have dealt with the variety of inmate social ties and their relationship or lack of relationship to the inmate's institutional behavior and parole plans. In this chapter the focus will be on the relationship of these social ties to the parole experience of the inmate. Previous studies have produced evidence that marital status and family ties are important factors in parole success, with more parole success noted for those men receiving the greatest amounts of correspondence and visits while in prison. l/

To investigate this relationship a parole follow-up was conducted on 412 men who were paroled from the Southern Conservation Center for at least 12 months as of February 1971 and who appeared before the Parole Board in the fiscal year 1968-69. Three categories of parole outcome were used in the analysis: (1) "no parole difficulties" meaning no known arrests or violations; (2) "minor difficulties,'' including arrests without convictions, misdemeanor convictions, fines, and absconding from supervision; and (3) "serious difficulties," referring to returns to prison as a result of technical violations or new felony commitments.

Visiting Patterns and Parole Outcome
In Table 19 it can be seen that the number of visitors received by the parolee while he was in prison is related to how well he fared on parole. In general those men with a greater number of visitors tended to experience less difficulty on parole than did those with fewer visitors. With the possible exception of those inmates who had four or more visitors, there is a steady progression of success varying from about 50 percent with no parole difficulty for those with no visitors to almost 70 percent with no parole difficulty for those with three visitors.

TABLE 19
ONE YEAR PAROLE OUTCOME BY
NUMBER OF VISITORS
(In Percentages)

Number of Visitors

Parole Difficulties

None

Minor

Serious

Total

%

%

%

%

N

No Correspondence and No Visitors

50

38

12

100

(16)

Correspondence Only

48

42

10

100

(95)

One Visitor

53

38

9

100

(81)

Two Visitors

58

32

10

100

(85)

Three Visitors

70

28

2

100

(53)

Four Visitors

66

32

2

100

(61)

Total*

57

36

7

100

(391)

* The number of cases in the following tables varies somewhat depending on how many of the 412 cases studied were removed due to lack of information.

While the number of prison returns is rather small, it is interesting to note that those parolees with three or more prison visitors have approximately a two percent return to prison rate as compared to a ten percent rate for those with two visitors or less.

This finding that those with fewer social ties tend to become involved in more serious difficulties including new commitments would seem to bear out the hypothesis noted earlier in Chapter IV that multiple termers tend to have fewer social ties in general.

Beginning with an examination of information relative to the parolees' immediate release program and a consideration of some general background factors, the rest of this chapter will explore the contribution of other factors to the previously reported associations between visiting and correspondence patterns and parole outcome.

Release Money and Parole Outcome
One factor of considerable importance to parole outcome, particularly in the immediate post-release period, is the financial solvency of the parolee. Presumably if he has enough money to tide himself over until he finds employment, the parolee avoids the necessity of committing new property crimes. In California the amount of money the man is released with varies depending on his opportunities to work and save money in the institution and also on the possible contributions made by family and others.

Table 20 indicates that among those men receiving two or more visitors the amount of release money is not associated with parole outcome. Among those men with only one or no visitors, the percentage experiencing no parole difficulties increases from 42 percent for those released with less than twenty dollars to 57 percent for men with release funds of eighty dollars or more. It should be noted, however, that in every financial category men with more visitors are more successful than those with fewer visitors.

TABLE 20
ONE YEAR PAROLE OUTCOME BY NUMBER OF
VISITORS AND AMOUNT OF RELEASE MONEY*
(In Percentages)

0-1 Visitor Release Money

Parole Difficulties

None

Minor

Serious

Total

%

%

%

%

N

Less than $20

42

42

16

100

(48)

$20 - $79

51

43

6

100

(92)

$80 or More

57

35

8

100

(51)

2+ Visitors Release Money

Less than $20

63

35

2

100

(49)

$20 - $79

61

31

8

100

(92)

$80 or More

66

29

5

100

(55)

* The amounts of money cited refer to the inmate's account balance at the time of his Board hearing. Typically parole dates are within six months of the hearing date so the amounts at the time of the hearing and at release should not vary appreciably.

This evidence would seem to suggest that having close social ties with others serves the released offender as an economic buffer which reduces his need for money from other sources.

Release Job and Parole Outcome
Having a definite job on release is usually considered to be a facilitator of adjustment on parole and, as shown in earlier chapters, is more characteristic of men with more social ties. It is apparent overall, however, that only 28 percent of this sample of releases had definite jobs awaiting them.2/

In Table 21 it can be seen that those with two or more visitors exceeded those with fewer visitors in terms of percentage of clear parole records, regardless of whether a definite job was available at release. Also, it should be noted that having a definite job offer was not associated with parole outcome when the number of visitors received was controlled. Given the same number of visitors, those with no jobs were as likely to have clear parole records the first year as were those with a job waiting for them.

TABLE 21
ONE YEAR PAROLE OUTCOME BY NUMBER OF
VISITORS AND JOB OFFER AT RELEASE
(In Percentages)

0-1 Visitor

Parole Difficulties

None

Minor

Serious

Total

%

%

%

%

N

No Job Offer

50

40

10

100

(147)

Def. Job Offer

51

40

9

100

(45)

2+ Visitors

No Job Offer

62

32

6

100

(135)

Def. Job Offer

65

30

5

100

(64)

Apparently having a job does not noticeably contribute to a better parole outcome when the variable of inmate social ties is held constant and hence does not help interpret the overall association observed between strength of social ties and parole outcome.

Planned Place of Residence and Parole Outcome
Another item of interest in the analysis of parole outcome is the place where and the person with whom the parolee resides after release. Several studies have indicated that place of residence is associated with parole outcome. The usual finding is that men who live alone after release are the most likely to fail or recidivate, while those living with parents or wives are significantly less likely to violate parole.3/

In Table 22 it can be seen that men with stronger social ties, those with two or more visitors, experience less difficulty in their first year of parole than do those with fewer visitors, regardless of type of residence. Generally the least difficulty for both groups is observed among those released to reside with parents or wives, while a greater amount of difficulty is associated with living alone or with siblings or others. However, these differences are small and rather insignificant.

TABLE 22
ONE YEAR PAROLE OUTCOME BY NUMBER OF
VISITORS AND PLACE OF RESIDENCE
(In Percentages)

0-1 Visitor

Parole Difficulties

None

Minor

Serious

Total

%

%

%

%

N

Alone

51

40

9

100

(75)

Parents or Spouse

53

39

8

100

(74)

Other

44

44

12

100

(41)

2+ Visitors

Alone

60

32

8

100

(47)

Parents or Spouse

67

28

5

100

(117)

Other

59

38

3

100

(34)

As expected the men with more visitors were overrepresented in the parent-spouse residence category, a fact which may well inflate the observed relationship of such housing to parole outcome. Indeed by combining both groups and looking only at place of residence, significantly higher rates of parole success are noted for those residing with parents or spouses, some 61 percent with no difficulty as compared to about 53 percent with no difficulty among those released to reside alone or with siblings and others.

Termer Status and Parole Outcome
In Chapter IV, it was speculated that the fact that multiple termers tend to have fewer social ties or contacts may reflect the fact that men with fewer ties tend to get into more serious trouble on parole. When termer status of the inmate is controlled as shown in Table 23, it can be seen that men with more social ties have fewer difficulties on parole within each category with the possible exception of those with three or more prior commitments. At the same time first termers experience lesser amounts of difficulty on parole regardless of the number of social ties.

Although first termers do tend to have a somewhat greater number of social ties overall, this does not account for the fact that more numerous ties are associated with fewer parole difficulties. Further evidence bearing on the relationship of social ties and termer status to parole outcome indicates that first termers with few social ties are more likely to recidivate than are those with more extensive social ties.

TABLE 23
ONE YEAR PAROLE OUTCOME BY NUMBER OF
VISITORS AND TERMER STATUS
(In Percentages)

0-1 Visitor

Parole Difficulties

None

Minor

Serious

Total

%

%

%

%

N

First Term

58

35

7

100

(105)

Second Term

44

44

12

100

(32)

Three or More Terms

30

55

15

100

(33)

2+ Visitors

First Term

66

29

5

100

(129)

Second Term

61

33

6

100

(36)

Three or More Terms

35

47

18

100

(17)

Base Expectancy Scores
The Base Expectancy measure is designed to predict success on parole and is derived from eleven items relating to the background of the inmate. The scoring system is such that the higher the score the greater the likelihood of a successful parole.4/

With the possible exception of the lowest Base Expectancy Score category (00-32), it can be seen in Table 24 that men with more social ties have a history of fewer parole difficulties than do those with less extensive social ties. In the case of the lowest BE group, the difference is small, about four percent, and not significant. Nevertheless, it is in the expected direction.

The differences among Base Expectancy Score groups are comparatively small and inconsistent among those with less extensive social ties. In contrast, the differences are larger and more consistent among those with more numerous social ties. The largest difference among BE sub-groups in the percentage of cases having no parole difficulty was 13 among those with no or one visitor compared to 19 among those with two or more visitors. Also the low BE group exhibits the lowest return-to-prison figure among those with one or no visitors, 7 percent, whereas the lowest return-to-prison rate for those with two or more visitors is noted in the case of the highest BE group, 2 percent, which is the expected finding.

TABLE 24
PAROLE DIFFICULTY BY NUMBER OF
VISITORS AND BASE EXPECTANCY SCORE
(In Percentages)*

BE Score
0 -1 Visitor

Parole Difficulties

None

Minor

Serious

Total

%

%

%

%

N

Low

49

44

7

100

(61)

Medium

45

42

13

100

(67)

High

58

34

8

100

(62)

2+ Visitors

Low

53

39

8

100

(49)

Medium

61

32

7

100

(69)

High

72

26

2

100

(81)

* A three-fold classification of BE scores was used: Low = 00-32, Medium = 33-45, and High = 46-76.

In short, it would seem that the relationship of inmate social ties to parole outcome is clearer in the moderate and high Base Expectancy score ranges and that the Base Expectancy itself is a more effective predictor for those with stronger social ties than it is for those with weaker ties. Further research is needed to clarify these findings.

Summary
A follow-up study of 12 months on parole of 412 men released from the Southern Conservation Center in 1968-69 produced the following major findings:

In general, those men with more persons visiting them during their last 12 months in prison experienced significantly fewer and less serious difficulties in their first year of parole than did those with fewer visitors.

The amount of money available upon release was not associated with parole outcome for the men with stronger social ties. These men uniformly fared better on parole than did those with lesser social ties. The amount of release money, however, was associated with parole outcome for those with fewer ties, with more money associated with fewer parole difficulties. This indicates that social ties may operate as economic buffers.

Although those men with more visitors also tended to have definite jobs awaiting them, parole outcome was not related to whether jobs were waiting in the case of either those with fewer visitors or those with more.

Men receiving more visitors in prison had better parole outcomes regardless of initial place of residence, although in general those men released to residence with parents or wives tended to have less difficulty on parole than did those released to other types of residence.

Men with more visitors also exhibited fewer difficulties on parole regardless of termer status, although the differences were rather small in the cases of men with three or more prior prison terms. In general, first termers experienced fewer parole difficulties than did multiple termers.

Men with more prison visitors experienced fewer difficulties on parole regardless of Base Expectancy score. In the lower score range (00-32) the difference was again rather small, and the Base Expectancy measure seemed more predictive of outcome for those with more numerous visitors.

These findings would seem to indicate the significant role played by inmate ties with family and friends in the correctional rehabilitation process. While this matter is deserving of much further study, the findings of this study would seem to corroborate the assumptions underlying such programs as the Family Visiting and Temporary Release programs which are considered in the next chapter.
_______
1/ Glaser, Daniel, The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System, Bobbs-Merril, Inc., 1964, p. 366.

2/ The figures quoted refer to job offers at time of the Parole Board hearing not as of time of release.

3/ Glaser, Daniel, op. cit., p. 379.

4/ For details of the Base Expectancy measure, see Don Gottfredson and Jack Bonds, A Manual for Intake Base Expectancy Scoring, California Department of Corrections, Research Division, March 1969 (mimeo). The BE 61A referred to takes into account the "favorability of the living arrangements" of the inmate prior to his commitment. Therefore, the Base Expectancy measure, to some extent, parallels the social ties variable used in this study.