Family & Corrections Network

Reading Room

Chapter VII

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

Eight men either reported no opinion or did not respond. It would seem clear on the basis of this evidence that the program enjoys a great measure of acceptance by the inmate population as measured by their approval of the program concept.

In an effort to determine what, if any, effect the larger inmate culture or population might have on the acceptance and utilization of the Family Visiting Program, each respondent was asked to evaluate how he thought most inmates felt. With a few exceptions this was done, and the data in Table 26 show that the individual's perceptions of the group view, if anything, were that it was even more favorable than his own view of the program. Almost 91 percent reported that most inmates approved of the program. Eight men gave no opinion. The program then does not appear to be in any conflict with the so-called "con-culture" or for that matter with any sizable group within the prison population.

Another measure of the acceptance of a program is the extent to which members of the client population entertain plans to participate in the program. The members of the sample were asked whether they would participate if they were eligible. Table 27 shows their responses to this question.

While plans to participate in the program are not quite as prevalent as approval of the program, they still represent further evidence of strong support for the program. It is also instructive to examine more closely the characteristics of the nine men reporting they will definitely not participate. One man is only a month from his parole and is already utilizing the Temporary Release Program, two others are out-of-state cases, two have no families, and the remaining four have little if any contact with their families as measured by the frequency of their mail and visits. It would seem clear, then, that not desiring to participate is not so much a measure of disapproval but rather a matter of these respondents not being in a position to use the program.

Comments and, suggestions about the program were solicited also and seem to show a very uncritical perspective held by most inmates concerning this program. First of all, it was noteworthy that no real negative criticism of the Family Visiting Program was made. Instead two types of recommendation were made. One tended to be made by married men, some of whom had already participated and usually involved the suggestion that longer stays or more frequent stays be permitted. The second class of recommendation, usually made by unmarried men, suggested a broadening of the eligibility criteria to include all or most of the men there with some asking that common-law unions be recognized as a form of marriage, especially those of long standing where children were involved. A few men went so far as to suggest legitimizing visits by girl friends and even permitting visits by prostitutes. More recently the Criminal Justice Committee of the California Assembly (lower house of the State Legislature) voted to allow anyone on an inmate's visiting list to participate in Family Visiting Programs, including girl friends. 12/

A number of men made no comments, and these tended to be the same men who did not plan to use the program due to lack of family in the area or for other reasons. With regard to broadening and liberalizing the eligibility requirements, various measures were suggested ranging from making all men eligible upon admission to making eligible those men who have served their minimum terms with good records. It is interesting to note that the administration did revise the criteria so that more men were eligible for the program.13/

The Temporary Release Program
The second new program available at the California Correctional Institution, and at other institutions also, is the "Temporary Release Program" which allows selected men to visit their families on 3-day passes. When asked whether they approved of this program, 92 men, or about 94 percent of the sample indicated either strong approval or approval of this idea. (See Table 28.) This would seem to indicate even greater acceptance of this program than of the Family Visiting Program. It should be pointed out this program can be used by single men as well as married men to line up jobs, etc., in their home communities; so perhaps this explains its slightly greater popularity.

When asked how they thought most inmates feel about this program, 95 percent indicated the majority favored this program also (Table 29). In fact not one person reported that most inmates disapproved, indicating again the high degree of acceptance enjoyed by this program.

When asked if they would participate (Table 30), 82 men indicated they would either definitely or probably participate if eligible, and only 7 men indicated they would definitely not participate. As in the case of the Family Visiting Program, these seven men were men expecting to be released to other states or were men with no family to speak of. Indeed six of the seven were the same men mentioned earlier in conjunction with the Family Visiting Program. When the 98 men in the sample were asked for their comments and/or suggestions on improving the Temporary Release Program, no negative criticisms were expressed. Instead they either saw it as "fine" or merely asked for more of the same, such as longer stays, state financial support, more frequent stays, or a liberalizing of the criteria for eligibility.

Program Participation and Parole Success
If the reactions of inmates to these programs is a crucial ingredient for the programs' success, the ultimate test of success must be their effects on recidivism. This part of the chapter concerns itself with the initial parole experiences of men who participated in the Family Visiting Program and the Temporary Release Program at the California Correctional Institution during the period of June 1968 through July 1969. Participants and non-participants in these programs will be compared in terms of a one-year parole follow-up, and selected personal characteristics of the members of the groups will be compared to rule these out as an explanation of differences in parole outcome.

The sample is composed of 192 releases from the California Correctional Institution, 28 who had participated in the Family Visiting Program, 44 who had participated in the Temporary Release Program, and 129 from the same institution who had not participated in either program. Of the 63 who participated in one or the other of the two programs, nine had been in both. With respect to degree of participation in the two programs, the number of times inmates visited with their families ranged from one to eight visits, with a median of three visits per participant. For the Temporary Release Program, all participants received either one or two 72-hour furloughs prior to their release to parole, with the majority receiving only one.

Before examining the parole performance of participants and non-participants, it is first necessary to establish their comparability. Basically the concern here is with the question of differences between those who use one or the other programs and those who do not and how these differences might affect the observed recidivism rates of the respective groups. The two populations were compared on six important items.

No major differences were found on these six items which would favor better parole performance for participants over non-participants. On two items, "commitment offense" and "prior narcotic use," the non-participants had a slight advantage in terms of predicted parole outcome. Participants were somewhat more likely to have used narcotics (56% to 39%) and to have been committed for drug law violations (29% to 24%). While the age distribution of the two groups varied, the variations were highly unlikely to affect the parole outcomes. Ethnic minorities were representative in each population as was the proportion of first termers. The median scores on Base Expectancy scale were almost equal (39.8 and 41.3), further evidencing comparable populations.

Findings
Table 31 provides a comparison of the parole outcome of participants and non-participants. There appears to be little difference in the actual rate of return to prison. Seven parolees from the participant group were returned to prison within twelve months for an 11 percent rate compared to 15 percent for the non-participants. If this small difference held up over a much larger sample, however, it could be significant. Major differences can be noted between the two groups, however, in the percentage who are arrest-free.

Increased program participation appears to be consistently related to an absence of difficulty on parole. Sixty-seven percent of those involved with both programs were arrest-free compared to only 42 percent of the non-participants.

Summary and Discussion
The data presented in this chapter indicate that these pilot programs enjoy a marked degree of acceptance by a cross section of the California Correctional Institution minimum custody inmates, especially considering the short time these programs have been in existence. It is doubtful if any of the other prison programs in California enjoy this much acceptance.

Both in terms of approval and intended utilization, these programs have great popularity among inmates, and this popularity in no way seems limited to any particular group of inmates. For example, only 20 men in the sample were married, and this obviously cannot explain the 76 to 90 percent approval figures recorded. Even those men not having families nearby or the necessary resources to use these programs did not disapprove to any extent of the programs. This would seem to indicate that the unmarried men as a group do not reject the programs or otherwise object to them, at least at this time.

No one advocated abolishing or curtailing the programs, and indeed suggestions for improving the programs were largely confined to broadening and liberalizing the eligibility criteria so that more men could participate and extending the number and duration of visits in both programs. Actually the California Corrections Institution staff has broadened and liberalized the criteria for the Family Visiting Program, and the program has been extended to other institutions. In short, these programs to date are well received by both inmates and staff, and the extent to which they will be used will probably be limited only by the eligibility criteria and the economics of the situation rather than any inmate resistance or apathy.

The small number of parolees involved in the follow-up study prohibits any definitive conclusions, but the results strongly suggest that inmates who participate in Family Visiting or Temporary Release have less difficulty on parole.

While the evidence presented would thus seem to point out the efficacy of these programs, it should not be inferred from these comparisons, however, that some form of selection does not at least partially explain the better outcomes of our participant groups. It may well be that the participants, particularly the men who were in the Family Visiting Program, represent a better parole risk due to closer ties with their families and more stable life patterns on the outside and would therefore have done equally well without the programs. This seems especially likely in view of the findings noted in Chapter VI where men with more social ties encountered fewer difficulties on parole.


1/ Johns, D., "Alternatives to Conjugal Visiting," Federal Probation, Vol. 35, No. 1, March 1971, pp. 48 -52.

2/ Parchman State Penitentiary in Mississippi has had a traditional conjugal visiting program operating informally for sometime. For a discussion of that program see Hopper, C., "Conjugal Visiting: A Controversial Practice in Mississippi," Criminal Law Bulletin, 1967, pp. 288-289.

3/ In Mexico, for example, the practice of conjugal visiting is firmly established. See Hayner, N.S., New Patterns in Old Mexico: A Study of Town and Metropolis, New Haven, Conn., College and University Press, 1966.

4/ For a description and evaluation of this program at another institution see Holt, N., "California's Prerelease Furlough Program for State Prisoners: An Evaluation," Crime and Delinquency (accepted for publication).

5/ Puerto Rica and Argentina are among those nations which have home leave programs. See Cavan, R. S. and E. Zemans, "Marital Relationships of Prisoners in Twenty-Eight Countries," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 49, pp. 133-139, July-August 1958.

6/ Zemans, E. and R.S. Cavan, "Marital Relationships of Prisoners," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 49, pp. 50-57, May-June 1958.

7/ Glaser, D., The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System, Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., pp. 360-378, 1964.

8/ Morris, Pauline, Prisoners and Their Families, Hart Publishing Co., New York City, 1965.

9/ For a complete description of the program see Lloyd, G.P., "A Family Visiting Programme for Offenders in Custody," Medical and Biological Illustration, July 1969, Vol. XIX, No. 3, pp. 146-149.

10/ 1968 Legislative Changes, The Penal Code of the State of California, Legal Book Corp., Los Angeles, 1968, pp. 43-44.

11/ See for example Balogh, T.K., "Conjugal Visitations in Prisons: A Sociological Perspective," Federal Probation, 28, 52-58, September 1964.

12/ Los Angeles Times, June 2, 1971.

13/ Originally, only those in "minimum' custody and with nine months or less to serve before parole were eligible.