Holt Miller Prisoner and Family Relationship Recidivism Study 1972

Holt Miller Prisoner and Family Relationship Recidivism Study 1972

• Topics: Prisoner Privileges, Rehabilitation/Recidivism

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

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
Table of Contents
SUMMARY
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER II. MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS OF CALIFORNIA PRISONERS
CHAPTER III. PATTERNS OF INMATE CONTACT WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS
CHAPTER IV. THE EFFECTS OF IMPRISONMENT ON THE INMATE'S FAMILY AND
SOCIAL TIES
CHAPTER V. THE EFFECTS OF FAMILY AND SOCIAL TIES
ON THE INMATE'S BEHAVIOR IN PRISON
CHAPTER VI. INMATE SOCIAL TIES AND PAROLE OUTCOME
CHAPTER VII. INMATE ATTITUDES TOWARD FAMILY VISITING AND
TEMPORARY RELEASE AND THE PAROLE OUTCOME OF PARTICIPANTS
CHAPTER VIII. THE INMATE AND HIS FAMILY: SOME CONCLUSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS

SUMMARY
Some Conclusions and Implications

The central finding of this research is the strong and consistent positive
relationship that exists between parole success and maintaining strong family
ties while in prison.
Only 50 percent of the "no contact" inmates completed their first year on parole without
being arrested, while 70 percent of those with three visitors were "arrest free" during this
period. In addition, the "loners" were six times more likely to wind up back in prison
during the first year (12 percent returned compared to 2 percent for those with three or
more visitors).
For all Base Expectancy levels, we found that those who maintained closer ties
performed more satisfactorily on parole.
This suggests that it might be well to view the inmate's family as the prime treatment
agent and family contacts as a major correctional technique. This approach has
numerous advantages not the least of which is that it's free. It wouldn't require the
specially trained staff or costly staff augmentations so common to most treatment
approaches.
A second major advantage is the built-in inmate motivation. Most treatment techniques
have limited value because the inmates most in need are also the least motivated for
treatment. Motivation for visits is consistently high.
There are two areas in which changes might increase correctional effectiveness through
promoting strong family ties. First, there are several ways in which special programs
could become more effective. Most extensive use should be made of temporary
releases. Their potential seems almost unlimited. Temporary releases should be used
as pre-release preparation throughout the entire period of incarceration. Home leaves
beginning a few months after reception would go a long way toward promoting strong
family ties. Home visit privileges should be extended to a few non-violent, married
prisoners in low risk categories on an experimental basis and slowly be granted to other
groups.
The Family Visit Program should be reserved strictly for those inmates who cannot
make use of temporary releases. These would probably include such cases as chronic
parole absconders, perpetrators of very violent crimes such as murder, or inmates who
need to work out marital problems in a more structured setting than is provided by the
home. Since common-law marriages are increasing in prevalence, those of some
duration should be recognized in both programs.
Family counseling should be utilized more with each institution required to have at least
one person as a State-certified family counselor who would be designated as the
coordinator for the program.
The second area concerns routine institutional procedures. The further visitors have to
travel and the more difficult the procedures, the more likely are the visitors to reduce

contacts as the sentence is served. Thus, every effort must be made to place the
inmate in the institution closest to his home in order to facilitate family contacts. This
research has shown the high cost in terms of parole failure of interfering with important
social ties. Correctional systems can no longer afford to incarcerate inmates in areas so
remote from their home communities as to make visiting virtually impossible. Proximity
to the inmate's home should be the first consideration in making assignments to
institutions.
All correctional institutions in California, like most institutions throughout the world,
make arrangements for inmates to visit and correspond with their family and friends.
Although such arrangements have existed since the beginning of prisons in this state,
little systematic information is available about the nature and consequences of these
outside contacts. This research project was undertaken as an exploratory study of the
effects of these contacts on the inmate in prison and later on parole. The data for this
study were obtained from inmate files at the Southern Conservation Center. The
question was also raised of the effects of the Family Visiting and Temporary Release
Program at the California Correctional Institution.
Some general information on marital status and patterns of outside contact is presented
in the report as an introduction to the discussion of the influence of these contacts on
the individual as inmate and as parolee.
Summary of Findings
Prisoners are less likely to be married than the average male.
Patterns of outside contacts reflect the differences in family structure of different
ethnic groups.
In general, contacts with family and friends do not necessarily decrease as the
time is served. Marital ties are an exception, however.
Contacts with legally married wives of first term inmates grew fewer through the second
year, suggesting that the marital relationship erodes as the years in prison pass.
Given what appears to be a major deterioration of marriages after the first and second
year of prison (about one-fourth fewer of the wives were still visiting after three or more
years), it is surprising that a hard core of wives continues the same level of contacts
through four years plus and on into the second or third prison term.
Frequent visits don't seem to improve the inmate's institutional behavior but do
lead to better parole plans and a better chance of being paroled.
Inmates who maintained frequent outside contacts while in prison did
significantly better on parole,

A twelve-month parole follow-up study of 412 men paroled from the Southern
Conservation Center in 1968-69 revealed that men with more people visiting them
during their last 12 months in prison experienced significantly less difficulty and less
serious difficulty in their first year of parole than did those with fewer visitors.
Men who had more people visiting them in prison experienced fewer difficulties on
parole regardless of Base Expectancy Score. However, in the lower score range (0032), the difference was small, and the Base Expectancy measure seemed more
predictive of outcome for those with more numerous visitors.
Family Visiting and the Temporary Release Programs were strongly supported by
the inmate body with no hint of negative reactions from those who couldn't
participate.
All restrictions on visitors and mail should be closely scrutinized with an eye to
eliminating all regulations whose purpose is other than protecting the absolute basic
security of the institution. No restriction should be allowed to remain the only reason for
which is the lack of space. Space must be found. The effectiveness of family contacts is
such that very high priority should be given to finding space that may be utilized to
increase the frequency of family contacts.

Chapter I
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 I. INTRODUCTION

Fostering inmate-family relationships has only recently assumed some measure of
importance to correctional planners and administrators with the advent of Work
Furlough programs in several states and the Family Visiting Program in California.
While prisoner visiting programs date back to the colonial period, relatively little time
or effort was devoted to such programming, and the prisoners were in effect expected
to maintain their family relationships as best they could under a number of restrictions
involving eligibility, time limitations, and travel distances. Even today visiting and

correspondence are largely viewed as "privileges" in many prison systems and not as
an integral part of a treatment or rehabilitation program. l/

The growing awareness of the family and its importance in American correctional
systems collates well with developments along these lines in other countries and with
general social science theory and findings regarding delinquent sub-cultures and the
dehumanizing effects of total institutions. 2/ Certainly it seems clear that other criminal
justice agencies, such as the police and the courts, routinely take marital status and
family ties into consideration in making very important decisions concerning the
individual. 3/

In keeping with the current general trend in corrections toward community-based
treatment programs and increased community involvement and recognizing the
relative lack of information on the family and rehabilitation 4/, this report will attempt to
pull together the existing information in California regarding the prevalence of various
types of prisoner-family relationships, and their impact on inmate behavior, both inside
prison and later on parole. Information from several independent sources is presented
in this report, some obtained from already existing studies and some obtained from
new studies designed to provide data for this report.

This work is an exploration of the subject and attempts only to define issues and look
for probabilities rather than provide definitive answers. Even the strongest findings
reported here suffer from a lack of replication.

Methodology and Overview
Chapter II introduces the subject by presenting data regarding the prevalence of the
various kinds of marriage ties among newly committed inmates and how this
prevalence compares with that in the general population. The data for this chapter
were compiled by the Administrative Statistics Section of the Research Division of the
California Department of Corrections. It covers all new admissions to the Department
during 1968.

Chapters IV, V, and VI report the results of the investigation of the relationship of
prisoners with their families. The basic concern was to find out what effects
imprisonment had on the inmate's ties with the outside world and what effects these
social ties had on his behavior, first in prison and later on parole. By way of setting the
stage for these three chapters, Chapter III presents data on the frequency of outside
contacts and the relationship of visitors and correspondents to the inmates. The data
are broken down by ethnic group and marital status in order to show the diversity of
social patterns inmates bring to the institution. Chapter IV takes up the problem of the
deteriorating effect imprisonment is generally thought to have on the inmate's
relationship with his family and friends. Here the concern is whether or not inmates
who have served longer amounts of time have fewer outside contacts. Chapter V
explores the relationship between the inmate's institutional performance and the
number of his visitors and correspondents, attempting to answer the question, "Do
inmates behave better when frequent contact with family and friends is maintained?"
Chapter VI investigates the often stated proposition that maintaining strong family ties
has a rehabilitating effect on the inmate. The inmate's performance on parole is
analyzed in attempting to answer the question, "Are former inmates who had more
contacts with the outside world while in prison more successful on parole?"

The data for this section were gathered at the Southern Conservation Center in Chino,
California. The location of the center and its five conservation camps greatly facilitates
visiting, as the vast majority of the approximately 1,000 inmates are from counties in
Southern California. In the camps visiting is allowed all day Sunday in a picnic
atmosphere, while the Center provides for visiting Wednesday through Sunday in the
morning and afternoon. Each inmate is limited to a list of ten approved visitors, but the
number of times he is visited by these people is limited only by the number of hours
he has for this purpose. Similarly, all his approved visitors may visit at the same time.
The list of approved correspondents is likewise limited to ten people, but no
restrictions are placed on the total number of letters that can be received. Outgoing
mail is limited, however, to one letter each day. To be approved each correspondent

or visitor must first fill out and return a short questionnaire which is checked by the
inmate's caseworker.

The sample used in the study consisted of the 843 inmates who appeared before the
Adult Authority parole board at the Southern Conservation Center from July 1968 to
July 1969. The usual procedure is for the inmate, after he becomes legally eligible for
parole, to have a hearing before the board once each year until a parole date is
granted. Thus the sample should adequately represent the institution's population. In
the few cases which were heard twice during the year, only data developed for the
first appearance were used.

The document which supplied the data was the pre-board report to the Adult Authority.
These reports are made up by each inmate's caseworker about a month prior to his
parole hearing. Information on the inmate's contacts with his family and outside friends
is contained in the "social" section of the report. The caseworkers compile this section
from the inmate's visiting and correspondence card, on which each letter and visit is
logged in. The caseworker lists each person contacting the inmate and tallies the
number of visits or letters received since the inmate's last board appearance and then
roughly divides these by months or weeks to get an overall average. By the name of
each person, he lists his relationship to the inmate and the average frequency of his
visiting or corresponding during the previous year (e.g., Mrs. Jones, wife, visits once a
month, corresponds twice per week). In this report, the focus will generally be on the
number of different people who have visited the inmate during the year rather than the
total number of visits he has received.

Marital status is not routinely recorded in the pre-board reports and was available from
another source for only 362 of the cases in the sample.

The institution's population is composed of short-term offenders doing their total
sentence in the conservation program and long-term inmates sent from more secure
institutions to finish their time under minimum security conditions. While this

population has representatives of most of the categories of California prisoners, there
are notable exceptions, such as sex offenders. In addition, the inmates in the
conservation program are more likely to be at a later point in their institutional careers
than their counterparts in medium security prisons. While this sample might be taken
as reasonably representative of felon prisoners in California, no information was
available to the authors on the comparability of California prisoners to those in other
systems.

The most appropriate population to which the results of this study can be generalized
is the minimum security inmates in California, although there are reasons to believe
that most of the results could be replicated in California's medium security prisons.
Any attempt to extend the findings to other populations, however, must be done highly
tentatively. Because of this and the summary nature of the available data on contacts,
we have chosen to interpret the results of the study conservatively. A difference of a
few percentage points has generally been ignored unless it is reflective of a trend in
the data or reinforced by other findings.

Chapter VI contains a follow-up of inmates in the sample to a point approximately two
years after their parole board hearings and an evaluation of the parole performance
during their first year after release of those who had been paroled before February
1970. Involved in this evaluation were 412 cases or about half the original group. The
parole follow-up data were collected by the Research Measurement Unit of the
Research Division of the California Department of Corrections. This unit also supplied
the information for the parole follow-up in Chapter VII. In the system of the Research
Measurement Unit, the parole status of each parolee is recorded at six months, one
year, and two years. Any difficulty with a law enforcement agency is noted and the
status on parole of each parolee is expressed in summary form in terms of the most
serious disposition received. For purposes of this study, dispositions were classified
into three categories, no arrests at one extreme, return to prison at the other, and all
other dispositions in the middle.

In Chapter VII two experimental programs, Family Visiting and Temporary Release,
are evaluated in terms of inmate acceptance and the success on parole of their
participants. Both are viewed as constructive alternatives designed to overcome some
of the problems associated with conjugal visiting programs. Since much of the
resistance among prison administrators to marital visits appears to result from a
concern about management problems which might be created by those who cannot
participate, the reactions of inmates to these programs are examined closely to
discover just how resentful non-participants actually are. The second part of the
chapter compares the parole performance of inmates involved in the two experimental
programs with a comparable group of non-participants to determine if participants
have less difficulty on parole.

In the final chapter, there is an attempt to draw out some of the implications of these
findings and suggest some directions for future research.
_____________
1/ For example, see The Manual of Correctional Standards, American Correctional
Association, 1969, p. 342.
2/ See, for example, Glueck, S. and E. Glueck, One Thousand Juvenile Delinquents,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1934; Rodman, H. and P. Evans,
"Juvenile Delinquency and the Family: A Review and Discussion" in Task Force
Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, 1967; and Goffman, E., Asylums, Anchor Books, New York, 1961.
3/ See Babst, D. and J. Mannering, "Probation Versus Imprisonment for Similar Types
of Offenders," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 2, No. 2, July
1965; and Cicourel, A.V., The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice, John Wiley &
Son, Inc., New York, 1968.
4/ For details concerning an earlier attempt to introduce a family treatment program
into the California correctional system see Fenton, N., The Prisoners Family: A Study
of Family Counseling in an Adult Correctional System, Pacific Books, Palo Alto,

California, 1959.

Chapter II
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 II. MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS OF CALIFORNIA PRISONERS
In this section of the study, attention will be focused on possibly the inmate's most
important voluntary social tie, the marital relationship. The specific concern of this
chapter is with the prevalence of the various kinds of marital status in California's prison
population. Some awareness of the marital status patterns of entering inmates would
seem to be useful to an understanding of the chapters that follow dealing with inmate
visiting and correspondence patterns and parole outcome. Inmate marital relationships

will be examined in terms of how they relate to crime patterns, broader social
conditions, and the operations of the criminal justice system.

The population chosen for the investigation of marital relationships was all new
commitments to California prisons for the year 1967. Marital status at time of reception
as reported by the inmate was recorded without any documentary verification. Marriage
was defined to include formal legal marriages and "common-law" marriages at least one
year in duration. It is assumed that since admissions ordinarily do not change greatly
from year to year in their characteristics, this sample probably is typical of new
admissions in California during recent years.

Marital status was tabulated against age at admission, commitment offense, ethnic
background, and number of prior commitments in this analysis.

Marital Status
It has long been noted that prisoners as a group tend to be quite different from the
general population with respect to their marital status. They are more likely to be single
or to have disrupted marriages and therefore less likely to have intact marriages. l/ This
general tendency is apparently true for California prisons. The 4,496 new admissions in
1967 were found to be approximately equally divided into three marital groups
composed of 1,538 single men; 1,557 married men; and 1,401 men who were either
divorced, widowed, or separated.

It is interesting to note that a number of studies indicate that marital status itself plays a
role in the screening process used by the criminal justice agencies along with such
factors as type of offense and prior record of arrests and convictions. Studies in
California 2/ and Wisconsin 3/ point up the fact that the recommendations of probation
agencies and the dispositions of the courts tend to result in the placement of married
offenders on probation and the commitment of unmarried offenders to prison. Some
further understanding of the fact of the relatively small percentage of prisoners who are
married will be gained from examining evidence on other characteristics of the prison

population.

Marital Status and Age
Some information that seems to throw some light on the question of the low percentage
of married admissions to prison is available from arrest statistics. For many serious
offenses likely to lead to imprisonment, the peak age of involvement is below 24 years.
The offenses referred to are burglary, larceny, auto theft, and certain crimes of
violence.4/ To the extent that persons in this age group, 24 years and younger, tend to
be unmarried, it might be expected that the prison population would have a greater
proportion of single people than the general public without regard to age, since almost
half of the new prison admissions are in this particular age range. Table 1 seems to
confirm this expectation, since a large majority of these in the age range of 25 and
under are single.

TABLE 1
AGE AND MARITAL STATUS
OF CALIFORNIA PRISONERS
(In Percentages)
Marital Status
Divorced
Single

Married

Age

Total

Widowed
Separated

%
-20

100

(482)

21-25

100

(1,713)

26-30

100

(850)

31-35

100

(518)

36-40

100

(391)

41+

100

(542)

In the age range 26-35, the largest proportion consists of those men presently
considered married. However, among those over 35 years of age, the combined
divorced, widowed, or separated form the largest category.

Clearly, then, the marital patterns of prisoners seem in part a reflection of the
relationships between age and the likelihood of arrest for certain crimes.

Marital Status and Commitment Offense
The fact that certain offenses such as robbery, assault, and burglary tend to be young
men's crimes would lead to the expectation of a somewhat higher proportion of single
men in these offense groups. In Table 2 it can be noted that a larger proportion of single
men does indeed appear in these offense groups and that these offense groups
constitute a large proportion of the new admissions. All other offense categories have a
noticeably smaller percentage of single people. This is in line with what would be
expected, inasmuch as murder, manslaughter, and check forgery are offenses of
somewhat older men.
TABLE 2
COMMITMENT OFFENSE AND MARITAL STATUS
OF CALIFORNIA PRISONERS
(In Percentages)
Marital Status
Commitment
Offense

Single

Married %

Divorced
Widowed
Separated

Total
%

Murder -

100

( 379)

100

(1,207)

Burglary

100

( 723)

Theft - GTA

100

( 525)

Forg. - Checks

100

( 326)

Rape - Sex

100

( 321)

Narcotics

100

( 738)

Other

100

( 277)

Mans.
Robb. Assault

Marital Status and Prior Commitments
As mentioned earlier, among the factors considered by the courts in sentencing is the
number of prior convictions. Typically, a commitment to prison is the last recourse to be
used. This is especially true for the less serious types of offenses. 5/ In Table 3 it can be
seen that, as expected, relatively few new prison commitments have a record of no prior
commitments; only 674 men or about 15 percent have none. In terms of prior
commitments, the largest single group of admissions were those 1,407 men or 31
percent having three or more jail or juvenile commitments.

It can also be seen in Table 3 that those men with one or more prior prison
commitments have, as a group, disproportionately fewer single men and more men who
are divorced, separated, and widowed than do those admitted with no previous
commitments. More will be said of this in later chapters of this report dealing with
visiting and correspondence patterns and parole follow-up data. Since these men are
probably somewhat older than the others, this may be an indication of a greater

opportunity to engage in and fail in marriage and/or the strain of extensive criminality
and incarceration on marital ties. It may also indicate a greater tendency for men lacking
in marital relationships to recidivate, even after discharge, in much the same fashion as
such men tend to recidivate more often on parole as described in Chapter VI. The
greater rate of return of these men to prison would tend to increase significantly the
number with disrupted marital relations in the total prison population.
TABLE 3
NUMBER OF PRIOR COMMITMENTS AND MARITAL STATUS
OF CALIFORNIA PRISONERS
(In Percentages)
Marital Status
Prior Commitments Single %

Married %

Divorced
Widowed

Total
%

Separated %
None

100

( 674)

1-2 Jail or Juv.

100

(1,262)

3+ Jail or Juv.

100

(1,407)

1 or More Prison

100

(1,153)

Marital Status and Ethnic Background
In view of what is known from arrest statistics about the relationship between socioeconomic status and crime, one should expect an overrepresentation of minority group
members in our prison population. Some studies have gone so far as to say the
overrepresentation of Blacks among offenders would disappear if economic conditions
and opportunity levels were equalized. To quote from the President's Commission
"...the picture that emerges from this data is of a group of young adult males who come
from disorganized families, who have had limited access to educational and
occupational opportunities, and who have been frequently involved in difficulties with the
police..."6/

Similarly in the sentencing phase it has been demonstrated that income, education and
employment, and residential stability can influence the court's decision. 7/

It can be seen in Table 4 that Blacks constituted about 28 percent of the new
commitments in 1967 or over twice their 12 percent representation in the general
population. The fact that the largest proportion of Blacks are single (42 percent) may
reflect the younger age of this group as well as the fact that Blacks tend to marry
somewhat later than do whites. 8/
TABLE 4
ETHNIC BACKGROUND AND MARITAL STATUS
OF CALIFORNIA PRISONERS
(In Percentages)
Marital Status
Married

Single

Total

Divorced
Widowed

Separated
%

Ethnic Background

White

100

(2,469)

Mexican-American

100

( 685)

Negro

100

(1,273)

Other

100

( 69)

Summary
This preliminary information on marital status and other selected characteristics of
California prisoners revealed the following:
New prisoners are approximately evenly divided into three groups: 1) single men, 2)
currently married men (including common-law), and 3) those men currently divorced,
separated or widowed.

Roughly half of the new admissions are younger men whose commitment offense tends
to be robbery or burglary and who also tend to be single.

The divorced, separated or widowed new admissions are composed largely of older,
multiple termers who tend to be minor property offenders.
The marital status and other characteristics of California prisoners seem to be
consistent, with or closely related to the social and economic conditions prevailing in the
larger society and to general crime patterns as well as to the decision-making apparatus
of the criminal justice system itself. The complex process which produces the observed
distribution of marital status deserves much further study in order to contribute to a fuller
understanding of what kinds of social ties are present upon admission to prison.

_____________
1/ President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The
Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, U.S. Printing office, 1967, p. 45.

2/ San Francisco Project, A Study of Federal Probation and Parole, NIMH Report, April
1969, pp. 18-22.

3/ Babst, D. and J. Mannering, "Probation Versus Imprisonment for Similar Types of
Offenders," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 2, No. 2, July 1965.

4/ President’s Commission, op. cit., p. 44.

5/ Babst, D. and J. Mannering, op. cit., p. 65.

6/ President's Commission, op. cit., p. 45.

7/ San Francisco Project, op. cit., p. 23.

8/ Farley, R. and A. Hermalin, "Family Stability: A Comparison of Trends Between
Blacks and Whites," American Sociological Review, Vol. 36, No. 1, February 1971, p. 3.

Chapter III
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 III. PATTERNS OF INMATE CONTACT WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS

Virtually all prisons make some arrangements for inmates to maintain some social ties
with the outside world. These usually include allowing visitors and mail, permitting
telephone calls in emergencies, and providing for home furloughs. In an international
survey of 28 countries by Cavan and Zemans, all were found to provide at least for the
visiting of spouses. l/ In all these countries a trend was also noted toward the expansion
of family contacts. Not much is known, however, about the frequency of the contacts
with the outside world of the inmates in any prison system or who these contacts are
with. There are two studies which deal with this matter in a limited way. Sykes

concluded, after studying a sample of records covering a one-year period, that "41
percent of the prisoners in the New Jersey State Prison had received no visits from the
outside world." 2/ Using a self-reporting technique with questionnaires, Glaser found
that most federal prisoners sampled described the frequency with which they received
letters from family and others as "very often" or "often," suggesting a high level of
satisfaction. These same inmates reported sending and receiving two or more letters a
week from minimum and medium security institutions and one or two letters per week
from penitentiaries. 3/ However, no data were available on the differences in the
correspondence activity of various inmate groups.

Two basic characteristics, marital status and ethnic group membership, have generally
been found to be important determinants of social relationships. Marriage brings with it
a new and complex network of relations in the form of in-laws and requires a
restructuring of existing family ties. Less time is available for parents, while brothers and
sisters share time with the in-laws. The addition of children further alters these
interactions. A number of authors have suggested the existence of different family
structures among various ethnic groups. In the present study our population consists of
inmates from white, Mexican-American and Negro backgrounds, therefore it seems
worthwhile at this point to review the literature on family structure in these groups.

Ethnic Background and Patterns of Contact
Frazier, in his classic book on the Negro family, traced these patterns back to
emancipation, the slavery period, and pre-slavery times on the African continent. 4/
More recently the Moynihan Report has related the structure of the Negro family,
particularly its matriarchal character, to various difficulties Negro migrants to urban
areas have experienced. 5/ Jackson, however, has challenged this emphasis on the
matriarchal nature of the Negro family. In a study of Negro male "heads of household,"
he found that their valuation of family life and the accompanying role expectations
varied little from that of white males. 6/ It can be argued, however, that male Negro
"heads of household" represent only the more conventional part of the population, and
thus in Jackson's study the question of the frequency of matriarchal family structures is

left unanswered. To the extent that such matriarchal structures exist, they should be
represented in the families of Negro prisoners, since they are recruited predominately
from urban ghettos.

The structure of Mexican-American families has not been extensively investigated, but
several good accounts, e.g., Lewis 7/, are available of family structure in Mexico. The
structure of families in Mexico is generally described as patriarchal, with the father being
somewhat distant and autocratic, while the mother assumes virtually all responsibility for
the day-to-day child rearing. Godparents also play a much greater role on the child's life.

These differences in family structure should be reflected in the patterns of contact that
inmates from the various ethnic groups have with their families. In the analysis of the
relationship between ethnicity and family contacts is this report, data are presented only
for white, Mexican-American, and Negro inmates. Nine percent of the original study
group were from other or unknown ethnic backgrounds and were not included is this
part of the study.

Table 5 presents the number of family and friends with whom inmates from the various
ethnic groups maintain contact. All groups seem to maintain reasonably extensive
relationships with the outside world. Although one-third of the inmates had received no
visitors, only one out of ten had not received correspondence.
TABLE 5
NUMBER OF PERSONS
VISITING AND CORRESPONDING
WITH INMATES BY ETHNIC GROUP
(In Percentages)
Visiting

Corresponding

Number White Mexican Negro Total White Mexican Negro Total

None

29%

26%

37% 32%, 11%

11%

One

Two

Three

Four

Five or

(3)

(390)

(117)

More
Median
Number
Total

(255) (762) (390)

(117)

(255) (762)

Inmates*
* Eighty-one inmates of other races or whose race was unknown were excluded from
Tables 5, 6, and 7.

Mexican-American inmates received the most visits and Negroes the fewest. While 37%
of the Negro group received no visitors, only 26% of the Mexican-Americans were not
visited, and 37% of these were visited by three or more people. However, there were no
differences among the ethnic groups in correspondence

The patterns of visiting and correspondence are shown in Table 6. Inmates were visited
by and wrote to their parents more extensively than was the case with any other
relationship category. They were three times as likely to be corresponding with a parent
as another relative. Over half of the inmates maintained written communication with
their parents with 39% receiving visits. Next to their parents, the inmates had their most
extensive relationships with their brothers and sisters. Those who maintained
relationships with persons outside the family were more likely to have them with
females; 7% more of the inmates corresponded with female than with male friends, and
3% more were visited by female than by male friends. The major difference in family

patterns that appeared among the different ethnic groups was the somewhat more
frequent visiting with parents among Mexican-Americans and the far more frequent
visiting and corresponding with brothers and sisters. Mexican-Americans were twice as
likely to have received letters from siblings than were whites, and 10% more of them
than in the other groups received visits from this source.
TABLE 6
INMATES VISITING AND CORRESPONDING
WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS
BY ETHNIC GROUP AND RELATIONSHIP
(In Percentages)
Visiting

Corresponding

Relation- White Mexican Negro Total White Mexican Negro Total
-ship
None

29%

26%

37%

32% 11%

11%

Parents

Spouse

Siblings

Relatives

Male

(390)

(117)

Friend
Female
Friend
Total
Number
of
Inmates

(255) (762) (390)

(117)

(255) (762)

TABLE 7
AVERAGE* NUMBER OF VISITS
AND CORRESPONDENCE PER YEAR
INMATES RECEIVED BY DIFFERENT
ETHNIC GROUPS AND BY RELATIONSHIP
Visits Per Year
Relationship White Mexican Negro

Correspondence Per Year
White

Mexican

Negro

Parents

3 or 4

Spouse

3 or 4

Siblings

3 or 4

Relatives

3 or 4

Male Friend

3 or 4

(390)

(117)

(255)

(390)

(117)

(255)

Female
Friend
Total
Number of
Inmates

* Median computed for inmates with such contacts.

Some ethnic group differences can also be observed is the frequency with which
contacts with friends and relatives are maintained (Table 7). The frequency of
correspondence with parents was the same in all groups, averaging one letter a month,
but the whites receiving visits from wives averaged two per month, twice as many as the
Mexican-American and several times more than the Negro.

While the Mexican-American was more likely to have siblings corresponding, Table 7
shows that they very infrequently received letters, and their visiting pattern was
essentially the same as that of the Negroes. When social ties were maintained with
male or female friends, the contacts for whites were likely to be more numerous than for
the other groups.
TABLE 8
TYPE OF CONTACT BETWEEN
INMATES AND THEIR PARENTS
BY ETHNIC GROUP AND PARENT INVOLVED
(In Percentages)
Visiting

Corresponding

White Mexican Negro

White

Mexican

Negro

Mother Only

42%

44%

64%

46%

47%

71%

Father Only

Mother and

Total

100%

Total

(164)

(55)

(103)

(252)

(73)

(155)

Parent
Involved

Father
Parents and
Step-parents
Mother and
Father But
Separately

Number of
Inmates with

Parent
Contact

When parental contacts are broken down by the parents involved, some major
differences in family structure are revealed. All groups are most likely to maintain ties
with the mother only or the mother and father together. The father alone plays a very
minor role (Table 8). The principal differences among the groups are reflected in the
high rate of contact of the Negro inmates with the mother only and the accompanying
low rate with both parents together. Almost three-fourths (71%) of the Negroes receive
letters from the mother alone compared to less than half in this category for whites.
While only 25% of the Negroes have parents visiting them together, 54% of the
Mexican-American visits with parents are with both the mother and father.

Marital Status and Patterns of Contact
The second major factor which should contribute to structuring the inmate's ties with the
outside world is his marital status. Information on this factor was available for only 362
of the cases in the sample, but there is no reason to believe that they are not a
representative sub-sample. The number of people with whom the inmates were in
contact is reported in Table 9 in terms of the Marital status of the inmates.
TABLE 9
NUMBER OF PERSONS VISITING AND
CORRESPONDING WITH INMATES OF
DIFFERING MARITAL STATUS
(In Percentages)
Marital Status of Inmates Receiving Visitors
Number of
Visitors

Singl Marrie Common Separated Separated Divorce Widowe Total
e

-Law

, Legal

Married

Wife

Common-

Law
None

32%

11%

36%

23%

32%

34%

20%

25%

One

Two

Three

Four

Five+

(84)

(52)

(31)

(22)

(59)

(5)

(362)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(1)

Total Number of (109)
Inmates
Median Number

(1)

of Visitors
Marital Status of Inmates Receiving Correspondence
Number of
Correspondent

Singl Marrie Common Separated Separated Divorce Widowe Total
e

-Law

, Legal

Married

Wife

Common-

Law
None

13%

10%

14%

10%

One

Two

(1)

Three

(2)

Four

(1)

Five+

(1)

(84)

(52)

(31)

(22)

(59)

(5)

(362)

23%

14%

17%

100

Total Number of (109)
Inmates
Percentage
With Each
Marital Status

30%

Median Number

(2)

(3)

(2)

of
Correspondents

Over half 56% of the inmates were corresponding with two or three people, but very few
were receiving letters from five or more people. Inmates who were divorced or
separated tended more characteristically to correspond with five or more people. Those
with common-law relationships were twice as likely to receive no letters as were legally
married individuals. Married persons, on the other hand, were somewhat more likely to
correspond with only one person.

Only 11% of the legally married inmates had no visitors, while 25% of the overall
population was in this category. Thirty-six percent of those with common-law marriages
at admission received no visits. Eleven percent of the legally married received five or
more visitors. Inmates separated from their legal wives had approximately the same
percentage with no visits as the sample considered as a whole and a very high
percentage with only one visit.
TABLE 10
AVERAGE FREQUENCY PER YEAR OF VISITS
AND CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY INMATES BY
MARITAL STATUS OF INMATE AND RELATIONSHIP TO THE VISITOR AND
CORRESPONDENT
Visits Per Year
Relationship

Legally
Married

Common- Single Separated,
Law

Legal Wife

Married

Separated, Divorced
CommonLaw

Parents

3 or 4

Spouse

3 or 4

Siblings

3 or 4

Relative

3 or 4

Male Friend

3 or 4

Female Friend

3 or 4

Total Number

(84)

(52)

(109)

(31)

(22)

(59)

of Inmates
Correspondence Per Year
Relationship Legally Common- Single Separated,
Married Law

Separated,

Legal Wife

Common-Law

Divorced

Married
Parents

Spouse

Siblings

3 or 4

Relative

3 or 4

Male Friend

3 or

3 or 4

4
Female

(84)

(52)

(109)

(31)

(22)

(59)

Friend
Total Number
of Inmates

Differences in the frequency of the various types of contacts are also associated with
marital status (Table 10). Wives of legal marriages visited much more frequently and
corresponded twice as often as common-law wives. In fact legally married individuals
received more frequent visits in general than did the individuals in most of the other
marital status categories. Single persons were visited less frequently than any of the
other groups.

The differences between those in legal and common-law relationships in the frequency
of contact with their spouses were striking (Table 11). Eighty percent of those with

common-law relationships were not visiting with their wives, and 61% were not receiving
letters from them. Only one inmate received as much as one visit every two weeks. By
contrast legally married inmates averaged two visits per mouth with their wives, and one
in four was visited by his wife every week. Only one-third of these wives were not
visiting.
TABLE 11
FREQUENCY OF VISITING AND
CORRESPONDING WITH SPOUSES
BY TYPE OF MARRIAGE
(in Percentages)
Contact With Legal

Contact With

Wife

Common-Law Wife

Frequency

Visit

Correspond

Visit

Correspond

None

37%

32%

80%

61%

Twice Per Month

Once a Month

Three or Four

100%

(84)

(52)

2/month

1/week

3 or

2/month

One or More Per
Week

Times Per Year
Once or Less This
Year
Total
Total Number of
Inmates
Median for Those

with Contacts

4/year

Summary and Conclusions
The data presented thus far suggest that both the ethnic group membership and the
marital status at admission of the inmate are important determinants of his relationship
with the outside world during incarceration.

The differing family patterns of each ethnic group are reflected in the type and
frequency of family contacts. The matriarchal nature of the Negro inmate's family is
clearly seen in the high percent who have no contact with the father. When the Negro
inmate maintains contact with a spouse, she is likely to visit only 3 or 4 times per year.
The close family ties of the Mexican-American are seen in the higher percentage who
have parents visiting as well as the large proportion who maintain relationships with
brothers and sisters. Parents of Mexican-American inmates visit them on the average
three times as frequently as parents from the other ethnic groups. Among white inmates
more emphasis appears to be placed on visits from the conjugal family and friends.
Their wives visit two or three times more frequently than wives from the other groups, as
do female friends also. The male friends of the whites also write and visit twice as
frequently, but only one out of four white inmates maintains contact with brothers or
sisters.

Marital status appears related to several social patterns. If the inmate's marriage is
intact upon admission, he also seems to maintain many other important relationships.
Conversely, the single individual at admission is likely to be relatively isolated in other
respects as well, having less frequent contacts with friends and relatives. The less
binding nature of the common-law relationship compared to the legal marriage is
reflected in the patterns of contact in prison, for only a small minority of the common-law
marriages lead to sustained corresponding or visiting.

In this chapter some general descriptive material was presented by way of discussing
the relationship of two background factors with the inmate's pattern of contact with the
outside world. His race and marital status are part of the package of attributes which he
brings with him to prison. In the following chapter, the effect of incarceration upon the
social ties with the outside community will be explored.
___________
1/ Cavan, R. and B. Zemans, "Marital Relationships of Prisoners in Twenty-Eight
Countries," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol. 49, JulyAugust 1958, pp. 133-139.

2/ Sykes, G., The Society of Captives, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1958, p.
65.

3/ Glaser, D., The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System, New York: The BobsMerril Co., Inc., 1964, p. 363.

4/ Frazier, F., The Negro Family in the United States, Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1939.

5/ Moynihan, D., "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," published in Lee
Rainwater and William L. Yancey, eds., The Moynihan Report and the Politics of
Controversy, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1967.

6/ Jackson, M., "Family Role Expectations of Married Black Males." Paper read at
annual meeting of American Sociological Association, 1968.

7/ Lewis, 0., Five Families, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959.

Chapter III
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 III. PATTERNS OF INMATE CONTACT WITH FAMILY AND FRIENDS

left unanswered. To the extent that such matriarchal structures exist, they should be
represented in the families of Negro prisoners, since they are recruited predominately
from urban ghettos.

Corresponding

White Mexican Negro Total White Mexican Negro Total

None

29%

26%

37% 32%, 11%

11%

One

Two

Three

Four

Five or

(3)

(390)

(117)

More
Median
Number
Total

(255) (762) (390)

(117)

(255) (762)

Inmates*
* Eighty-one inmates of other races or whose race was unknown were excluded from
Tables 5, 6, and 7.

Corresponding

Relation- White Mexican Negro Total White Mexican Negro Total
-ship
None

29%

26%

37%

32% 11%

11%

Parents

Spouse

Siblings

Relatives

Male

(390)

(117)

Friend
Female
Friend
Total
Number
of
Inmates

(255) (762) (390)

(117)

(255) (762)

TABLE 7
AVERAGE* NUMBER OF VISITS
AND CORRESPONDENCE PER YEAR
INMATES RECEIVED BY DIFFERENT
ETHNIC GROUPS AND BY RELATIONSHIP
Visits Per Year
Relationship White Mexican Negro

Correspondence Per Year
White

Mexican

Negro

Parents

3 or 4

Spouse

3 or 4

Siblings

3 or 4

Relatives

3 or 4

Male Friend

3 or 4

(390)

(117)

(255)

(390)

(117)

(255)

Female
Friend
Total
Number of
Inmates

* Median computed for inmates with such contacts.

Corresponding

White Mexican Negro

White

Mexican

Negro

Mother Only

42%

44%

64%

46%

47%

71%

Father Only

Mother and

100%

(55)

(103)

(252)

(73)

(155)

Parent
Involved

Father
Parents and
Step-parents
Mother and
Father But
Separately
Total

Total Number (164)
of Inmates
with Parent

Contact

Singl Marrie Common Separated Separated Divorce Widowe Total
e

-Law

, Legal

Married

Wife

CommonLaw

None

32%

11%

36%

23%

32%

34%

20%

25%

One

Two

Three

Four

Five+

(84)

(52)

(31)

(22)

(59)

(5)

(362)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(1)

(2)

(1)

Total Number of (109)
Inmates
Median Number

(1)

of Visitors
Marital Status of Inmates Receiving Correspondence
Number of
Correspondent

Singl Marrie Common Separated Separated Divorce Widowe Total
e

-Law

, Legal

Married

Wife

Common-

Law
None

13%

10%

14%

10%

One

Two

(1)

Three

(2)

Four

(1)

Five+

(1)

(84)

(52)

(31)

(22)

(59)

(5)

(362)

23%

14%

17%

100

Total Number of (109)
Inmates
Percentage

30%

With Each

Marital Status
Median Number

(2)

(3)

(2)

of
Correspondents

Legally
Married

Common- Single Separated,
Law

Legal Wife

Married

Separated,

Divorced

CommonLaw

Parents

3 or 4

Spouse

3 or 4

Siblings

3 or 4

Relative

3 or 4

Male Friend

3 or 4

Female Friend

3 or 4

Total Number

(84)

(52)

(109)

(31)

(22)

(59)

of Inmates
Correspondence Per Year
Relationship Legally Common- Single Separated,
Married Law

Separated,

Legal Wife

Common-Law

Divorced

Married
Parents

Spouse

Siblings

3 or 4

Relative

3 or 4

Male Friend

3 or 4

Female Friend

Total Number

(84)

(52)

(109)

(31)

(22)

(59)

of Inmates

The differences between those in legal and common-law relationships in the frequency
of contact with their spouses were striking (Table 11). Eighty percent of those with
common-law relationships were not visiting with their wives, and 61% were not receiving
letters from them. Only one inmate received as much as one visit every two weeks. By
contrast legally married inmates averaged two visits per mouth with their wives, and one

in four was visited by his wife every week. Only one-third of these wives were not
visiting.
TABLE 11
FREQUENCY OF VISITING AND
CORRESPONDING WITH SPOUSES
BY TYPE OF MARRIAGE
(in Percentages)
Contact With Legal

Contact With Common-

Wife

Law Wife

Frequency

Visit

Correspond

Visit

Correspond

None

37%

32%

80%

61%

Twice Per Month

Once a Month

Three or Four

100%

(84)

(52)

2/month

1/week

3 or

2/month

One or More Per
Week

Times Per Year
Once or Less This
Year
Total
Total Number of
Inmates
Median for Those
with Contacts

Summary and Conclusions

4/year

The data presented thus far suggest that both the ethnic group membership and the
marital status at admission of the inmate are important determinants of his relationship
with the outside world during incarceration.

brings with him to prison. In the following chapter, the effect of incarceration upon the
social ties with the outside community will be explored.
___________
1/ Cavan, R. and B. Zemans, "Marital Relationships of Prisoners in Twenty-Eight
Countries," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, Vol. 49, JulyAugust 1958, pp. 133-139.

2/ Sykes, G., The Society of Captives, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1958, p.
65.

3/ Glaser, D., The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System, New York: The BobsMerril Co., Inc., 1964, p. 363.

4/ Frazier, F., The Negro Family in the United States, Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1939.

6/ Jackson, M., "Family Role Expectations of Married Black Males." Paper read at
annual meeting of American Sociological Association, 1968.

7/ Lewis, 0., Five Families, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959.

CHAPTER IV
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 IV. THE EFFECTS OF IMPRISONMENT ON THE
INMATE'S FAMILY AND SOCIAL TIES

A person's current social relationships represent the aggregate of his social history.
Each individual has his own unique network of reciprocal contacts forged out of his past
experience. The characteristics of this network reflect the contributions of a great
number of factors many of which, if not unique is themselves, are at least unique in their
combination. Thus, when social relationships are examined through group data, only the
gross factors are likely to stand out. In the current chapter, some of the major effects of
incarceration on the inmate's ties with the outside world will be discussed. Some of the

mechanisms through which these effects occur will be suggested; but, with the above
difficulty in mind, much of this discussion will be speculative.

The act of imprisonment itself has an immediate and dramatic effect on the person's
social life. The forced separation, usually a traumatic experience, requires the individual
to reorder his relationships. That prison inmates relate to family and friends in different
ways than non-inmates is an obvious fact, but these differences are not the present
concern. Given the fact of imprisonment, the focus of this chapter is on the effects of its
duration. In other words, the question asked is what changes occur in the inmate's
relationship with the outside world as he moves through his prison career? This
question would be relatively straightforward if all inmates began their institutional stay
with the same social patterns. As pointed out above, however, this is not the case,
because each new arrival brings to the institution a different set of existing social ties.

Initial Ostracism
One experience which new inmates share and which is thought to have a major effect
on social relations is prior involvement with the criminal justice system. At the very least
they will all have been through the courts and spent some time in jail for the offense for
which they are currently in prison. Most will have had at least some previous experience
with the justice system, while for many the current felony charges are simply the latest
in a lengthy history of arrests and dispositions.

This prior involvement with the criminal justice system seems to affect the inmate's
social relationships in three ways. First, each arrest and conviction brings with it a
certain social stigma which would ordinarily make former friends and family less willing
to become involved. The extent to which the inmate is ostracized in this way varies with
the degree of stigma of the particular crime and the cumulative effect of repeated
charges and convictions. There should be a difference between the degree of ostracism
experienced by child molesters, drug addicts, and check forgers. Some differences in
the extent of ostracism are also related to the different degrees of stigma different
groups attach to various crimes. A conviction for possession of marijuana, for example,

is viewed lightly by some segments of the population but carries a heavy stigma in
others.

This process also seems to work in reverse, as a few inmates attempt to restrict their
contact with former friends and family because of shame and guilt over their
imprisonment. Some avoid letting their situation be known simply to avoid the negative
reactions of friends. In some cases, selected family members or friends may conspire
with the inmate to keep his incarceration secret from others and thus restrict his outside
contacts. Other friends might be told, for example, that the inmate is working out of state
and can't be reached or that his specific address is unknown. In a few extreme cases,
the inmate attempts to keep his incarceration secret from all of his family and friends.
For the most part, however, new inmates are anxious to maintain as many social ties
with the outside world as possible, and it is the people outside who determine the limits
of their contacts.

Using Up Favors
Brushes with the law and involvement with the justice system consume considerable
resources. Money, often in large sums, is required for bail, lawyer's fees, and
incidentals; and friends and relatives are often asked to contribute. They are also
frequently asked to run errands, serve as character witnesses, or give testimony in
court. Thus, with each arrest, trial, and sentence, the inmate usually has to make heavy
demands on his friends and relatives and begins to use up their good will and whatever
reciprocal favors he has coming. With this process repeating itself each time the person
is arrested, his least loyal friends are likely soon to begin to make themselves
unavailable, while even close family members eventually reach a point of no longer
responding to his requests for aid. As arrests are repeated, favors and good will are
used up, and the rejection (or the freeze out) process begins often with strong feelings
on the part of family and friends of being betrayed by his unrealized promise of reform.

Family and friends are sometimes among the direct victims of the inmate's criminal
career. Narcotics addicts, and to a lesser extent alcoholics, occasionally steal, cheat,

deceive, or defraud family and friends during as emergency to support a habit. The
"hype" who periodically resorts to hocking his parents' T.V. set for a fix doesn't exactly
endear himself to the family. A deterioration of social relationships, then, is a natural
part of certain criminal careers in which the significant others are themselves sometimes
victimized.

In summary, there are three processes through which the inmate's prior criminal
involvement serves to erode social relationships even before his prison term begins, (1)
the stigma associated with his crimes leads to ostracism, (2) he wears out his friends
and relations by making repeated demands on their resources as he is arrested and
tried for crimes, and (3) his lengthy involvement in certain, types of crimes often
includes family and friends among the victims.

Inability to Reciprocate
Once imprisoned, the inmate faces two major barriers to maintaining his social relations
with the outside world, (1) his inability to reciprocate certain aspects of relationships,
and (2) his inability to replace withering social ties with knew outside relationships.
Social relationships are based on reciprocity, but the prisoner is in no position to
reciprocate in very significant kinds of ways. It is the rare individual who, from his
earnings from hobby work or an institution job, is able to send money home. Typically,
the resources flow the other way, with relatives crediting money to the inmate's account
each month, arriving on visiting day with a basket of goods, or sending in a heavy
Christmas package with all the items allowable. For his part, the inmate is scarcely able
to return a birthday greeting or Christmas card. He is incapable of even returning a visit.
In correspondence, the news is also apt to flow one way. White the inmate is anxious to
learn about what is happening outside, he has little motivation for writing about prison
events and is usually officially restricted from mentioning such things as other
individuals. Combined with this is the fact that prisons are not very eventful places, and
each day bears a close resemblance to the previous one. The inmate is thus in a taking
role with little opportunity to return favors.

The removal of the inmate from the community deprives him of the normal opportunity
to remold and refurbish his social relations as he moves through his life cycle. Through
the normal course of living, one's relationships with family and friends are steadily
changing. Old acquaintances fade away, and new friends emerge to take their place.
Parents pass on, sisters marry, and friends move ; but the inmate has no way to
restructure his relationships following these events. Thus, a long-term inmate might
enter prison with a spouse, parents, siblings, and numerous friends but depart with little
left but an unusually faithful wife.

The Decrease of Family Contacts with Time Served
To examine the effects of length of imprisonment on social ties, the inmates in the
sample were divided into five groups based on the number of years they have been in
prison. Factors associated with recidivism were controlled by considering only inmates
serving their first prison term. The hypothesis was that if prison has the anticipated
deleterious effect on relationships with people on the outside, there should be a steadily
increasing percentage of inmates receiving no visitors or correspondence as the years
go by and that the average number of outside contacts would drop in a similar manner.
The data in Table 12, however, show no such trend. There is little difference between
the number of visitors and correspondents or the frequency of such contacts among
inmates who have served one, two, three, or four or more years. In fact, a slightly higher
percentage of those with two or more years served had such contacts. The effects of
time on the patterns of contact seem to vary somewhat with the type of relationship.
Slight increases over time in contacts with the parents are indicated in Table 12 and
probably with brothers and sisters in the second and third years of confinement. The
contacts which are ordinarily most intense, those with spouses, appear to decrease
sharply after the first year. Only 21% of those who had served two years or more had
wives visiting compared to 37% for the first year. Correspondence follows a similar
pattern with 50% of those in their first year receiving mail from wives, while this was true
of less than one-third of those with two or more years in prison. In general, however, the
pattern of correspondence, like visiting, does not reflect any increasing isolation from
people on the outside with the passage of time.

The figures in Table 12 on contacts with wives are difficult to interpret, because an
unknown percentage in each group is not married. Therefore, for the further analysis
which is presented in Table 13, only those who were known to have been married at
admission were selected. The data are presented in ratios because of the small number
of cases involved.

Consistent with the data is the previous table, Table 13 shows fewer married men
serving their first terms visited by their wives during the third and fourth year, only 53%
were still receiving visits by that time, compared to
TABLE 12
FIRST TERM INMATES RECEIVING VISITS
AND MAIL BY RELATIONSHIP AND
MONTHS SERVED IN PRISON
(In Percentages)
Months Served in Prison
Visitors

6 - 11

12 - 23

24 - 35

36 - 47

48+

No Visitors

28%

30%

22%

25%

24%

Median Number

(1)

(2)

Parents

47%

45%

57%

60%

56%

Spouse

Siblings

Relative

Male Friend

Female Friend

Visitors

Months Served in Prison
Correspondents 6 - 11

12 - 23

24 - 35

36 - 47

48+

12%

10%

(2)

(3)

(2)

(3)

Parents

66%

67%

77%

65%

71%

Spouse

Siblings

Relative

Male Friend

Female Friend

Total Number

(32)

(184)

(120)

(57)

(66)

Correspondents
Median Number

Correspondents

N = 459

TABLE 13
RATIO OF MARRIED INMATE WITH SOME VISITS
FROM WIFE BY NUMBER OF PRISON TERMS,
LENGTH OF INCARCERATION,
AND TYPE OF MARRIAGE

79% during the first two years of their prison terms. All four of the married inmates in
their first year of imprisonment were visiting with the wives. While a similar decrease is
seen with the common-law marriages (only two of seven visiting in the third and fourth
year), the overall figures show legally married men to be more than twice as likely to be
visited by their spouses.

The lower half of the table, which shows for the inmates who have previously served at
least one term in prison the relationship between time served and visits from their wives,
suggests that the pattern of decreasing visits from wives doesn't hold up after the first
prison term. If the inmate is a parole violator or is in his second or subsequent term, he
is as likely to be still visiting with his wife during the fourth year as the first. Visiting with
common-law wives is very unlikely to occur at any time during the second or
subsequent prison terms. One determinant of total time in prison is the number of terms
the inmate has served. Recidivists as a group will have served much more total time
than first termers. However, many factors other than time served also distinguish
between these two groups which serve to complicate the interpretation of the
relationships between time served and visits from wives.

In table 14 those serving their first, second, and third or more terms are compared in

terms of frequency and types of contact. In all but one of the comparisons, every
statistically significant difference showed more contacts with the outside world for
inmates serving their first prison terms. Over ten percent more of the recidivists received
no visits. While two people had visited the average first termer, the second or third
termer had only one. Only about one-third of, the recidivists received visits from parents,
compared to 52% of the other group. Among the first termers, 14% more received visits
from brothers and sisters. Second and third termers were also slightly less likely to be
corresponding and visiting with other relatives.
TABLE 14
INMATES RECEIVING VISITS AND CORRESPONDENCE
BY NUMBER OF PRISON TERMS SERVED AND RELATIONSHIP
(In Percentages)
Visiting
Number

Correspondence

1st

2nd

3 or

1st

2nd

3 or

Term

Terms

None

26%

35%

38%

14%

12%

Median

(2)

(1)

(3)

(2)

Parents

52%

33%

31%

70%

58%

54%

Spouse

Siblings

Relative

Male Friend

Female

Number
Relationship

Friend

Total

(459)

(135)

( 200)

(459)

(135)

(200)

Number*

* Excludes 49 cases with no information on termer status. Parole violation is considered
as another prison term.

The major exception to this trend appears to be contact with wives. However, this is
partly a function of differences in the number of married men. When only common-law
and legally married inmates are considered, 57% of the first termers have visits from
wives compared to 42% of the recidivists. On the other hand, this difference is due
almost entirely to the high rate of contact during the first two years. There is no
significant difference in visits from wives between married recidivists and those who
have served three or more years of their first term.

Summary and Conclusions
The effects of prison on inmates remain an elusive matter surrounded by much
speculation but little evidence. The few available studies of time in prison and recidivism
were recently summarized by Bennett who observed that "if one examines the parole
outcome of those incarcerated for shorter periods of time compared with those who
spent longer periods confined, those spending shorter periods in the institution had
more favorable outcomes on parole."1/ The evidence for this is so unclear, however,
that the California Department of Corrections is currently involved in an experimental
program of early release to parole which is designed to determine the relationship of
time served to recidivism.

On a more theoretical level, Goffman has suggested ways in which the "moral career" of
the inmate in a total institution affects his character.2/ A recent attempt by Karmel to test
Goffman's notion, however, failed to produce any supporting evidence. When "selfmortification" was defined as (1) loss of self-esteem, (2) loss of role identification, and
(3) increased depression, the mental patients sampled showed no deterioration from the

first day through the fourth week. 3/ This limited "non-finding," however, has been
challenged by Bohr on methodological grounds.4/ After retesting inmates at a reception
center once a week for a month, Distefano reported, "Analyses of variance revealed
significant mood changes between the four tests and administration of four mood
factors. Systematic reduction in anxiety, depression, concentration, and skepticism
scores were found as a function of test replication."5/

In the area of the effects of length of imprisonment on attitudes and values, only a
limited amount of information is available. Wheeler's classic and often quoted study
seemed to establish a definite U-shaped trend in adherence to inmate values. When
inmates were divided by the proportion of their sentence already served and compared
in terms of their adherence to the inmate code, Wheeler found that there was an
increasing commitment to the inmate value system during the first part of their prison
stay but a decreasing adherence as they approached their release dates. 6/ Although
Wheeler's finding was widely accepted for many years, a recent replication of the study
by Atchley and McCabe in a federal prison failed to find any such trend suggesting the
early findings may have been a reflection of the particular prison where the research
was done.7/

While there is little information about the impact of prison on recidivism, personalities, or
values, there is even less about its effects on family relationships. A reasonably
thorough search of the literature failed to turn up even one relevant study aside from a
few impressionistic accounts. Thus, the findings outlined in this report cannot be
compared with those from other correctional settings.

Social ties between the inmate and his family and friends proved remarkably resistant to
the eroding influences of time spent in prison. At the end of four years, inmates had at
least as many social contacts as those just beginning their prison terms, with one major
exception. Contacts from legally married wives of first term inmates grew fewer through
the second year, suggesting that the marital relationship deteriorates as the years in
prison pass. At first glance it seems strange that marriage, the most intense

relationship, also is the only relationship which appears so affected by time. It may be
this very intensity that is its vulnerability. The normal give and take among adult
relatives is very minor by comparison and may not be that difficult to carry on from
behind bars. On the other hand, the degree of reciprocity involved in marriage may be
the ingredient which makes it so difficult to continue. Another consideration is that one is
born into family relationships, and relatives are not replaceable in the same sense as
spouses. A person who is dissatisfied with his relationship with his mother, for example,
can't go out and look for a new one in the same way that a disenchanted wife may have
her eye open for a new mate.

Given what appears to be a major deterioration in marriages after the first and second
year of imprisonment (about one-fourth fewer of the wives were still visiting after three
or more years), it is surprising that a hard core of wives continues the same level of
contacts through four years plus and on into the second or third prison term. Some
speculation might be offered here to account for this. At least one study has suggested
that felon inmates and their wives may make a good match. One hundred and sixteen
wives were compared with their husbands in prison, and the conclusion reached was
that they tended to come from remarkably similar backgrounds and situations. Wives
often exhibited similar patterns of deviant behavior and tended to show the same
psychopathology seen among their husbands first-degree female relatives.8/ Such
assortative mating may provide the relationship with a potentiality for greater
endurance.

Another process that appears to take place with some recidivists and their wives who
maintain contact throughout the years is what might be called the "service wife
syndrome." Career soldiers and their spouses sometimes find that they have made such
a good adjustment to the long periods of separation that living together in a conjugal
family situation becomes fairly difficult. The wife often learns to cope so well with being
on her own that the returning soldier-husband has no role to play in the household or
the child rearing. Frozen out of household affairs he is left with the role of provider, parttime lover, and ceremonial head for festive occasions. The marital relationship then

becomes extremely limited both in terms of the amount of sharing which takes place
and the amount of close contact possible. The new tour of duty becomes a welcome
reprieve for both. This arrangement may become very satisfying, particularly for women
who are predisposed to find the role of mother and homemaker very gratifying but have
difficulty relating to a man as a wife. In such situations, the role of service wife provides
many of the benefits of legal marriage without many of the attendant problems.

A similar process may take place among some career prisoners and their wives. The
first prison term is often preceded by a stormy period of personal and domestic
problems. The forced separation may serve to reduce friction. The wife becomes
eligible for welfare as soon as the husband is committed or returned to prison as a
parole violator and is thus assured of at least a minimal level of support. If the husband
has few job skills and frequent periods of unemployment, the forced separation may not
even bring about a reduced living standard. The wife may even experience an increase
in real income if the husband is a chronic alcoholic or otherwise indulges himself at the
expense of the household. When the low economic status of most inmates-to-be is
mixed with a turbulent domestic situation, the wife may have little motivation for being
concerned about keeping her husband out of prison.

On the other hand, the welfare system provides motivation for the wife to remain faithful
through the threat of discontinuing financial support if she takes up with another man.
By pointing out that, in some cases, there are material benefits resulting from sticking
with the incarcerated husband, the intention is not to depreciate the strong emotional
ties which are usually involved also. The suggestion is simply that there may be less
hardship involved than is often assumed. Another factor seems worth mentioning,
although it probably occurs in only a few cases. Hardship seems to be a common
experience of the wives of inmates, and the ability to deal with it a much admired trait.
Indeed, hardship is often viewed as a test of character. In what might be called the
"Queen for a Day syndrome," some prisoners' wives appear to derive considerable
satisfaction out of what others perceive to be the great hardship which they must endure
because of their husbands' being sent to prison. Family and friends are likely to provide

considerable sympathy and support. Additionally, if the couple had prior marital
problems, his commitment may then serve as proof positive that the problems were
really his all along: the wife is exonerated and may even take on the mantle of the silent
sufferer. The high point comes when, through all this, she sticks by the side of her
husband and visits him religiously every Sunday.

The type of contact itself, formal visiting, may also develop into an enjoyable activity.
While most married couples undoubtedly find it much too constraining and unreal, for
others it takes on many of the features of a renewed courtship.* ( * Suggested in
conversation with Rudy A. Renteria, Parole Agent I, California Department of
Corrections.) The two hours together every other Sunday are looked forward to much as
a "date". Each wears his best clothes, makes his best appearance, and is on his best
behavior carefully selecting what to say in order to make the best impression on the
other. The conversation is light, reassuring, and affectionate. Dreams of the future are
built around promises that the shortcomings of the past will be corrected. Gone are the
realities of the former relationship with the harsh words and frequent conflicts. The
courtship ends with parole, however, and the couple often finds the high expectations,
developed over several year of holding hands in the prison visiting room, hard to meet.

While no overall deterioration in social ties appears to occur during the first prison term,
major differences in social relationships can be seen between recidivists and first
termers. There are two possible explanations for this finding. First, apart from the added
time signified by the second or third prison term, there may be something special which
occurs with the parole violation or the new prison term such as the extreme
disillusionment of the family. This interpretation, however, is not supported by any of the
other findings. The second possibility is that the recidivists are a biased sample of the
first termers and, in particular, that they include an over-representation of that portion of
the first termer population which has few social ties. In other words, the best explanation
seems to be that those first termers who maintain strong family relationships while in
prison are less likely to be parole violators and second termers. In Chapter VI this
interpretation is tested when we examine this group's recidivism rate. In this chapter, the

emphasis was on what the experience of prison does to outside relationships. In the
following chapter, this question is reversed as the focus is on discovering how the
inmate's family ties affect his behavior in prison.

1/ Bennett, L., "Psychological Effects of Long-Term Confinement." Paper read at the
Third National Symposium on Law Enforcement and Technology, Chicago, March 1970.

2/ Goffman, E., Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other
Inmates, Garden City, Doubleday and Co., 1961.

3/ Karmel, M., "Total Institutions and Self-Mortification," Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, Vol.10, June 1969, pp. 134-142.

4/ Bohr, R., "On Total Institutions and Self-Mortification," Journal of Health and Social
Behavior Vol. 11, June 1970, p. 152.

5/ Distefano, M.K., Jr., "Prisoner Mood Shifts During Initial Incarceration," American
Journal of Corrections, Vol. 26, Jan.- Feb. 1964, pp. 12-16.

6/ Wheeler, S., "Socialization in Correctional Communities," American Sociological
Review, Vol. 26, Oct. 1961, pp. 697-712.

7/ Atchley, R. and M. McCabe, "Socialization in Correctional Communities: A
Replication, " American Sociological Review, Vol. 33, Oct. 1968, pp. 774-785.

8/ Guse, S.B., et. al., "Psychiatric Study of Wives of Convicted Felons: An Example of
Assortative Mating," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol.. 126, June 1970, pp. 115-118.

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
Number of
No

Disciplinary
Reports

Letters One

Two

Three Four+

Contacts Only Visitor Visitors Visitors Visitors

Total

None

50%

47%

45%

46%

44%

46%

One

Two

Three or More

73%

75%

81%

71%

66%

72%

73%

15%

13%

16%

10%

(26)

(78)

(74)

(90)

(68)

(61)

(397)

Custodial Evaluation
No Problem
Slight Problem
Moderate or
Major Problem
Type of Departure
Disciplinary
Transfer
Total Number*

Recidivists

Number of
Disciplinary

Letters One

Two

Three Four+

Contacts Only Visitor Visitors Visitors Visitors

Total

Reports
None

60%

63%

54%

57%

46%

55%

56%

One

Two

Three or More

78%

70%

82%

79%

73%

76%

Custodial Evaluation
No Problem

73%

Slight Problem
Moderate or
Major Problem

(37)

(83)

(69)

(65)

(39)

(33)

(326)

Type of Departure
Disciplinary
Transfer
Total Number*

* 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
Inmate

Letters One

Two

Three

Four+

Visitor Visitors Visitors Visitors

Total

Contacts

Only

11%

Participation
No
Information
Time Not
Used Wisely
Neutral

Positive Use
of Time
Total

(74)

(192)

(170)

(126)

(111) (843)

Work Record in Institution
No

No
Information
Above
Average
Average or
Below
Total Number

Letters One

Two

Three

Four+

Visitor Visitors Visitors Visitors

Total

Contacts

Only

12%

(74)

(192)

(170)

(126)

(111) (843)

Vocational Training

No
Inmate

Letters One

Two

Three

Four+

Visitor Visitors Visitors Visitors

Total

Contacts

Only

17%

Participation
No
Information
No Training
Attempted
Attempted
but Not
Successful
Attempted

with Average
or Above
Average
Success
Total

(74)

(192)

(170)

(126)

(111) (843)

Academic School

Inmate
Participation
No
Information
No School
Attempted

Letters One

Two

Three

Four+

Visitor Visitors Visitors Visitors

Total

Contact

Only

12%

11%

13%

11%

(74)

(192)

(170)

(126)

Attempted
but Not
Successful
Attempted
with Average
or Above
Average
Success
Total

(111) (843)

Religious Attendance

No
Inmate

Letters One

Two

Three

Four+

Visitor Visitors Visitors Visitors

Total

Contacts

Only

16%

11%

12%

10%

11%

(74)

(192)

(170)

(126)

Participation
No
Information
No Church
Attendance
Seldom
Attends
Regular
Attendance
Total

(111) (843)

Group Counseling

No
Inmate

Letters One

Two

Three

Four+

Visitor Visitors Visitors Visitors

Total

Contacts

Only

18%

14%

11%

12%

11%

Participation
No
Information
Active
Participation
and Benefits

Little
Participation

(74)

(192)

(170)

(126)

but Benefits
Little or No
Participation
and No
Benefits
Total

(111) (843)

Self-Improvement Groups

Inmate
Participation
No Record of
Participation
Alcoholics
Anonymous
All Other
Clubs
Total

Letters One

Two

Three

Four+

Visitor Visitors Visitors Visitors

Total

Contact

Only

66%

57%

46%

48%

47%

38%

50%

(74)

(192)

(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 selfimprovement 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

Letters One

Two

Three

Four+ Total

Contacts

Only

Visitor Visitors Visitors Visitors

59%

56%

49%

56%

53%

50%

53%

(74)

(192)

(170)

(126)

14%

13%

(74)

(192)

(170)

(126)

Evaluation
No
Information
Good
Parole
Plans
Neutral
Parole
Plans
Poor Parole
Plans
Total
Number

(111) (843)

Caseworker
Predictes
Parole

Failure
Total
Number

(111) (843)

Job Prospects

Letters One

Contacts

Only

32%

23%

Two

Three

Four+

Visitor Visitors Visitors Visitors

Total

Evaluation
Claims
Membership

32%

24%

37%

30%

29%

in Union
Total
Number
Current Job
Offer on File
Total
Number

(74)

(192)

(170)

(126)

(111) (843)

15%

18%

21%

23%

29%

34%

(74)

(192)

(170)

(126)

(111) (843)

23%

Account Money in Inmate's Account

Available
Money
Less than
$20.00
$20.00 $79.00
$80.00 or
More
Total
Number

Letters One

Two

Three

Four+

Visitor Visitors Visitors Visitors

Total

Contact

Only

43%

36%

26%

30%

33%

29%

32%

(74)

(192)

(170)

(126)

(111) (843)

California Drivers' License

No
Status of
License

Contacts

Letters One
Only

Two

Three

Four+

Visitor Visitors Visitors Visitors

Total

No Information
Has Valid
License

12%

(74)

(192)

(170)

(126)

Never had a
California
License
Expired but is
Renewable
Outstanding
Tickets or
Other
Problems to
Getting a
License
No License,
Renewability
Unknown
Total Number

(111) (843)

Proposed Residence

No
Living

Letters One

Two

Three

Four+

Visitor Visitors Visitors Visitors

Total

Contacts

Only

61%

49%

34%

29%

19%

14%

34%

Arrangements
Establish
Independent
Residence
Live with

Parents
Live with Wife

(74)

(192)

(170)

(126)

Live with
Brother or
Sister
Other, No
Information
Total Number

(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
Time Served to
Hearing
Served the Average*
Time or More
Total Number
Served Less than the
Average Time
Total Number

Letters

One

Two

Three

Four+

Total

Contacts

Only

Visitor

49%

61%

56%

49%

50%

57%

54%

(35)

(84)

(78)

(77)

(54)

(51)

(379)

17%

27%

23%

36%

37%

32%

30%

(12)

(26)

(31)

(33)

(27)

(22)

(151)

Visitors Visitors Visitors Average

* 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.

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)
Parole Difficulties

None Minor Serious

Total

100

(16)

Correspondence Only

100

(95)

One Visitor

100

(81)

Two Visitors

100

(85)

Three Visitors

100

(53)

Four Visitors

100

(61)

Total*

100

(391)

Number of Visitors
No Correspondence and No
Visitors

* 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)
Parole Difficulties
None Minor
0-1 Visitor Release Money

Serious

Total

Less than $20

100 (48)

$20 - $79

100 (92)

$80 or More

100 (51)

2+ Visitors Release Money

Less than $20

100 (49)

$20 - $79

100 (92)

$80 or More

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)

Parole Difficulties
None

Minor

Serious

Total

100

(147)

100

(45)

100

(135)

100

(64)

0-1 Visitor
No Job Offer
Def. Job
Offer
2+ Visitors
No Job Offer
Def. Job
Offer

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)
Parole Difficulties
None

Minor

Serious

Total

100

(75)

100

(74)

100

(41)

100

(47)

100

(117)

100

(34)

0-1 Visitor
Alone
Parents or
Spouse
Other
2+ Visitors
Alone
Parents or
Spouse
Other

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)
Parole Difficulties
None

Minor

Serious

Total

First Term

100

(105)

Second Term

100

(32)

0-1 Visitor

Three or

100

(33)

First Term

100

(129)

Second Term

100

(36)

100

(17)

More Terms
2+ Visitors

Three or
More Terms

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)*
Parole Difficulties
None

Minor

Serious

Total

0 -1 Visitor

Low

100

(61)

Medium

100

(67)

High

100

(62)

Low

100

(49)

Medium

100

(69)

High

100

(81)

BE Score

2+ Visitors

* 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.

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
CHAPTER VII. INMATE ATTITUDES TOWARD FAMILY VISITING AND
TEMPORARY RELEASE AND THE PAROLE OUTCOME OF PARTICIPANTS

Marital visiting programs for prisoners have not gained such acceptance in American
penal systems, nor do they seem likely to achieve much popularity in the foreseeable
future. This may be partly due to six problems inherent in such visits recently discussed
by Johns.l/ These objections to conjugal visits can be summarized as follows: (1) few
prisoners can participate, (2) lack of adequate facilities, (3) difficult program to
administer, (4) only meager support among administrators, (5) the demeaning sexual
nature of the visits, and (6) unwanted pregnancies. In addition many prison
administrators have long felt that those inmates who couldn't participate would become
more embittered, begrudge those who were eligible, and create a considerable
management problem for the institution.

In 1968 the California Department of Corrections initiated two pilot programs at the
California Correctional Institution which seem to have overcome some of these
difficulties. Both programs are aimed at maintaining the inmate's family ties and
providing some preparation for his eventual release back into the community, and have
since been extended to other institutions in the system. One, the "Family Visiting
Program," allows selected inmates to spend up to two days in relatively unsupervised

private visits on the prison grounds with members of their immediate family, i.e., wife,
children and/or parents. This represents the first such program in any major American
prison, 2/ although other countries have long used programs of this general sort.3/ The
second program, the '"Temporary Release Program," allows inmates about to be
paroled to make visits to their home communities in order to arrange jobs and housing,
spend time with their families, and otherwise prepare themselves for release.4/

At the time of this study Temporary Releases were limited to three per man, each for 72
hours or less. These restrictions have since been liberalized, however. While this also
represents a major program innovation among the larger correctional systems in the
United States, home furloughs and leaves have been features of correctional programs
in some of the less-populated states and other countries.5/

The importance of the family in the rehabilitation of the ex-offender has been noted,6/
and studies have shown some association of success on parole with being married or
residing with family members while on parole. Glaser found, for example, that adult
parolees living alone were twice as likely to fail on parole as those living with their
wives.

In addition he found a strong relationship between "family interest" and parole success.
A sample of releases from federal prisons during 1956 were rated in terms of the
degree of family contact while in prison. Their performance on parole was then analyzed
in terms of these ratings. Glaser concludes:
The success rates varied directly with the degree of family interest indicated before
release, from a high of 71 percent success for those whom we classified as having
"active" family interest (28 percent of the sample), to a low of 50 percent success for
those whom the reports indicated received no communication from relatives (only 3
percent of all the cases).7/
Morris concluded, after an extensive investigation of both prisons and jails, that a
substantial number of family relationships are subject to severe stress due to the

disturbance brought on by the long separation, the criminality or deviance itself or both.
8/

In the preceding chapter, the importance to parole outcome of maintaining strong family
ties while in prison was discussed. In almost every comparison made, inmates with
more visitors did better on parole than those with fewer visitors.

The California Correctional Institution is located outside of Tehachapi in a rural area
approximately 150 miles north of Los Angeles. It is a combined "minimum" and
"medium" security institution housing some 1,200 inmates in dorm type housing. The
"minimum" portion of the prison has a perimeter of fencing while the "medium" side has
towers and more secure fencing. Several vocational and educational programs are
offered.

The Family Visiting Program
A large modern duplex formerly used for staff residences is utilized for the visiting. Each
unit has three bedrooms and is completely furnished. Transportation costs and food are
provided by the inmate and his family. The Family Visiting Program is limited to those
inmates who have: (1) at least six months of clear conduct, (2) a record of satisfactory
accomplishment in their individualized programs, (3) no incidents of escape or
contraband in their records, and (4) reached their minimum eligible release dates.9/ The
Temporary Release Program was authorized by Section 2690 of the State Penal Code.
10/ Participants must be within 90 days of their parole dates or already have had their
case referred to the field. Travel under this program is limited to California.

The present study was conducted to help evaluate the impact and effectiveness of
these programs, and concerns itself with the response of the inmates to the programs, a
matter of some importance to many prison officials and some criminologists.11/ Apart
from moralistic objections, many experts are of the opinion that programs such as the
Family Visiting Program would prove disruptive to institutional operations, because
those not able to participate in the program would object to this differential treatment.

The next section of this chapter will therefore focus on the reactions of inmates, either
favorable or unfavorable to each of the programs as well as examining some of their
comments and suggestions for improving the programs.

Method of the Study
A systematic sample of 105 names was drawn from the total minimum custody
population who had been at the California Correctional Institution at least three months.
After some pre-testing, a questionnaire was administered in March 1969 to a group of
100 men and all but two agreed to participate, giving a total of 98 men in our final
sample. The other five men selected were unavailable for various reasons.

Findings
With regard to the Family Visiting Program, it can be seen in Table 25 that when asked
their personal opinion of the program, almost 88 percent of the sample approved to
some degree and only about 4 percent disapproved.
TABLE 25
INMATE APPROVAL OF THE
FAMILY VISITING PROGRAM
(In Percentages)
Approval

Strongly Approve

Approve

Disapproval

Strongly Disapprove

No Opinion

Total
N = 98

100

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.
TABLE 26
GENERALIZED INMATE ACCEPTANCE OF
THE FAMILY VISITING PROGRAM
(In Percentages)
Approval

Strongly Approve

Approve

Disapprove

Strongly Disapprove

No Opinion

Total
N = 98

100

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.
TABLE 27
PLANS OF INMATES TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE FAMILY VISITING PROGRAM
(In Percentages)
Participation

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

No, Probably

No, Definitely

Don't Know

Total

100

N = 98

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.

TABLE 28
REACTIONS OF INMATES TO THE
TEMPORARY RELEASE PROGRAM
(In Percentages)
Approval

Strongly Approve

Approve

Disapprove

Strongly Disapprove

No Opinion

Total

100

N = 98

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.
TABLE 29
GENERALIZED INMATE ACCEPTANCE OF THE
TEMPORARY RELEASE PROGRAM
(In Percentages)
Approval

Strongly Approve

Approve

Disapprove

Strongly Disapprove

No Opinion

Total

100

N = 98

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.
TABLE 30
PLANS OF INMATES TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE TEMPORARY RELEASE PROGRAM
(In Percentages)
Participation

Yes, Definitely

Yes, Probably

No, Probably

No, Definitely

Don't Know

Total

100

N = 98

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 nonparticipants. 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.
TABLE 31
ONE YEAR PAROLE OUTCOME FOR PAROLEES PARTICIPATING
IN FAMILY VISITING OR TEMPORARY RELEASE COMPARED TO

NON-PARTICIPANTS BY MOST SERIOUS DISPOSITION
(In Percentages)
Parole Outcome (Most Serious Disposition)

Type of
Participation
No Participation

No
Difficulty

Minor

Return

Total

Difficulty to Prison

42%

43%

15%

100

(129)

Family Visiting

100

(18)

Temporary Release

100

(35)

100

(9)

100

(191)

Both Family Visiting
and Temporary
Release
Total Percentage

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.

CHAPTER VIII
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 VIII. THE INMATE AND HIS FAMILY: SOME CONCLUSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS

Any serious look at the end results of correctional programs is likely to be discouraging.
Immediately the investigator faces the problem of trying to define "correctional
programs," as the term has become so broad as to include almost everything convicted
criminals are required to do in the course of their imprisonment. A second difficulty is
the virtual absence of any theoretical basis for the programs. After a review of current
correctional techniques, Cressey concluded that not only had their effectiveness not
been demonstrated but that the techniques were "only vaguely related to any reputable
theory of behavior or of criminality."1/ Empey observed that most such programs, rather
than being derived from theoretical constructs, are usually based on an "intuitive
opportunism," involving a kind of goal-oriented guessing which develops into a strategy
of activity.2/

A third area of frustration involves the inability to find empirical evidence showing any
significant value for the great majority of current techniques of correctional
intervention.3/ Commenting on this lack of demonstrated effectiveness, Ward remarked:

"University investigators should find little comfort in the fact that while treatment
evaluation results are not much to take to the legislature, the implications for the
sociological and psychological theories underlying these programs are not much to take
to their professional meetings. With the investment that all parties -- prison and parole
departments, treatment specialists and theoreticians -- have in evaluations of
correctional programs, there is no question that what would be helpful to all concerned,
including the objects of treatment, would be the report of a prison treatment program
that really worked."4/

At this point in our knowledge it seems fair to say that there are few correctional
techniques whose proven value is such that their application would represent a
significant improvement over doing nothing at all. To compound the difficulty most of
these unproven techniques require high staff ratios or in other ways consume large
amounts of scarce correctional resources. It is against this bleak backdrop that the

implications for corrections of the findings of this study relating to inmate social ties will
be discussed.

Do Family Contacts Increase Parole Success?
The central finding of this research is the discovery of a strong and consistently positive
relationship between parole success and the maintenance of strong family ties while in
prison. The reliability of this finding is substantiated by the results of other research
undertakings. The earlier of these efforts was conducted by Lloyd Ohlin in the course of
developing a parole success prediction scale for Illinois. Ohlin developed an index of
family interest while in prison to capitalize on the belief of many parole agents that
parolees with closer family ties tended to do better. Using a sample of releases from
1925-35, he found that 75% of the inmates classified as maintaining "active family
interest" while in prison were successful on parole compared to only 34% for those
regarded as loners.5/ Glaser used Ohlin's classification technique with a sample of 1956
releases from federal prisons with very similar results. He found that 71% of the "active
family interest" group were successful compared to only 50% of the "no contact with
relatives" group.6/ In an earlier study of 1940-49 releases from the Pontiac Branch of
the Illinois State Penitentiary, which has a reformatory type population, Glaser found a
74% success rate for the "active interest" group and a 43% rate for those parolees
without contacts.7/

This study found very similar percentage differences between groups. Only 50% of the
"no contact" inmates completed their first year on parole without being arrested, while
70% of those with three visitors were "arrest free" during this period. In addition the
"loners" were six times more likely to be returned to prison during the first year (12%
returned compared to 2% for those with three or more visitors).

The convergence of these studies should be emphasized. Ohlin's study focused on
inmates paroled in Illinois over a ten-year period. Glaser's work replicated Ohlin's
findings with releases during one year from federal prisons as well as from a
reformatory type population. The same results characterize our study's sample of 1969-

70 releases from a minimum security institution in California. The positive relationship
between strength of social ties and success on parole has held up for 45 years of
releases across very diverse offender populations and in different localities. It is doubtful
if there is any other research finding in the field of corrections which can approximate
this record.

One of the major problems with the earlier studies, which the authors of this study tried
to overcome, was the strong interrelationship among social ties, other important
variables, and parole outcome. The unique contributions of this study in this regard was
to show the independent contribution of family ties to parole outcome. The importance
of family ties held up in an analysis in which six other important factors were
considered.

Glaser postulated that the amount of release money was important to parole outcome.8/
We found this to be true only for those with few social ties. Difficulty on parole is
somewhat predictable if the inmate has few contacts and less money. On the other
hand, strong social ties appear to serve as an alternative material resource. Among
those with many visitors the amount of release money assumed no importance.

Among federal prisoners Glaser also found significant differences in parole outcome
associated with differences in type of residence. However, similar differences in
California largely disappeared when the number of social ties was held constant. There
was not much difference in parole outcome among parolees planning different types of
residences who received numerous visitors. The relationship didn't disappear entirely,
however, since those parolees planning to live with parents or wives still had a slight
advantage in parole success. For example, 8% of those who had two or more visitors
and who were living alone on parole recidivated compared to 5% of their counterparts
with plans to live with their parents or wives.

Similarly, employment prospects among federal prisoners were important to parole
outcome, but with the imposition of a control for family contact, job offers were not

important for the sample used in the present study. The importance of a job offer
appeared to be primarily a function of the strength of the inmate's social ties. In other
words, the presence of a job offer was unrelated to parole outcome when the inmate's
social ties were taken into account, and the effects of social ties on parole success were
independent of a job offer.

An alternative explanation of the findings of this study is that inmates receiving more
visitors are less likely to recidivate anyway. In order to test this hypothesis, the authors
divided the sample into three levels of predicted parole outcome and compared social
ties and parole success within each. The predictive device was the California Base
Expectancy Scale, which is based heavily on past criminal involvement. Within all Base
Expectancy levels, it was found that those who maintained closer ties did better.

It might be claimed that, while other important variables were taken into account,
inmates motivated to maintain strong social ties have some special motivation to
succeed on parole. The same qualities which motivated the inmate to maintain frequent
family contacts might have caused him to do better on parole. The data in Chapter V
seem to invalidate this alternative explanation. If the results in parole outcome were
caused by differential motivation, it would be necessary to hypothesize a somewhat
generalized motivational difference. In other words, the difference in motivation ought to
show up in other areas besides visiting and parole outcome. However, this was not the
case. Those who maintained frequent family contacts received about as many
disciplinary reports, had no better work records, were no more likely to participate in
treatment programs, and did about the same in group counseling. In summary, all the
evidence suggests that there is a strong independent, positive relationship between
maintaining frequent family contacts while in prison and success on parole.

This evidence suggests that the inmate's family should be viewed as the prime
treatment agent and family contacts as a major correctional technique. This approach
has numerous advantages not the least of which is that it is free. It doesn't require the
specially trained staff or costly staff augmentations so common to most treatment

approaches.

A second major advantage is the built-in inmate motivation. Most treatment techniques,
even if they work, have limited value because the inmates most in need are also the
least motivated for treatment. The few who volunteer are often the same ones who
would succeed without the program. The desire for outside contacts, by contrast, is a
central part of the inmate's existence. The data in Chapter IV clearly show that when
adequate opportunity is provided for contacts the inmate's social ties need not erode
away, the contacts of our sample were about as frequent after several years of
incarceration as during the first six months. The one important exception to this was that
a significant number of wives stopped visiting during the second year. It is necessary to
emphasize, however, that this study was done at a correctional complex which is
located within easy commuting distance from where most of the inmates' families live
and which has very liberal arrangements for visiting. It seems apparent that the further
visitors have to travel and the more difficult the procedures for visiting, the more likely
are the visitors to reduce contacts as the sentence is served.

Can Correctional Systems Help?
The next question is whether or not correctional systems can do anything to capitalize
on the family's potential as a treatment agent. Chapter VII examined two experimental
programs which aimed in this direction, the Family Visiting and the Temporary Release
Programs. Both efforts are successful by almost any standard. Both enjoyed almost
unanimous support from the inmate body. Almost all inmates hoped to participate, and
those who couldn't were not resentful. Neither presented serious administrative
problems. In addition, a follow-up study found that the participants in either program did
better on parole than non-participants. Sixty percent of the participants experienced no
difficulty during the first year of parole compared to only 42% of the non-participants.
The number of participants was small, and the results must be interpreted with caution.
However, the findings held up under the application of numerous control variables.

A final question about the temporary releases is whether they seriously threaten the

public safety. Currently, thousands of inmates in California are being released each
year on temporary leaves and experience has shown that they are involved in no more
difficulty than would normally be expected during the first few days on parole.

Some Recommendations
There are two areas in which changes might increase correctional effectiveness through
promoting strong family ties. First, there are several ways in which special programs
could become more effective. More extensive use should be made of temporary
releases. Their potential seems almost unlimited. Even with their rapidly expanding use
in California, no limits have yet been found on who can benefit or the number of times
benefit can be derived. The use of temporary releases as pre-release preparation
should be extended to include the entire time of incarceration. Home leaves beginning a
few months after reception would go a long way toward promoting strong family ties.
Home visit privileges should be granted to a few non-violent, married prisoners in low
risk categories on an experimental basis and slowly be extended to other groups.

The Family Visiting Program should be reserved strictly for those inmates who cannot
make use of temporary releases. These would probably include such cases as chronic
parole absconders, perpetrators of very violent crimes such as murder, or inmates who
need to work out marital problems in a more structured setting than is provided by the
home. Since common-law marriages are increasing in prevalence, those of some
duration should be recognized in both programs.

Family counseling should be utilized more with each institution required to have at least
one person certified as a family counselor who would be designated as a coordinator.
This person would be available as a co-leader for family groups as well as a consultant
to other staff. This individual’s availability should be made known to visitors so as to
encourage their consultation with him.
The second area concerns routine institutional procedures. Every effort must be made
to place the inmate in the institution closest to his home in order to facilitate family

contacts. This research has shown the high cost in terms of parole failure of hindering
important social ties. Correctional systems can no longer afford the expense of
incarcerating inmates in areas so remote from their home communities as to make
visiting virtually impossible. Proximity to the home community should be the first
consideration in making assignments to institutions.
All restrictions on visitors and mail should be closely scrutinized with the objective of
eliminating all regulations which are not necessary to promoting the absolute basic
security of the institution. No restriction should be allowed to remain whose only reason
is the limit in space. Space must be found. If some new correctional technique were
invented tomorrow whose effectiveness were equal to family contacts, there would be a
rush to find space for implementation even if it meant using the warden's office.
Wherever possible visitors should be allowed to bring a lunch and share it with the
inmate. This avoids terminating the visit for the meal and also provides for visiting in a
setting focused on a central family ritual. There are undoubtedly many other ways in
which family contacts could be promoted.

1/ Cressey, D.R., "The Nature and Effectiveness of Correctional Techniques," Law and
Contemporary Problems, Vol: 23, No. 4, Autumn 1958.
2/ Empey, L. T., "A Strategy of Search," paper presented at the planning session of the
Pacific Sociological Association on the Technical and Ethical Problems Involved in
Evaluating Action Programs, Salt Lake City, April 1965.
3/ Robison, J. and G. Smith, "The Effectiveness of Correctional Programs," Crime and
Delinquency, Vol. 17, No. 1, January 1971.
4/ Ward, D.A., "Evaluation of Correctional Treatment: Some Implications of Negative
Findings," paper read at the First National Symposium on Law Enforcement Science
and Technology, Chicago, Illinois, March 1967.

5/ Ohlin, L.E., The Stability and Validity of Parole Experience Tables, (Ph.D.
dissertation) University of Chicago, 1954, cited in Glaser, D., The Effectiveness of a
Prison and Parole System, Bobbs-Merrill, Inc., New York, 1964, p. 366.
6/ Glaser, op. cit., p. 366.
7/ ibid.
8/ Glaser, op. cit., p. 316.