Communication Policy Changes in State Adult Correctional Facilities From 1971 to 2005

AuthorChelsea L. Dunn,Heath C. Hoffmann,George E. Dickinson
DOI10.1177/0734016806297646
Date01 March 2007
Published date01 March 2007
Subject MatterArticles
CJR297646.qxd Criminal Justice Review
Volume 32 Number 1
March 2007 47-64
© 2007 Georgia State University
Communication Policy Changes
Research Foundation, Inc.
10.1177/0734016806297646
http://cjr.sagepub.com
in State Adult Correctional
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Facilities From 1971 to 2005
Heath C. Hoffmann
George E. Dickinson
Chelsea L. Dunn
College of Charleston, South Carolina
The objective of this research is to document correctional institutions’ policies regarding
inmates’ correspondence, visitation, and telephoning between 1971 and 2005. Data were gath-
ered via mailed surveys in 1971, 1981, 1991, and 2005 from state correctional facilities for adults
in maximum security institutions. The survey return rates were 93% (n = 64) in 1971, 96%
(n = 66) in 1981, 81% (n = 91) in 1991, and 84% (n = 162) in 2005. The findings suggest that prison
communication policies are becoming more restrictive on visitation and inmates are assuming
more of the expenses for correspondence. At the same time, policies regarding telephone usage
seem to have gotten more lenient, with the financial obligations falling solely on the inmates.
These results are informative as many state legislatures are becoming increasingly attentive to
strategies that might reinforce inmate relationships with family and friends to reduce recidivism
rates, lessening the financial strain of incarceration on state budgets.
Keywords:
prison policies; prisoner visitation; communication policies; re-entry
In 2001, 592,000 inmates were returned to the community after spending time in prison,
as 95% of all state prisoners are eventually released (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2002). Many of these individuals will return to prison. A 2002 study found that 68% of pris-
oners released in 1994 were rearrested within 3 years, and 25% were sentenced to prison for
a new crime (Langan & Levin, 2002). High rates of recidivism, shrinking state revenues, and
burgeoning prison populations have made facilitating successful prisoner re-entry a central
priority for federal and state governments. This was exemplified in President George
W. Bush’s 2004 State of the Union address, in which he called for a renewed effort to
reduce barriers to social integration for men and women leaving correctional facilities (see
Bush, 2004, para. 65). This has translated into state and federal efforts to fund demonstration
projects of community and faith-based organizations that strive to integrate ex-prisoners back
into the community.
Facilitating prisoners’ contact with friends and family members while incarcerated—
through prison visitation, telephone and mail correspondence, and conjugal visits and home
furloughs—has long been suggested as one means for improving prisoners’ behavior while
incarcerated (Borgman, 1985; Casey-Acevedo & Bakken, 2002; Ellis, Grasmick, &
Gilman, 1974; Hensley, Koscheski, & Tewksbury, 2002). In addition, the contact has been
suggested as decreasing the likelihood that prisoners will be rearrested and returned to
prison after release (Adams & Fischer, 1976; Casey-Acevedo & Bakken, 2002; Glaser,
47

48
Criminal Justice Review
1964; Holt & Miller, 1972; Howser & MacDonald, 1982; Leclair, 1978; Ohlin, 1951).
There are a number of explanations why maintaining the inmate’s connection with family
and friends will improve behavior while incarcerated and reduce recidivism after the inmate’s
release. First, it has been suggested that continued contact with friends and family serves as
a counterforce to prison institutionalization. If the inmate and his or her family are able to
avoid thinking of the former as merely a convict or criminal and instead preserve the inmate’s
status as spouse or parent, the inmate and his or her family may better adjust to the incarcer-
ation and to the circumstances surrounding the inmate’s release (Schafer, 1994). Fishman
(1988) found that home furlough programs and telephone conversations with family members
did function to preserve the inmate’s external familial roles that preceded incarceration.
However, Fishman did not explore whether role maintenance improves the inmate’s behavior
while incarcerated or decreases recidivism after release.
Conjugal visits can be seen as one means of maintaining the inmate’s role as husband or
wife and potentially influencing the functionality of the marital relationship. Prison war-
dens whose facilities have conjugal visitation programs overwhelmingly support (75%
responded affirmatively) the notion that such programs help to maintain family stability
(Hensley, Tewksbury, & Chiang, 2002). However, the empirical evidence is less optimistic
than are these wardens. Carlson and Cervera (1991) examined family adaptability and
cohesion of male inmates and their wives who participated in New York’s Family Reunion
Program (FRP). FRP participants did not report higher levels of adaptability and cohesion
compared to the inmates and their wives who did not participate in the FRP. The authors
suggest that this may reflect the benefits of nonconjugal prison visits, telephone calls, and
mail correspondence for nonparticipants in the FRP (Carlson & Cervera, 1991).
Second, it has been suggested that the inmate can draw on the social support of family
and friends to better adjust to the stresses and strains of prison life (Carlson & Cervera,
1992; Hairston, 1988). Having family members visit while incarcerated might symbolize to
the prisoner that support will be available after release, giving the inmate a reason to behave
well while incarcerated (Schafer, 1994). Empirical support for this proposition is mixed.
Wooldredge (1999) finds a statistically significant relationship between the number of vis-
its inmates received in the preceding month and their current psychological well-being (i.e.,
self-reported problems with anger, depression, anxiety, self-esteem, and loneliness).
Borgman (1985) also finds that incarcerated juvenile delinquents who were frequently vis-
ited by family members were less likely to be cited for major misconduct, compared to
juveniles who were visited infrequently. Ellis et al. (1974) report a similar relationship
between increased visitation and “aggressive transgressions” by adult inmates at the aggre-
gate level of the prison (higher levels of aggression in prisons where there is a greater per-
centage of inmates who received no visitors in the preceding 3 months) and a weak
statistical relationship (p = .15) between visitation and aggression at an individual level. In
contrast, Holt and Miller (1972) did not find a statistically significant relationship between
family contact and adult prisoners’ disciplinary reports, work records, participation in treat-
ment, or performance in group counseling. Clark (2001) and Hensley, Koscheski, et al.
(2002) also failed to find a significant positive relationship between prison visits and insti-
tutional infractions and conjugal visits and inmates’ violence, respectively.
A third explanation suggests that developing and/or maintaining the inmate’s ties to his

Hoffmann et al. / Changes in Prison Communication Policies
49
or her family and the community constitute an important source of social capital that facili-
tates postrelease success. Although the concept of social capital has been used differently in
the literature, it generally refers to the resources “derived from relationships among group
members in which groups (and the people within them) obtain things they need” (Rose &
Clear, 2003, p. 320). These resources can include job and educational opportunities, hous-
ing leads, and emotional and social support and behavioral norms. Because most prisoners
descend from impoverished neighborhoods that are riddled with crime and drug use, those
communities may be less able to provide the types of social capital (e.g., good-paying jobs
in a legal vocation) necessary to facilitate the prisoners’ successful re-entry into the com-
munity (see Rose & Clear, 2003). However, these networks may nonetheless offer more
practical forms of support to the inmate after release such as housing, money, and clothing
and encourage the ex-inmate to participate in rehabilitation and training programs (Hairston,
1988). Because the inmate typically leaves prison with a bus ticket, a department of correc-
tions identification card, and no home of his or her own, it seems logical that having ties with
his or her family and friends while incarcerated—assuming this social network was not a
source of his or her criminal involvement—will provide the ex-prisoner with some of the
forms of social and economic capital he or she will need (see Hepburn & Griffin, 2004).
There is no empirical research available that specifically examines the relationship
among inmate–family communication, social capital, and postrelease success. Available
research generally relies on aggregate-level data and thus does not capture variation in
inmates’ levels of social capital. With that said, research generally shows that inmates who
receive visitors (Borgman, 1985; Glaser, 1964; Holt & Miller, 1972; Ohlin, 1951) and/or
frequently communicate with family via telephone (Glaser, 1964; Ohlin, 1951) or mail
(Glaser, 1964; Ohlin, 1951) fare better after release than inmates who do not. In contrast
with these findings, Adams and Fischer (1976) report that the number of letters and visits
received by inmates the year prior to parole does not relate to the likelihood of recidivism
2 years after release. Although the coefficients suggest that inmates receiving more letters
and visits are less likely to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT