Going to Prison: A Prison Visitation Program
| Author | Matthew DeMichele,Richard Tewksbury |
| Published date | 01 September 2005 |
| Date | 01 September 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032885505279525 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
THE PRISON JOURN
Tewksbury
AL / September 2005
, DeMichele / PRISON VISITATION PROGRAM
GOING TO PRISON:
A PRISON VISITATION PROGRAM
RICHARD TEWKSBURY
University of Louisville
MATTHEW DEMICHELE
University of Kentucky
Drawing on survey data collected from 396 visitors to inmates at a medium-security
prison, this research examines the experience of visiting inmates from the visitor’s
perspective. Data include visitors’ demographics, relationships to inmates, social,
psychological, and emotional contexts of visits, barriers to visitation, other means of
maintaining contact, and perceptions of the visitation program. Analysis also shows
that visitors’age, race, education, and frequency of visits are significantly related to
perceptions of the visitation experience and environment. Discussion of the value of
visitation programs and how correctional administrators can best structure and
operate visitation programs is provided.
Keywords: prison; visitor; visitation; family
The American criminal justice system, for nearly three decades, has
undergone an unprecedented growth in the imprisoned population. This
incarceration boom (Christie, 2000; Donziger, 1996; Garland, 2000) obvi-
ously creates a delicate situation for financially strapped penal administra-
tors (see Beckett & Western, 1999). Compounding this so-called mass
imprisonment movement (Garland, 2001) is the contentious nature of prison
programs and administration, making correctional systems as a whole
among the most highly visible and hence scrutinized public policy sectors.
Penal administrators are faced with providing inmates with a constitutionally
appropriate level of incarceration and with safeguarding the citizenry from
their criminogenic potentiality, and they may also be expected to rehabilitate
offenders.
Prison administrators, academics, and policy makers are continuously
searching for more efficient means of meeting these competing and perhaps
contradictory correctional goals, with the ultimate aim of reintegrating
inmates into the community on release (see Adams et al., 1994). In pursuing
THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 85 No. 3, September 2005 292-310
DOI: 10.1177/0032885505279525
© 2005 Sage Publications
292
Tewksbury, DeMichele / PRISON VISITATION PROGRAM
293
these goals, correctional administrators, staff, and inmates alike want to limit
the stress created through institutionalization to reduce the likelihood of
deviant and criminal behavior during incarceration. Prison programs, there-
fore, are created with the intentions of distracting, educating, treating, and
otherwise occupying inmates’ time with the potential benefit of shaping
responsible citizens (see Garland, 1996) able to function in the general popu-
lation. Administrators and policymakers, however, are undoubtedly faced
with a more challenging agenda given that many attempts to institute in-
house programs are often considered as being soft on crime or as rewarding
inmates for their law violation (Johnson, Bennett, & Flanagan, 1997) and
given, on the other hand, the financial and practical challenges of many pro-
grams. One program variety erroneously perceived to be without difficulties
or costs is prison visitation. Administrators face numerous financial and
logistical burdens when attempting to implement and manage their visitation
programs. Among the primary barriers to an effective and smoothly operat-
ing program of inmate visitation are the expectations, experiences, and per-
ceptions of visitors (Fishman, 1991; Fuller, 1993; Jackson, Templer, Reimer,
& LeBaron, 1997; Peelo, Stewart, Stewart, & Prior, 1991; Schafer, 1989;
Schwartz & Weintraub, 1974). This article investigates the perceptions of
visitors in a medium-security male correctional institution in Kentucky.
Popular political and, at times, institutional views of prison inmates con-
tend that prisoners receive numerous amenities and are treated better than
they should be. Critics point to educational programs, recreational programs,
medical and dental care, and even visits from loved ones as luxuries that
should not be provided to inmates. Inmates’ stigmatization, as Goffman
(1963) pointed out, deems them unworthy of amenities in the public’s eye.
Despite popular discourse, however, emphasizing the tough-on-crime per-
spective and suggesting that there is widespread opposition to such luxuries,
the research on perceptions of prison conditions does not support this view as
fully as some might expect. Although few scientifically rigorous studies exist
on the perceptions of the public or lawmakers regarding the provision of such
luxuries or amenities to prison inmates, the limited research available does,
as is common with criminal justice policies and perceptions, suggest ambiva-
lence (see O’Malley, 1999; Rose, 2000). That is, this research indicates that
some programs and services—usually programs such as weightlifting and
exercise facilities, television, and in general all forms of entertainment—are
viewed as too much or as giving prisoners more than they deserve (Johnson
et al., 1997). The public, on the other hand, usually strongly supports drug
therapy, vocational skills training, and other responsibilization programs that
are geared toward returning productive citizens back to the community.
294
THE PRISON JOURNAL / September 2005
To provide a better understanding of public perceptions regarding correc-
tional policies, Applegate (2001) surveyed citizens on their views toward
prison amenities. The survey found that of 26 programs, services, and privi-
leges that many prisons offer inmates, the privilege of family visits was over-
whelmingly supported, receiving the second strongest level of support. The
only item citizens found more important was psychological counseling,
viewed in the context of drug rehabilitation. Interestingly, however, family
visits received stronger support than did many traditional programs such
as job training, education, and legal assistance and they even out ranked a
burgeoning penal concern—HIV/AIDS treatments. These results, high-
lighting an ambivalent public, nonetheless identify a growing concern
among citizens—given that most inmates will one day be released—to
contribute to inmates’ abilities to maintain healthy social ties during incar-
ceration, limit recidivism, and enter the labor market. In light of this public
support, it is ever more important for criminal justice researchers and correc-
tional administrators to more fully understand such programs.
Although it is disheartening to see a weak level of public support for some
programs known to improve institutional management, it is encouraging to
discover that visitation programs are supported by more than 93% of the pub-
lic (Applegate, 2001). This optimism stems from the powerful potential pos-
sessed by family visitation programs to maintain inmates’ social ties with
their families through visits. Indeed, the limited evaluative research on visita-
tion programs to date indicates that they are related to enhanced social adjust-
ment for both the period of incarceration and release (Casey-Acevedo &
Bakken, 2001, 2002).
Correctional administrators have long been challenged with maintaining
order in a place the general public finds entropic. In light of the obvious
potential for unrest, violent outburst, and other attacks on inmates and staff
members, administrators must find highly effective and (relatively speaking)
cost-efficient programs and services that aid in reducing deviant behaviors
while satisfying the public’s desire for punishment and rehabilitation. Sim-
ply put, for administrators to achieve success, they must appease the taxpay-
ers who support their facilities, ensure safety, and return productive members
back to the community. However, one dilemma facing penal administrators
regarding visitation programs is the dearth of evaluative research document-
ing visitors’ perceptions of the structure, process, and experience of visita-
tion programs. This article offers such an analysis.
Tewksbury, DeMichele / PRISON VISITATION PROGRAM
295
PRISON VISITATION PROGRAMS:
CURRENT RESEARCH
It is virtually axiomatic in penal literature that overcrowding conditions
significantly contribute to the potential for prison unrest, at times culminat-
ing in prison riots (see Woolf & Tumin, 1991). Wooldredge (1997), through
self-report surveys in three Midwestern correctional facilities, found that
whether or not inmates receive visitors is a significant predictor of inmates’
perceptions of an institution’s degree of crowding. Specifically, inmates
receiving visitors are less likely to perceive a high level of crowding in an
institution, and according to Wooldredge, “An individual’s mental well-
being has important implications for the goals of institutional corrections . . .
[including] effective treatment, the prevention of violence and victimization
in the prison, and the reduction of psychological stress among inmates”
(p. 27). It should not come as a shock to criminal justice scholars or adminis-
trators that inmates’ mental well-being is a significant predictor of inmate
behavior and satisfaction. The importance of Wooldredge’s findings is that
they identify prison visitation programs as one potential strategy in reducing
the negative consequences of overcrowding.
In their review of the causes and contributing conditions to prison riots in
six Great Britain prisons in 1990, Woolf and Tumin (1991)...
To continue reading
Request your trial