Male Inmate Perceptions of the Visitation Experience

Date01 September 2015
Published date01 September 2015
AuthorMari B. Pierce
DOI10.1177/0032885515587471
Subject MatterArticles
/tmp/tmp-18ZXU9N6qfsctd/input 587471TPJXXX10.1177/0032885515587471The Prison JournalPierce
research-article2015
Article
The Prison Journal
2015, Vol. 95(3) 370 –396
Male Inmate Perceptions
© 2015 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
of the Visitation
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0032885515587471
tpj.sagepub.com
Experience: Suggestions
on How Prisons Can
Promote Inmate–Family
Relationships
Mari B. Pierce1
Abstract
There is a lack of empircal research on male inmate experiences with familial
contact and visitation. Utilizing surveys and interviews of men incarcerated
in a southwestern correctional facilitiy, the results provide insight into the
nature of their contact with their children and families and their perceptions
of the impact of their incarceration on these relationships. The study further
offers inmate suggestions on how prison policies can help nuture, rather than
impede, familial relationships. Helping to foster these relationships should
be a leading priority among policy makers as familial support and prison
visitation have been linked to reduced institutional misconduct, improved
recidivism rates, and decreased intergenerational criminality.
Keywords
incarcerated fathers, male inmates, prison visitation, familial relationships
Introduction
The stress of incarceration often leads imprisoned individuals to turn to fam-
ily members and friends for support and assistance. Yet, with incarceration
1Pennsylvania State University, Beaver, Monaca, USA
Corresponding Author:
Mari B. Pierce, Administration of Justice Department, Pennsylvania State University, Beaver,
100 University Avenue, Monaca, PA 15061, USA.
Email: Mbp16@psu.edu

Pierce
371
limiting familial contact opportunities, inmates may experience “ambiguous
loss,” loss that is “unclear, indeterminate, and invalidated” (Arditti, 2003,
p. 196) as their families are no longer routinely physically present and their
psychological presence is also likely inconsistent (Boss, 1999; Brodsky, 1975;
General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Joint State
Government Commission, 2011; Travis, McBride, & Solomon, 2005). Although
men’s pre-incarceration position in their family likely influences their role dur-
ing incarceration, imprisonment can significantly change or sever familial con-
tacts and established relationships (Huebner, 2007; McDermott & King, 1992).
There is a lack of empirical research regarding the visitation needs of the
incarcerated. However, research does indicate that maintaining relationships
is beneficial not only from a familial perspective but also from a policy per-
spective. Children of incarcerated parents are at a higher risk of adult crimi-
nality and incarceration (Dallaire, 2007; Hoffman, Byrd, & Kightlinger,
2010; R. C. Johnson, 2009; Murray & Farrington, 2005, 2008; Springer,
Lynch, & Rubin, 2000; Travis et al., 2005). As the number of children of
incarcerated parents continues to increase (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008;
Hairston, 1998), importantly, evidence suggests that family support, even
when a parent is incarcerated, can decrease negative outcomes in children
(Hanlon et al., 2005). Prior research further indicates that stable marriages
may reduce pathways to criminality (Huebner, 2007; Laub, Nagin, &
Sampson, 1998; Uggen & Wakefield, 2005; Warr, 1998). Inmates who have
had more frequent contact with their family were less likely to return to
prison upon release (Carlson & Cervera, 1991; Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1982;
Holt & Miller, 1972; Travis et al., 2005; Visher, 2013). These findings sug-
gest that fostering family relationships among correctional populations may
help prevent intergenerational criminality and reduce recidivism.
This study provides insight into male inmates’ perceptions of the impact
of their incarceration and visitation experiences on familial relationships. It
further offers their suggestions on how prison administration can nurture
these relationships. The research sought to answer the following questions:
Research Question 1: What was the nature of the men’s contact with their
families?
Research Question 2: What concerns did the incarcerated men express
about their families and children?
Research Question 3: What suggestions did the incarcerated men offer as
to how the prison could support familial relationships?
The study’s goal, then, is to suggest prison visitation policies that could
help decrease the negative influences of incarceration on the family.

372
The Prison Journal 95(3)
Literature Review
With just fewer than 1.6 million individuals incarcerated in U.S. correctional
institutions (Carson & Golinelli, 2013), men are overrepresented, leaving
behind a continuum of familial roles and responsibilities. Although incarcer-
ated men are only half as likely to be married as non-incarcerated men of
similar age, they are just as likely to be fathers (Eddy et al., 2008; Gable &
Johnston, 1995; Western, Lopoo, & McLanahan, 2004). The National
Resource Center on Children and Families of the Incarcerated (2014) finds
that “on any given day there are an estimated 2.7 million children in America
with at least one parent in prison or jail.”
The Nature of Familial Contact
As no studies were found to document the U.S. prisoner visitation rates, stud-
ies of the effects of correctional visitation provided a preliminary glimpse
into the extent of inmate visitation. Cochran’s (2012) study of the influence
of visitation on prisoner misconduct found that 75% of the correctional sam-
ple had not received a visit within the last year. Bales and Mears’ (2008)
examination of the effect of visitation on recidivism found that 58% of their
sample had never been visited. These low rates of visitation are similar to
Mumola’s (2000) findings related to contact between incarcerated parents
and their children. Mumola reported that only 21% of incarcerated fathers
reported regular visits, although 44% of these men had lived with at least one
of their children prior to their incarceration. Low rates of inmate visitation
were likely influenced by a number of factors.
First, incarceration separates men geographically and socially from their
families (Lopoo & Western, 2005). Letter writing, phone calls, and correc-
tional visits are the only available ways for most inmates to correspond with
their loved ones. Several studies found that of incarcerated fathers, less than
half maintained a weekly contact with their children. Furthermore, of those
who reported contact, the majority of interactions occurred via mail or phone
(Seymour, 2001; Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001). Although many incarcer-
ated individuals had telephone contact with their children or other family
members (Pitofsky, 2002), telephone communication can be limited due to
the high cost of inmate calls. Many inmate families have reported having
their phones disconnected due to unpaid bills associated with correctional
facility collect call costs (Braman, 2004).
Although most inmates can receive visitors, in-person visitation is often
limited due to the distance and cost of travel (Murray, Farrington, & Sekol,
2012) or the deterioration of the familial relationship (Lopoo & Western,

Pierce
373
2005; Miller, 2006). Many inmates are housed at significant distances from
their families. Nearly half of state and federal inmates are housed between
100 and 500 miles from their children (Mumola, 2000). Geographical dis-
tance can further weaken already stressed familial relationships (Carlson &
Cervera, 1991). Forced separation can lead to withdrawal and emotional ter-
mination of relationships (Apel, Blokland, Nieuwbeerta, & van Schellen,
2010), including the incarcerated individual expressing reluctance to partici-
pate in visitation (Miller, 2006).
Maintaining visitation with a child may be even more difficult than visita-
tion with adult family members. Visiting hours may interfere with school, the
parent may not have the documentation required for visits, or the child(ren)
may find visitation stressful (Hairston, 1998; Miller, 2006; Nesmith &
Ruhland, 2008). When fathers go to prison, children are most likely to remain
with their mothers (Dallaire, 2007; Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Depending
on the relationship between the parents, visitation may be impeded if the non-
incarcerated parent does not want to visit the person in prison (Arditti, Smock,
& Parkman, 2005; Nurse, 2004; Roy & Dyson, 2005; Woldoff & Washington,
2008). If the child is placed in non-familial care, opportunities for contact
may be even further limited (E. I. Johnson & Waldfogel, 2002).
For those who do visit, distress can occur not only from the visit but also
from the visitors’ interactions with correctional staff, other visitors in the visi-
tation room, or the policies of the particular institution (Arditti, 2005).
Research has established that visitors are often treated poorly during correc-
tional facility visits (see Arditti, 2003; Fishman, 1990; Girshick, 1996). The
accumulation of both geographic and social distances “can lead to permanent
rather than temporary severance of family ties due to a lack of meaningful
contacts to support an enduring bond” (Arditti, 2005, p. 225).
Familial Impact of Incarceration
Research has firmly established that incarceration significantly affects famil-
ial roles (Apel et al., 2010; Arditti, 2003, 2005; Arditti et al., 2005; Braman,
2003, 2004; Lopoo & Western, 2005; Miller, 2006; Western, Lopoo, &
McLanahan, 2004). Incarceration can result in “ambiguous loss” due...

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