“Purely for You”: Inmates’ Perceptions of Prison Visitation by Volunteers in the Netherlands

• Published date: 01 October 2018
• Date: 01 October 2018
• Author: Anne Goossensen,Carmen Schuhmann,Esther Kuis
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18764523
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18764523

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2018, Vol. 62(14) 4545 –4564

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18764523

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

“Purely for You”: Inmates’

Perceptions of Prison

Visitation by Volunteers

in the Netherlands

Carmen Schuhmann1, Esther Kuis1,

and Anne Goossensen1

Abstract

Research suggests that prison visitation by volunteers may significantly reduce the

risk of recidivism. Community volunteers offer sustained, prosocial support to

inmates which may account for these beneficial effects. However, the question of

how inmates themselves evaluate volunteer visitation has hardly been studied. This

study explores how inmates of Dutch prisons who receive one-on-one volunteer

visits experience and value these visits. To that end, semistructured interviews were

conducted with 21 inmates across six penitentiaries. These show that the value

of volunteer visitation for inmates has to be understood in terms of a human-to-

human encounter. Visits by volunteers provide inmates with rare opportunities to

have a confidential conversation, away from the harshness of the usual prison life.

Furthermore, inmates perceive volunteer visitation as beneficial beyond the actual

visits. Inmates draw hope, strength, or self-respect from the conversations; they see

volunteers as role models and develop a more positive view of the future. Two

potential obstacles to beneficial volunteer visitation were detected: lack of chemistry

between volunteer and inmate and imposition of worldview beliefs by volunteers.

Keywords

prison visitation, volunteers, human-to-human contact, the Netherlands, qualitative

research

1University of Humanistic Studies, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Carmen Schuhmann, Department of Globalization and Dialogue Studies, University of Humanistic

Studies, P.O. Box 797, 3500 AT Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Email: c.schuhmann@uvh.nl

764523IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X18764523International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologySchuhmann et al.

research-article2018

4546 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)

Introduction

Prison visitation constitutes an important domain in criminal justice research (Cochran

& Mears, 2013). Visitation provides inmates with rare occasions of interrupting their

isolation from family, friends, and the outside world in general. Most of the existing

empirical research suggests that prison visitation has certain positive effects—reduc-

tion of recidivism (Bales & Mears, 2008; Cochran & Mears, 2013; Duwe & Clark,

2013; Mears, Cochran, Siennick, & Bales, 2012), reduction of misconduct during

imprisonment (Cochran, 2012; Tewksbury, Connor, & Denney, 2014), or increase in

mental health and well-being (Casey-Acevedo & Bakken, 2001; Monahan, Goldweber,

& Cauffman, 2011; Wolff & Draine, 2004; Wooldredge, 1999). Several of these find-

ings are supported by theoretical perspectives, for example, general strain theory

(Blevins, Listwan, Cullen, & Jonson, 2010; Listwan, Sullivan, Agnew, Cullen, &

Colvin, 2013) and social bond theory (Bales & Mears, 2008; Cochran & Mears, 2013).

However, the existing research on prison visitation does not allow for definitive

conclusions concerning effects of visitation. Some empirical results suggest a negative

effect of visitation on prisoner conduct and recidivism (Cochran & Mears, 2013).

Mears et al. (2012) have remarked that many studies that explore the relation between

visitation and recidivism do not control for selection bias. Cochran and Mears (2013)

suggested that current research of prison visitation does not take diversity of visitation

experiences into account with respect to, for example, timing and pattern, inmate char-

acteristics, and type of visitor. They call for a nuanced understanding of visitation

which allows to explore effects of heterogeneous visitation experiences.

In attempts to arrive at a more nuanced exploration of prison visitation, research on

volunteer visitation deserves special attention. Connor and Tewksbury (2015)

remarked that “it is not only the simple act of receiving a visit inside prison that has

important implications. The relationship between inmate and visitors may also be crit-

ical” (p. 161). In a study among 16.420 offenders released from Minnesota prisons

between 2003 and 2007, Duwe and Clark (2013) found that effects of visitation on

reentry outcomes depend on visitor type, and that visitation by a specific group, ex-

spouses, has negative effects. Visits of community volunteers (clergy and mentors)

were among the most beneficial in reducing the risk of recidivism. This result was

confirmed by a study by Duwe and Johnson (2016) among 836 offenders released

from Minnesota prisons between 2003 and 2007. The risk of recidivism was signifi-

cantly reduced for inmates who received at least one visit by a community volunteer

during incarceration.

Theoretical explanations of these results are generally related to the idea of “social

capital”: Social bonds are seen as a critical factor for successful reentry (Cochran, 2014;

Cochran & Mears, 2013; Wolff & Draine, 2004). It depends on the quality of the rela-

tionship between visitor and inmate whether or not the visitor adds to the social capital

of the inmate (Wolff & Draine, 2004). Incarceration puts pressure on previously exist-

ing social bonds of inmates so that preserving these bonds may be difficult (Cochran,

2014; Roque, Bierie, & MacKenzie, 2011). In general, community volunteers will offer

sustained, prosocial support to inmates and so add to their social capital, which may