Riding the Bus

• Date: 01 February 2005
• DOI: 10.1177/1043986204271618
• Published date: 01 February 2005
• Author: Johnna Christian
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/1043986204271618Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / February 2005Christian / BARRIERS TO PRISON VISITATION

Riding the Bus

Barriers to Prison Visitation and Family Management Strategies

JOHNNA CHRISTIAN

Rutgers University, Newark

Geographic separation from family is one consequence of imprisonment. Depending on the

state, prisons are often located in remote, rural areas that are far from the urban cores many pris-

oners come from. Although scholars frequentlycite the distance of prison facilities from prison-

ers’ families’ residences, scant research has addressed whether this is in fact an impediment to

visiting or how families who do visit manage this process. It is an exhausting, resource intensive

process for a family member to make one visit at a prison. Understandinghow families decide

how much of their resources to devote to maintaining their relationship with the prisoner is

important. Using data collected through ethnographic observation and interviews, this article

explores family management of prison visiting as one of the collateral consequences of

incarceration.

Keywords: prisoners; families; prison visiting; prisoner connections to family

As the nation’s incarceration rates rise, researchers and policy makers

have begun to highlight several gaps in our understanding of and

approach to studying incarceration. A growing body of research considers

that incarceration has unintended consequences (Clear, 1996) or collateral

consequences (Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999) that reach far beyond the prisoner

and in fact extend to families and communities. The role of prisoners’ fami-

lies has taken on added significance as scholars have highlighted the geo-

graphic concentration of incarceration and release, making some neighbor-

hoods and communities particularly vulnerable to the collateral

consequences of incarceration and the subsequent challenges of reintegrat-

ing large numbers of former prisoners (Travis & Waul, 2003). Little, how-

ever,is known about what it is like for families to bridge the gap between their

lives outside and the life of their incarcerated lovedone. Examining potential

31

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 21 No. 1, February 2005 31-48

DOI: 10.1177/1043986204271618

© 2005 Sage Publications

barriers to family connections and bonds with prisoners is one contribution to

our understanding of the broader effects of incarceration.

This article draws from an ethnographic study of how families’ lives are

affected by incarceration to look at some barriers to prisoner ties to family

that stem from the challenges of visiting atprisons. Data come from observa-

tion on bus rides families take from New York City to prisons throughout

New York to visit incarcerated male family members and in depth, open-

ended interviews with prisoners’ family members. The study illustrates that

staying connected to a prisoner is a time, resource, and labor intensive pro-

cess, which may create barriers to prisoners’ maintenance of family ties. In

addition to describing what the process of getting to a prison visit is like,

highlighting the barriers to visiting and ways that families manage this

process are the foci of the article.

LITERATURE ABOUT FAMILY TIES TO PRISONERS

Connectedness to Family

Surveys of prison inmates show that 55% of state and 63% of federal

prison inmates have children younger than age 18, and 46% of those parents

were living with their children at the time they were admitted to prison

(Mumola, 2000). When fathers are incarcerated, in 90% of cases the chil-

dren’s mother is the primary caregiver. In addition, Mumola found that 57%

of male, state prison inmates had neverhad a personal visit with their children

since their admission to prison. Of the prisoners who did have contact with

their children in 1997, 42% had phone contact, 50% mail contact, and 21%

visits. These figures indicate that the majority of male prisoners are not con-

nected to their children at the most basic level. Such contact could be the

starting point for the development of deeper bonds and attachments that facil-

itate the prisoner’s integration into the family unit while incarcerated, which

provides the basis for a strong support system fostering successful reentry

into the family and community upon release (Casey-Acevedo & Bakken,

2002; Petersilia, 2003).

A recent report issued by the National Institute of Corrections (2002)

detailed the types of services that departments of correction in various states

provide to facilitate family contact with prisoners. Slightly more than half of

the responding departments of correction reported that proximity to family is

one criterion for facility assignment. Of the 54 department of corrections that

responded to the survey, 37% reported providing some type of visitation

assistance, such as transportation services, to families in at least one facility

in their jurisdiction. Moreover,78% of the departments had some type of pol-

32 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / February 2005