Visitation and Misconduct Among Maximum-Security Inmates
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032885520939289 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2020
Article
The Prison Journal
2020, Vol. 100(4) 447 –467
Visitation and
© 2020 SAGE Publications
Article reuse guidelines:
Misconduct Among
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885520939289
DOI: 10.1177/0032885520939289
journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj
Maximum-Security
Inmates
Thomas Reidy1 and Jonathan Sorensen2
Abstract
This study adds to the literature by clarifying the effects of visitation on
serious and violent misconduct among maximum-security inmates through
the application of propensity score matching (PSM). Findings demonstrate
that once the visited and nonvisited groups were matched on covariates of
visitation, major violations were significantly influenced by visitation from
family and friends. The visitation group experienced a 25% reduction in
major, violent, and injurious acts of misconduct. Results are discussed from
the perspective of social support theory.
Keywords
propensity score matching, maximum-security, prison violence, inmate
visitation, social support theory
Introduction
Human social interaction with others is a fundamental need that can shape
behavior and influence adjustment to the rigors, alienation, and deprivations
engendered by prison incarceration (Cochran & Mears, 2013; De Claire &
Dixon, 2017; Leigey, 2015). Serving a prison sentence is an isolating
1Private Practice, Monterey, CA, USA
2East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Thomas J. Reidy, Private Practice, 20 Deer Stalker Path, Monterey, CA 93940, USA.
Email: tomreidy@comcast.net
448
The Prison Journal 100(4)
experience that necessarily disrupts social ties and support from outside the
prison walls. An emerging body of research offers social support theory as a
meaningful framework for understanding the importance of maintaining
social bonds (Meyers et al., 2017). Visitation has been shown to affect desis-
tance from misconduct, reduce feelings of strain and deprivation, and improve
the physical and emotional well-being of inmates (see, for example, De
Claire & Dixon, 2017). Despite the theoretical importance of visitation as a
protective factor reinforcing positive inmate adjustment, visitation can also
have a deleterious effect on prison adjustment if the preprison relationships
were fraught with stress and interpersonal conflicts that engender strain rather
than support (Siennick et al., 2013).
Social support theory, however, is consistent with the bulk of research,
which finds that inmates who maintain social ties with society and bond with
family/friends through visitation generally behave in a more positive manner
and experience fewer disciplinary problems (Bales & Mears, 2008; Cochran
& Mears, 2013; Cochran et al., 2017). One question that remains unanswered,
however, is the effect of visitation on inmates considered the “worst of the
worst” for incorrigible and violent conduct in the community and/or prison
that has resulted in maximum-custody placement. One could postulate, given
the severe deprivations of maximum-security confinement, that social sup-
port in the form of visitation would be especially important to these inmates.
In line with that assumption, one could expect that maximum-security
inmates who receive visits would be incentivized to behave better both as a
result of the visit and to retain the privilege of having future visits. The cur-
rent study sought to investigate this hypothesis.
Maximum-Security Inmates
Maximum-security prisons are designed to house the most violent and danger-
ous criminals, applying an array of restrictions and sanctions not experienced
by inmates at lower security levels (Lanes, 2011). State maximum-security
prisons employ various combinations of double fence lines with razor wire
(some electrified), towers, perimeter patrols, heightened internal security
measures (e.g., metal detectors, increased frequency of cell inspections), and
restricted movement within the walls and outside yards. Inmates in maximum-
security confinement often face long sentences for committing serious crimes,
such as murder, robbery, and sexual assault. Although such inmates are often
placed directly into maximum-security facilities at intake by virtue of their
offense of conviction/sentence, augmented by other classification factors such
as age and criminal history, other inmates “earn” their way into maximum-
security confinement through violent actions or chronic serious misconduct in
Reidy and Sorensen
449
lower custody levels. Maximum-security inmates are considered threats to
society should they ever escape, and to other inmates and staff while incarcer-
ated, thereby justifying heightened security measures, closer surveillance, and
a tighter disciplinary regimen.
Yet, studies have repeatedly found that in spite, or perhaps because, of the
greater scrutiny to which inmates under maximum-security/close custody
confinement are subjected, their rate of misconduct, particularly serious vio-
lence toward inmates and staff, is higher than inmates serving time under less
restrictive conditions (Griffin & Hepburn, 2013; Steiner et al., 2014; Steiner
& Meade, 2016). Although placement in maximum custody is associated
with increased risk of disruptive, serious, and violent behavior, limited scien-
tific literature focuses specifically on this inmate population (Camp et al.,
2003; Worrall & Morris, 2011). The few studies conducted have identified
numerous individual risk factors for violence among inmates housed in high-
security settings, including age, education, race/ethnicity, criminal history,
offense of conviction, sentence length, gang affiliation, a history of prison
violence, and mental health issues (Cunningham & Sorensen, 2007; Schenk
& Fremouw, 2012).
Given the stark conditions faced by hard-to-manage maximum-security
inmates, the demonstration of incentives as tools to insure the safety and
security of other inmates and staff needs further investigation in different
prison contexts. Prison administrators and staff routinely offer or restrict
access to privileges to induce conformity among maximum-security inmates.
Although experienced administrators are well aware of the benefit derived
from the employment of such tactics, their effectiveness in curbing miscon-
duct has seldom been studied among this population (Cunningham et al.,
2016). One inadequately studied privilege that would appear to hold special
promise for controlling misconduct among maximum-security prisoners is
visitation. The purpose of the current study, therefore, is to examine the rela-
tionship between visitation and acts of serious and violent misconduct among
a cohort of maximum-security prisoners.
The Influence of Visitation on Inmate Misconduct
Only recently has the role of visitation been explored as a potential factor
influencing prison misconduct (Cochran & Mears, 2013; Connor &
Tewksbury, 2015; De Claire & Dixon, 2017; Lahm, 2017; Meyers et al.,
2017; Tewksbury et al., 2014). These studies have encompassed male, female,
and pooled samples of inmates across custody levels, but are nonexistent for
inmates housed exclusively in maximum-custody facilities. Visitation with
family and friends is one relatively stable privilege afforded to inmates across
450
The Prison Journal 100(4)
all prison custody levels. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that inmates
had a legal right to visitation, but the Court also determined that prisons could
limit or suspend visitation if necessary to protect inmates and staff (Overton
v. Bazzetta, 2003). Inmates in high-security confinement are at particularly
high risk of having visitation interrupted and curtailed as punishment for seri-
ous institutional violations toward inmates and staff (Cochran & Mears,
2013; Tewksbury et al., 2014). Alternatively, Clark and Duwe (2017) empha-
size that visitation “should be regarded as an effective intervention” (p. 201)
similar to prison programming (e.g., education, substance abuse treatment)
and work assignments designed to foster adjustment and reduce recidivism.
In a recent review of the literature, De Claire and Dixon (2017) concluded
that visitation, as a general rule, had beneficial effects on inmates and resulted
in a reduction in prison infractions. Research results, however, are not unvary-
ingly supportive, and show that visitation may have a deleterious influence
on inmate behavior depending on visitor and inmate characteristics, the qual-
ity of relationships, and exchanges during visits (Jiang & Winfree, 2006;
Meyers et al., 2017). Findings from other studies suggest that the effective-
ness of visitation may vary by degree or type of misconduct examined
(Cochran & Mears, 2013; Lahm, 2008; Tewksbury et al., 2014). The benefits
of visitation may also be temporary, with a fleeting influence on prison mis-
conduct over time (Siennick et al., 2013). In addition, because visitation stud-
ies consistently find that only a small proportion of inmates actually receive
visits (Cochran, 2012; Hickert et al., 2018), nonvisited inmates may be dis-
tinctly different from the visited group with regard to disciplinary infractions,
particularly serious and violent misconduct.
In general, however, imprisonment and extended or permanent separation
from loved ones and friends result in loneliness and a “profound sense of
loss” (Johnson & Mc Gunigall-Smith, 2008). These inmates will miss key
family milestones, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial