Literature Review for PhD doctorate

Clark 43

THERESA A. CLARK, Ph.D. is an assistant professor in the Social Work program at Longwood College in Farmville, Virginia. Address for correspondence: Dr. Theresa A. Clark, Department of Education, Special Education, Social Work and Communication Disorders, Longwood College, 201 High Street, Farmville, VA 23909.

INTRODUCTION Behavior of persons incarcerated has become an increas-

ing issue for prisons and a primary focus of government officials in the Commonwealth of Virginia during the past decade. Dur- ing this time period, the number of prison disturbances has in- creased (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1990). The increase in behavior problems not only raises concern about the safety of inmates, correctional personnel, and the community, but also becomes a critical fiscal issue for the commonwealth because of costs associated with daily operations. Behavior problems are of special concern to social workers who work in numerous correc- tional capacities or to those who have external responsibilities with the families of prisoners. These problems can interfere with the social workers’ interventive strategies and empowerment process. As professionals, social workers focus on person-in-en- vironment processes. Whether employed by the prisons or other human service agencies, social workers cannot afford to ignore behavioral implications for the functioning of individual prison- ers and their family systems.

The Scope of the Problem

In a national survey of state prison inmates, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (1990) reported that the majority of male

The Relationship Between Inmate Visitation and

Behavior: Implications for African American Families

Theresa A. Clark

This study investigated

the relationship between

visitation and inmate

behavior utilizing a non-

experimental,

longitudinal design. A

random sampling was

used to obtain a sample

of 339 male inmates, the

majority of whom were

African American. The

multivariate research

question: “What is the

relative contribution of

visitation by family and

friends on the number of

institutional infractions

by inmates, while taking

into account the effects

of other possible

independent variables?”

44 Journal of African American Men

inmates were charged with rule violations at some point during their stay in prison. Rule violators were defined as, “inmates who were formally charged with or written up for breaking prison rules or regulations” (p. 138). The type of behavior exhibited by an inmate, while in prison, is as important to the prison system as it is to the inmate. The inmate is faced with the possibility of increasing time actually spent in prison or additional punishment, which in the most severe form is solitary confinement. The prison system in America is increasingly being forced to operate under conditions of overcrowding and severe fiscal constraints. There- fore, needing to address any situation outside of the regular daily activity of prison operations appears to be costly in both money and person hours.

It is not surprising that prison problems have increased at the same time as severe overcrowding in our state prisons. “Since 1983, Virginia’s incarceration population has grown on the average at more than 8.9% annually” (Virginia Commission on Prison and Jail Overcrowding, 1989: 1). Data indicate that the numbers of prisoners in our state prisons exceed capacity. “On December 31, 1998, State prisons were operating at be- tween 13% and 22% above capacity, while Federal prisons were operating at 27% above capacity” (Virginia Statistical Abstract, 2000). A major alternative being used to reduce this overcrowd- ing has been relocating prisoners from Virginia prisons to those in other states.

Overcrowding is undoubtedly a significant contributor to the increase in prison disturbances; however, a solution that moves prisoners to other states has the consequence of reduc- ing the likelihood that prisoners will receive visits from their fami- lies and friends. A study conducted by Jackson, Templer, Reimer, and LeBaron (1997) indicates that “incarcerating inmates in a prison closer to their home would increase the probability of visitation” (83). While the general public may have little sympa- thy for this situation, there is some indication that visitation has positive effects for prisoners, and ultimately, the community. For example, research has shown a link between the frequency of visitation and postrelease success for prisoners (Bayse, Allgood, and Wyk, 1991; Brodsky, 1975; Carlson and Cervera, 1991; Holt and Miller, 1972). Visitations can strengthen family systems that have been negatively impacted by the absence of husbands, sons, and fathers. There is also some suggestion that regular visita- tion may reduce the number of behavior problems among in- carcerated individuals (Bennett, 1987). In predicting an inmate’s psychological well-being, frequency of visitation was one of the variables found to be significant in a study conducted by

Clark 45

Wooldredge (1999). However, more study is needed to deter- mine if there is a significant relationship between visitation and inmates’ behavior while incarcerated.

Prison Population

State prison systems are experiencing increased problems in serving inmates, in part, due to overcrowding, inadequate funds, employee attrition rates, inadequate facilities, and in- creased crime within prison walls. Administrations attuned to social work values are particularly frustrated by the limitations of the systems that employ them. Statistics indicate that the num- ber of individuals in contact with the criminal justice system in the United States is overwhelming, and that the number of those incarcerated has increased each year (Bureau of Justice Statis- tics, 1991). The national corrections population, which includes individuals on probation, in jail, in prison and on parole, grew from over 1.8 million, in 1980 to more than four million in 1989, a 120.4 percent change (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1990). More recent data indicate that “5.5 million adults in the United States were under correctional supervision in 1996” (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999:1). The number of adult prisoners in the United States has grown from 882,500 in 1992 to 1,302,019 in 1998 (Bu- reau of Justice Statistics, 1998). During this time period, 94 per- cent of the total inmate population were males, which remained constant at 94 percent (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998).

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that despite the increase in the nation’s prison inmate population, certain char- acteristics remained the same (1991). For example, “the popula- tion remained mostly male, minority, young, low-income, high-school dropouts, drug users or offenders, teen parents and recidivists” (1991: 3; 1996). Approximately 65 percent were ra- cial or ethnic minorities (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1991) and unchanged at year end 1997 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998), suggesting that this group is going to be disproportionately af- fected by what happens inside the prison.

African American Men in Prison

Although the adult male prison population was com- prised of approximately 42 percent African American males in 1997 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998), which has remained rela- tively stable over a seven year period, African American males represent just 6 percent of the national population (U.S. Statis- tical Abstracts, 1999). The over-representation of African Ameri- can males in the U.S. prison system appears to have a deleterious effect on the development and maintenance of African Ameri-

46 Journal of African American Men

can families. Some of the strengths historically germane to the African American family may be weakened. For example, “strong kinship bonds, strong work orientation and high achievement orientation” (Hill, 1972: 37) may be interrupted due to the in- carceration of the African American male. Hill defines strengths as, “those traits which facilitate the ability of the family to meet the needs of its members and the demands made upon it by systems outside the family unit, necessary for the survival and maintenance of effective family networks” (1972:3). More cur- rent work by Hill (1993) indicates that contact with the criminal justice system, especially the disproportional incarceration of African American men, contributes to the disintegration of the African American family unit.

According to Hill, some of the factors contributing to the disintegration of the African American family unit are “the for- mation of black single-parent families, males less available as marriage partners, barriers to legitimate employment or steady employment, and that incarceration keeps them [inmates] from their wives and girlfriends for long periods of time” (Hill, 1993: 81). When families disintegrate, additional stress is placed on human service systems.

Barriers to Maintaining Family Ties

Incarceration of prisoners is painful for the prisoner and causes disruption of relationships and communication with the outside world, especially with the family. The only means of maintaining contact is through letters, telephone calls, and visi- tation. But, there are limitations to using these methods to main- tain family ties (Carlson and Cervera, 1992). Some of the limitations are imposed by prison policy. For example, policy per- taining to face-to-face visitation is stringent and limited. In part, this is due to the costs and person-hours for staff needed to su- pervise the visitation (White, personal communication, 1994). Within the prison system, visitation programs are sometimes in- adequate when coupled with limited physical resources and un- derstaffed correctional institutions. Inmate visitation requires the implementation of policy procedures that are in addition to the daily responsibilities of the prison staff.

Visitation is allowed only on Saturdays, Sundays, and le- gal holidays in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Moreover, in some states, visitation may be interrupted by prison policy, which man- dates a minimum of four prison lock-downs a year (Virginia De- partment of Corrections, personal communication, 1994). Prison lock-downs mandate that inmates remain in their individual cells for a specified period of time. The length of time depends on

Clark 47

the time required by prison staff to search for contraband or to resolve an emergency situation.

There have been a number of attempts to encourage visi- tation of family members to inmates in prison by concerned groups in Virginia. For example, several of the policy recommen- dations were made by the First National Leadership Conference on Families of Adult Offenders held in Virginia in 1986 relative to strengthening the offender family unit.

Despite policy recommendations pertaining to family con- tact to strengthen the family ties of adult offenders, family mem- bers and inmates still face barriers. For example, prisons are usually built in remote and rural areas, while most inmate fami- lies live in metropolitan areas (Bennett, 1987). The combination of low family income and the distance to the prison facility re- duces the chance of regular visitation, especially if the family does not own a vehicle, or is without funds to utilize public trans- portation, if available. In addition, if there are means of public transportation available such as buses, they generally stop in towns close to the prison, and this leaves the visitor with prob- lems reaching the facility from the bus stop. Family members who have to rely on others, such as relatives and friends, to ob- tain transportation, child care, or financial assistance, find that these are not always reliable resources (Jorgensen, Hernandez, and Warren, 1986; White, personal communication, 1994).

Visitation and Prisoner Behavior

The importance of family systems does not appear to rep- resent a significant rehabilitating factor to prison administra- tion. This, in part, is a result of a societal movement over the past three decades to punish criminals as opposed to rehabili- tating them. The increase in crime rates and recidivism in the United States, during this period of time, provided the impetus for society to question the effectiveness of prison rehabilitation programs and the punishment given for criminal activity. As a result, a decrease in the emphasis on rehabilitation and an in- crease in stiffer penalties, especially the use of prisons, have emerged (Flanagan, 1995; Blumstein, 1989; Selke, 1993). More- over, Jorgensen, Hernadez, and Warren (1986) indicate that fami- lies are not the focal point in the rehabilitation planning process for inmates. Also, social service agencies, which may be equipped to strengthen family ties, may not be providing sufficient ser- vices to families of those incarcerated. Hairston and Lockett (1987) noted that many social service agencies have ignored the need to strengthen the family relationships between parents who are in prison and their children, and other family members.

48 Journal of African American Men

The maintenance of family relations through regular visi- tation to individuals incarcerated in prisons and the effect on recidivism has been the focus of a number of studies over the past several decades. For example, the frequency of visits be- tween family members and prisoners has been linked to posi- tive outcomes, both in prison and post-institutional release, according to a study conducted by Bennett (1987). A significant number of studies have indicated a positive correlation between family visits and the reduction in recidivism (Brodsky, 1975; Fishman and Alissi, 1979; Holt and Miller, 1972). Moreover, sev- eral studies have found that the maintenance of healthy family relations while a family member was incarcerated was a key in- dicator in reducing recidivism (Bayce, Allgood and Wyk, 1991; Bennett, 1987; Carlson and Cervera, 1992; Holt and Miller, 1972; Jorgensen, Hernandez and Warren, 1986).

Although recent studies of visits to inmates focused on the relationship between the visits to inmates and the family system, there appears to be a paucity of empirical research on the relationship of prison visitation to the inmate’s behavior while in prison. Yet, this is also an important issue to the indi- vidual, family, and the institution. Bennett, in his study of prison visitation noted, “there are very few studies available about in- mate visits and the relationships of such visits to institutional adjustment, program participation, continuation of the marriage or general post-institutional adjustment” (1987: 2). An individual who is in a new environment will encounter physical, social, emotional, and psychological changes. Maintaining contacts through telephone, letters, or visits from those closely associ- ated with the inmate could facilitate adjustments that would reduce the possibility of the inmate exhibiting negative behav- ior.

Inmate behavior has been studied from different perspec- tives to include race as a salient variable. There are indications that a relationship between societal experiences and inmate behavior of black males exists and that blacks view the prison system similarly regardless of the geographic area from which they come (Leger and Barnes, 1986). “Many blacks believe they are victims of a racist criminal justice system, and these beliefs are intensified as the number of encounters with the system in- creases” (Leger and Barnes, 1986, p. 120). It is therefore logical to assume from this study and others that there is a need to provide support networks for inmates, especially black inmates, to reduce behavior problems.

It is possible that prisoners will continue to have hope for their future if they maintain contact with their families, and

Clark 49

there may be a reduction in the prisoner’s negative adaptation to the prison environment (Jorgensen, Hernandez and Warren, 1986). This type of negative adaptation has been termed prisonization and has been defined as

a process that includes accepting the subordinate role into which one is thrust as an inmate, developing new habits of sleeping, dressing, eating, and working; undergoing status degradation; adopting a new language; and learning that one is dependent on others (including one’s fellow inmates) for the scarce pleasures found in incarceration, including food, work assignment, freedom from assault, and privileges (Allen and Simonsen, 1992: 379–380).

The process of becoming prisonized will have an impact on the behavior of the prisoner. While not all inmates become prisonized, according to a study conducted by Wheeler (1978), those who do become prisonized are less likely to conform to staff expectations.

There appears to be a correlation between prisonization and visitation. Schwartz and Weintraub (1974) found that infre- quent visits led to an increase in prisonization. Conversely, “the maintenance of contact between the inmate and his spouse, children, extended family members, and friends assists him in [positively] adjusting to the prison environment” (Carlson and Cervera, 1992, p. 36). Adjustment to the prison environment may reduce the level of inmate prisonization and could lead to a re- duction in behavioral problems. Secondly, the prison culture re- quires new roles for the inmate. This new prison culture rarely leads to the development of new positive roles for the prisoner. Prisonization appears to thrust the inmate into a subordinate role (Allen and Simonsen, 1992). This process could lead to a decrease in positive feelings about self and thus the develop- ment of a lower self-esteem. For example, if the inmate desires to, but is unable to maintain the role of head of household sim- ply because of his current situation, he becomes frustrated (Jorgensen, Hernandez and Warren, 1986). Consequently, it is probable that prisonization could foster negative behavior by the inmate.

Importance of Study

National statistics and studies indicate the need to fur- ther investigate the relationship between visitation and inmate behavior. Also, the importance of using visitation as a rehabili- tative tool, if supported by research, could positively impact both inmate adjustments to prison and prison costs. The national sur-

50 Journal of African American Men

vey of state prison inmates in 1986 reported that punishments for rule violators were diverse. For example, punishments in- volved “solitary confinement or segregation, forfeiting of good time, confined to cell or quarters, loss of entertainment or rec- reation liberties and loss of commissary privileges, formal repri- mands, extra work or transfers to other institutions or higher custody levels and a small percentage received no punishment or received suspended punishment” (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1990: 138). “The state and, ultimately, the taxpayer build pris- ons and hire personnel to monitor and control inmates. Institu- tional misconduct requires not only the use of special facilities designed for prisoners who pose behavior problems, but also the special attention of prison staff, and can be viewed as fi- nancially costly. Other monetary costs can be measured in terms of health care and lost work time resulting from incidents where misconduct assumes the form of serious interpersonal violence” (Goetting and Howsen, 1986, p. 50).

The need to investigate the relationship between visita- tion and inmate behavior is significant to the development of future prison rehabilitation policies and programs. Also, the un- derstanding of how the relationship, positive or negative, im- pacts the individual system (inmate), family system, or the prison system will offer theoretical and methodological concepts to aid in social work practice. Additionally, the following are signifi- cant reasons to justify this study: (a) the potential use of visita- tion as a rehabilitative tool in future prison planning and policy issues; (b) the concern for the level of prisonization and its rela- tionship to the behavior of male inmates; (c) the recognition of the positive relationship between visits, inmate recidivism and inmate behavior; and (d) the disproportionately represented black males in the prison system impact on the black family.

The importance of the relationship of regular visitation by family and friends to male prison inmates and their behavior while in prison should be examined using the most rigorous re- search methods possible. An investigation to determine if a re- lationship exists between visitation and inmate behavior will increase the awareness and the knowledge base in social work and in criminal justice fields.

METHODOLOGY Data used in this study were collected from inmate files

maintained in two prison facilities housing male felons in the Commonwealth of Virginia. A random sample was drawn from the total prison populations of inmates who were incarcerated in fiscal year 1995. It was determined that a 12-month time pe-

Clark 51

riod would provide a general pattern of visitation and inmate behavior. Inmate records were examined to determine the fre- quency of visits from relatives and friends, the positive and nega- tive behavior of the inmates, and demographic information on each inmate.

Research Design

A non-experimental, longitudinal research design is em- ployed in this study to determine if there is a relationship be- tween visitation and inmate behavior. This design was selected to allow the researcher to gather data over an extended time to allow for identification of variances and patterns in visita- tion and behavior of inmates.

Using this research design, several variables were included to control for demographic differences among inmates that may potentially influence visitation or behavior. These variables in- clude age, race, marital status, and number of children. In addi- tion, variables related to their incarceration status were also included. These were the types of previous crimes committed, the number of previous incarcerations, incarceration date, length of prison sentence, and with whom the inmate resided at the time of incarceration.

Data Sources

The data sources in this study were comprised of written and computerized prison administrative files. They included: (a) inmate files, (b) disciplinary infraction records, (c) prison program participation records and (d) visitation records.

The primary independent variable, visitation, was defined as the number of face-to-face contacts each month, between the visitor and inmate, during prison visitation, from July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995. Visitor names are recorded individually in the prison visitation records.

To address reliability and validity of the count, approxi- mately 10 percent of the sample was reviewed for accuracy. Ten inmate files were reviewed in Prison Site Min and 25 were re- viewed in Prison Site Max. Data were collected for each variable in the study. On a follow-up visit, the files were again reviewed and a comparison of the collected data to the information in the files revealed no discrepancies. In addition, the researcher was the only individual collecting the data, thus insuring a level of consistency.

The dependent variable, institutional infractions, was defined by the number of documented rule infractions an in- mate accrued during the sample time frame. Rule infractions are

52 Journal of African American Men

violations of the Code of Inmate Offenses or posted institutional rules.

A computerized program (PRSN) was developed by Bell Services of Roanoke, Virginia to enter the data collected in this study. The program allowed the data to be entered and retrieved alphabetically (inmate names), by sample number, or by inmate identification number. Safety features were built into the pro- gram to lessen data entry error rates.

Statistical Analyses

In this study, univariate procedures were employed to describe the sample population and multivariate procedures were employed to answer the research question. Multiple re- gression analyses allowed several independent variables to be entered into an equation to investigate their predictive power relative to the dependent variable.

RESULTS Three hundred thirty-nine male felons from two Virginia

prison sites comprised the sample for this study. Demographic and background variable information, which is listed in Table 1, was obtained through univariate analysis. These data provide an overview of the sample characteristics. In summary, the pro- file of this inmate sample appears to be representative of male felon inmates housed in Virginia prisons and across the United States. Specifically, there is a disproportionate number of Afri- can American males incarcerated and the total sample has less than a high school education (Selke, 1993; Carlson and Cervera, 1991). The mean age reported by inmates was 34.3 years. Data also show that the majority of inmates had never been married. However, slightly more than one half (51%) of the inmates re- ported having children. Criminal history and incarceration vari- ables, listed in Table 2, were also obtained through univariate analysis.

Through multivariate analysis, five different models were tested to answer the research question. The first model tested included an analysis of the total sample of the primary inde- pendent variable, total visitation, and all of the other indepen- dent variables. The results of this test contributed to the decision to explore this study’s research question through the develop- ment of four additional models. One model included the total sample and four models selected out sub-samples from the data set.

Clark 53

All of the models were significant in predicting variation in the dependent variable of the number of inmate infractions, but visitation by family and friends to incarcerated males was not found to be a significant predictor variable in any of the models (Table 3). Age was consistently a significant predictor variable in four of the five models, with younger inmates re- ceiving higher numbers of institutional infractions. Furthermore, in Model 1, which involved analysis of the total sample, number of years incarcerated, race, prison education program participa- tion, and also prison self-help program participation emerged as significant predictor variables. Some of these variables emerged in the other models tested, as well; significant at either

TABLE 1

General Demographic and Background Variables

Variable Test Statistics

Age M + 34.3, SD + 7.86

Race African-American 67%, n = 228 Caucasian 31%, n = 105 Hispanic 1%, n = 4 Asian .3%, n = 1 Native American .3%, n = 1 Other .3%, n = 1

Education M = 9.7, SD = 2.52

Marital Status Married 17%, n = 58 Never Married 62%, n = 212 Divorced 12%, n = 40 Widowed 3%, n = 9 Separated 7%, n = 22

Number of Children M = .91, SD = 1

Living Status Wife/Girlfriend 22%, n = 74 Child(ren) 2%, n = 5 Mother 36%, n = 122 Father 9%, n = 32 Stepmother 2%, n = 6 Stepfather 2%, n = 8 Other 38%, n = 129

54 Journal of African American Men

TABLE 2

Criminal History and Incarceration Variables

Variable Test Statistic

Prison Min 25%, n = 85 Max 74%, n = 250

Current Offense Most Serious 44%, n = 151 Serious 35%, n = 118 Less Serious 8%, n = 28 Least Serious 3%, n = 44

Sentence M = 59, SD = 84

Years of Incarceration M = 8, SD = 5

Previous Incarceration M = .69, SD = .89

Prison education program 77%, n = 264 Prison self-help program 82%, n = 280 Prison work program 84%, n = 286

Number of Visits M = 7, SD = 16 Institutional Infractions M = .82, SD = .15

the p<. 05 or p<. 10 level (number of years incarcerated, partici- pation in self-help programs, and participation in prison educa- tion programs).

Two additional variables also emerged in the analysis of late models. Specifically, offense levels were significant at the p<. 10, with more serious offenses being associated with higher numbers of institutional infractions. Participation in prison work programs may also be a significant predictor (p<. 10), with those inmates who did not participate in work having higher num- bers of infractions. Taken as a whole, findings from the five models suggested the following. African American participants received a higher number of infractions, while the more years that one was incarcerated was associated with lower number of infractions. Also, participation in prison education or work pro- grams was associated with more institutional infractions. Finally, inmates with more serious offenses were more likely to have more institutional infractions.

Clark 55

TABLE 3

Summary of Five Models of Multiple Regression Analyses: Significant Predictors of Institutional Infractions

Model Sample Size Significant Predictor Variables

Model 1 325 Age (total sample) (negative relationship)*

Number of Years Incarcerated (negative relationship)*

Prison Self-help Program (positive relationship)*

Prison Education Program (negative relationship)*

Race (African-American participants)*

Model 2 221 Age (African-American) (negative relationship)*

Prison Education Program (negative relationship)t

Prison Self-help Program (positive relationship)t

Model 3 102 Age (non African-American) (negative relationship)*

Model 4 244 Age (Maximum Prison Site) (negative relationship)*

Race (African-American participant)

Prison Self-help (positive relationship)t

Prison Education Program (negative relationship)t

Number of Years Incarcerated (negative relationship)t

Offense (negative relationship)t

Model 5 79 Number of Years Incarcerated (Minimum Prison Site) (negative relationship)*

Prison Self-help Program (positive relationship)*

Prison Work Program (negative relationship)t

Note: * = significant, p < .05; t = statistical trend, p < .10

56 Journal of African American Men

DISCUSSION The findings from this study must be interpreted within

the limitations of the study’s methodology. Methodological limi- tations are evident in the areas of design, sampling, measure- ment, and data analysis restrictions. Specifically, due to the longitudinal, correlational nature of the study design, no causal inferences can be made about the relationship between any of the significant independent variables identified and the depen- dent variable. Although some of the independent variables are associated with the dependent variable in this study, a cause and effect relationship cannot be established. Prison policies and pro- tection of human rights prevented the use of an experimental design to answer the multivariate research question in this study.

Second, the method of sampling in this study was sys- tematic sampling. Although this sampling method meets the requirements for probability sampling, the findings in this study can be generalized only to the two prison sites during the time frame of this study. Further, generalizations to other prison sites in Virginia or throughout the United States cannot be made.

Third, data collected in this study were collected from existing information, or secondary analysis of available data. Fourth, one of the assumptions of regression analyses is that variables are measured in a continuous data format. Three vari- ables were recoded using dummy variables to comply with this rule. Fifth, there were data restrictions, which prevented the full exploration of the dependent (institutional infractions) and pri- mary independent variable (number of visits). Data on the type of institutional infraction were not collected. For example, it is not known if the infraction was for being in the wrong place or for physically assaulting another inmate or correctional em- ployee.

Further studies are needed to determine if a relationship exists between visitation and institutional infractions. Other ap- proaches to studying inmate institutional behavior, other than utilization of institutional records, must be considered. For ex- ample, self-report measures or observations of inmates may be effective. Future research might focus on diverse methods to prepare data for statistical analyses. The dependent variable, institutional infractions, could be dichotomized into zero infrac- tions and some infractions, which would allow the data to be analyzed employing different methods, such as logistic regres- sion or discriminant function analysis.

Since, in other studies, visitation to inmates has been found to relate to positive family functioning and lower recidi- vism, further investigation of the concept and its relationship to

Clark 57

inmate behavior should be explored. In this study, the explora- tion of the relationship between visitation and inmate behavior was limited because of the use of secondary data analyses. Full exploration of this relationship has not occurred in this study, but this study has used rigorous research methods in an area not previously studied. Although there was no relationship found in this study between visitation and inmate infractions, logically one would think that the potential of a relationship exists. Given the relatively low explained variance in all of the tested models, it is possible that other variables, upon examination, might have a relationship to inmate infractions. For example, the concept of prisonization or gang affiliation might be explored in rela- tionship to institutional infractions.

This study appears to be the only existing study to exam- ine the relationship between visitation and institutional infrac- tions by defining visitation and infractions as actual counts of the number of visits or the number of institutional infractions. Therefore, no definitive conclusions may be drawn. This study is preliminary, and continued research, using diverse definitions of each variable, should occur as a follow-up to this study. Using diverse definitions of each variable should occur as a follow-up to this study. Only with further knowledge of the relationship between visitation and inmate behavior can we begin to sug- gest possible interventive strategies for Social Workers and other helping professionals.

58 Journal of African American Men

References

Allen, H. E. & Simonsen, C. F. (1992). Corrections in America: An introduction. New York: Macmillan.

Bayse, D.J., Allgood, S.M., & Wyk, P.H. (1991). Family life education: An effective tool for prisoner rehabilita- tion. Family Relations, 40, 254–257.

Bennett, L.A. (1987). What has happened to prison vis- iting? Current use of rehabilitative tool. Paper pre- sented at the annual meeting, American Society of Criminology, Montreal, Canada.

Blumstein, A. (1989). American prisons in a time of cri- sis. The American prison: Issues in research and policy. Law, Society, and Policy, 4, 13–22.

Brodsky, S.L. (1975). Families and friends of men in prison: The uncertain relationship. Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Co.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (1990). Washington, DC: Gov- ernment Printing Office.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (1991). Washington, DC: Gov- ernment Printing Office.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (1998). Washington, DC: Gov- ernment Printing Office.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (1999). Washington, DC: Gov- ernment Printing Office.

Carlson, B.E. and Cervera, J.J. (1991). Incarceration, cop- ing, and support. Social Work, 36(4), 279–285.

Carlson, B.E. & Cervera, J.J. (1992). Inmates and their wives: Incarceration and family life. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Fishman, S.H. & Alissi, A.S. (1979). Strengthening fami- lies as natural support systems for offenders. Federal Probation, 16–21.

Flanagan, T.J. (Ed.) (1995). Long-term imprisonment policy, science, and correctional practice. California: Sage.

Goetting, A. & Howsen, R.M. (1986). Correlates of pris-

oners misconduct. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2(1), 49–67.

Hairston, C.F. and Lockett, P.W. (1987). Parents in prison: New directions for social services. Social Work, 32, 162– 164.

Hill, R. (1972). The strengths of black families. New York: Emerson Hall.

Hill, R. (1993). Research on the African-American fam- ily: A holistic perspective. Connecticut: Auburn House.

Holt, N. & Miller, D. (1972). Explorations in inmate-fam- ily relationships. Sacramento, Calif.: California Depart- ment of Corrections.

Jackson, P., Templer, D.I., Reimer, W., & LeBaron, D. (1997). Correlates of visitation in Criminology, 41 (1), 79–85.

Jorgensen, J.D., Hernandez, S.H., & Warren, R.C. (1986). Addressing the social needs of families of prisoners: A tool for inmate rehabilitation. Federal Probation, 50,(4), 47–52.

Leger, B.R. & Barnes, H.G. (1986). Black attitudes in prison: A sociological analysis. Journal of Criminal Jus- tice 14, 105–122.

Selke, W.L. (Ed.) (1993). Prisons in crisis. Indiana: Indi- ana University.

Schwartz, M.C. & Weintraub, J. (1974). The prisoner’s wife: A study in crisis. Federal Probation, 38(20–26).

U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1999 (119th ed.). Washington, DC.

Virginia Commission on Prison and Jail Overcrowding. (1989). Commission on prison and jail overcrowding (NCJ Publication No. 121577).

Virginia Statistical Abstract (2000). Weldon Cooper Cen- ter for Public Service. University of Virginia , Charlottesville.

Virginia Department of Corrections (Personal Commu- nication, 1994).

Wheeler, G. R. (1978). Counterdeterrence: A report on juvenile sentencing and effects of prisonization. Chi- cago: Nelson Hall.

White, S. (personal communication, 1994). Wooldredge, J.D. (1999). Inmate experiences and psy-

chological well-being. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(2), 235–250.