Male Inmate Perceptions of the Visitation Experience

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 family members and friends for support and assistance. Yet, with incarceration 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 during incarceration, imprisonment can significantly change or sever familial contacts 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 perspective. Children of incarcerated parents are at a higher risk of adult criminality 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 suggest 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.

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 incarcerated 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, studies 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 sample 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 correctional 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 incarcerated 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, 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 distance can further weaken already stressed familial relationships (Carlson & Cervera, 1991). Forced separation can lead to withdrawal and emotional termination of relationships (Apel, Blokland, Nieuwbeerta, & van Schellen, 2010), including the incarcerated individual expressing reluctance to participate in visitation (Miller, 2006).

Maintaining visitation with a child may be even more difficult than visitation 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 visitation room, or the policies of the particular institution (Arditti, 2005). Research has established that visitors are often treated poorly during correctional 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 familial 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 the incarcerated individual being involuntarily separated from the family and subsequently emotionally and physically absent (Breen, 1995). This separation is distinguishable from families separated through breakup, divorce, or death (Miller, 2006). Incarcerated men, their wives, and children often experience negative outcomes, such as stress, mental health symptoms (Carlson & Cervera, 1992, Hairston & Lockett, 1987, Houck & Loper, 2002; Loper, Carlson, Levitt, & Scheffel, 2009; Showalter & Jones, 1980; Wildeman, 2011), and lack of social support (Arditti, 2005; Boswell & Wedge, 2002; Braman, 2003; Sack, 1977; Sack & Seidler, 1978; Sack, Seidler, & Thomas, 1976; Schoenbauer, 1986; Shaw, 1987, 1992).

Among married men, those who are incarcerated are nearly twice as likely to divorce or separate compared with married men who had never been incarcerated (Lopoo & Western, 2005). Furthermore, divorce is most likely to occur during the period of incarceration (Lopoo & Western, 2005). Although there is some evidence that having children increases the likelihood that the marriage will not dissolve (Becker, 1973; Becker, Landes, & Michael, 1977), incarceration is a risk for separation among new parents (Western et al., 2004). Mass incarceration has resulted in an increased number of single-parent families (Arditti, 2003), negatively affecting the incarcerated father as well as the mothers and children (Arditti, 2003; Braman, 2004; Carlson & Cervera, 1992; Comfort, 2008; Fishman, 1990; Lowenstein, 1986; Morris, 1965; Nurse, 2004; Schwartz & Weintraub, 1974).

Nearly one quarter of the 75 million children living within the United States live with a single-mother family (Mather, 2010). Although, being raised by a single parent is not uncommon, being raised by a single parent due to parental incarceration may affect the child(ren) differently (Arditti, 2003; Juby & Farrington, 2001; Murray & Farrington, 2005, 2008; Rodgers & Pryor, 1998; Rutter, Giller, & Hagell, 1998). Gable and Johnston (1995) argued that “children suffer deeply when their parent is taken away from them and imprisoned” (p. 89). The children may feel as if they too are being punished and find their current situation stressful and disruptive (Hairston & Lockett, 1987; Showalter & Jones, 1980). These youth often experience feelings of abandonment and isolation, and their situation rarely fosters sympathy from others (Boswell & Wedge, 2002; Sack, 1977; Sack & Seidler, 1978; Sack et al., 1976; Schoenbauer, 1986; Shaw 1987, 1992). The effects include anger, school failure, delinquency, and drug or alcohol abuse to ease the pain of losing a parent (Gable & Johnston, 1995; Hoffman et al., 2010; R. C. Johnson, 2009; Murray & Farrington, 2005, 2008; Travis et al., 2005). Children of imprisoned parents are also at an increased risk of subsequent criminality (Eddy & Reid, 2003; Hoffman et al., 2010; R. C. Johnson, 2009; Lipsey & Derzon, 1998; Woldoff & Washington, 2008). More specifically, male children separated from a parent due to incarceration are at a higher risk of adult incarceration than male children not separated from a parent or separated from a parent for reasons other than incarceration (Murray & Farrington, 2005).

Correctional programming does offer opportunities to assist parent inmates and their families. The majority of correctional institutions appear to offer some level of programming designed to enhance family functioning (Clement, 1993; Hoffman et al., 2010; Loper & Tuerk, 2011; Pollock, 2002; Waldman & Hercik, 2002), with parenting classes being the most common form (Hoffman et al., 2010; Pollock, 2002). However, a U.S. Census Bureau survey of prison programming found only 1% of incarcerated men reported participating (Morash, Haar, & Rucker, 1994).

Improving Familial Relationships

According to Carlson and Cervera (1992), correctional facilities were likely to neglect programming focusing on the unique needs of incarcerated men and their families. These authors noted three basic inmate needs in relation to their families: social support and meaningful family member communication; educational programming focused on family life; and access to counseling to address individual, couple, and family unit needs. A combination of such services could help inmates maintain relations with loved ones, cope with their incarceration, and assist in preparing for family and community reunification upon release.

Specific to incarcerated fathers, Eddy et al.’s (2008) extensive focus groups with incarcerated fathers found that they identified different needs from those addressed in typical parenting programs. Inmate fathers expressed particular interest in parenting from prison via letter writing, telephone calls, and visits. They indicated a desire for assistance in how to “guide, limit set and discipline their children” through these three communication modes (p. 90). Kazura’s (2001) needs assessment of incarcerated parents further found that they requested information about establishing relationships through improving trust and communication with their children. The quality of the relationship between an incarcerated parent and child can either positively or negatively affect the degree of a child’s adjustment to his or her parent’s incarceration (Miller, 2006).

In addition to prison programming, visitation environments can affect the quality of contact between inmates and their families. There is evidence that the conditions of many visiting facilities are inadequate and not conducive to quality family visits (Hairston, 1998; Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008; Richards et al., 1994). Negative visitation experiences may further undermine any potential value of the family visit (Arditti, 2005). These findings suggest that altering prison programming and visitation facilities based on inmate needs may foster improved relationships between incarcerated men and their families. Based on prior research, maintaining and improving familial contact and relationships have the potential for reducing the likelihood of intergenerational criminality. In addition, familial contact has also been shown to reduce disciplinary infractions, increase the chances of successful parole, and decrease recidivism. Identifying the familial and visitation needs of the incarcerated could subsequently prove beneficial to inmates, their families, and communities.

The Current Study

The administration of a southwestern state correctional facility was interested in obtaining inmate suggestions on establishing family-centered services to better meet the needs of their inmates and families. At the time of the study, the correctional facility offered prison family programming through community volunteers. Focused on inmates and their family members, the programming philosophy was that familial contact could proactively reduce crime by “guiding the children of offenders toward a better alternative and by helping to reduce the rate of recidivism” (unpublished flyer, n.d.). In addition, the correctional facility had a within-the-walls visitor’s center whose purpose was to have a local site to assist visitors.

Institutional Review Board access was granted to survey and interview incarcerated men within a correctional facility minimum security unit. This unit was selected by the correctional facility administration for its lack of disciplinary infractions and higher rates of visitation compared with other housing units. The unit housed no more than 50 men at any given time, who had less than 2½ years until release. All inmates residing within this unit were asked to participate in a needs assessment survey specific to familial programming and the visitation experience. Surveys were provided in English and Spanish, and the researcher was available during survey dissemination to address any human subject review concerns or answer any survey-specific questions. Furthermore, each survey participant could also volunteer to take part in a later scheduled one-on-one interview regarding issues addressed in the survey. A total of 32 men (64%) participated in the study.

Results

The majority of the sample were English-speaking, Hispanic, unmarried fathers, who worked full-time prior to their incarceration, and had at least a high school diploma or a general education diploma (GED). The mean age of respondents was 35.3 years. Prior to incarceration, the majority of the respondents lived with their spouse/partner and at least one child (See Table 1).

Table 1.

Characteristics of Respondents (N = 32).

Descriptor	n	%
Self-identified race/ethnicity
White, Hispanic	22	68.7
White, non-Hispanic	8	25.0
Other	2	6.3
Primary language
English	20	62.5
Spanish	12	37.5
Current marital status
Single	10	31.3
Married	8	25.0
Divorced/separated	8	25.0
Committed relationship	5	15.5
Widowed	1	3.2
Highest level of education
No high school diploma	9	28.2
High school diploma/GED	8	25.0
Vocational/Associate degree	13	40.5
Bachelor’s degree	2	6.3
Employment status (pre-incarceration)
Full-time employment	20	62.5
Part-time employment	4	12.5
Unemployed	6	18.7
Retired	2	6.3
Lived with (pre-incarceration)
Spouse/partner	20	62.5
Parent(s)	11	34.3
Sibling	1	3.2
Have children
Yes	26	81.3
No	6	18.7
Lived with child(ren) (pre-incarceration)
Yes	17	53.1
No	15	46.9

Note. GED = general education diploma.

The Nature of Familial Contact

Of the sample, 81.3% were fathers with an average of two children. The youngest child had not yet reached the age of 1, and the eldest child was 40 years old as of the survey administration date. All of the children within this sample were 18 or younger at the time of their father’s incarceration at this particular facility; more than half (53.1%) of the children lived with their father up until his incarceration. The majority of the fathers (61.5%) have had some form of contact with their children since their imprisonment. However, 37.5% had never had a visit from their child(ren) and 38.5% of these men reported no form of contact with their child(ren) since their incarceration (See Table 2).

Table 2.

Contact Between Inmate and Child(ren) (n = 26).

Descriptor	n	%
Contact with child(ren) since incarceration
Yes	16	61.5
No	10	38.5
Frequency of phone calls to child(ren)
At least once per month	9	56.3
Less than once per month	4	25.0
Never	3	18.7
Frequency of letters from child(ren)
At least one per month	8	50.0
Less than once per month	6	37.5
Never	2	12.5
Frequency of visits from child(ren)
At least once per month	4	25.0
Less than once per month	6	37.5
Never	6	37.5

Not all inmates within the unit had children and even for those who did, contact with their wives, fiancés, girlfriends, parents, grandparents, siblings, or extended family was seen as equally important. Of the inmates residing within the unit, nearly a quarter (24.1%) had not had a single visit from a family member since their incarceration. The majority of the men, however, had either mail (75.9%) or telephone (65.5%) contact with a family member, other than their children, since their incarceration. Nearly 10% (9.4%) of the surveyed inmates had no contact with their family since their incarceration (See Table 3).

Table 3.

Contact Between Inmate and Family, Not Including Children (N = 32).

Descriptor	n	%
Contact with family since incarceration
Yes	29	90.6
No	3	9.4
Frequency of phone calls to family
At least once per month	19	65.6
Less than once per month	5	17.2
Never	5	17.2
Frequency of letters from family
At least one per month	22	75.9
Less than once per month	4	13.8
Never	3	10.3
Frequency of visits from family
At least once per month	22	75.9
Less than once per month	0	0.0
Never	7	24.1

Perceived Familial Impact of Incarceration

A number of themes emerged from the surveys and interview responses specific to the perceived familial impact of incarceration. Many of the incarcerated men discussed how the behavior of their partner had changed and how they felt that this change, in addition to their incarceration, led to the downfall of their relationships. For example, one inmate expressed, “The mom of my daughter drinks and parties a lot and dates my friends so they will tell me about it and that hurts.” While another stated, “By not being there [at home], she is living with other men so they can economically help her out. Our divorce is due to my incarceration and her unfaithfulness.”

The incarcerated fathers also showed a great concern for the impact on their children. The respondents were more likely to express their feelings about their separation from their children versus their separation from other family members. Parenting surfaced as a primary concern among all inmate fathers. In the section of the survey titled, “Parenting Issues,” six of the 12 concerns were identified by more than 50% of the respondents as concerns with which the fathers expressed wanting help (See Table 4). The issues most identified were as follows:

Talking with my children about my incarceration; Looking for harmful signs in my children; Caring for my children from afar; Issues of my children visiting me in prison; Staying involved in my children’s education; and, Lowering my children’s stress or sadness.

Table 4.

Inmate Concerns Regarding Parenting Issues (n = 26).

Want assistance with	n	%
Talking with my children about my incarceration	18	69.2
Issues of my children visiting me in prison	15	57.7
Finding a support group for my children	8	30.7
Staying involved in my children’s education	14	53.8
Helping my children with their schoolwork	8	30.7
Lowering my children’s stress or sadness	13	50.0
Caring for my children from afar	16	61.5
Looking for harmful signs in my children	17	65.4
My children’s growth and development	12	46.2
Disciplining my children from afar	8	30.7
Locating my children	6	23.1
Helping speak to my children’s mother about (re)establishing contact with my children	4	15.4

Many of the men expressed guilt as they discussed how they perceived the impact of their incarceration on their children: “My sons are more aggressive and act out more now, and my 5-year-old son cries now all the time.” Another respondent stated, “I am missing out on my kids growing up. It bugs the hell out of me that I don’t even know my youngest son” while another believed that he has failed his daughter:

I am a big disappointment to my daughter. She was gone from my life [in ex-wife’s custody] and then I got custody of her and two days later I was sentenced to prison. I wonder how not having a dad for two thirds of her life will impact her. I try to watch for signs.

Many of the fathers expressed that they cannot adequately depict how much they truly love their children during their incarceration. Some of the mothers of their children have cut off all contact with their children. A few of these fathers no longer knew where their children were or how to contact them. For those who did have contact, many believed that a 15-minute phone call or an occasional visit did not allow them “to show [their children] the love that they deserve.”

The main reasons identified for the infrequent contact with family members were as follows: distance between the prison and the family’s home, insufficient visitation facilities, inopportune and/or irregular family visitation opportunities, and cost and time limitations of phone calls. The men in this study provided suggestions for how prison volunteers and the prison administration could help them and their families with issues related to family reunification and/or strengthening family bonds.

Improving Familial Relationships

The majority of the men expressed concerns regarding the cost and length of phone calls, the distance from their families, and the overall visitation conditions. Only some of the inmates identified fully knowing what family services were offered; even fewer felt that their families were aware of available services. The inmates believed that the prison services programming and visitor’s center needed to be more proactive to increase awareness of their missions and available services (See Table 5).

Table 5.

Summary of Inmate Suggestions For How the Prison Could Help Foster Positive Relationships During Incarceration (N = 32).

Descriptor	n	%
Suggestions regarding contact with family
Providing opportunities for inmates to be located closer to family	28	87.5
Increase visitation hours	22	68.8
Increase time limit of phone calls	19	59.4
Decrease cost of phone calls (or set cost per minute)	17	53.1
Decrease time duration between family visits	11	34.4
Visitation suggestions
Improve the atmosphere of the visitation room	21	65.6
Providing play activities for children during visitation	13	40.6
Improve conditions of family visiting trailers	11	34.4
Providing transportation to the facility for my family	10	31.3
Increase number of family visiting trailers	9	28.1
Decrease expense of family visits	7	21.9
General information suggestions
Help explaining the visitation process to my family	15	46.9
Help explaining parole to my family	15	46.9
Provide resources through a newsletter to family (food, transportation, counseling, family member release, etc.)	15	46.9
Allowing opportunities to show family personal progress	13	40.6
Help with providing information about my incarceration	11	34.4

Cost and length of phone calls

Inmates within the facility were not permitted to receive phone calls but could make them using either a prison phone card or calling “collect.” Although they could make unlimited phone calls during their established free time, each phone call was limited to 15 minutes. The largest complaint was regarding the length of phone calls. For inmate families who could afford phone calls, the time limitation was viewed as a barrier to “maintaining relationships with family.” In addition to phone time restrictions, phone call costs were also seen as prohibitive. The cost of prison phone cards was much higher than a phone card purchased at a general retail store. These phone cards were not based on cost per minute; rather, they were based on the distance from the prison to the destination of the phone call. One inmate with family in a neighboring state complained about the costs of the calls:

Cost of phone calls is too expensive, $17.00 for 15 minutes [collect call]. A calling card is cheaper than calling collect as it is about $8.00 for 15 minutes but for someone who doesn’t make any money, $0.20 per hour, a phone card is a lot of money.

Contact with one’s family was largely based on the family’s financial situation. One inmate expressed that he wished he could call his family more, but they simply could not afford it: “Depending on their funds, I call [my family] as often as I can. It is expensive as it is $1.50 to connect plus $0.14/minute for where I call.” Another expressed a similar feeling:

I wish I could talk to my kids more. The cost of phone calls is too expensive. It is $17.00 to call [out of state] for fifteen minutes and it is half that price calling [in state]. Calling cards are cheaper than calling collect—it is about half the price.

In addition, the prohibitive cost of phone calls may have played a role in one man’s marriage ending:

If I could [have] talk[ed] to my wife more our relationship may not have fallen apart. After only four calls, she could no longer pay the bill and she stopped the calls. Shortly after our relationship ended and the phone was blocked.

Distance from family

A second identified theme was incarceration placement. Many inmates felt that they were incarcerated too far from their families. Out-of-state inmates recognized that there was little that could be done about their predicament. However, in-state inmates questioned why they were at a correctional facility so far from their home or family. Many felt if they were housed closer to their families that they would have more opportunities to try to improve their strained relationships. While they tended to believe that the location of their incarceration was intentional, the Associate Warden indicated that inmates were simply placed at the correctional facility with the most available bed space. Nonetheless, the reality was that many of these men were incarcerated in areas that inhibit regular visits with their families. One inmate stated, “If I was in [named three separate correctional facilities within the state], I would probably get visits every weekend. Maybe they wanted me out of the area I got my charges in.” Another inmate stated,

It would be easier if I was incarcerated in [specific correctional facility]. I don’t understand the logic of putting me further from home. If they put us closer to our families, it would be easier on all of us and cause less stress.

Another man identified distance as the primary reason he did not receive visits: “My family has to travel over 200 miles to visit me. Distance is why they don’t come more. I would get to see my family more in [lists three separate correctional facilities]—no doubt I would see them more.” The combination of distance and the cost of traveling these distances caused identified strains on the incarcerated men and their families:

My family cannot afford to visit as gas and hotels are too much. They are struggling financially a lot. It is too far to visit, at least 6 hours. [One specific facility] is less than 100 miles from my kids. I would probably see them more if I were there.

Conditions of visitation facilities

For those men who received visits, many believed that meaningful communication within the visitation room was difficult, and they described the quality of their visits as poor. The correctional facility held visitation hours each Saturday and Sunday for general visitation for all the minimum security units. The minimum security units had a capacity of 300 inmates, and the visiting room could hold a total of 20 inmates and 100 visitors at any given time. The visiting room featured two rows of tables and chairs, with inmates sitting on the inner two rows and their visitors on the outer rows. Only two visitors per inmate were allowed to sit at the table at a time. Additional visitors had to line up their chairs behind these two seated visitors. A patio outside the visiting room that allowed more natural interaction and space for visitors and inmates to stand and walk around had been closed due to an increase of drugs coming into the prison.

Many of the men complained about the condition of the visiting room. The majority of the criticisms had to do with the seating arrangement and the overcrowding, which resulted in the lack of privacy and meaningful interaction during the visits. “The seating arrangement is terrible with how visitors have to line up behind each other”; “Tables are too close together as you can hear other peoples’ conversation”; “It is too loud in the visiting room and it is hard to hear. The number of people is overwhelming.” They also felt that the patio had been a positive component in the visiting room. One stated, “The patio is closed [so] we cannot walk outside anymore”; while another observed that the closing of the patio made visitation difficult for the children: “My kids get frustrated from not being able to go outside. A kid’s corner in the visiting room would be helpful. I don’t like to send them to the visitor’s center as I can’t see them.”

Most of the men were aware that volunteers provided short-term child care, play activities, and snacks for visitors’ children in the visitor’s center. Although the majority of respondents believed that this was a useful service, they wished the volunteers occupied the children within the visitation room. They did not like having their children removed from their sight: “My family and I are aware of the services, but we don’t want to send kids over there as we want to be able to watch them.” Also, others believe that they have the children come to visit with them, not to participate in activities with other children: “I have heard of it [the visitor’s center] but don’t use them. My niece comes to see me not play with other kids,” while another states, “I want my family to be with me and not at the visitor’s center when here.”

Inmates who had visits expressed that family visits within the visitation trailers provided better opportunities for meaningful visitation than visits within the visitation room. As one father indicated, “Family visits let me be a dad, and I cannot do that here in visits [in the visiting room], it is ridiculous.” Family visits, which occur in the family trailers, also took place each Saturday and Sunday. Family trailer visits lasted between six to 24 hours, depending on each inmate and his situation. One could apply for a family visit every 45 days, working up to a 24-hour visit by having a series of six-, 12-, and 18-hour visits. Only immediate family members and wives were permitted for family visits, with each family visit costing US$10.00 to cover utility expenses and the cost of the upkeep of the trailers. Family visitors were also required to bring their own food. The men felt that these visits allowed the family to act naturally in a very unnatural environment.

Although many inmates preferred family trailer visits, visitation space was limited and arguably inadequate. Although there were five trailers on the prison grounds, only two were in use due to the poor condition of the other three trailers. “The trailers are old, worn-out and dirty,” stated one inmate, while another indicated that his “mom won’t come for family visits anymore [be]cause the trailers and especially the kitchen stuff is too dirty.”

The visitor’s center and prison family programming had previously held events for inmate families and assisted with social services, such as food drives and holiday baskets. Yet, most of those surveyed had little knowledge of these services. As one inmate indicated, “Yes, I know what they basically are. My family knows what the visitor’s center is but do not use it much beyond the 15 minutes they are there [prior to the visitation].” While another inmate expressed that he knows that “they help visitors out when they come, but otherwise I don’t really know except that my mom and dad have been there during count.”

In sum, the survey and interviews documented the men’s concerns regarding their perception of the impact of their incarceration on their families, particularly their children. They furhter provided suggestions on how the visitation facility and prison programming could help foster positive familial relationships. The facility administration sought this feedback to better address the needs of the inmates and their families. The next step is implementing feasible changes.

Discussion and Conclusion

Administrators of correctional facilities must accommodate many competing goals. Facility security, staff and inmate safety, and punishment are high priorities (Cripe, 1997). At first glance, these goals appear to be in direct conflict with assisting inmates in maintaining contact and interaction with their families. There is a need for correctional facility managers to recognize that programs designed to support inmate–family relationships can also underwrite the achievement of facility safety and security. Research has demonstrated that visitation and family programming can result in decreased disciplinary problems (Bayse, Allgood, & Van Wyk, 1991; Carlson & Cervera, 1991; Jiang, Fisher-Giorlando, & Mo, 2005), and can reduce recidivism rates upon release and reentry into the community (Bales & Mears, 2008; Carlson & Cervera, 1991; Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1982; Holt & Miller, 1972; Travis et al., 2005; Visher, 2013). There are ways to accommodate safety and security as well as foster familial relationships. The first step is to recognize that family interaction is critical to decreasing episodes of prison misconduct and reducing recidivism rates: “Wives and families of prisoners are a valuable resource for the prison, the community, and the nation. There is no policy more decent and more basic than validating the ties and roles we hold as human beings” (Girshick, 1996, p. 116).

Correctional facilities should promote inmate contact with families through programming, focusing on the unique needs of incarcerated men and their families. As not all incarcerated men are able to engage in contact visits with their families or their children, it is critical that opportunities are also available for incarcerated men who are either not fathers or do not receive visits from family members. Prison programming should be enhanced to include programs that promote relationships between the inmate and his family (Swisher & Waller, 2008). Encouraging letter writing, phone calls, video visits, and other forms of communication, such as Father READ, where fathers make a DVD while reading a children’s book, or using technology to facilitate contact between an incarcerated parent and a child, has shown benefits to the men and their families (Bartlett, 2000; Corrections Corporation of America, 2008; National Institute of Corrections, 2002). Although this interaction may not be as satisfying as contact visits, it does provide an alternative form of communication between family members.

Parenting programming which focus on the unique needs of incarcerated fathers and their children could also assist these men in connecting with their children and addressing their unique needs. Many prisons, including the correctional facility under study, offer parenting classes; however, the frequency and scope of these classes are often limited. The men in the study identified a number of areas they want addressed. Classes that contain information on child development, communication, stress management, and discipline could prove to be beneficial for improved understanding between incarcerated fathers and their children. In addition, programming which focuses on the stresses of incarceration on the family unit may be beneficial to men adjusting to altered relationship with significant others, loved ones, and children.

Decreasing Costs of Familial Contact

The current study identified that many of the men believed that the cost of phone calls and visits were the primary barriers to family contact. Throughout the nation, inmates purchase phone calling cards or call their loved ones “collect.” The rates of these phone calls are much higher than the rates paid by the general public (Dannenberg, 2011). For example, the Georgia Department of Corrections provides inmate phone services through Global Tel*Link, the largest prison phone service provider (Dannenberg, 2011). According to the Georgia Department of Corrections Customer User Guide (2014), the cost associated with a collect telephone call is based on the geographical distance of the call. The cost for a 15-minute local call is US$2.70, US$2.00 surcharge plus $0.19 per minute for an in-state long-distance call, and US$0.25 per minute for an out-of-state long-distance call. Although there are some unique expenses associated with providing telephone services in correctional facilities, these factors alone do not justify the high costs of phone service. Inmate phone calls subsequently increase profits for many state governments (Dannenberg, 2011). In 2014 (October 17), the Federal Communications Commission built on 2013 reform efforts by proposing new rules to establish permanent “rate caps” on all local, in-state long-distance, and interstate long-distance calls between inmates and their families.

Men in the study also expressed concerns regarding their location of incarceration. Many indicated that being housed in a correctional facility closer to their families could reduce familial financial stress and time conflicts, resulting in the likelihood of more visitations. The geographical distance between inmates and their families can add to familial stress (Carlson & Cervera, 1992). In an effort to alleviate facility visitors’ financial strain, New York State was previously the model for addressing this concern. Between 1973 and 2011, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision provided free bus transportation to family members for prison visits. However, this program has been eliminated due to budgetary cuts (diZerega, Asifuddin, & Tobias, 2012). California’s Get on the Bus (2009) program provides free annual bus trips for children to visit an incarcerated parent. Although beneficial, an annual visit may not provide the quality and meaningful bonding required to have a significant impact on either the incarcerated parent or the child. Many visitors to prisons do not have cars, and public transportation is often not available or affordable. For those with cars, the distance and cost may still be prohibitive to visitation (Krupat, Gaynes, & Lincroft, 2011). Upon recognition of the positive impact of inmate visitation, communities, state governments, correctional facilities, and non-profit organizations should consider providing free or low-cost transportation to correctional facilities.

If this consideration is not feasible, housing inmates closer to their homes may be an alternative solution. As the Assistant Warden of the correctional facility under study indicated, inmate placement was solely based on available bed space. It seems feasible that inmates of similar security needs could subsequently transfer to facilities closer to their families. The surveyed inmates identified distance as one of their biggest obstacles to visitation. As noted above, research suggests that visitation decreases inmate misconduct levels (Bayse et al., 1991; Carlson & Cervera, 1991; Jiang et al., 2005). Moving inmates, when possible, to facilities closer to their families may decrease family obstacles to visitation, and could subsequently increase visitation rates and decrease institutional misconduct.

Improving the Visitation Experience

For inmates whose families can participate in visitation, the lack of financial resources may also impede visitation opportunities. Decreasing familial visits have recently been the targets of correctional department budget cuts. For example, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections considered eliminating prisoner visitation for 3 months to help cut departmental costs (Hoberock, 2010), and California facilities have previously decreased or canceled visitation dates for staff reduction and budgetary reasons (Nisperos, 2010). Eliminating opportunities for visitation may result in social costs that are much greater than monetary ones.

When participation in visitation can occur, many of the study respondents expressed unease that the visitation facilities were not conductive to quality family interaction. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission (2011) mirrors this concern. From their examination of the needs of inmates and their children, they recommended that policies and visitation areas be improved and reviewed to make them more child-friendly. Although the facility under study has a visitor’s center, which offers short-term child care, play activities, and snacks for the youth, this was provided away from the visiting room, minimizing interactions between the men and their children visitors. Having visiting rooms decorated appropriately for children would also result in an environment more conducive to positive interactions between the incarcerated men, children, and other family members. Supervised play activities are more commonly provided within female correctional institutions (Hoffman et al., 2010), but the benefit of this type of parent–child interaction could clearly also apply to male institutions. In addition to improving the environment of the visitation room, improving correctional staff attitudes and behaviors toward prison visitors could help improve the experience of prison visitation. Research has established that visitors are often treated poorly by staff when visiting a correctional facility (see Arditti, 2003; Fishman, 1990; Girshick, 1996). Providing staff sensitivity training may help reduce the stigma that prison visitors experience (Arditti, 2005).

Reforming federal and state sentencing policies could also prove beneficial to the incarcerated, their families, children, and society. The collateral consequences of mass incarceration cannot be ignored, and a larger scale prison reform arguably could be effective and beneficial. The United States has the largest incarceration rate in the world. Nearly half of the state (Carson & Golinelli, 2013) and nearly three quarters of federal (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2013) prison populations house non-violent offenders. “Parents of minor children held in the nation’s prisons increased by 79% between 1991 and midyear 2007” (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008, p. 1). Children of incarcerated parents are at an increased risk of criminality; incarcerated individuals are at a high risk of divorce and at an increased risk of returning to criminality and incarceration upon their release. This cycle only perpetuates individual, familial, and societal problems.

As state and federal budgetary issues have resulted in prison closings across the United States, the issue of whether incarceration is the best approach is again being revisited in 2015. The belief that equal sentences always create fairness is restrictive and may be misleading. Policies such as three-strike laws and mandatory minimums for a wide variety of drug offenses, although based on the supposition of a uniform system of justice, may not always be in the best interest of society. When defendants who hold familial responsibilities are punished, there must be an understanding that families, too, are punished. The punishment of defendants with familial responsibilities has a much greater impact on society than the punishment of defendants without familial responsibilities.

Political acceptance of the collateral consequences to tough crime policies has recently emerged. In August 2013, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the “Smart on Crime” initiative. The attorney general acknowledged that current policies are disrupting families and not effectively reducing recidivism. He announced five principles, including reforming sentencing and mandatory minimum laws, providing allowances for individual circumstances and considering sentences other than incarceration for non-violent offenses (Holder, 2013). The reduction of federal prison population numbers for the first time since 1980 was announced by Holder (2014). Time will tell if Loretta Lynch, the new Attorney General, will continue to emphasize these reforms.

Study Limitations

The current study had some limitations. The confidentiality of the respondents was not guaranteed. Inmates who participated in the survey sat in one large room relatively near to each other. In addition, the correctional officers could view who was participating. However, all completed surveys were placed in a secured box and directly removed from the facility, eliminating the possibility of correctional staff reviewing individual responses. The second method used during this project, inmate interviews, was restricted to 45 min. In addition, the confidentiality of the inmates participating in the interviews was not guaranteed. The interviews took place directly across from the nurse’s station, and only a glass door separated us from the inmates waiting for their medication. Although interview discussions could not be heard, other inmates and correctional officers could visibly witness them and see who was participating.

Study Implications

This article provides a broad sketch of some of the needs of incarcerated men and their perceptions of the influence and impact of their incarceration on current relationships with their family members. The study points to several additional issues that deserve the attention of future research. In general, more research is needed on inmate fathers to identify their needs. With the evidence cited supporting the relationship between healthy inmate–family relationships and reductions in individual recidivism and intergenerational criminality, long-term studies of the benefits of supportive family prison programming and family-oriented visitation services are needed.

Data from this study indicate that incarcerated men have deep worries and distress regarding their family members and children. Their recommendations need to be heard by prison administrations. Improved prison programming should work to help foster, rather than impede, familial relationships. While the findings cannot be generalized to other populations, the data document that small changes could decrease stress in already strained familial relationships. Fostering these family relationships may further prevent intergenerational criminality, inmate misconduct and sustain family bonds upon reentry.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Mari B. Pierce, PhD, is an assistant professor in the administration of justice department, The Pennsylvania State University, Beaver. Her primary research areas are judicial disparities, impact of criminality on the family, and criminal justice responses to child mistreatment.

References

Apel

Blokland

A. A.

Nieuwbeerta

van Schellen

(2010). The impact of imprisonment on marriage and divorce: A risk setting approach. Journal of Qualitative Criminology, 26, 269-300.

Arditti

J. A.

(2003). Locked doors and glass walls: Family visiting at a local jail. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 8, 115-138.

Arditti

J. A.

(2005). Families and incarceration: An ecological approach. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86, 251-260.

Arditti

J. A.

Smock

S. A.

Parkman

T. S.

(2005). “It’s been hard to be a father”: A qualitative exploration of incarcerated fatherhood. Fathering, 3, 267-288.

Bales

W. D.

Mears

D. P.

(2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 45, 287-321.

Bartlett

(2000). Helping inmate moms keep in touch—Prison programs encourage ties with children. Corrections Today, 62, 102-104.

Bayse

D. J.

Allgood

S. M.

Van Wyk

P. H.

(1991). Family life education: An effective tool for prisoner rehabilitation. Family Relations: Journal of Applied Family and Child Studies, 40, 254-257.

Becker

G. S.

(1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 813-846.

Becker

G. S.

Landes

Michael

(1977). An economic analysis of martial instability. Journal of Political Economy, 85, 1141-1187.

10.

Boss

(1999). Ambiguous loss: Learning to live with unresolved grief. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11.

Boswell

Wedge

(2002). Imprisoned fathers and their children. London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

12.

Braman

(2003). Families and incarceration. In Mauer

Chesney-Lind

(Eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 117-135). New York, NY: Norton.

13.

Braman

(2004). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family life in urban America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

14.

Breen

(1995). Bridging the barriers. Corrections Today, 57, 98-99.

15.

Brodsky

(1975). Families and friends of men in prison. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

16.

Carlson

B. E.

Cervera

N. J.

(1991). Incarceration, coping and support. Social Work, 36, 279-285.

17.

Carson

E. A.

Golinelli

(2013). Prisoners in 2012—Advance counts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

18.

Clement

M. J.

(1993). Parenting in prison: A national survey of programs for incarcerate women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 19, 89-100.

19.

Cochran

J. C.

(2012). The ties that bind or the ties that break: Examining the relationship between visitation and prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 433-440.

20.

Comfort

(2008). Doing time together: Love and family in the shadow of the prison. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

21.

Corrections Corporation of America. (2008). Fathers READ their way into children’s lives. Retrieved from http://www.insidecca.com/inside-cca/fatherread/

22.

Cripe

(1997). Legal aspects of correction management. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers.

23.

Dallaire

D. H.

(2007). Incarcerated mothers and fathers: A comparison of risk for children and families. Family Relations, 56, 440-453.

24.

Dannenberg

J. E.

(2011). Nationwide PLN survey examines prison phone contracts, kickbacks. Prison Legal News, 22, 1-15.

25.

Dinkmeyer

D. C.

McKay

G. D.

(1982). The parent’s handbook: Systematic training for effective parenting. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

26.

diZerega

Asifuddin

Tobias

(2012). The New York State prison visiting bus program. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

27.

Eddy

J. M.

Martinez

C. R.

Schiffmann

Newton

Olin

Leve

. . .Shortt

J. W.

(2008). Development of a multisystemic parent management training intervention for incarcerated parents, their children and families. Clinical Psychologist, 12, 86-98.

28.

Eddy

J. M.

Reid

J. B.

(2003). The adolescent children of incarcerated parents: A developmental perspective. In Travis

Waul

(Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of Incarceration on children, families and communities (pp. 233-258). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

29.

Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2013). Quick facts about the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Retrieved from http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp#2

30.

Federal Communication Commission. (2013). FCC reduces high long-distance calling rates paid by inmates. Retrieved from https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-322749A1.pdf

31.

Fishman

L. T.

(1990). Women and the wall: A study of prisoners’ wives doing time on the outside. Albany: State University of New York Press.

32.

Gable

Johnston

(1995). Children of incarcerated parents. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

33.

General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Joint State Government Commission. (2011). The effects of parental incarceration on children: Needs and responsive services—Report of the Advisory Committee Pursuant to House Resolution 203 and Senate Resolution 52 of 2009. Harrisburg, PA: Author.

34.

Georgia Department of Corrections (2014). Offender telephone system: Global Tel*Link customer service guide. Retrieved from http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/pdf/GDC_GTL_user_manual.pdf

35.

Get on the Bus. (2009). Uniting children with their mothers and fathers in prison. Available from http://www.getonthebus.us/

36.

Girshick

L. B.

(1996). Soledad women: Wives of prisoners speak out. Westport, CT: Praeger.

37.

Glaze

L. E.

Maruschak

L. M.

(2008). Parents in prison and their minor children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

38.

Hairston

C. F.

(1998). The forgotten parent: Understanding the forces that influence incarcerated fathers’ relationship with their children. Child Welfare, 77, 617-639.

39.

Hairston

C. F.

Lockett

P. W.

(1987). Parents in prison: New directions for social services. Social Work, 32, 162-164.

40.

Hanlon

T. E.

Blatchlet

R. J.

Bennett-Sears

O’Grady

K. E.

Rose

Callaman

J. M.

(2005). Vulnerability of children of incarcerated addicted mothers: Implications for preventative intervention. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 67-84.

41.

Hoberock

(2010, June 29). Prisoner visitation will be cut in half. Tulsa World. Available from http://www.tulsaworld.com/

42.

Hoffman

H. C.

Byrd

A. M.

Kightlinger

A. M.

(2010). Prison programs and services for incarcerated parents and their underage children: Results from a national survey of correctional facilities. The Prison Journal, 90, 397-416.

43.

Holder

(2013). Smart on crime: Reforming the criminal justice system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

44.

Holder

(2014). One year after launching key sentencing reforms, attorney general holder announces first drop in federal prison population in more than three decades. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs.

45.

Holt

Miller

(1972). Explorations in inmate-family relationships. Sacramento: Department of Corrections, State of California.

46.

Houck

K. F.

Loper

A. B.

(2002). The relationship of parenting stress to adjustment among mothers in prison. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72, 548-558.

47.

Huebner

B. M.

(2007). Racial and ethnic differences the likelihood of marriage: The effect of incarceration. Justice Quarterly, 24, 156-183.

48.

Jiang

Fisher-Giorlando

(2005). Social support and inmate rule violations: A multilevel analysis. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(1), 71-86.

49.

Johnson

E. I.

Waldfogel

(2002). Parental incarceration: Recent trends and implications for child welfare. Social Service Review, 76, 460-479.

50.

Johnson

R. C.

(2009). Ever-increasing levels of parental incarceration and the consequences for children. In Raphael

Stoll

(Eds.), Do prisons make us safer? The benefits and costs of the prison boom (pp. 177-206). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

51.

Juby

Farrington

D. P.

(2001). Disentangling the link between disrupted families and delinquency. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 22-40.

52.

Kazura

(2001). Family programming for incarcerated parents: A needs assessment among inmates. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 32, 67-83.

53.

Krupat

Gaynes

Lincroft

(2011). A call to action: Safeguarding New York’s children of incarcerated parents. New York: New York Initiative for Children of Incarcerated Parents, Osborne Association.

54.

Laub

Nagin

Sampson

(1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriage and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 96, 225-238.

55.

Lipsey

M. W.

Derzon

J. H.

(1998). Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In Loeber

Farrington

D. P.

(Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 86-105). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

56.

Loper

A. B.

Carlson

Levitt

Scheffel

(2009). Parenting stress, alliance, child contact and adjustment of imprisoned mothers and fathers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 483-503.

57.

Loper

A. B.

Tuerk

E. H.

(2011). Improving the emotional adjustment and communication patterns of incarcerated mothers: Effectiveness of a prison parenting intervention. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 89-101.

58.

Lopoo

L. M.

Western

(2005). Incarceration and the formation and stability of marital unions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 721-734.

59.

Lowenstein

(1986). Temporary single parenthood: The case of prisoners’ families. Family Relations, 35, 79-85.

60.

Mather

(2010). U.S. children in single-mother families. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.

61.

McDermott

King

R. D.

(1992). Prison role 102: Stand by your man. In Shaw

(Ed.), Prisoners’ children: What are the issues? (pp. 74-85). London, England: Routledge.

62.

Miller

K. M.

(2006). The impact of parental incarceration on children: An emerging need for effective interventions. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23, 472-486.

63.

Morash

Haar

R. N.

Rucker

(1994). A comparison of programming for women and men in the US prisons in the 1980’s. Crime & Delinquency, 40, 197-221.

64.

Morris

(1965). Prisoners and their families. Woking, UK: Unwin Brothers.

65.

Mumola

C. J.

(2000). Special report: Incarcerated parents and their children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

66.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

(2005). Parental imprisonment: Effect on boys’ antisocial behavior and delinquency through the life course. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 1269-1278.

67.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

(2008). Parental imprisonment: Long lasting effects on boys’ internalizing problems through the life course. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 273-290.

68.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

Sekol

(2012). Children’s antisocial behavior, mental health, drug use, and educational performance after parental incarceration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 175-210. doi:10.1037/a0026407

69.

National Institute of Corrections. (2002). Services for families of prison inmates. Longmont, CO: Author.

70.

National Resource Center on Children and Families of the Incarcerated. (2014). Retrieved from https://nrccfi.camden.rutgers.edu/

71.

Nesmith

Ruhland

(2008). Children of incarcerated parents: Challenges and resiliency, in their own words. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1119-1130.

72.

Nisperos

(2010, June). Budget woes force prisoner visitation cancellation. Daily Bulletin, Retrieved from http://www.dailybulletin.com

73.

Nurse

A. M.

(2004). Returning to strangers: Newly paroled young fathers and their children. In Pattillo

Weiman

D. F.

Western

(Eds.), Imprisoning America: The social effects of mass incarceration (pp. 76-97). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

74.

Pitofsky

A. H.

(2002). Profit and stealth in the prison-industrial complex [Review of the book Going up the River: Travels in a prison nation, by Hallinan

J. T.

]. Postmodern Culture, 12(2). doi:10.1353/pmc.2002.0007. Retrieved from http://www.pomoculture.org/2013/09/19/profit-and-stealth-in-the-prison-industrial-complex/

75.

Pollock

J. M.

(2002). Parenting programs in women’s prisons. Women & Criminal Justice, 14, 131-154.

76.

Richards

McWilliams

Allcock

Enterkin

Owens

Woodrow

(1994). The family ties of English prisoners: The results of the Cambridge project on imprisonment and family ties. Cambridge, UK: Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge.

77.

Rodgers

Pryor

(1998). Divorce and separation: The outcomes for children. New York, NY: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

78.

Roy

K. M.

Dyson

O. L.

(2005). Gatekeeping in context: Babymama drama and the involvement of incarcerated fathers. Fathering, 3, 289-310.

79.

Rutter

Giller

Hagell

(1998). Antisocial behavior by young people. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

80.

Sack

W. H.

(1977). Children of imprisoned fathers. Psychiatry, 40, 163-174.

81.

Sack

W. H.

Seidler

(1978). Should children visit their parents in prison? Law and Human Behavior, 2, 261-266.

82.

Sack

W. H.

Seidler

Thomas

(1976). The children of imprisoned parents: A psychosocial exploration. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 618-628.

83.

Schoenbauer

L. J.

(1986). Incarcerated parents and their children—Forgotten families. Law and Inequality, 4, 579-601.

84.

Schwartz

M. C.

Weintraub

J. F.

(1974).The prisoner’s wife: A study in crisis. Federal Probation, 38(4), 20-26.

85.

Seymour

(2001). Children with parents in prison: Child welfare policy, program, and practice issues. In Seymour

Hairston

(Eds.), Children with parents in prison: Child welfare policy, program, and practice issues (pp. 1-25). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

86.

Shaw

(1987). Children of imprisoned fathers. Bungay, UK: Richard Clay.

87.

Shaw

(1992). Imprisoned fathers and the orphans of justice. In Shaw

(Ed.), Prisoners’ children: What are the issues? (pp. 41-49). London, England: Routledge.

88.

Showalter

Jones

C. W.

(1980). Marital and family counseling in prisons. Social Work, 25, 224-228.

89.

Springer

D. W.

Lynch

Rubin

(2000). Effects of a solution-focused mutual aid group for Hispanic children of incarcerated parents. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 17, 431-442.

90.

Swisher

R. R.

Waller

M. R.

(2008). Confining fatherhood: Incarceration and parental involvement among nonresident white, African American, and Latino Fathers. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 1067-1088.

91.

Travis

McBride

Solomon

A. L.

(2005). Families left behind: The hidden costs of incarceration and reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

92.

Travis

Solomon

A. L.

Waul

(2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prison reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

93.

Uggen

Wakefield

(2005). Young adults re-entering the community from the criminal justice system: The challenges of becoming an adult. In Osgood

Foster

E. M.

Flanagan

Ruth

G. R.

(Eds.), On your own without a safety net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations. (pp. 114-144). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

94.

Visher

C. A.

(2013). Incarcerated fathers: Pathways from prison to home. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(1), 9-26.

95.

Waldman

Hercik

J. M.

(2002). United incarcerated parents and their families. Welfare peer technical assistance network. Office of Family Assistance, Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/Incarceration/parents02.pdf

96.

Warr

(1998). Life course transitions and desistance from crime. Criminology, 36, 183-216.

97.

Western

Lopoo

L. M.

McLanahan

(2004). Incarceration and the bonds among parents in fragile families. In Patillo

Weiman

Western

(Eds.), Imprisoning America: The social effects of mass incarceration (pp. 21-45). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

98.

Wildeman

(2011). Parental incarceration, child homelessness, and the invisible consequences of mass imprisonment (Fragile Families Working Paper No. WP09-19-FF). Retrieved from http://crcw.princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP09-19-FF.pdf

99.

Woldoff

R. A.

Washington

H. M.

(2008). Arrested contact: The criminal justice system, race, and father engagement. The Prison Journal, 88, 179-206.