About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

52 Fed. Probation 48 (1988)
Family Ties during Imprisonment: Do They Influence Future Criminal Activity

handle is hein.journals/fedpro52 and id is 50 raw text is: Family Ties During Imprisonment: Do They Influence Future Criminal Activity? BY CREASIE FINNEY HAIRSTON, PH.D. Professor and Associate Dean, School of Social Work, Indiana University LTHOUGH THE idea that prisoners should be permitted to maintain contact with family and friends during imprison- ment has a long history of support, family-centered programs are a relatively new phenomenon in correc- tions. Within the last decade, however, there has been an emerging interest in this area, and several pro- grams have developed to promote the maintenance of family ties and to strengthen inmates' sense of family commitment and ability to assume family responsibilities. Whereas family-centered correction programs may be justified for a variety of humane- as well as practical-reasons, a major argument ad- vanced by proponents is that strong family ties dur- ing imprisonment reduce the level of future criminal activity (Bloom, 1987; FCN, 1986; Mustin, 1984; Potler, 1986; West, 1985). Investigation of any phenomenon which purports to prevent crime or reduce criminal recidivism is man- datory. The claim that prisoners' families, of which there are many, could be resources in enhancing public safety makes understanding of this phe- nomenon even more compelling. Unfortunately, little scientific knowledge about prisoners and their families has been collected. The topic has not been popular with corrections researchers as they have generally failed to take into account the fact that prisoners' social networks extend beyond prison walls. Similarly, few family researchers and social services professionals have identified the area as a priority for knowledge building or service delivery. Consequently, it is no surprise to find that few studies have examined the impact of the family on recidivism. The Research Base Five empirical studies focusing specifically on the family ties-post-release success relationship are reported in the post-1970 literature. The most exten- sive study, and the one cited most often in the literature advocating family services, was conducted by Holt and Miller (1972). These researchers con- ducted a post-release followup study of 412 men who had been paroled from the Southern Conservation Center (California) for at least 12 months as of February 1971 and who had appeared before the parole board in the fiscal year 1968-69. They com- pared offenders' parole outcomes with the number of different visitors offenders had had during the last year of imprisonment. Adams and Fischer (1976) investigated the effects of prison residents' community contacts on recidi- vism. Their sample was comprised of 124 men paroled in 1969 and 1970 from the Hawaii State Prison, an institution housing minimum, medium, and max- imum security offenders. They defined recidivism as being returned to prison for violation of parole or a new conviction within a 24-month period following release. The mean number of letters recidivists re- ceived during the year prior to their parole was com- pared with the mean number of letters nonrecidivists received. Visits for the two groups were compared in the same manner. Leclair (1978) examined the recidivism rates of 878 inmates released from Massachusetts prisons in 1973 and 841 released in 1974. A total of 14 correctional institutions contributed to these samples including two maximum, one medium, and four minimum security institutions and seven prerelease centers. Recidivism was measured in terms of whether or not an offender was returned to prison for either parole violation or on a new conviction within 1 year of the release date from prison. Recidivism rates for par- ticipants in the furlough program were compared with the rates for nonparticipants. Forty minimum security offenders, 20 who had private family visits lasting 44 hours every 4 to 6 weeks and 20 who saw their wives weekly or biweekly for regular visits lasting for 3 to 4 hours in a com- mon visiting room, constituted Burstein's (1977) sample. He interviewed the men and their families during imprisonment and conducted followup 1 year after the initial interviews to determine parole out- comes for those who had been released and discipli- nary infractions for those still imprisoned. He com- pared private family visit participants with regular visit participants. Howser and McDonald (1982) conducted followup on the 540 inmates who had participated in New York's private family visiting (family reunion) pro- gram and had been released from prison. Their report

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most