The objective of this research is to document correctional institutions’ policies regarding inmates’ correspondence, visitation, and telephoning between 1971 and 2005. Data were gathered via mailed surveys in 1971, 1981, 1991, and 2005 from state correctional facilities for adults in maximum security institutions. The survey return rates were 93% (n = 64) in 1971, 96% (n = 66) in 1981, 81% (n = 91) in 1991, and 84% (n = 162) in 2005. The findings suggest that prison communication policies are becoming more restrictive on visitation and inmates are assuming more of the expenses for correspondence. At the same time, policies regarding telephone usage seem to have gotten more lenient, with the financial obligations falling solely on the inmates. These results are informative as many state legislatures are becoming increasingly attentive to strategies that might reinforce inmate relationships with family and friends to reduce recidivism rates, lessening the financial strain of incarceration on state budgets.
Adams, D., & Fischer, J. (1976). The effects of prison residents’ community contacts on recidivism rates. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavioral Technology, Methods, and Therapy, 22, 21-27.
2.
American Correctional Association. (2004). 2004 directory: Adult and juvenile correctional departments, institutions, agencies, and probation and parole authorities. Lanham, MD: Author.
3.
Bennett, L. (1989). Correctional administrators’ attitudes toward private family visiting. The Prison Journal, 69(1), 110-114.
4.
Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984).
5.
Borgman, R. (1985). The influence of family visiting upon boys’ behavior in a juvenile correctional institution. Child Welfare, 64(6), 629-638.
6.
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977).
7.
Braman, D., & Wood, J. (2003). From one generation to the next: How criminal sanctions are reshaping family life in urban America. In J. Travis & M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners once removed (pp. 157-188). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
8.
Bush, G. W. (2004). 2004 State of the Union Address. Retrieved July 10, 2005, from the White House Web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html
9.
Carlson, B., & Cervera, N. (1991). Inmates and their families: Conjugal visits, family and contact and family functioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18(3), 318-331.
10.
Carlson, B., & Cervera, N. (1992). Inmates and their wives: Incarceration and family life. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
11.
Carver, J. (2002). An efficiency analysis of contracts for the provision of telephone services to prisons. Federal Communications Law Journal, 54(3), 391-419.
12.
Casey-Acevedo, K., & Bakken, T. (2002). Visiting women in prison: Who visits and who cares? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(3), 67-83.
13.
Christian, J. (2005). Riding the bus: Barriers to prison visitation and family management strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 31-48.
14.
Clark, T. A. (2001). The relationship between inmate visitation and behavior: Implications for African American families. Journal of African American Men, 6(1), 43-58.
15.
Commission on Accreditation for Corrections. (1981). Standards for adult correctional institutions (2nd ed.). College Park, MD: American Correctional Association.
Dickinson, G. E. (1972). Communication policies in state prisons for adult males. The Prison Journal, 52, 13-19.
18.
Dickinson, G. E. (1984). Changes in communication policies. Corrections Today, 46, 58-60.
19.
Dickinson, G. E., & Seaman, T. W. (1994). Communication policy changes from 1971 to 1991 in state correctional facilities for adult males in the United States. The Prison Journal, 74(3), 371-382.
20.
Ellis, D., Grasmick, H. G., & Gilman, B. (1974). Violence in prisons: A sociological analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 80(1), 16-43.
21.
Fishman, L. T. (1988). Prisoners and their wives: Marital and domestic effects of telephone contacts and home visits. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 32(1), 55-66.
22.
Florida House of Representatives Justice Council Committee on Corrections. (1998). Maintaining family contact when a family member goes to prison. Retrieved July 19, 2005, from http://www.fcc.state.fl.us/fcc/reports/family/famcont.html
23.
Glaser, D. (1964). The effectiveness of a prison and parole system. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
24.
Grinstead, O., Faigeles, B., Bancroft, C., & Zack, B. (2001). The financial cost of maintaining relationships with incarcerated African American men: A survey of women prison visitors. Journal of African American Men, 6(1), 59-69.
25.
Hairston, C. F. (1988). Family ties during imprisonment: Do they influence future criminal activity? Federal Probation, 52(1), 48-52.
26.
Hairston, C. F. (2001). Fathers in prison: Responsible fatherhood and responsible public policies. Marriage and Family Review, 32(3/4), 111-135.
27.
Hensley, C., Koscheski, M., & Tewksbury, R. (2002). Does participation in conjugal visitations reduce prison violence in Mississippi? An exploratory study. Criminal Justice Review, 27(1), 52-65.
28.
Hensley, C., Tewksbury, R., & Chiang, C. (2002). Wardens’ attitudes toward conjugal visitation programs. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 9(3), 307-319.
29.
Hepburn, J. R., & Griffin, M. L. (2004). The effect of social bonds on successful adjustment to probation: An event history analysis. Criminal Justice Review, 29(1), 46-75.
30.
Holt, N., & Miller, D. (1972). Explorations in inmate-family relationships. Sacramento: California Department of Corrections.
31.
Howser, J. F., & MacDonald, D. (1982, August). Maintaining family ties. Corrections Today, pp. 96-98.
32.
Johnson, A. (2000, July 30). Inmates, families say charges discriminate collect-call fees. The Columbus Dispatch, p. 4D-4D.
33.
Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Retrieved July 20, 2005, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
34.
Leclair, D. P. (1978). Home furlough program effects on rates of recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 5(3), 249-259.
35.
Mandak, J. (2005, April 28). Inmates use intermediaries to escape into Internet. USA Today. Retrieved April 28, 2005, from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-05-01-inmates-internet_x.htm
36.
National Institute of Corrections. (2002). Services for families of prison inmates. Longmont, CO: National Institute of Corrections Information Center.
37.
Ohlin, L. E. (1951). Selection for parole. New York: Russell Sage.
38.
Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003).
39.
Pollock, J. M. (2002). Women, prison & crime. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson.
40.
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974).
41.
Rose, D. R., & Clear, T. R. (2003). Incarceration, reentry, and social capital: Social networks in the balance. In J. Travis & M. Waul (Eds.), Prisoners once removed (pp. 313-341). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
42.
Schafer, N. E. (1991). Prison visiting policies and practices. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 35(3), 263-275.
43.
Schafer, N. E. (1994). Exploring the link between visits and parole success: A survey of prison visitors. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 38(1), 17-32.
44.
Travis, J., Cincotta, E. M., & Solomon, A. L. (2003). Families left behind: The hidden costs of incarceration and reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
45.
Travis, J., & Waul, M. (Eds.). (2003). Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
46.
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987).
47.
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). Reentry trends in the United States. Retrieved July 20, 2005, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm
48.
Visher, C., LaVigne, N., & Travis, J. (2004). Returning home: Understanding the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
49.
Wooldredge, J. D. (1999). Inmate experiences and psychological well-being. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 235-250.
50.
Zoellner, T. (2000, July 31). Phone woes take toll on inmates. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A17-A17.
