PROPOSAL FOR VISITING PROGRAM AT OLD COLONY CORRECTIONAL CENTER AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS

LIFER'S GROUP

OLD COLONY CORRECTIONAL CENTER

BY STEVEN MCGRUDER W57447

1 ADMINISTRATION ROAD

BRIDGEWATER, MA 02324

                                                                        

                                                                        CJPC edited version

                                                                        January 24, 2005

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

                  page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

            Overview/Backgrounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3                                                                                        

Rules, Regulations, and Officers’ Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5                                                 

 

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

 

1.  Bathroom Facility Access and Poor Staff Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

2.  Lack of Activities and Accommodations for Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Broken Vending and Debit Card Machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.  Visitor Processing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

 

Visiting Survey Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Questionnaire Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

 

Overview/Background

 

Due to the ongoing problems surrounding the Old Colony Correctional Center visiting room, and given that visits throughout the system have been becoming progressively restrictive in recent years, we have put together a proposal that can assist administrators in their efforts to balance a zero tolerance policy with other desirable correctional goals, such as encouraging and facilitating family ties through visitation for purposes of rehabilitation and reintegration.

 

It is widely recognized in studies on prisons that visitation contributes to critically important correctional goals, therefore enhancing public safety.  In an in-depth article urging family involvement in post-release adjustment, Carol Shapiro and Meryl Schwartz draw on three decades of research showing the powerful influence of families on reducing recidivism.   In the course of their discussion, they emphasize the proven value of family involvement for the inmate:

 

Many correctional managers already recognize the benefits of jail- and prison-based programming that encourages family connections.  Parenting classes, marital workshops, child-friendly visiting rooms, and space for conjugal visits are examples of programs that promote contact and enhance relationships during the period of incarceration  (2001, p. 58).

 

Shapiro and Schwartz cite dozens of sources which reinforce basic conclusions similar to those that appear in the popular and credible study done by Norman Holt and Donald Miller in 1972.  At the end of a detailed, ninety page study showing dramatically lower recidivism rates for inmates with strong family ties, Holt and Miller’s conclusion was clear and unambiguous: “[The] central finding of this research is the discovery of a strong and consistently positive relationship between parole success and the maintenance of strong family ties while in prison.”  (Holt and Miller 1972, Ch. VIII, p. 2).  They go on to make recommendations, including the following:

 

Every effort must be made to place the inmate in the institution closest to his home in order to facilitate family contacts…All restrictions on visitors and mail should be closely scrutinized with the objective of eliminating all regulations which are not necessary to promoting the absolute basic security of the institution (p. 6)

 

There is a strong consensus in social science research that visitation is a key element to prison security and rehabilitation. To cite only one further example, in a study conducted a decade ago, Professor N. E. Schafer (1994) found that family ties during incarceration were a major factor in predicting an inmate’s success while on parole.

 

Policy makers have also echoed the concepts shown in this consistent research trend.  For example, on the state level, official pronouncements often reinforce the importance of visitation.  Given space considerations, we cite only one example here.  Florida's 2004 Statute 944-8031, entitled "Inmate’s Family Visitation,” begins with this statement: "The Legislature finds that maintaining an inmate's family and community relationships through enhancing visitor services and programs and increasing the frequency and quality of the visits is an underutilized correctional resource that can improve an inmate's behavior in the correctional facility and, upon an inmate's release from a correctional facility, will help to reduce recidivism” (Florida Senate, 2004).  Reginald A. Wilkinson, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, in an article surveying state policies on visitation, opens his discussion with these words:

 

The operation of a visitation program is an integral element of any prison system.   Hundreds of thousands of relatives and friends visit inmates in prison each year.   Experienced correctional managers know that visitation improves the prison environment, so all institutions encourage visits from family and friends.  Visits give inmates … an incentive to participate in rehabilitative programs, and a mechanism with which to cope with prison life.  While there are challenges to the security… of prisons and jails when visitors are allowed into the security envelope of an institution…the benefits greatly outweigh the drawbacks. (1999, p. 1)

 

Equally strong in its support for visitation is a statement cited by Mary Bosworth (2002) from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): "The Bureau of Prisons encourages visiting from family, friends and community groups to maintain the morale of the inmate and to develop closer relationships between the inmate and family members or others in the community” (Bosworth 2002, p. 133, citing 28 CFR 540.40 (June 30, 1980)).

 

Finally, other professional organizations have also weighed in with statements supporting adequate visiting facilities.  The American Correctional Association Accreditation Standards stipulate that inmates should “maintain ties with their families and the community,” and that “[t]he number of visitors an inmate may receive and the length of visits [should be] limited only by the facility’s schedule, space, and personnel constraints or when there are substantial reasons to justify such limitations” (2004, p. 86) .

 

Thus, professional support at multiple levels points to the conclusion that, by enhancing the visiting program, the correctional system can facilitate family ties, furthering the goals of cost effective reentry and lowered recidivism, and therefore enhancing public safety. This contention is supported by the report of the Governor's Commission on Corrections Reform issuedd in 2004; while not addressing family matters directly, this report repeatedly stresses the need for effective community ties and effective re-entry programs.  The Commission’s section on “Vision for the Department of Correction” closes with the following highlighted statement: 'The department should provide safe, secure and humane custody while preparing inmates to return to society in a way that makes it less likely that they will re-offend” (Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor’s Commission on Corrections Reform., 2004, p. 4).

 

Some of the current practices here at O.C.C.C. and other institutions are not consistent with the above-mentioned publicized goals; in fact some are the exact antithesis. There is a common consensus among prisoners and visitors alike that many of the practices involving visitation are unwelcoming and inhospitable to family members. (See the section below entitled “Rules, Regulations and Officers’ Interpretations”)

 

We understand the prevailing importance of security as a priority of the institution, and we have made a conscious effort to consider security concerns and incorporate them in our proposal. However, we also recognize the correlation between security and public safety. Keeping in mind public safety as the ultimate goal of all policies and practices, we as a society must not undermine that goal in the name of short-term security overkill.  We must not inadvertently undermine the broader objective of public safety by discouraging family and community ties through over-zealous security practices, which in the end contribute to recidivism and undermine that same ultimate goal of public safety.

 

Some of the current visiting room practices clearly pose obstacles to visitation for a number of reasons outlined in this proposal. The visiting experience has become unfulfilling and frustrating, which ultimately discourages visitation. In light of some of these current practices, many prisoners discourage their families from visiting to avoid a potentially volatile situation. Given the emotionally charged and sensitive nature of having one’s family members subjected to various indignities (that unfortunately accompany the current visiting experience), many visitors become reluctant or unwilling to visit. As a result, visits gradually taper off, essentially shorting the tenure of many relationships.

 

Ultimately, current practices result in increasing the collateral damage to families inherent in the deprivation of freedom. And this clearly is not in line with advertised correctional objectives. In fact, Commissioner Dennehy called for a training plan for correctional staff at O.C.C.C. to address the balance between security and public relations when processing visitors and volunteers into the institution. This training, which was to occur by June 30, 2004, has, to the author’s knowledge, not taken place. In the present situation, officers who lack interpersonal skills and are socially inept are routinely assigned to work in the visiting room and have contact with the general public.

 

It is obvious that there would be many benefits in adopting the new core values of the Department of Correction’s (DOC). In fact one would think that those who took the initiative to implement them would be rewarded accordingly.

 

Gains in security need not be achieved at the expense of the morale of prisoners or their families.  The suggested solutions in the following sections are consistent with the needs of the system and of society more generally.

 

 

Rules, Regulations, and Officers’ Interpretations

 

The primary purpose of visitation is to facilitate maintenance of family and community ties for rehabilitation and reintegration purposes. The state recognizes the importance of these goals in M.G.L., Chapter 124, which lists the duties of the Commissioner of Correction.  Section 1e of this chapter specifies that the Commissioner shall “establish, maintain and administer programs of rehabilitation, including but not limited to education, training and employment, of persons committed to the custody of the department, designed as far as practicable to prepare and assist each such person to assume the responsibilities and exercise the rights of a citizen of the commonwealth.” (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/124-1.htm)

 

In fact, it seems that those in authority in the state system are aware of the balance between rules and these important goals.  Xeroxed portions of a handbook intended for Massachusetts correctional officers, the first page of which bears the heading,  “Rules and Regulations Governing All Employees of the Massachusetts Department of Correction,” opens with a disclaimer to that effect:  “Nothing in any part of these rules and regulations shall be construed to relieve any employee of his or her primary charge concerning the safe keeping and custodial care of inmates…”  The same statement goes on to admonish correctional staff to obey all orders which are “not repugnant to rules, regulations and policies issued by the Commissioner, the respective Superintendent or by their authority.”[1]

 

We concede that the current rules and regulations are not entirely ‘repugnant to’ the DOC's current mission statement.  However, it should be noted that the rigid punitive interpretation of these rules and regulations is often in conflict with overall advertised DOC. objectives.

 

Visiting room policy at O.C.C.C., and elsewhere within the Massachusetts state correctional system, has become more and more restrictive in the name of security and discipline. Rehabilitation has taken a back seat to other concerns, such as the effort to reduce/stop the introduction of contraband.  In line with this punitive trend, it has been a common practice to punish the entire prison population as a knee-jerk reaction for the misdeeds of a few. Such practices have proven to be ineffective in reducing the flow of drugs; however, they have been effective in deterring visitors from coming to visit loved ones.

 

In short, security and discipline seem to have become competing goals with rehabilitation. This should not be the case, especially when these goals should be working as complementary to each other.   It makes little sense to undermine a larger primary goal/mission with an ineffective attempt to accomplish a supplemental goal, when the two need not be in conflict.

 

Security and discipline can be maintained, and not at the expense of rehabilitation, by heeding a suggestion made in the Effective Corrections Manager (Phillips and McConnell, 2003): "As well as being reasonable in quantity and strictness, rules should attempt to serve the common good without infringing on individual freedoms. Since nothing remains constant for long, rules should be regularly examined for applicability to present circumstances and conscientiously updated as real needs change” (p. 212).  The same passage goes on to suggest that such an examination would “easily fit into the annual review that most corrections organizations conduct of their policies.”

 

Due to the advances in modern technology (such as high-resolution zoom lense surveillance cameras) the need for certain highly restrictive rules has lessened. However, the rules have not been adjusted accordingly.

 

To present one example:

 

Because of low visibility in the past (before new cameras were installed) visitors are still today told to sit erect with both hands in front of them and to place their backs up against the chair. These rules are still enforced, even though visibility is substantially better now with the new cameras. Due to these new technological advances (cameras) the need for security can be met without enforcing practices which are antagonistic to rehabilitative goals.

 

A related point:

 

In light of the overall goal of visits (which is rehabilitation), the institution’s rules and regulations are not meant to police normal displays of affection and make visitors uncomfortable; unfortunately, the discretionary interpretation of them, as currently practiced, has often accomplished just that.

 

As rules are now interpreted, an innocent hug or kiss on the forehead is often arbitrarily interpreted as a rule violation. It is the author’s understanding that the two primary purposes of the visiting room rules are to prevent the introduction of contraband and to prevent sexual behavior that is inappropriate for a public setting. There is a wide gap between meaningful displays of affection and illicit sexual or suspicious behavior; and officers should be taught not to abuse their discretion in discerning that difference.  The importance of encouraging meaningful visits should be emphasized and only the most socially adept staff should be assigned to the visiting room.

 

Healthy displays of affection are a critical part of the family’s support for the inmate, as well as a source of support for marriages and other family relationships, which are severely strained by the prison experience.  Far from being discouraged as violations of a rule, these should be welcomed.

 

The following sections detail four other particularly troubling problem areas, with suggested solutions.

 

 

 

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

 

Due to the sensitive nature of visits, officer etiquette and misuse of discretion is an area that deserves much attention. However, there are a variety of other factors that contribute to the overall dampening effect of regulations on the visiting experience. These include staff allocation, low accountability (which breeds a culture of disregard for the importance of visits) and limitations placed on line staff due to rules and regulations that have not been adjusted to the new mission statement of the DOC. In this section, we outline several specific problems that need attention in this and other state correctional institutions.

 

1.  Bathroom Facility Access and Poor Staff Allocation:

 

Problem/Issue:

 

According to a survey conducted here at Old Colony Correctional Center among prisoners and their family members, 90 % of the people surveyed said it takes on average 30 minutes after an initial request to be escorted to the lavatory (see appendix for survey). This problem has become an obstacle barring family members from visiting loved ones, especially for parents of small children who cannot necessarily hold their bladders or bowels for extended periods of time. If a visitor insists on going to the bathroom immediately, he or she must terminate the visit, leave the institution and not return that day. Depending upon the time, the visitor may not even have that option. Therefore the visitor is forced to wait before relieving him or herself.  For those allowed to leave, when an officer finally unlocks the exit door, often in most facilities the designated visiting room lavatory is only a few feet away. The visitor must walk directly past or very close to the lavatory to which he or she was not given access, in order to exit the facility and reach a lavatory out in the front lobby.

 

When a parent makes a request to an officer, because her child needs to use the lavatory, there is typically only one female officer in the visiting room for escort; yet 90% of the visitors are women and children. Often the response to the visitor is "I have to wait for another officer to return," or "I'll take you as soon as I get a chance.”  According to our survey, in fact, the officer doesn't usually "get a chance" until at least 30 minutes later. The author has personally witnessed children screaming and acting out because they don't understand why they can't go to the bathroom. As a result the parent is forced to leave to prevent the child from wetting his/her clothes or becoming further distressed.

 

When this issue is brought to the attention of the visiting room staff, the standard response is, "It's not my fault; we don't have enough staff.”  This is a well-known tactic, in which the manipulation of deficient policies through rigid interpretation is made to look like a staffing shortage. Anyone who has some understanding of prison politics sees this as status quo. However, it is unfortunate when officials use small children as pawns, and children's unmet needs become the collateral damage.

 

 

Suggested Solution:

 

	Designate more female staff to the visiting room; with current staffing, the one female on duty is often not only escorting visitors to the lavatory, she is also returning to outer control to process visitors in the lobby for entry.
	Designate a special officer for this function; the problem is not a shortage of staff; it is the allocation of existing staff.

 

 

 

2.  Lack of Activities and Accommodations for Children:

 

Problem/Issue:

 

Visiting policy, practices and enforcement thereof, have been increasingly restrictive and insensitive to the needs of young children. These policies and practices highlight the disregard for the rehabilitative and re-­integrative value of visits.

 

The coloring books, crayons and religious books previously made available for children have been removed from the visiting room. The visiting room officers tell visitors that they must restrain two- and three-year-old children, keeping them essentially stationary for the duration of a visit.  This is unrealistic, considering children's active nature. Visits have become punitive for children. In this atmosphere, children begin to view visiting very negatively and begin associating visits with boredom and punishment.  These practices only serve to break down family ties that are hanging by a slender reed, ultimately undermining stated DOC rehabilitative and re-integrative goals.

 

 

Suggested Solution:

 

	A play area should be designated.
	Crayons, books, toys and religious books should be purchased through the canteen account and restored to the visiting room.
	Officers should be trained as to the sensitive and emotionally charged nature of family ties, particularly parent-child relationships; policies and procedures should be adjusted in this area to be consistent with stated goals.

 

 

3.  Broken Vending and Debit Card Machines

 

Problem/Issue:

 

The sandwich, snack, beverage and debit card machines provided for visitors and inmates are continuously out of order or empty.  There are instances where diabetics are forced to leave the visiting room because all machines are broken or empty and consequently they are unable to access a source of needed nourishment. On other occasions small children are denied the chance to get something to drink on an extremely hot day. The water fountain is also routinely turned off. Ultimately the parents often choose to end the visit rather than allow their children to go hungry or thirsty.

 

Suggested Solution:

 

	Conduct regular maintenance of all machines and water fountain.
	Work with outside food vendors to ensure regular deliveries to maintain food and beverage stock.

 

 

 

4.  Visitor Processing

 

Problem/Issue:

 

Visitors arrive and are allowed to enter the visiting lobby at 12 noon at Old Colony Correctional Center and other institutions.  However, officers on duty do not begin processing forms until 12:30 p.m. or even later. The time it takes to process one form can vary depending on the officer reviewing the paper work. Visits rarely start on time at 1 p.m.  When they do, there are often gaps in the flow of visitors entering the visiting room, due to the time it takes for officers to either process visiting forms or call visitors by their assigned numbers for search and entry. This delay often pushes back the time visitors can actually get in to visit their loved ones.

 

On any given day (particularly on weekends) visitors who routinely arrive at 12:30 p.m. and submit their paperwork often do not enter the visiting room until close to 2 p.m. This depends upon which officer is processing the paper work and which officer is processing visitors during search. For instance, family members have reported that certain officers routinely take up to fifteen minutes to process one paper, when there are an average of thirty to fifty visitors waiting for entry. At other times, different officers have processed visiting forms in under two minutes. The officers who process the slowest are frequently working on the busiest visiting days, (i.e. on the weekends).

 

This past summer at Old Colony Correctional Center, some visitors reported arriving by twelve thirty, but not reaching the visiting room until five-thirty or six in the evening due to long wait times which carry over during shift change and count time. Yet visitors exiting the visiting room on such days regularly spoke to those still waiting to get in, confirming that the visiting room was not full to capacity.  Feeling discouraged after traveling great distances and waiting several hours, distraught visitors often left for the day. With relationships already hanging on by slender reeds, this could mean the difference between facilitating or deterring family ties. Weeks, even months may pass before these people attempt a return visit.

 

Suggested Solution:

 

	Officers should begin processing forms at 12 noon, which is the time visitors are allowed to enter the lobby.
	There should be consistent training procedures in place for processing visitor forms.
	Officers should process forms in a timely fashion to assist with getting visitors and prisoners into the visiting room much sooner.
	The maximum number of chairs allowed by fire and safety standards should be kept in the visiting room.  Also, regular maintenance should be done on the visiting room chairs. (Two chairs were left broken for over six months at O.C.C.I.).

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

While we have illustrated a few of the problems plaguing the visiting program, this is in no way represents an exhaustive or complete list of ways in which the procedures at Old Colony Correctional Center and other institutions fall short of the Massachusetts Department of Correction’s stated mission, and the ways in which practices in the state fail to recognize the long-standing body of literature on the importance of family ties to inmates, as well as ultimately to a safe society.

 

We are hopeful that this proposal will prompt a full assessment of the gaps between policies, procedures and goals, and will lead to corrective action that makes sense.  As Secretary of Public Safety Edward A. Flynn pointed out in a recent talk advocating a return to practices supporting rehabilitation, "[I]t is not enough to be tough on crime. We need to be SMART on crime… Smart on crime, not just tough on crime, means results over rhetoric” (2003, pp. 12-13).

 

Over the past decade or more, there has been a trend that has progressively leaned toward more restrictive policies while simultaneously cutting rehabilitative programs that facilitate reintegration. The visiting program has suffered considerably from this trend. These draconian practices have proven to be ineffective and very costly. Commissioner Dennehy's mission statement embraces the best kind of logic, a logic that realizes it is far more cost effective to be smart on crime than merely tough on crime. It does not seem that the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union (MCOFU) is cut from the same ideological cloth. This is reflected in MCOFU's response to the report issued from the Governor's Commission on Corrections Reform.  The Correctional Officer’s response claims that “Security is the mission of the correction officer—care, custody and control. Without security, the prison system will again be rife with violence like that experienced through the seventies and early eighties. In fact, the violence didn’t subside until we began to treat inmates like incarcerated felons, instead of guests at boarding school” (http://www.mcofu.net).

 

While we agree that the violence did subside in the late 80's, we disagree with the cause. The violence subsided because the policies that were in effect at that time were consistent with Commissioner Dennehy's current mission statement.   There is a widely held sentiment among COs that the Commissioner's new corrections environment will “coddle inmates.”  There is one line in particular in the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union (MCOFU)'s response that goes to the very heart of the problem and shows the faulty reasoning of the MCOFU:  "While you [i.e. the Governor's Commission on Correction Reform] may view the mission of the department to be the conversion of a criminal into a model citizen, we (MCOFU) view our part of the mission as defense of public safety” (http://www.mcofu.net) An earlier statement in the same response seems to imply that the “conversion of a criminal into a model citizen " is the wrong goal, and is somehow at odds with the goal of  "defending public safety.”  On the contrary, we concur strongly with a long tradition of research showing that rehabilitation is the most effective tool in defending public safety. In other words, far from being at odds, these two goals are complementary to one another. The idea that harsh and rigid punishment protects public safety has become obsolete in the criminal justice systems of most civilized societies.  It is time for our own state correctional system to adjust its policies to reflect that enlightened view as we enter the twenty-first century.

 

In the classic work Crime and Human Nature, James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein (1985, 1998) repeatedly stress the influence of family on criminal behavior.  In the authors’ words, "Evidence has even been adduced indicating that the crime rate of entire cultures may differ for reasons of family structure” (p. 246).  They discuss at some length patterns of recidivism based on loss of family ties or on unhealthy family situations.   Their emphasis on family as an important if beleaguered institution prefigures the trend in later research, cited earlier in this document, which stresses the rehabilitative effects of strong family ties.   In short, men who have no one to go home to are not only more likely to reoffend; they are also less likely to want parole, or to succeed once released.  Facilitating family ties has proven to be a very effective rehabilitative tool; it is a tool currently utilized in the best practices of other states. It was once also one of the best practices in effect here in Massachusetts.

 

There is broad recognition that facilitating family and community ties is linked to many other correctional goals. However, it is one of the most under-utilized tools in the correctional arsenal.  If the suggestions outlined in this proposal, and others in a similar spirit, are adopted, they will be very cost-effective ways to contribute to enhancing security, rehabilitation and reducing recidivism. 

 

REFERENCES

 

American Correctional Association, in cooperation with the Commission on Accreditation for

Corrections. (2004).  Performance-based standards for adult local detention facilities,

Fourth Edition.  American Correctional Association:  Lanham, MD.

 

Bosworth, Mary. (2002).  The U.S. Federal Prison System.  Thousand Oaks:  Sage Publications.

 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor’s Commission on Corrections Reform.  (2004). 

Strengthening public safety, increasing accountability, and instituting fiscal

responsibility in the Department of Correcion.  Final Report.  Boston: ms.

 

Florida Senate, The.  (2004).  The 2004 Florida Statutes, Chapter 944:  State correctional system. 

Retrieved January 4, 2005 from http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0944/SEC8031.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0944->Section%208031#0944.8031.

 

Flynn, Edward.  (2003).  Testimony of Secretary Edward A. Flynn [to the] Joint Committee on

Public Safety.  Boston. ms.

 

Holt, Norman and David Miller.  (1972).  Explorations in inmate-family relationships,

Research Division, California Department of Corrections, Sacramento, California. 

Retrieved January 4, 2005 from http://www.fcnetwork.org/.

 

Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union. n.d.  The Governor’s Commission on

Corrections Reform.  Retrieved January 4, 2005, from http://www.mcofu.net.

 

Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 124, Section 1.  Retrieved January 24, 2005 from

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/124-1.htm

 

Phillips, Richard L, and Charles R. McConnell, MBA, CM. ( 2003). The Effective Corrections

Manager: Correctional Supervision for the Future, Second Edition.  Sudbury, MA: 

Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

 

Schafer, N. E. (1994).  Exploring the link between visits and parole success:  A survey of prison

visitors.  Internal Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 38 (1), pp.

17-32.

 

Shapiro, Carol, and Meryl Schwartz.. (2001).   “Coming home:  Building on family

connections.”  Corrections Management Quarterly 5 (3). pp. 52-63.

 

Wilkinson, Reginald A. (1999). Visiting in prison. Published in Prison and Jail

Administration's Practices and Theory. retrieved January 4, 2005 from

http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/Articles/article46.htm.

 

James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein  (1998).  Crime and human nature.   New York:  The

Free Press.  Reprinted from earlier 1985 edition.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Visiting Survey Questionnaire

A survey was conducted with 100 participants, 50 visitors and 50 prisoners, who were asked to respond to the following questions:

 

1.         How would you or your loved ones describe the treatment you experienced during visitor      processing?

            a.         Professional, respectful, polite

            b.         Insensitive, aloof, cold, intrusive

            c.         Rude, ill-mannered, discourteous

 

2.             Once you've made a request to use the lavatory (bathroom), for your self or the children visiting,       how much time is spent waiting before being escorted?

            a.         10 minutes

            b.         20 minutes

            c.         30 minutes

            d.         45 minutes

            e.         Over one hour

 

 

 

 

3.             How would you describe the average visiting experiences from entry to exit?

            a.         Pleasant, relaxing, fulfilling, welcoming

            b.         Slightly uncomfortable, restricted, uneasy, awkward

                c.             Unfulfilling, stressful, uncomfortable

 

4.         What do you attribute a positive visiting experience to?

            a.         Variety of food and beverages for purchase

            b.         Staff accommodations

                c.             The length of the visiting period

                d.             Visiting room seating/comfortability

 

5.             What do you attribute a negative visiting experience to?

                a.             Broken or empty money and vending machines

                 b.            Time it takes to enter visiting room

            c.         Interpretation of rules and staff behavior while enforcing them

            d.         Time it takes to use the rest room

 

6.             Which of the following would you describe the visiting room staff behavior as being consistent          with?    

            a.         Goals of fostering rehabilitation and reintegration through facilitating visits

            b.         Having an inadvertent disregard for the importance of visits

            c.         Purposefully deterring and discouraging visits

 

7.         What do you think is the most prevalent problem within the visiting room?

            a.         Vending machines

            b.         Visitor processing

            c.         Staff conduct

            d.         Termination of visits

           

8.         In your visiting experience would you say that visiting room staff:

            a.         Abuse their authority and discretion

            b.         Use their authority and discretion wisely

            c.         Are selective and inconsistent with using their authority and discretion

 

9.         On the back please add any comments or suggestions that you feel are relevant to this survey.

Questionnaire Results

Blue represents visitor response rates. Green represents prisoner response rates.  In questions four and five all participants had the option of choosing multiple answers, and most selected all answers provided. Therefore, a general percentage was given for the entire question for those two items.  The comments and suggestions that were written by participants in response to question nine were incorporated into the attached proposal.

 

1. How would you or your loved ones describe the treatment you experienced during visitor processing?

            5%     0%        A. Professional, respectful, polite

           60%   75%       B. Insensitive, aloof, cold, intrusive

             35%   25%       C. Rude, ill-mannered, discourteous

 

2.         Once you've made a request to use the lavatory (bathroom), for yourself or the children visiting, how much time is spent waiting before being escorted?

10%   5%          A. 10 minutes

20%  30%         B. 20 minutes

            40%  65%         C. 30 minutes

            20%   0%          D. 45 minutes

           10%   0%          E. Over one hour

 

 

3.         How would you describe the average visiting experiences from entry to exit?

                5%   0%        A. Pleasant, relaxing, fulfilling, welcoming

           45%  75%        B. Slightly uncomfortable, restricted, uneasy, awkward

             50%  25%        C. Unfulfilling, stressful, uncomfortable

 

4.         What do you attribute a positive visiting experience to?

            80% 70%

                                    A. Variety of food and beverage for purchase

                                    B. Staff accommodations

                                    C. The length of the visiting period

                                    D. Visiting room seating/comfortability

 

5.         What do you attribute a negative visiting experience to?

            90% 100%

                                    A. Broken or empty money and vending machines

                                    B. Time it takes to enter visiting room

                                    C. Interpretation of rules and staff behavior while enforcing them

                                    D. Time it takes to use the rest worn

 

6.         Which of the following would you describe the visiting room staff behavior as being consistent          with?

              0%  5%           A. Goals of fostering rehabilitation and reintegration through facilitating visits

            45% 30%          B. Having an inadvertent disregard for the importance of visits

            55% 65%          C. Purposefully deterring and discouraging visits

 

7.         What do you think is the most prevalent problem within the visiting room?

            10%     5%        A. Vending machines

            30%   30%        B. Visitor processing

            60%   60%        C. Staff conduct

              0%     5%        D. Termination of visits

 

8.         In your visiting experience would you say that visiting room staff:

             50%   50%       A. Abuse their authority and discretion

               0%     0%       B. Use their authority and discretion wisely

              50%   50%      C. Are selective and inconsistent with using their authority and discretion

[1] The handbook from which this xeroxed material was drawn was not available to CJPC staff;   however, we were able to confirm the accuracy of the statement, and hence we have included it in our edited version at the author’s request, and to help ensure coherence in the document.

See Also:

Coming in to the Cold: Memories of Prison Visits by Diana Greene