Visitation Programs: Differential Moderation Effects on Prison Rule Infractions

Purpose: Prisoners face loss of freedom and secondarily endure social isolation. As prison sentences increase, prisoners face more challenges to maintain social networks. Some prisons attempt to maintain social ties and increase morale via visitation programs. Despite these efforts, research suggests visitation can be a catalyst to agitate prisoners who then engage in misconduct. This study examined prison programs as a moderator of visitations on rule infractions.

Method: A sample of 11,400 males and 2,894 females were used from the 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. Rule infraction was operationalized as a count of 15 types of prison misbehaviors. Five prison programs were used: mental health/detox, work on grounds, education, self-help, and prerelease. Five covariates were used: age, marital status, race, prior probation history, and prior incarceration history. Sex was used as a grouping variable. 

Multiple negative binomial regressions were performed on a main effect model and 10 different interaction models on rule infraction to test whether program participation moderated the effects of visitation. Model 1 tested for Main Effects, Models 2 through 6 tested for interaction effects between programs and phone calls, and Models 7 through 11 tested for interaction effects between programs and in-person visits. A binomial logistic regression was performed as a sensitivity test.

Results: For males who received calls, there were fewer numbers of rule infraction between those who did not participate in education compared to those who participated in education, (participated, M = 1.36; did not participate, M = .77). For males who did not participate in work on prison grounds, those who also did not receive calls committed more rule infraction than those who did receive calls (did receive, M = 1.00; did not receive, M = 1.33).  For males who received in-person visits, there were fewer numbers of rule infraction between those who did not participate in education and who participated in education, (participated, M = 1.45; did not participate, M = .88).

For females, those who did not participate in work on prison grounds and did not receive calls committed more rule infraction than those who did receive calls (did receive, M = .72; did not receive, M = .92). For those who received in-person visits, there was higher rule infraction between those who did not participate in self-help and those who participated in self-help, (participated, M = .78; did not participate, M = 1.09). For females who did not participate in self-help, those who received in-person visits committed more rule infraction than those who did not receive in-person visits (received visit, M = 1.09; did not receive visit, M = .76).

Conclusions and Implications: Findings suggest program participation can moderate the effects of visitation on rule infraction; however, there are differential effects between males and females and specific program type. The findings of this study signal a critical area for corrections-based social workers to focus on identifying unique needs of male and female prisoners, and how prison programs such as visitation can be most effective to deter rule infraction.