Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:27 pm
Time: 8:27 pm
Results for prisoner communications
2 results foundAuthor: Mumby, Lauren Title: Prison voicemail: an initial evaluation Summary: The UK prison population currently stands at just under 86,000 (Ministry of Justice, 2017) and the average cost per prisoner is approximately L35,000 per year (Ministry of Justice, 2013). The acknowledged reoffending rate for adults released from custody is 44.1% (Ministry of Justice, 2017b) with reoffending estimated to cost in excess of L80,000 per offender (De Las Casas et al, 2011). In times of austerity, the Ministry of Justice is under pressure to reduce number of prisoners and reduce offending and reoffending. Added to the financial costs, imprisonment is often a traumatic time for those imprisoned, and their families. In 2016, 119 self-inflicted deaths were recorded in prisons in England and Wales, a record high; there were 37,784 incidents of self-harm, an increase of 23% from the previous year (Ministry of Justice 2017c). A significant factor related to suicide and selfharm in custody is family ties. Prisoners who have attempted suicide have been found to miss their families more and to have reduced contact with them (Liebling, 1992). The pains of imprisonment thesis (Sykes, 1958) argues that prison often places significant strain on personal relationships resulting from the physical separation and emotional trauma resulting from, often sudden, separation. A failure to maintain family relationships can lead to increased emotional instability during imprisonment and limited social ties for release (Adams, 1992; Cochran, 2013). This may manifest in further negative behaviours inside prison such as violence and general misconduct (Burnett and Maruna, 2004). Conversely, familial attachments and contact during prison sentences have been reported as crucial for helping people in custody cope with the pressures of prison life, such as the feelings of isolation associated with imprisonment (Agnew, 1992); can contribute towards decreased misconduct whilst in prison (Maruna, 2001); and provide support and hope for release (e.g. Agnew, 1992; Rocque et al, 2013). Family ties provide a sense of belonging, security and happiness (De Las Casas et al, 2011). Desistance literature also reports that there is a vital role in family bonds for reducing reoffending (Sampson and Laub, 1993). More specifically, men who maintained contact with their children during imprisonment, demonstrated improved resettlement outcomes (Visher, 2013). Prisoners who improved their family relationships during their sentence resulted in lower levels of reoffending, higher levels of employment and lower levels of drug use on release than those who did not improve relationships (Brunton-Smith and McCarthy, 2016). Identifying opportunities to maintain and strengthen family relationships while a person is incarcerated may, therefore have a significant contribution to improving safety in prisons, limiting reoffending and aiding resettlement. Families themselves also suffer as a result of imprisonment. Families have to cope with practical, financial and emotional consequences which can subsequently have a further impact on relationships. Loss of income, isolation, relationship deterioration and extra childcare commitments can increase the sense of loss and hopelessness experienced by families (Loucks, 2004; Murray, 2005; Codd, 2007). Loss of income is exacerbated by increased expenditure on visits, telephone calls and sending money to imprisoned relatives (Braman and Wood, 2003). Furthermore, it is estimated that 160,000 children in the UK are affected by parental imprisonment (Social Exclusion Unit, 2007) and they can suffer a range of problems during the incarceration period including depression, aggression, eating problems, sleep problems and school related issues (Boswell et al, 2002). However, increasing family contact is thought to moderate these effects. For example, maintaining family ties has been found to increase the resilience of children (Garmezy and Rutter, 1983). It is clear that maintaining and improving family ties while a person is imprisoned can have a significant impact on both the prisoner and their family with regard to increasing safety, improving resettlement, reducing the effects on the family and ultimately decreasing recidivism. Despite this, prisoners have limited means to keep in contact with their families. They can receive visits but this process is often fraught with challenges for those visiting such as distance to travel to the prison, employment commitments, poor staff attitudes and difficulties in accessing information (Codd, 2007). They can send and receive letters by post or e-mail, if they are sufficiently literate. They can make phone calls, but these are limited to certain times of the day when prisoners are allowed outside their cells, often resulting in queues for the limited number of available phones. The majority of prisoners have no legitimate access to mobile telecommunications and information technology that dominates personal communication in the community (Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, PPO, 2014). While the PPO calls upon all prisons to support family ties while still ensuring security and public protection (PPO, 2014), family and friends are still unable to make a simple telephone call to the imprisoned person. Alongside this, it has been widely publicised that there is decreased staffing and resource levels within UK prisons (e.g. The Howard League, 2016) both of which impact negatively on phone access. Prison Voicemail It is against this backdrop of complex prison challenges that the social start-up, Prison Voicemail, has emerged as a potentially significant moderator for these issues. Details: Lincoln, UK: University of Lincoln, 2017. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2017 at: http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/28301/1/28301%20Prison%20Voicemail%20report%20Final%2031%20July%202017%20for%20PDF.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/28301/1/28301%20Prison%20Voicemail%20report%20Final%2031%20July%202017%20for%20PDF.pdf Shelf Number: 147013 Keywords: Children of PrisonersFamilies of InmatesPrisoner CommunicationsPrisoners |
Author: Wagner, Peter Title: State of Phone Justice: Local jails, state prisons and private phone providers Summary: At a time when the cost of a typical phone call is approaching zero, people behind bars in the U.S. are often forced to pay astronomical rates to call their loved ones or lawyers. Why? Because phone companies bait prisons and jails into charging high phone rates in exchange for a share of the revenue. The good news is that, in the last decade, we've made this industry considerably fairer: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) capped the cost of out-of-state phone calls from both prisons and jails at about 21 cents a minute; The FCC capped many of the abusive fees that providers used to extract extra profits from consumers; and Most state prison systems lowered their rates even further and also lowered rates for in-state calls. However, the vast majority of our progress has been in state-run prisons. In county- and city-run jails - where predatory contracts get little attention - instate phone calls can still cost $1 per minute, or more. Moreover, phone providers continue to extract additional profits by charging consumers hidden fees and are taking aggressive steps to limit competition in the industry. These high rates and fees can be disastrous for people incarcerated in local jails. Local jails are very different from state prisons: On a given day, 3 out of 4 people held in jails under local authority have not even been convicted, much less sentenced. The vast majority are being held pretrial, and many will remain behind bars unless they can make bail. Charging pretrial defendants high prices for phone calls punishes people who are legally innocent, drives up costs for their appointed counsel, and makes it harder for them to contact family members and others who might help them post bail or build their defense. It also puts them at risk of losing their jobs, housing, and custody of their children while they are in jail awaiting trial. Details: Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2019. 18p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2019 at: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/state_of_phone_justice.html Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/state_of_phone_justice.html Shelf Number: 154638 Keywords: Prison Policies and ProceduresPrisoner CommunicationsTelephones |