Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:18 am
Time: 2:18 am
Results for visitation
12 results foundAuthor: Begg, Fiona Title: Serving Time on the Outside: A Survey of Visitors to Correctional Centres in the Wacol Region, Queensland Summary: In researching the issues and experiences of families of prisoners or visitors to correctional centres (prisons) in Australia it would appear that this has been a relatively limited research area to date. However with an average of 21 138 people held each day in Australian prisons one is talking about a considerable number of individuals and families throughout this country who are directly affected by the issue of imprisonment. “ For most inmates who face a prison term, their families will also begin a sentence: of physical, social, and psychological hardship. They will do so, in most instances, with a minimum of resources to draw upon and with little power to meet the additional demands on their trouble-plagued lives” (Jorgensen, Hernandez and Warren (1986:47) ACRO is a social justice organisation committed to the development of a safe and caring society. As such the organisation has been involved in delivering support services to prisoners and their families for over thirty years. In 1988 the organisation conducted surveys with visitors to the now closed and somewhat infamous Boggo Rd Goal as part of a submission process for a government review into the prisons system of the day. Four hundred and eighty (480) respondents completed surveys. A wide range of recommendations were included in the subsequent report, including a complete overhaul of the manner and methods by which prisons were run and the ways in which prisoners and their families were treated. Significant changes were introduced across a wide range of areas in corrections in this State as a result of that inquiry. In 2001 ACRO surveyed visitors to correctional centres in the Wacol area of Queensland. A total of eighty four (84) respondents completed the questionnaire. Surveys were undertaken at the ACRO Family Centre with persons visiting the following correctional centres : · Arthur Gorrie Remand and Reception Centre · Wolston Correctional Centre · Brisbane Womens Correctional Centre · Sir David Longland Correctional Centre (SDL) · Moreton B (since closed) This Report provides a snapshot of the experience of persons visiting correctional centres in the Wacol region; a region with the largest concentration of correctional centres in the State. In addition it provides background information about visitors such as their age, gender, income base and housing situation, enabling a general profile to be drawn. Added to this, the Report also provides a comparative analysis from survey work conducted with the same client group (persons visiting prison) in 1988. It is clear from the results of the present survey that for families/visitors of prisoners a number of key issues remain unaddressed, issues which cause significant levels of difficulty and stress for people already in a difficult and stressful situation. It is the intention of this Report to provide a window for persons involved in visiting a correctional centre to be able to view that experience in the context of being one of a significant number of people undergoing that experience; to reflect their views and opinions about their experiences, and for persons who have never experienced the corrections system directly to gain some insight as to the experience of visitors. Details: Lutwyche, Queensland: ACRO Australian Community Safety & Research Organisation Incorporated, 2002. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 6, 2011 at: http://www.acro.com.au/Reports/Serving%20Time%20Outside.pdf Year: 2002 Country: Australia URL: http://www.acro.com.au/Reports/Serving%20Time%20Outside.pdf Shelf Number: 122653 Keywords: Families of InmatesPrison VisitsPrisoners (Australia)Visitation |
Author: Estep, Ben Title: Economic Study of Integrated Family Support Programme (IFS) Summary: nef consulting (the consultancy arm of UK think thank the new economics foundation) was asked in March 2012 to assess the potential socio-economic impact of the Prison Advice and Care Trust’s Integrated Family Support (IFS) programme. This assessment focuses on the economic impact of the work carried out by the programme on behalf of prisoners and their families. Our research is based on case studies, administrative data provided by the programme and interviews with programme staff. There is a sizeable body of literature on the varied needs of prisoners and their families and a growing recognition that these needs, particularly those related to the maintenance of productive family ties, are closely associated with successful resettlement. The importance of prisoner and family support work is underscored by the rapidly growing prison population. At the time of writing, there are just under 87,000 people in prison in England and Wales, an increase of 23 per cent over the last ten years and a population that has nearly doubled over the last two decades. Whilst delivering economic savings is not the primary motivation of IFS, in a climate of both reduced social spending and increasing prison populations this is an important and under-evidenced question to consider. For purposes of this analysis, we focus on IFS work in three prisons: HMP Swansea, HMP Wandsworth, and HMP Eastwood Park, and in three different areas: visits (including help arranging and supporting visits between offenders and their families and intermediary work between offenders and families); support to families (including provision of information, emotional support, referral to services and interfacing with social services); and resettlement-focused help (including housing and employment support, and benefits and debt advice). Based on our review of the support that IFS offers and accounting for multiple scenarios, we estimate that IFS delivers potential benefits to the State of between £515,465 and £3,479,294 over a one year period. Based on an annual cost per programme site of £40,368 in London and £35,972 elsewhere, and using our middle estimate, this represents a value of £1,281,240 or return of £11.41 for every £1 invested. The predominant source of this impact is in cost savings from reductions in reoffending due to IFS work toward the encouragement and supporting of visits, and the consequent maintenance of family ties. Potential social and health care savings related to prisoner’s families have also been identified, as well as cost avoidance based on resettlement-focused planning. It is worth noting that there are a number of other probable impacts connected to IFS that are beyond the scope of this study, and the existing literature, to capture. This includes the future potential positive impacts on children and their life chances, amongst others. This assessment demonstrates that IFS provides good value for money for the taxpayer. As IFS’s work continues, we would encourage recording client outcomes systematically and longitudinally in order to evidence the socio-economic impact of the programme. The way in which the support offered contributes separately and collectively to changes for offenders and families is in need of deeper investigation. A better understanding of the way in which individual IFS sites are developing their model to create change will both contribute to the on-going development of the programme and help its wider impact. This conservative assessment has been prepared using a portfolio analysis approach informed by Social Return on Investment (SROI) principles and cost-benefit analysis. Beyond the areas of support on which we focus here, case studies and conversations with IFS staff, as well as evidence in the research literature, suggests that IFS’s work also has a material impact on the well-being of prisoners and families. Moving forward, IFS may consider adopting a full social value analysis which could help evidence and value these additional benefits. Details: London: nef (new economics foundation), 2012. 35p Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2012 at: http://www.prisonadvice.org.uk/files/nef_Pact%20IFS%20Economic%20study.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.prisonadvice.org.uk/files/nef_Pact%20IFS%20Economic%20study.pdf Shelf Number: 125593 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisFamilies of Inmates (U.K.)Prisoner ReentryPrisonersVisitation |
Author: Boudin, Chesa Title: Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey Summary: This paper presents a summary of the findings from the first fifty-state survey of prison visitation policies. Our research explores the contours of how prison administrators exercise their discretion to prescribe when and how prisoners may have contact with friends and family. Visitation policies impact recidivism, inmates’ and their families’ quality of life, public safety, and prison security, transparency and accountability. Yet many policies are inaccessible to visitors and researchers. Given the wide-ranging effects of visitation, it is important to understand the landscape of visitation policies and then, where possible, identify best practices and uncover policies that may be counterproductive or constitutionally infirm. Comparative analysis of the sort we have undertaken will, we hope, not only inform academics but empower regulators and administrators of prisons to implement thoughtful reforms. Our paper and data set allow for state-by-state comparison across a group of common categories of visitation-related policies. In addition, we identify commonalities and variation in the categories we tracked, and also documented outlier policies revealed in the course of our research. We worked with the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) to track down difficult-to-find policy documents, and received written feedback from nearly all fifty state departments of corrections to ensure accuracy. The paper is organized as follows. Part I describes the methodology we employed and considers its potential limitations. Part II provides our key substantive findings, presents a few highlights of the data, and discusses the basic commonalities of the policies, while noting the divergence in other key areas. Part III provides a detailed description of two sub-policy areas within visitation regulations. Here we analyze in more detail the range of approaches that states take to two contrasting forms of visitation: video visitation and overnight family (“conjugal”) visitation. Part IV outlines possible next steps for research on this topic. Details: New Haven, CT: Yale University, School of Law, 2012. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper Series: Accessed November 20, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2171412 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2171412 Shelf Number: 126939 Keywords: PrisonersPrisons (U.S.)Visitation |
Author: Phillips, Susan D. Title: Video Visits for Children Whose Parents Are Incarcerated: In Whose Best Interest? Summary: Video Visits for Children Whose Parents Are Incarcerated: In Whose Best Interest? addresses the question of whether video visitation may also provide benefits for children who are separated from their parents by incarceration. Our conclusion is that it depends on the particular policies and practices of a given institution. Video visitation holds the most potential for benefiting children if: •It is used as an adjunct to, rather than a replacement for, other modes of communication, particularly contact visits; •Children can visit from their homes or nearby sites; •Facility policies allow for frequent visits; and •Fees are not cost prohibitive. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 24, 2013 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_Video_Visitation_White_Paper.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_Video_Visitation_White_Paper.pdf Shelf Number: 127390 Keywords: Children of PrisonersFamilies of InmatesVisitation |
Author: Renaud, Jorge Antonio Title: Video Visitation: How Private Companies Push for Visits by Video and Families Pay the Price Summary: In September 2014, a group of Dallas-area advocates led a fight against an initiative that would have introduced video visitation capability to the Dallas County jail. The company proposing to provide services to Dallas had buried in its contract a requirement that the jail eliminate in-person visitation, thus leaving those who wished to visit prisoners only one option - visit by video. Or, don't visit at all. Dallas officials voted the proposal down, but it was the latest front in a battle that has seen video-only visitation policies spreading across the country, primarily in local lockups. Embraced by jail officials as a way to alleviate what many see as the burdensome security aspects of prison visitation, the primary attraction of video-only visitation actually rests on one facet: money. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership; Austin, TX: Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, 2014. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 17, 2014 at: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Video%20Visitation%20%28web%29.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Video%20Visitation%20%28web%29.pdf Shelf Number: 133735 Keywords: Prison PrivatizationPrison VisitorsPrisonersPrisons (Texas)VideoVisitation |
Author: Rabuy, Bernadette Title: Screening Out Family Time: The for-profit video visitation industry in prisons and jails Summary: Video technology like Skype or FaceTime can be a great way to stay together for people who are far apart. It is not the same as being there in person, but it is better than a phone call or sending a letter. Given that there are 2.2 million people who are incarcerated, often many hundreds of miles from their homes, it should be no surprise that prison and jail video visitation is quietly sweeping the nation. But video visitation is not like Skype or FaceTime. For one, these well-known technologies are a high-quality, free supplement to time spent together, in-person. The video visitation that is sweeping through U.S. jails is almost the exact opposite. In order to stimulate demand for their low-quality product, jails and video visitation companies work together to shut down the traditional in-person visitation rooms and instead require families to pay up to $1.50 per minute for visits via computer screen. In this report, we collect the contracts and the experiences of the facilities, the families, and the companies. We: -Determine how this industry works, and explain the key differences between video visitation in jails (where it is most common and most commonly implemented in explicitly exploitative ways) and video visitation in prisons (where there is a proven need for the service and where prices are more reasonable yet the service is actually pretty rare). -Hold the industry's fantastic promises up against the hard evidence of experience, including the industry's own commission reports. -Give hard data showing just how unpopular this service is. We analyze the usage data, and then walk through exactly why families consider this unreliable and poorly designed technology a serious step backwards. -Identify the patterns behind the worst practices in this industry, finding that the most harmful practices are concentrated in facilities that contract with particular companies. -Analyze why the authors of correctional best practices have already condemned the industry's preferred approach to video visitation. -Review the unanimous opposition of major editorial boards to business models that try to profit off the backs of poor families, when we should be rewarding families for trying to stay together. -Identify how video visitation could be implemented in a more family-friendly way and highlight two small companies who have taken some of these steps. Finally, we make 23 recommendations for federal and state regulators, legislators, correctional facilities, and the video visitation companies on how they could ensure that video visitation brings families together and makes our communities stronger instead of weaker. Details: Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, 2015. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2015 at: http://static.prisonpolicy.org/visitation/ScreeningOutFamilyTime_January2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://static.prisonpolicy.org/visitation/ScreeningOutFamilyTime_January2015.pdf Shelf Number: 134559 Keywords: Families of InmatesPrison VisitsPrivatizationVideo VisitationVisitation |
Author: Reid Howie Associates Title: HMP Low Moss Research Programme into Innovative Practice (Vol 1). Family Visits and First Time in Custody Summary: A number of innovative practices are being introduced in HMP Low Moss. These are designed to stimulate, promote and sustain cultural change, and to support prisoner rehabilitation through mentoring, pro-social examples and positive role modelling. Amongst the new developments are: - An innovative system for visits and family contact, focusing on promoting family integration in a positive pro-social environment, driven by the needs of the family and specifically the child. - A separate regime and facilities for prisoners in custody for the first time. Research was carried out in late 2012 / early 2013 to explore the implementation and impact of these new practices and the main findings are summarised below. Visits and family contact. The new approach to visits and family contact involves the visitor (rather than the prisoner) arranging the visits. There are three family and friends visit sessions per day (and two at weekends) and prisoners can take as many visits as they wish, subject to availability. Children's visits are available daily at 17:15, where prisoners can play with their children and help with homework, and all prisoners who are parents or grandparent are eligible for these. There is also an induction visit for prisoners who are new to custody, or new to Low Moss. The ethos of the prison also involves working to promote a positive environment in which positive contact can take place. Key findings The new approach to visits and family contact in Low Moss is seen to be very positive overall by prisoners, families, staff and volunteers. Both family and friends visits and children's visits are seen to be beneficial, and the approach to visits and family contact is seen as consistent with the overall ethos in Low Moss. The approach is seen to have a positive impact on enabling prisoners to maintain relationships with their families and to be involved in their lives, affecting: the actual relationships; the level of participation by prisoners in family life; and their ability to discuss important issues with their families. There is a clear view that the children's visits have a positive impact on bonding between prisoners and their children, and that they enable parents and grandparents to be involved in their children and grandchildren's growing up. While it is more difficult to identify the impact of visits and family contact upon future desistance (given, for example, the influence of other factors and the longer term timescale for such an impact), participants expressed a number of positive views which are relevant to future behaviour, with family contact seen as an important aspect of easing prisoners' transition back into the community. Aspects of the new approach to visits and family contact considered particularly positive are: - The opportunity, frequency and availability of family contact. - Flexibility in approach and the focus on enabling contact. - Pleasant surroundings and a relaxed atmosphere for the visits. - Activities and events (particularly freedom of movement at children's visits). - The staff approach. - The benefits to prisoners and families of the positive family contact. Against this background, however, there are concerns with some specific aspects of visits and family contact, which appear to impact on prisoners' and families' experiences and views. These relate to: - Practical problems with the booking system. - Timing, length and accessibility issues for some families. - Aspects of the process and rules (e.g. nature / level of security procedures). - Aspects of privacy (particularly in a small number of tables in the visit room). - Aspects of the layout and facilities for some families. - The quality and availability of toys and equipment for children. - The limited choice of refreshments and lack of hot food. - The attitudes of some staff (and variation in these). While the general approach to visits and family contact is seen to be very positive, a number of suggestions are made in the report about addressing these concerns. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Prison Service, 2014. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2015 at: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publication-3517.aspx Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publication-3517.aspx Shelf Number: 137003 Keywords: Children of PrisonersFamilies of InmatesVisitation |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: The impact of distance from home on children in custody: A thematic review Summary: Placing children in custody miles away from their home affected how many family visits they received, said Peter Clarke, Chief Inspector of Prisons. It didn't, however, have a significant impact on other experiences of custody and could help some boys keep away from gang influence, he added. Today he published a report, The impact of distance from home on children in custody. The independent review was commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB). It pulls together views and data on the impact of distance from home on children in custody. The aims of the thematic were to: - explore the impact of distance from home on aspects of daily life in custody for children, and - explore the impact of distance from home on resettlement planning and outcomes on release. The report draws on interviews with around 50 children and staff at two young offender institutions (YOIs) and one secure training centre (STC), and data provided by those establishments. It also uses data from surveys conducted at four YOIs holding 15-18-yearolds and two STCs, and recall data provided by the YJB. Key findings. - Children who were held further from home had fewer visits than those who were close to home. For each child included in our survey sample, analysis of data on visits revealed that those held further from home had significantly fewer visits from family members and friends, with cost and travel time cited as reasons for children not receiving visits. The impact of this was raised as a negative influence by children and their caseworkers during interviews. Most caseworkers and managers, when asked about the vulnerabilities of the children in their care, linked them to problems with family contact. Little was being done, bar a pilot of using Skype at one YOI, to mitigate this impact on the boys and girls concerned (see paragraphs 4.14-4.24). - Analysis of data for 595 children showed that children who were further away from home received significantly fewer visits from professionals. This mirrored what children told Inspectors in interviews (see paragraphs 4.43-4.44). - Planning for release and resettlement followed the same process irrespective of distance from home. Children saw advantages in being close to home when it came to their release and caseworkers described it as sometimes harder to put a suitable release package in place for those who were further away from home. Elements such as family mediation work and 'through the gate work' (continuation into the community of work begun in custody) were seen as more difficult when greater distances were involved. Family involvement and support post release was seen as a key element whenever there was a chance of this being available (see paragraphs 4.48-4.51). - In the sample of cases looked at, distance from home had little impact on attendance by external partners at sentence planning or remand management reviews. There was good attendance by external youth offending team (YOT) workers regardless of distance and families attended half of the reviews for children who were closer to home, and slightly fewer for those who were far from home (see paragraphs 4.34-4.36). - There was no association between distance from home and recall to detention following release. Analysis of release and recall data for a census of over 1,300 children subject to a detention and training order (DTO) who were released in England and Wales during 2013-14, showed no identifiable link between distance from home while in custody and likelihood of recall to custody post release (see paragraph 4.58). - Survey data and interviews with children showed distance from home was not a predictor of whether a child had felt unsafe in their YOI/STC. It was of concern though that nearly half of children, regardless of their distance from home, had at some point felt unsafe while in their current YOI/STC (see paragraph 4.5). Similarly, distance from home was not a predictor of whether a child reported that they had experienced victimisation from staff or other children, considered that they were treated with respect by staff, or had been restrained (see paragraphs 4.6-4.12). - Distance from home did not have a significant impact on the experiences of children in many areas of custodial life. The main exceptions to this were: visits from family, involvement of family in preparation for release and the involvement of external professionals (other than for sentence or remand planning reviews). - Arriving late at the YOI/STC, which can make it more difficult for a child to settle on their first night in custody, was not uncommon and could be exacerbated by the distances some children had to travel to get to their YOI/STC. In our Transfers and Escorts5 thematic review, we reported on the scope to make greater use of 'virtual court' that could reduce the need for children to make lengthy journeys for brief court appearances and transfers. We repeat that observation in this review. - Boys in YOIs who were close to home reported more gang problems when they first arrived at their YOI than those who were far from home. Caseworkers saw benefits for some children in being away from gang influences, or an area where their offence had attracted local attention. One child pointed to the advantage of being away from previous influences and having the chance to mature, and other children interviewed saw advantages in being further from home. It was considered easier as you were not reminded of family all the time, and knowing what was 'on the other side of the fence' could be a source of frustration for some. That young people who reported gang problems were placed closer to home than those who did not report such problems may be due to the geographical locations of YOIs and those young people involved in gangs, rather than the distances involved (see paragraphs 4.12 and 4.29). Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2016. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/09/The-impact-of-distance-from-home-on-children-in-custody-Web-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/09/The-impact-of-distance-from-home-on-children-in-custody-Web-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 147815 Keywords: Juvenile DetentionPrisons VisitsVisitation |
Author: Oregon. Department of Corrections, Research & Evaluation Title: Department of Corrections (DOC) Family Visitation Study Summary: Incarceration limits interaction between inmates and their families. These families often provide housing and employment opportunities for inmates leaving prison. Most research at the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) has been focused on inmates and less research has been conducted on inmate families and the interaction between the inmate and their families. Furthermore, knowledge about DOC’s ability to maintain family associations and DOC’s ability to provide beneficial visitations is limited. Many inmates become dependent on their families while incarcerated. Visits, financial support, and telephone usage are important to inmates, and many rely on family members for personal items and/or materials. Visits may also be the only contact between the inmate and his/her children. The Family Visitation Survey was developed to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the current DOC visiting system from the visitor’s perspective. DOC researchers visited all institutions and surveyed family members during and after visits. Differences among institutions will be recognized in this report. The Family Visitation Survey includes questions around the following areas: · Facility services · Transportation (distance traveled by family and friends) · Customer service of staff · Agency related Information · Phone and mail systems · Visiting alternatives · Children Details: Salem, OR: The Department, 2009. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2016 at: https://www.oregon.gov/doc/RESRCH/docs/visitation_study_200910.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://www.oregon.gov/doc/RESRCH/docs/visitation_study_200910.pdf Shelf Number: 147320 Keywords: Children of PrisonersFamilies of InmatesVisitation |
Author: Digard, Leon Title: Closing the Distance: The Impact of Video Visits in Washington State Prisons Summary: Research has shown that continued connection to family and friends is a critical factor in incarcerated people's successful post-prison outcomes. Because many prisons around the country are in remote locations, far from the communities where the majority of incarcerated people live, in-person visits present often insurmountable logistical and financial challenges. For corrections officials looking to keep those in prison in touch with those in the community, video visiting offers a new route. Given its ability to bridge physical separation, this technology lends itself to addressing the difficulties incarcerated people and their loved ones in the community face to keep in touch. In 2016, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) published a national study of state corrections systems' adoption of video telephony as a way to visit incarcerated people. The study found that many state prison systems were weary of adopting video visiting, given security concerns and implementation costs. One early adopter of the technology was the Washington State Department of Corrections, which introduced video visiting using computers in its prisons in 2014. The current study examines the impact of video visiting in Washington on incarcerated people's in-prison behavior and analyzes their experience of the service. The principle finding was that using the service had a positive impact on the number of in-person visits the video visit users received. In at least one significant sense, the findings follow what we know about the digital divide: Younger people tended to adopt the new technology more than older people. And video visit users also had the most in-person visits both before and after introduction of the service, suggesting that those with strong social bonds tend to sustain them in as many ways as possible. Vera's researchers found no significant correlation between video visiting and people's in-prison behavior, as measured by the number of infractions they committed during the period under study. Overall, the analysis drew a sobering big picture: Nearly half of the people in Washington's prisons do not have visitors of any kind. And those who do don't have many. One factor was constant across sub-groups: The distance from home had a negative effect on visiting. Travel is expensive and time-consuming; video calls, while cheaper, cost more than a lot of people can spend and are rife with technical glitches. Those who used the service despite its costs and limitations told poignant stories of its benefits: the opportunity for parents and children to bond; the possibility for people in prison to show their families and friends that they are doing well; the chance to talk in a setting less stressful than a prison. Given the importance of sustained human ties for people reentering the community from prison, it behooves corrections officials and policymakers to devote ongoing attention to promoting successful family and community ties while reducing the factors that strain these vital connections. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2017. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 21, 2017 at: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/closing-the-distance/legacy_downloads/The-Impact-of-Video-Visits-on-Washington-State-Prisons.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://storage.googleapis.com/vera-web-assets/downloads/Publications/closing-the-distance/legacy_downloads/The-Impact-of-Video-Visits-on-Washington-State-Prisons.pdf Shelf Number: 146795 Keywords: Families of Inmates Prison Visits Prisoners Video TechnologyVisitation |
Author: Farmer, Michael (Lord Farmer) Title: The Importance of Strengthening Prisoners' Family Ties to Prevention Reoffending and Reduce Intergenerational Crime Summary: The Secretary of State commissioned this Review to investigate how supporting men in prison in England and Wales to engage with their families, can reduce reoffending and assist in addressing the intergenerational transmission of crime (a landmark study found that 63% of prisoners' sons went on to offend themselves ) as part of the Government's urgently-needed reform agenda. The Ministry of Justice's own research shows that, for a prisoner who receives visits from a partner or family member, the odds of reoffending are 39% lower than for prisoners who had not received such visits. Supportive relationships with family members and significant others give meaning and all important motivation to other strands of rehabilitation and resettlement activity. As one prisoner told me, 'If I don't see my family I will lose them, if I lose them what have I got left?' Yet the unacceptable inconsistency of work that helps prisoners to maintain and strengthen these relationships across the estate shows it is not yet mainstream in offender management in the same way as employment and education. Family work should always be seen and referred to alongside these two rehabilitation activities as the third leg of the stool that brings stability and structure to prisoners' lives, particularly when they leave prison. That is why the overarching conclusion of my Review is that good family relationships are indispensable for delivering the Government's far-reaching plans across all the areas outlined in their white paper on Prison Safety and Reform, published in November 2016. If prisons are truly to be places of reform, we cannot ignore the reality that a supportive relationship with at least one person is indispensable to a prisoner's ability to get through their sentence well and achieve rehabilitation. It is not only family members who can provide these and, wherever family relationships are mentioned, it should be assumed that other significant and supportive relationships are also inferred. Consistently good family work, which brings men face-to-face with their enduring responsibilities to the family left in the community, is indispensable to the rehabilitation culture we urgently need to develop in our penal system and has to be integral to the changes sought. It helps them forge a new identity for themselves, an important precursor to desistance from crime, based on being a good role model to their children, a caring husband, partner and friend and a reliable provider through legal employment. However, responsibilities are not discharged in a vacuum. Families need to be willing and able to engage with the rehabilitation process, so harnessing the resource of good family relationships must be a golden thread running through the processes of all prisons, as well as in the implementation of all themes of the white paper. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2017. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2017 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/636619/farmer-review-report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/636619/farmer-review-report.pdf Shelf Number: 146878 Keywords: Children of PrisonersFamilies of InmatesIntergenerational CrimePrison VisitsPrisoner RehabilitationRecidivismReoffendingVisitation |
Author: Farmer, Michael (Lord Farmer) Title: The Importance of Strengthening Female Offender's Family and Other Relationships to Prevent Reoffending and Reduce Intergenerational Crime Summary: The main conclusion of my original Review on the importance of strengthening male prisoners' family ties to prevent reoffending and reduce intergenerational crime, was that good relationships are vital to reducing reoffending and the presence or lack of them can make or break other efforts to rehabilitate those who commit crime. As part of the Female Offender Strategy the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) asked me to review the report's recommendations through the lens of the needs of female offenders, given key quantitative and qualitative differences between men and women in the area of relationships. Relationships are women's most prevalent 'criminogenic need' and issues around women's relationships directly affect their likelihood of re-offending significantly more frequently than is the case with men. Compared with men there is a far greater likelihood that women are primary carers when they come into contact with the criminal justice system and will remain so during their sentence. If a primary carer has to be in prison it is essential that she is helped to do that difficult job as well as possible - and encouraged, where appropriate and necessary, to take responsibility - given the many challenges her children face. Also, a large proportion of female offenders have endured domestic and other abuse, often linked to their offending. If this is ongoing, it may mean some of their current relationships will not be conducive to their rehabilitation. I was asked to investigate how supporting female offenders (in the community and custody) to engage with their families can lower recidivism, aid rehabilitation and assist in addressing the issues of intergenerational crime. The impact of maternal imprisonment on children due, for example, to the trauma of separation, social isolation, shame, and lack of support for their needs, increases the risk that they will follow their mother into the criminal justice system. My original Review highlighted a landmark study which found that 63% of male prisoners' sons went on to offend themselves and adult children of imprisoned mothers were more likely to be convicted than adult children of imprisoned fathers. The Farmer Review for Women aimed to learn about: -What works to help female offenders, their families and especially their children, to maintain and even improve family ties, where appropriate, while serving a custodial or community sentence, or post-release. -The challenges of mothering and fulfilling this primary carer role either whilst at a distance from their children or in the community. -What works to help those prisoners who do not have any family connections. -How this learning can be translated into policy and commissioning for change. The Review does not make specific recommendations for women from different Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities, or Foreign National Women (FNW), but I do want to acknowledge the distinct and discrete difficulties these women and their families face in the criminal justice system. For example, black women are disproportionately more likely to receive custodial and longer sentences than their white counterparts, and this of course affects the relationships with their families. However, whilst I do not segment the female offender population, it is important that all the recommendations I make are implemented with an eye to equalities and with 'cultural competence' so that women from different minorities are not treated as a homogeneous group. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2017. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 21, 2019 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/809467/farmer-review-women.PDF Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/farmer-review-for-women Shelf Number: 156557 Keywords: Children of Prisoners Families of Inmates Intergenerational Crime Prison Visits Prisoner Rehabilitation Racism Recidivism Reoffending Visitation |