2020
DOI: 10.1177/0032885520939289
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Visitation and Misconduct Among Maximum-Security Inmates

Abstract: This study adds to the literature by clarifying the effects of visitation on serious and violent misconduct among maximum-security inmates through the application of propensity score matching (PSM). Findings demonstrate that once the visited and nonvisited groups were matched on covariates of visitation, major violations were significantly influenced by visitation from family and friends. The visitation group experienced a 25% reduction in major, violent, and injurious acts of misconduct. Results are … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Such outcomes include increased mental and physical well-being (e.g., Monahan et al, 2011), decreased misconducts (e.g., Cihan et al, 2020; Cochran, 2012; Cochran & Mears, 2013; Siennick et al, 2013), as well as reduced recidivism and increased social support postrelease (e.g., La Vigne et al, 2005; Liu et al, 2016; McKay et al, 2016; Mears et al, 2012; Mitchell et al, 2016; Mowen et al, 2019). Prior research indicates reductions in misconducts (particularly major, violent, and injurious) by 25% (see Reidy & Sorenson, 2020) and recidivism by 26% (Mitchell et al, 2016). However, such effects are conditioned by demographic factors, who visits and how consistently, the quality of relationships, and whether the visitor is supportive (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2018; Cochran, 2012; Cochran & Mears, 2013; Meyers et al, 2017; Turanovic & Tasca, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such outcomes include increased mental and physical well-being (e.g., Monahan et al, 2011), decreased misconducts (e.g., Cihan et al, 2020; Cochran, 2012; Cochran & Mears, 2013; Siennick et al, 2013), as well as reduced recidivism and increased social support postrelease (e.g., La Vigne et al, 2005; Liu et al, 2016; McKay et al, 2016; Mears et al, 2012; Mitchell et al, 2016; Mowen et al, 2019). Prior research indicates reductions in misconducts (particularly major, violent, and injurious) by 25% (see Reidy & Sorenson, 2020) and recidivism by 26% (Mitchell et al, 2016). However, such effects are conditioned by demographic factors, who visits and how consistently, the quality of relationships, and whether the visitor is supportive (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2018; Cochran, 2012; Cochran & Mears, 2013; Meyers et al, 2017; Turanovic & Tasca, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reduced abilities to see loved ones face to face or communicate with them verbally in the midst of a pandemic may raise anxieties and fears about risks for infection, both personally and out of concern for loved ones. Risks for infractions may also increase given that incarcerated individuals who maintain visits are less likely to commit misconduct (Cochran, 2012;Reidy & Sorensen, 2020). Abrupt changes in prison operations, including mask mandates, physical distancing requirements, and reductions in movement, may also increase the potential for misconduct reports given the rapid introduction of new rules that require substantial changes in behavior.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are various other ways that visits can be beneficial for youth. Prior research highlights the importance of visitation for misconduct and attitudinal changes during confinement (Monahan et al, 2011; Reidy & Sorenson, 2020; Siennick et al, 2013; Young, 2020a). These outcomes could be important lines of inquiry with respect to visitor networks as well.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%