![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Since prisoners who receive visits while incarcerated are less likely to recidivate, scholars have studied predictors of visitation, finding that the distance visitors must travel affects how often they visit, as do characteristics of the visitors’ neighborhoods. This study examines whether spatial distance between visitors and correctional facilities and visitors’ neighborhood disadvantage are related to recidivism. These questions are assessed using data from a sample of approximately 2600 inmates released from Minnesota state prisons. The results of Cox regression models showed that, among offenders who received visits, reconviction was less likely when visitors traveled longer distances, although this varied somewhat based on the measurement used to capture distance. Visitors’ neighborhood disadvantage was not related to reconviction. These findings highlight the importance of visitation for maintaining social ties in the community, and suggest that some visits (such as those from distant visitors) may be especially beneficial for reducing recidivism.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 Offenders who were incarcerated fewer than 30 days were eliminated from the data for two reasons. First, some are committed to prison for only a few days or a week; these offenders likely spent most of their incarceration periods in county jails awaiting trial. Second, after examining the data and conferring with Minnesota Department of Corrections (MnDOC) staff, it was determined that 30 days is a reasonable amount of time for offenders to prepare for and receive visits. Visitors must apply to visit offenders and undergo a background and outstanding warrant check, and offenders must set up their visitor lists. Offenders may be responsible for relaying visitation information to potential visitors, which is done via the U.S. Postal Service.
2 Fifty-nine percent of offenders released in 2013 did not receive any visits and were therefore not included in the sample. Ideally, we would be able to examine all offenders, including those who received no visits. However, visitor address information was only available for offenders who received visits. We do not use offenders’ pre-incarceration addresses because this information is not consistently available or accurate. In addition, we use visitors’ addresses rather than pre-incarceration addresses because offenders do not necessarily come from the same areas as their visitors.
3 In Minnesota, individuals must apply to be added to an offender’s visitor list. All of the visitors included in the study visited at least one time.
4 In Minnesota, adult males entering prison for a new sentence are admitted to MCF-St. Cloud for intake. Most are then transferred to another facility based on security classification (minimum, medium, closed, and maximum), programming needs and availability, and administrative concerns (e.g. available bed space). Subsequent transfers may be made if these considerations change (e.g. changes in an offender’s security classification). Male offenders entering prison due to supervised release revocation can be admitted to any male facility, and may be transferred if necessary. Female inmates are housed at MCF-Shakopee, with the exception of women participating in Minnesota’s Challenge Incarceration Program (CIP; see Duwe & Kerschner, Citation2008), which at the time of data collection was located at MCF-Togo.
5 Unfortunately, while the distance between one’s home community and the facility may influence visitation or recidivism, offenders’ pre-incarceration addresses were not available because this information is not consistently recorded or verified by MnDOC staff. In addition, the offender’s home community may not correctly identify areas where potential visitors live, as only 42% of visitors lived in a county that was the same as the offender’s county of commitment (Clark & Duwe, Citation2017).
6 About two-thirds (67.8%) of offenders in the sample were transferred at least once during their sentence. Offenders in the sample were housed in 1-7 facilities during their sentence (average = 1.93).
7 Because the distributions for average distance, shortest distance, and highest distance were all positively skewed, the natural log was taken and used in the analyses. Because the variable for shortest distance included cases with values of 0, 1 was added to this variable before taking the natural log.
8 The 60 mile cutoff was chosen because it was the median distance between visitors and facilities.
9 Neighborhoods were considered “disadvantaged” if the concentrated disadvantage score was above the median (median = –0.142).
10 Because there are only ten correctional facilities represented in the data, there are not enough Level 2 units to conduct multilevel analyses (see Raudenbush & Bryk, Citation2002).
11 All full models are available upon request.
12 Mediation was also examined using alternative measures of recidivism: rearrest for a new offense, reincarceration for a new felony offense, and supervised release revocation. The results were similar to those presented here.
13 Table 4 shows the effects of visitor distance when disadvantage was measured as the average of all visitors’ neighborhood disadvantage scores. The table also shows the effects for visitor neighborhood disadvantage when distance was measured as the average distance between facilities and distance (the effects of neighborhood disadvantage did not vary substantially when different measures of distance were used). All full models are available upon request.
14 Supplemental analyses (available upon request) were conducted using different measures of visitor neighborhood disadvantage. In these supplemental analyses, the variables were created defining “disadvantaged” as greater than or equal to one standard deviation above the mean. Visitor neighborhood disadvantage was not significantly related to any of the recidivism outcomes when it was measured this way.
15 In addition, some research suggests offenders placed farther away from their homes experience greater deterrence (Bedard & Helland, Citation2004; Drago, Galbiarti, & Vertova, 2011) by instilling stronger feelings of isolation from one’s social network and one’s home community, which may encourage released offenders to desist from crime in order to avoid returning to prison. However, since it is unknown whether distance has similar effects on offenders who do not receive visits, this particular theory cannot be supported without additional information. Therefore, the results should not be interpreted as suggestive that offenders will be less likely to recidivate if they are placed at remote facilities.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Susan McNeeley
Susan McNeeley is a research analyst with the Minnesota Department of Corrections. In addition to corrections, her research has focused on criminological theory and victimology. Her recent work can be found in Crime and Delinquency, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Journal of Criminal Justice, and Journal of Experimental Criminology.
Grant Duwe
Grant Duwe is the Director of Research and Evaluation for the Minnesota Department of Corrections, where he evaluates correctional programs, develops risk assessment instruments, and forecasts the state's prison population. His recent work has been published in Corrections: Policy, Practice and Research, Journal of Experimental Criminology, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, Law and Human Behavior, and The Prison Journal.