Visiting Rules Draw Protest

LSPC's Public Statement

The following statement was submitted to the California Department of Corrections on March 8th:

The proposed changes to visiting regulations by the California Department of Corrections (CDC) should not be adopted as they are now written. While the CDC proposes these changes as a way to standardize regulations, many of the proposed changes will, in fact, have a negative effect on the family members and friends who visit their loved ones in prison. Proposed changes which appear problematic to us include: prohibiting those convicted of possession for sale, sales, and/or manufacture of a controlled substance, from having contact visits for the first 12 months of their sentences; requiring that all visitors, including children seven years of age and older, present a photo identification; criminal background checks on all visitors, including minors, before they are approved to visit; male prisoners, regardless of their crimes, will be forbidden from holding a child older than seven on their laps during a visit; SHU-term prisoners will only be able to visit with immediate family members or their attorneys. It is important to note that same sex relationships and other domestic partnerships are not recognized as immediate family by the CDC. In addition, there will be new restrictions placed on attorney visits requiring attorneys to submit a CDC Form 106 (Visiting Application) before being allowed into the institutions.

Several studies have been conducted regarding visitation with an incarcerated person. The classic study was done by Holt and Miller and showed that prisoners who had regular, continuing visits with family members had a significantly lower recidivism rate compared with those who had no regular visits during their incarceration. In fact, there is such a strong correlation between quality visits and lower recidivism rates that many states have incorporated language in their official policies which reflects this correlation. For example, a Florida statute (944.8031), adopted in 1999, notes that, "...increasing the frequency and quality of the visits is an underutilized correctional resource that can improve an inmate's behavior in the correctional facility and, upon an inmate's release from a correctional facility, will help to reduce recidivism." Moreover, the United Nations and other human rights organizations have adopted standards that prohibit restricting a prisoner's visits as a form of punishment. Many of the proposed changes will punish California prisoners and their visitors.

A majority of women prisoners, nearly 47%, in the California system are serving sentences for drug related crimes. These women have already been removed from their children by their imprisonment. Restricting them to non-contact visits only for the first 12 months of their sentences will only increase their physical separation and make reunification more difficult. Many studies show that quality visitation fosters the parent-child relationship and tends to ameliorate some of the damage caused by the parent's incarceration. Most women will reunify with their children at the time of their release and a key to successful reunification is quality visitation throughout the parent's incarceration. Quality visitation implies physical contact especially with a child visitor--being able to hold your child on your lap, talk with the child about school and home activities---none of which can take place if the parent is forced to visit with her child behind glass in a non-contact visit.

Families and friends of prisoners are often a forgotten and overlooked population. Yet they are our neighbors and our co-workers, and they are often the ones striving to hold the family together for an imprisoned parent. Requiring a grandmother who is caring for her daughter's children to go to the DMV and pay for a photo identification for her grandchildren so they can visit their mother may place a great burden on that family. Moreover, that grandmother will also be required to fill out Form 106 for each of her grandchildren knowing that she and they will be subject to a criminal background check before they can even be approved to visit. Why is it necessary to check the criminal background of a seven year old? This will only add to the family's sense of isolation and feeling that they too have been incarcerated.