Spatial Distance, Community Disadvantage, and Racial and Ethnic Variation in Prison Inmate Access to Social Ties

Abstract

Objectives: This article examines the impact of distal prison placements on inmate social ties. Specifically, we test whether distance adversely affects inmates by reducing their access to family and friends and then test whether the effects are amplified for minorities and inmates who come from socially disadvantaged areas. Methods: These questions are assessed using a sample of inmates that includes all convicted felony offenders admitted to a single state’s prison system over a three-year period. Results: We find that inmates vary greatly in the distance from which they are placed from home and that Latinos are placed more distally than Blacks and Whites. We also find that distance and community disadvantage adversely affect the likelihood of inmate visitation. Although the adverse effect of distance appears to be similar across racial and ethnic groups, a difference exists among Blacks—for this group, high levels of community disadvantage amplify the adverse effects of distance. Conclusions: This study identifies an important dimension along which incarceration may adversely impact inmates, their families, and the communities from which they come, and how these effects may be patterned in ways that disproportionately affect minorities and prisoners from disadvantaged areas.

Together despite the odds: Explaining racial and ethnic heterogeneity in union dissolution after incarceration

“…Although to our knowledge scholars have yet to examine the effect of visitation on union dissolution, in a recent meta‐analysis, researchers suggested that visitation by a partner/spouse is beneficial for reentry outcomes (Mitchell, Spooner, Jia, & Zhang, ). Given our findings, it may be especially relevant that Blacks are less likely than Whites and Hispanics to receive visits while incarcerated (Cochran, Mears, Bales, & Stewart, ).…”

All in the Family: An Examination of the Predictors of Visitation Among Committed Juvenile Offenders

“…Underlying our approach is the premise that visitation must be understood as a social event that arises from the prior history and qualities of youth and their families. Thus, consistent with prior literature, the analysis first examines how individual qualities of youth—including their age, sex, race/ethnicity, and prior offending—are associated with visitation (Cochran et al, 2016; Cochran et al, 2017; Clark & Duwe, 2016; Connor & Tewksbury, 2015; Tewksbury & Connor, 2012). However, we also consider the effects of family structural and background characteristics, given that structural disadvantages at the family level may pose obstacles to visitation.…”

“…Between 25% and 75% of offenders (both juvenile and adult) will never receive a visit (Bales & Mears, 2008; Cochran, Barnes, Mears, & Bales, 2018; Young, Nadel, Bales, Pesta, & Greenwald, 2019), and among those receiving visits, some receive many while others receive few (Turanovic & Tasca, 2017). Also, scholarship on adult inmates reveals key offender characteristics and background variables that predict visitation—more visits are received by offenders who are younger, White, female, and who are housed closer to home (Cochran, Mears, & Bales, 2017; Cochran, Mears, Bales, & Stewart, 2016; Connor & Tewksbury, 2015; Tewksbury & Connor, 2012). In short, these studies suggest that visitation is not equally distributed and the factors that limit visitation are identifiable.…”

“…As part of this, we examine how visits are affected by such things as family income, single-parent family status, the presence of siblings, family history of incarceration, and the geographic distance between the family and the youth’s residential facility. And last, in a departure from most prior studies (Cochran et al, 2016; Cochran et al, 2017; Clark & Duwe, 2016; Connor & Tewksbury, 2015; Tewksbury & Connor, 2012), we examine the effect of key family social process variables—including family closeness, support, and conflict—on visitation with the expectation that youth from families marked by more troubled relationships will receive fewer visits.…”

Place after prison: Neighborhood attainment and attachment during reentry

“…Much of neighborhood attainment in the period of reentry is due to involuntary forces that have to do with relationships to households, services, and economic subsistence. In the Boston Reentry Study, it is the mothers, sisters, relatives and friends of the respondents who provided the most consistent social support (Western et al, 2015) and these forms of support will prove important for reducing the chances of future incarceration (Cochran, 2014;Cochran et al, 2016;Sirois, 2017;Steiner et al, 2015). In the case that this leads to greater exposure to concentrated disadvantage, it is important to consider that declines in one area of life, such as neighborhood quality, does not mean declines in all areas of life, such as housing, family support, and social integration.…”