private family visit program

Champ pénal/Penal field

Accueil Tous les volumes Vol. II Articles Private Family Visits in Canada, ...

Private Family Visits in Canada, Between Rehabilitation and Stricter Control: Portrait of a System

The question of maintaining social and family ties in spite of imprisonment is an important one, which Canada has attempted to address by introducing programs for family visits in which participants are alone and given intimacy for a three-day period. Although this corresponds to a philosophy of humane punishment focused on the offender’s reinstatement in the community, there is no denying another dimension, the additional control over inmates that these measures give to the prison administration.

Texte intégral

1 In Canada, imprisonment for people sentenced to two years or more in detention is grounded in the clearly asserted intention to rehabilitate – or more probably to habilitate – offenders for social life. To do so, a number of programs have been set up and developed to meet the potential psychological and social needs of imprisoned individuals. Some of these programs focus directly on the improvement or maintaining of family and conjugal relations. Thus, we find programs for “ Family Violence Prevention Programs”, or again, “Parenting Skills Training Programs” , of a psychological/educational nature, based on a cognitivist/ behaviorist model.

2 In addition to these treatments, custodial institutions have introduced the possibility of lengthy private family visiting (PFV) between inmates and their family. More than a simple response to the deprival of heterosexual relations, the importance and extent of which was pointed up by Sykes (1958) more than 45 years ago, these programs are first and foremost an essential means of maintaining social, family and conjugal ties during imprisonment, and by the same token a way of reducing the punishment inflicted on families of offenders.

3 Few studies have been directed primarily to analyzing these programs and their consequences both on the inmate and his family and on the social climate in custodial facilities. It is a fact that while the impact of loss of freedom on the individual prisoner has received much attention, the question of the social and family consequences of imprisonment has received much less. Still, loss of a person’s home and job, as well of emotional ties, is usually an intrinsic part of punishment, and several authors remind us that a criminal conviction also affects every member of the family as well as most of the offenders’ intimates (Landreville, Blankevoort, Pires, 1981).

4 However, a few research projects do shed some light on maintained family ties in case of imprisonment, and more specifically on the stakes involved in the implementation of these programs. The present article, based on the Canadian situation, investigates the issues and stakes of private family visits in correctional institutions.

1.The Context, Canadian Programs for Private Family Visiting

5 The Correctional Service of Canada is composed of 52 prisons for a population of 12,450 inmates. Each facility contains several housing units – 3, on the average – in which the inmate’s family may reside for three days. Inmates must file for participation in these family exchanges. This means that for the country as a whole, about 150 inmates at a time can benefit from the system.

1.1 Implementation

6 The idea of permitting unsupervised, intimate, regular family or conjugal visits lasting several hours is relatively old. In the late 19 th century and early 20 th century, some states in the USA, including Mississippi and South Carolina, as well as a number of South American countries, among others, had made arrangements for private visits of that sort (Burstein, 1977 ; Carlson, Cervera, 1991). Varied in length – from several hours to 3 days – in their regularity – from once a week to once every two months – and in access to them –ranging from official wives only to possibilities for prostitutes – the aims pursued by the introduction of these visits were also relatively varied. Some people intended them to meet the sexual needs of prisoners, while others wanted to defend the family and limit divorces and separations caused by imprisonment, but in every case a number of arguments were used to justify the organization of these encounters.

7 In Canada, the Private Family Visiting program for correctional facilities dates back to 1980. Until then only some provincial facilities – for prison sentences of less than 2 years – had implemented this type of measure in the late 1960s, but these were spotty and very regional 1 .

8 At present, anyone sentenced to more than two years in prison can be granted that type of visit.

9 The purpose of the introduction of these programs is to enable couples and members of a same family to meet alone and have intimate relations, independently of the fact that one family member is in prison, the goal being social rehabilitation. Article 71(1) of the legislation on the corrections system and release on parole grants that inmates have the right to entertain relations with their family, friends, or other persons, so as to improve their relations with the community. This aims at enabling offenders to develop constructive relations with the outside world so as to facilitate their release.

1.2 The Principle

10 The implementation of these programs corresponds to the development of a philosophy of corrections based on the social rehabilitation of offenders. This philosophy developed and expanded in the 1970s, and came into full bloom within the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) in the 1980s and 90s. In contradistinction to the idea of a penal sanction as primarily punitive and neutralizing, another approach began to be developed, based on community penal sanctions, viewed as more apt to avoid the social “dehabilitation” of offenders, with measures designed to facilitate behavioral changes in incarcerated offenders.

11 At present, the philosophy of the Correctional Service of Canada is mainly based on the idea that the penal sanction is meted out to protect the community by providing for the social rehabilitation of offenders. The definition of its mission states that the “the purpose of the federal correctional system is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by … assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community” 2 Several programs and measures were then adopted to achieve that goal.

12 In this framework, Private Family Visiting programs were developed within prisons in an attempt to compensate for some deficits suffered by a great many offenders. There is, for instance, the “Family Violence Prevention Program” program, aimed at combating the risk of conjugal violence, or again, “ Parenting Skills Training Programs ”, dealing with the offender’s role as parent, expectations with respect to his/her children, or again, the aid services existing in the community.

13 Intimate, prolonged visits by members of the community are of a similar nature. The idea is to preserve the social and family unit, inasmuch as possible, as well as to reinforce the offender’s role and status as citizen and parent, in the belief that these elements will be stabilizing factors when he is released. In a speech delivered a few months after the implementation of the first programs, the Honorable Bob Kaplan, Solicitor General of Canada at the time, stated that  “In addition, statistics show that if an inmate’s family is still intact and ready to accept him upon release, his chances of leading an honest life are greatly enhanced”.

1.3 Conditions of Access

14 Since the object of these visits is to maintain both relations within the couple and family and social ties, these programs are open to everyone in the prisoner’s entourage. Potential visitors include not only family members in the broadest acceptation – spouses, common-law partners 3 , children, parents, foster-parents, siblings, grandparents, and persons with whom, in the opinion of the institutional head, the inmate has a close familial bond – but also anyone else in the community with whom it is clearly established that the offender has a strong relationship irrespective of any family tie.

15 The private family visit program is open to all inmates incarcerated in a federal prison independently of its level of security, except for those in a special detention unit 4 . However, some prisoners may be barred from the program, either because there is a risk of family or conjugal violence, or because they have access to other programs for maintaining family ties, particularly unsupervised leaves. Also, if there seems to be some potential danger or if the inmate is found guilty of a disciplinary offense threatening safety within the facility – such as introducing prohibited objects, possession of weapons or of instruments susceptible of use for escape or taking a hostage – during the previous private family visit, he loses his right to the program.

16 Authorization is delivered by the head of the facility following recommendation by the probation officer in charge of the inmate. Before any private family visit, a request for admission must be filed. Security screening is then done, and repeated every 2 years. At the same time, the visitor must sign a “ statement of voluntary participation and consent ” and meet with the officer in charge of the case, who determines whether the person is fully, entirely willing to participate in this type of visit and is not under any pressure to do so. The same officer evaluates whether “ the relationship is well-grounded, stable and beneficial”. To do so she considers all available information, especially using investigations within the community and the family, and among neighbors or any employer of the offender as well of as his visitors. Last, following each private family visit, a staff member meets the visitors to make sure the visit went well.

1.4 Mode of functioning

17 Private family visits last 72 hours – 3 days – at most, and may occur every 2 months providing facilities are available. They take place on the prison premises, in a special area cut off from the rest of the facility and structured in small, entirely furnished apartments with one or two bedrooms, a kitchen, living room, and bathroom, and some space outside, either a courtyard or a garden.

18 The objects and food allowed in during the visit are clearly identified by prison regulations and are checked before each visit. During the visit, the staff must maintain regular contact with both the prisoner and his visitors, to guarantee their safety and monitor their presence. These checks are scheduled in advance to avoid disturbing the family’s intimacy.

19 The remarks presented in this article are mostly based on a review of the literature. While a few scholars have studied the psychological impact of parental separation in case of imprisonment, or the social costs entailed by incarceration, studies analyzing maintained family ties in case of imprisonment, or the programs implemented, are extremely rare, and there is, moreover, no regular publication of official statistics on inmates who benefit from these infrastructures or on the effects of their participation in these activities.

20 We therefore base our reflections on two types of data. First, we find official texts describing the programs themselves, how they function and the conditions under which they apply. These texts are completed by the policy statements of the executive staff of the Correctional Service of Canadian, justifying the implementation of these visits with regard to prior penal philosophy in Canada. Secondly, we find scientific research. Some work analyses the impact of separation, especially on prisoners’ children. Others stress issues connected with the social consequences of incarceration and the means of limiting these.

2.1. Private Family Visits: for Successful Social Rehabilitation...

21 The profile of incarcerated individuals shows that most have children, a spouse or a partner, and parents still alive. The situation is most problematic for women, who are often mothers of very young children, in single-parent families or with a partner also in prison.

22 Thus, a study conducted in the mid-1990s 5 shows that nearly 45% of inmates have a spouse and secondly, 60% of incarcerated men have children or foster children. In the USA, in 1999, 721,500 parents of 1.5 million under-age children were in prison 6 . Forty-six percent of these parents lived with their children (64.3% for women prisoners). Last, most of these parents (between 80 and 93%) claimed to maintain ties with their children in spite of their incarceration, either by telephone, letters or visits. More specifically, 40% of fathers and 60% of mothers had a weekly contact with their children. If we add ties to parents and brothers and sisters, it may be said that most imprisoned people have their family ties touched by their detention.

2.1.1. Social Rehabilitation and Family Ties

23 The question of family influence on offending and on the social reinstatement of offenders has received attention for some years now. The question of the link between degree of social integration, or marriage, and the risk of committing an offense has been analyzed repeatedly. Some writers (Farrington, 1989 ; Sampson and Laub, 1990) tend to think that marriage or fatherhood has a stabilizing effect, perhaps even to the point of reducing antisocial behavior. In particular, they seem to result in reduced consumption of alcohol and drugs, both of which are often tied to offending (Knight, Osbourne and West, 1977). Furthermore, following a study, in 1990, on the quality of family relations, Sampson and Laub conclude that “ attachment to a spouse in young adulthood was connected with a significant and substantial reduction in adult antisocial behavior ” 7 .

24 Although the link between family life and offending is not as clear-cut as some scholars would have it, the fact remains that as a rule, social rehabilitation seems to be easier for offenders with strong family ties. In 1954, for instance, one study showed that inmates who took an active interest in their family during their detention had a 75% success rate when released on parole, as opposed to 34% for solitary offenders (Ohlin, 1954). Similarly, analysis of the correlation between the average number of visits received by an inmate and the rate of backsliding tends to show that prisoners receiving more family support and having close contacts with their dear ones while in detention had a lower recidivism rate (Burstein, 1977). At the same time, a more recent American study, published in 1991, showed that when a father had attended father-child programs during his detention he found it easier to return to his family and to the community (Carlson and Cervera, 1991). Last, another study conducted in Canada in 1998-99 on factors contributing to successful social rehabilitation shows that family ties play a non-negligible role in this respect (Vacheret, Cousineau, 2003).

25 This shows that if offenders receive a modicum of family support when they leave prison they have a much greater probability of rehabilitation. 8 Not only will they want to take advantage of the emotional ties they entertain with their intimates – parents, spouse, children – but also, their determination to change and to achieve stability will be reinforced.

26 So, according to researchers at the Correctional Service of Canada, “The maintenance of an active family interest while incarcerated and the establishment of a mutually satisfying relationship after release were also associated with recidivism decreases” 9 . These scholars conclude that however unproved and vague the impact of ongoing family ties on offending, the postulate justifies “action to strengthen families”. By their very existence, the presence of families throughout the prison sentence, along with their participation in private family visit programs, is depicted as a factor contributing to successful social rehabilitation in that they maintain and reinforce the prisoner’s ties with the outside world.

2.1.2 Incarceration and Preserving Family Ties

27 In 1980, in a context where individuals in detention were recognized to be full-fledged citizens, the U.S. Department of Justice declared that the implementation of programs for preserving family ties was a fundamental part of standards of detention, to be respected by correctional institutions (Goetting, 1982). In Canada the very basis of the implementation of programs for preserving family ties is the idea that social rehabilitation partly depends on the presence of adequate support when the prisoner is released, and that the family can provide that support. It was on the basis of that philosophy that the solicitor general justified the introduction of private family visit programs, in 1980, and to this day arguments in favor of these programs are supported by the same philosophy.

28 Family life and conjugal relations are obviously enormously affected by one person’s imprisonment. The family’s financial situation deteriorates. Conflicts, tensions and dissensions arise, often connected with educational issues or with a decision made by the parent outside prison. In the case of imprisoned mothers, whose situation has received most attention so far, the impression that they have abandoned their child or children often makes them feel diminished and ashamed (Blanchard, 2002 ; Le Camus, 2002 ; Carlson and Cervera, 1991). Some studies show that this problem increasingly touches fathers as well, eliciting guilt feelings and the fear that their children may be lacking attention because of their absence (Trzcinski,Satyanathan and Ferro, 2002) 10 . Similarly, several scholars claim that families of prisoners are “the hidden victims of crime” and that they too are punished. Last, the question of returning home is a central, non-negligible problem for prisoners.

29 Participation in family or conjugal visits may limit these difficulties. According to Zaouche-Gaudron (2000), parenting means shouldering a full range of tasks, both domestic, educational and social. The implementation of private family visits during which the whole family recreates a shared living situation, if only partially and relatively superficially – preparing meals, playing games and sharing other activities – reinforces emotional and family ties. They also enable the parent to remain involved in the education of his children, to spend time with them and to take the time to step in and to discuss any educational issues that may arise. Moreover, they enable the parent to recover her status as parent, at least partially. The image of a husband or wife, a parent or a child, with responsibilities somewhat covers the internalized image of the inmate. The latter may then not only act in those roles, but may also visualize and appreciate himself in that status (Le Camus, 2002).

30 Shared intimacy, the possibility of having discussions with one’s partner or simply of spending time together are claimed to be basic stabilizing elements, important for maintaining conjugal relations. Participation in these programs helps maintain the quality and depth of the relationship within the family. Being able to meet without anyone listening in or watching them for a relatively long period helps to recreate – however partially and artificially – conjugal life with shared everyday activities such as dishwashing, preparing meals and watching TV together. The relationship is usually reinforced and consolidated (Carlson and Cervera, 1991).

2.2. Or for Better Control?

31 The second dimension brought out by the analysis of programs for private family visits has nothing to do with the offender’s family or his or her social rehabilitation, but with prison conditions and everyday life in custodial facilities. Studies show that prolonged exchanges with the inmate’s family partially attenuate some frustrations connected with social isolation and may have a positive impact on the prison atmosphere. However, inasmuch as these programs do not only offer advantages but are also used to support early release decisions, they may become a weapon in the hands of the correctional authorities.

2.2.1. Control on Relations Between Inmates

32 These programs apparently make a decisive contribution in terms of stabilizing the prison atmosphere and limiting the tensions inherent in detention.

33 Some writers feel that deprival of heterosexual relations may have a negative psychological impact in a number of ways. Be it through a loss of self-confidence, a feeling of incompetence or again, a growing sense of frustration possibly leading to violence, they view this deprival as important. It is thought to give rise to risks of sexual aggression and violent acts between inmates, especially when the prisoner attempts to find compensation in homosexual relations. While little information is available on the actual extent of this phenomenon, the report published by Human Rights Watch in 2001 is very eloquent in this respect 11 . The report shows that many prisoners, and especially the younger, more vulnerable ones, are victims of sexual violence. This in itself indicates that allowing imprisoned individuals to relieve themselves, even relatively rarely and succinctly, constitutes a response to a very human need.

34 At the same time, the actual way these visits take place offers incarcerated individuals the possibility of enjoying a break in the rhythm of detention. This special period during which supervision and control are considerably reduced, whereas dependence on timetables and institutional constraints are limited, represents a sort of “breath of fresh air” and necessarily has a positive effect on incarcerated individuals: to the point where the correctional service allows inmates who request it to have access to the PFV program without receiving any visit, so as to be alone, away from the other inmates, for a few days.

35 Given the fact that one of the basic missions of the custodial institution, aside from preventing escape, is internal order-maintenance, the presence of this “pacifying” element is definitely extremely beneficial.

2.2.2. Institutional Control`

36 However, these family visit programs, inasmuch as they introduce a privilege, establish considerable inequalities between inmates, since many have no access to them (Bourdouris, 1996). Indeed, the visitor must necessarily be a person with whom the inmate has special ties, either through marriage or a partnership lasting at least one year. Also, the person who wishes to visit an inmate in this way must be materially able to do so and therefore must reside relatively near the prison, or have the necessary means of transportation. Last, the person must be prepared to live in prison during the three days of the visit, which involves undergoing the prescribed checks and monitoring. Possibility of access to this program therefore varies considerably from one person to another, depending on how far away their dear ones live, the age of potential visitors, the quality of the ties and also, the length of the sentence.

37 This situation is particularly problematic since access to the programs also depends on “good behavior” in custody. Although they are not an official criteria, respecting house rules, not consuming prohibited substances and non-involvement in an outlaw system within prison all become ways of obtaining and retaining this right. It is a fact that any such behavior, leading to sentencing to a period of isolation for disciplinary reasons or transferal to another facility, automatically remove concrete access to a private family visit program.

38 In this framework, where the sentence as a whole is already marked by a system where serious advantages may be obtained by good behavior in prison 12 , private family visit programs become just one more privilege used by the administration in its strategy toward prisoners.

39 At the same time, the Correctional Service of Canada model for the evaluation of risks of recidivism in incarcerated persons presently considers a number of family-related factors. Assuming the existence of a significant correlation between returning to prison and unsatisfactory relations with one’s intimates 13 , each inmate is noted with respect to the quality of those relations, in view of a decision on early release. This evaluation considers the offender’s childhood and present factors such as financial or sexual problems eventually encountered in his relationship, as well as parenting problems. The people in charge then evaluate the inmate’s competences in family responsibility, controlling her children’s behavior or participation in their activities. If, as Motiuk (1995) claims, greater need for family and conjugal relations entails a greater risk of failure following release, it would seem that these elements will play a role in determining whether – or not – an inmate obtains early release.

40 Private family visit programs represent one of the best ways of preserving social, family and conjugal ties between incarcerated individuals and their intimates. This fact is viewed as undeniable in Canada, and programs exist and have been implemented throughout the country for over 20 years now.

41 While it would be interesting to study some questions such as the proportion of participants or the actual impact of programs on requests and projects for conditional release as well as on everyday life in prison, these programs clearly constitute an established right for inmates and their intimates. Sometimes perceived as challenging the very notion of the penal sanction – in the sense of inflicting suffering – they belong intrinsically to a philosophy of humane punishment. According to the latter, one must never lose sight of the fact that the offender will return to the community some day and that everything possible must be done to achieve the best possible – or least difficult – rehabilitation, but also, that mutual support between incarcerated persons and their intimates is an indispensable factor both for survival in detention and for enabling those outside to cope with that absence.

42 TRANSLATION Helen Arnold

Bibliographie

Blanchard, B.(2002). La situation des mères incarcérées et de leurs enfants au Québec. Mémoire de maîtrise, École de criminologie, Université de Montréal.

Bourdouris, J. (1996) Parents in Prison : Addressing the Needs of Families. 2 ème ed. Philadelphie: American Correctional Association

Bureau of Justice statistics (2000). “ Special Report. Incarcerated Parents and their Children ”. US Department of Justice.

Burstein, J.Q. (1977). Conjugal Visits in Prison. Toronto: Lexington Books.; Carlson, B.E.

Carlson, B.E.; Cervera, N. (1991). Inmates and their Wives. Wesport: Greenwood Press.

Farrington, D. (1989);”Later adult Life Outcomes of Offenders and Non-Offenders”. In Children at Risk: Assessment, Longitudinal Research and Intervention. New York, Walter deGruyter.

Foran, T. (1995) « Comparaison descriptive entre les caractéristiques démographiques et familiales de la population générale et de la population carcérale au Canada ». Forum, 7(2).

Forum (1995). « La traitabilité des délinquants. » Vol.7(2).

Forum (1995). « Le mariage réduit-il les risques de criminalité? ». vol.7(2).

Goetting, A. (1982). Conjugal Association in Prison: Issues and Perspectives. Crime and Delinquency. 28(1), pp52-71.

Human Rights Watch (2001). No escape. Male Rape in U.S. Prisons .

Knight, B.J.; Osbourne, S.G.; West, d.J. (1977). Early marriage and Criminal Tendency in Males. British Journal of Criminology , 17(4), pp248-360.

Landreville, P; Blankevoort, V.J.; Pires, A. (1981). Les coûts sociaux du système pénal. Rapport de recherche. École de criminologie, Université de Montréal.

Le Camus J. (2002). Rester parents malgré la détention.(ed.) Érès.

Motiuk, L.L. (1995). “L’utilisation des facteurs familiaux pour évaluer le risque et les besoins des délinquants » Forum, 7(2).

Ohlin, L. (1954) The Stability and Validity of Parole Experience Tables. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Chicago.

Sampson, R.J; Laub, J.H. (1990). “Crime and Deviance Over the Life Course : the Salience of Adult Social Bonds” American Sociological Review , 55, pp609-267.

Service Correctionnel du Canada (2001). Faits et chiffres sur le service correctionnel fédéral. Travaux publics et services gouvernementaux. Canada.

Trzcinski, E.; Satyanathan, D.; Ferro, L. (2002). “ What about me? Children with Incarcerated Parents ”. Michigan Family Impact Seminars. Briefing Report. 2002-1.

Vacheret, M.; Cousineau, M.M. (2003). « Quelques  éléments de compréhension des libérations d’office réussies ». Revue canadienne de criminologie et justice pénale. Janvier 2003.

Other bibliographic references:

Bouregba, A. (2002). Les liens familiaux à l’épreuve du pénal. (ed.) Érès.

Gabel, K.; Johnston, D. (1995). Children of Incarcerated Parents. New-York : Lexington Books.

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique.

Marion Vacheret , « Private Family Visits in Canada, Between Rehabilitation and Stricter Control: Portrait of a System » ,  Champ pénal/Penal field [En ligne], Vol. II | 2005, mis en ligne le 21 septembre 2007 , consulté le 13 avril 2024 . URL  : http://journals.openedition.org/champpenal/2322 ; DOI  : https://doi.org/10.4000/champpenal.2322

Marion Vacheret

Professeure, École de criminologie. Chercheure, Centre international de Criminologie Comparée. Université de Montréal, Canada. [email protected]

Articles du même auteur

• Libération conditionnelle : questions de remords, correctionnalisation et conformité [Texte intégral] Parole: Matters of remorse, corrections and conformity Paru dans Champ pénal/Penal field , 31 | 2024

Droits d’auteur

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 . Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

• Présentation générale
• Bureau exécutif, Conseil scientifique et d’orientation
• Consignes aux auteur·e·s

Numéros ouverts

• 31 | 2024 Varia 2024

Numéros en texte intégral

• 30 | 2023 Varia 2023
• 29 | 2023 Traiter l'indiscipline : les pratiques disciplinaires et leurs reconfigurations contemporaines
• 28 | 2023 Genre et carrières délinquantes
• 27 | 2022 Varia 2022
• 26 | 2022 Résister aux pratiques policières et violences d'État
• 25 | 2022 Penser les recompositions du gouvernement de la prison : circulations, rationalités, dispositifs et expériences
• 24 | 2021 Varia 2021
• 23 | 2021 La culture en prison. Les médiations de la rencontre du pénal et du culturel
• 22 | 2021 La fabrique locale de la frontière
• 21 | 2020 Varia 2020
• 20 | 2020 Contestation et subversion en prison
• 19 | 2020 La prison au travers de l’espace architectural
• 18 | 2019 Varia 2019
• 17 | 2019 Justice et santé mentale : impossibles frontières
• 16 | 2019 Les acteurs régaliens du renseignement : retour à l'empirie
• Vol. XV | 2018 Les arbitres de l’illégalisme : nouveau regard sur les manières de faire du contrôle social
• Vol. XIV | 2017 Violences conjugales et justice pénale
• Vol. XIII | 2016 Justice pénale internationale / Sexualité et institutions pénales
• Vol. XII | 2015 Abolitionnisme - Abolitionism
• Vol. XI | 2014 Parentalités enfermées/Objets et enfermement/Probation française
• Vol. X | 2013 La délinquance en col blanc : études de cas
• Vol. IX | 2012 Hommages à J-P. Brodeur/Varia
• Vol. VIII | 2011 Le contrôle social des femmes violentes
• Vol. VII | 2010 Le traitement de l’immigration, entre logique administrative et logique pénale
• Vol. VI | 2009 Varia 
• Vol. V | 2008 Varia 
• Vol. IV | 2007 Varia 
• Vol. III | 2006 Varia 
• Vol. II | 2005 Varia 
• Vol. I | 2004 Varia 

Compléments électroniques

•  | 2018 Compte-rendus de lectures
• Séminaire Innovations Pénales | 2008
•  | 2008 Séminaire du GERN "Longues peines et peines indéfinies. Punir la dangerosité" (2008-2009)
• XXXIVe Congrès français de criminologie | 2008

Tous les numéros

Appels à contributions.

• Appels en cours
• Appels clos

Informations

• Crédits du site
• Politiques de publication

Suivez-nous

Lettres d’information

• La Lettre d’OpenEdition

Affiliations/partenaires

ISSN électronique 1777-5272

Voir la notice dans le catalogue OpenEdition  

Plan du site  – Crédits du site  – Flux de syndication

Politique de confidentialité  – Gestion des cookies  – Signaler un problème

Nous adhérons à OpenEdition  – Édité avec Lodel  – Accès réservé

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

Prison Visits

The Department of Corrections (DOC) recognizes the vital role families play in the reentry process , and will support incarcerated individuals in maintaining ties with family, friends, and the community through personal visits and engagement with community stakeholders and partners. Reasonable efforts will be made to ensure visiting facilities are comfortable, pleasant, and permits informal communication and limited, appropriate physical contact.

Visitor Application Process

Visitor guidelines.

• Approved Visitors List

Minor Visitors

International visitors, extended family visits, professionals, general visit information.

Application Processing Time Update: The Statewide Visit Unit (SVU) is currently working on processing a very high volume of visit applications. Applications are taking approximately 40-45 business days to process (business days do not include weekends or state holidays). Submitting more than one application will cause previous applications to be voided and the process to restart. Thank you for your patience and understanding.

All visitors must complete and submit a visitor application . A separate application must be completed for each proposed visitor (minor or adult). It is recommended that applicants have all required documentation ready and available prior to filling out the online application to ensure successful completion and submission. The Department only accepts Electronic Visit Applications for prison visits at this time.

Applications are generally processed within 30 business days of receipt, though in some cases more time may be needed. Please allow a minimum of eight weeks before inquiring with the Statewide Visit Unit regarding application status. Submitting multiple applications for an individual visitor will cause a delay in processing.

See Family & Friends and Professionals for information that may be applicable to your visit. All visitation policies and forms can be found on the Resources webpage. See Prison Visits Frequently Asked Questions for more information about visiting a prison facility.

DOC 450.300 Visits for Incarcerated Individuals (pdf) is applicable to all types of prison visits. Please note visitors whom are 18 years of age and older must present a valid, current photo identification at the time of the visit (i.e., driver's license or state issued identification card, international visitors must present their passport).

The following applies to in-person visitation:

• Visits occur on a first come, first served basis. If the visit room is full, visitors may be turned away. Facility visit guidelines identify the process utilized by the facility to allow for other visitors to be afforded visit privileges. Please review the appropriate facility visitor guidelines for more information.
• Facility emergencies may affect operations. These are unforeseen and visiting may be cancelled or end early without advanced notice. Visitors are urged to check the prison facility alerts & notices and to check with the facility prior to traveling.
• For the safety of yourself and your loved ones, all persons are subject to search per DOC 420.340 Searching and Detaining Facility Visitors (pdf) .
• To protect your loved one and other individuals in the facility, please stay home if you are sick.
• Visit rooms, tables, chairs, restrooms and high-touch surface areas will be sanitized between visit sessions.

Facility Specific Information

Each facility has its own specific visitor guidelines, visiting hours, and event calendars, which can be accessed in the table below.

Prison Facility Visitor Guidelines, Visiting Hours & Event Calendars

Restrictive housing visiting.

Restricted housing will follow DOC 320.255 Restrictive Housing (pdf) policy for scheduling, hours, and will remain non-contact according to Restrictive Housing Level System Grid (Attachment 2) (pdf) .

Special Visits

Per DOC 450.300 Visits for Incarcerated Individuals (pdf) , the process for specials visits is at the discretion of the facility superintendent. Special visits may be requested utilizing the DOC 21-787 Special Visit Request (pdf) form.

Visitor Behavioral Observations

Per DOC 450.300 (pdf) , a record of each visit is entered into the statewide visit system. Visitor behavior observed by Department of Corrections’ staff may be electronically documented. Visitors may request a copy of behavior observation entries from their visitor profile in the statewide visit system via public records request .

Family & Friends

Approved visitor's list.

The visitor application approval process must be completed before an individual is placed on an incarcerated individual's Approved Visitor List.

• Individuals may only be on one incarcerated individual's Approved Visitor List, with one exception .
• When an incarcerated individual is transferred to another prison facility, his/her Approved Visitor List will remain and be available in the Statewide Visit System. Incarcerated individuals are responsible for notifying their visitors of transfers.
• Individuals denied placement on an incarcerated individual's Approved Visitor List will be informed, in writing, of the reason for denial.
• Incarcerated individuals may remove a visitor from their Approved Visitor List, or request to resume visits with the removed visitor. Visitors must submit a new application if they have been removed.
• If an individual wishes to be removed from an Approved Visitor List, they must submit their request in writing to the Statewide Visit Unit .
• A request to be removed from an incarcerated individual’s Approved Visitor’s List must be submitted prior to applying to visit another incarcerated individual. Please note, if you do not request to be removed prior to your new application being processed, you will be required to resubmit your application. This will restart the application processing time.
• An individual removed from an Approved Visitor List must wait 90 calendar days before applying to visit the same or another incarcerated individual. When the visitor is requesting to visit a different incarcerated individual, the waiting period may be waived if the visitor never visited with the individual whose list they were removed from or if they have not visited in the last 90 days. If the visitor wishes to be added back to the visit list of the same incarcerated individual, the 90 day wait will not be waived.

Minors are those individuals who are under 18 years of age. The following are required for all minors who will be visiting an incarcerated individual at a Department of Corrections (DOC) prison facility:

• Minors must be on the incarcerated individual's Approved Visitor List .
• Minors must be accompanied during the entire visit by their non-incarcerated parent/legal guardian, or a designated escort .

The following may also apply depending on the nature of the minor's visit:

• If the minor is an infant or toddler, see the visitor's guidelines of the prison facility you will be visiting for information about what items are authorized.

International visitors must provide a copy of their passport photo page and a copy of their criminal history from their local jurisdiction, or a certificate of criminal records from the local jurisdiction that outlines all criminal history, or if there is no criminal history (misdemeanor or felony).

Extended Family Visits (CY 2019)

1,231 approved efv visitors made 3,805 visits to 688 incarcerated individuals in 2019..

Extended Family Visit (EFV) processing generally takes 8-10 weeks from the time that the department receives all necessary documentation. Please allow a minimum of 12 weeks before inquiring about the status of your EFV application. For more information refer to DOC 590.100 Extended Family Visiting (pdf) and the EFV Resource Guide (pdf) .

The requirements for EFV visitors that must be met include:

• The visitors must be immediate family members who can provide legal verification of the relationship.
• All EFV participants require Superintendent/designee approval.
• If the incarcerated individual is incarcerated on a serious violent or sex offense, the EFV Review Committee must review and authorize EFV privileges.
• In addition to the forms listed, there are several criteria that must be met for family, minors and incarcerated individual to be eligible for an Extended Family Visit. Please note the EFV application process can be lengthy, and additional documentation may be requested.
• Visitors will submit applicable paperwork and documents by sending them to the address below.

Department of Corrections Attn: EFV Application Post Office Box 41118 Olympia, WA 98504-1118

• Each individual visitor must also complete the Consent to Medical Treatment and Waiver of Liability form.

• An orientation will be scheduled before your first EFV at the facility.
• Please contact your incarcerated family member to initiate the EFV scheduling process.
• If you are an approved EFV visitor and have any questions about EFV’s contact facility visit staff .
• Visitors may only bring items that are identified on the Extended Family Visit Allowable Items list .
• All policy requirements are applicable. Please take the time to review DOC 590.100 Extended Family Visiting (pdf) .
• Individuals from one EFV group may not be within 6 feet of EFV participants from other groups within the EFV area.
• If the incarcerated individual participating in the EFV is on medication/s via pill line, these medications will be brought to the EFV unit to be taken.
• If a visitor is on controlled medication/s held by the facility, this medication will be brought to the EFV unit for the visitor to take them.

See Prison Visits Frequently Asked Questions and DOC 590.100 Extended Family Visiting (pdf) for more information.

Professional visitors are processed at the prison facility where the incarcerated individual is incarcerated. Professional visitors include:

• Social Services Agency Representatives (except those identified as a visit supervisor for a minor visiting an incarcerated parent)

Professional visitors should contact the prison facility to coordinate their visit. See Prison & Video Frequently Asked Questions for more information.

Media Personnel

If media personnel would like to visit with a specific incarcerated individual, they must complete the same application process as all visitors . If media personnel would like to tour a prison facility, they should contact the Public Information Officer to coordinate a tour.

Family & Visitors

• 888-402-8282 / 613-777-6262

Bringing clarity to the inner workings of our legal system

Which visitors are eligible for private family visits?

• Kate Mitchell
• No comments

Private family visits (PFVs) take place inside prisons, but in separate structures. They allow inmates to spend time (up to 72 hours every two month) with visitors in private.

However, only visitors who fall into one of the following categories are eligible for private family visits:

• Immediate family;
• Those the offender has a “close personal relationship” with

Both of these categories have very specific definitions.

Immediate family : in respect of an offender, includes the following members of the offender’s family:

• the offender’s spouse or common-law partner
• a child of the offender or of the offender’s spouse or common-law partner
• the father and mother of the offender or of the offender’s spouse or common-law partner
• the spouse or common-law partner of the father or mother of the offender or of the offender’s spouse or common-law partner
• the foster parent of the offender or of the offender’s spouse or common-law partner
• a child of the offender’s father or mother or a child of the spouse or common-law partner of the offender’s father or mother.

Note : common-law partner refers only to those who were living with the inmate in a conjugal relationship for at least one year at the time of the inmate’s incarceration. It’s up to the inmate and visitor to show proof of a common-law relationship, which can (in some cases) be done through filling out a form declaring the visitor and inmate are in a common-law relationship.

Close personal relationship : (includes extended family members for Aboriginal offenders) exists between two individuals and is normally characterised by situations in which:

• both individuals shared a close familial bond
• one of the individuals contributed significantly to the moral or spiritual development of the other
• both individuals were engaged in a long-term living arrangement or partnership
• both individuals shared significant life experiences that resulted in an enduring bond of friendship and trust
• for Aboriginal offenders, extended family members may include family relations that exist by birth, as well as significant others who are not related by birth, but are given the title of grandparent, parent, brother, sister, aunt, uncle or other relative.

Visitors need to complete paperwork as part of the application process, including a Statement of Voluntary Participation and Consent for Private Family Visits, Visiting Application and Information Form, and Institutional Access CPIC Clearance Request (and, if applicable, a Declaration of Common-Law Union and Visiting Application – Child Safety Waiver). Visitors will be asked to describe the nature of their relationship with the inmate they wish to visit, why they want to participate in PFVs, safety concerns related to the inmate, specific goods (e.g. baby food, diapers) and medical supplies required during the PFV, etc.

Potential PFV visitors may also be interviewed by staff members.

A criminal record is not necessarily a bar to visiting an inmate on a private family visit. The institution will consider what impacts the visit could have on the safety and security of the institution, and it may deny the visitor access if the risk is too great.

Inmates who are dissatisfied with a decision made by CSC about PFVs can use the inmate complaint and grievance procedure.

Past performance is not indicative of future results, and outcomes will vary according to the facts of individual cases. This site is intended for information purposes only. None of the information on this site should be considered “legal advice.” Information on this website (including blog posts and answers to frequently asked questions) is the opinion of the author only and is not warrantied or guaranteed to be an exhaustive, definitive, or accurate statement of the law. The proper interpretation and application of the law must always be done on a case specific basis; therefore, you should not rely on the general information on this site as a substitute for proper legal research or the advice of a licenced lawyer.

Conjugal prison visits help offenders reintegrate to community, experts say

Federal prison program receives attention after reports convicted killer kelly ellard pregnant.

Social Sharing

Lee Chapelle has fond memories of spending afternoons with his wife in the mid-1990s, barbecuing in a small yard while his young children played in the grass and mimicked the cows' moos as the animals grazed in a nearby field.

Were it not for the five-metre, barbed-wire penitentiary fence interrupting the view, the scene could easily have been mistaken as an everyday family experience.

Between 1991 and 2010, Chapelle spent about 15 years behind bars for property theft. On more than a dozen occasions over that period, his young family was able to spend as many as three days at a time living with him.

The stays, which remain a part of the Canadian correctional system, are linked to a long-standing program aimed at increasing the chances of inmates successfully reintegrating into society after their release.

"It was a really big motivation to come home to my family to be able to spend time with my newborn baby and realize just how much was out there and just how much I wanted to be with them," Chapelle said.

"I had a family that needed me and that I loved and that I wanted to be with."

Building hope for the future

Some experts say Canada's so-called private family visit program, which began in 1980 as a pilot project, plays an important role in rehabilitating offenders, and also provides corrections officers with a useful tool for encouraging good behaviour from inmates.

The program has received recent attention after a media report that Kelly Ellard, a notorious killer in British Columbia, is eight months pregnant following a conjugal visit from her boyfriend.

• Moms and babies 'actually do very well' together in prison, researcher says
• Opposition critic calls for policy review after reports of Ellard pregnancy
• Family of Reena Virk reacts to news of killer's prison pregnancy

Lisa Kerr, a law professor at Queen's University in Kingston, Ont., said the program recognizes that the majority of federal inmates will be released and that it is in society's best interest to make that process as successful as possible.

"Close personal relationships are part of what makes people have hope about their future and gives them reason to invest in their correctional programming and move towards a release plan," she said.

Canada's longtime correctional investigator, Howard Sapers, said conjugal visits have been around for as long as he can remember. He cited research showing inmates who are allowed to maintain close family bonds have a lower likelihood of re-offending.

There is nothing in Canada's private family visit legislation that discriminates between gender or sexual orientation.

The stays typically happen in a more private section of the prison within small living units, complete with kitchens and a yard, which Chapelle said inmates commonly refer to as "trailers."

There are strict guidelines around who qualifies, both as an inmate and a visitor, and families pay for any food during the stay, which can last up to three days.

The program is only in place in federal institutions.

'It gives you a fighting chance'

Prisons were a longtime fixture in Chapelle's family life. His wedding took place inside Kingston's medium-security Joyceville Institution and he said he consummated the marriage during his first private family visit.

The woman who would become Chapelle's wife was pregnant at the time of his incarceration, and the couple conceived another child during a later prison visit. Those experiences were crucial in developing the close relationship he now has with his children, he said.

"When it comes to your wife, it gives you a fighting chance of being able to keep your family," Chapelle said, adding that people underestimate the importance of human touch that conjugal visits allow.

One woman who makes frequent private family visits attributes the close connection between her partner and their two-year-old son in large part to the extended visits they have had while he serves time for home invasion.

"My son and his father have the sweetest little bond," said Jennifer, whose last name isn't being included because her employer isn't aware of her personal circumstances.

"He is at the age where he knows who his dada is. When my phone rings he thinks it's his dada. When we're in [the prison] waiting for him to come down, he runs to him."

Beyond punishment 

An official with the Canadian Correctional Service said private family visits are part of a system of treating inmates humanely, and help connect them to the community.

"The goal of corrections goes beyond punishment and goes beyond custody," said Michael Bettman, head of offender programs and reintegration.

"The majority of offenders are going to return to Canadian society and our job in the correctional service is to prepare them and to mitigate any risk that they might pose."

Related Stories

• Skip to main content
• Skip to secondary menu

Correctional Service Canada

Policy Bulletin

Policy bulletin 547.

• Number: 547
• In Effect: 2016-10-11

Related Links

• CD 710-8 - Private Family Visits

CD 715-3 - Community Assessments

Why were the policies changed?

The above noted policies were amended in order to address concerns and to provide further clarification related to the private family visit process and to the completion of Community Assessments for private family visits.

What has changed?

The Statement of Voluntary Participation and Consent for Private Family Visits form (CSC/SCC 0531) has been modified to enable CSC to gather more information from the visitor.

Two new forms entitled Threat Risk Assessment for Private Family Visits (with Visitors) (CSC/SCC 1529) and Threat Risk Assessment for Private Family Visits (Individual Time) (CSC/SCC 1527) were created, and will be completed by staff with the objective of assessing the overall risk to the security of the institution, staff, visitor, and inmate. These new forms will also replace the requirement to complete an Assessment for Decision.

Although the Threat Risk Assessment forms will provide for overall security risk assessment, staff will continue to record the recommendation and decision via the CSC Board Review/Decision Sheet.

More specifically, these changes include:

CD 710-8 – Private Family Visits

• APPLICATION has been amended to clarify that the Directive applies to staff involved in the private family visits process.
• RESPONSIBILITIES have been amended to:
• ensure information related to victim services and the Restorative Opportunities Program is made available to visitors
• include responsibilities of the Correctional Manager
• change to the assessment process by removing the requirement to complete an Assessment for Decision and replace it with the completion of a Threat Risk Assessment for Private Family Visits
• introduce the need for the Correctional Officer II/Primary Worker to consider information provided by the visitor in the Statement of Voluntary Participation and Consent for Private Family Visits form (CSC/SCC 0531) to determine if a Community Assessment is required
• provide the opportunity to interview the visitor following receipt of the Statement of Voluntary Participation and Consent for Private Family Visits form (CSC/SCC 0531).
• PROCEDURES have been modified to include a new paragraph to clarify the use of the private family visit location for the purposes of the Mother-Child Program.
• Approval Process has been modified to:
• include the Visiting Application form (CSC/SCC 0653)
• correct the form title of Visiting Application – Child Safety Waiver (CSC/SCC 0653-01e)
• provide the opportunity to interview the visitor following receipt of the Statement of Voluntary Participation and Consent for Private Family Visits form (CSC/SCC 0531)
• include the requirement to consult when considering the request of a Community Assessment
• include a new paragraph to record and share recommendations and decisions with the inmate.
• Safety Measures have been modified to:
• clarify the timeframe for completing a Casework Record
• include the requirement for completion of a Statement/Observation Report).
• Refusal or Suspension of a Private Family Visit has been modified to clarify that a re-application needs to occur for the completion of a re assessment.
• ANNEX A has been modified to:
• update cross-references
• include a definition for Threat Risk Assessment.
• ANNEX B - “ASSESSMENT FOR DECISION FOR THE USE OF PRIVATE FAMILY VISIT UNITS –REPORT OUTLINE” has been deleted as it is no longer required.
• The references for AGE OF MAJORITY (now Annex B) have been updated.
• PURPOSE has been amended to provide clarification.
• RESPONSIBILITIES AND PROCEDURES have been amended to:
• improve clarity and reduce redundancy
• reflect that the tasks associated with completing and updating Community Assessments are now strictly the responsibility of the Parole Officer in consultation with the Manager, Assessment and Interventions.
• ANNEX A has been modified to update cross-references.
• ANNEX B has been modified to:
• include instructions regarding information relevant to Aboriginal social history
• include instructions regarding Community Assessments for the Mother-Child Program
• update the name of “Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade” to “Global Affairs Canada”
• include additional instructions in the overall assessment for international transfer applications.

How were they developed?

These amendments were developed by the Offender Programs and Reintegration Branch of the Correctional Operations and Programs Sector jointly with the Strategic Policy Division. Consultation occurred with internal and external stakeholders, including inmate committees.

Accountabilities?

Roles and responsibilities are detailed in the policy documents.

Who will be affected by the policies?

Apply to staff involved in the application process and management of private family visits and those requesting or completing Community Assessments.

Expected cost?

Other impacts, for more information.

• Government-wide Forward Regulatory Plans
• The Cabinet Directive on Regulatory
• The Federal regulatory management
• The Canada–United States Regulatory Cooperation Council

To learn about upcoming or ongoing consultations on proposed federal regulations, visit the Canada Gazette and Consulting with Canadians websites.

• Practitioner
• EBP Monthly
• EBP Quarterly
• Event Updates
• Continued Education
• Frontline Pathway
• Leadership Pathway
• MI Skills Day
• Faculty Guidelines
• Joyfields Institute
• Request Demo
• Masterclasses
• Schedule-A-Mentor
• Login/Sign In

Extending the Ties that Bind: Considering the Implementation of Extended Family Visits in Prisons

Thomas dutcher university of new haven.

The following brief presents valuable information for states considering implementing extended familial visitations to their current visitation policies within prisons. Specifically this report would be of interest to individuals within a given states’ Department of Corrections. The brief first outlines what is known about extended stay family visitations (also known as conjugal visitations) in relation to recidivism prevention, prison violence reduction, and maintenance of social ties. Thereafter, policies of states with current programs are reviewed. The brief recommends that states adopt a visitation policy, which allows for a broad definition of who qualifies as a visitor capable of applying for an extended visitation, and recommends considering the use of a monitoring and evaluation framework paired with the implementation of a program due to the limited current state of evidence-based literature on the topic.

Statement of Issue  

Roughly 45% of the United States population has had an incarcerated primary family member, and every state has some form of in-person visitation policy, but the vast majority of incarcerated persons will not receive visits from family (Cochran & Mears, 2013; Enns et al., 2019; Mitchell et al., 2016). The extant quantitative literature on the effects of familial visitation on the incarcerated person finds that visitations increase overall mood, increase reports of familial ties, decrease rule violation behavior, reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Yet it is important to note that within these studies, it is rare for more than 40% of those incarcerated individuals to report receiving any visits, let alone visits from family members (De Claire & Dixon, 2017; Duwe & Clark, 2013; Mears et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2016).

While visitation and maintaining familial ties are seen as theoretically relevant for reducing recidivism by reducing strain, strengthening familial ties, and combatting labeling associated with prisonization, there are significant barriers to visitation (Cochran & Mears, 2013). These barriers include distance to be traveled (often hundreds of miles), cost of travel, poor conditions in the general visiting area, length of visit, inconsistency in hours of allowable visit, length of time spent waiting at the facility, and the overarching cost of the experience (Christian, 2005; Cochran & Mears, 2013; Mowen & Visher, 2016).

With this in mind, this policy brief seeks to explore one way for addressing low in-person familial visitation rates. In the section that follows, a background on extended familial or “conjugal” visits will be provided. As of 2021, only four states have official extended familial visitation programs: Connecticut (Connecticut Department of Correction Directive 10.6), California (see Boudin et al., 2013), New York (DOC Dir 4500), and Washington (DOC 590.100). Extended familial visits, while not a panacea to low prison visitation, address many of the barriers to visitation shown in the existing literature.

Prison visitation has received a great deal of attention from researchers in the past 20 years. This research tends to show that visitation has a positive impact on the lives of those incarcerated, as well as the individuals visiting (Duwe & Clark, 2013; Mears et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2016; Tasca et al., 2016). Rather than detailing the key findings of the literature, the focus of this brief is placed on two separate meta-analyses of prison visitation research, along with a few routinely cited studies. This overarching literature will be used to introduce the limited research that has been conducted on extended familial (conjugal) visitations. While most of this research focuses on the effects of visitation on recidivism, it should be noted that an entirely separate body of research focuses on the effects of visitation for families on the outside (see: Adams, 2018; Christian, 2005; Mowen & Visher, 2016;; Siennick et al., 2013; Turanovic et al., 2012)

One meta-analysis conducted by De Claire & Dixon (2017) examined 10 studies that specifically looked at the effects of familial and romantic partner visitation related to the overall mood and disposition of the incarcerated person, instances of violations in prison, and recidivism. The authors found support for their hypothesis that visits from family improve mood, decrease in-prison violations, and decrease recidivism risk (De Claire & Dixon, 2017). However, differences exist related to the gender of the incarcerated individual. For example, visitation only reduced recidivism at a statistically significant level for men, not women (Claire & Dixon, 2017). The researchers noted that there needs to be further studies that examine the nuances of types of visitation, including extended familial visitation, and their effect on recidivism and in prison violations.

Mitchell et al. (2016), in another meta-analysis of the effects of prison visitation specific to recidivism outcomes, examined studies of 16 prison visitation programs that used either an experimental or quasi-experimental design. This meta-analysis found that prison visitation reduces recidivism by 26%, but that gender (larger effect for men than women), type of visit, and length of incarceration mediate the effect (Mitchell et al., 2016). Despite this mediation, the effect of visitation remained moderately significant. Unique to this meta-analysis was the inclusion of extended familial (conjugal) visits as a visitation type.  While it should be noted that far fewer studies in the meta-analysis were used to test the effect of these visits, the results of this study show that extended familial visits had the strongest effect on recidivism of any type of visitation, reducing recidivism by 36% (Mitchell et al., 2016).

Research specifically examining the effects of extended family (conjugal) visitation is hard to locate in the extant literature. The evaluative studies which do exist have focused almost exclusively on the extended visit program in the state of Mississippi, which ended in 2014 (McElreath et al., 2016). Research examining extended visitations generally includes discussions of now defunct programs (such as the aforementioned Mississippi program), in large part because the extant literature does not extend beyond 2014 (see Boudin et al., 2013; Carlson & Cevera, 1991; D’Alessio et al., 2013; Einat & Rabinovitz, 2013; Hensley et al., 2000, 2002). This prior research largely paints a positive picture of this form of visitation.

Hensley et al. (2000), surveying currently incarcerated persons in two facilities in Mississippi (126 men and 130 women), sought to examine if those that received extended familial (conjugal) visits had different views on the program than those who were eligible but did not participate. It is important to note that this study oversampled those receiving extended family visits, as 53% of their sample received this form of visit, whereas only 7% of the prison population received extended family visits (Hensley et al., 2000). Using logistic regression, this study found that there were no statistically significant differences in the opinions of extended visitations between those who did and did not receive them (Hensley et al., 2000). Both those who did and did not receive extended visits were in favor of the practice (Hensley et al., 2000).

Hensely et al. (2002) sought to examine the effects of extended family visits on the threat of, as well as actual acts of violent assault and sexual violence. In this study, extended family (conjugal) visits were coded as a dichotomous yes/no variable.  Using multiple regression, the researchers found that while extended family (conjugal) visits decreased threats and actual acts of violence/sexual violence for incarcerated women in the sample, this difference was not statistically significant. Additionally, this study found that extended family (conjugal) visits had no overall effect on violence scales employed (measuring threats and acts) (Hensley et al., 2002).

However, these null findings are in contrast to the majority of the extant literature, which finds positive effects of extended familial (conjugal) visitation (D’Alessio et al., 2013; De Claire & Dixon, 2017; Einat & Rabinovitz, 2013; Mears et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2016). D’Alessio et al. (2013), for example, in examining the rates of a reported inmate to inmate sexual assaults in all 50 states over three years, found that conjugal visitation was a statistically significant factor that reduced instances of sexual assault within men’s facilities. In other words, states with specific policies that allowed for extended familial (conjugal) visitation had lower reported rates of sexual abuse in their prisons. However, it must be mentioned again that since the time of this study, both Mississippi and New Mexico have ended their visitation programs.

Qualitative research has delved deeper into the perceptions of extended visits through the perspective of incarcerated persons. In studying perceptions of visitation experiences for incarcerated men, Pierce (2015) found that extended family visits were incredibly important to the 32 men in their sample for maintaining social bonds with their loved ones. Extended visits were mentioned as being preferred for their relative privacy and reportedly produced more meaningful visitation experiences for these men. Pierce (2015) found that continuing extended family visitations, improving the conditions of the trailers, and increasing the number of trailers to facilitate more frequent extended visits per eligible party were among the primary recommendations made by men for facilitating stronger familial ties. Additionally, Einat & Rabinovitz, (2013) examined the importance of “conjugal” visits for eight incarcerated women in Israel. Similarly, these women reflected on the importance of one-on-one visits to maintain deep connections with their romantic partners, which went beyond simply engaging in sex (Einat & Rabinovitz, 2013). The privacy and intimacy of non-traditional visits led individuals in both studies to assert extended visits were more beneficial to their familial relationships than a standard visit (Einat & Rabinovitz, 2013; Pierce, 2015).

Pre-existing policies

While all states have various regulations regarding the length of visitation, type of visit allowed (contact or no contact), and who may visit, all 50 states have a formal policy regulating prison visitation (Boudin et al., 2013). While most states have special policies allowing for extended visits, these extensions are seldom for longer than a few hours during the day. They also vary across states in terms of length of the extension and what type of visitor can request an extended visit (Boudin et al., 2013). Existing policies on these variations in day-time-hour-based extended visits also vary by state and are not possible to recount in detail. Of particular interest is the overnight extended stay visit (often referred to as a familial visit or conjugal visit). As of 2014, when New Mexico and Mississippi canceled their programs, 46 states have no formal policy that allows incarcerated individuals to engage in a private overnight stay with any familial visitor (Boudin et al., 2013) . The policies of Connecticut, New York, and Washington will be outlined below, with a focus on the unique or differing dimensions of each policy.

Extended Options: Connecticut

In the state of Connecticut, incarcerated persons are eligible for a 24-hour extended family visit from their child (under 18) and their spouse, the child's guardian, or the parent of the incarcerated person (Connecticut Department of Correction Directive 10.6). Unique to this policy is the mandate that the incarcerated person must be visited by two persons, one of whom must be their child. Incarcerated persons are eligible for a visit every 90-days. A set of eligibility guidelines exists for both the visitors and the incarcerated person. These eligibility guidelines for the incarcerated person mandate that they must not be on a restrictive status, must not have high-class disciplinary offenses, must have been incarcerated for at least 90 days, and must be in good health (Connecticut Department of Correction Directive 10.6) . Extended family visits occur on Saturdays and Wednesdays, beginning at 8:30 in the morning and ending at 8:30 the next day (Connecticut Department of Correction Directive 10.6). These visits cost ten dollars and are conducted in private trailers that are “similar to a two-bedroom apartment” (Connecticut Department of Correction Directive 10.6, p. 7) . Each facility in the state is capable of setting its own specific eligibility guidelines for both visitors and incarcerated individuals, in addition to the general rules set forth by the Connecticut Department of Corrections

Unlike the Connecticut state policy, which requires a child present in order for the extended stay visit to occur, the policies in New York, Washington, and California do not have this provision. Similar among all three policies are the extensive documents required by the visitor, to establish their identity and connection to the incarcerated person they are seeking to visit, as well as a lengthy application process that includes providing medical, legal, and background records . In all three states, a committee makes the final decision to approve or reject applications for these extended visits.

Extended Options: Washington

The “Extended Stay Family Policy” of Washington used the terminology “Extended Family Visits” rather than the now stigmatized term of conjugal visit (DOC 590.100) . Individuals able to apply for these types of visits include immediate family, parents, step-parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts or uncles, and legally married or state-certified domestic partners (DOC 590.100) . Similar to Connecticut, these visits are private and occur in mobile home units that must have at least one bedroom, a kitchen, a bathroom and a living room. Under the Washington state policy, the incarcerated person must be serving at least five years, have been incarcerated for at least one year, cannot be in a maximum security facility, and cannot be a sex offender. The visitor cannot be their victim in the case of domestic violence, and the inmate must have a clean infraction record (DOC 590.100) . For visitors, the individual cannot be on parole, probation, or awaiting trial, cannot have testified against the individual, must be on their visitor list, and must have visited in person or through video visitations at least 6 times in the last year (DOC 590.100) . This last qualification is especially unique to this policy. The visits themselves can last from 20-48 hours and cost $15 per night, a charge payable by either the visitor or the incarcerated person. An incarcerated person is eligible for one extended visit per month.

Extended Options: New York

The New York Family Reunification Program operates similarly to the aforementioned Washington State policy. There are strict eligibility requirements, which include but are not limited to: the incarcerated person must be a minimum of 6 months into their sentence, must be clear of “excessive” disciplinary infractions and have no “major or severe” infractions, must be eligible for regular visits, cannot be a sex offender, and must be involved in at least one program related to their risk-needs assessment (DOC Dir 4500) . Visitor eligibility also requires that the individual be a frequent visitor; however, unlike the six visits required in Washington, three visits within the last year are required in New York.

For a visitor to be eligible, they must be able to show they are a legally married or common-law spouse, a child over the age of 18, a child under the age of 18 accompanied by a parent or the spouse of the incarcerated person, a minor child without an adult but with written permission approved under special review, a parent or step-parent of the incarcerated person, or a grandparent (DOC Dir 4500). The review process in the state of New York takes roughly five weeks by a full cycle review of the state DOC; after initial approval, subsequent applications can be handled by the specific facility. Twenty-two out of the fifty-two correctional facilities in the state offer this program (DOC Dir 4500). Similar to Washington State, extended visits can be canceled at any time, and individuals can lose their eligibility within the program, subject to the discretion of the facility.

Policy Options

Based on prior literature, the following policy options exist for states interested in implementing a form of an extended family (conjugal) visitation program. These policy options will focus on the general type of visit. Guidelines on eligibility are largely similar across the existing policy options, and as such, a given state should determine eligibility in line with their current visitation procedures. Noting that there is state by state variation in visitation procedures (Boudin et al., 2013), it is not feasible in this brief to cover all aspects of an extended family visitation policy. Instead, the options provided are based on the shared characteristics of existing policies. In other words, in the options that follow (particularly options one and two), the state will be left to determine what specific qualifying and disqualifying protocols should be in place for incarcerated persons to be eligible for the program.

The three policy options provided focus solely on the eligibility who can visit. These options are as follows:

Option 1 – Child-Caregiver-Incarcerated Parent Extended Visit

This option suggests adopting and implementing a family visitation program inspired by the state of Connecticut, requiring a child to be present during such visitations. The naming of this option as Child-Caregiver-Incarcerated Parent Extended Visit highlights the strict requirement of this approach. Only incarcerated parents of minor children may participate in this program, and only if the caregiver of that child is also willing to participate in that visit. It is recommended in this option to follow the overarching policy guidelines of the state of Connecticut related to the contents of visitation trailers and the length of these visits. As stated previously, the state may determine additional qualifying or disqualifying metrics.  

Advantages:

• Allows for the facilitation of social ties between children and their incarcerated parent, which has been shown to reduce the criminogenic impact of growing up with an incarcerated parent.
• Allows for the strengthening and maintaining of social bonds and ties between the child, incarcerated parent, and caregiver.
• By focusing the policy and public narrative around the child being present, it may be possible to prevent negative public backlash related to the label of “conjugal” visits.

Disadvantages:

• The scope of this program is limited to incarcerated individuals who have a child and a relationship with that child’s caregiver that would facilitate a three-way visitation.
• Initial administrative, operations, and constructions costs related to setting up the infrastructure to facilitate these visits.
• Times for such visits would be limited due to school schedules and would likely cause a backlog of visitations.
• It may be hard for the child and parent to require the pre-requisite number of prior regular visits in order to be eligible for extended visits.

Option 2 – General Extended Family Visit

Adopt and implement a family visitation program inspired by states that do not have the child plus caregiver requirement. Or in other words, those states whose policies use a broader definition of who can visit. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, this can be called the General Extended Family Visit. Within such a policy, parents, siblings, children, legal or common-law spouses, grandparents, and additional family members would be able to apply for the general extended family visit, if they had made a minimum of three regular visits (in person or video) in the prior year. It is recommended that states base their specific policy to be in line with their already existing visitation policies, while incorporating the key structures of The New York Family Reunification Program. As stated previously, the state may determine additional qualifying or disqualifying metrics.  

• A wider variety of individuals who are key social support structures in the lives of incarcerated persons would have access to the visitation program.
• Extended family visitation has been shown to decrease recidivism after re-entry, decrease instances of violence in prison between incarcerated persons, and produce stronger reports of familial ties on release.
• Longer, higher-quality interpersonal visits may facilitate a higher frequency of visits by helping to combat certain barriers to visitation.
• Allows for policy evaluation research to examine the effects of different types of visitors on things such as stress and strain experienced by incarcerated persons, recidivism, inter-inmate violence, and visitation satisfaction. This is critical to understanding what types of visits are beneficial and which ones do more harm than good.
• Different types of visitors are shown to produce different levels of social and emotional support based on factors like the gender of the incarcerated person (Adams, 2018; Mowen & Visher, 2016; Turanovic & Tasca, 2019).

Disadvantages

• Achieving pre-requite prior visitations may be difficult for individuals seeking to participate in the program.
• It may appear as a “soft on criminals” approach that led to the cancelation of extended family (conjugal) visitation programs in states such as Mississippi and New Mexico.

Option 3 – Maintain course

A third option is to maintain current visitation policies and not provide extended family visitations. This “as is” approach centers around the idea that the given Department of Corrections is doing enough to facilitate familial ties by providing its regular, standard visitation practices. This applies to states with no set-up for extended visits and those having only informal extended visit procedures (Boudin et al., 2013).

• No additional cost incurred (only applies to states that do not still have facilities from previous programs).
• No changes in policy, staffing, or procedures needed.
• No risk of public backlash of being “soft on criminals.”
• Does not address the needs of incarcerated persons or their families relative to visitation.
• Does not allow for continued research on how various types of visitation may have greater impacts on recidivism.
• Ignores that there is research that shows that extended family visits reduce recidivism more than standard visits.
• Does not address the burdens experienced by families of incarcerated persons.

Recommendations

With careful consideration of existing familial visitation policies and standard visitation policies, as well as the recognition that existing policies in either domain are not standardized but rather tailored to the individual state by their department of corrections (Boudin et al., 2013), it is the recommendation of this paper that, in light of research showing the positive effects of extended family visits on recidivism and family ties, states currently without such policies should adopt a General Extended Family Visit policy (option two in the previous section). As mentioned above, the primary advantages of this approach include its broader scope of allowable visitors (recognizing heterogeneity in visitation effects), its capacity for reducing barriers to visitation, and the expected impacts on recidivism and quality of life.

Reducing barriers to incarceration is critical to sustaining the positive effects of visitation experienced by incarcerated persons, as research has shown that disruptions such as canceled visitation or infrequent visitation diminish the statistical significance of visitation in reducing misconduct while incarcerated (Siennick et al., 2013). While a full review of the significant barriers faced in attempting to visit an incarcerated family member is beyond the scope of this report, these difficulties largely center around time and distance spent traveling, cost of traveling, already fraying relationships, and negative outlooks on the visitation environment itself (Christian, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2016; Mowen & Visher, 2016). By providing private trailers with amenities far beyond that of a regular visitation space , an overnight visit, and privacy to promote a sense of near normalcy alongside intimacy, General Extended Family Visits directly address several of these barriers.

A key component leading to the recommendation for states without extended familial visits to adopt a program in its likeness is that it does not require the presence of a child for such visits to occur and allows for the broadest range of potential visitors, with extended family being able to apply for special consideration . This is important, because both qualitative and quantitative research reveals the effects of visitations are about more than just the simple act of visiting. There is no standard “best visitor,” and factors such as the gender of the incarcerated person, the quality of the previous relationship, and parenthood status all present unique dimensions to determining who makes an individual level best visitor (Mitchell et al., 2016; Mowen & Visher, 2016; Tasca et al., 2016; Turanovic & Tasca, 2019). Thus, by having a more open approach to individuals who can apply for extended visitation, states avoid a “one-size fits all” approach to policymaking.    

While prior quantitative research is limited, this research has found support for the ability of extended family visitation to have a greater effect on reducing recidivism and inter-inmate violence than standard visitations (Boudin et al., 2013; D’Alessio et al., 2013; De Claire & Dixon, 2017; Mitchell et al., 2016). In addition to reducing recidivism (a major goal of the correctional system and criminal justice system as a whole), extended visitations help to lessen the burden of the collateral consequences of incarceration, especially the strains and stressors related to the deterioration of familial networks, experienced by both those that are incarcerated and their families on the outside (Mowen & Visher, 2016; Tasca et al., 2016; Turanovic et al., 2012). In continuing with trends supporting restorative justice and social justice approaches to the criminal justice system, alleviating strains experienced by families of the incarcerated presents another strong reason for adopting this form of General Extended Family Policy. The importance of extended family visits for the mental and social wellbeing of incarcerated persons and their own views on their familial ties has been shown in research examining both incarcerated men and women (Einat & Rabinovitz, 2013; Pierce, 2015).

It is important to note, as we strive for evidence-based practices and policies, that more research is needed on the specific effects of extended family visits. The extant research has become outdated, existing in a time and space of a vastly different socio-political and prison policy climate (i.e., the get-tough era). The meta-analyses presented above focus primarily on visitation as a whole. While extended visitation was included in their analyses, replication and further study are needed to determine the degree to which extended visits may provide more of a benefit than regular visitation programs. Thus, states implementing the above recommendation should do so with the explicit purpose of constructing a monitoring and evaluation framework in order to conduct further research on the effects of extended family visitation on recidivism, prison misconduct, and familial ties.

Annotated Bibliography

Adams, B. L. (2018). Paternal incarceration and the family: Fifteen years in review. Sociology Compass , 12 (3), e12567. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12567

This review of previous literature is important for understanding the effects of incarceration on families. The researchers provide a comprehensive review of the current state of literature related to paternal incarceration and provide insights into the importance of visitation for familial ties. Those without a background on the impacts of incarceration on families can gain a snapshot of modern research on the topic from this paper.

Boudin, C., Stutz, T., & Littman, A. (2013). Prison visitation policies: A fifty-state survey. Yale Law and Policy Review , 32(1) , 149-189.

This is the only known comprehensive review of visitation policies in every state. This paper highlights the variation in policies by state and notes the differences between formal stated policies and informal practices. The article features a review of various extended stay programs. However, it should be noted that several states listed as providing extended stay programs, no longer provide such services (New Mexico and Mississippi).

Carlson, B. E., & Cevera, N. (1991). Inmates and their Families: Conjugal Visits, Family Contact, and Family Functioning. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 18 (3), 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854891018003005

This study examined differences in the perceptions of family functioning and familial bonds between incarcerated men and their wives participating in the "Family Reunification Program", an extended visit policy in New York State. The results of this study, based on surveys by 63 incarcerated persons and 39 wives, found positive effects for the extended visitation program. Both incarcerated men and their partners reported higher levels of closeness than those not participating in the Family Reunification program.

Christian, J. (2005). Riding the Bus: Barriers to Prison Visitation and Family Management Strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice , 21 (1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271618

This qualitative research study examines the lived experience of individuals riding a 24 hour bus to visit their incarcerated loved ones. The study finds significant barriers to incarceration related not only to time and distance but also treatment by correctional staff and the visitation environment. This study provides qualitative depth to help understand the relatively low rate of individuals receiving visits while incarcerated in the United States.

Cochran, J. C., & Mears, D. P. (2013). Social isolation and inmate behavior: A conceptual framework for theorizing prison visitation and guiding and assessing research. Journal of Criminal Justice , 41 (4), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.05.001

This article provides a comprehensive review on scholarship related to both positive and negative effects of prison visitation. The article provides an expert analysis on the current state of the literature as well as the heterogeneous impacts of various types of prison visitation.

Connecticut Department of Corrections. (2020). Inmate Visits (10.6; p. 14). Connecticut Department of Corrections.

This document provides the Connecticut Department of Corrections policies related to visitations at carceral facilities in the state. It presents the overall policies of the state, including but not limited to the states’ extended visit policy. It is of critical importance to understanding existing policies in place

D’Alessio, S. J., Flexon, J., & Stolzenberg, L. (2013). The Effect of Conjugal Visitation on Sexual Violence in Prison. American Journal of Criminal Justice , 38 (1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9155-5

This article examines the impact of conjugal visits on sexual violence in prisons by examining longitudinal data from all fifty states. In this study the dependent variable is the yearly number of reported sexual offenses between incarcerated persons and the independent variable of interest is a dummy variable based on if a state has a conjugal visitation program. This study found that states with conjugal visitation programs have significantly lower levels of sexual offenses when controlling for other factors. This article makes up a key portion of the limited extant literature on conjugal visitation.

De Claire, K., & Dixon, L. (2017). The Effects of Prison Visits from Family Members on Prisoners’ Well-Being, Prison Rule Breaking, and Recidivism: A Review of Research since 1991. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 18 (2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015603209

This article provides a meta-analysis of prison visitation research, focused specifically on the effects of that research for incarcerated persons. The study finds that visitation generally has a positive impact on inmate wellbeing, reduces recidivism, and reduces inter-inmate violence. Additionally, this research finds heterogeneity in the effects of visitation based on the type of visit and the gender of the inmate being visited. This study is important for those seeking a background on the effects of prison visitation for incarcerated persons.

Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2013). Blessed Be the Social Tie That Binds: The Effects of Prison Visitation on Offender Recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review , 24 (3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403411429724

This article examines the impact of visitation, visitation frequency, and type of visitor on recidivism risk. The study found that examining visitation frequency shows there are nuanced effects beyond visitation yes/no of visitation on recidivism. Additionally, certain visitors were found to decrease recidivism risk while others, such as former spouses, increased risk of recidivism post-release. It is a well-researched and methodologically sound article providing a nuanced take on the effects of visitation.

Einat, T., & Rabinovitz, S. (2013). A Warm Touch in a Cold Cell: Inmates’ Views on Conjugal Visits in a Maximum-Security Women’s Prison in Israel. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 57 (12), 1522–1545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12461475

This article examines the perceptions of conjugal visitations within a women's prison in Isreal. This qualitative study reveals key themes related to the visitation experience that highlights its importance for maintaining familial ties and social bonds for participating women. It is an important study for those examining the significance of providing extended visits beyond measurable metrics such as recidivism.

Enns, P. K., Yi, Y., Comfort, M., Goldman, A. W., Lee, H., Muller, C., Wakefield, S., Wang, E. A., & Wildeman, C. (2019). What Percentage of Americans Have Ever Had a Family Member Incarcerated? Evidence from the Family History of Incarceration Survey (FamHIS). Socius , 5 , 2378023119829332. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023119829332

This article uses a new tool the Family History of Incarcerated Survey, to answer their research question of how many individuals living in America have ever had an incarcerated family member. The authors found that nearly half of all Americans have experienced the incarceration of an immediate member of their family. This research is important for beginning to understand the significance of having a variety of visitation programs within a given department of corrections.

Hensley, C., Koscheski, M., & Tewksbury, R. (2002). Does Participation in Conjugal Visitations Reduce Prison Violence in Mississippi? An Exploratory Study. Criminal Justice Review , 27 (1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/073401680202700104

This study examines the impact of conjugal visitation on inter-inmate violence in prisons within the state of Mississippi. The researchers surveyed 256 men and women within two prisons in the state. The researchers found no statistically significant difference in threats or acts of violence between those participating in the program and those that were not. This study is important to recognize because it does not find positive effects of conjugal visitation.

Hensley, C., Rutland, S., & Gray-Ray, P. (2000). Inmate attitudes toward the conjugal visitation program in Mississippi prisons: An exploratory study. American Journal of Criminal Justice , 25 (1), 137–145.

This study examines perceptions of conjugal visitation within two Mississippi prisons. In this study incarcerated persons, both participants and non-participants were surveyed. The key finding of this study is that both groups rated the program as being a both important and necessary form of visitation regardless of their own eligibility for the program.

McElreath, D. H., Doss, D. A., Jensen, C. J., Wigginton, M. P., Mallory, S., Lyons, T., Williamson, L., & Jones, D. W. (2016). The End of the Mississippi Experiment with Conjugal Visitation. The Prison Journal , 96 (5), 752–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885516662644

This article discusses the factors that led to the cancelation of the Mississippi conjugal visitation program. The authors cover previous literature on conjugal visitation as well as research specific to the state of Mississippi. It is an important piece to read to understand common objections to extended familial visitation programs.

Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., Siennick, S. E., & Bales, W. D. (201). Prison Visitation and Recidivism. Justice Quarterly , 29 (6), 888–918.

This article uses propensity score matching in a rigorous analysis of the effects of prison visitation on recidivism. The authors find that different types of visits as well as the frequency of visits are important moderating variables on the effect of visitation measured as yes/no on recidivism. Overall the researchers find that visitation has a positive effect on recidivism. This study is an important piece of the quantitative literature on the effects of visitation on recidivism due to its rigorous design.

Mitchell, M. M., Spooner, K., Jia, D., & Zhang, Y. (2016). The effect of prison visitation on reentry success: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice , 47 , 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.07.006

This meta-analysis examines the effects of prison visitation on recidivism. The authors of this meta-analysis examined studies that looked at nuanced factors that may effects the any relationship between visitation and recidivism including; who is visiting, what type of visit is being conducted, and the gender and race of the individual being visited. The results of this study point to extended visits having a greater impact on recidivism than standard visits. This article is important for those looking to gain immediate insights into trends in the research on visitation.

Mowen, T. J., & Visher, C. A. (2016). Changing the Ties that Bind. Criminology & Public Policy , 15 (2), 503–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12207

This study specifically examines factors that lead to changes in familial ties when a member of that family is incarcerated. Central among their findings to this policy brief is the reported importance of visitation in sustaining familial ties. This study is important for understanding the dynamics within families with an incarcerated immediate member.

New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. (2016). Family Reunion Program (DIR #4500; p. 14). New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

This document provides the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision policies related to the extended stay visitation program at carceral facilities in the state. It presents the overall policies of the state regarding this program known specifically as the Family Reunification Program. It is of critical importance to understanding existing policies in place

Pierce, M. B. (2015). Male Inmate Perceptions of the Visitation Experience: Suggestions on How Prisons Can Promote Inmate–Family Relationships. The Prison Journal , 95 (3), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885515587471

This study, through a qualitative design, examines heterogeneity in visitation by asking incarcerated men about their visitation experiences. The authors specifically included those that had experienced extended stay familial visits and the importance of these visits are accounted for in detail. This article presents important findings via recommendations these men have for improving visitation experiences.

Siennick, S. E., Mears, D.P & Bales, W.D., (2013) Here and Gone: Anticipation and Separation Effects of Prison Visits on Inmate Infractions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50 (3), 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427812449470

This study examines the impact of irregular visitation schedules and canceled visitations on the behavior of incarcerated persons. The results of this study show that gaps in visitation may increase inmate infractions and violence. The authors find that maintaining and facilitating regular visits reduces infractions and violence. This study is important for examining the impacts of visitation backups and canceled visitations.

Tasca, M., Mulvey, P., & Rodriguez, N. (2016). Families coming together in prison: An examination of visitation encounters. Punishment & Society , 18 (4), 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474516642856

This qualitative study takes a unique approach to studying prison visitation by examining what is said during these visits in order to assess factors related to perceptions of a "successful" visit. The authors present several key themes related to the types of conversations most frequently had based on the relationship between the visitor and visiting party. It is important for understanding the social dynamics of visitations.

Turanovic, J. J., Rodriguez, N., & Pratt, T. C. (2012). The collateral consequences of incarceration revisited: A qualitative analysis of the effects of caregivers of children of incarcerated parents. Criminology , 50 (4), 913–959. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00283.x

This study presents a large (100 caregiver) qualitative analysis on the experiences of family members of the incarcerated. The results of this study highlight the collateral consequences of incarceration experienced by families, including barriers to incarceration. The study highlights first-hand accounts on how visitation can be a strong asset in lessening the collateral consequences of incarceration. This study is important for those seeking more information on the social benefits of visitation beyond that of recidivism prevention.

Turanovic, J. J., & Tasca, M. (2019). Inmates’ Experiences with Prison Visitation. Justice Quarterly , 36 (2), 287–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1385826

This extensive study of experiences of prison visitation examined emotional responses to visits by the incarcerated. The results of this study, derived from 228 incarcerated persons, show that a whole range of both positive and negative emotions associated with visitation are commonly experienced. The authors recommend family-focused interventions, such as extended familial visits may help maximize the positive effects of visitations while combatting negative effects.

Washington Department of Corrections. (2020). Extended Family Visiting (DOC 590.100; p. 17). Washington Department of Corrections.

This document provides the Washington State Department of Corrections policies related to extended family visitations at carceral facilities in the state. It presents the overall policies of the program and is of critical importance to understanding existing policies in place.

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

Blog Categories

• News & Announcements
• Continued Evidence-Based Education

Recent Articles

Understanding the Criminal Pathways of Victimized Youth

The Price of Punishment: Exclusionary Discipline in Connecticut PreK-12 Schools

Breaking the Cycle of Absenteeism: Strategies for Prevention

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - March 2024

Quarterly for Evidence-Based Professionals - Volume 8, Number 3

Evidence-Based Professionals' Monthly - April 2024

Unlock the Power of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT): Elevate Your Practice!

MI Days-2.0

Join us for "Case Management (CM) Days" Spring 2024!

Get Your  Free Article to...

"Becoming An Evidence-Based Organization (EBO)

Five Key Components To Consider" by David L. Myers, PhD.

Would You Like To Set Your Leadership Apart from The Typical?

"Becoming An Evidence-Based Practitioner (EBP)

How To Set Yourself Apart" By Mark M. Lowis, MINT

Would You Like To Set Your Yourself Apart from The Typical Practitioner?

Masterclass Options

We offer a Masterclass & Certification for LEADERS and PRACTITIONERS. Which are you interested in exploring?

For inmates in Mission, B.C., conjugal visits an important slice of life outside

This article was published more than 7 years ago. Some information may no longer be current.

Secluded spaces, such as this mother-child common room in the annex of the Fraser Valley Institution in Abbotsford, are made available to many inmates for private visits. JONATHAN HAYWARD/The Canadian Press

It looks like a normal three-bedroom family home. A ceiling fan whirrs over a pair of sofas in the living room.

The hallway shelves hold a pile of bed sheets. A refrigerator hums quietly in the kitchen as sunlight peaks in through a curtained window.

But upon closer inspection, several oddities catch the eye.

The corded phone hanging on the wall is missing a dial pad.

The television stand is packed with old VHS films.

And on the hallway cork board there's a laminated message on yellow paper outlining the four times a day the home's inhabitants are expected to present themselves and be counted.

The house is one of two used at the Mission Minimum Security Institution in British Columbia's Fraser Valley for private family visits.

The conjugal visit program allows eligible inmates to apply every two months to spend up to three days with either family, a significant other or a close personal acquaintance.

It is in place at minimum- and medium-security facilities across the country and allows participants to meet in homes that are slightly removed from the rest of the prison.

Barb van Vugt, the warden at Mission Institution, describes the visits as an important part of the prisoner rehabilitation process, one that aims to give an inmate the best chance at successfully reintegrating back into society.

"We need to be mindful that the vast majority of our offenders return to our communities," Ms. van Vugt said during an interview at the institution.

"Part of that program is continued contact with family and maintaining relationships with people in the community who most likely are going to be supporting them once they're released."

Ms. Van Vugt points to historic research conducted by Correctional Service Canada that has uncovered a strong correlation between private family visits and a drop in recidivism. The study's results found that inmates who received just two private family visits – the average number for those who took part in the program – had a 22-per-cent lower likelihood of returning to jail than those who did not participate.

The mother-child program, which allows children under five years old to live full time with their incarcerated mothers, also uses family relationships to encourage rehabilitation. Research published in 2015 by the University of British Columbia found that mother-child units allowed kids to bond with their mothers in safe and supportive environments, while also promoting positive social and parenting skills among mothers.

All inmates are eligible for the conjugal visit program, except those in special handling, in disciplinary segregation or who already have access to unescorted temporary leave in the community.

The adjoining medium-security facility at Mission Institution houses three units for private family visits. The residences sit side-by-side in the southwest corner of the double-fenced site. A guard station towers overhead, its long shadow narrowly missing a small snowman with a green, pail hat standing alone recently in one of the snow-covered yards.

Ms. Van Vugt said she believes the public is, for the most part, aware of some version of the program, even if only through pop culture.

"They talk about conjugal visits on TV. It even makes its way onto Seinfeld ," she said, smiling.

What some people might not know is that children are also allowed to visit their incarcerated parents, provided the offence for which the inmate is serving does not relate to family violence, Ms. van Vugt added.

"The ties that a parent may have to their children and the ability to be able to visit them is certainly a positive aspect of the visiting program," said Brandon Banks, the assistant warden of operations at Mission Institution.

The process of arranging for a private family visit is initiated by an inmate, Mr. Banks explained. The request goes to a case management team before working its way up the review ladder for approval.

Before a visitor is allowed to participate in a visit, he or she must also undergo an assessment, which is conducted by someone from the team.

Provided the visit is approved, groceries are ordered through and delivered by the institution, and the inmate and visitors are expected to clean the residence at the conclusion of the normally 72-hour visit.

Report an editorial error

Report a technical issue

Interact with The Globe

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Experience of abuse among women visiting incarcerated partners, additional details, no download available, availability, related topics.

Explore the world with tourHQ

• Destinations
• I am a Guide
• I am a Traveller
• Online Experiences
• Currency (USD)

The epicenter of modern Russia, Moscow booms with shiny new skyscrapers, the bulbous onion domes of the tsars and politically-rich Red Square. Explore the metropolis with a tourHQ guide.

Search Cities in Russia

Moscow Tour Guides

Jorge De Reval

I am a happy, enthusiastic, amusing Spanish guy. Lively and hyperactive. Recently became qualified ...

Julia Koval

Hello!My name is Julia and I work as a guide last 4 years, but before together with my friends we ...

Ekaterina Smirnova

Please note: I'm away from Moscow June 11-26, 2021. I am a native Muscovite but traveled ...

Vasil Valiev

Occupation: Senior guide-translator. Guiding since 2012 in Altai mountains, North of Russia ...

Marina Spasskaya

Hi there! My name is Marina and I'm a licensed Moscow city guide.Moscow is like ...

Greetings from Saint Petersburg. This is your private tour guide Ali in Saint Petersburg. I was ...

Maria Deulina

Dear friends,My name is Maria, I am a licensed guide about Moscow. Being a native Muscovite I have ...

Ashraf Rabei

My name is Ashraf ...I'm graduated from faculty of tourism and hotel guidance department, in Egypt ...

Hengameh Ghanavati

My name is Hengameh Ghanavati. Im a licenced international tour guide since 2014 and I have ...

Todd Passey

We are a cooperative of highly experienced, certified, professional guides. Each guide takes ...

Tim Brinley

Young at heart, adventurous, organized, good people skills, a good speaker, entertaining, ...

Nikolay Borkovoy

Hace 32 años nací en la ciudad de Moscú. Tengo experiencia trabajando como guía turístico en ...

Anika Socotra-International

Our mission is to provide you with the kind of holiday you want: where you can relax in wonderful ...

Al'bina Andreeva

Moscow guide&photo! Feel Putin vibes and explore the enigmatic Russian soul through history ...

The sprawling, mind-boggling metropolis of Russian Moscow has long been one of the theatrical stages on which the great dramas of Europe and Asia have been played out in grand style. Burned by Napoleon in 1812, immortalised by Tolstoy, utilised by the Bolsheviks and championed as a bastion of heroic defiance by the post-war communists, it’s almost hard to believe just how defining the historical events that found their home on Moscow’s streets have been. Moscow tour guides will easily be able to mark the major must-see landmarks on the map, from the onion-domed orthodox Saint Basil's Cathedral, to the political powerhouse of Red Square just next door, while others will be quick to recommend a ride on Moscow’s famous subterranean metro system, or a visit to the UNESCO-attested Novodevichy Convent on the city’s southern side. But Moscow is a city also in the throes of a cultural wrangling between the old and the new. Creative energies abound here: Boho bars and pumping super clubs now occupy the iconic mega structures of the old USSR; high-fashion outlets, trendy shopping malls and luxurious residential districts stand as testimony to a city that’s now the undisputed playground of the world’s super-rich, while sprawling modern art museums dominate the cultural offering of the downtown districts north of the Moskva River.  

Tell us your destination, date, and group size.

Our team of travel experts and guides will design a tailored itinerary just for you., enjoy your trip with peace of mind knowing everything is taken care of..

Say Goodbye to Travel Stress

Choose Currency Close modal

• USD US, dollar
• GBP British Pounds

Cookie icon We use cookies!

We, and third parties, use cookies for technical and analytical purposes, for marketing purposes and for integration with social media. For more information, refer to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Consent.

By clicking on 'I agree', you consent to the use of these cookies.

Schools & Providers

Scholarships, ways to give, research & reports, private school scholarships, opening the door to a private education.

Education isn’t one-size-fits-all. Just as every student is different, every classroom is different, and every school is different. Students learn best in an academic environment that is best suited to their learning needs.

Step Up For Students supports Florida students and families in building a stronger future through personalized education by opening doors with private school tuition assistance.

View the 2023-24 Scholarship Award Amounts >*

Scholarships for Private Schools

Who is eligible.

• Renewing students of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship and/or Family Empowerment Scholarship
• Children in foster care or out-of-home care
• Homeless children 

With recently passed legislation, the following will go into effect on July 1, 2024, if signed by the Governor:

• Active-duty members of the U.S. military may apply for a private school scholarship as soon as they receive permanent change of duty station orders to Florida.
• The Hope Scholarship, which was created to support families whose K-12 students have experienced bullying, will merge with the Family Empowerment Scholarship for Educational Options (FES-EO) and Florida Tax Credit Scholarship (FTC) programs. Families whose students benefited from the Hope Scholarship for the 2023-24 school year will now apply through the FTC/FES-EO programs for the 2024-25 school year and will be processed as a renewal student. New families interested in the Hope Scholarship, will now also apply through the FTC/FES-EO programs for the 2024-25 school year.

Find a School

How does it work.

Families need to complete an application through Step Up For Students. Once awarded a scholarship, work with your selected participating private school to enroll your student through the Step Up For Students EMA platform. You will be notified when it is time to log into your account to approve scholarship funds that will be issued directly to your school electronically.

Scholarship amounts vary by county and grade but are worth an average of $7,800. The scholarship awards will first pay for tuition and fees at eligible private schools. Remaining funds can be accessed through an education savings account (ESA) and used to pay for:

• Instructional material
• Tuition for full-time or part-time education at an eligible postsecondary educational institution or approved apprenticeship program
• Fees for nationally standardized norm-referenced tests and other assessments
• Contracted services provided by a public school or school district
• An approved online course
• Tuition as a private pay student at Florida Virtual School,
• Fees for a “Choice Navigator,” which is an optional service provider intended to help guide parents through the myriad of choices that will become available to them through their ESA

Stepping Up To Success

Helpful documents, video library, find a school, parent handbook, share your story, get involved.

A book blog about Russia in English-language fiction

• What is the Russia in Fiction blog?
• Books by Edwin Bacon
• Russia in fiction playlist
• Index of editorials et al
• Index of reviews by author surname
• Index of reviews by date book published
• Index of reviews by date book set

Private Moscow by James Patterson and Adam Hamdy (2020)

Sometimes —and may be more often than usual in the middle of a pandemic-inflicted lockdown— a bit of escapism is just the ticket.

Step forward, James Patterson ‘the most borrowed author in UK libraries for the past thirteen years in a row’, and author of, well, who knows? 120? 130 novels? Several a year, mostly with co-authors.

Private Moscow is the 15 th in the Private series about an élite detective agency with branches around the world, founded and led by all-action American hero Jack Morgan. From cover through to final page, it gathers in the Russia-in-fiction thriller clichés in a fast-moving action movie-style plot. But there is more to Private Moscow than that.

I stayed up into the small hours to finish it …

Let’s start with the cover. Strictly speaking, reviewing a book cover is not really on. After all, James Patterson did not write the cover. A silhouette of a figure is the standard go-to cover in thriller and crime fiction; preferably gun in hand. And if it is set in Russia, then Red Square, with St Basils and the Kremlin in view; preferably in the snow.

It didn’t take Russia in Fiction long to pick out more than a dozen ‘ silhouette, Red Square ‘ covers. Private Moscow joins that decreasingly illustrious list. Surely this penchant for silhouettes must soon have run its already too lengthy course? Our hope is that in a few years time we will look back on such covers as markers of a conformist age, and be amazed at their ubiquity.

As things currently stand, that hope seems vain.

Not that the cover says much about the quality of the story. There are some shoddy silhouette-covered thrillers and some great ones. It is just that it is hard to get away from them.

Russia in Fiction’s review immediately preceding Private Moscow is of David Bezmozgis’s literary novella The Betrayers (2014)? Silhouette cover.

In the coming week we are looking forward to the publication of Paul Vidich’s The Mercenary (2021). Silhouette cover.

Today we just finished reading (and will one day soon review) the quite excellent City of Ghosts (2021) by Ben Creed. Silhouette cover. [Update – reviewed 28 March 2021]

Talking of City of Ghosts , let’s use it as a neat link back to the book that this post is supposed to be reviewing; emblazoned across the front of Ben Creed’s novel is a commendation from James Patterson. If you are looking for a one-line review to put on the front of a first novel, then getting one from so prolific and popular an author as Patterson is the way to go.

And talking of prolificacy, if much online information is correct, James Patterson is helped in publishing so many books by not writing all of the words in between their covers. Apparently his ideas and his name make a large share of the Patterson contribution as he teams up with different co-authors; in this case, the latest big name in UK thriller writing, Adam Hamdy, author of the bestselling Black 13 (2020).

Cover nailed, the Russia-in-fiction smorgasbord offers several old favourites to choose from, and Private Moscow piles three classic dishes onto its plate.

First, we have sleeper agents; a theme that has appeared so often in Russia-in-fiction thrillers that to select a few titles seems disengenous. But Russia in Fiction has reviewed at least two novels with such a plot device this month already ( Tsar and The Jericho Files ), and is sure to review a good few more in the coming months …

… for example, and just because they spring readily to mind for now, Stella Rimington’s The Moscow Sleepers (2018) and Karen Cleveland’s Need To Know (2018), the German translation of which has the lovely title Wahrheit gegen Wahrheit .

The second selection from the Russia-in-fiction smorgasbord that Private Moscow selects is a breakthrough in military technology (‘Bright Star’) that would destroy the balance of power between the US and Russia. Again, there are many examples of novels that use the same high-tech military advance idea, but picking from those already reviewed by Russia in Fiction we see it in such as Tom Clancy’s The Cardinal of the Kremlin , Owen Matthews’s Black Sun , or Bart Davis’s Blind Prophet . This plot feature is a Cold War standard; it is interesting to see it still on the menu.

And the third oft-used plot device on the Private Moscow menu is one that complements the first. If you are going to have sleeper agents, then they go well with the ‘spy school’ idea. The notion that somewhere deep in the Russian countryside. Russian children are brought up as if in the United States, before being sent West to serve the Motherland. Nelson DeMille’s The Charm School (1988) is the finest of such novels, but by no means the only one; see for example Jack Higgins Confessional (1985), and of course the world of TV ( The Americans ) and the movies ( Salt ).

Yes, for Russia-in-fiction thriller aficionados, Private Moscow has some strong mainstream elements.

The Kremlin knows it has a leak. It doesn’t know who or where. Here’s this program you say could shift the geopolitical balance. What if one of these Bright Star agents has worked their way into a position of real power? How far would the Kremlin go to protect them? Private Moscow, pp. 328-329

With dialogue like that, it is not exactly Le Carré. But it is not supposed to be. All of this is smoothly and page-turningly well done.

Here at Russia in Fiction, we have, as is obvious from this blog, read a lot of thrillers. But never before a James Patterson thriller. How does the man write several books a year? Multiple co-authors is part of the answer, but so too is the style which takes concise to levels we have rarely seen before in reading hundreds of works of popular fiction.

Private Moscow deploys new chapters where others would put in a paragraph break.

There are probably chapters in it that are shorter than this review so far.

No pretence. This is a down-the-line entertaining action thriller.

But from a Russia-in-fiction point of view, there is more to it than just selecting some standard features of the Russia-thriller genre.

Private Moscow makes the effort to seek out detail and draw out nuance; both features to its credit in a genre where too many would just tick off central Moscow landmarks, borrowed generalisations, and an ‘evil Russia’ with no light and shade.

To torture our analogy beyond what it should bear— what is a smorgasbord selection if you only choose the obvious dishes?

Beyond the spy school and sleeper agents, Private Moscow selects some rarer delicacies to add flavour; notably, the continued existence of the Black Hundred far-right organisation in contemporary Moscow, and that key feature of Russia-based detective novels, the rivalry between the security services and the regular police.

In Private Moscow , the titular ‘Private Moscow’ office is staffed by two people —the boss of the Russian branch of the Private detective agency, the savvy young Dinara, and the man whom she has recruited as its only other employee, an ex-Moscow City cop several years her senior, Leonid.

This is a pairing that put Russia in Fiction in mind of G.D. Abson’s detective novels set in St Petersburg — Motherland (2018) and Black Wolf (2019). The heroine of these, Natalya Ivanova, outranks her chauvinist male assistant, who is outwardly slovenly but in fact a congenial and at least semi-competent character.

The Black Hundred plot element, involving some unsavoury far-right figures operating out of a boxing club, goes beyond merely providing the muscle in the Russian underworld and creating the impression of a neo-fascist undertow to Russia’s politics.

Patterson and Hamdy make the effort to think through what these characters believe and what their ideological motivations are. A Private Moscow plot point turns on Dinara and Leonid observing a member of the group dealing drugs. Dinara explains the significance to Jack Morgan, Private’s overall boss.

“The Black Hundreds would punish him severely.” Dinara observed. “Unless they’ve branched into new ways of making money”. Jack said. Dinara shook her head. “Not these people. For them patriotism is bound up in the preconception of a wholesome life. God, country, family. Drugs would attack the very core of what they stand for. private Moscow, p. 245

This pairing’s investigations provide the Russia-in-fiction detail that impresses within the fast-moving plot. Stand-outs include a vast communal unofficial safe-house for ex-police officers in the Kuzminki District, and —a favourite for personal reasons, because it was a regular route on my most recent Moscow visit— a chase scene under, up, and around the Krymskii Bridge near the entrance to Gorky Park.

Private Moscow surprised us here at Russia in Fiction. We thought —correctly— that a James Patterson novel would be a speedily read page-turner that builds its plot around some recognisable features in terms of what contemporary Russia looks like through the eyes of Western thriller writers. What we had not bargained for was an eye for detail, and plot features that go beyond the normal fare.

2020s published , 2020s setting

Adam Hamdy Alan Gold Bart Davis Ben Creed David Bezmozgis G.D. Abson Gordon Corera Jack Higgins James Patterson John Le Carré Karen Cleveland Moscow Nelson DeMille Owen Matthews Paul Vidich Stella Rimington Ted Bell Tom Clancy

Recent Posts

• Coming up soon in the Russia in Fiction blog
• After Silence by Jessica Gregson (2022)
• The Red Defector by Martin L. Gross (1991)
• The Bear and the Nightingale by Katherine Arden (2017)
• The Long Song of Tchaikovsky Street: a Russian adventure by Pieter Waterdrinker (2022)

Russia in Fiction on Twitter

• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.org
• share  

© 2024 Russia in fiction

Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑

• #Luxury travel
• #Unusual Moscow
• #Jewish Heritage
• #Russian traditions

Best places to visit in Moscow with children

• #Special Interest

In this article, we collected the most interesting spots for family entertainment. Here you will learn about places you can visit with children who are not really keen on classical sightseeing and when you want to take a rest of a standard cultural program and just have fun!

01 The Moscow Planetarium

Watching stars is always nice, and children like this activity pretty much. To see the night sky, better to go to the Moscow Planetarium located on the Garden Ring not far away from the Moscow Zoo. It’s one of the oldest planetariums in the world, and definitely the oldest ones in the whole of Russia. We recommend taking there children whose age is 5 and more, otherwise, they might get bored at first easily. On the underground level, there is a Small Stars Hall which is designed especially for children, to show them the starry sky in miniature. The interactive museum called ‘The Lunarium’ focused on astronomy and physics is located on the first floor, and two observatories, the big one, and the small one are located on the second floor. The big one has the biggest telescope in Moscow, and it’s better to visit this venue with children as well. The other noteworthy things in the Moscow Planetarium include the ‘Urania’ museum where the meteorites collection is being stored and ‘The Sky Park’ with different astronomical instruments. One should consider visiting the Moscow Planetarium will take the whole day.

02 Cosmonautics Museum

If your visit to Planetarium made your kids’ interest in the constitution of the universe even higher, then do not miss the Museum of Cosmonautics, located on Mira prospect, 111. You can easily reach it from the VDNkh metro station and merge into the atmosphere of space bases, lunar rovers, and shuttles. The museum reveals the history of the establishment and development of Soviet and world Cosmonautics and has such gems as the first six cosmonauts’ armors, the model of the space station “Mir” where you can learn about cosmonaut lifestyle and daily routine, ejection container in which famous dogs Belka and Strelka were delivered back to Earth after their successful space travel in 1960 and many other unique exhibit items. You can visit the museum by yourself or book a tour which is highly recommended for those who want to have a closer acquaintance with the art of space engineering and traveling.

03 The Sokolniki Park

If you’re looking for a place to enjoy nature and participate in some activities, Sokolniki park is the place you need for sure. Located in the northeast of Moscow, it’s less crowded than the famous Gorky Park. Sokolniki Park offers many activities for children. For example, kids can have fun enjoying the trampoline, or climbing up the ropes in the Panda park, as this type of adventure park is called, or choose different learning activities. Besides, one can always choose to take a stroll enjoying nature. There are swans and ducks in the Golden pond, and squirrels messing around, and also wild birds in the rehabilitation center for birds called ‘The Ornitarium’. During the springtime, visitors can also admire the lilac garden in full bloom, as well as two rosariums. There are many playgrounds in Sokolniki Park as well, and also children can have fun at different attractions. Types of activities available for children are seasonal, so one can always find the best one at any time of the year.

04 Moskvarium

In 2015, a new place suitable for visiting with children opened in Moscow. It’s an oceanarium called ‘Moskvarium’, and it’s located in the VDNKh (Vystavka Dostizheniy Narodnogo Khozyaystva — Exhibition of Achievements of National Economy), in the ‘Space’ pavilion. There are three main zones, i.e. the space for water shows and aquariums, and also the center for swimming with dolphins. In the aquariums located on the ground floor, more than six hundred fish and animal species can be observed, including Baikal seals, octopuses, starfish, moraines, rays, Beluga whales, crocodiles, seahorses, jellyfish, corals, and even sharks. Children can learn a lot about sea inhabitants, watching and feeding them in the ‘Moskvarium’, and also take part in different activities. ‘Moskvarium’ offers lectures to understand the science behind ocean and sea, inviting people involved in this area, such as naturalists, scientists, divers, and travelers, to lead the discussion. Besides, kids can attend workshops and quests. Children of every age will be happy to be there.

05 The Experimentanium Fun Science Museum

Everyone knows children like touching things, playing with them, and experiencing everything on their own. Now, in Moscow there is an opportunity to do all that, and even more! The Experimentanium Fun Science Museum has more than 200 exhibits. All of them help to understand the core things of different sciences, such as acoustics, magnetism, electricity, optics, mechanics. Children can also learn about space, solve some quiz questions, and take a look at the interactive water installation, which is unique for the whole of Russia. Visitors can perform experiments, getting to know basic things themselves, and of course, take part in educational shows and workshops organized by the Experimentanium Fun Science Museum management. On the second floor, there is also an amazing spheric movie theatre where films about the Universe and outer space are being shown. The Experimentanium Fun Science Museum is located close to the ‘Sokol’ metro station in the northwest of Moscow and renewed its collection back in 2015.

06 Izmailovo Kremlin

Children are getting tired of multiple historical sights but you still do not want to miss a thing during your cultural exploration? Head for Izmailovo Kremlin then! Izmailovo Kremlin is an entertainment complex that reveals the style of Old Russian architecture and depicts 14-17 centuries Moscow style with its wooden colourful houses, church, and a big market. You can find multiple cafes on its territory and either just walk and enjoy the fairytale atmosphere of the place or visit an amusement park and museums for children.

07 Moscow Zoo

Zoos are quite a classical way of entertaining kids so visiting the Moscow Zoo, located at Bolshaya Gruzinskaya Street, 1 is a good option. The Zoo has a collection of 1132 species of animals and has scheduled feeding demonstrations where you can watch pelicans, raccoons, beavers, otters having their lunch and enjoy the show which white whales make of their feeding.

• Top-5 Christmas Fairs in Moscow read
• Museum of Russian Marshmallow read
• Toy Museum read
• Faberge Museum read
• 1. The Moscow Planetarium
• 2. Cosmonautics Museum
• 3. The Sokolniki Park
• 4. Moskvarium
• 5. The Experimentanium Fun Science Museum
• 6. Izmailovo Kremlin
• 7. Moscow Zoo

We use cookies to improve your experience on our Website, tailor content, and measure advertising. By continuing to use our Website, you accept our Privacy Policy .

Your request has been sent successfully! Our travel expert will contact you shortly.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Language selection

• Français fr

Commissioner's directive 710-8: Private Family Visits

Commissioner's directive.

• Number: 710-8
• In Effect: 2016-10-11

Related Links

• Policy Bulletin 547

AUTHORITIES

• Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), sections 3 , 3.1 , 4 , 15.1 , 59 , 60 and 71
• Corrections and Conditional Release Regulations (CCRR),sections 4 , 54 , 90 , 91 and 92
• To outline the processes for the use of private family visit units

APPLICATION

Applies to staff involved in the application process and management of private family visits

• Responsibilities

Private Family Visits Eligibility - Inmates

Private family visits eligibility - visitors, approval process, duration and frequency, safety measures, refusal or suspension of a private family visit.

• Annex A Cross-References and Definitions
• Annex B Age of Majority

RESPONSIBILITIES

• The Institutional Head will implement a Standing Order for the use of private family visit units to ensure the safety of the participants and the security of the institution.
• The Institutional Head may delegate the authority for approval of private family visits to a level not below the Correctional Manager.
• ensure processes are developed and implemented for the review and decision making on applications for the use of private family visit units. When the unit is not being utilized for family visits, it may be authorized for individual time for inmates on a case-by-case basis
• report to police any suspicions that a criminal act has occurred.
• family violence prevention information is available to all visitors
• inmate and visitor(s) are advised of rules, regulations, behavioural expectations and responsibilities
• follow-up is conducted with the inmate and/or visitor(s) after the use of private family visit units.
• information related to victim services and the Restorative Opportunities Program is made available to visitors.
• The Correctional Manager will:
• review applications for private family visits
• provide a recommendation to the decision maker.
• process inmate requests for private family visits within the timeframes prescribed
• while conducting the Threat Risk Assessment for Private Family Visits (With Visitors) (CSC/SCC 1529) or Threat Risk Assessment for Private Family Visits (Individual Time) (CSC/SCC 1527):
• consult with the Correctional Manager
• consider family violence history and information provided by the visitor(s) in the Statement of Voluntary Participation and Consent for Private Family Visits form (CSC/SCC 0531)
• determine if a Community Assessment is required pursuant to CD 715-3 – Community Assessments
• following receipt of the Statement of Voluntary Participation and Consent for Private Family Visits form (CSC/SCC 0531), interview the visitor(s) if concerns are identified (if circumstances do not permit, the interview can be delegated to the Visit and Correspondence Officer)
• following the private family visit, conduct a follow-up interview with the inmate and, if required, with the visitor(s).
• upon request by the Correctional Officer II/Primary Worker
• prior to the visitor(s) leaving the institution after completion of the private family visit.
• All staff will immediately report to the Correctional Manager in charge of the institution any suspicion of abuse or criminal activity during the use of the private family visit units.

ELIGIBILITY

• at risk for family violence
• participating in unescorted temporary absences for family contact purposes
• in a Special Handling Unit, or
• recommended or approved for transfer to a Special Handling Unit
• An inmate is not eligible to participate in private family visits with other inmates.
• immediate family
• individual with whom the inmate has a close personal relationship .
• Proof of a common-law relationship is the responsibility of the inmate and/or the visitor.
• A minor child must be escorted by an accompanying adult .
• An assessment related to a child visiting his/her mother utilizing the private family visit unit in accordance with the part-time Mother-Child Program is not subject to the private family visit application process. Those applications will be managed in accordance with the part-time residential component process of the Mother-Child Program outlined in CD 768 – Institutional Mother-Child Program.
• Statement of Voluntary Participation and Consent for Private Family Visits (CSC/SCC 0531)
• if applicable, the Declaration of a Common-Law Union (CSC/SCC 0530E)
• the Visiting Application (CSC/SCC 0653)
• if applicable, the Visiting Application – Child Safety Waiver (CSC/SCC 0653-01E)
• if there are any concerns noted following the receipt of the Statement of Voluntary Participation and Consent for Private Family Visits form (CSC/SCC 0531), conduct an interview with the visitor(s) and document it in a Casework Record within five working days
• following consultation with the Correctional Manager and the Parole Officer, request a Community Assessment pursuant to CD 715-3 – Community Assessments , if required
• complete the Threat Risk Assessment for Private Family Visits (With Visitors) (CSC/SCC 1529) or Threat Risk Assessment for Private Family Visits (Individual Time) (CSC/SCC 1527) within 30 days, or where a Community Assessment is required, within 60 days following the submission of the inmate’s completed Application for the Use of the Private Family Visit Unit (CSC/SCC 0529).
• provide a recommendation to the decision maker which will include a detailed rationale.
• Recommendations and decisions will be recorded on the CSC Board Review/Referral Decision Sheet and shared with the inmate pursuant to CD 701 – Information Sharing .
• Following the transfer of an inmate or the movement of an inmate in a clustered institution as a result of a change in security classification, the Correctional Officer II/Primary Worker will review the previously approved private family visit decision and submit a recommendation to the Institutional Head or designate who will confirm in the CSC Board Review/Referral Decision Sheet, whether the private family visit will continue to be authorised, or will be modified or suspended. Unless significant changes have occurred, a new Threat Risk Assessment for Private Family Visits (With Visitors) (CSC/SCC 1529) or Threat Risk Assessment for Private Family Visits (Individual Time) (CSC/SCC 1527) is not required.
• The duration and frequency for the use of the private family visit units will normally be up to 72 hours, every two months unless otherwise specified in the Standing Order.
• During the use of the private family visit unit, regular contact will be made with the inmate and the visitor(s) in the least intrusive manner possible to ensure the security of the institution and the safety of the visitor(s) and the inmate.
• The results of the post private family visit interview conducted with the inmate and visitor(s) by the Correctional Officer II/Primary Worker and Visit and Correspondence Officer will be documented in a Casework Record within five working days.
• Any concerns will be immediately reported to the Correctional Manager in charge of the institution, documented in a Statement/Observation Report and shared with the Correctional Officer II/Primary Worker and the Parole Officer.
• jeopardize the security of the penitentiary or the safety of any person, or
• plan or commit a criminal offence, and
• that restrictions on the manner in which the visit takes place would not be adequate to control the risk
• other reasons as determined by the Institutional Head or designate.
• the inmate and the visitor(s) will be informed promptly, in writing, of the reasons for the refusal or suspension pursuant to CD 701 - Sharing of Information
• upon receipt of the written notification, the inmate and the visitor(s) will have five working days to make representations (verbally or in writing) with respect to the decision
• upon receipt of the information presented by the inmate and/or the visitor(s), a review will be conducted within five working days
• the inmate and visitor(s) will be informed of the final decision within 15 working days of the date of the review. The notice will also inform the inmate of his/her right to grieve the decision pursuant to CD 081 - Offender Complaints and Grievances .
• no less than six months after the decision, or
• when new information is obtained that could change the decision.

Commissioner,

Original Signed by: Don Head

ANNEX A CROSS-REFERENCES AND DEFINITIONS

Cross-references.

CD 081 - Offender Complaints and Grievances CD 259 – Exposure to Second Hand Smoke CD 559 - Visits CD 566-1 - Control of Entry to and Exit from Institutions CD 566-4 – Counts and Security Patrols CD 566-7 - Searching of Inmates CD 566-8 - Searching of Staff and Visitors CD 566-9 – Searching of Cells/Rooms, Vehicles and Other Areas CD 701 – Information Sharing CD 702 – Indigenous Offenders CD 715-3 - Community Assessments CD 768 – Institutional Mother-Child Program CD 800 - Health Services CD 860 - Offender's Money SOP 880-1 – Food Services – Central Feeding SOP 880-2 – Food Services – Small Group Meal Preparation

Specific Guidelines for the Treatment of Opiate Dependence (Methadone /Suboxone®) (April 2015)

DEFINITIONS

Accompanying adult : within the context of bringing minor children into a penitentiary to visit an inmate, an accompanying adult can be anyone who has reached the age of majority of the province where the institution they wish to visit is located, has completed a visiting application and been granted permission to come into the penitentiary, and has obtained a signed authorization from the custodial non-inmate guardian/parent.

Age of majority : the age at which a person is considered to be an adult by a province or territory where the institution someone wishes to visit is located.

Close personal relationship : (includes extended family members for Indigenous offenders) exists between two individuals and is normally characterised by situations in which:

• both individuals shared a close familial bond
• one of the individuals contributed significantly to the moral or spiritual development of the other
• both individuals were engaged in a long-term living arrangement or partnership
• both individuals shared significant life experiences that resulted in an enduring bond of friendship and trust
• for Indigenous offenders, extended family members may include family relations that exist by birth, as well as significant others who are not related by birth, but are given the title of grandparent, parent, brother, sister, aunt, uncle or other relative.

Common-law partner: a person who, at the time of the inmate's incarceration, had been cohabitating with the inmate in a conjugal relationship for at least one year.

Family violence : assault, abuse or other harm that occurs within the family relationships, such as physical assault, psychological/emotional abuse, deprivation and financial exploitation. It is any behaviour that leaves the victim feeling helpless and hopeless or takes away his/her dignity and self-respect. It also includes psychological trauma experienced by children who witness violence perpetrated against other family members.

Family Violence Risk Assessment : evaluates the level of risk an offender presents to his/her partner.

Immediate family : in respect of an offender, includes the following members of the offender's family:

• the offender's spouse or common-law partner
• a child of the offender or of the offender's spouse or common-law partner
• the father and mother of the offender or of the offender's spouse or common-law partner
• the spouse or common-law partner of the father or mother of the offender or of the offender's spouse or common-law partner
• the foster parent of the offender or of the offender's spouse or common-law partner
• a child of the offender's father or mother or a child of the spouse or common-law partner of the offender's father or mother.

Individual time : opportunity provided to the inmate through the use of the private family visit unit to assess the life skill development and how participation will assist in meeting the objectives of his/her Correctional Plan.

Minor child : any individual under the age of majority.

Private family visits : visits that occur in separate structures inside the perimeter of the institution where the inmate may meet authorized visitors in private to enhance daily living skills, maintain positive community and familial relationships and responsibilities (e.g. parenting skills), and/or lessen the negative impact of incarceration on family relationships.

Threat Risk Assessment : an evaluation of factors that could pose a danger to the management of an offender, the safety of others, or security of an operational unit in particular circumstances.

AGE OF MAJORITY

N.B.: Some provinces and the territories are not listed, as CSC does not have institutions in those sites.

For more information

• Government-wide Forward Regulatory Plans
• The Cabinet Directive on Regulatory
• The Federal regulatory management
• The Canada–United States Regulatory Cooperation Council

To learn about upcoming or ongoing consultations on proposed federal regulations, visit the Canada Gazette and Consulting with Canadians websites.

Page details

Biden announces new plans to provide student debt relief for millions

President Joe Biden on Monday announced revised plans to cancel federal student debt that along with other actions would benefit millions during a visit to Madison, Wisconsin.

Biden’s new plans are aimed at canceling runaway interest for millions of borrowers; nullifying debt for those who are eligible for but not yet participating in certain forgiveness programs, such as those in public service who've been paying off their loans for 10 years or more; borrowers of undergraduate or graduate loans who started paying off loans at least 20 or 25 years ago, respectively; borrowers enrolled in low financial value programs; and those experiencing hardships that prevent them from making loan payments.

"This relief can be life-changing," Biden said in remarks in Wisconsin. "Folks, I will never stop to deliver student debt relief on hard-working Americans, and it's only in the interest of America that we do it. And again, it's for the good of our economy that's growing stronger and stronger — and it is. By freeing millions of Americans from this crushing debt ... it means they can finally get on with their lives, instead of their lives being put on hold."The administration’s new plans, in combination with previous actions it has taken, would provide student debt relief to more than 30 million Americans, the White House said. The administration's actions, taken together, will eliminate accrued interest for 23 million borrowers, cancel the full amount of student debt for more than 4 million borrowers, and provide at least $5,000 in debt relief to more than 10 million others.

The new plans are the administration’s latest efforts to provide relief to borrowers of federal student loans after the Supreme Court struck down Biden’s original plan to cancel up to $20,000 in debt for about 43 million eligible borrowers.

Biden acknowledged the high court's ruling and the opposition from Republicans in his remarks Monday, saying they forced his administration "to find alternative paths to reduce student debt."

The new plans are also part of the administration's efforts to address the disproportionate burden of student debt that Black, Latino and other borrowers from vulnerable communities face.

Vice President Kamala Harris was traveling to Philadelphia, second gentleman Doug Emhoff to Phoenix and Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to New York City to highlight the administration's new plans and meet with borrowers who have benefited from the actions it has taken on student debt relief.During a press call Sunday, Cardona said the revised plans for student debt relief are the result of a new rule-making process designed to provide borrowers with relief under the Higher Education Act.

“And what does that really mean for people? It means breathing room. It means freedom from feeling like your student loan bills compete with basic needs like grocery or health care,” he said.

"Now there’s an end to the nightmare of working hard, making loan payments, and still watching your loan balances get bigger and bigger, month after month," he said.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., praised the administration’s new actions in a statement, saying that it shows Biden is “heeding Congress’ call” to provide as much student debt relief as possible.

“After the MAGA Supreme Court struck down the most far-reaching student loan debt forgiveness last year and ripped away a financial lifeline from those who need it most, this new action by President Biden shows Democrats are committed fixing the Federal student loan program so that higher education can finally be a ticket to the middle class for everyone,” he said.

Tara Prindiville is a White House producer for NBC News.

Summer Concepcion is a politics reporter for NBC News.

Rebecca Shabad is a politics reporter for NBC News based in Washington.