Budget Change Proposal - Cover Sheet - CA.gov
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Budget Change Proposal - Cover Sheet
DF-46 (REV 09/19)
Budget Change Proposal - Cover Sheet
Fiscal Year: 2020-21
Business Unit: 5225
Department: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Priority Number: N/A
Budget Request Name: 5225-019-BCP-2020-GB
Program: 4530 – Adult Corrections and Rehabilitation Operation – General Security,
4550 – Adult Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations – Institution
Administration
Subprogram: 4530010 – General Security, 4550051 – Division of Adult Institutions
Budget Request Description: Inmate Visitation Expansion to Three Days
Budget Request Summary: The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, Division of Adult Institutions, requests $4.6 million General Fund
beginning in 2020-21 to expand to an additional day of visiting for nine institutions: six
adult male institutions and three adult female institutions.
Requires Legislation: ☐ Yes ☒ No
Code Section(s) to be Added/Amended/Repealed: N/A
Does this BCP contain information technology (IT) components? ☐ Yes ☒ No
If yes, departmental Chief Information Officer must sign.
Department CIO Name:
Department CIO Signature:
Signed On Date:
For IT requests, specify the project number, the most recent project approval document
(FSR, SPR, S1BA, S2AA, S3SD, S4PRA), and the approval date.Project Number:
Project Approval Document:
Approval Date:
If proposal affects another department, does other department concur with proposal?
☐ Yes ☐ No
Attach comments of affected department, signed and dated by the department director
or designee.
Prepared By: Paul Andrews
Date: January 9, 2020
Reviewed By: Eric Swanson
Date: January 9, 2020
Department Director: Connie Gipson
Date: January 9, 2020
Agency Secretary: Ralph Diaz
Date: January 9, 2020
Department of Finance Use Only
Additional Reviews: Capital Outlay: ☐ ITCU:☐ FSCU:☐ OSAE:☐
Department of Technology: ☐
PPBA: Robert Nelson
Date submitted to the Legislature: January 10, 2020A. Budget Request Summary The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Division of Adult Institutions (DAI), requests $4.6 million General Fund in 2020-21 and ongoing to expand to an additional day of visiting at nine institutions: the six adult male institutions with the highest number of visitor terminations due to overcrowding and the three adult female institutions. This request also includes resources to increase the current Reunification Transportation bus program, which provides visitors with transportation to select institutions. B. Background/History The CDCR California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Sections 3170 through 3179, related to inmate visitation, were established in recognition of the value of inmate visitation as a means of increasing safety in prisons, maintaining family and community connections, and preparing inmates for successful release and rehabilitation. Additional access to visits supports family reunification and maintaining ties to the community, which benefits inmate reintegration into society as they parole. Prior to 2003-04, CDCR offered visiting on various days of the week. As a part of Control Section 4.10 of the 2003 Budget Act, the visiting program for all institutions was standardized to require a minimum of two consecutive days per week and include Saturday and Sunday, as well as five designated holidays. In 2006-07, an additional day of visiting was added to 12 institutions as a pilot program. The pilot program was a success, with over 25,000 visits on the additional day between July 2006 and March 2007. In 2007-08, the pilot was expanded to an additional 12 institutions. During statewide budget cuts in 2009-10 the Third Day Visiting Program was eliminated. Inmates, inmate family members, concerned citizens, and inmate rights advocate groups expressed concern that this significantly reduced the number of visits inmates could receive, and in some cases eliminated a visitor’s opportunity for visiting at all if the visitor could not visit on Saturdays and Sundays. The elimination of the Third Day Visiting Program has also been an agenda item in almost every Statewide Inmate Family Council (SIFC) Meeting since 2016. This SIFC is made up of representatives from local Inmate Family Councils statewide. The SIFC is committed to working together with CDCR to support connections between inmates and their families through improved communication, shared information, issue identification, and problem resolution. The SIFC meets with the Director of the DAI four times per year to address statewide systemic issues regarding the application of CDCR rules, regulations, policies, and practices within California institutions. The reduction in visiting time negatively impacts CDCR’s ability to encourage positive behavior and contributes to the
strain experienced by inmates attempting to maintain family and community
relationships. Frequent, high quality visiting programs for inmates have been proven to
reduce prison violence, maintain family bonds, break the intergenerational cycle of
incarceration and smooth the reentry process, thereby reducing recidivism rates.
Resource History
Dollars in thousands
Program Budget 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Authorized $42,060 $42,060 $42,060 $42,060 $42,060
Expenditures
Actual Expenditures1
Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Authorized Positions 252 252 252 252 252
1
CDCR does not track expenditures specific to visiting staff
Workload History
Workload Measure 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19
Total Number of Visitors Data not Data not 670,202 701,979 700,880
(adults and minors) tracked tracked
Total Number of Inmates Data not Data not 309,440 300,991 299,935
receiving visits tracked tracked
Total Number of Data not Data not 215,173 244,975 245,804
terminations due to tracked tracked
overcrowding
C. State Level Considerations
Expanding the existing visiting program supports family reunification by affording
families additional meaningful time with the incarcerated family member. Visiting
programs improve the likelihood of successful re-integration into society as offenders
transition back to the community. Visiting lowers the risk of intergenerational
incarceration by strengthening the parent/child bond, which is often strained or broken
when a parent is incarcerated. When an additional day of visiting was introduced as a
pilot program in 2006, it was a success with over 25,000 inmate visits occurring on the
additional visiting day by March 2007.
Affording greater visiting opportunities for female offenders also achieves Gender
Responsive Strategies as outlined in the Master Plan for Female Offenders as well as
ensures adherence to Penal Code section 3430, which outlines various policies and
operational practices that are designed to ensure a safe and productive institutionalenvironment for female offenders. In accordance with Penal Code section 3430, subdivision (h), CDCR is required to implement programs that build and strengthen systems of family support and family involvement during the period of the female’s incarceration, which is one of the primary functions of the inmate visiting program. D. Justification Additional Day of Visiting: Re-implementation of the inmate Third Day Visiting Program at six male and three female institutions will provide additional opportunities for inmates to strengthen their community ties and family reunification. This empowers the inmate with self-confidence as they are making an effort to ensure family ties remain intact and they receive support and understanding. This continued relationship is critical, as it will ultimately assist the inmate in a successful reintegration into society. It will also provide an alternative visiting day for family and loved ones who may not be able to visit on the weekend. Some institutions are busier than others and some institution visiting areas are smaller than others; both factors impact the number of terminations due to overcrowding in visiting programs. Once the maximum capacity of the visiting area has been reached and additional visitors are still waiting, visits will begin to be terminated. Terminations are conducted on a first-in, first-out basis, which means that individuals who have been visiting the longest that day are required to conclude their visits to allow others an opportunity to visit. See Attachment A, which includes annual visiting totals by institution. In our busiest institutions, inmates and their visitors visit for less than two hours when their visit is terminated due to overcrowding. The CDCR’s overall goal is to provide a high quality-visiting program for inmates. When visits are prematurely ended this goal is not met, jeopardizing the positive outcomes CDCR is striving to achieve. The six male institutions with the highest visit terminations in 2019, in order (detailed in Attachment A, Data from January 1–June 30, 2019) include: •Solano State Prison (SOL) •Folsom State Prison (FSP) •Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP) •Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF) •Calipatria State Prison (CAL) •Valley State Prison (VSP) In addition to the six male institutions with the highest rate of terminations, all three female institutions also have significant termination rates; approximately 25 percent of visits at female institutions are terminated early due to overcrowding. Female offenders are more likely to have been the primary caregiver of minor children before
incarceration and are more likely to return to that role after incarceration. Visits which occur in the female institutions often include the offenders’ minor children. These terminations reduce the time mothers and their children have to maintain their family ties and further disrupt the positive, nurturing relationship between the mother and child, which is critical to women’s successful rehabilitation and vital to ending the intergenerational cycle of incarceration, as supported by a 2015 Prison Policy Initiative (Attachment B). The female institutions include: •California Institution for Women (CIW) •Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF) •Folsom Women’s Facility (FWF) To provide an additional day of visiting at the nine identified institutions, CDCR requires 26.4 Correctional Officers and 2.0 Correctional Lieutenants, consistent with the existing level of visiting staff. Transportation Assistance: A 2015 study by the Prison Policy Initiative (Attachment B) found that distance is a top barrier to visits between offenders and their families in California. Currently, CDCR provides weekly contracted transportation services to inmate visitors at no cost, who may not otherwise be able to visit their incarcerated loved one due to the lack of available transportation services or the high cost of such services. These services, provided to the female institutions (CCWF, FWF, and CIW), include transportation to families and children, hospitality bus leaders to help facilitate any needs for bus riders, and notary services when needed. Most family bus riders come from distances greater than 50 miles. This service is especially important for families in Southern California whose loved one is incarcerated in Central or Northern California. To accommodate the additional day of visiting for the locations already providing this service, an additional $120,000 in annual ongoing funds are required. Visitor Centers: Each institution has a visitor center which provides essential services to visitors. These services include clothing exchange, waiting areas with restrooms, childcare when a visitor has a minor with them who is not able to visit, and local transportation from airports, bus stations, and train stations for inmate visitors. These visitor centers also provide a location for visitors to comfortably wait for their visits before entering visitor processing or waiting for their transportation to pick them up following their visits. Using the Inmate Welfare Fund, CDCR contracts with vendors to provide these services to
visitors. Utilizing existing Inmate Welfare Fund resources, CDCR will ensure the services offered at the visitor center are extended to the additional day of visiting. E. Outcomes and Accountability Since CDCR began using the Strategic Offender Management System (SOMS), the department has been better able to identify the number of terminated visits due to overcrowding. The CDCR will continue to utilize the SOMS to track and monitor inmate visitation information, such as the number of adult and child visitors, and the number of terminations due to overcrowding conditions. Based on this information, CDCR will analyze the data and reevaluate the efficacy of the additional day of visiting at the nine institutions. F. Analysis of All Feasible Alternatives Alternative 1: Approve $4.6 million General Fund to expand from two to three days of visiting at the nine selected adult facilities. Pros: •CDCR will be able to increase the inmate visiting program by one additional day for nine facilities, increasing access to family reunification and providing an opportunity for inmates to maintain family and community ties . •The Third Day Visiting Program may help reduce inmates’ anxiety of being incarcerated as well as help to reduce recidivism by increasing outside contact with loved ones. •Increasing visitation availability benefits inmates, families, staff and the community by preserving and strengthening positive family connections. This is especially important for children of incarcerated parents. •May reduce the impact of visit terminations. •Lowers risk of intergenerational incarceration. Cons: •Additional General Fund resources. •Does not expand an extra day of visiting to all 35 institutions. Alternative 2: Approve $18.8 million General Fund to implement the Third Day Visiting Program to Non-Designated Programming facilities (NDPF), the Positive Programing facilities (PPF), and the three female facilities, for a total of 20 institutions. Pros: •CDCR will be able to increase the visiting program by one additional day at 20 institutions, increasing access to family reunification and providing an opportunity for
inmates to maintain family and community ties. •The Third Day Visiting Program may help reduce inmate’s anxiety of being incarcerated as well as help to reduce recidivism by increasing outside contact with loved ones. •Lowers risk of intergenerational incarceration •The Third Day Visiting Program would offer an incentive for inmates to program in the NDPF/PPF. Cons: •Additional General Fund resources •The Third Day Visiting Program may go underutilized at some locations based on current visiting rates demonstrating limited or no terminations. Alternative 3: Approve $19.1 million General Fund to implement the Third Day Visiting Program at all 35 institutions. Pros: •CDCR will be able to increase the visiting program to one additional day, increasing family reunification and giving inmates the opportunity to maintain existing family and community ties. •The Third Day Visiting Program may help reduce inmates’ anxiety of being incarcerated as well as help to reduce recidivism by increasing outside contact with loved ones. •Lowers risk of intergenerational incarceration. Cons: •Additional General Fund Resources •The Third Day Visiting Program may go underutilized at some locations based on current visiting rates demonstrating limited or no terminations. G. Implementation Plan Implementation of the Third Day Visiting Program will begin the first weekend in July 2020 (July 3, 2020). In anticipation of budget approval, labor notifications will be provided, posts will be activated at each corresponding institution effective July 3, 2020, and contracts will be executed on July 1, 2020.
H. Supplemental Information Attachment A – Visiting Statistical Report All Attachment B – Prison Policy Initiative Attachment C – Total Terminations Comparison I. Recommendation Approve Alternative 1, providing $4.6 million General Fund in 2020-21 and ongoing to expand by an additional day of visiting within the six adult male institutions with the highest number of visitor terminations due to overcrowding and the three adult female institutions.
BCP Fiscal Detail Sheet
BCP Title: Inmate Visitation Expansion to Three Days
BR Name: 5225-019-BCP-2020-GB
Budget Request Summary
Personal Services
Personal Services FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20
Current Budget BY+1 BY+2 BY+3 BY+4
Year Year
Positions - Permanent 0.0 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4
Total Positions 0.0 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4
Earnings - Permanent 0 2,513 2,513 2,513 2,513 2,513
Total Salaries and Wages $0 $2,513 $2,513 $2,513 $2,513 $2,513
Total Staff Benefits 0 1,883 1,883 1,883 1,883 1,883
Total Personal Services $0 $4,396 $4,396 $4,396 $4,396 $4,396Operating Expenses and Equipment
Operating Expenses and Equipment FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20
Current Budget BY+1 BY+2 BY+3 BY+4
Year Year
5301 - General Expense 0 66 66 66 66 66
5302 - Printing 0 7 7 7 7 7
5304 - Communications 0 8 8 8 8 8
5306 - Postage 0 3 3 3 3 3
5320 - Travel: In-State 0 7 7 7 7 7
5322 - Training 0 6 6 6 6 6
5340 - Consulting and Professional Services - External 0 120 120 120 120 120
5340 - Consulting and Professional Services -
0 2 2 2 2 2
Interdepartmental
Total Operating Expenses and Equipment $0 $219 $219 $219 $219 $219
Total Budget Request
Total Budget Request FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20
Current Budget BY+1 BY+2 BY+3 BY+4
Year Year
Total Budget Request $0 $4,615 $4,615 $4,615 $4,615 $4,615Fund Summary
Fund Source
Fund Source FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20
Current Budget BY+1 BY+2 BY+3 BY+4
Year Year
State Operations - 0001 - General Fund 0 4,615 4,615 4,615 4,615 4,615
Total State Operations Expenditures $0 $4,615 $4,615 $4,615 $4,615 $4,615
Total All Funds $0 $4,615 $4,615 $4,615 $4,615 $4,615
Program Summary
Program Funding
Program Funding FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20
Current Budget BY+1 BY+2 BY+3 BY+4
Year Year
4530010 - General Security 0 4,495 4,495 4,495 4,495 4,495
4550051 - Division of Adult Institutions 0 120 120 120 120 120
Total All Programs $0 $4,615 $4,615 $4,615 $4,615 $4,615Personal Services Details
Positions
Positions FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20
Current Budget BY+1 BY+2 BY+3 BY+4
Year Year
9656 - Corr Lieut (Eff. 07-01-2020) 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
9662 - Corr Officer (Eff. 07-01-2020) 0.0 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4 26.4
Total Positions 0.0 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4
Salaries and Wages
Salaries and Wages FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20
Current Budget BY+1 BY+2 BY+3 BY+4
Year Year
9656 - Corr Lieut (Eff. 07-01-2020) 0 227 227 227 227 227
9662 - Corr Officer (Eff. 07-01-2020) 0 2,286 2,286 2,286 2,286 2,286
Total Salaries and Wages $0 $2,513 $2,513 $2,513 $2,513 $2,513
Staff Benefits
Staff Benefits FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20
Current Budget BY+1 BY+2 BY+3 BY+4
Year Year
5150450 - Medicare Taxation 0 36 36 36 36 36
5150600 - Retirement - General 0 1,228 1,228 1,228 1,228 1,228
5150800 - Workers' Compensation 0 113 113 113 113 113Staff Benefits FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20
Current Budget BY+1 BY+2 BY+3 BY+4
Year Year
5150820 - Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB)
0 101 101 101 101 101
Employer Contributions
5150900 - Staff Benefits - Other 0 405 405 405 405 405
Total Staff Benefits $0 $1,883 $1,883 $1,883 $1,883 $1,883
Total Personal Services
Total Personal Services FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20 FY20
Current Budget BY+1 BY+2 BY+3 BY+4
Year Year
Total Personal Services $0 $4,396 $4,396 $4,396 $4,396 $4,396Visiting Statistical Report Attachment A
Annual Totals Comparison
(total terminations)
2019 Jan 1- June 30 SOL FOL PVSP SATF CAL SVSP KVSP RJD CEN LAC MCSP SCC CIM SQ CTF ASP CCI CRC CAC DVI ISP CMC SAC VSP CMF CIW COR WSP CHCF CCC NKSP CVSP CCWF HDSP PBSP FWF
Visitors - adult 10,863 6,232 6,943 8,647 8,204 5,996 6,612 7,301 6,247 6,837 7,238 6,944 6,157 5,429 5,650 6,788 5,605 5,106 3,178 2,942 4,752 4,868 3,997 4,699 3,841 4,263 4,437 2,239 3,302 2,887 1,929 3,536 2,538 2,265 1,219 443
Visitors - minor 10,953 5,990 7,671 7,856 8,257 6,370 5,191 6,414 6,444 6,323 6,329 6,887 5,019 4,762 4,969 5,965 4,945 5,672 3,439 3,113 4,827 4,178 3,870 4,042 3,497 4,382 4,137 2,425 2,558 3,041 1,905 2,731 2,619 2,356 1,246 428
TOTAL VISITORS 21,816 12,222 14,614 16,503 16,461 12,366 11,803 13,715 12,691 13,160 13,567 13,831 11,176 10,191 10,619 12,753 10,550 10,778 6,617 6,055 9,579 9,046 7,867 8,741 7,338 8,645 8,574 4,664 5,860 5,928 3,834 6,267 5,157 4,621 2,465 871
Inmates visited 10,617 5,771 6,411 7,004 7,436 5,692 4,956 5,944 6,033 6,395 5,919 6,109 4,528 4,837 4,499 4,961 4,411 4,297 2,876 2,847 4,132 3,820 3,769 3,617 3,440 3,329 4,079 2,259 2,501 2,729 1,605 2,399 2,119 2,126 1,150 361
Terminations: Need 1 10,100 4,830 4,663 4,531 4,601 4,169 4,130 4,269 3,961 4,113 3,985 3,750 3,373 3,136 2,931 2,955 2,798 2,862 2,233 2,276 2,492 2,478 2,365 2,340 2,226 2,228 2,160 1,622 1,562 1,527 1,309 1,349 1,346 1,213 741 221
Terminations: Behavior
2 2,695 981 632 242 142 486 452 296 594 95 210 219 46 112 122 2 98 5 569 523 43 17 112 6 104 0 67 273 19 12 112 5 0 10 2 0
TOTAL
12,795 5,811 5,295 4,773 4,743 4,655 4,582 4,565 4,555 4,208 4,195 3,969 3,419 3,248 3,053 2,957 2,896 2,867 2,802 2,799 2,535 2,495 2,477 2,346 2,330 2,228 2,227 1,895 1,581 1,539 1,421 1,354 1,346 1,223 743 221
TERMINATIONS
2018 Jan 1 - Dec 31 SOL FOL PVSP SATF CAL SVSP KVSP RJD CEN LAC MCSP SCC CIM SQ CTF ASP CCI CRC CAC DVI ISP CMC SAC VSP CMF CIW COR WSP CHCF CCC NKSP CVSP CCWF HDSP PBSP FWF
Visitors - adult 17,834 9,763 12,120 15,347 14,789 10,834 12,363 13,207 11,757 11,924 13,577 13,478 12,898 8,791 11,088 14,958 9,696 11,004 5,232 5,034 9,401 9,811 7,471 9,498 6,710 8,482 8,413 3,720 5,425 5,812 3,456 6,679 5,152 5,573 2,900 957
Visitors - minor 20,466 10,527 15,000 16,662 16,770 12,818 11,563 13,516 13,584 12,969 14,243 15,864 12,680 8,576 10,863 15,404 10,136 14,007 6,868 6,018 10,513 9,539 8,159 9,863 7,132 9,737 8,966 4,680 5,447 6,984 3,776 6,377 5,873 6,399 3,200 1,045
TOTAL VISITORS 38,300 20,290 27,120 32,009 31,559 23,652 23,926 26,723 25,341 24,893 27,820 29,342 25,578 17,367 21,951 30,362 19,832 25,011 12,100 11,052 19,914 19,350 15,630 19,361 13,842 18,219 17,379 8,400 10,872 12,796 7,232 13,056 11,025 11,972 6,100 2,002
Inmates visited 18,042 9,428 11,888 13,606 14,480 10,815 9,641 11,739 11,447 11,654 11,585 12,512 9,601 7,952 8,888 12,029 7,869 10,350 5,035 5,080 8,775 7,993 7,191 7,827 6,305 7,186 8,170 3,608 4,541 5,893 3,006 4,842 4,351 5,260 2,692 887
Terminations: Need 1 16,940 8,213 8,987 10,864 10,618 8,875 9,916 10,187 9,090 9,640 9,293 9,233 9,261 6,053 6,841 8,486 6,614 8,017 4,118 4,375 6,145 6,177 5,277 6,196 4,974 5,323 5,863 3,247 3,583 4,256 2,856 3,435 3,319 3,555 1,777 622
Terminations: Behavior
2 4,423 1,087 1,174 1,232 823 1,305 1,377 1,136 1,436 852 952 489 335 184 447 100 803 407 1,165 1,029 397 285 318 203 334 260 619 677 174 621 358 132 103 122 76 24
TOTAL
21,363 9,300 10,161 12,096 11,441 10,180 11,293 11,323 10,526 10,492 10,245 9,722 9,596 6,237 7,288 8,586 7,417 8,424 5,283 5,404 6,542 6,462 5,595 6,399 5,308 5,583 6,482 3,924 3,757 4,877 3,214 3,567 3,422 3,677 1,853 646
TERMINATIONS
2017 Jan 1 - Dec 31 SOL FOL PVSP SATF CAL SVSP KVSP RJD CEN LAC MCSP SCC CIM SQ CTF ASP CCI CRC CAC DVI ISP CMC SAC VSP CMF CIW COR WSP CHCF CCC NKSP CVSP CCWF HDSP PBSP FWF
Visitors - adult 14,629 8,117 11,531 16,581 13,463 10,318 11,402 10,255 10,111 10,230 10,355 11,349 11,929 9,911 10,658 11,238 9,722 11,903 3,955 3,871 8,922 8,737 6,766 8,747 6,725 8,493 8,313 3,264 3,393 4,690 3,397 5,928 5,010 4,673 2,582 1,012
Visitors - minor 15,335 9,001 12,875 16,724 15,251 11,891 10,117 10,501 11,473 10,669 10,313 12,906 10,748 9,870 9,950 12,727 9,798 15,074 5,251 4,663 9,720 8,397 7,757 8,730 6,959 9,251 9,398 4,174 3,315 5,508 3,791 5,354 5,367 5,507 2,713 1,133
TOTAL VISITORS 29,964 17,118 24,406 33,305 28,714 22,209 21,519 20,756 21,584 20,899 20,668 24,255 22,677 19,781 20,608 23,965 19,520 26,977 9,206 8,534 18,642 17,134 14,523 17,477 13,684 17,744 17,711 7,438 6,708 10,198 7,188 11,282 10,377 10,180 5,295 2,145
Inmates visited 14,024 7,730 10,533 13,592 13,252 9,766 8,381 9,000 9,731 9,998 8,692 9,877 8,855 9,289 8,407 8,738 7,812 11,310 3,967 4,127 8,001 7,278 6,896 7,102 6,310 6,957 7,991 3,289 2,809 4,543 3,294 4,037 4,126 4,256 2,375 926
Terminations: Need 1 13,414 6,489 8,126 10,702 9,283 7,841 8,533 7,178 7,362 7,449 6,615 7,710 7,703 7,172 6,364 6,830 6,203 8,456 2,855 3,391 5,495 5,563 4,971 5,280 4,810 4,960 6,017 2,682 2,129 3,121 2,918 2,795 3,021 3,142 1,519 681
Terminations: Behavior
2 2,817 471 1,269 2,152 654 1,127 1,350 820 1,005 564 311 428 297 370 373 107 678 590 607 669 273 311 353 214 349 174 757 261 93 186 540 107 84 118 51 24
TOTAL
16,231 6,960 9,395 12,854 9,937 8,968 9,883 7,998 8,367 8,013 6,926 8,138 8,000 7,542 6,737 6,937 6,881 9,046 3,462 4,060 5,768 5,874 5,324 5,494 5,159 5,134 6,774 2,943 2,222 3,307 3,458 2,902 3,105 3,260 1,570 705
TERMINATIONS
1
Due to visiting room capacity limitations
2
Resulting from inappropriate behavior prior to or during visit with inmateAttachment B
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/prisonvisits.html
Separation by Bars and Miles: Visitation in state prisons
By Bernadette Rabuy and Daniel Kopf
October 20, 2015
Most of today’s prisons were built in an era when the public safety strategy was to “lock ‘em up
and throw away the key.” But now that there is growing interest from policymakers and the
public to help incarcerated people succeed after release, policymakers must revisit the reality of
the prison experience and the false assumptions of that earlier era.
Almost by definition, incarceration separates individuals from their families, but for decades this
country has also placed unnecessary burdens on the family members left behind. Certainly in
practice and perhaps by design, prisons are lonely places. Analyzing little-used government
data,1 we find that visits are the exception rather than the rule. Less than a third of people in state
prisons receive a visit from a loved one in a typical month:2
Figure 1. The data on how family ties are maintained in state prison shows that prison visits are rare
while the telephone is a more common way of staying in touch. Thankfully, the FCC’s upcoming order
to cap the costs of calls home from prisons and jails should increase call volume.
Type/time frame Percent receiving that contact
Personal visit in the past month 31%
Phone in the past week 70%Attachment B Despite the breadth of research showing that visits and maintaining family ties are among the best ways to reduce recidivism,3 the reality of having a loved one behind bars is that visits are unnecessarily grueling and frustrating. As a comprehensive 50-state study on prison visitation policies found,4 the only constant in prison rules between states is their differences. North Carolina allows just one visit per week for no more than two hours while New York allows those in maximum security 365 days of visiting. Arkansas and Kentucky require prospective visitors to provide their social security numbers,5 and Arizona charges visitors a one-time $25 background check fee in order to visit. And some rules are inherently subjective such as Washington State’s ban on “excessive emotion,”6 leaving families’ visiting experience to the whims of individual officers. With all of these unnecessary barriers, state visitation policies and practices actively discourage family members from making the trip. The most humane and sensible government policies would instead be based on respect and encouragement for the families of incarcerated people. Given the great distances families must travel to visit their incarcerated loved ones,7 it is inexcusable for states to make the visiting process unnecessarily stressful.8 Using the same dataset, we find that most people (63%) in state prison are locked up over 100 miles from their families,9 and unsurprisingly, distance from home is a strong predictor for whether a person in a state prison will receive a visit in a given month. Locking people up far from home has the unfortunate but strong effect of discouraging visits. We found that among incarcerated people locked up less than 50 miles from home, half receive a visit in a month, but the portion receiving visits falls as the distance from home increases:
Attachment B
Figure 2. Incarcerated people in state prisons report whether they were visited in the past month, by
distance from home (in miles)
Distance Percent visited last month
Less than 50 miles 49.6%
Between 50 and 100 miles 40.0%
Between 101 and 500 miles 25.9%
Between 501 and 1,000 miles 14.5%
And while there are a variety of reasons why an incarcerated person might not receive a visit, the
fact that most prisons were built in isolated areas ensures hardship on the families of incarcerated
people. Studies of incarcerated people in California, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, and Tennessee found that
distance is a top barrier preventing them from in-person contact with their families.10
Millions of families are victims of mass incarceration, and policymakers are starting to
understand that. Having established that large distances discourage visitation, this report makes
several recommendations for how the U.S. criminal justice system can support — rather than
punish — the families of incarcerated people. States should:
1. Use prison time as an option of last resort.
Understanding how putting great distances between incarcerated people and their families is
often damaging, states should implement alternatives to incarceration that can keep people
home or closer to home11 such as Washington State’s Family and Offender Sentencing Act,
which allows judges to waive prison time and instead impose community custody for some
primary caregivers of minor children.12 At the same time, states’ criminal justice policies should
match their rhetoric of decarceration. States such as California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii,
Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Texas should recognize that they have
been able to successfully reduce both imprisonment and crime13 and lead the rest of the nation
by closing remote prisons.
2. Eliminate and refrain from adopting visitation policies that dehumanize families and actively
encourage visitation.
States should recognize that incarceration is often an emotional and vulnerable time for families
and should actively encourage visiting by making the prison environment as comfortable as
possible. States such as California14 and Massachusetts15 should stop their unnecessary and
dehumanizing strip and dog searches of visitors. States can enact family-friendly visitation
programs such as the children’s center in New York State’s Bedford Hills Correctional Facility16
and Oakland Livingston Human Service Agency’s program in Michigan that allows incarcerated
fathers to have several hour-long visits with their children with room for activities. In the short-Attachment B
term, states can make visits more comfortable for families with children by making crayons and
coloring books available.17
3. Willingly cooperate with the Federal Communications Commission’s upcoming prison and jail
telephone regulations, and have the courage to reduce the costs to families even further. Stop
making other forms of communication exploitative.
Fortunately, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is finally poised to end $1-per-
minute phone calls from prisons and jails with its strong proposal18 to regulate local, intra-state,
and inter-state calls as well as ancillary fees. The FCC will be encouraging states to view these
rate caps as a federal ceiling. States can and should reduce the costs to families even further,19
and states such as Arkansas and Indiana should stop fighting the regulations.20 Further, states
should avoid implementing video visitation as a replacement for in-person visits — as has been
done in hundreds of local jails throughout the country — and avoid overly restrictive mail
policies like those of the New Hampshire Department of Corrections that ban children’s
drawings and greeting cards.21
4. Listen to the recommendations of incarcerated people and their families who can best identify
the obstacles preventing them from staying in touch during incarceration.22
Families have long been saying that no matter how much they would like to visit and see
firsthand that their loved ones are safe, sometimes the money and time required make visiting
incarcerated loved ones virtually impossible.23 The sad reality is that currently, a majority of
incarcerated parents of minor children do not receive visits from any of their children during
their prison sentence.24 Recognizing that their families are often the main source of hope for
people during their incarceration and the main source of support upon release, correctional
facilities should gather and seriously consider family input when making decisions about
visitation and communication policies.
5. Implement programs that assist families who want to visit.
The costs of visitation and communication literally drive some families of incarcerated people
into debt.25 States should consider implementing free transportation to prisons as the New York
State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision did before budget cutbacks in
2011. Departments of Corrections should also consider video visitation as a supplement to in-
person visits,26 especially for remote prisons. The Oregon Department of Corrections first
implemented video visitation as a supplement to traditional visits in its two most remote
prisons,27 and it has since expanded the technology to prisons throughout the state. States can
also easily model video visitation programs after that of the Mike Durfee State Prison in South
Dakota where, for 12 hours every week, incarcerated people have access to free video visits
using Skype.28
6. When faced with prison overcrowding, explore sentencing and parole reforms instead of
prison expansion and out-of-state transfers.
Often, when states are faced with prison overcrowding, they adopt band-aid fixes like sending
people to out-of-state prisons where they will be even further from their families.29 More
effective solutions are to first adopt low-hanging fruit reforms such as reducing the aging prison
population or allowing primary caregivers to serve their sentences in the community, and then
to explore larger-scale sentencing and parole reforms.Attachment B
Appendix
Using the Bureau of Justice Statistics’s 2004 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities,
we found the breakdown of how far people in state prisons reported being locked up from their
home communities. The table below provides estimated counts for the total U.S. state prison
population based on the responses of the 14,500 people imprisoned in state prisons who
responded to the BJS survey.
To get this data, we relied on the question: S7Q6c. How far from this prison is … where you
were living at the time of your arrest? Is it less than 50 miles, between 50 miles and 100 miles,
between 101 and 500 miles, between 501 and 1,000 miles, or more than 1,000 miles?
Figure 3. How far incarcerated people in state prisons are imprisoned from their homes (in miles)
Distance Count Proportion
Less than 50 miles 184,041 15.7%
Between 50 and 100 miles 244,981 20.9%
Between 101 and 500 miles 623,011 53.2%
Between 501 and 1,000 miles 92,356 7.9%
More than 1,000 miles 26,017 2.2%
Methodology
The Bureau of Justice Statistics collects visitation and distance from home data periodically as a
part of its Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities,30 but BJS does not routinely publish
the results in a format that can be accessed without statistical software. The Bureau of Justice
Statistics published data on how far incarcerated parents of minor children are from their
children in Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children.31 We prepared this report to focus on
people imprisoned in state prison in general.
This report relies on the Bureau of Justice Statistics survey from 2004, which is the newest
available. The next survey32 is being conducted in 2015–2016 with the data to be available
several years later. While 2004 is older than we would like, we know of no reason or trend that
would make visitation data from the 2004 survey an unreliable reflection of visitation today, in
2015.Attachment B
For this report, we used the Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities’s questions about
the location of pre-incarceration homes as a proxy for where family and community ties are
located. We used the following questions from the Survey:
• S7Q6c. How far from this prison is … where you were living at the time of your arrest? Is it less
than 50 miles, between 50 miles and 100 miles, between 101 and 500 miles, between 501 and
1,000 miles, or more than 1,000 miles?
• S10Q7a. Are you allowed to talk on the telephone with friends and family?
• S10Q7b. In the past week, how many telephone calls have you made or received? Do not
include calls to or from a lawyer.
• S10Q8a. In the past month, have you had any visits, not counting visits from lawyers?
• S10Q8c. Were you allowed to have any visits?
Acknowledgments
Thank you to Elydah Joyce for the illustrations depicting the emotional toll caused by
incarceration.
Footnotes
1. We used data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2004 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional
Facilities. More information is available here:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=275.
2. Our analysis is based on people who were permitted to talk on the phone and permitted to have
visits in a given month. The survey we used did not include meetings with lawyers as “visits.”
3. A rigorous Minnesota Department of Corrections study found that a single visit reduces
recidivism by 13% for new crimes and 25% for technical violations, and an Ohio Department of
Corrections study found that more visits were associated with fewer rule violations. See:
Minnesota Department of Corrections, The Effects of Prison Visitation on Offender Recidivism
(St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, November 2011). Accessed on October 14,
2015 from: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/pages/files/large-files/Publications/11-
11MNPrisonVisitationStudy.pdf. See also: Gary C. Mohr, An Overview of Research Findings in the
Visitation, Offender Behavior Connection (Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction, 2012). Accessed on October 16, 2015 from:
http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/5101/Mohr%20-
%20OH%20DRC%20Visitation%20Research%20Summary.pdf?1352146798.
4. The study focused on policy directives (detailed rules promulgated by correctional
administrators), but there are two more layers that govern prison visitation not included in the
study: administrative regulations (general grants of rulemaking authority to correctional
administrators) and facility-specific rules (applicable to specific prisons and usually more
detailed than policy directives yet not always comprehensive). See: Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz,
and Aaron Littman, “Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey” Yale Law & Policy Review Vol
32:149 (March 2014), 157-166.
5. Requiring social security numbers can deter family members who are not legal citizens from
visiting.Attachment B
6. See the visitor’s guidelines for Monroe Correctional Complex for an example:
http://www.doc.wa.gov/facilities/prison/mcc/docs/mccvisitguidelines.pdf.
7. The practice of incarcerating people far from their families is is not an inevitable outcome of
incarceration. States and the Bureau of Prisons could choose to place incarcerated people in
prisons that are closer to their families. For example, New Jersey’s 2010 Strengthening Women
and Families Act led to N.J. Rev. Stat. § 30:4-8.6 (2014), which requires that the Department of
Corrections Commissioner make every effort to assign incarcerated women to the prisons
closest to their families and Fla. Stat. § 944.171(4) (2015) states that, as much as possible, the
department should consider the proximity of a prison to an incarcerated person’s family when
making placements. See: New York Initiative for Children of Incarcerated Parents, “Fact Sheet:
Proximity to Children when a Parent is Incarcerated,” The Osborne Association, 2013. Accessed
on October 2, 2015 from:
http://www.osborneny.org/images/uploads/printMedia/ProximityFactSheet_OA2013.pdf.
Unfortunately, there has been a trend away from the Bureau of Prisons honoring judges’
recommendations on prison placements to ignoring these recommendations. The Bureau of
Prisons should consider judges’ assessments of those who are sentenced and make its best
attempt to honor recommendations to keep people closer to home. See: Federal Bureau of
Prisons, Legal Resource Guide to the Federal Bureau of Prisons 2014 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, 2014), p 12. Accessed on October 14, 2015 from:
https://www.bop.gov/resources/pdfs/legal_guide.pdf. See also: S. David Mitchell, “Impeding
Reentry: Agency and Judicial Obstacles to Longer Halfway House Placements” Mich. J. Race & L.
Vol 16:235 (2011).
8. “Riding the Bus: Barriers to Prison Visitation and Family Management Services” describes the
visiting experience for New York State families based on 200 hours of observation of family
support group meetings, attendance at activities aimed at families of incarcerated people, and
observation of five bus rides to two upstate New York prisons. See: Johnna Christian, “Riding the
Bus: Barriers to Prison Visitation and Family Management Services” Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice Vol 21:31 (February 2005).
9. See Appendix.
10. In a 2010 study by the Department of Health and Human Services, incarcerated fathers reported
distance to the prison as the top barrier to contact. See: Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation, Parenting from Prison: Innovative Programs to Support Incarcerated
and Reentering Fathers (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April
2010). Accessed on October 8, 2015 from: http://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/parenting-prison-
innovative-programs-support-incarcerated-and-reentering-fathers. See also a New York State-
specific study: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, Children of Incarcerated Parents in New
York State: A Data Analysis (Albany, NY: NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services, 2013).
Accessed on August 18, 2015 from: http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/pio/2013-children-with-
inarcerated-parents-report.pdf.
11. Criminologists William D. Bales and Daniel P. Mears found that visitation reduces and delays
recidivism. As a result, they recommended placing incarcerated people close to their home
communities as one low-cost policy option. See: William D. Bales and Daniel P. Mears, “Inmate
Social Ties and the Transition to Society: Does Visitation Reduce Recidivism?” Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency Vol 45:287 (2008), 315. A Minnesota Department of
Corrections study recommended that if — as this report finds — there is a significant
relationship between visitation and distance, states such as Minnesota should seriously consider
distance from home when placing incarcerated people in particular prisons. See: Minnesota
Department of Corrections, 2011, p 31.Attachment B
12. This is no doubt a positive reform, but states should go even further by expanding eligibility to
include parents who might not have custody of their children. States should also consider
allowing judges the discretion to impose community custody for people with past violent
offenses. For more on Washington State’s Family and Offender Sentencing Alternative, see:
http://www.doc.wa.gov/community/fosa/
13. Public Safety Performance Project, “Most States Cut Imprisonment and Crime,” The Pew
Charitable Trusts, November 10, 2014 from: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/multimedia/data-
visualizations/2014/imprisonment-and-crime. See also: Lauren-Brooke Eisen and Inimai
Chettiar, The Reverse Mass Incarceration Act (New York, NY: The Brennan Center for Justice at
the New York University School of Law, October 2015), p 10. Accessed on October 14, 2015
from:
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/The_Reverse_Mass_Incarcerati
on_Act%20.pdf.
14. Paige St. John, “California steps up prison drug screening for visitors and staff,” Los Angeles
Times, March 3, 2015. Accessed on October 14, 2015 from:
http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-ff-california-steps-up-prison-drug-screening-for-
visitors-and-staff-20150303-story.html.
15. Meghan E. Irons, “Prison visitors irate about plan for drug-sniffing dogs,” The Boston Globe,
March 23, 2013. Accessed on October 14, 2015 from:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/03/22/visitors-could-soon-face-random-narcotics-
dogs-sniff-state-prisons/BPTYlAFi6vuwghlfPM1GsN/story.html.
16. For more information on New York State’s children’s centers, visit The Osborne Association
website: http://www.osborneny.org/programs.cfm?programID=11. See also: Tanya Krupat,
Elizabeth Gaynes, and Yali Lincroft, A Call to Action: Safeguarding New York’s Children of
Incarcerated Parents (New York, NY: The New York Initiative for Children of Incarcerated
Parents, The Osborne Association, 2011), p 33. Accessed on August 27, 2015 from:
http://www.osborneny.org/NYCIP/ACalltoActionNYCIP.Osborne2011.pdf.
17. Krupat, Gaynes, and Lincroft, 2011, p 34.
18. Peter Wagner, “FCC commissioners reveal details of their proposal to protect all families of
incarcerated people,” Prison Policy Initiative, October 1, 2015. Accessed on October 19, 2015
from: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2015/10/01/clyburn-proposal/.
19. In 2013 New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision Acting Commissioner
Anthony J. Annucci submitted a letter to the Federal Communications Commission explaining
that when New York State eliminated the commission in its phone contract and substantially
reduced the rate to families, the number of calls rose from 5.4 million calls in 2006 to over 14
million in 2013, it improved the relationship between the Department and “offender advocacy
groups,” and it lowered the rate of illicit cell phone use. He called prison phone reform “among
the most cost-effective family reunification options that we offer.” See:
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/NYDOCCSletter.pdf. In total, the Federal Bureau of Prisons
and ten states have banned commissions. See: https://www.prisonphonejustice.org/.
20. Securus Technologies v. FCC (Docket No. 13-1280, D.C. Cir. 2015)
21. Jeremy Blackman, “Prison tightens mail policy in effort to curb drug influx,” Concord Monitor,
April 13, 2015. Accessed on April 30, 21015 from:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/16462117-95/prison-tightens-mail-policy-in-effort-to-
curb-drug-influx. States should also avoid letter ban policies, which — as our February 2013
report found — have been implemented in local jails across the country. Leah Sakala, Return to
Sender: Postcard-only Mail Policies in Jails (Easthampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, February
7, 2013). Accessed on October 19, 2015 from: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/postcards/.Attachment B
22. For example, Echoes of Incarceration is an award-winning documentary initiative produced by
youth with incarcerated parents. In their first film, four youth of incarcerated parents describe
how their parents’ incarceration has impacted them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0HooqTwh_4&feature=youtu.be.
23. It is especially difficult for incarcerated people and their families to afford the costs associated
with visits because they are some of the poorest families in this country. Our report, Prisons of
Poverty: Uncovering the pre-incarceration incomes of the imprisoned, found that, in 2014
dollars, incarcerated people had a median annual income of $19,185 prior to their incarceration,
which is 41% less than non-incarcerated people of similar ages. See: Bernadette Rabuy and
Daniel Kopf, Prisons of Poverty: Uncovering the pre-incarceration incomes of the imprisoned
(Easthampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, July 9, 2015). Accessed on September 3, 2015 from:
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html.
24. Based on the same dataset as this report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that only 42% of
parents of minor children imprisoned in state prison received a personal visit from their children
since admission. Lauren E. Glaze and Laura M. Maruschak, Parents in Prison and Their Minor
Children, (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2008), p 6. Accessed on October
14, 2015 from: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf.
25. A recent report found 34% of the families studied fell into debt from simply paying for phone
calls and visits with their incarcerated loved ones. See: Saneta deVuono-powell, Chris
Schweidler, Alicia Walters, and Azadeh Zohrabi, Who Pays? The True Cost of Incarceration on
Families (Oakland, CA: Ella Baker Center, Forward Together, Research Action Design, September
2015), p 30. Accessed on September 15, 2015 from:
http://ellabakercenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/who-pays.pdf.
26. The Prison Policy Initiative has extensively researched correctional video visitation in the U.S.,
finding that, ironically, while video visitation would be most useful in state prisons given the
remote locations of such facilities, the technology is far more prevalent in local jails.
Unfortunately, local sheriffs and private companies have been replacing in-person visits with
video visits rather than giving families another option to stay in contact. See: Bernadette Rabuy
and Peter Wagner, Screening Out Family Time: The for-profit video visitation industry in prisons
and jails (Easthampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative, January 2015). Accessed on September 3,
2015 from: http://www.prisonpolicy.org/visitation/.
27. Les Zaitz, “New technology helps Oregon inmates stay connected,” The Oregonian, September
12, 2012. Accessed on September 3, 2015 from: http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-
news/index.ssf/2012/09/new_technology_helps_oregon_in.html.
28. See: http://doc.sd.gov/adult/facilities/mdsp/.
29. Holly Kirby, Locked up and Shipped Away: Interstate Prison Transfers & the Private Prison
Industry (Austin, TX: Grassroots Leadership, November 18, 2013). Accessed on October 14, 2015
from: http://grassrootsleadership.org/locked-up-and-shipped-away. See also: Daniel Rivero,
“These states’ prisons are so full that they have to ship inmates thousands of miles away,”
Fusion, June 8, 2015. Accessed on October 14, 2015 from:
http://fusion.net/story/146671/these-states-prisons-are-so-full-they-have-to-ship-inmates-
thousands-of-miles-away/.
30. More information is available here: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=275.
31. Lauren E. Glaze and Laura M. Maruschak, Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children,
(Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, August 2008), p 6. Accessed on October 14, 2015
from: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf.
32. Proposed Collection, 80 FR 9749 (Feb 24, 2015).Total Terminations Comparison Attachment C
2019 1 SOL FOL PVSP SATF CAL VSP CIW CCWF FWF
Visitors - adult 10,863 6,232 6,943 8,647 8,204 4,699 4,263 2,538 443
Visitors - minor 10,953 5,990 7,671 7,856 8,257 4,042 4,382 2,619 428
TOTAL VISITORS 21,816 12,222 14,614 16,503 16,461 8,741 8,645 5,157 871
Inmates visited 10,617 5,771 6,411 7,004 7,436 3,617 3,329 2,119 361
Terminations: Need 2 10,100 4,830 4,663 4,531 4,601 2,340 2,228 1,346 221
Terminations: Behavior 3 2,695 981 632 242 142 6 0 0 0
TOTAL TERMINATIONS 12,795 5,811 5,295 4,773 4,743 2,346 2,228 1,346 221
2018 SOL SATF CAL KVSP SVSP VSP CIW CCWF FWF
Visitors - adult 17,834 15,347 14,789 12,363 10,834 9,498 8,482 5,152 957
Visitors - minor 20,466 16,662 16,770 11,563 12,818 9,863 9,737 5,873 1,045
TOTAL VISITORS 38,300 32,009 31,559 23,926 23,652 19,361 18,219 11,025 2,002
Inmates visited 18,042 13,606 14,480 9,641 10,815 7,827 7,186 4,351 887
Terminations: Need 2 16,940 10,864 10,618 9,916 8,875 6,196 5,323 3,319 622
Terminations: Behavior 3 4,423 1,232 823 1,377 1,305 203 260 103 24
TOTAL TERMINATIONS 21,363 12,096 11,441 11,293 10,180 6,399 5,583 3,422 646
2017 SOL SATF CAL KVSP PVSP VSP CIW CCWF FWF
Visitors - adult 16,105 18,020 14,788 12,544 12,608 8,747 9,341 5,505 1,122
Visitors - minor 17,181 18,477 17,034 11,297 14,214 8,730 10,308 6,025 1,262
TOTAL VISITORS 33,286 36,497 31,822 23,841 26,822 17,477 19,649 11,530 2,384
Inmates visited 15,482 14,831 14,610 9,235 11,507 7,102 7,732 4,562 1,032
Terminations: Need 2 15,133 12,162 10,571 9,731 9,128 5,280 5,727 3,519 795
Terminations: Behavior 3 3,293 2,512 882 1,624 1,502 214 302 169 46
TOTAL TERMINATIONS 18,426 14,674 11,453 11,355 10,630 5,494 6,029 3,688 841
1
Data range January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019
2
Due to visiting room capacity limitations
3
Resulting from inappropriate behavior prior to or during visit with inmateYou can also read
