< PreviousTRANSLATING RESEARCH Who This project targets female probationers sentenced to a 120-bed secure residential substance abuse treatment facility for a 4-6 month period. A requirement for program participation was that the woman had support person(s) in the community with access to a smartphone, tablet, or computer. What Typically, women in the program participate in a weekly 1-hour face-to- face visitation with approved visitors and one weekly 7-minute phone call ͣ. This project offers women one additional weekly 15-minute video-chat session with support persons of their choice. From March to July 2020, face-to-face visitation was suspended, and additional video-visitation or phone calls were allowed. When Planning for this project began in early 2018 after receiving grant funding. The first subjects were signed up for participation in February 2019. Data collection concluded in July 2020. Where The project was implemented in collaboration with an adult probation agency in a large urban southwest city. Why The goal of this project was to increase family connectedness by using technology to provide clients with additional contact opportunities so that skills being learned in the program could be used to improve family relationships and to provide women with additional support to aide in program engagement and reentry planning/success. How Individuals were invited to participate via a group meeting with a researcher, typically within one month of intake. Participation was ongoing throughout their program stay. Each participant signed a written consent and completed pre and post-tests and a short post-visitation survey following each weekly video-chat to collect data on what occurred during the weekly video call. Table 1: Overview of Video-Visitation Project Design ͣ Participants may earn additional phone privileges for facility jobs or as reinforcers. additional $75 in monthly hotspot fees. Importantly, none of these costs were incurred by participants. Programming A curriculum was introduced to the program to give clients skills specific to developing strong family relationships. Counselors working at the program participated in a two-day training session to become facilitators of the Cognitive-Behavioral Interventions for Improving Family Relationships (CBI-IFR)2 curriculum. The CBI-IFR is a skills- based curriculum designed to assist clients in identifying family-based risk factors and the importance of healthy connections with prosocial family members or supports as a tool for successful reentry. Clients were encouraged to utilize strategies they learned in this and other programming during their video-visitations as an opportunity for in-vivo skills practice. Family members themselves, however, were not directly involved in this programming Video-Chat Calls Video call times were scheduled in the evening to avoid interruption of other program activities, such as treatment and education. Ultimately a three-hour time-block was used to connect roughly 100 clients and their families or supports once each week. Clients used program-associated FaceTime or Skype accounts that allowed them to communicate with any support person who had access to an iPhone, Android, tablet, or computer. Although some clients did decline study TRANSLATING RESEARCH participation, contrary to our expectations, accessibility for family members was not a frequent barrier to participation in the project. Women unable to connect with nuclear or extended families could access other community supports. For the video-chat sessions, clients were sorted into several groups of up to 15 clients. Groups were assigned according to clients’ preferred time to connect with family and support systems, with priority given to those with younger children who had a set bedtime or families with limited contact windows. Each video-visitation session lasted for 15 minutes. During the allotted time, clients were authorized to video-chat with as many people as they desired. Following a two-minute warning, clients were told to finish their calls. Once time was up, they immediately filled out a post-visitation survey. A researcher, a direct care monitor, and an assigned client worker assisted with organizing and overseeing the weekly calls. The worker’s main responsibilities were alerting clients about their call times and guaranteeing that all of them were present in the assigned room at their assigned time. Workers were chosen by program managers based on their behavior, relationship with other clients, and knowledge of technology. Methods Sample Data analyzed for the present study were collected through the self-administered assessments completed by a sample of women on probation (N = 347) residing in a residential treatment facility. The treatment facility holds a range of programs designed to serve high to moderate-risk probationers who will return to a community supervision caseload following the successful completion of the program. Assessments/Measures Before implementation, the research team obtained informed consent from participants. The research team developed two tools. First, a needs assessment tool was designed to collect data on family make-up, technology access, support system, and the clients’ relationships with their children (young and adult) and significant others. Second, a post-visitation assessment was created to collect information about whom clients were contacting, how the call time was spent, which skills were utilized (if any), and emotions felt after each call. Finally, this project utilized the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scales-IV (FACES-IV) as a validated tool to assess family functioning in both pre- and post-program participation (Olson, 2011). A total of 249 women were administered this tool at both intakes and just before discharge3 for a total of 498 assessments. Analysis The study used a prospective study design to examine the impact of increased family contact via the use of weekly video-visitation. Univariate descriptive data on the post- video visitation surveys (n=3870) will be presented, along with bivariate analysis (N=498) using one-way ANOVA to evaluate differences in mean scores between the FACES pre and post tests. Results Each week, 78% of the participants connected with families/supports. The most common reason for lack of participation was the unavailability of family/support during the allotted call time. Participants on loss of privilege status could not participate in the calls per the rules of the facility. When connections were made (Figure 1) women were most likely to contact children (28.1%), a parent (24.5%) or a significant other (23.7%). When on calls (Figure 2), participants typically discussed what was happening in the household (26.8%), followed by furlough/release (20.5%) and then myself/recovery (12.3%). The post-visitation survey asked women what skills they learned in programming that they were able to use during their video chat sessions. Figure 3 shows that women most often marked that communication (35%) and relationship building (31.7%) skills were used during the call, followed by social/coping skills (27%) and new thinking (24.9%). Women were also asked to mark from a list of feelings what emotions they felt immediately following the video-chats. Figure 4 highlights that participants reported a high proportion of positive feelings. Roughly 65% of participants felt happy, and 52% felt loved, while only 4% of the women reported feeling upset and 2% depressed following their video calls. Hence, emotive responses following calls where they could see their family and support were largely positive; most of the 1 Funding for these was obtained via a grant issued by the Simmons Foundation of Houston, Texas. 2 This curriculum was developed by University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute, as part of their Cognitive Behavioral Intervention series. 3 Women who were unsuccessfully discharged, successfully discharged before a posttest could be administered, or discharged in haste due to COVID-19 protocols were not administered a post-test. Only women administered both a pre- and posttest were examined in this sample.TRANSLATING RESEARCH Figure 1: Who are the women reaching out to? Figure 2: What was discussed?TRANSLATING RESEARCH negative emotions occurred when the women tried but were unable to connect to support or when women were feeling anxious (19.2%). When asked to record why they marked these feelings (positive or negative), women wrote responses such as the following: • “because I am able to let my family see how well I’m doing and they can see for themselves” • “because I can visually see my child” • “because I get a chance to see my house and watch my dog run around and play” • “because I have been worried about her, seeing her was a big relief, my mom always brings joy to me and make me happy” • “because I have mixed emotions” • “because I was able to share my feelings about the next step in my recovery with my family and they are proud of me” • “because it heals me” • “because it reminded me I have people to go home to so I need to finish the program” • “because it took forever to connect” • “because this is the longest I’ve ever gone without seeing my kids. Finally, the pre/post assessment conducted using the FACES-IV evaluation indicated improvement in perceived healthy family functioning by the participants. Figure 5 shows significant improvement in mean balanced flexibility (60.4 vs. 65.9) and balanced cohesion score (66.6 vs. 70.1) after program participation. Simply put, weekly video visits increased participants’ ability to deal with familial problems, define and clearly communicate rules and boundaries, and balance individual interests with active participation in the lives of other family members. Regarding the unbalanced/unhealthy scales, most scales saw no changes; however, the mean rigid scale did significantly increase from pre- (44.4) to post-assessment (49.3), suggesting an improvement in participants’ ability to organize family affairs and efficiently address rule- breaking behaviors. In addition, the overall mean family satisfaction (49.1 vs. 60.8) and family communication scale (64.4 vs. 70.8) also significantly increased post- assessment. Hence, there were improvements on several of the scales related to family cohesion, adaptability, and functioning after the intervention was applied. Figure 3: Skills utilized during the video chatTRANSLATING RESEARCH Figure 4: Feelings expressed following video chat Figure 5: Impact on family connectedness – results of FACES IVTRANSLATING RESEARCH Discussion Although prison visitation primarily operates as a black box (Liu et al., 2016), recent empirical work suggests that maintenance of social support increases the likelihood of successful reentry and readjustment to society. We do not argue that solely using video-visitation suffices for creating and maintaining the social bonds between incarcerated individuals and their support systems. Instead, we suggest that video visits play an essential role in the lives of those who are less likely to be visited due to distance from the facility, costs of travel, or unavailability of time off. Increasing the frequency and mode of contact with community support allows programs to meet the needs of a heterogeneous population. This is important given that not all clients have families who can attend face-to-face visits, mainly in female programs. At the same time, it must be recognized that not all families have access to the technology needed for video- visitation, nor were women in this study interested in giving up face-to-face visitation. Other benefits of the addition of video-visitation were positive emotional responses following the calls. This is consistent with prior research finding that visitation helps with adjustment to confinement and increases prosocial feelings (Liu et al., 2016). Our study also showed that video-visitation provided in-vivo opportunities to practice the relationship skills these individuals are learning with their families. This was reported in the post-visitation summary and was demonstrated via improved family cohesion and adaptability scores on the FACES post- assessment. The potential for increasing the transfer of knowledge from the program to the community upon release improves the likelihood of successful reentry, which again aligns with prior literature in this area (Bales & Mears, 2008; Duwe & Clark, 2013; Mears, Cochran, Siennick, & Bales, 2012). Despite the positive impact of introducing the video chats, several lessons were learned in implementing a video-visitation program. Lessons Learned Set up and Security The initial set up for the iPads posed more difficulties than anticipated. The challenge rested in ensuring that the devices were used only for the intended purpose of the video-chat calls. Calls between two Apple devices (e.g., iPad and iPhone) were simple, as FaceTime is standard on each iPad, and only a phone number is needed to connect the devices. However, to ensure that individuals with Android devices, computers, or other tablets could participate in the project, Skype was also downloaded onto the iPads, which required a unique Skype account with a valid email or phone number for each device. Ideally, video-chat management should have been designed so that one “master” iPad was used to operate the other 15 linked devices, similar to what might be found in a school or other educational setting. This would have aided in both securities of the individual devices and call management (i.e., calls could easily be disconnected from the master device after a warning was issued and call time had expired). Given the scale of this study and the technical expertise required, this additional step was not taken. Security concerns are among the primary reasons agencies hesitate to adopt video call tools in correctional facilities. While the use of technology puts a halt on the flow of contraband, such devices still have the potential to connect justice-involved individuals to antisocial peers or victims. Further, devices with Internet access may be used for unintended and undesirable purposes; hence, safeguards are necessary to avoid these issues. In addition to removing unnecessary apps from each device as a security measure, each researcher or staff member oversaw 15 clients during the calls. Calls were not recorded, but staff members were instructed to end a call if problematic behavior was witnessed. At all times, other than the video-call sessions, the devices were kept in a locked cabinet where they could be securely stored and charged for the next session. Only the research team and facility staff had the lock combination. Even though iPad misuse was infrequent, more sophisticated control methods were eventually put in place to restrict access to other applications for use in non-video chat activities, such as browsing, checking social media accounts, or sending instant messages. A passcode and thumbprint were created to restrict unauthorized usage further; passcodes were entered by the staff member facilitating the video calls just before each resident call. Parental controls were also placed on each device so that only FaceTime and Skype were accessible. With that said, these devices could have also been expanded for other clinical uses, such as additional family sessions with therapists and extended video- visitation times, as part of the program’s reinforcement structure or for all participants. Educational or treatment activities could have been uploaded to the devices and used by participants with proper monitoring. Clients nearing discharge also could have been given less restricted access to better prepare for reentry. Technology Challenges Connectivity issues were a barrier often faced during the weekly video calls. Despite efforts to correct TRANSLATING RESEARCH problems (i.e., purchasing two hotspots, choosing a Wi-Fi plan according to the best coverage for the area, and conducting connectivity tests to determine the best location inside the facility for the calls), connectivity issues still occurred. Feedback from focus groups with participants suggested that women were often excited before, during, and after their calls – primping before the calls, introducing children and other loved ones to one another during the calls, and updating one another on family happenings following the calls. Hence, unexpectedly canceling sessions due to connectivity issues resulted in evident disappointment in the unit. Such programs should consider alternative/make-up times should disruptions occur. Program staff and management supported the project, regularly helping to address barriers clients faced in participating in the program. Staff gave new enrollees an extra weekend phone call so that clients could get the information needed to set up the video-chats and be prepared for the first call. Staff developed and distributed a simple one-page information form that contained step- by-step instructions for downloading and setting up a Skype account. This form was made available at face- to-face visitation sessions and was sent to families who struggled to connect with program participants. Unforeseen Challenges from COVID-19 A year into data collection, a total lockdown was put in place due to the coronavirus. A pause in new admissions and early discharges led to a rapid decrease in the population. In addition, in accordance with guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020), the facility determined that all visitations would be suspended until further notice, and the administrators quickly made the decision to replace the weekly face-to- face visit with either an additional video-chat session or phone call. The fact that the video-chat technology was already available speaks to the timely implementation of the project. It is interesting to note, though, that more clients initially chose the extra phone call rather than an extra video-chat, as they could reliably reach more loved ones via phone to check on their welfare. This highlights one of the challenges to use of video technology in a correctional setting. However, in subsequent weeks, the number of clients opting for video chats increased substantially, and the ability to provide some visual contact in the absence of on-site visitation highlights this technology’s usefulness. Study Limitations While this study points to several benefits of augmenting video-visitation in residential or other confined correctional settings to improve healthy family connections, study limitations should be noted. First, there was no way to untangle the impact of the video- visitation from other program elements, as participation was not randomized. Likewise, the sample was limited to one geographic space and an all-female population. Moreover, data collection was affected by the onset of COVID-19, which also resulted in a significant number of early discharges and produced dramatic changes in programming and facility management for the women still confined, all of which affected study findings. Finally, we did not follow the women who participated in the study after their discharge from the facility. Conclusion A significant number of individuals in America find themselves incarcerated, but many facilities offer limited opportunities for clients to interact with families or other individuals who offer social support. The study presented above used simple technology to increase the quality and quantity of family contact during confinement. Our goal was to improve reentry success by enhancing family relationships and supporting family connectedness during periods of confinement. The current global pandemic has made this project timely, as many correctional facilities had to suspend face-to-face visits to protect the confined individuals and staff. However, we learned from the women who lost face-to-face visits after COVID-19 that video-visitation is not an adequate replacement for face-to-face visits. The current study findings were consistent with prior research suggesting that visitation improves adjustment and well- being while confined and improves family relationships. We recommend that video-chats be utilized to augment, not replace, phone calls and face-to-face visitation. Video-chats should become part of the continuum of family connection opportunities for confined individuals. We recommend that programs strive to keep participants connected to family members by as many means possible, at no cost to the participants. Doing so will help support and prepare participants for transition to the community. This paper provides a roadmap for designing similar programs that offer more humanistic environments while in custody and help prepare individuals for successful reentry and reunification with family members.TRANSLATING RESEARCH References Adams, K. (1992). Adjusting to prison life. Crime and Justice, 16, 275–359. Arditti, J. A. & Few, A. L. (2006). Mothers’ reentry into family life following incarceration. Criminal Justice Policy and Research Journal, 17(1), 103-123. Bales, W. D., & Mears, D. P. (2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 45(3), 287-321. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020). People who are at higher risk for severe illness. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ clinical-care/underlyingconditions.html Cochran, J. C. (2012). The ties that bind or the ties that break: Examining the relationship between visitation and prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 433-440. Cochran, J. C., Barnes, J. C., Mears, D. P. & Bales, W. P. (2020). Revisiting the Effect of Visitation on Recidivism, Justice Quarterly, 37(2), 304-331. DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2018.1508606 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, 271–296. Duwe, G., & Johnson, B. R. (2016). The effects of prison visits from community volunteers on offender recidivism. The Prison Journal, 96, 279–303. Hanna, J., (2020). Federal and most state prisons are banning visits to protect inmates from coronavirus. CNN. Retrieved from: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/health/ prisons-coronavirus-visitations-banned/index.html Jiang, S., & Winfree, T. L. (2006). Social support, gender, and inmate adjustment to prison life: Insights from a national sample. The Prison Journal, 86, 32–55. Liu, S., Pickett, J. T., & Baker, T. (2016). Inside the black box: Prison visitation, the costs of offending, and inmate social capital. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27(8), 766–790. Mauer, M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2002). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. New York, NY: New Press. Mears, D. P., Cochran, J. C., Siennick, S. E., & Bales, W.D. (2012). Prison visitation and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 29(6), 888-918. 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. Olson, D. (2011). FACES IV and the circumplex model: Validation study. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 37(1), 64-80. Poehlmann, J., Dallaire, D., Loper, A. B., & Shear, L. D. (2010). Children’s contact with their incarcerated parents: Research findings and recommendations. American Psychologist, 65(6), 575–598. doi:10.1037/a0020279 Rubenstein, B. Y., Toman, E. L. & Cochran, J. C. (2021) Socioeconomic Barriers to Child Contact with Incarcerated Parents, Justice Quarterly, 38(4), 725-751, DOI: 10.1080/07418825.2019.1606270 Tasca, M., Mulvey, P., & Rodriguez, N. (2016). Families coming together in prison: An examination of visitation encounters. Punishment & Society, 18(4), 459–478. doi:10.1177/1462474516642856 Bibliographical note: Beatriz Amalfi Wronski is a doctoral student in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University. Beatriz was born and raised in São Paulo, Brazil, and is fluent in both Portuguese and English. Her research interests are broadly centered on corrections, with a focus on reentry, recidivism, and desistance. Beatriz is equally interested in the experiences of incarcerated elderly individuals. Her work has been published in Criminal Justice & Behavior, Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology, and in the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. She can be reached at bxa042@shsu.edu Lori Brusman Lovins received her Ph.D. in Criminal Justice in 2012 from the University of Cincinnati. She is currently an Assistant Professor at Bowling Green State University, in the Department of Human Services, Criminal Justice. Her research interests include evidence-based correctional programming, program implementation, and how the system treats specialized populations. Dr. Lovins has worked over 20 years in the field of corrections as a practitioner, administrator, researcher, educator and consultant. Dr. Lovins has published in journals such as Justice Quarterly, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Federal Probation, and Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.EXAMINING ALCOHOLICS/ NARCOTICS ANONYMOUS THROUGH THE LENS OF THE CORRECTIONAL REHABILITATION LITERATURE Dana J. Hubbard, Ph.D. TRANSLATING RESEARCH Substance abuse is a pressing problem for individuals under correctional supervision and the agencies who serve them. Prevalence of drug and alcohol abuse among probationers and parolees is much higher than in the general population. According to Feucht and Gfroerer (2011), 60%-80% of people under correctional supervision struggle with substance abuse. Belenko et al. (2016) found that probationers with substance abuse problems are more likely to have their probation revoked. Finding appropriate and effective interventions for this population is difficult due to a lack of effective substance abuse treatment options in the community, long wait lists, and high costs. Given these challenges, many probation and parole agencies use Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) to address clients’ substance abuse problems. For many jurisdictions, especially in rural communities, AA/NA is the only option available. According to AA literature, on which Narcotics Anonymous is based, “Alcoholics Anonymous is a fellowship of people who come together to solve their problems with alcohol” (www.aa.org). While AA’s primary goal is to help members become abstinent or “sober,” research has found that AA also provides attendees opportunities to explore or focus on social identity, personal narratives, thoughts, feelings, and problem-solving, and such aspects of personal development have been found in the literature to be necessary for change. Despite AA’s availability and potential benefits, it has been widely discounted within the correctional rehabilitation literature that focuses on “what works” or “evidence- based” practice. Some common criticisms include that it lacks empirical evidence of effectiveness, that it is unstructured, and that AA is a “religious” program designed to be voluntary. In this paper, I argue that AA and programs based on AA, such as NA, should be reconsidered in the “what works” and more considerable correctional rehabilitation literature. I contend that those who criticize AA as an ineffective treatment intervention and claim that it should only be used as an adjunct to “effective substance abuse treatment” have not been introduced to the recent body of evidence and qualitative studies that have found support for the processes within AA that can that promote change within law violators. About AA AA is said to have millions of members across 181 countries (Kelly, Abry, et al., 2020). The meetings are widely available and are free to attend. Recent scholarship has moved away from the term “alcoholism,” and instead, “substance abuse” is used. AA literature recognizes this, and while the program is based on alcohol, all people who misuse or abuse substance are welcome to attend. There are many AA meetings, and members are encouraged to choose meetings based on their needs. One type of meeting is called a lead meeting or speaker meeting. A lead meeting allows members of AA to speak about their lives dealing with substance abuse problems. Members are encouraged to listen to the speakers’ personal stories about “what it used to be like, what happened to change them, and what it is like today” (The AA Big Book, 2002). Through these personal narratives, members are encouraged to identify with each speaker’s story and consider life without substances. Another type of AA meeting is referred to as a discussion meeting. These meetings provide opportunities for people to discuss their struggles and come up with solutions to sobriety obstacles. Finally, there are meetings where various populations can find specific support and comfort. These include atheist/agnostic meetings where God and religion are not mentioned, LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bi- sexual, Trans, and Questioning) meetings, dual diagnoses meetings, and those meetings more open to discussing drug abuse. Those who attend AA meetings are encouraged to regularly attend meetings, engage in fellowship with others, and find a sponsor to help them through the program. The basis for the AA program is rooted in its 12-step approach to achieving sobriety.Next >