I was born to a mother serving time in 1983. Now, as I serve a life sentence of my own I see the same abusive policies and practices that promote the slavery practice of familial separation. Politically, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has vocalized support for normalization and trauma-informed care in the newly-implemented California Model. Having spent 20 years as an adult, and ten years as a minor in our state institutions and youth care industry I can tell you for a fact that I have not witnessed real change. We live in a state that permits incarcerated slavery as a punishment and a Governor who has twice refused to sign a bill that would return visiting a loved one in prison to civil rights status. Up until about a decade ago, the CDCR had an active eugenics program and practiced sterilization on prisoners. Multiple generations of families have had their bonds severed or strained by CDCR policy and procedure.
Why are acts that terrorize prisoners and their families allowed to occur and why doesn’t the legislature act? What makes it OK to terrorize and oppress a vulnerable class of persons? Perhaps this can be attributed to social moral judgments. Moral disapproval, or the display of negativity by persons who hate prisoners, may cause many free persons to develop a bias against prisoners. The tough-on-crime propaganda leads to a selective blindness to these horrific acts that in any other scenario would be morally reprehensible. The way that prisoners have been historically maligned by the CDCR and politicians has stripped incarcerated persons of their humanity—much as Hitler used propaganda to strip the Jewish people of their humanity, allowing the German public the excuse to ignore the Holocaust that occurred right under their noses. CDCR is of course aware of shifting public opinion amid prison closures and activism. And they have attempted to distance themselves from their historical approach and hop on the recovery bandwagon with the much-touted California Model of incarceration.
California’s Broken Model Trauma informed care requires looking at the policies of the CDCR and how practices of familial separation do in fact sever bonds and cause lasting traumatic effects for family members and children of the incarcerated. More so, how that collective trauma impacts those communities where most persons who are in prison come from. CDCR touts the California Model that emphasize “pillars” of reunification and normalization, yet, in actuality, they demonstrate inaction at the local levels of the implementation of these programs. The model has two broken pillars and will not stand. The acts that are taken by the department breed mistrust and discredit the department. People do not want lip service, they want action. If the CDCR really cared about families and their connection with their loved ones (reunification), then we would not have to engage in activism for legislation to improve visiting. We would see it. Because the department would implement it.
The costs run high, and for children with incarcerated parents this type of separation pushes youth toward disruptive antisocial views, distrust of law enforcement and fear of police violence. For adults the costs of incarceration are passed onto families as collateral damage and the trauma of having a loved one behind bars can be all too much for a person to take. Visitation becomes a negative experience where rogue correctional staff who seek to punish the prisoners traumatize families that visit. The problem with the department is in the unwillingness of the department to regulate its personnel, who suffer no adverse actions in their career for failing to comply with directives. You cannot have trauma-informed care and normalization while you have caregivers that are identified as oppressors by the ones they are charged to serve.
Harming families by creating roadblocks to visitation—for a perfect example of how trauma is inflicted by staff on a local level, we look at Valley State Prison (VSP) in Chowchilla Ca. Since the prison converted to a men’s prison in 2012, incarcerated persons have been fighting to evict staff members who have taken over areas for visiting families. VSP has ten Family Visiting Units, essentially a bungalow-style 2 bedroom 1 bath apartment with kitchen. Of those ten, administrative staff at VSP have taken over FIVE of those units for personal office spaces. Incarcerated persons have filed grievances all the way to the Sacramento level requesting to see authorization for these acts, yet there has been total avoidance of accountability to the public or the population. Alarmingly, these units where funded by the taxpayers for the specific usage of overnight visiting for families. To appearances, VSP is converting millions of dollars of infrastructure for staff to enjoy comfy home-style offices at the cost of family unity. So much for normalization and reunification.
In this, there is little or no recourse for families or oversight from Sacramento. Despite the fact that this action is not proved authorized, and is a potential violation of Penal Code section 8314, Unauthorized use of state resources; as well as Penal Code section 424, misappropriation and misuse of state funds. To date, despite requests, VSP has not furnished the documents that authorize converting five units. And the Sacramento branch of CDCR has refused to do so as well. Showing zero transparency brings forth the question, what are you hiding?
Making matters worse in this is the fact that, since November 2024, four out of the five family visiting units at VSP that are open to prisoners and their families have been shut down by the fire marshal due to safety. During refurbishment processes on units 1-4, staff working in plant operations modified a fire wall without any permits whatsoever. To this date in March, that leaves families with just one functioning unit open for family visiting. Staff have still, despite the shutdown, refused to vacate the units they are occupying. This is far from a problem local to VSP. Many other prisons in the state are experiencing staff taking over the units.
There are many reasons to modify visiting or impose security measures, but at VSP the families often leave feeling mistreatment at the hands of guards—as though they are being punished for loving their loved one. The problems with visiting are many, which is why this author believes CDCR vehemently protests the passing of any law by Governor Newsom which would make visiting a civil right. If the civil right existed, then seeing your loved one would not be a “privilege.” And the obstruction would cease. Some of the challenges persons face are entirely nonsensical and not rooted in security needs.
Aspiring visitors must complete a extensive clearance process; persons are often refused permission to see their incarcerated loved one simply because they have an outstanding parking ticket or were arrested ten years prior. The food in visiting rooms is often four times under the amount as listed in the shelves of nearby supermarkets. Staff may cancel visits for any reason whatsoever, a practice they engage in often. This author has seen many a crying child escorted through the visiting door away from their father due to minor “infractions”—such as a husband placing a arm around his wife’s shoulder to console her. Or having your feet touching your wife’s leg. Yes, even the act of touch is forbidden. Visitors get one kiss and hug, then are deprived of closeness. CDCR does not even believe that a prisoner should be touched, and it is degrading. When an incarcerated person enters the visiting room they are read a riot act of 20 plus made up underground regulations. Staff are constantly demanding full adherence to their petty whims. The public does not see this, experience this, and is ignorant to the depravity of a system thousands of families see as oppressive.
