Visitation Modality Preferences for Adults Visiting Jails

Abstract

The development of technology has introduced new options for prison and jail visits, including video visits from jail lobbies and remote video from virtually anywhere. Researchers surveyed visitors to three jails who were participating in either on-site visits through Plexiglas, lobby video visits, or remote video visits. On-site Plexiglas visitors rated their visits as more stressful and time-consuming, while remote video visitors were most likely to indicate that it was difficult to locate finances for the visit. Visitors expressed a preference for contact visits but noted that remote video visits were likely to be the most convenient.

Keywords

jail video visitation inmates

Introduction

By the end of 2015, a total of 1.53 million prisoners were residing in state and federal correctional facilities in the United States, and approximately 721,300 inmates were in jails on an average day (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2016a). While the family and friends of some inmates have chosen to disassociate with them, there are, at minimum, hundreds of thousands of people who want to maintain contact or at least feel an obligation to do so.

During the birth of the penitentiary movement in the United States, penologists believed that contact with the outside world during a period of incarceration was detrimental to inmates’ prospects of reform. By the 1820s, the prevailing thought in the United States was that men were born innocent, not sinful, and it was a combination of the exposure to bad influences in the cities and the diminished influence of informal social control from the church, community, and families that led offenders astray (Rothman, 1971/2002). The solution was a period of incarceration with only an occasional visit from a member of clergy to offer spiritual guidance. After decades of operating prisons in this manner, penologists acknowledged that the system failed. The use of incarceration as punishment was clearly not abandoned, but the philosophy that inmates must remain separated from society to rehabilitate themselves was discarded. During the latter half of the 20th century, penologists recognized the importance of reintegrating inmates back into society, and with that came the belief that the maintenance of familial bonds was important.

Today, most inmates in U.S. prisons and jails have visitation privileges. Visitation has the potential to assist offenders in maintenance of social bonds with friends and relatives in the community (Bales & Mears, 2008; Duwe & Clark, 2011; Mears, Cochran, Siennick, & Bales, 2011). Contact with family and friends may, under certain circumstances, be beneficial to offenders in that it can provide a sense of social support (LaVigne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005; Sturges, 2002) and provide newly released offenders with much-needed contacts to assist with housing and employment. Recent research on prison visitation has provided evidence of an association between visitation and reduced recidivism (Bales & Mears, 2008; Duwe & Clark, 2011; Mears et al., 2011). A theme that has emerged in the prisoner reentry literature is that support from family is one of the most important predictors of ex-offenders’ success in the community (Jacoby & Kozie-Peak, 1997; Nelson, Dees, & Allen, 1999; Visher & Courtney, 2007).

While there are potential benefits to inmates receiving visits, the visitation process and experience can be difficult for both the inmates and visitors. Some inmates ask their relatives not to visit, as they believe that reminders of the outside will be too painful for them, and they worry about how difficult the visits will be for the family (Arditti, 2012). More often, however, inmates look forward to the visits and seek to bond with those who choose to remain associated with them through their sentence. Visitation can be difficult for family and friends in a number of ways, and these difficulties can affect the quality and frequency of visits.

Trips to prisons or jails require visitors to find the time to make the visit, find the transportation for the visit, and pay for the transportation. Additional possible costs include finding a babysitter if children are not going on the trip, paying for care packages if they are permitted, and finding money to deposit in inmates’ commissary accounts during the visit. Inmates’ placement in a facility far from home can make visitation more challenging, as it increases the time and money that must be spent for each visit. Jackson, Templer, Reimer, and LaBaron (1997) studied characteristics of people conducting visits at a Nevada prison. They found that more frequent visitation was associated with the proximity of visitors’ homes to the prison.

Christian (2004) accompanied visitors on bus rides from New York City to upstate prisons and found that the families visit inmates at the expense of participation in community and neighborhood organizations and spending time with their own children. The average cost then was at least US$80 per person. While there are some nonprofit agencies that provide low-cost bus transportation to prisons, ticket prices still present hardships to low income families, especially if they are attempting to cope with the lost income from the incarcerated spouse. Even if inmates are incarcerated in the local jail or a prison near their homes, visitors still have to pay for gas or public transportation, and may have to adjust their work and personal schedules to be available during facility visiting hours. Given the labor involved in such visits, facilities lime the visiting hours, making it difficult for some visitors to find the time to go (Comfort, 2008; Sitren, Smith, Applegate, & Gould, 2008; Sturges, 2002).

Once individuals arrive at the prison or jail, they may have to wait for hours to complete the visit. Comfort (2008, 2003) observed visitors as they remained in the waiting area while corrections officers performed inmate counts and other duties that resulted in the temporary suspension of visits. Relatives visiting inmates in San Quentin had to schedule appointments for the day of their arrival, and the phone call for the appointment typically took 20 to 40 min. Sturges (2002) interviewed jail visitors who were frustrated by the long waits that they had to endure. What tended to frustrate visitors even more was waiting for so long only to find out that their visit would be cut short or canceled, because the wait cut into the visitation time (Comfort, 2008; Sturges & Al-Khattar, 2009).

In-person visitation may also be stressful due to the environment in which the visit occurs. In-person visitation tends to place visitors in the same space as other visitors and inmates. Bad behavior on the part of others in the room can disrupt nearby visits (Tartaro, 2001). Uncomfortable or unsanitary lobbies, lack of bathrooms, and lack of child-friendly play areas may contribute to adding to the stress of visits (Comfort, 2003, 2008; Poehlmann-Tynan, Dallaire, Loper, & Shearl, 2010; Sturges, 2002). Given the drawbacks associated with this visitation modality, it is possible that exploring other options would provide visitors with greater visitation options.

Visitation can be especially challenging for children. Tasca (2014) interviewed caregivers of children of incarcerated parents. Caregivers reported that 65% of the children who visited their parents experienced negative emotional reactions to the visit. Arditti (2003) also interviewed adults who were bringing children to jail for visits, and 52% of the caregivers reported that the visit went “very badly,” while 42% responded that it went “so-so.” Day, Acock, Bahr, and Arditti (2005) interviewed incarcerated fathers in five prisons and discussed the nature of their visits with spouses, partners and children. Thirty percent of participating male inmates reported that their visits were tense due to hostility and anger, and that sometimes children were present for those difficult visits. Shlafer and Poehlmann (2010) interviewed children who participated in visits with their incarcerated parents. None of them reported positive experiences during the visits. Poehlmann-Tynan et al. (2015) observed children’s jail visits through the use of both Plexiglas barriers and closed-caption video conferencing from inside the jail and noted that children’s distress levels seemed to increase throughout the visit; signs of fatigue, confusion, sadness, and anger were visible by the end of visits.

While visits allow children to see their parents and parents to maintain or build a bond with their offspring, two obstacles may play a role in the success of a visit—preexisting conflict in the parent–child relationship and the environment of the correctional visitation setting. While preexisting conflicts may affect the quality of visits, correctional facilities have no control over those relationships. The correctional environment, however, is in their control and has the potential to play a significant role in the outcome of the visit. Tasca (2014) found that

children who encountered burdensome visitation processes and security protocols overwhelmingly responded negatively to prison visitation with an imprisoned parent . . . On the other hand, when correctional units were welcoming and family-friendly, utilized less invasive search procedures, and provided opportunities for families to connect (e.g., food visits), children tended to respond positively to their visit encounter. (pp. 109-110)

Researchers who have observed visits with children or interviewed incarcerated parents have recommended that corrections facilities offer child-friendly visitation environments to help to ameliorate stress of minor visitors (Pierce, 2015; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2015).

Types of Visitation

Most inmates are permitted some type of visit, but the form of the visitation, its length, and the rules that govern behavior tend to vary by facility. Recently, some facilities adopted visitation modalities that no longer require travel to the prison or jail. What follows is a brief overview of the most frequently used types of visits.

Contact Visits

As the name implies, contact visits allow for inmates and visitors to share the same physical space and have some, often limited, contact governed by the rules of the institution. With the exception of conjugal visits, which are extremely rare, contact visits afford inmates and visitors the most intimacy. The settings in which the visits occur vary from institutional-looking rooms inside the facility to child-friendly rooms with bright colors and play areas, to outside areas with picnic tables and room for children to run.

Contact visits are a challenge for corrections personnel as they involve movement of both inmates and visitors into the visitation area, and movement of any kind presents security threats. Inmates must be searched on their way in and out of the visit areas. Visitors must store all of their belongings and then be subject to pat downs. Regardless of efforts to prevent the transference of contraband, some inmates and visitors will attempt to smuggle goods. Seventy-five percent of wardens who responded to Sturges and Hardesty’s (2005) survey expressed concern about contraband being smuggled into the facility during visits. While rules regarding inmate–visitor contact are generally posted, officers must enforce those rules and prevent inappropriate contact. Due to the risks associated with inmates and visitors having such close contact, these visits are labor-intensive and costly for correctional staff.

Noncontact Plexiglas Visits

A common form of noncontact visitation involves the separation of the two parties by Plexiglas and use of telephones for speaking. The rooms tend to be noisy, as there are typically multiple visits occurring simultaneously, and institutional furniture and fixtures can exacerbate problems with echoes (Jonston, 1995; Sturges, 2002). Plexiglas visits eliminate the need for pat downs of inmates and visitors and prevent transference of contraband. While such visits do address some of the labor and security issues that are problematic with contact visits, Plexiglas visits still require officers to handle inmate movement. Officers also need to interact with large numbers of visitors, check their identification, monitor inmate and visitor behavior, and, at some facilities, run background checks and arrest visitors with existing warrants, all while monitoring the lobby. From a visitor perspective, they do get to see the inmates in person. However, they must find time to go to the facility during the scheduled visitation times, find money and transportation to get to the institution, wait in the lobby, present proper identification, sit at a booth and use a phone in a visitation area that may or may not be clean, be exposed to the behaviors of the other visitors, and deal with officers who may not be respectful of the visitation process.

Lobby Video Visits

Video visitation began in the Brevard County, Florida Jail in 1995 (VUGate, 2010). This initial installation, like those that followed until 2009, consisted of a closed circuit video system which allowed inmates and visitors to see and hear each other. In most cases, the video conferencing units were placed in hardened cases at a cost of US$3,500 to US$6,000 per unit. These systems allowed the correctional institution to install conferencing units in individual pods or cell blocks, eliminating the need for inmate movement. For visitors, correctional agencies placed kiosks in the lobbies of the institutions, removing the need for officers to search inmates and visitors and monitor for contraband transference. Correctional administrators have the option of setting up off-site locations for the visitor kiosks that can be convenient places throughout the county or states for the visitors. Video visitation can reduce or eliminate visit wait times.

Remote Video Visitation

The Ada County Sheriff’s Office in Boise, Idaho, utilized a completely web-based video visitation system (Ada County Sheriff’s Office, 2012). This is reported to be among the first use of such technology for the purpose of jail visitation. Similar to lobby video visitation, remote visits require inmates to use visit kiosks that can be placed inside each cell block or pod, eliminating the need for inmate movement. Instead of traveling to a correctional facility or off-site visitor center, visitors can conduct the visit from anywhere they can access a web camera and the Internet. Remote video visits tend to cost money per visit to offset the cost of the equipment. For example, the Salem County Jail in New Jersey charges US$11 per 20 min (Salem County Correctional Visiting, 2014). While there is a fee for such visits, it may be cheaper than taking off work and/or paying for transportation to the facility for an on-site visit. Remote video visitation may benefit the correctional facilities in a number of ways, including a decrease in the number of staff members who have to handle visitation matters and an increase in potential revenue as visitors pay for the visits. The reduced staff commitment necessary for visitation allows prisons and jails to offer more visitation times, as staff do not need to escort inmates to visitation areas, register visitors, search inmates and visitors, and so on. Remote video visits present a visitation opportunity for people who are unable or unwilling to travel to a correctional facility.

While video visitation has potential benefits, there are some ways that traditional face-to-face visitation will remain preferable. Video visits do not allow for visitors to share the same physical space as inmates, removing any possibility of physical contact. Some participants have complained that use of videos makes the visit less personal. In addition, some visitation systems make it difficult for the two parties to maintain eye contact due to the placement of the camera away from the monitor. Poor monitor quality also has the potential to adversely affect the visit (Sturges & Al-Khattar, 2009). One of the most important functions of the face-to-face visit is for the visitor to “see” the inmate with his or her own eyes.

Visitation Setting by Facility Type

The type of visit, frequency, and the setting in which the visit takes place varies by facility. Poehlmann et al. (2010) reported that institutions run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons tend to allow face-to-face visits with limited contact at the start and end of visits, and the visits were conducted without a physical barrier between the inmates and visitors. Poehlmann et al. also researched visitation policies for 10 state prison systems, and most had similar guidelines to the Bureau of Prisons. Jails in those same ten states, however, were less likely to offer visits with physical contact and were more likely than prisons to use technology, such as CCTV, to facilitate visitation. Jonston (1995) surveyed county jails in California and found that 60% only offered noncontact visitation with some sort of physical barrier between the inmates and visitors. While 12% of jails had offered visits without barriers, those were facilities that exclusively housed county-sentenced inmates. The 29% of jails that offered both types of visits prohibited visits without barriers for county-sentenced or minimum security inmates. To summarize, while prisons tend to offer visits with the opportunity for some physical contact between inmates and visitors, jails appear to rely on forms of noncontact visits.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to learn about the visitation preferences of visitors at three county jails. At the time of the survey, visitors were either on-site participating in a face-to-face visit through Plexiglas (Plexiglas visit), on-site conducting a video visit from a lobby (lobby video visit), or off-site conducting a video visit using their own computer or one belonging to a friend or relative (remote video visit). Respondents were asked to rate their own preferences for visitation as well as what they perceived would be the best type of visit for inmates. Although the knowledge gained from this project could inform policy in jails and prisons throughout the country, it is important to note that the purpose of the research is to better understand visitor preferences, which may or may not be connected to the effectiveness of visitation.

Participating Jails

Data for the current study were collected using in-person interviews of visitors participating in on-site face-to-face visits at a county jail in eastern New Jersey and on-site video visits from the lobby of a county jail in western New Jersey. For remote video visitors, researchers were able to arrange for surveys to be linked to the end of remote video visits to the county jail in western New Jersey and one county jail in Nevada. The project proposal was approved by the researchers’ Institutional Review Board prior to the commencement of data collection.

The first New Jersey jail is located in a suburban county and houses approximately 800 men and women. The county is home to some tourist destinations and two urban areas. Visits are only available on weekends and are conducted through Plexiglas, with visitors and inmates using telephones to communicate. The jail has 16 visitation booths that are in use from 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Visitors begin to line up in the lobby around 7:00 a.m. on the weekend mornings. Anyone who is online at 2:30 p.m. is told to either leave or sit and wait until the inmate count is finished and visitation commences at 4:00 p.m. Visitors must present proper identification and then wait as the staff run a warrant check and transport the inmate to the visitation area.

The second New Jersey facility is located in a rural area and houses approximately 350 inmates per day, with women slightly overrepresented (30% of the population). At the time of the study, this jail housed women from the home county, the adjacent county, and some female inmates awaiting trial on federal charges. There are three visitation options at this facility. Remote visitation via the web costs US$11 for a 20-min visit. Multiple visitors are permitted to be in the room and in front of the web camera for each remote video visit. These visits must be scheduled between 1 day and 3 weeks prior to the visit. Inmates may receive up to two remote video visits per day. Lobby video visitation presents inmates with the ability to have one person per week come to the jail and do a free lobby video visit. Reservations for free visits must be made the day before the planned visit, and visitors must check in with the staff member at the facility’s front desk and present proper identification. A maximum of three inmates can receive a lobby video visit simultaneously, as the facility has three kiosks in the lobby. Visits are a maximum of 20 min long with lobby kiosks available from 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m., 12:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., and 7:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Inmates who have been in the jail for at least a month have a good institutional behavior record, and have a low classification level may be eligible for one contact visit per month.

The facility in Nevada houses an average daily population of 1,200 and is located in a county that includes a major city. Inmates housed in general population are permitted up to two remote video visits per day (US$11 for 20 min to be paid by the visitor) and one free lobby video visit per week. Lobby video visits are available Monday through Saturday from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Inmates in special housing units, such as administrative segregation, protective custody, disciplinary segregation or mental segregation have limited visiting hours available. Remote video visits may start any time after a person is incarcerated, but there are no on-site video visits for the first 5 days of each offender’s incarceration.

Method

For on-site interviews, researchers were granted permission to spend time in the lobbies of the two New Jersey jails and approach visitors. The lobby of the larger jail was typically full, and visitors usually had to wait for at least an hour before they were able to proceed into the visitation room. The researchers were able to walk up to visitors and offer a US$5 gift card to a local convenience store chain in exchange for participation.¹ As the visitors became familiar with the researchers, they would refer their friends. Approximately 90% of individuals the researchers approached agreed to participate in the interview which typically took 10 to 15 min. Prior to starting the interview, researchers asked to see a photo ID to confirm that the participant was at least 18 years old, and researchers would check the participant’s name against the list of people who already completed interviews to avoid repeat interviews. In most cases, the researchers were able to complete the interviews before the respondents were called into the visitation area. In the few instances when the interview was still in progress and the visitor was asked to proceed to the visitation area, the researcher would wait in the lobby and finish the interview after the visit was complete. Researchers were present at the jail to conduct observations and interviews from February to April 2013. Initially, 127 adults agreed to participate in the interview, with 125 completed, usable surveys.

For the smaller facility, the researchers approached visitors who entered before their scheduled lobby video visit. People who arrived after their visit time had already begun were not approached, as they had to immediately start the visit, and they tended to walk out of the facility immediately after it ended. Those who arrived before the visit started were informed of the purpose of the survey and were offered a US$5 gift card to a local convenience store chain. If they consented, the researchers began administering the survey until the inmate appeared on the visit monitor. Once the visit ended, researchers finished administering the surveys. Observations and in-person interviews were completed from February to May of 2013. Ninety-five percent of the people the researchers approached for interviews consented, resulting in 77 interviews. Two interviews were incomplete, resulting in 75 usable interviews for adults participating in lobby video visitation.

The same company provides video conferencing services in the correctional facility in both New Jersey and Nevada. That company agreed to assist with this study by linking the researchers’ survey to the end of the video visits for those two jails. Those who completed the surveys had the option of providing their contact information to receive a voucher for half price off of a future video visit. The survey links were available from March through August 2013 and resulted in 260 surveys, many of which only contained partial responses.

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Respondents who conducted in-person visitation through Plexiglas are more likely to rate the visit as “stressful” than those who visited via lobby video visit or remote video visit.

Hypothesis 2: Respondents who conducted any type of on-site visit are more likely to agree that it is “difficult to find the money for the visit” than those who did a remote video visit.

Hypothesis 3: Respondents who conducted a remote video visit are less likely to agree that it is “difficult to find the time for the visit” than those who visit via lobby video visit or Plexiglas.

Hypothesis 4: Visitors will identify remote video visits as the most convenient type of visit and lobby video visits as the least convenient.

Hypothesis 5: Visitors will identify remote video visits as cheaper than on-site visits.

Hypothesis 6: Visitors will identify contact visits as the best for inmates and lobby video visits as the worst.

Results

Over three quarters (77.7%, 303) of survey respondents were female and slightly more than half (51.3%, 200) of the participants were White, non-Latino, and 30% (115) were Black, non-Latino. Thirty-seven percent (144) went no further than a high school degree for their education. Forty-one percent (152) of respondents had a yearly household income of less than US$25,000 per year. Most visitors (51.9%, 246) were from New Jersey, 22.2% (105) from Nevada, and 26% (123) from 20 other states and Spain. Respondents were asked to indicate their relationship with the inmate whom they were visiting. The most frequent response was boyfriend/girlfriend/fiancé, with 25% (109) of respondents identifying that type of relationship. Seventeen percent (78) were visiting friends and 16% (76) their son or daughter.

Most respondents had prior experience with various modes of inmate visitation. Video visit participants were asked “How many times have you traveled to a prison or jail for visits?” while lobby video visit and on-site Plexiglas visitors were asked “Besides this visit today, about how many times have you traveled to any prisons or jails for visits?” Only 14% (60) of all respondents had no previous experience traveling to a prison or jail for a visit. Twenty-seven percent (113) made one to three trips prior to the day they were completing the survey, and 34% (141) reported at least 10 prior trips. Sixty-five percent (305) of all respondents had completed at least one video visit, 35% (164) conducted at least one contact visit, 63% (297) had visited via Plexiglas, and 37% (177) had experience doing a lobby video visit. Please see Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographics and Visitation Experience^a.

	F	%
Gender
Female	303	77.7
Male	87	22.3
Race
White, non-Latino	200	51.3
Black, non-Latino	115	29.5
Other	75	19.2
Education
High school diploma or less	144	37.2
Some college	154	39.8
At least a BA degree	89	23.0
Income
US$0-US$24,999	152	40.6
US$25-US$49,999	121	32.4
US$50-US$74,999	59	15.8
US$75,000+	42	11.2
Age (years)	M = 40.35	SD = 15.52
Home state
New Jersey	246	51.9
Nevada	105	22.2
Other	123	25.9
Relationship with inmate
Parent, parent in-law, guardian	48	10.0
Spouse	40	8.4
Ex-spouse	4	0.8
Son/daughter	76	16.0
Sibling	46	9.7
Grandparent	3	0.6
Grandchild	7	1.5
Fiancé, boyfriend/girlfriend	109	25.1
Friend	78	16.5
Mentee	5	1.1
Other	29	6.1
Number of times traveled to a prison or a jail for a visit
None	60	14.3
1-3	113	26.9
4-6	64	15.2
7-9	42	10.0
10+	141	33.6
RVV experience
No experience	167	35.2
At least one RVV visit	305	64.3
Previous experience with contact visit	164	34.6
Previous experience with face-to-face visit with Plexiglas	297	62.7
Previous experience with LVV	177	37.3

Note. RVV = remote video visitation; LVV = lobby video visit.

Many respondents did not answer these questions. As such, frequencies and percent are used in lieu of valid percent so as not to exaggerate the percent of respondents who engaged in these visitation activities.

Visitors were asked to respond to statements about their recent experience with the visitation modality that they were using at the time of the survey. Responses were on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. One-way ANOVA and Scheffe post hoc results are in Table 2. When asked to respond to the statement “the visit was stressful,” those conducting in-person visits through Plexiglas (M = 3.18) had significantly higher mean responses than those who conducted visits via lobby video (M = 2.59) or remote video visit (M = 2.33), indicating higher levels of stress (F = 17.284, p < .001). The mean response for those conducting the Plexiglas visits indicates a significantly more stressful experience for those visitors when compared with both the lobby video and remote video visitors. These results support Hypothesis 1.

Table 2.

Opinions About Visit by Most Recent Visit Type.

	In person		LVV		RVV		F
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F
Hypothesis 1
Visit was stressful	3.18^a	1.40	2.59	1.31	2.33	1.24	17.284***
Hypothesis 2
Hard to find the money for the visit	2.26	1.13	2.01	1.09	3.00^b	1.14	30.168***
Hypothesis 3
Hard to find time for the visit	2.59^c	1.28	2.05	1.08	2.04	1.01	9.947***

Note. LVV = lobby video visit; RVV = remote video visitation.

The mean for in person (Plexiglas) visitation was significantly higher than LVV and RVV, but there were no significant differences between LVV and RVV groups, using a Scheffe post hoc test.

The mean for RVV was significantly higher than in-person and LVV, but there were no significant differences between in-person and LVV groups, using a Scheffe post hoc test.

The mean for in-person (Plexiglas) visitation was significantly higher than LVV and RVV, but there were no significant differences between LVV and RVV groups, using a Scheffe post hoc test.

***

p < .001.

The next statement was “it was hard to find the money for the visit.” Remote video visitors had the highest level of agreement (M = 3.0), compared with in-person Plexiglas visitors (M = 2.26) and lobby video visitors (M = 2.01). One-way ANOVA and Scheffe post hoc test results indicate that the mean differences between remote video visitors and the two other types of visitors was significant (F = 30.168, p < .001), which is the opposite of what was predicted in Hypothesis 2.

When asked to respond to “it was hard to find the time for the visit,” in-person Plexiglas visitors had a higher level of agreement (M = 2.59) relative to the lobby video (M = 2.05) or remote video (M = 2.04) visitors (F = 9.947, p < .001). Though the remote video visitors scored this question lower than the other two visitations modalities, the difference was not significantly lower than those who conducted lobby video visits. This indicates only partial support for Hypothesis 3.

All visitors were asked to identify the best and worst visits based on various criteria, such as convenience, cost, and what they perceive to be best for inmates. Some respondents believed that all visits were the same, while others were unable to decide what was best or worst. Only cases where respondents were able to identify one specific visitation modality were included in the analysis. A one-variable chi-square analysis was run for each visitation criteria to check for significant differences in responses (see Table 3). At the end of the series of comparison questions, respondents were given the option to elaborate on their answers.

Table 3.

Respondents’ Opinions About Best and Worst Visits.

	Observed n	%	Expected n	Residual	χ²
Hypothesis 4
Most convenient
Remote video visit	160	47.8	83.8	76.3	224.057***
Lobby video visit	14	4.2	83.8	–69.8
Plexiglas	17	5.1	83.8	–66.8
Contact	144	43.0	83.8	60.3
Least convenient
Remote video visit	46	17.7	65.0	–19.0	104.462***
Lobby video visit	118	45.4	65.0	53.0
Plexiglas	87	33.5	65.0	22.0
Contact	9	3.5	65.0	–56.0
Hypothesis 5
Cheapest
Remote video visit	133	39.7	167.5	–34.5	11.756**
Any on-site visit	202	60.3	167.5	34.5
Hypothesis 6
Best for inmates
Remote video visit	32	10.7	74.5	–42.5	576.604***
Lobby video visit	2	0.7	74.5	–72.5
Plexiglas	11	3.7	74.5	–63.5
Contact	253	84.9	74.5	178.5
Worst for inmates
Remote video visit	33	15.5	53.3	–20.3	77.986***
Lobby video visit	83	39.0	53.3	29.8
Plexiglas	86	40.4	53.3	32.8
Contact	11	5.2	53.3	–42.3

p < .01.

***

p < .001.

The researchers predicted that respondents would select remote video visitation as the most convenient modality for visitors (Hypothesis 4). Remote video visit was the modal response for this question, with 48% (160) of visitors identifying remote video visits as the most convenient. A close second was contact visits, with 43% (144) of responses. Differences were statistically significant, χ²(3) = 224.057, p < .001. When asked about the least convenient type of visitation for visitors, lobby video visits were selected by 45% of respondents (118), followed by Plexiglas visits (34%, 87). Differences were also significant, χ²(3) = 104.462, p < .001. These findings indicate support for Hypothesis 4. A review of the qualitative responses provides an explanation for these findings. Fifty-four percent (133) of the remote video visitors reported that, had remote video been unavailable, they would not have conducted a visit that week. Remote video visitors also noted that the technology allowed them to involve relatives who otherwise would not have traveled to the jail including the elderly, young children, and pets.

The researchers predicted that remote video visitation would be considered the cheapest visit modality for visitors, but this hypothesis was not supported by the results. When comparing remote video visitation to any type of on-site visit, 60% (202) responded that traveling to the jail is cheaper for them. The relationship was significant, but in the direction opposite of what was predicted in Hypothesis 5, χ²(1) = 11.756, p < .01.

The results support part of Hypothesis 6, that visitors would identify contact visits as the best type of visit for inmates, with 85% (253) selecting this type of visit, χ²(3) = 576.604, p < .001. However, when asked about the worst type of visit for inmates, nearly equal number of respondents selected lobby video visitation (83, 39.0%) and Plexiglas (86, 40.4%), compared with remote video (33, 15.5%) and contact visits (11, 5.2%), χ²(3) = 77.986, p < .001.

Discussion

The development of technology is changing the way some correctional facilities approach inmate visitation. Video visits can allow inmates to see visitors without the visitors ever entering a secure part of the correctional facility, and that reduces the opportunity for transference of contraband, reduces inmate movement within the facilities, and cuts down on the number of staff needed to work in the visitation areas.

Visitation can be difficult in that it requires financial and time commitments from visitors, and the correctional environment and/or the visit, itself, may be stressful. There are some pains associated with visitation that cannot be ameliorated regardless of the visitation modality. As mentioned previously, the inmate–visitor relationship may be characterized by preexisting conflicts, either related or unrelated to the current incarceration. Regardless of these obstacles, visitation does present an opportunity for families to work on their relationships when inmates have much more time to think about the impact of their actions. As inmates are likely to rely on their families for postrelease assistance, the maintenance or reparation of these relationships is crucial to increase the chance of success upon release.

This research provides evidence that visitation type is associated with the degree to which visitors find the visit stressful and the amount of time and money required for visitation. Visitors who participated in on-site Plexiglas visits reported that the visit was more stressful than it was for those doing lobby video or remote video visits. Researchers observed that the Plexiglas visits took 2 to 4 hr from the moment visitors walked into the jail lobby until they were finished with their visit. If visitors were unlucky enough to get through the line in the lobby and into the visit registration area before the start of count at 2:30 p.m., they faced the choice of waiting an additional 90 min until count was over or leaving and coming back to the jail at another time. The long wait times resulted in the lobby becoming dirty as the day progressed. The lobby was also loud, and the occasional arrests of visitors due to outstanding warrants added to the stress. Respondents noted that the Plexiglas visits were frustrating, as the inmates were right in front of them, yet contact was not possible. Other complaints included that it was difficult to hear in the visitation room and that, despite the availability of anti-microbial wipes, visitors were concerned about general cleanliness in those areas.

The researchers did not find support for the hypothesis that on-site visitors would report that it was more difficult to find the money for the visit compared with the remote video visitors. Remote video visitors were actually the group most likely to report that finding money for this was a challenge. It is important to note that the setting for this study was county jails, so many of the visitors lived in the same county as the jail. These jails are also in rural and suburban areas, so many of the visitors owned or had access to their own cars. While the cost of gas was over US$3.50 per gallon during the data collection period, many visitors had short rides with little to no tolls between their homes and the jails. The results would likely have been different had the setting for this research been state or federal prisons. There were several responding visitors for whom remote video visits were a necessity, as they lived across the country or even outside of the United States, and these visitors would not have been willing or able to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for an on-site visit.

Finding the time to visit was less of a burden for visitors using the remote video option, as this required either a phone call or use of the Internet to schedule the appointment and then the time of the 20-min visit. While visitors using video visits from the lobby of the jail had to take the time to travel to the facility, most survey participants lived close to the jail. Visitors typically arrived at the jail about 5 to 10 min prior to the start of the scheduled visit, but some even walked in right as the visit was scheduled to start. The video would cut off at the 20-min mark, and then people would either immediately walk out of the jail or put money on the inmate’s account and then leave. There was little reason for anyone using lobby video visits to spend more than 30 min in the lobby of the jail. As was noted earlier, participants doing on-site Plexiglas visits faced long wait times, resulting in the visitors having to set aside hours for one 30-min visit.

Considering the time and money involved in visiting, remote video visits would likely be the most convenient option for all of the participants with the exception of those who live close to the jails that offer lobby video visits. As was noted, lobby video visits are free and are not time-consuming, so someone who lives a few min from the jail might just prefer to take the trip for a quick, free visit. While remote video visit was the most frequent response when visitors were asked to identify the most convenient type of visit, lobby video visits were only preferred by 4% of respondents, compared with 43% who said that contact visits were most convenient for them. The most likely explanation for this is that the majority of visitors believed that contact visits were what was best for inmates, and they wanted to be as close to the inmates as possible. Respondents noted that contact visits were preferable because the visits were “more personal,” it helps with “keeping the connection between two people,” and “it makes a huge difference being able to feel your loved one and touch and warmth.” Another respondent noted “there’s stuff you can’t say over the phone,” while others expressed belief that contact visits would give inmates hope and strength to get through the incarceration. It appears that the 144 visitors who chose contact visits as the most convenient for them are willing to deal with the drawbacks of travel, money for the trip, wait times, and dealing with searches in exchange for being as close as possible to the inmate. The reality, however, is that as much as the visitors want contact visits, they are unlikely to receive them as long as their loved ones are located in a jail. Some respondents acknowledged that and noted that if contact visits were not an option, the remote video visits would be the most convenient for them.

As predicted, lobby video visits were considered the least convenient by 45% of respondents, despite being free and requiring little wait time in the facility. One reason for this was the visitors’ frustration with traveling to the facility yet not being permitted to see inmates with their own eyes. Nearly one third (21) of the lobby video visitors noted that they had problems with the system. Most of the identified problems related to the delay between when people would speak and when the sound would come through the phone,² while five individuals had problems with the system either freezing or the visit cutting off before the scheduled end time. Another concern was the physical layout of the kiosks in the lobby. The monitors are on three desks that are so close they are touching each other, and the result is that visitors have a difficult time blocking out the conversations of those next to them. The next least convenient type of visit was Plexiglas, with 87 people (34%) providing this answer. Those who disliked the Plexiglas visits the most noted that they had to deal with the wait times and unsanitary conditions only to use a phone and not get to touch the inmate. There were also concerns about the visitors’ difficulty hearing during Plexiglas visits, as the visitation room is institutional in design and carries echoes.

Researchers did not find support for the hypothesis that visitors would consider remote video visits a cheaper alternative than traveling to the facilities. As was noted earlier, this study involved a survey of jail visitors. Inmates who commit offenses close to home may benefit from having friends and family who live in the same county. While remote video visits eliminate the travel expenses for visitors, they require access to a computer, the Internet, and a web camera. The visitors must also know how to use the Internet and camera, or they must have friends or relatives available to help them. These criteria were a challenge to some visitors. During the lobby video visit interviews, the researchers asked all participants why they chose to come to the jail that day instead of using the remote video visit option. Twenty-six (35%) responded that the remote video visit system was too expensive, 12 (16%) noted that it was easier for them to just come to the jail, with some citing the short distance to travel and others noting their home situations made it difficult to find a quiet place to do the visit, and 33 (43%) did not have either a computer, web camera, or Internet access. The lack of appropriate technology as a barrier to remote visitation is something that should be revisited in future research, as increased availability of smart phones might enable more people to participate in remote visits if they wish to do so.

Limitations

There are limitations that presented challenges in this study. The four that most significantly affected the current study were the lack of variety of visitation modalities at each jail, the difference in jail size/conditions of the visitation area, the lack of multilingual data collectors, and the lack of information on the effectiveness of each visitation.

One of the jails in New Jersey was a small facility only offering lobby video visitation, and visitors were able to enter quickly, conduct their visit, and exit. On several occasions, the interviewers were unable to interview the visitors because there was no wait time prior to the visit, and visitors walked out the door of the jail before researchers had time to approach them. In the larger New Jersey jail with only Plexiglas visits, visitors had time to spare as they waited for their face-to-face visit. The lag time between arrival and the visit gave researchers time to interview the visitors and get rich feedback about their experiences. The sample size for the larger jail (n = 125) is nearly double that of the smaller jail (n = 75) partially because of this condition and partially due to the size of the capacity of the facility.

None of the interviewers were bilingual and, therefore, the interviews were all conducted in English. Researchers observed participants while they interacted with the desk officer to make a decision about approaching the visitor for an interview. Those who did not speak any English to the desk officer while in the lobby or visitation area were not approached for an interview. We suspect that if the interviews had been conducted in both languages, the results would have reflected at least a slightly different picture of the obstacles that visitors face using both the face-to-face and lobby video visit modalities. Future research would benefit from the use of Spanish instruments and bilingual data collectors, especially if they are in areas with a large Spanish-speaking population.

There is evidence that visitation is associated with reduced recidivism (Bales & Mears, 2008; Duwe & Clark, 2011; Mears et al., 2011), and frequency of visits is also a predictor of reoffending (Bales & Mears, 2008; Duwe & Clark, 2011), but no research to date has evaluated visitor preferences. Future research on the relationship between visit type and recidivism could help to guide correctional administrators as they weigh the value of different modalities.

Conclusion

The needs of inmates housed in correctional facilities across the country are diverse. Many of the needs remain unmet due to the limited resources available for correctional facilities. Increased opportunities for visitation may help meet some of inmates’ emotional needs. Recent literature has addressed the importance of visitation in reducing recidivism (Bales & Mears, 2008; Duwe & Clark, 2011; Mears et al., 2011), and the impact that the visitation environment itself can have on perceptions of the quality of visit (Tasca, 2014). The impact of visitation modality on recidivism is currently unknown, but we do know that certain types of visitation are preferable based on financial, time, or perceived benefits.

The ideal visitation modality for most inmates and visitors is a contact visit, but it is unlikely that many jails will offer such access to visitors soon. Remote video visitation is relatively cheap and easy to facilitate. With the advancement of technology and the placement of video systems inside pods or common areas within the jail or prison, the cost of transporting visitors and inmates to a visitation area is eliminated, as is the likelihood of prohibited items being passed from one to the other. Families do not have to travel for the visit, and children are spared the stress of entering an institutional environment. For those reasons, remote video visitation may be a good option to offer visitors.

While remote video visitation has many benefits and has allowed over 100 respondents to this survey to perform a jail visit that they would not have done otherwise, it is important for jails and prisons to continue to offer alternatives to remote video visits. Some individuals do not have access to or the knowledge of the necessary technology for remote video visits. Others cannot afford the fee for remote visits. As remote video visitation presents the opportunity for correctional facilities to develop a new revenue stream, there is the temptation to restrict or even eliminate on-site visits to compel families to spend money on remote visitation (Aleaziz, 2015; Cholodofsky, 2015; Rabuy & Wagner, 2015). Doing so will likely create a system where economically disadvantaged inmates and their families will be cut off from visitation. Researchers have found a wide variation in video visitation fees across the country (Phillips, 2012) and, according to Boudin, Stutz, and Littman (2014), high fees may make the technology prohibitive for some families. Any policy change that results in fewer inmate visits would certainly change the impact that visitation has on the inmate and his or her options upon release. As visitation can be an important part of efforts to maintain or strengthen social ties in the community, policies that serve to reduce the number and types of visits that inmates may receive are likely to be counterproductive.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ciarra McEwan, Crystalyn Meyers and Megan McConaghy for their assistance with this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Christine Tartaro, PhD, is a professor of criminal justice at Stockton University. Her research interests include jails, suicide in correctional facilities, the mentally ill in the criminal justice system, offender reentry, and inmate visitation. A former research scientist with the New Jersey Department of Corrections, she is currently a research consultant for a county jail.

Marissa P. Levy, PhD, is a professor of criminal justice at Stockton University. Currently a lead data investigator for the Atlantic City and Pleasantville, New Jersey Municipal Planning Board focused on violence reduction, her research interests include crime mapping and prevention, offender reentry, and program and process evaluations.

References

Ada County Sheriff’s Office. (2012). Ada County jail video visitation. Available from https://adasheriff.org/Jail/Visitation

Aleaziz

(2015, February 24). Want to visit an inmate? Increasingly, you’ll have to log on. SFGATE. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Want-to-visit-an-inmate-Increasingly-you-ll-6095576.php

Arditti

J. A.

(2003). Locked doors and glass walls: Family visiting at a local jail. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 8, 115-138.

Arditti

J. A.

(2012). Parental incarceration and the family. New York: New York University Press.

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, 287-321.

Boudin

Stutz

Littman

(2014). Prison visitation policies: A fifty state survey. Yale Law & Policy Review. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2171412

Cholodofsky

(2015, March 17). Video visits slow to catch on at Westmoreland lockup. Triblive. Retrieved from http://triblive.com/news/westmoreland/7983623-74/visits-video-county#axzz3Uf8wv1eB

Christian

(2004). Riding the bus: Barriers to prison visitation and family management strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 31-48.

Comfort

(2008). Doing time together: Love and family in the shadow of the prison. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

10.

Comfort

M. L.

(2003). In the tube at San Quentin. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32, 77-107.

11.

Day

Acock

Bahr

Arditti

(2005). Incarcerated fathers returning home to children and families: Introduction to the special issue and a primer on doing research with men in prison. Fathering, 3, 183-200.

12.

Duwe

Clark

(2011). Blessed be the social tie that binds: The effects of prison visitation on offender recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24, 271-296.

13.

Jackson

Templer

D. I.

Reimer

LaBaron

(1997). Correlates of visitation in a men’s prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 41, 79-85.

14.

Jacoby

J. E.

Kozie-Peak

(1997). The benefits of social support for mentally ill offenders: Prison-to-community transitions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 15, 483-501.

15.

Jonston

(1995). Parent-child visits in jails. Children’s Environments, 12, 25-38.

16.

LaVigne

N. G.

Naser

R. L.

Brooks

L. E.

Castro

J. L.

(2005). Examining the effect of incarceration and in-prison family contact on prisoners’ family relationships. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 314-335.

17.

Mears

D. P.

Cochran

J. C.

Siennick

S. E.

Bales

W. D.

(2011). Prison visitation and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 29, 888-918.

18.

Nelson

Dees

Allen

(1999). The first month out: Post-incarceration experiences in New York City. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.

19.

Phillips

S. F.

(2012). Video visits for children whose parents are incarcerated: In whose best interest? Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.

20.

Pierce

M. B.

(2015). Male inmate perceptions of the visitation experience: Suggestions on how prisons can promote inmate-family relationships. The Prison Journal, 95, 370-396.

21.

Poehlmann-Tynan

Dallaire

Loper

A. B.

Shearl

L. D.

(2010). Children’s contact with their incarcerated parents: Research findings and recommendations. American Psychologist, 65, 575-598.

22.

Poehlmann-Tynan

Runion

Burnson

Maleck

Weymouth

Pettit

Huser

(2015). Young children’s behavioral and emotional reactions to Plexiglas and video visits with jailed parents. In Poehlmann-Tynan

(Ed.), Children’s contact with incarcerated parents (pp. 39-58). Heidelberg, Switzerland: Springer.

23.

Rabuy

Wagner

(2015). Screening out family time: The for-profit video visitation industry in prisons and jails. Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.prisonpolicy.org/visitation/report.html

24.

Rothman

D. J.

(2002). The discovery of the asylum. New York, NY: Adine de Gruyter. (Original work published 1971)

25.

Salem County Correctional Visiting. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.salemcountynj.gov/?wpfb_dl=661

26.

Shlafer

R. J.

Poehlmann

(2010). Attachment and caregiving relationships in families affected by parental incarceration. Attachment & Human Development, 12, 395-415.

27.

Sitren

A. H.

Smith

H. P.

Applegate

B. K.

Gould

L. A.

(2008). Jail visitation: An assessment of organizational policy and information availability. The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 5, 207-220.

28.

Sturges

J. E.

(2002). Visitation at county jails: Potential policy implications. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13, 32-45.

29.

Sturges

J. E.

Al-Khattar

A. M.

(2009). Survey of jail visitors about visitation policies. The Prison Journal, 89, 482-496.

30.

Sturges

J. E.

Hardesty

(2005). Survey of Pennsylvania jail wardens: An examination of visitation policies within the context of ecosystem theory. Criminal Justice Review, 30, 141-154.

31.

Tartaro

(2001, April). Talking with offenders’ families: Perceptions of justice and fairness. Washington, DC: Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Conference.

32.

Tasca

(2014). “It’s not all cupcakes and lollipops”: An investigation of the predictors and effects of prison visitation for children during maternal and paternal incarceration. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.

33.

U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2016a, December). Jail inmates in 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ji15_sum.pdf

34.

U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2016b, December). Prisoners in 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p15_sum.pdf

35.

Visher

C. A.

Courtney

S. M. E.

(2007). One year out: Experience of prisoners returning to Cleveland. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Police Center.

36.

VUGate. (2010). Video visitation. Retrieved from http://www.vugate.com/videovisitation.html