Adult and Child Visiting at Urban Jails: Perspectives on Visitation Experiences and Policies among Visitors and People in Jail

Abstract

Growth in the US incarcerated population over recent decades has brought a burgeoning body of research on parent-child visitations in correctional facilities. In contrast to this research, which has largely focused on prisons, this study reports survey results from over 900 visitors and incarcerated adults in an urban jail system. We center our attention on the commonality of children visiting jail incarcerated parents, the ways in which a jail system may facilitate or hamper the visitation process, and opinions on potential visiting policy modifications, including the use of video visiting. Implications for jail visitation policies are discussed.

Keywords

jails visiting children and families

Introduction

At the end of September 2020, almost 1.25 million individuals were incarcerated in prisons and jails in the United States (Kang-Brown et al., 2021, p. 1). Yet, incarceration does not just impact those in correctional facilities. Over half of the individuals confined in federal and state prisons are parents, and nearly 3 million children are currently experiencing the impact of parental incarceration (Western & Petit, 2010).

In the last decade, researchers, practitioners, and policy makers have become more attuned to the collateral effects of incarceration. Particular attention has been paid to its impact on those left behind, such as children and partners (e.g., Arditti, 2012; Braman, 2004; Comfort, 2008; Celinska & Siegel, 2010; Eddy & Poehlmann-Tyne, 2019; Siegel, 2011; Wakefield & Wildeman, 2013). While most of this research has focused on children with a parent in prison, arguably more children experience separation from a parent due to incarceration in jails. Although exact numbers are difficult to obtain, researchers estimate that 10.6 million adults entered jail in 2017, and that nearly 750,000 people are in jails on any given day (Zeng, 2019). The many reasons one may be incarcerated in a jail and the frequent cycling in and out that characterizes jail operations present unique challenges to understanding the potential consequences on children with jailed parents (Turney & Connor, 2019).

Given the limited information on children of jail-incarcerated parents, it is crucial to learn more about this population. In this article, we analyze data from an original survey of over 900 visitors and incarcerated individuals in an urban jail system. We examine the commonality of children visiting jail incarcerated parents, the ways a jail system may facilitate or hamper the visiting process, and opinions on potential visitation policy modifications.

Parental Jail Incarceration and Children

A burgeoning literature has emerged on the impact of parental prison incarceration on children and families (see Foster & Hagan, 2009; Poehlmann et al., 2010; Turney & Goodsell, 2018 for reviews¹). However, less academic research has examined the impact of jail incarceration more broadly (Turney & Connor, 2019) and, particularly, the effects of parental jail incarceration on parent-child relationships. Clearly, this is an area in need of greater research exploration (Wakefield & Montagnet, 2019).

Periods of parental incarceration in jail are likely to have distinctive consequences for children (Turney & Connor, 2019). For example, parental incarceration in jails is likely to include more transitions than parental incarceration in prisons, with parents often entering and exiting the jail system at several different time points (Poehlmann et al., 2010; Turney & Connor, 2019). Research in Denmark demonstrates that children whose fathers are incarcerated multiple times, even for short periods similar to American jail sentences, are at significantly higher risk of negative outcomes (Andersen, 2016). This suggests that frequent cycling in and out of jail might be distinctively harmful to jailed parents’ offspring.

Parent-Child Visiting

One potential mechanism to mitigate some of the stress children experience when separated from a parent via incarceration may be to maintain contact through visiting. However, research on parent-child visitation in prisons indicates that such visits are not the norm. For instance, national surveys of incarcerated parents find that a majority (58.5%) never receive visits from their children (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008), and smaller scale studies similarly find that most imprisoned parents have never had a visit from their children during their prison confinement (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Casey-Acevedo & Bakken, 2002; Connor & Tewksbury, 2015; Hairston, 1991). Sometimes, the lack of visits is attributable to parents or caregivers preferring that their child not see their parent in a prison setting. For those who do visit, however, a number of contextual factors affect the frequency with which they visit. These include logistical and institutional considerations, such as travel distance, costs, visiting days/hours, and the conditions under which visits are permitted (e.g., contact, barrier, video). The incarcerated parent’s demographic variables, such as age, education, marital status, and race, as well as the pre-incarceration relationship between the parent and child, also affect the likelihood of a child visiting (Poehlmann-Tynan & Pritzl, 2019).

Despite the relative lack of visiting, observers agree that visits by incarcerated parents’ offspring are important for maintaining the parent-child relationship, benefiting both the parent and the child. Scholarly evidence suggests that visitation is helpful to incarcerated parents, both during confinement (e.g., Carlson, 1998; Pierce, et al., 2017; Tuerk & Loper, 2006) and upon re-entry (e.g., Duwe & Clark, 2011; La Vigne et al., 2005). Evidence of visitation may also prevent termination of an incarcerated parent’s parental rights, as courts are less likely to terminate parental rights when parents maintain consistent contact with their children (Hollihan & Portlock, 2014).

While visitation contact with offspring may be beneficial to incarcerated parents, there are legitimate concerns about its effects on children’s behavior. Indeed, there are mixed research findings on the impact of prison visiting on children (Poehlmann et al., 2010). For example, Dallaire et al. (2010) report that increased visiting with a jailed parent is associated with children’s insecure attachment (see also Poehlmann, 2005) as well as an increase in attention problems and negative school behaviors. Several studies have also documented a relationship between children’s visiting experiences and internalizing and externalizing behaviors (See Poehlmann et al., 2010).

However, there are reasons to believe visiting incarcerated parents might not be detrimental to children. That is, children who have contact with their incarcerated parents express fewer feelings of alienation toward that parent compared to children who have no contact (Shlafer & Poehlmann, 2010), and they may exhibit fewer externalizing behaviors, such as school suspensions or removal (Trice & Brewster, 2004). Overall, children’s visiting experiences appear to be improved when they participate in specific programs, that is, the circumstances of the visiting experience are somewhat controlled (Poehlmann et al., 2010; Schubert et al., 2016; Sharratt, 2014).

In sum, while the relationship between prison visitation and incarcerated parent outcomes is generally positive, children’s experiences with visiting are more mixed. In particular, it is not clear what aspect of the visiting experience impacts children’s outcomes, such as the relationship between parent, child and/or co-parent itself or the structural conditions that make up the visiting experience.

The Visiting Experience

Ample research has acknowledged the challenges of the carceral visitation environment, including the cost and time-consuming nature of visits, as well the schedule of inconvenient visiting times and lack of “family-friendly” visiting spaces (Arditti, 2005; Arditti et al., 2003; Boudin, 2011; Christian, 2016; Christian et al., 2006; Comfort, 2003; Fuller, 1993; Tewksbury & DeMichele, 2005). One key issue is that most visitors are low income and the costs of visiting can be prohibitive (Arditti, 2005; Arditti et al., 2003). Correctional facilities also vary greatly in terms of their “family-friendliness,” with security policies and procedures that may traumatize children (Boudin, 2011). In this regard, many county jails do not allow contact visits for incarcerated parents with young children, ostensibly due to these concerns (McMillen, 2012), and visitor experiences at county jails are often unsatisfactory (Sturges & Al-Khattar, 2009). Comfort (2003) argues that these challenges serve as a mechanism for the “secondary prisonization” of partners of those incarcerated, and, more recently, scholars have observed that this secondary prisonization also extends to children (Aiello & McCorkel, 2017).

In response to some of these concerns, and with advances in technology, state correctional departments and facilities have increasingly implemented video visitation policies (Rabuy & Wagner, 2015). Advocates of this trend claim that it is beneficial to incarcerated individuals and their families as well as correctional facilities. For incarcerated parents, video visiting is presumed to facilitate interactions with children without the time-consuming, stressful, and often expensive trips to correctional facilities (Boudin, 2011; Fulcher, 2013). For the correctional facilities, administrators acknowledge that video visits can dramatically reduce their staffing and security costs and concerns (Digard et al., 2016; Sturges & Hardesty, 2005). Additionally, the application of video visitations can raise revenue for correctional institutions (Digard et al., 2016).

Fulcher (2013) has cautioned about the “double-edged sword” of video visiting for families. While the benefits of reduction in family time-intensive and financially burdensome transports to prisons and the limiting of children’s exposure to carceral environments have been noted, there are also drawbacks to video visits (Tartaro & Levy, 2017). Even as Plexiglass visits have been identified as stressful and time consuming for visitors, the adoption of formal video visitation policies remove opportunities for critical in-person contact between incarcerated parents and their children. Rabuy and Wagner (2015) report that nearly three-quarters of jails banned in-person visits once video visits were implemented. This is likely to be particularly damaging for very young children, who are most likely to benefit from in-person contact with their parents (McMillen, 2012).

Given these issues and the relatively small number of studies examining visits to parents in jail, this exploratory study surveys visitors and incarcerees in an urban jail system to address a number of critical questions. First, what is the current prevalence of child visits to these jails and what factors are associated with the likelihood of children visiting? Next, how do jailed parents and visitors view current visiting practices? Finally, how do incarcerated individuals and visitors view proposed changes to video visitation and/or other alternative visiting practices and policies?

Method

This article is based on survey data collected from 555 adult visitors and 366 incarcerated individuals in an urban jail system (comprising seven facilities: five male and two female). The research team conducted surveys between 2014 and 2017, with the jails housing 8,350 adults, 91.5% of whom were male, at the start of data collection.

Research team members recruited visitors at each jail, with recruitment occurring on various days/times at each facility to ensure variability in the visitor sample.² As checked-in visitors were awaiting their visit in each facility, they were approached to participate in the survey. The team explained the study, the team’s university affiliation, and the guarantee of anonymity in completing the survey. The researcher-administered surveys took approximately 18 minutes on average to complete, and were conducted on iPads using Qualtrics survey software.

To collect surveys from the jail inmates, the research team was provided with a list of individuals who had been within each respective facility for at least 30 days.³ The first author randomly selected cell blocks in each of the respective facilities and then, within each block, randomly selected prison identification numbers to identify incarcerated individuals to be surveyed. Research assistants then requested meetings with selected individuals. Jailed individuals were given the opportunity to decline to participate both at the time correctional staff called them for the survey as well as the time they met with a research team member. Similar to the visitor survey, iPads using Qualtrics software were utilized for the jailed individuals’ survey, which were anonymous and administered away from correctional staff.

Separate but similar questionnaires were used for visitors and incarcerated respondents. Visitors were asked to provide demographic information about themselves as well as the person they were visiting. This included parental status, the reason the person was in jail, and their length of time in the jail. Both visitors and incarcerated respondents also answered questions about their visiting experiences and views about potential changes to visiting policy and practice. All were also queried whether they had visited with a child or received a visit from a child. A separate series of questions about those experiences was posed to those who answered affirmatively.

Results

Visitor and Jailed Respondent Characteristics

Table 1 provides information on sample characteristics from the visitors’ survey, including selected characteristics of the person being visited. Visitors participated in the survey only if they were visiting someone who had been in the jail for at least 30 days.

Table 1.

Visitor Characteristics.

	Visitor (N = 555)	Person visited		p
	Visitor (N = 555)	Male	Female	p
Visitor gender
Male	0.17	0.12	0.48	***
Female	0.83	0.89	0.52	***
Gender of person being visited
Male	0.84
Female	0.16
Relationship to prisoner
Family member	0.36	0.34	0.47	**
Romantic partner	0.45	0.48	0.29
Friend	0.15	0.14	0.19
Other	0.04	0.04	0.05
Race
African–American	0.65	0.68	0.68	N.S.
White	0.16	0.17	0.13
Hispanic	0.15	0.09	0.14
Multiracial/other	0.04	0.06	0.04
Mean age (SD)	32.7 (13.189)	31.7 (12.787)	38.9 (13.890)	**

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Approximately 83% of the visitors to the jail system were female, but there were significant differences in the sex of the person they had come to visit. While nearly nine in ten women were visiting men, about half (48%) the male visitors were visiting women (p < .000). Overall, nearly half (45.2%) of visitors visited a romantic partner, while 36% visited a family member and 15% visited a friend. However, there were significant differences in the relationship by the incarcerated person’s sex. Approximately half (48%) of those visiting men identified themselves as his romantic partner, while only 29% of those visiting women did so. Visitors to the women’s jail were significantly more likely to be a family member of the person they were visiting than those visiting the men’s jails (47% vs. 34%, p < .00). Those visiting men were significantly younger than those visiting women (31.7 years old vs. 38.9 years old, t = 4.515, p = .000).

Table 2 provides information about the visits and the people who were being visited. On average, visitors spent 46.6 minutes traveling to the facility, with a range of less than 10 minutes to as long as 4 hours. However, visitors to the women’s jail spent significantly more time traveling than those visiting men’s jails (54 vs. 45.2 minutes, t = 2.406, p = .016). Female visitors were significantly more likely than male visitors to travel by public transportation (50.2% vs. 36.6%, χ² = 8.312, p = .016) (not shown in Table 2). The majority (66.3%) of individuals they came to visit were being held for pre-trial detention. On average, they had been incarcerated in jail more than 6 months, with a range of 1 to 48 months.

Table 2.

Descriptives for Visits and Incarcerated Individuals Visited.

	Visitor (N = 555)	Person visited (N = 555)		p
	Visitor (N = 555)	Male	Female	p
Mean travel time to jail in minutes	46.6 (31.709)	45.2 (30.597)	54.0 (36.230)	*
Visitor accompanied by a child	0.20	0.22	0.11	*
Child is visitor’s child	0.94	0.98	0.70	**
R’ship of child to prisoner^a:
Prisoner’s child	0.79	0.84	0.50	**
Other family member	0.15	0.12	0.40
Unrelated	0.06	0.10	0.10
Parental status of person visited
Has at least one child	0.61	0.64	0.48	**
Live w/ at least one child before jail	0.62	0.59	0.81	**
Ever brought prisoner’s child	0.32	0.34	0.22	*
Reason person visited was in jail
Serving sentence	0.20	0.19	0.30	***
Pretrial detention	0.66	0.72	0.53
Other reason	0.13	0.08	0.15
Mean # months in jail (SD)	6.4 (7.047)	6.4 (7.192)	6.1 (6.254)	NS
Time range in months		1–48	1–36

Percentages for visitors to male jails do not equal 100 because in some cases visitors were accompanied by two children, one of whom was the prisoner’s child while the other was unrelated.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Twenty percent of respondents were accompanied by at least one child at the time they took the survey, with those visiting men twice as likely to be accompanied by a child as those visiting women (22% vs. 11%, χ² = 4.915, p = .027). Nearly all (94%) the respondents who were with a child were bringing their own child, although those visiting men were significantly more likely to be with their own child than were those who were visiting women (98% vs. 70%, χ² = 13.808, p = .003). More than 8 in 10 respondents with a child who were visiting men were accompanied by the incarcerated person’s child, while only 50% of those visiting women were with the mother’s child (χ² = 14.317, p = .006). This pattern held when examining whether the visitor had ever brought a jailed individual’s child to visit. Those visiting men were significantly more likely to have brought his child to visit at some time than those visiting women (33.6% vs. 22%, χ² = 7.398, p = .025).⁴ Although individuals visiting men were significantly more likely to report that the jailed individual had children than those visiting women (63.6% vs. 48.3%, χ² = 7.321, p = .007), they also reported that it was more common for mothers than fathers to have been living with their children before they were jailed, with 81.6% of mothers living with their child before jail compared to 58.6% of fathers (χ² = 8.253, p = .004).

Table 3 provides information on characteristics of the jailed survey respondents. On average, respondents had been jailed for approximately 9 months, with a range of 1 to 72 months. Male respondents had been in jail approximately 1.5 times longer than women (9.62 months vs. 6.41 months, t = −3.339, p = .001). Nearly two-thirds of individuals were being held pending the outcome of their case.

Table 3.

Jailed Respondents’ Characteristics.

	Total (N = 366)	Male	Female	p
Prisoner gender
Male	0.89
Female	0.11
Race/ethnicity
African–American	0.67	0.68	0.55	**
White	0.11	0.09	0.29
Hispanic	0.14	0.14	0.05
Multiracial/other	0.09	0.09	0.11
Age	33.3 (10.2)	33.1 (10.205)	35.2 (10.557)	NS
Marital status
Single, never married	0.72	0.72	0.69	NS
Married	0.13	0.13	0.13
Other	0.16	0.14	0.15
Employment status prior to incarceration
Employed full-time	0.43	0.45	0.33	*
Employed part-time	0.18	0.19	0.13
Unemployed	0.30	0.29	0.36
Retired, disabled, other	0.09	0.08	0.18
Family status
At least one bio child	0.58	0.59	0.54	NS
At least one non-bio child	0.37	0.39	0.18	*
Lived w/ at least one bio child	0.66	0.35	0.30	NS
Lived w/ at least one non-bio child	0.43	0.42	0.71	NS
Reason respondent in jail
Serving sentence	0.17	0.17	0.12	NS
Pretrial detention	0.66	0.67	0.53
Other	0.17	0.158	0.35
Mean # of months in jail	9.28 (9.392)	9.62 (9.735)	6.41 (4.979)	**

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Of these surveyed individuals, nearly 90% were male and their average age was 33. Nearly two-thirds (66.5%) identified as African American. However, there was a significant difference in the racial distribution of male and female respondents, with 28.9% of women identifying as White compared to only 8.9% of men (χ² = 16.349, p = .003). Over 70% of jailed individuals were single and had never been married, while 13% reported they were currently married. Nearly 60% had at least one biological child, and nearly two-thirds of those had lived with at least one biological child prior to their imprisonment. Over two-thirds of those responding (37%) identified at least one non-biological child with whom they felt they had a parent-like relationship, and 43% of those with non-biological children lived with at least one prior to entering jail. Men were twice as likely as women to report that they had a parental relationship with a non-biological child (χ² = 6.336, p = .012). Forty-three percent of those in jail had been employed full time prior to their incarceration. Women were significantly more likely than men to report having been unemployed or disabled before being jailed (χ² = 16.504, p = .011).

Child Visits

Collectively, the jailed parents reported that they had 366 biological children under the age of 18 (x̅ = 1.35, SD = .089). In addition, visitors reported that 61.1% of the individuals they had come to see had at least one child, with a total of 337 minor children (x̅ = 1.35, SD = 1.554). Jailed respondents with children (biological or non-biological) reported that more than 7 in 10 of the children were aware of the incarcerated parent’s location.⁵ However, only 37% of incarcerated parents have received a visit from a child, and only 33.1% of visitors ever brought a jailed parent’s child to visit, despite nearly half of jailed respondents, and just over half of visitors, strongly agreeing that it is all right for a child to visit an incarcerated parent.

Factors associated with visitors’ bringing a jailed parent’s child to visit included the visitor’s sex and relationship to the parent. Female visitors were significantly more likely than males to bring a child to visit: 95.7% of those bringing children were women (χ² = 10.003, p = .002). Those who brought children to visit were also significantly more likely to be the parent’s romantic partner (64.6%) than a family member, friend, or someone who had another type of relationship to the jailed parent (χ² = 18.166, p = .000). Visitors were also significantly more likely to bring children who had lived with their parent before jail: 80.2% of those who brought a parent’s child to visit came to see a jailed parent who had been living with the child before going to jail (χ² = 26.281, p = .000). Children whom visitors brought to visit were more likely to be living with the visitor (51.7%) than with the child’s other parent or another family member (χ² = 21.131, p = .000). Visitors bringing a jailed parent’s child also agreed more strongly than those who never brought a parent’s child that the parent wanted the child to visit (t = −2.905, p = .004). Finally, the length of time the jailed parent was in jail was significantly related to a visitor bringing the child to visit. Those who brought a jailed parent’s child to visit were visiting parents who had been jailed on average 8.2 months, 2.6 months longer than was the case for visitors who never brought the parent’s child to visit (t = −2.663, p = .009).

Jailed parents reported factors affecting the likelihood their children would visit similar to those identified in the visitors’ sample. Living with a child before jail, the amount of time jailed, and parental desire for a child to visit all were significantly associated with whether a parent was able to see his or her child. Although only half (50.9%) the parents who lived with their child before being jailed saw their child while in jail, those who were visited were significantly more likely to have been living with their child than those not living with their child: among those whose children had visited, 83.3% had lived with their child before being jailed (χ² = 17.720, p = .000). On average, those whose children came to visit had been in jail more than 6 months longer than those whose children did not visit (13.5 months vs. 7.2 months, t = −4.116, p = .000). Those whose children had visited were significantly more likely than those whose children had not visited to agree that they wanted their child to visit (x̅ = 3.58 vs. 2.74, t = −3.359, p ≤ .001).

Visiting Conditions

Table 4 shows the results of questions posed to both visitors and jailed respondents regarding their opinions about visiting experiences and potential modifications to visitation policies. We also examined whether there were differences in views when the analysis was restricted to a comparison between those who had child visit experience (CVE) (i.e., either brought children or received visits from children) and those who did not. With the exception of three questions noted below, views did not differ significantly by CVE and are not shown in Table 4. Responses to the first four items in Table 4 were based on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. When we examined the overall sample, neither visitors nor jailed respondents felt that the visiting hours and days to visit were convenient for bringing school age children, with mean scores <3 on both measures, although visitors were slightly more likely to believe they were convenient. Incarcerated individuals were significantly more likely to believe that current visiting conditions were adequate, but neither group was very satisfied with current visiting conditions overall. Compared to visitors, those in jail more strongly endorsed the statements that they were satisfied with the way staff treat children when they come to visit (3.51 vs. 3.27, t = −2.051, p = .0415) and that the visiting room was a satisfactory place for children to visit with their parent (2.70 vs. 2.49, t = −2.024, p = .043). Regarding the latter, however, overall scores were low, showing that both groups generally disagreed with the statement. Visitors were significantly more likely to agree that it was okay for children to come to the prison to see their mother or father (3.87 vs. 3.66, t = 1.962, p = .05). This pattern held when we compared those who had experience with child visits (the CVE group) from either group and those who did not (4.05 vs. 3.65, t = −3.667, p = .000). Overall, visitors did not believe that the waiting area was a satisfactory place for children to wait (2.31), while visitors to the jail for females were more likely to believe the waiting area was satisfactory than those visiting facilities for males (2.98 vs. 2.18, t = 4.924, p = .000).

Table 4.

Visitor and Jailed Respondent Views on Visiting Conditions.

	Total (N = 904)	Visitors (N = 539)	Jailed respondents (N = 365)	p
Visiting hours are convenient for bringing school-age children to visit^a	2.75 (1.633)	2.85	2.62	*
Visiting days of the week are convenient for bringing school-age children to visit^a	2.70 (1.611)	2.80	2.56	*
Visiting room is a satisfactory place for children to visit with their parent^a	2.58 (1.507)	2.49	2.70	*
You’re satisfied with the way staff treat children when they come to visit^a	3.38 (1.588)	3.27	3.51	*
% of respondents who say:
Scheduled times for visits would make visiting easier (V) or more likely (JR)	0.59	0.70	0.44	***
Scheduled times for visits would make it easier to bring children	0.56	0.60	0.51	***
Designated time for parent–child visits would make visit better for children	0.56	0.62	0.47	***
Designated time for parent–child visits would make visit better for respondent	0.45	0.41	0.43	N.S.
A child-friendly visiting area would make a child visit more likely	0.60	0.55	0.71	***
A child-friendly waiting area would make a child visit more likely	0.57	0.54	0.62	N.S.

Note. V = visitor; JR = jailed respondent.

Mean scores on scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

We also asked questions regarding potential changes to make the visiting experience more child-friendly overall. One set of questions focused on whether certain changes to the child visiting experience would be more conducive to child visits (1 = Easier, 2 = Harder, and 3 = Neither) or would improve the quality of the visit for the child or adult (1 = Make visit better, 2 = Make visit worse, 3 = Neither). Visitors were significantly more likely than jailed respondents to believe that having times set aside when only visitors bringing children could visit would improve the quality of the visit for children (62% vs. 47%, χ² = 21.09, p = .000), although the two groups did not differ significantly in their belief that this arrangement would improve visits for themselves. In addition, those with CVE were not significantly more likely than those without to think visiting times set aside for parents and children to visit would improve the quality of the visit either for children or themselves. Visitors were also significantly more likely to believe that having the ability to schedule visits for a specific time would make it easier for people to visit (69.9% vs. 43.64%, (χ² = 62.031, p = .000) and to bring children to visit (60.0% vs. 51.3%, (χ² = 28.860, p = .000). Those with CVE were more likely than those without to believe that scheduled visiting times would make it easier to bring a child (64.2% vs. 53.7%, χ² = 15.758, p = .000), although not to visit in general.

A second set of questions involved whether specific child-based modifications would make a visitor more or less likely to bring a child to visit their parent (1 = More likely, 2 = Less likely, 3 = Make no difference). The jailed respondents were significantly more likely than visitors to think that having a child-friendly visiting area would make it more likely that children would come to visit (70.9% vs. 55.2%, χ² = 17.128, p = .000). However, visitors to female facilities were significantly more likely than visitors to male jails to state that specific child-friendly visiting (71.8% vs. 52.2%, χ² = 10.600, p = .005) and waiting areas (73.4% vs. 50.7%, χ² = 13.910, p = .001) would make them more likely to bring children. Those with child visiting experiences were significantly more likely than those without to believe that both a child-friendly waiting (67.4% vs. 50.6%, χ² = 19.376, p = .000) and visiting area would make it more likely that a child would visit. Finally, we asked whether a certain set of modifications would impact the quality of visits. Nearly three-quarters (73.0%) of incarcerated respondents thought the use of a child-friendly visiting area would improve the quality of their visit with a child, and 85.2% thought that a child-friendly visiting area would improve the quality of the visit for the child. More than 90% of visitors to both male and female jails thought that child-friendly waiting and visiting areas would improve the quality of their visits.

Potential of Video Visiting

In consultation with the jail, we provided numerous potential conditions related to video visiting to gauge under which circumstances respondents might utilize this type of service. These conditions included the use of video visiting at home or at a public place in the community, like a library or community center, with hypothetical costs ranging from $0 to $8–$14 per visit and $15–$20 per visit. Respondents were asked to rate the likelihood that they (in the case of visitors) or someone else (in the case of jailed respondents) would use the video service under various combinations of location and price, using a 5-point scale where 1 meant “not at all likely” and five meant “certain.”

When we asked respondents to consider the location for video visiting, persons in jail and visitors varied in their responses. Overall, respondents in jail consistently estimated that it would be more likely for someone to use the service either in the community or from home than visitors did, although the differences were not statistically significant when no cost was specified for the service (Figures available upon request). Incarcerated respondents were significantly more likely than visitors to agree that someone would use the video visit service from either location even if it was recorded by the prison administration (3.51 vs. 2.95, t = −3.375, p = .001). Additionally, when comparing those with CVE to those without, those with CVE were significantly more likely than those without to think someone would use a video visiting service from home (4.66 vs. 4.44, t = −2.762, p ≤ .01). When examining incarcerated respondents with children, those whose children had visited were significantly more likely to believe someone would use the service from home to visit compared to those whose children had not visited (4.85 vs. 4.51, t = −2.795, p = .006). They were also significantly more likely to believe that the person with whom the child was currently living would use the video service to enable a virtual visit between the incarcerated parent and child (4.79 vs. 4.44, t = −2.291, p = .023). In fact, their scores on these questions reflected near certainty that those they knew would utilize the service. However, this might be reflective of stronger family ties in general.

When video visiting was tied to fees, both jailed respondents and visitors showed a consistently declining endorsement of the idea as cost increased. Whether using a video service either from a place in the community or from home, as the cost increased from no cost mentioned, to $8–14 a visit to $15–20 per visit, both groups believed people were less likely to use the service (Figures available upon request).

Discussion

This article is one of the first to compare visitors’ and incarcerated individuals’ experiences and perceptions of visiting in a jail context. Given the ubiquity of jail experiences, this research provides insights into visitors’ and jailed individuals’ views of the types of visitation experiences as well as their opinions regarding potential changes to visiting policies.

Given the well-documented collateral effects of US mass incarceration on children, we were especially interested in caregiver and children’s experiences with jail visiting. Overall, visitors and incarcerated individuals demonstrated limited satisfaction with their visiting experiences. Visitors did not find hours or conditions conducive for bringing children nor were they satisfied with the manner in which staff treated children during visits. There were few differences between those who had child visiting experiences and those who did not, which suggests that the visiting experience overall is less satisfactory for all visitors. This may be one explanation for why so few visitors and jailed individuals bring or receive visits from children, despite the high percentage of respondents believing it is fine for a child to visit an incarcerated parent.

In this particular jurisdiction, at least part of the reason for the low rates of child visitation also has to do with the visiting hours, which were decidedly not amenable to bringing school-age children to visit. In all but one of the facilities, the time by which visitors had to register in person for a visit made it virtually impossible for a child to get home from school and to the jail on time for sign-in. Furthermore, visits were not available on weekends. So, visitors’ and jailed respondents’ opinions that neither hours nor days were particularly convenient for bringing school-age children to visit were not surprising. Correctional administrators who might be interested in ensuring that their facilities institute policies that are supportive of ongoing connections between parents and children should carefully consider such practical ramifications when setting visiting times. These survey results should also encourage correctional administrators to consider physical modifications to their waiting rooms and visiting areas to make them more child-friendly, ideas that were overwhelmingly endorsed by both visitors and parents in jail.

While many correctional facilities have introduced video visitation as a potential improvement to contact visiting experiences, our results regarding this proposal are mixed. Jail respondents consistently believed visitors were more likely to engage in video visits than visitors themselves. This suggests that video visiting may not be as easily utilized as some correctional administrators believe, many of whom see video visiting as a revenue source. Additionally, despite some beliefs that video visiting is more beneficial to visitors because of convenience and costs, we find that this only goes so far. As the potential costs of video visits increase, visitors and those in jail report lower levels of potential utilization. Given the high costs of phone calls for incarcerated individuals and their family members, particularly in local jails (Wagner & Jones, 2019), we are hesitant to believe that video visiting will fall within an acceptable financial outlay for visitors.

This research suggests that the implementation of video visitation must be carefully considered so as to maximize usage for visitors and those incarcerated. Video visiting is not a panacea that will automatically make visiting easier for families to connect with a jailed loved one, and there are several aspects to consider. The location for video visiting is an issue to be addressed. While some jails have introduced video visiting at the facility, this has shown to be less satisfying for visitors (Tartaro & Levy, 2017). Video visitation also presents specific issues as related to children, and a child’s developmental stage will greatly influence their ability to satisfactorily engage in video visits (McMillen, 2012). Previous literature suggests that low income fathers with multiple children focus their limited resources on parenting only their youngest child (Edin & Nelson, 2014). It, therefore, seems of particular importance to maintain contact visits in jail facilities for very young children so that they are able to continue bonding with an incarcerated parent in a developmentally appropriate way (McMillen, 2012). Future research should consider children’s ages when assessing the potential use of video visitation and other visiting policies that mandate a one-size-fits-all implementation.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. The sample is based on visitors and incarcerated individuals at a relatively large jail system in an urban location. We cannot say how generalizable these findings are to other jail systems, particularly those in more rural areas or with smaller and/or less diverse populations. While we were able to randomly sample respondents for the jailed respondents’ survey, the nature of visiting did not allow for the random sampling of visitors. Although we spent equivalent time at each jail facility recruiting visitors, we cannot confirm definitively how representative our visitor sample is of the total jails’ visitor population because no data are collected on them.

Despite its limitations, and given the relatively limited research on jail visitation, this investigation is an important first step that provides several insights. Despite the challenges, individuals in jails and their loved ones desire visits and are willing to encounter numerous obstacles to engage in this process. As correctional facilities look to utilize technological advances to modify visiting practices, it is crucial that jail administrators consider both visitor and inmate perspectives on visiting as well as the developmental needs of children who visit. The fact that jailed respondents to this survey in just one municipality were parents to some 700 minor children underscores the potential magnitude of the problem that attends visiting policies and the obstacles that inhibit parent-child contacts. More research is certainly called for to understand how children are affected by visiting or, conversely, by the lack of consistent contact with parents.

Footnotes

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

Jane A. Siegel, PhD, is professor of criminal justice and associate dean of undergraduate education for Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Her research interests include children of incarceration, families and crime, prisoner reentry and the long-term consequences of child maltreatment and juvenile justice.

Laura Napolitano, PhD, is assistant professor of sociology at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey—Camden. Her work investigates how the daily experiences of low- and middle-income families shape broader patterns of social stratification. Her work has been published in Criminology, Journal of Family Issues, and the American Journal of Public Health.

References

Aiello

B. L.

McCorkel

J. A.

(2017). ‘It will crush you like a bug’: Maternal incarceration, secondary prisonization, and children’s visitation. Punishment & Society, 20(3), 351–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474517697295

Andersen

L. H.

(2016). How children’s educational outcomes and criminality vary by duration and frequency of paternal incarceration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665(1), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216632782

Arditti

J. A.

(2005). Families and incarceration: An ecological approach. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86(2), 251–260.

Arditti

J. A.

(2012). Parental incarceration and the family: Psychological and social effects of imprisonment on children, parents, and caregivers. NYU Press.

Arditti

J. A.

Lambert-Shute

Joest

(2003). Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of incarceration for families and children. Family Relations, 52(3), 195–204.

Bloom

Steinhart

(1993). Why punish the children? A reappraisal of the children of incarcerated mothers in America. National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Boudin

(2011). Children of incarcerated parents: The child’s constitutional right to the family relationship. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101(1), 77–118.

Braman

(2004). Doing time on the outside: Incarceration and family life in urban America. University of Michigan Press.

Carlson

J. R.

(1998). Evaluating the effectiveness of a live-in nursery within a women’s prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 27(1–2), 73–85.

10.

Casey-Acevedo

Bakken

(2002). Visiting women in prison: Who visits and who cares? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(3), 67–83.

11.

Celinska

Siegel

J. A.

(2010). Mothers in trouble: Coping with actual or pending incarceration. The Prison Journal, 90(4), 447–474.

12.

Christian

(2016). Riding the bus. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(1), 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986204271618

13.

Christian

Mellow

Thomas

(2006). Social and economic implications of family connections to prisoners. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 446–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.05.010

14.

Comfort

(2003). In the tube at San Quentin: The ‘secondary prisonization’ of women visiting inmates. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32(1), 77–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241602238939

15.

Comfort

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

16.

Connor

D. P.

Tewksbury

(2015). Prison inmates and their visitors: An examination of inmate characteristics and visitor types. The Prison Journal, 95(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885515575262

17.

Dallaire

D. H.

Ciccone

Wilson

L.C.

(2010). Teachers’ experiences with and expectations of children with incarcerated parents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 281–290.

18.

Digard

diZerega

Yaroni

Rinaldi

(2016). A new role for technology? Implementing video visitation in prison. Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/publications/video-visitation-in-prison

19.

Duwe

Clark

(2011). Blessed be the social tie that binds. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403411429724

20.

Eddy

J. M.

Poehlmann-Tynan

(Eds.). (2019). Handbook on children with incarcerated parents (2nd ed.). Springer.

21.

Edin

Nelson

T. J.

(2014). Doing the best I can: Fatherhood in the inner city. University of California Press.

22.

Foster

Hagan

(2009). The mass incarceration of parents in America: Issues of race/ethnicity, collateral damage to children, and prisoner reentry. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 623(1), 179–194.

23.

Fulcher

P. A.

(2013). The double-edged sword of prison video visitation: Claiming to keep families together while furthering the aims of the prison industrial complex. Florida & University Law Review, 9(1), 83–112.

24.

Fuller

L. G.

(1993). Visitors to women's prisons in California: An exploratory study. Federal Probation, 57(4), 41–47.

25.

Glaze

L. E.

Maruschak

L. M.

(2008). Parents in prison and their minor children (NCJ 222984). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=823

26.

Hairston

C. F.

(1991). Mothers in jail: Parent child separation and jail visitation. Affilia, 6(2), 9–27.

27.

Hollihan

Portlock

(2014). Video visiting in corrections: Benefits, limitations and implementation considerations. National Institute of Corrections. https://nicic.gov/video-visiting-corrections-benefits-limitations-and-implementation-considerations

28.

Johnson

E. I.

Easterling

(2012). Understanding unique effects of parental incarceration on children: Challenges, progress, and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 342–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.00957.x

29.

Johnson

E. I.

Easterling

(2013). Misidentified or misunderstood? A reply to Wildeman, Wakefield, and Turney (2013). Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(1), 259–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01026.x

30.

Kang-Brown

Montagnet

Heiss

(2021, January). People in jail and prison in 2020. Vera Institute.

31.

La Vigne

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(4), 314–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986205281727

32.

McMillen

(2012). ‘I need to feel your touch:’ Allowing newborns and infants contact visitation with jailed parents. University of Illinois Law Review, 2012(5), 1911–1853.

33.

Pierce

M. B.

Freiburger

T. L.

Chapin

J. R.

Epling

Madden

T. J.

(2017). Assessing the impact of visitation on inmate misconduct within a county jail. Security Journal, 31(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-016-0086-6

34.

Poehlmann

(2005). Children’s family environments and intellectual outcomes during maternal incarceration. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1275–1285.

35.

Poehlmann

Dallaire

Loper

A. B.

Shear

L. D.

(2010). Children's contact with their incarcerated parents: Research findings and recommendations. American Psychologist, 65(6), 575–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020279

36.

Poehlmann-Tynan

Pritzl

(2019). Parent–child visits when parents are incarcerated in prison or jail. In Eddy

J. M.

Poehlmann-Tynan

(Eds.), Handbook of children with incarcerated parents (2nd ed., pp. 131–147). Springer.

37.

Rabuy

Wagner

(2015, March). Screening out family time: The for-profit video visitation industry in prisons and jails. Prison Policy Intiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/visitation/report.html.

38.

Schubert

E. C.

Duininck

Shlafer

R. J.

(2016). Visiting mom: A pilot evaluation of a prison-based visiting program serving incarcerated mothers and their minor children. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(4), 213–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2016.1159641

39.

Sharratt

(2014). Children’s experiences of contact with imprisoned parents: A comparison between four European countries. European Journal of Criminology, 11(6), 760–775. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370814525936

40.

Shlafer

R. J.

Poehlmann

(2010). Attachment and caregiving relationships in families affected by parental incarceration. Attachment and Human Development, 12(4), 395–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616730903417052

41.

Siegel

(2011). Disrupted childhoods: Children of women in prison. Rutgers University Press.

42.

Sturges

J. E.

Al-Khattar

A. M.

(2009). Survey of jail visitors about visitation policies. The Prison Journal, 89(4), 482–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885509351009

43.

Sturges

J. E.

Hardesty

K. N.

(2005). Survey of Pennsylvania jail wardens: An examination of visitation policies within the context of ecosystem theory. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(2), 141–154.

44.

Tartaro

Levy

(2017). Visitation modality preferences for adults visiting jails. The Prison Journal, 97(5), 562–584.

45.

Tewksbury

DeMichele

(2005). Going to prison: A prison visitation program. The Prison Journal, 85(3), 292–310.

46.

Trice

A. D.

Brewster

(2004). The effects of maternal incarceration on adolescent children. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 19(1), 27–35.

47.

Tuerk

E. H.

Loper

A. B.

(2006). Contact between incarcerated mothers and their children. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v43n01_02

48.

Turney

Connor

(2019). Jail incarceration: A common and consequential form of criminal justice contact. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 265–290. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024601

49.

Turney

Goodsell

(2018). Parental incarceration and children's wellbeing. Future of Children, 28(1), 147–164.

50.

Wagner

Jones

(2019). State of phone justice: Local jails, state prisons and private phone providers. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/state_of_phone_justice.html

51.

Wakefield

Montagnet

(2019). Parental criminal justice involvement. In Eddy

J. M.

Poehlmann-Tynan

(Eds.), Handbook on children with incarcerated parents (2nd ed., pp. 25–35). Springer.

52.

Wakefield

Wildeman

(2013). Children of the prison boom: Mass incarceration and the future of American inequality. Oxford University Press.

53.

Western

Petit

(2010). Incarceration and social inequality. Daedalus, 139(3), 8–19.

54.

Wildeman

Wakefield

Turney

(2013). Misidentifying the effects of parental incarceration? A comment on Johnson and Easterling (2012). Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(1), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01018.x

55.

Zeng

(2019). Jail inmates in 2017 (NCJ 251774). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6547