Far From Home: An Examination of the Juvenile Visitation Experience and the Barriers to Getting There

Abstract

Despite a growing body of research on prison visitation, very few studies have examined visitation among committed juvenile offenders. As a result, we have little understanding of how youth experience visits and why some never receive them. This article fills these gaps. Using surveys collected from 1,202 youth released from residential facilities in Florida, we found that among youth who were visited, they had positive experiences with visits and that families went to great lengths to visit. For those youth who were not visited, the most common barrier was distance from home. However, some youth were not visited because they refused visits or because families withheld visits as punishment. Moreover, despite the possibility that lack of visitation is harmful, we found that most not-visited youth had positive perceptions of their future success. Policy implications and directions for research are discussed.

Keywords

prison visitation juvenile visitation juvenile justice family support family visitation

Introduction

In the United States, approximately 70,000 juveniles are released from residential placement facilities each year (Hockenberry, 2016). Of these youth, at least 70% are rearrested, 40% are readjudicated, and 20% return to correctional control within a few years (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011). These figures have challenged scholars to identify strategies that might improve outcomes among these youth. One such policy is visitation, which offers inmates the unique opportunity to sustain ties with their family (Maruna & Toch, 2005). These ties can be quite important, as they can ease the pains associated with confinement, provide informal social control (Mears, Cochran, Siennick, & Bales, 2012), and offer social support upon release (La Vigne, Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005; Meyers, Wright, Young, & Tasca, 2017).

Although few studies have explored visitation among juveniles, there is evidence that visits serve these purposes. Existing studies find that youth who receive visits adjust better to confinement and more successfully reenter society upon release (Agudelo, 2013; Borgman, 1985; Monahan, Goldweber, & Cauffman, 2011; Ryan & Yang, 2005). What these studies do not tell us, however, is what the visitation experiences of youth looks like including the quality of visits and why some youth never receive a visit. As a result, the juvenile visitation experience still largely exists within the “black box” of confinement. Yet, examining these questions is critical as the visitation experience may have a substantial effect on the behavior of youth while confined, as well as on behavior following release (Cochran & Mears, 2013).

Accordingly, this article explores the visitation experiences of committed juvenile offenders. We focus first on providing an understanding of the heterogeneity of the juvenile visitation experience, including how youth perceive the quality of their visits, the types of visitors they receive, and the distances their families travel to visit. Next, we analyze the experiences of youth often neglected in prior research—those who never received a visit. Specifically, we examine, from the perspective of those youth, how they perceive their confinement experiences in the absence of visitation and what barriers to visitation exist. Although there are reasons to believe that the visitation experiences of youth may be similar to those of adult offenders, we find that youth visitation experiences and the barriers to visits are slightly different. As we discuss, this may result from differences between juvenile and adult offenders with respect to their family relationships and the facilities in which they reside.

These considerations are explored using surveys administered to 1,202 youth released from residential placement facilities in Florida between August 2015 and March 2017. These data are well suited for this study as they include information about the experiences of both visited- and not-visited youth, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of the nuances and challenges associated with visitation in juvenile residential placement facilities. Through our analyses, we respond to calls from scholars to better understand the visitation experience of inmates (Bales & Mears, 2008; Cochran & Mears, 2013; Duwe & Clark, 2013), and contribute to the small, but growing body of literature on juvenile visitation.

Background

The Effects of Prison Visitation

When serving time in juvenile residential facilities, youth face considerable challenges, including separation from loved ones (Maruna & Toch, 2005; Siennick, Mears, & Bales, 2013), exposure to violence (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014), and increased likelihood of experiencing mental health problems (Cauffman, Lexcen, Goldweber, Shulman, & Grisso, 2007; Potter & Jenson, 2003). The result of these deleterious outcomes is that many juveniles are released from confinement unprepared to meet the challenges of reentry and thus continue their delinquent behavior and involvement in the justice system. Prior research suggests, however, that visitation can alleviate some of the pains associated with confinement and improve the long-term outcomes of offenders upon release (Bales & Mears, 2008; Cochran, 2014; Ryan & Yang, 2005).

Extant literature finds that among adult offender populations, those who receive visits adjust better to confinement and more successfully transition back into society upon release. Specifically, studies find that visits reduce the likelihood of prison misconduct (Cochran, 2012; Siennick et al., 2013), improve family relationships (La Vigne et al., 2005), and reduce recidivism (Bales & Mears, 2008; Cochran, 2014). Although much of the visitation research has focused on adults, similar results emerge in the limited literature on juveniles. Specifically, delinquent youth who receive visits while confined perform better in school (Agudelo, 2013), have lower incidents of misconduct (Borgman, 1985), are less likely to exhibit depressive symptoms (Monahan et al., 2011), and are less likely to reoffend (Ryan & Yang, 2005). Although these studies suggest that visits can benefit juvenile offenders, there may be a great deal of variation in the visitation experience in terms of the types of visitors that inmates receive and the quality of these visits, each of which could affect whether and for whom visits are most beneficial (Cochran & Mears, 2013). Such variation, however, has yet to be explored among committed juvenile offenders.

The Visitation Experience Among Adult Prison Inmates

Much of the existing visitation research focuses on whether visits benefit adult inmates or not. However, a burgeoning body of literature has begun to explore the nuances and challenges of the visitation experience of adult inmates (Arditti & Few, 2008; Duwe & Clark, 2013; Schuhmann, Kuis, & Goossensen, 2018; Tasca, Mulvey, & Rodriguez, 2016). By and large, these studies find that visitation is hardly a uniform experience. For one thing, among inmates who receive visits, visits are received with varied frequency. A recent study by Turanovic and Tasca (2017) reported that one out of every five inmates received weekly visits and that 40% received at least one visit per month. However, for some, visits occurred as infrequently as once every 3 (19%) or 6 months (9%). Studies also find that visits come from a variety of sources including parents, significant others, children, friends, and even ex-spouses (Bales & Mears, 2008; Duwe & Clark, 2013). In some instances, inmates receive visits from individuals with whom they have tumultuous relationships (i.e., ex-spouses), which can make visits more harmful than helpful (Arditti, 2012; Duwe & Clark, 2013).

Whether because of poor relationships, visitor type, or an unwelcoming correctional atmosphere, scholarship suggests that visits are not always a pleasant experience (Arditti & Few, 2008; Dixey & Woodall, 2012; Nurse, 2002). Although visits can be a time for families to reconcile and reunite (Liu, Pickett, & Baker, 2016; Nurse, 2002), visits can also afford families the opportunity to air their grievances with inmates (Tasca et al., 2016). Accordingly, nearly one third of all visits are characterized by feelings of guilt, shame, and stress, and around 20% involve arguments between adult inmates and their families (Turanovic & Tasca, 2017). These patterns suggest that visits can be a bittersweet experience (Arditti & Few, 2008).

Adult inmates and their families also face challenges to maintain contact. Inmates are often housed far from home, making visitation a long, expensive journey that some families cannot afford to take (Christian, 2005; Jackson, Templer, Reimer, & LeBaron, 1997; Pleggenkuhle, Huebner, & Summers, 2018; Tewksbury & DeMichele, 2005). Even among those families able to make the trip, however, visitation schedules and unclear procedures can be burdensome (Cochran & Mears, 2013).

The Visitation Experience Among Committed Juvenile Offenders

It bears emphasizing, however, that none of these studies have examined the visitation experiences of committed juvenile offenders. Because of the dearth of studies on juvenile visitation, their visitation experiences still exist within the “black box” of confinement. Although we might be able to extrapolate findings from studies on adults to better understand the juvenile visitation experience, there are several reasons to believe that the juvenile visitation experience differs from the adult experience and should be examined separately. First, there are not only fewer institutions for youth but youth are often placed in specific institutions based on their treatment needs.¹ Youth may then be housed, on average, farther from home than adults, limiting the number of youth who receive visits or the frequency with which they are received. On the other hand, families often invest a great deal in their children, particularly those with criminal histories (Siennick & Widdowson, 2017). Youths’ families then might be more willing than the families of adult inmates to overcome the barriers to visitation. Second, visits may also differ for youth because their family dynamics are more complicated. For one, many incarcerated youth come from problematic family backgrounds, characterized by crime, abuse, and neglect (Monahan et al., 2011; Rodriguez, Smith, & Zatz, 2009; Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014). These relationships are further complicated given that interactions with family during adolescence and early adulthood are often quite strained (Martinez & Abrams, 2013). Research suggests that such adverse family dynamics may limit visits or could create hostile visitation experiences when visits do occur (Arditti & Few, 2008; Monahan et al., 2011). Therefore, youth visits with family may not only occur with different frequency than for adult inmates but the visitation experience and the reasons why families do not visit may differ as well.

However, our current understanding of visitation among committed juvenile offenders is limited to basic statistics on the prevalence (Agudelo, 2013), frequency (Monahan et al., 2011), and types of visitors that youth receive (Monahan et al., 2011). Consequently, there is a need for a greater understanding of youths’ visitation experiences, including how youth perceive visits, the amount of time and money families spend to visit, and why some youth do not receive visits.

Current Focus

Building upon these considerations, the current study examines the visitation experience among committed juvenile offenders. More specifically, using the data described below, this article studies the various facets and issues of visitation within a juvenile residential context. To that end, we first examined the experiences of visited youth, including the prevalence and frequency with which visits were received, the amount of time youth spent with family during visits, the types of visitors that youth most commonly received during placement, and how youth perceived the quality of these visits. With respect to visited youth, we also considered the investments (i.e., time, distance, and financial) that visitors made to visit. Next, we turn our attention to a segment of committed youth often neglected in prior visitation research—those youth who did not receive a visit. Here, our goal was to determine why these youth did not receive visits and how they perceived their confinement experiences in the absence of visitation. In carrying out this study, we seek to identify ways in which we can promote visits, particularly high-quality visits, so that the greatest number of youth might benefit from them, and inform future scholarship geared toward understanding when and for whom visits are most beneficial.

Data and Method

These considerations are explored using surveys developed by researchers in collaboration with the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FDJJ). FDJJ administered the survey, via an online format (Survey Monkey), to juveniles just prior to their release from residential commitment facilities between August 2015 and March 2017. FDJJ then collected and compiled the survey responses and matched them to the demographic information of each respondent. A total of 1,202 youth from 56 residential facilities (88% of facilities) were included in our study.²

This survey was well suited to examine the experiences of both visited- and not-visited youth as it asked a breadth of questions tailored to both groups. The survey asked visited youth several close-ended questions about the nature of their visits, including the prevalence, frequency, and quality of visits. Youth were also asked about the types of visitors they received, the length of these visits, and the time commitment families made to maintain contact.

The survey instrument also allowed us to assess the experiences of not-visited youth, including their perceptions of how not being visited affected their confinement experiences. Specifically, these youth were asked whether not being visited made their commitment experience harder (1 = yes, 0 = no), worsened their family relationships (1 = yes, 0 = no), and would make life more difficult after release (1 = yes, 0 = no). The survey also allowed us to assess the barriers to visits by asking not-visited youth to provide an explanation for why they believed they did not receive a visit. This was an open-ended question where youth typed their responses. These responses were coded independently and then reviewed and agreed upon by three members of the research team (Taylor, Bogdan, & DeVault, 2015). The open-ended responses were first coded for themes that were anticipated to emerge based on prior visitation research. However, the themes were refined as new data were coded (Silverman, 2006).

Table 1 displays information about the sample. The youth in our sample were diverse (62.5% Black and 11.5% Hispanic), mostly male (79.5%), and were an average of 16 years of age at release. The sample was relatively high-risk with more than 68% having been most recently confined for a felony offense. More specifically, the most common offense for which our sample was confined were property (35.8%) and violent offenses (28.3%). These youth served an average of 9 months in placement and were housed an average of 170 miles from home. As displayed in Table 1, these demographics and offense history measures differed slightly between visited- and not-visited youth.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (Means and Percentages).

	Total sample (n = 1,202)	Visited (n = 898)	Not-visited (n = 304)
Demographic characteristics	Frequency/mean
Age*	16.0	16.0	16.1
Black***	62.4%	57.5%	77%
Hispanic	11.6%	13.3%	6.6%
Male	79.5%	79.4%	79.6%
Current offense: Felony	68.2%	68.9%	66.1%
Offense type: Violent	31.1%	31.1%	31.3%
Offense type: Property	35.8%	35.2%	37.5%
Offense type: Drug**	3.4%	2.7%	5.6%
Sex offender diagnosis	3.4%	4.1%	1.3%
Offense type: Other	29.7%	31.1%	25.7%
Length of stay (months)	9.2	9.4	8.3
Miles from home***	170.0	150.3	228.0
Visitation characteristics
Any visit		74.7%	25.3%
Length of visits (hours)		2.4	—
Number of visits per month		0.95	—
Visit quality (Scale 1 to 5)		4.5	—
“Poor” quality (1 or 2)		2.0%	—
“Fair” quality (3)		12.1%	—
“Good” quality (4 or 5)		86.0%	—
Time to facility (hours)		3.0
Overnight lodging needed (0/1)		89.1%
Visitor types^a
Mother		82.0%	—
Sister		48.0%	—
Father		42.8%	—
Brother		41.9%	—
Grandmother		32.6%	—
Aunt		14.8%	—
Grandfather		11.9%	—
Cousin		8.4%	—
Other^b		27.0%	—

Note. Difference of means t test between visited and not-visited groups.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Percentages for visitor types do not equal 100. Youth were asked to indicate all individuals from whom they received a visit over the course of confinement.

Other includes: “other,” “mentor,” “guardian,” and Florida Dpeartment of Children and Families (DCF) workers.

Findings

The Visitation Experiences of Visited Youth

The first goal of this article was to understand the experiences of visited youth, including the prevalence, frequency, and quality of visits, as well as the types of visitors that youth received. As displayed in Table 1, we found that most youth received at least one visit over the course of their confinement and did so with relative frequency. Specifically, three quarters (74.7%) of all youth received a visit and that among those youth who were visited one or more times, they received an average of one visit per month.³ When visits did occur, youth also spent considerable time interacting with their visitors. On average, youth reported spending 2.3 hours per visit with visitors.

With respect to the type of visitors that youth received, we found that the vast majority of the visitors were family members (Table 1). The most common visitors were the mothers, who accounted 82% of all visits, almost twice that of any other visiting relation. Other common visitors were sisters, fathers, brothers, grandmothers, aunts, grandfathers, and cousins. An examination of Table 1 reveals that on average, female relatives were more likely to visit youth than male relatives. Forty-five percent of youth received a visit from a female relative (i.e., mother, grandmother, aunt, or sister) compared with 32% who received visits from male relatives (i.e., father, grandfather, brother).⁴ A small portion of youth were visited by legal guardians, mentors, and child protective service workers throughout their confinement.

Next, we assessed youths’ perceptions regarding the quality of their visits. The survey asked visited youth to report the quality of their visits on a 5-point scale. For our purposes, a 1 or 2 on this measure indicated poor quality visits, a 3 represented fair quality visits, and a 4 or 5 signified good quality visits. On average, youth rated the quality of their visits as 4.5 out of 5 total points. Although the average visit quality was high, not all youth had positive visitation experiences. In fact, 2% of our sample (n = 18) rated their visit quality as poor and 12.1% (n = 108) rated their visit quality as being only fair. Several factors could impact visit quality. Because youth often have complicated family dynamics, and some received visits from individuals with whom they may have weak bonds (i.e., child protective service workers), we assessed whether visit quality differed depending upon who visited. We found only three significant relationships: Visit quality was higher when visits were received from grandmothers but lower when received from guardians or child protective service workers.⁵ This suggests that visits from certain sources are more pleasant and thus might be more beneficial for behavioral outcomes than visits from other sources.

Time and distance to facilities

Next, we examined what hurdles families overcame when visiting youth. Visited youth, on average, were housed 150 miles from home (see Table 1). These distances required families to travel an average of 3 hours (with some reporting travel times at over 24 hours), and most families (89.1%) also needed overnight accommodations when they visited. These figures suggest that to visit, families not only needed to take time off work but also needed access to reliable transportation and adequate financial resources for gas and lodging. As discussed in the following section, for not-visited youth, many of these considerations may have been prohibitive.

The Experiences of Not-Visited Youth

The second goal of this article centered on understanding the experiences of those youth who did not receive a visit during confinement. Although most youth were visited during their confinement, one in four were not visited. Our focus here was on why these youth did not receive visits and how they perceived their confinement experiences in the absence of visits.

Barriers to visitation

To assess the barriers to visits, our survey asked not-visited youth to report why they did not receive a visit. Almost all of these youth (302 out of 304) provided at least one explanation as to why they were not visited. Our analyses reveal that these responses fell into four categories: systemic barriers, youth refusal of visits, scheduling conflicts, and “tough love” (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Barriers to Visitation (N = 302).

	n	%
Systemic barriers (68.6%)
Distance from home	146	47.9
Transportation problems	57	18.7
Financial insecurities	6	2.0
Youth refused visits	33	10.8
Time conflicts (10.2%)
Work schedule conflicts	21	6.9
Other priorities	10	3.3
“Tough love”	6	1.7
No answer/does not know	10	3.3
Other barriers reported	13	4.3

Youth were most often not visited because of systemic barriers like distance from home, transportation problems, and financial issues. Nearly half of all not-visited youth (47.9%) reported that the distance from their home was a major impediment to visitation. This is unsurprising given that not-visited youth, on average, were housed significantly farther from home (228 miles) than visited youth (150 miles). Transportation problems were also a common barrier to visits (18.7%). Transportation issues largely meant that families “. . . did not have transportation . . .” or “. . . did not have a way to visit . . .” However, for some youth, transportation problems also encompassed navigational challenges, such as families being unable to locate or find the program. In addition, a small percentage of youth (2%) were not visited because families could not afford the expenses associated with visitation, including transportation and lodging.

Although many barriers are outside the youth’s control, we also found that youth took an active role in their visitation experiences. Instead of being the passive recipient of visits, some not-visited youth refused visits from family (10.8%). Youth who discouraged visits expressed the desire to spare families the financial and emotional costs associated with confinement. With respect to the former, some were acutely aware of the monetary costs of visiting: “I told my mother as long as I hear her on the phone no need for her to waste gas to come see me.” They were also attuned to the scheduling conflicts families faced. Accordingly, some families were asked not to visit “so they would not miss work” or “because of the distance . . .” Youth also took into consideration the emotional toll of their confinement and discouraged visits to spare their families: “. . . I just don’t want her to see me in this facility.”

Some families were unable to visit due to scheduling conflicts with the facilities’ visitation hours. The most common problem that arose was a conflict between visitation hours and work schedules (6.9%). Even when facilities offered weekend visitation hours, work schedules conflicted: “. . . my mom works doubles on weekends.” Families also had conflicts because of other priorities (3.3%), such as “. . . having a new baby.”

Interestingly, we found that a small number of families did not visit because they wanted to teach the juvenile a lesson through “tough love” (1.7%). Prior research has found that some families do not visit because they grow tired of the cycle of offending (Christian, 2005). Here, however, it appears that for the few families that withdrew visits, they instead did so as a form of punishment. Illustrative examples include youth who were not visited: “because I’m locked up and they told me so!” or “they want me to learn by myself for a change, and to also know how it feels to be responsible.” For these families, the decision not to visit could represent an informal sanction used to deter problem behavior: “I believe that my dad was showing me tough love and wants me to change and be a successful young lady.”

Perceptions of confinement experiences among not-visited youth

Because visitation can benefit offenders’ adjustment to confinement and life after release, the concern is that in its absence, offenders will fare worse. Among our sample, however, most not-visited youth did not feel as if they were disadvantaged because they did not receive visits (Figure 1). We found that only about a quarter viewed their confinement experiences as being more difficult because they were not visited (24.7%). In fact, only 72 out of the 297 responding youth believed that their commitment experience was at least somewhat more difficult because they did not receive a visit. Even fewer youth believed that their relationships with family were worsened because they did not receive a visit. Specifically, only eight youth (2.7% of the responding youth) believed that their family relationships had deteriorated over the course of confinement. Finally, not-visited youth were largely unconcerned about their future successes. When asked about life after release, only six out of 298 youth (2.0%) believed that they would face greater challenges because they did not receive a visit.

Figure 1.

Nonvisited youths’ perceptions of institutional adjustment, family, and postrelease outcomes.

Discussion and Conclusion

Visitation can be a valuable correctional tool. Although few studies on juvenile visitation have been conducted, preliminary research suggests that youth who receive visits fare better during and after confinement than those who do not (Agudelo, 2013; Borgman, 1985; Monahan et al., 2011; Ryan & Yang, 2005). Yet, little is known about how youth experience these visits and what factors might inhibit them. Because the visitation experiences can influence whether and when visits are beneficial, researchers have called for greater attention to exploring the visitation experience (Cochran & Mears, 2013). Accordingly, the current study examined the visitation experiences from the perspective of both visited- and not-visited youth, as well as the barriers to visitation. Several key conclusions emerged from our analyses.

First, we found that most youth are visited, but that these visits are primarily received by their families of origin (i.e., parents, siblings, aunts and uncles, or grandparents). This is not unsurprising given that FDJJ limits visitors to only the youth’s family members (and select other court-approved visitors). Nevertheless, that most visitors are from a youth’s families of origin may have important implications. Prior research suggests that many justice system–involved youth have problematic histories with these family members, including histories of crime, abuse, and neglect (Rodriguez et al., 2009; Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014). Therefore, visits from these relations might not always have beneficial effects. Indeed, 14.1% of youth in our sample reported that visits did not go so well (i.e., rated visit quality as “fair” or “poor”). Although difference of means t tests did not reveal that visits from family members worsened the quality of visits, the possibility still exists that visits from these relations could have adverse effects on a youth’s behavioral adjustment during and after confinement.

Second, we found that although some visited youth had negative visitation experiences, most had at least moderately pleasant experiences with their visits. Specifically, we found that 86% of youth rated their visit quality as a 4 or higher out of 5. This pattern is consistent with prior research that has assessed the quality of visits among adult inmates (Tasca et al., 2016; Turanovic & Tasca, 2017). These findings suggest that for most youth, visits might indeed be beneficial. Therefore, we might expect the absence of visits to be quite stressful. Contrary to this expectation, however, relatively few not-visited youth felt that their commitment experiences were worsened, family relationships weakened, or future outcomes in jeopardy because they were not visited. In fact, less than 3% held these views with respect to family relationships and future outcomes. These findings suggest that for committed juvenile offenders, visitation may not be universally beneficial and that the lack of visitation may not be generally detrimental.

Third, we found that in addition to facing the traditional barriers to visitation (i.e., transportation issues), some youth and their families actively negotiated these visits with one another. We found that some youth discouraged visits from family, while others’ families withheld visits as a form of punishment. These results are consistent with prior research documenting similar negotiation processes among adult offenders (Christian, 2005; Pleggenkuhle et al., 2018). These findings serve as a reminder that visitation within placement facilities occurs within the context of ongoing family histories—histories that might be fraught with challenges and conflict. Thus, any attempts to promote visits, as well as future research on juvenile visitation, will need to consider the larger dynamics between youth and their families.

Policy Implications

These findings have important implications for juvenile justice policy. Although some exceptions exist, visited youth largely viewed visits as a positive experience. Therefore, residential placement facilities should continue to encourage visitation and other forms of contact. Contact can be improved in several ways, including using video visitation (CorrectionsOne, 2014; Rich, 2011). Although video visits can cost families up to US$1.50/min, the overall cost to families may be less than in-person visits (Prison Policy Initiative, 2017). Furthermore, preliminary research suggests that video visitation is well received by inmates and their families (Crabbe, 2002). Shuttle services, like those currently being offered in Pennsylvania and New York, might also increase contact (Brook, 2015; Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2017). The drawback of shuttle services is that they increase the amount of time families spend traveling to the facilities (Christian, 2005). And of course, visits might be better facilitated by directly addressing the barriers to visitation, including reducing youth’s distance from home.

Limitations

Despite our contributions to the visitation literature, this article has limitations that should be noted. First, our results may suffer from recall bias. The responses presented here were derived from surveys administered upon release that asked youth to retrospectively report on their visitation experiences. Recall bias may have distorted youth’s perceptions of their visits and the accuracy of their accounts (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2009). Second, we relied exclusively on the youth’s perceptions of the visitation experience. Prior research among adult inmate populations suggests that inmates often paint a different picture of the visitation experience than visitors (Dixey & Woodall, 2012). Future research would benefit from examining the visitation experience among committed juveniles from the perspective of the visitors. Relatedly, we asked only about a youth’s overall perception of the quality of visits, not the specific emotions they experienced in response to visits (Arditti, 2012; Nurse, 2002; Turanovic & Tasca, 2017). Future research should examine the variety of emotions youth experience during visits.

In conclusion, the current study finds that the juvenile visitation experience is complicated—indeed, there is substantial variation in youth experiences with visits and numerous barriers to receiving them. Additional research, however, is needed to assess whether these experiences have implications for when visitation is most beneficial. Our findings suggest they might. Moreover, future research should determine why not-visited youth did not view the lack of visitation as something negative. This finding runs contrary to prior theory and literature that highlights the benefits of receiving visits and the strain associated with not receiving them. Such work will expand our understanding of visitation and provide the means to maximize its effectiveness as a rehabilitative tool.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by Award No. 2013-R2-CX-0009, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.

Notes

References

Agudelo

S. V.

(2013). The impact of family visitation on incarcerated youth’s behavior and school performance (Findings from the families as partners project). New York, NY: VERA Institute of Justice.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2011). No place for kids: The case for reducing juvenile incarceration. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Arditti

J. A.

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

Arditti

J. A.

Few

(2008). Maternal distress and women’s reentry into family and community life. Family Process, 47, 303-321.

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.

Borgman

(1985). The influence of family visiting upon boys’ behavior in a juvenile correctional facility. Child Welfare, 64, 629-638.

Brook

(2015, March 3). The big apple to the big house, and back. Retrieved from https://medium.com/vantage/prison-bus-the-big-apple-to-the-big-house-and-back-20391a4740a7

Cauffman

Lexcen

F. J.

Goldweber

Shulman

E. P.

Grisso

(2007). Gender differences in mental health symptoms among delinquent and community youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 287-307.

Christian

(2005). Riding the bus: Barriers to prison visitation and family management strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 31-48.

10.

Cochran

J. C.

(2012). The ties that bind or the ties that break: Examining the relationship between visitation and prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 433-440.

11.

Cochran

J. C.

(2014). Breaches in the wall: Imprisonment, social support, and recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 51, 200-229.

12.

Cochran

J. C.

Mears

D. P.

(2013). Social isolation and inmate behavior: A conceptual framework for theorizing prison visitation and guiding and assessing research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 252-261.

13.

CorrectionsOne. (2014, September 25). Fla. County debuts “mobile video visitation” bus. Retrieved from https://www.correctionsone.com/video-visitation-systems/articles/7598911-Fla-county-debuts-mobile-video-visitation-bus/

14.

Crabbe

(2002). Virtual visitation program uses video conferencing to strengthen prisoner contacts with family and children. Offender Programs Report, 6, 35-36.

15.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2009). Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

16.

Dixey

Woodall

(2012). The significance of “the visit” in an English category-B prison: Views from prisoners, prisoners’ families, and prison staff. Community, Work & Family, 15, 29-47.

17.

Duwe

Clark

(2013). Blessed be the social tie that binds: The effects of prison visitation on offender recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24, 271-296.

18.

Florida Department of Corrections. (2018). Institutions. Retrieved from http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ci/index.html

19.

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. (2012). Residential placement. Retrieved from http://www.djj.state.fl.us/programs-facilities/residential-facilities

20.

Fox

Zambrana

Lane

(2011). Getting in (and staying in) when everyone else wants to get out: 10 lessons learned from conducting research with inmates. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 304-327.

21.

Hockenberry

(2016). Juveniles in residential placement, 2013. Laurel, Maryland: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

22.

Jackson

Templer

D. I.

Reimer

LeBaron

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

23.

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, 314-335.

24.

Liu

Pickett

J. T.

Baker

(2016). Inside the black box of prison: Prison visitation, the costs of offending, and inmate social capital. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 27, 766-790.

25.

Martinez

D. J.

Abrams

L. S.

(2013). Informal social support among returning young offenders: A metasynthesis of the literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 169-190.

26.

Maruna

Toch

(2005). The impact of imprisonment on the desistance process. In Travis

Visher

(Eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp. 139-178). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

27.

Mears

D. P.

Cochran

J. C.

Siennick

S. E.

Bales

W. D.

(2012). Prison visitation and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 29, 888-918.

28.

Meyers

Wright

Young

J. N.

Tasca

(2017). Social support from outside the walls: Examining the role of relationship dynamics among inmates and visitors. Journal of Criminal Justice, 52, 57-67.

29.

Monahan

K. C.

Goldweber

Cauffman

(2011). The effects of visitation on incarcerated juvenile offenders: How contact with the outside impacts adjustment on the inside. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 143-151.

30.

Nurse

(2002). Fatherhood arrested: Parenting from within the juvenile justice sys-tem. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

31.

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. (2017). Transportation services. Retrieved from http://www.cor.pa.gov/Inmates/Visiting/Pages/Inmate-Family-Transportation-Services.aspx#.WSRMm1PytsM

32.

Pleggenkuhle

Huebner

Summers

(2018). Opting out: The role of identity, capital, and agency in prison visitation. Justice Quarterly, 35, 726-749.

33.

Potter

C. C.

Jenson

J. M.

(2003). Cluster profiles of multiple problem youth: Mental health symptoms, substance abuse, and delinquent conduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 230-250.

34.

Prison Policy Initiative. (2017). Video calling. Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/visitation/

35.

Rich

(2011, September 30). Video visitation bus connects jail inmates to families. Government Technology, Justice and Public Safety. Retrieved from http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Video-Visitation-Bus-Connects-Jail-Inmates.html

36.

Rodriguez

Smith

Zatz

M. S.

(2009). “Youth is enmeshed in a highly dysfunctional family system”: Exploring the relationship among dysfunctional families, parental incarceration, and juvenile court decision making. Criminology, 47, 177-208.

37.

Ryan

J. P.

Yang

(2005). Family contact and recidivism: A longitudinal study of adjudicated delinquents in residential care. Social Work Research, 29, 31-39.

38.

Schuhmann

Kuis

Goossensen

(2018). “Purely for you”: Inmates’ perceptions of prison visitation by volunteers in the Netherlands. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 4545-4564. doi:10.1177/0306624X18764523

39.

Sickmund

Puzzanchera

(2014). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2014 national report. Pittsburg, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

40.

Siennick

S. E.

Mears

D. P.

Bales

W. D.

(2013). Here and gone: Anticipation and separation effects of prison visits on inmate infractions. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 50, 417-444.

41.

Siennick

S. E.

Widdowson

A. O.

(2017). Incarceration and financial dependency during and after “youth.” Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 3, 397-418.

42.

Silverman

(2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text, and interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

43.

Tasca

Mulvey

Rodriguez

(2016). Families coming together in prison: An examination of visitation encounters. Punishment & Society, 18, 459-478.

44.

Taylor

S. J.

Bogdan

DeVault

M. L.

(2015). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

45.

Tewksbury

DeMichele

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

46.

Turanovic

J. J.

Tasca

(2017). Inmates’ experiences with prison visitation. Justice Quarterly. doi:10.1080/07418825.2017.1385826