Photo by Luca Kursawe on Unsplash
Nanthieswar Sathian
University of New Haven
As the goal of the criminal justice system changed from being punitive to correctional in
recent decades, decades, more attention has been given to ensuring successful re-entry (Morris and Tonry, 1990; Ward, 2015). Successful reentry can be validated when an offender released from a correctional facility reintegrates into society and does not recidivate. Recidivism is a major contemporary concern of the criminal justice system. When released individuals recidivate, failed reentry becomes expensive as more offenders are sent back to correctional facilities (MBA, 2024).
Recidivism can be a result of various factors, including (but not limited to) economic conditions, peer group influences, lack of community support, and loss of connections with family during the time of sentence (Klein et al., 2002; Sitren et al., 2021). Research on family bonds and their impact on the inmate shows that stronger bonds with family and friends have a positive effect on reducing recidivism (Mowen et al., 2019). These bonds also ensure that, during reentry, the issue of rejection from family and friends is prevented.
Though studies have shown that bonds between the family help in reducing recidivism, the challenge faced by the system is ensuring that family and friends visit inmates regularly. Barriers such as economic conditions, distance between the residence and the prison, negative perception of the prison environment, and strict visitation policies make it difficult for family and friends to visit inmates regularly, causing inmates to feel abandoned and lacking in support from their loved ones (Farrell, 2004; Schirmer et al., 2009; Sturges & Al-Khattar, 2009). The primary issue is that visitation policies vary across institutions, as these institutions each have their own rules, based on such factors as jurisdictional location, security level, and whether they are private or public (Ryan & Ryan, 2024). Policies vary in terms of the days of permitted visits, the number of visits an inmate can have, the number of individuals that can meet with inmates, and the screening of relatives during their visit. These policies also may intimidate and demean visitors, which discourages them from visiting inmates in the future.
Video visitation is a program that has been introduced in some prisons, enabling relatives to meet with inmates without having to be in the prison physically (Antojado & Ryan, 2024). Correctional facilities using this approach generally have community centers equipped with video conferencing equipment. Visitors can set up a connection through an online forum and pay a certain fee for scheduling the visits. This method enables visitors to see the inmates while talking to them, creating a sense of closeness without being intimidated and demeaned. This seems especially useful and welcomed by inmates who have children and loved ones and do not want them to experience the harsh conditions of prison.
The increase in the use of video visits in prison during and after the pandemic has encouraged researchers to study its use and effectiveness in improving the mental health of the inmates by increasing familial bonds, especially between fathers in prison and their children (Hanley et al., 2023; Muñiz et al., 2024; Taylor et al., 2023). This paper aims to examine contemporary research conducted around familial connections, their effects on recidivism, and the use of video visits to establish or maintain stronger bonds. The paper will also discuss the theoretical basis for family bonds in the context of prison visits. Finally, policy developments and their implications for video visitation in prison will be suggested.
Review of the Literature
Incarceration has notable effects on the life of an individual, as they are placed in an institution that has minimal contact with the outside world, including with their families. Duwe and McNeeley (2021) state that familial connection is important for the offenders, especially if they had strong bonds before the sentencing. As Social Bonding Theory states, individuals with stronger social connections are less likely to commit crimes (Hirschi 1969; Simpson 1976). The uniqueness of this theory is that it attempts to explain why individuals do not commit crimes, instead of why they commit them. The theory suggests there are four types of bonds: attachment, involvement, commitment, and beliefs. Understanding this theory is important, as it can guide us in developing ideas to improve the rate of successful reentry. Attachment can be explained as strong ties with family, which functions as a guide in teaching the individual about socially accepted norms (Hirschi, 1969). In other words, attachments are affective ties that an individual has with others (Hirschi 1969; Wiatrowski et al., 1981). When an individual has strong ties, especially with close family and friends, it can help in reducing recidivism, as they have someone and a relationship to lose.
Beliefs are the internal morality and rationality of a person that validates their behaviors based on social values and standards (Hirschi, 1969). While differentiating deviant individuals and conformists, Wiatrowski et al. (1981) state that deviants do not feel bound to the same social values and beliefs the same as conformists, due to their weaker social bonds and beliefs. This, according to Hirschi (1969), occurs through not recognizing beliefs as something important. However, when there are strong bonds, these beliefs are important to the individual, making them less attracted to deviant activities.
In the context of prison visitation and its effects on recidivism, Social Bonding Theory plays a major role in explaining why an individual may not resort to a life of crime (Duwe and McNeeley, 2021). If the idea of stronger social bonds reduces the chance for an individual to commit a crime, then permitting personal connections in prison through visitations can help in reducing recidivism (Sitren et al., 2021). Visitations are important to maintain or improve relationships with family and friends, which can help during the re-entry process.
A study conducted by Klein et al. (2002) shows that family contacts and strong bonds with family members during incarceration reduce recidivism when released. However, Sturges & Al-Khattar (2009) identify the setting of prison visitation areas as one of the barriers, as it demotivates friends and family to visit regularly. Adding to this, restrictive policies for visitation make the visits uncomfortable and can make visitors feel demeaned (Farrell, 2004). Due to such barriers, families are not able to visit, making it difficult for the family and the prisoner to stay connected. In addition, most prisons are in rural areas far from where the families of the prisoners live, making it difficult and expensive to visit prisons (Schirmer et al., 2009). To reduce these barriers, new approaches to visitations are being considered. One such initiative is video visitation (Duwe and McNeeley, 2021). The use of technology in prison for surveillance, communication, and treatment has shown a positive effect on the prison environment. Therefore, to remove the barriers associated with visitation, new techniques are being proposed, of which video visitation is gaining traction.
Video visitation allows family members to talk to the person through video conferencing, without having to go to a prison environment. Some prisoners also appreciate this system, as they often are not happy when their loved ones are exposed to the harsh conditions of the prison (Hilliman, 2006). A study conducted by Duwe and McNeeley (2021), reveals that there was no significant effect of video visitation on recidivism, but it reduced general and felony reconvictions, moderately. This phenomenon, however, has not been studied on a large scale. Therefore, more research is needed to understand the impact of video visitations.
Contemporary Research Methodology and Findings
Duwe & McNeeley (2021) sought to assess the impact of video visitation on recidivism among inmates in a Minnesota prison. A retrospective quasi-experimental design was utilized for this study and was conducted by comparing the outcomes between two groups. One group consisted of 885 inmates who had at least one video visitation, while the comparison group consisted of 885 inmates who did not get any video visits. To match the 885 inmates who received video visits to 855 inmates who did not receive a video visit, propensity score matching (PSM) was used. These inmates were released between January 2016 and December 2018.
For this study, Duwe & McNeeley (2021) identified four dependent variables, to determine whether video visitation only worked on general recidivism or if it also had an effect on felonies and other serious crimes. The variables identified were reconviction for any offense, reconvictions for a felony offense, reconviction for a violent offense, and revocation for a technical violation (Duwe & McNeeley, 2021). The first three variables measured reoffending by the individuals, whereas the fourth variable measured any rule-violating behaviors by not necessarily reoffending (e.g., use of alcohol or drugs, failing community-based treatments). The independent variable for this study was whether the inmates received video visits. The data for recidivism were collected from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and revocation data were collected from the Correctional Operations Management System (COMS) maintained by MnDOC. JPay, the vendor that provided video visits to MnDOC inmates, provided the data for video visits. Analysis of the data was done using Cox regression, and PSM reduced selection bias by creating a counterfactual estimate for a situation where the individuals did not receive a video visit.
The study consisted of a sample size of 1770 inmates, of which 885 received at least one video visit, and 855 were in the comparison group who did not receive any video visit. Three protective factors were set up to compare the two groups the factors were higher rates of marriage, in-person visits, and participation in programs associated with lowering recidivism; technical violations for the two groups were also compared on the same basis.
Cox regression modeling was used for the range of two to five years and included post-release supervision, however, PSM post-release measures were not considered as they did not decide if the individual received video visitation or not. The study also discharged 18 inmates who were released from prison and could not have their supervision revoked. This was to ensure the accuracy of the data for identifying technical violations.
The study found that video visitations decreased general reconviction and felony reconvictions by 22% and 21% respectively. However, it did not have a notable impact on reconvictions of violent crime or technical violations. The Cox regression estimate on the effect of several video visitations and recidivism showed that for every additional video visit, there was a 3.1% decrease in general reconvictions and a 3.6% decrease in felony reconvictions. Comparing video visits and in-person visits, individuals without an in-person visit but with a video visit had a notable reduction of 31% for general reconvictions.
Another study by Sitren et al. (2021) attempted to learn the opinion on the use of video visitation from the visitor’s perspective. Due to a lack of literature on the opinion of the visitors, such as family and friends, this study employed exploratory qualitative research with a grounded theory technique. A visitation center in the Southeastern United States was selected. This center is physically distant from the prison but allows the visitors to have a face-to-face conversation with the inmates using video calling technology. The visitors would make appointments to meet with the inmates at least two weeks before the visit. Visitors could meet with more than one inmate; however, only one visitor was allowed to be on the screen at a time.
As mentioned above, a qualitative research design was employed. Interviews were conducted with the visitors in a semi-structured, face-to-face type format, with a data collection period from April to September 2018 (i.e., 6 months). The interviews were between 30 minutes to an hour, and questions were set relevant to the visitation literature and sensitizing topics. The participants were selected through a purposive maximum variation sampling technique. The data were analyzed using Excel and ATLAS/ti software. Responses were coded based on the patterns by comparative method and were analyzed to identify similarities and differences between participants. The study took a grounded theory approach which involves coding data immediately after the collection of data begins. The data was first micro-analyzed to develop initial coding categories to help establish categories and relationships. The sample consisted of 47 participants who were visitors. Of these individuals, 26 were solo visitors, and 21 were paired visitors. This sample size was comparable to similar studies conducted, which had around 35 participants (Arditti et al., 2003; Sturges, 2002). ATLAS/ti’s capacity to analyze data was suitable for this qualitative study for understanding the perception and experience of the visitors.
The study examined the opinion of visitors about the visitation policy and identified that visitor compositions included family members (40%), of which 38% were mothers visiting the inmates. In addition, 21% of the visitors were friends or significant others, and 6% were categorized as others and included guardians and pastors of the inmates. While assessing if the visitors came for solo or group visits, the study identified that 47% of the mothers visited solo, and 53% visited with friends or other family members. Most families were comfortable visiting together, showing a strong support network.
The reported goals for the visit varied; for instance, emotional connection was desired to maintain a strong personal and emotional bond. Some visits aimed at assisting financially, whereby the visits were completed to deposit money into the inmate’s commissary fund. A common goal of visits was also to maintain family dynamics and connections, such as the relationship between children and their parents. A notable number of visits were made by professionals, like lawyers and guardians, to ensure that the inmates were taken care of and treated fairly.
Sitren et al. (2021) also identified the difficulties visitors experience in visiting inmates. One of the common difficulties faced was the travel from their residence to the prison, especially if the inmate was incarcerated in an institution far from their home. Other visitors had difficulties with finding effective transportation methods. Families having a lower income found it difficult to use public transportation, and some visitors found it difficult to schedule visits due to their commitment to work.
In terms of video visitation and their experience, the visitors had mixed opinions. One of the main concerns was equipment failures. The video and audio quality were sometimes poor and caused communication difficulties. Some visitors preferred in-person visits, as they believed them to be more personally connected. However, visitors also welcomed video visitation, as it allowed them to stay close to their place of residence and be able to have better communication with the inmate. They found video visitation to be less scrutinous and were relieved that they were not exposed to the harsh prison environment.
Research has been conducted to understand the effect and perspective of video visitation in prison; however, Antojado & Ryan (2024) believe that certain nuances about the effect and perspectives of such programs are not grasped well enough by researchers. Therefore, this study employed autoethnographic methodology to understand such nuances that are usually overseen. As Ellis et al. (2011) explain, autoethnography is a post-modern approach that helps identify potential knowledge on an area by combining personal experience with a social, political, and cultural context.
The prison the researcher was confined to is in Australia and was just two hours from their family residence. Insights were gathered by the researcher at the time of their visit, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The researcher’s insights were on the importance of family visits to prisons, the barriers the inmate and family experience during the visit, and the use of video visits in prisons. Data were obtained by introspective reflection on the incarceration experiences of the researcher, which included writings, such as personal diaries and letters to family (Antojado & Ryan, 2024).
The autoethnographic study conducted by Antojado & Ryan (2024) revealed difficulties during visitation from the perspective of the inmate. The study noted that video visitations are not a new concept but have been used sparingly in the past decades. However, due to the pandemic, the use of video visitation increased drastically. The need for social distance made it necessary that visitors were not provided access to the institution, to prevent contamination.
The study also mentioned that suggestions of lawyers for implementing video visitations in prison have been around for decades, but they were rejected due to security concerns. Correctional facilities were forced to implement video visits in full during the pandemic, as it was necessary to maintain certain levels of contact between the inmates and their families. Antojado & Ryan (2024) also emphasize maintaining video visitation after the pandemic, as they can benefit the inmates, their families, and the state.
The study identified several advantages to using video visitations in prison. First, this approach can reduce the financial burden on families, as there is no need for travel and accommodation needed when making visits. Second, video visits make it easier for families to visit from any part of the world, making it efficient to visit even when there is work travel involved. Third, as mentioned above, the prison environment is unwelcoming to visitors and discourages them from making regular visits. However, with the use of video visits, families are not exposed to a stressful and anxiety-inducing environment, especially for children. Lastly, video visits allow the family to stay connected to the inmate and give them a sense of relief when they are seen, rather than just communicating via telephone.
Conclusions and Policy Implications
Technological advancements in the criminal justice system began in the past few decades. The use of technology for enhancing security, such as through CCTV, screening technologies, and trackers, has been used largely by correctional departments. With the growing interest in reentry programs, the importance of family bonds has been identified. However, due to various barriers discussed in this paper, irregular visitations have had negative effects on inmates and families. Therefore, to improve the effectiveness of family visits, correctional facilities utilize programs that can enhance communication between the inmates and their families and video visitation can be an effective technique.
As the results from various studies show, visits from families can help in reducing recidivism to an extent (Duwe & McNeeley, 2021; Klein et al., 2002; Ryan et al., 2019). This means that the primary goal of re-entry, recidivism reduction, can also be achieved by implementing video visitation. However, the limited research on video visitation and its effect on recidivism make it difficult to push for large-scale implementation. Though video visits are welcomed by the visitors and inmates, as seen in the results of Sitren et al. (2021), face-to-face visits are considered strongest for bonding and meaningful communication (Beckmeyer & Arditti, 2014). Therefore, there should be an option for video visitation, but also in-person visits. Families can use video visits particularly when it is difficult to make an in-person visit.
Although the use of video visits appears promising, the correctional department should ensure that the privacy of the inmate and microaggressions from prison officials are considered during implementation (Antojado & Ryan, 2024). For security purposes, it is necessary for the video calls to be recorded and reviewed, and this technique should not affect the quality of life of the inmate in the prison. Therefore, regulating policies for reviewing the videos need to be developed. Overall, implementing and encouraging video visits and in-person visits is needed for the healthy development of inmate bonds and social connections after their release.
This paper was written to obtain an understanding of how correctional facilities and their visitation policies can affect inmates and their families. The major limitation is the lack of research on certain aspects of visitation and visitation policies, such as the effect of video visits on recidivism. However, research shows that in-person visits can help in reducing recidivism, and video visits can be useful for the same. Therefore, there is a need to study this technique on a larger scale, which can help in developing effective policies.
References
Antojado, D., & Ryan, N. (2024). The future of prison visits? An autoethnographic perspective on the developments of the digitization of prison visits during COVID-19. Journal of Criminology, 57(3), 398–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/26338076241252181
Arditti, J. A., Lambert‐Shute, J., & Joest, K. (2003). Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of incarceration for families and children. Family Relations, 52(3), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2003.00195.x
Beckmeyer, J. J., & Arditti, J. A. (2014). Implications of in-person visits for incarcerated parents’ family relationships and parenting experience. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(2), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2013.868390
Duwe, G., & McNeeley, S. (2021). Just as good as the real thing? The effects of prison video visitation on recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 67(4), 475–497.
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, 36(4 (138)), 273–290.
Farrell, D. (2004). Correctional Facilities: Prisoners’ Visitation Rights, the Effect of Overton v. Bazetta and Lawrence v. Texas. Geo. J. Gender & L., 5, 167.
Hanley, N., Duursma, E., Wright, A. C., & Simpson, H. (2023). What can the development of video visitation in Australian correctional centers tell us about organizational transformation? Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 35(4), 454–472.
Hilliman, C. A. (2006). Assessing the impact of virtual visitation on familial communication and institutional adjustment for women in prison. City University of New York.
Hirschi, H., T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Klein, S. R., Bartholomew, G. S., & Hibbert, J. (2002). Inmate family functioning. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X02461007
Muñiz, J. O., Corcoran, F., Marzougui, J., Shlafer, R., Eddy, J. M., & Dallaire, D. (2024). Towards family preservation: A systematic jurisdiction analysis of prison visitation policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 30(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000379
Ryan, N. R., & Ryan, N. C. (2024). Searching for the unexpected – understanding information-seeking behaviors of people new to prison visits. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2023.2272910
Ryan, N., Ackerman, J., Bond, C., Ready, J., & Kinner, S. A. (2019). Prison life and prior social experiences: Understanding their importance for Indigenous peoples’ re-entry outcomes. The British Journal of Criminology, 59(1), 188–208.
Schirmer, S., Nellis, A., & Mauer, M. (2009). Incarcerated parents and their children: Trends 1991-2007. Sentencing Project.
Simpson, A. L. (1976). Rehabilitation as the justification of a separate juvenile justice system. California Law Review, 64(4), 984. https://doi.org/10.2307/3479922
Sitren, A. H., Smith, H. P., Andersen, T. S., & Bookstaver, M. R. (2021). Jail visitation: An assessment of alternative modalities. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 32(3), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420921221
Sturges, J. E. (2002). Visitation at county jails: Potential policy implications. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13(1), 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403402013001003
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
Wiatrowski, M. D., Griswold, D. B., & Roberts, M. K. (1981). Social control theory and delinquency. American Sociological Review, 46(5), 525.