Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty-State Survey is a wonderful resource. The authors\u27 painstaking research has resulted in a dataset of immense importance. In addition, the authors have gone beyond simply describing their findings and have highlighted some of the issues they believe to be most significant. The authors express the hope that their work will both provide a useful body of information and be a catalyst for the research of others. An additional goal, already accomplished to some extent, is that the compilation and presentation of information from all of the states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons will encourage the administrators of the prison systems in these jurisdictions to engage with and learn from each other, thereby improving prison visitation policies throughout the United States

Genty, Philip M

English

Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository

YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW
Taking Stock and Moving Forward to Improve
Prison Visitation Practices: A Response to Prison
Visitation Policies: A Fifty-State Survey
Philip M. Genty*
INTRODUCTION
Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty-State Survey' is a wonderful resource. The
authors' painstaking research has resulted in a dataset of immense importance.
In addition, the authors have gone beyond simply describing their findings and
have highlighted some of the issues they believe to be most significant. The au-
thors express the hope that their work will both provide a useful body of infor-
mation and be a catalyst for the research of others. An additional goal, already
accomplished to some extent, is that the compilation and presentation of infor-
mation from all of the states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons will encourage the
administrators of the prison systems in these jurisdictions to engage with and
learn from each other, thereby improving prison visitation policies throughout
the United States.
In this Response, I want to offer my own suggestions for next steps that might
be taken to build upon the impressive work of this study. These suggestions fall
into four categories, some of which track those the authors offer in their conclud-
ing Section: (1) further analyzing the data the authors already have; (2) correlat-
ing data relating to quantity of visits with other existing statistical studies; (3) an-
alyzing factors relating to quality of visits; and (4) undertaking further research.
Each of these is discussed below.
* Everett B. Birch Innovative Teaching Clinical Professor in Professional Responsi-
bility, Columbia Law School; Director, Prisoners and Families Clinic.
1. Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman, Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty-
State Survey, 32 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. 149 (2013).
211
YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW
1. FURTHER ANALYSIS OF DATA ALREADY OBTAINED
With respect to the information that the authors have already accumulated,
it would be useful to step back and comment upon the patterns the authors have
found in the state statutes, regulations, and directives. The authors identify a
number of important issues, but their discussion also raises significant questions
that should be explored. For example, is it possible to offer some general conclu-
sions about aspects of prison visitation that need to be changed and improved?
Are there states that stand out as being especially deficient in the way they handle
prison visitation? Conversely, are there states that handle prison visitation espe-
cially well, and, if so, what are their particular strengths? Are there particular stat-
utes, regulations, or directives that could serve as national models and should be
replicated? Answering these questions will enhance the value of the authors' data.
11. CORRELATION OF DATA RELATING TO QUANTITY OF VISITS WITH OTHER Ex-
ISTING STATISTICAL STUDIES
The authors present a wealth of statistical information about state provisions
relating to the frequency and length of visits. They discuss the differences among
the states in what is permitted. They also note that some states provide for a
"floor" for the minimum number of required visits, while others have "ceilings"
that significantly limit incarcerated individuals' access to visits. They also discuss
variation among the states with respect to extended or overnight visits, especially
for those who have traveled an especially long distance to visit.
It would be instructive to correlate this information with available data about
the visitation that actually occurs in each state. For example, the Bureau of Justice
Statistics special report, Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children, provides ag-
gregate national data about the frequency and type of contact that occurs between
incarcerated parents and their minor children.' It would be possible to disaggre-
gate the data by state and see what patterns emerge. One might expect that states
in which visits occurred least frequently would be those with the strictest visita-
tion policies. If so, this would support arguments about the harm to families
caused by restricting visits and provide support for advocacy efforts to liberalize
prison visitation in those states, including the provision of extended and over-
night visits.
A comparison could also be made between the authors' findings about state
visitation policies and available data about foster-care outcomes.' One might ex-
pect that, for incarcerated parents with children in foster care, restrictive state
2. Lauren E. Glaze & Laura M. Maruschak, Parents in Prison and Their Minor Children,
BUREAU JUST. STAT. 18 tbl.io (2010), http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/
pptmc.pdf.
3. See, e.g., Children of Incarcerated Parents in New York State: A Data Analysis, N.Y.S.
Div. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVS. 11 (2013), http://www.doccs.ny.gov/NewsRoom/
children of incarcerated-parentS2013.pdf (finding that for 8o percent of children
in foster care with a parent incarcerated in New York, parental rights had already
212
32 : 211 2013
TAKING STOCK AND MOVING FORWARD TO IMPROVE PRISON VISITATION PRACTICES
visitation policies would lead to a higher number of cases in which parental rights
of incarcerated parents were terminated. Again, this would support advocacy ef-
forts in those states to make it easier for children in foster care to have frequent
and lengthy visits with their incarcerated parents in order to preserve and
strengthen the parent-child relationship.
III. ANALYSIS OF FACTORS RELATING TO QUALITY OF VIsITs
In addition to quantitative data about state provisions regulating frequency
and length of visits, the authors present a rich body of information about policies
relating to the qualitative aspects of visitation. For example, they discuss variation
among the states with respect to whether contact visits are permitted; the nature
of the searches to which the visitors are subjected; restrictions on dress code and
behavior of visitors; and provisions relating to visits by children. The information
about extended and overnight visits included in the above discussion of fre-
quency and length of visits is also a relevant factor in assessing the quality of the
visits.
While these categories are interesting when considered in isolation, the var-
ious qualitative categories within each state could be combined to draw some
conclusions about the overall experience of visiting in each state. For example, it
would be interesting to know whether visitors in a given state are subjected to a
combination of invasive searches, severe restrictions on dress and behavior, and
a lack of child-oriented facilities, and whether-having endured all of this-the
visitors are even allowed to have contact visits with their loved ones. It would be
helpful to discuss what makes for a good visiting experience and-analyzing each
state's policies across the qualitative categories-offer conclusions about which
states offer such an experience to visitors and incarcerated individuals and which
states are deficient. It might even be possible to develop a "quality of visitation
index" ranking the states according to this combination of qualitative categories.
been terminated or were in the process of termination). A number of reports and
data sets prepared by different subdivisions of the Administration for Children and
Families of the United States Department of Health and Human Services could be
useful in this inquiry. See, e.g., Child Welfare Outcomes Report Data, CHILDRENS
BUREAU, U.S. DEP'T HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., http://cwoutcomes.acf.hhs.gov/
data/overview (last visited Dec. 13, 2013).
4. Two detailed research studies have documented the importance of the quality of
visits in supporting the parent-child relationship and mediating the trauma to chil-
dren of parental incarceration. See Jonathan J. Beckmeyer & Joyce A. Arditti, Impli-
cations ofln-Person Visits for Incarcerated Parents'Family Relationships and Parent-
ing Experience, J. OFFENDER REHABILITATION (forthcoming 2013); Joyce A. Arditti &
Jyoti Savla, Parental Incarceration and Child Trauma Symptoms in Single Care-
giver Homes: Effects of Parental Incarceration (2013) (unpublished manuscript)
(on file with author). Interestingly, Beckmeyer and Arditti found that visitation fre-
quency was much less important than visitation quality in maintaining parent-child
relationships. Beckmeyer & Arditti, supra, at 17-18.
213
YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW
As with the quantitative categories, such an analysis of the qualitative cate-
gories is crucial to understanding which states support the maintenance of family
ties and which states undermine them. If the restrictions imposed upon visitors
make the experience of visiting oppressive, this will create a significant disincen-
tive for continuing to visit. Over time, children-especially adolescents and older
teens-may simply refuse to go on visits, and the parent-child relationships will
gradually wither and die. As with the quantitative categories discussed above, we
would therefore expect to find that fewer visits occur in states that impose the
greatest restrictions on the conditions of visitation.
In addition to combining the qualitative categories discussed in the report to
analyze the overall experience of visitation, this analysis could be linked more
directly to the report's detailed discussion of virtual visits. It is likely that children
and family members would find virtual visits most acceptable and even desirable
in those states that impose the greatest restrictions on the conditions of actual
visits. Connecting the analyses of qualitative aspects of visits and virtual visitation
in this way would provide additional context for the authors' discussion of the
pros and cons of virtual visits.
IV. POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
As noted above, the authors provide their own thoughtful suggestions for
additional research in their concluding Section. Several other possible areas of
inquiry might be added to their list.
First, state court cases involving prison visitation might provide additional
insight into the actual practices within the states. It would be instructive to learn
whether any of the regulations and directives discussed in the report have been
litigated and interpreted by the state courts. If so, favorable decisions might be
used as models for advocacy in other states.
Second, one aspect of visitation that the authors do not really explore is the
extent to which states provide transportation assistance (e.g., free or subsidized
bus service) to make it easier for family members and others to visit their loved
ones in prison. Prisons are often located at great distances from the communities
in which the families live,' so access to affordable transportation is crucial. Oth-
erwise, many people will simply be unable to visit on a regular basis-or at all. It
would therefore be useful to research what transportation, if any, is available in
each of the states and to highlight any states that have model transportation pro-
grams.
5. Fifty-one percent of incarcerated parents in state prisons are imprisoned between
ioo and 500 miles from home, and n1% are incarcerated more than 500 miles away.
For parents incarcerated in federal prisons, 41% are imprisoned between ioo and
500 miles from home, and 43% percent are incarcerated more than 500 miles from
home. Christopher J. Mumola, Incarcerated Parents and Their Children, BUREAU
JUST. STAT. 5 (2000), http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/iptc.pdf.
214
32: 211 2013
TAKING STOCK AND MOVING FORWARD TO IMPROVE PRISON VISITATION PRACTICES
Third, to provide support for efforts to improve visitation policies, research
might be done about "best practices" for visitation in other contexts. For exam-
ple, there is a good body of literature about parent-child visits in the child-welfare
and foster-care contexts. Some of the most important research and recommen-
dations have come from the government agencies themselves.' Increasingly,
these agencies have begun to look critically at restrictive visitation policies and to
suggest that these do not serve the needs of the families. The agencies have rec-
ommended conducting visits in a way that will make them feel as natural as pos-
sible. Similar examinations of visitation practices should be conducted in the
prison context.
A final, critically important area of possible research would be to conduct
interviews with or survey family members. In their report, the authors under-
standably focus primarily on the perspective of the people who are incarcerated,
but it would be useful to get a fuller sense of the perspectives of the family mem-
bers and other visitors on these issues. For example: how would they describe
their experiences with prison visits? What are their highest priorities? What as-
pects of visitation matter most to them? In what ways have their experiences with
prison visits been positive? What are the most difficult parts of the process? What
aspects of the experience would they most want to see changed and improved?
Interviews and surveys could be used to develop narratives of prison visiting ex-
periences. Such narratives can be an especially powerful tool for public education
about the need for policy reforms.'
6. See, e.g., Ronald K. Chen, Protecting and Promoting Meaningful Connections: The
Importance of Quality Family Time in Parent-Child Visitation, N.J. OFF. OF THE
CHILD ADVOC. (2010), http://www.state.nj.us/childadvocate/reports/other/OCA
%2oVisitation%2oBrief%20-%201-14-1o.pdf; Child and Family Visitation: A Practice
Guide to Support Lasting Reunification and Preserving Family Connections for Chil-
dren in Foster Care, MINN. DEP'T OF HUM. SERVICES (2009), https://edocs.dhs.state
.mn.us/1fserver/Legacy/DHS-5552-ENG; Determining the Appropriate Level of Su-
pervision Needed During Visits for Families with Children in Foster Care, Policy No.
2012/01, CITY OF N.Y. ADMIN. FOR CHILDREN'S SERV. (2012), http://www.nyc.gov/
html/acs/downloads/providers newsletter/july25/ACS%2oVisitation%2oPolicy
%2oJuIy%2017 ,2012.pdf; Parent-Child Visits: Managing the Challenges, Reaping the
Rewards, N.C. DIV. OF Soc. SERVICES (2010), http://www.fosteringperspectives
.org/fpv5nl/vl5nl.htm; Practice Bulletin: Family Interaction as a Pathway to Perma-
nency, IOWA DEP'T OF HUM. SERVICES (2009), http://www.dhs.state.ia.us/docs/lo.09
_FamilyInteractionPractice Bulletin.pdf.
7. For a vivid description of the process of traveling to and visiting an incarcerated
father, see ADRIAN NICOLE LEBLANC, RANDOM FAMILY: LOVE, DRUGS, TROUBLE, AND
COMING OF AGE IN THE BRONX 188-94 (2003). For a good general discussion of
prison visitation, see NELL BERNSTEIN, ALL ALONE IN THE WORLD: CHILDREN OF THE
INCARCERATED 71-1o8 (2005).
215
YALE LAW& POLICY REVIEW
CONCLUSION
An essential component of sound prison administration is ensuring that
those who are incarcerated are able to remain connected to their families and
other loved ones in a meaningful way. Visitation is a crucial part of this. Prison
Visitation Policies: A Fifty-State Survey provides a solid foundation of knowledge
of current visitation policies and documents the many ways in which the states
are falling far short of this goal. But beyond this, the Feature will serve as a spring-
board for further analysis, reflection, and efforts to improve prison visitation.
The research, policy, and advocacy communities owe a debt of gratitude to Chesa
Boudin, Trevor Stutz, and Aaron Littman for their groundbreaking work.
216
32 :211 2013


Taking Stock and Moving Forward to Improve Prison Visitation Practices: A Response to Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty-State Survey

NELLCO Consortium Legal Scholarship Repository

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1658&amp;context=ylpr

Taking Stock and Moving Forward to Improve Prison Visitation Practices: A Response to Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty-State Survey

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository

NELLCO Consortium Legal Scholarship Repository