Jails are Replacing In-Person Visits with Video Visits

More than ten million Americans go to jail each year while they wait for a trial or serve short sentences. Racial and ethnic minority groups and people who live in poverty are more likely to go to jail (or be “incarcerated”). Staying connected to a person who is incarcerated is difficult.

Social visits promote relationships that can improve health and well-being. People who are incarcerated who receive social visits are less likely to reoffend, and children who have strong relationships with their parents cope better with the trauma of having a parent incarcerated.

Laws about social visits for people who are incarcerated were written before video-visiting technology existed. Some jails have decided that video visits are the same as in-person visits and used this idea to replace in-person visits with video visits. This trend is increasing in jails and has sparked a national debate about the definition of social visits. Ultimately, the Supreme Court needs to decide, but that takes time.

Both the American Bar Association and the American Correctional Association recommend that jails add video visits to in-person visits instead of using them as a replacement. Texas, California, and Massachusetts have introduced new laws to protect in-person visits in jails and prisons. In most parts of the country, however, the cities or counties that operate jails can decide on visiting rules. These cities and counties often profit from video-visiting contracts, especially ones that eliminate social visits, so they have an incentive to promote video visits over in-person visits.

For-profit companies say video visits offer the same convenience of free video call services. Currently, video visits can be home-based, community-based, or correctional facility-based. Home or community-based video visits can create new opportunities for people to connect. For example, these visits introduce new ways for incarcerated young people to communicate with their incarcerated parents and for families with children in foster care to protect parental rights.

However, many jails only offer facility-based video visits, which means visitors must still travel to the facility where their loved one is incarcerated to use the technology. Frustrated video visit consumers complain of grainy videos, failed audio, and dropped calls. Users say that, unlike free video call services, companies charge as much as $30 for a 20-minute call, tack on extra fees, and make it difficult to get refunds when the technology does not work.

Video visits are monitored and recorded, making some users uncomfortable, especially when corrections officers watch them at home. Other users say that video visits make it difficult for them to recognize facial expressions or make the kind of meaningful eye contact they can during in-person visits.

Corrections officers who advocate for replacing in-person visits with video visits claim the benefits are decreased costs, improved safety and security, and increased visiting opportunities. However, after eliminating in-person visits at one jail, violence between incarcerated people increased, attacks on staff members doubled, and social visits decreased. After restoring in-person visits, the jail found that social visits increased when they offered both in-person and video options.

New policies that replace in-person visits with video visits may harm people who are incarcerated and their families. A report from the Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, states, “Traditional, in-person visiting is a best practice that should continue in all correctional settings when possible.” If your local jail has eliminated in-person visits, consider advocating to resume these visits until the Supreme Court clarifies the definition of visiting a person who is incarcerated.

Read about how People-First language helps children with incarcerated family members.