Technology-enabled prison visiting: learning from research and practice during the COVID-19 pandemic

KEYWORDS:

• family contact
• prison; video visit

This special issue of Current Issues in Criminal Justice explores the ways in which technology-enabled prison contact visits were utilised during the COVID-19 pandemic and shares learnings for future practice. The focus is on contact between people in prison and their families. The aim is to provide insight into how prison-family contact in different jurisdictions has been changed by and experienced throughout the pandemic and to explore the implications for the future of family contacts. This special issue combines four empirical papers with three accounts from practice, authored by expert scholars from Australia and the United States, with practitioners and advocates from Argentina and Australia. The latter provide access to the ‘on the ground’ innovations built on necessity, as well as observations of the challenges experienced by those charged with supporting imprisoned people and their families during a world pandemic. Now the immediate crisis of COVID-19 has passed, there is a critical opportunity to explore the development and impact of technology-enabled visits to make informed decisions about the future.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) declared that COVID-19 had become a global pandemic in March 2020 (WHO, 2023). Adaptations to reduce the spread of this disease resulted in significant changes to day-to-day life around the world, including a wave of technological advances, particularly in the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to connect with others (Watson, Upton, & Michael, 2021). From early 2020 onwards, video calling became a standard solution in both our work and personal lives to minimise the transmission risk presented by face-to-face contact with others (see, eg, Karl, Peluchette, & Aghakhani, 2022). The transition to video communication was comparatively unproblematic in the community, particularly in countries like Australia that generally have widely available personal devices such as mobile telephones and tablets and good connectivity (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018).

Access to such devices, however, is highly restricted for people in prison (Kerr & Willis, 2018). There are several reasons for the restrictions, including security, the absence of necessary infrastructure and resources and the culture of correctional environments, which are commonly risk averse. While the community managed public health orders by relying on ICT, the same opportunity to deliver services and support family and social contacts was much more complicated for corrective services and, by extension, people in prison and their networks.

Contribution of this special issue

The contributions in this special issue document the uneven impacts of COVID-19 on family visits in different jurisdictions and critically examine the ways in which these impacts have been mitigated across Australia, Argentina and the United States. The topics covered in this special issue are: the initial experiences of families using video visitation (Taylor et al., 2023); the practice approach to supporting families and people in prison to use the technology in Australia (Faraguna, 2023) and Argentina (Cadoni et al., 2023); corrective services’ agility in crises (Hanley et al., 2023), supporting families to enhance video visit success (Charles et al., 2023), connecting parents in prison through digital playgroups (Zoellner, 2023) and maximising the affordances and opportunities of technology in prison environments (Hart, 2023).

Prison visitation

For people in prison, social contact with loved ones in the community is crucial. One of the primary impacts of imprisonment is isolation from family and friends, with poorly sustained links creating additional challenges for coping in prison and on return to the community. Supporting connections between imprisoned people and their social support networks has a range of benefits for the person in prison, their family, the community and the prison environment (De Claire & Dixon, 2017). Social contact can be facilitated in different ways, but visitation is a key component of corrective services policy and practice across most jurisdictions.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, social contact options available to people in prison and their families included letter writing, phone calls and in-person visitation. Letters are screened, telephone calls can be expensive and in-person visits are offered only at dedicated visit times. While all contact options have benefits, in-person visits allow people in prison to maintain some connection to their ‘outside’ selves (Tripp, 2009), maintain or rebuild a relationship with their family (Tasca, 2018) and reassure children whose parent/s may be incarcerated (Flynn, 2014). Internationally, in-person visits can be a vital source of basic provisions for people in prison (Cadoni et al., 2023, in this special issue). Social visits have also been connected to reduced recidivism (eg, see Ryan, Ackerman, Ready, & Kinner, 2020). However, attending a visit can be expensive (Pierce, 2015) and confronting, particularly for children (Poehlmann, Dallaire, Loper, & Shear, 2010). It is not always possible for family and friends to travel to a correctional centre regularly, or at all, especially when people are imprisoned far from their loved ones, including interstate or overseas (Bartlett, 2019).

In prisons, video conferencing has been primarily used to facilitate access to the legal system, for example via virtual court appearances (McKay, 2018). In their contribution to this special issue, Hanley et al. (2023) discuss how this picture has now changed considerably, with video visits being one of the key contact options in most Australian jurisdictions. Internationally the picture is varied. In Argentina, as Cadoni et al. (2023) explain, video visits are not available at all, rather mobile telephone contact has been extended. In contrast, in the United States, video visitation is well established but has often been used in quite different and controversial ways. Horgan and Poehlmann-Tynan (2020) have described considerable backlash against the exclusive use of pay-per-video visit social contacts, noting that some US states have now legislated to ensure that video contact cannot replace in-person visitation. In Australia, technology-enabled video visits have been available in some jurisdictions for several years. Overall, its use has been limited, for social visits particularly when compared to the exponential growth in such technology in the community (Kerr & Willis, 2018).

The potential in crisis

Notwithstanding the significant negative impacts of COVID-19 on people in prison and their community networks, the pandemic offered an opportunity for innovation that had not previously gained traction in some jurisdictions. As the pandemic developed, the benefits of providing continuity of family contact catalysed the introduction of video visitation for all people in prison. This shift in corrective services practices represents an uncharacteristic organisational agility in some jurisdictions and offers hope for future developments (Hanley et al., 2023, this special issue). Corrective services responded with uncharacteristic speed, though the time in between the cessation of in-person visits and roll out of video visits was distressing for people in prison and their families. Alex Faraguna’s (2023) critical commentary in this special issue documents the ways in which a community organisation supported families and people in prison through this time, whilst also navigating new ways of working. Within weeks, most jurisdictions in Australia had established and rolled out video-visit capability.

Reflecting on the past to make sense of the future

While the focus of this special issue is on technology-enabled visits between people in prison and their families, the contributions must be located in the broader context of the range of pandemic impacts on corrective services. Grace Jennings’ (2023) book review of The Impact of Covid-19 on Prison Conditions and Penal Policy in this special issue provides this grounding. The book critically reflects on how corrective services policy and practice around the world was impacted by the pandemic, with particular focus on human rights implications. This contribution, and the book upon which it is based, extends some of the discussions about imprisonment during a pandemic started in a previous special issue of Current Issues in Criminal Justice (2021, volume 33, issue 1). We encourage readers to revisit Anthony and Bartels’ (2021) edited issue on the topic of ‘COVID-19, Criminal Justice and Carceralism – Critical Reflections and Change’ to gain valuable insight into punishment imperatives during the pandemic, including the impact of the denial of visits for young people in custody (Gordon, Klose, & Lyttle Storrod, 2021).

In the three years since video visits were introduced, the evidence indicates that experiences of such visits have changed over the life cycle of the pandemic. In the first months of video visitation, experiences were less positive. Offering a view from caregivers on the impact on fathers in prison, including on their mental health, Taylor et al. (2023, this special issue) reinforce the argument that when they do not work well, video visits have the potential to be detrimental to coping with the separation of imprisonment. Similarly, Faraguna’s (2023) commentary in this special issue documents the difficult initial experiences reported by family members trying to secure video-visit bookings. The challenge described in these contributions perhaps reflect early service and infrastructure problems that have since been reduced or resolved.

What has emerged across many contributions to this special issue is that when video visits work, there are broad and deep benefits for all of the stakeholders involved in them. For people in prison and their families, video visits provide a means of contact when it would not otherwise be possible, either because of public health orders, or due to practical barriers such as time, distance and cost. As Zoellner’s (2023, this special issue) critical commentary shows by reflecting on the development and implementation of an online playgroup in a women’s prison in Queensland, children and parents can interact with toys and games and each other. The greater connection with children affords people in prison a different opportunity to parent. For family members, video visits offer a safe, familiar and comfortable environment from which to connect while the challenges associated with in-person visits are avoided. However, video visits do not replace physical contact. Affectionate gestures such as embracing are deeply important to, and meaningful for, people in prison and their families. In short, ICT can supplement, but it cannot replace, human contact.

The contributions to this special issue showcase the potential for ICT to both extend and interrupt the reach of the carceral space. ICT can both bring the prison into the home and loosen the grip of the prison to allow imprisoned people to interact with family members with some ‘normality’. Across jurisdictions, a range of enablers are identified by the contributors as key to successful video visits. Some of the enablers are pragmatic and visitor-focused, including using a simple and standardised online booking tool to make a visit and ensuring good connections, which is crucial for managing frustrations associated with video calls dropping in and out and poor audio.

Moreover, technology-enabled visits work best as part of a package of support. This is demonstrated by Pajarita Charles’ and colleagues’ article (2023, this special issue) which describes and evaluates the Enhanced Visits Model (EVM) offered in Wisconsin, United States. They argue that for visits to work best, they need to be cushioned with pre-visit coaching and follow-up support. As technology-enabled visits become embedded into usual practice, Hart’s article (2023) in this issue encourages us to think differently about the types of support needed, extending our thinking to consider how to engage and build rapport with devices, as well as how technology can be harnessed for program delivery.

The digital divide: an agenda for future research and advocacy

With one exception (Cadoni et al., 2023), the research article and practice commentary contributions to this special issue are located in neo-liberal Western democratic countries, reflecting both the development of video visits in prison and research trends on the topic. There are notable differences in the ways in which video visitation has emerged, or not, between countries. One significant difference regards cost. Video visits are free for people in prison in Australia (Hanley et al., forthcoming). Families incur some costs associated with device data usage. It is not clear to what extent data costs create strain, or not, for Australian families but, given this has not emerged in the contributions, it seems likely that data costs are manageable. Comparatively, video visitation was developed prior to the pandemic in the United States, but with significant associated cost in some states (Digard, diZerega, Yaroni, & Rinaldi, 2016). In these jurisdictions, the visit system is owned and managed by a profit-based organisation, placing financial burden on families. During the pandemic, nearly two-thirds (64%) of states that used video visits offered free video visits, but it is not yet clear whether this policy will continue or revert to pay-for-service (Dallaire et al., 2021). In contrast, video visitation is not available in Argentina, and people in prison rely on in-person and telephone contacts. In that context, to manage the cessation of in-person visits during COVID-19, a free online messaging service in conjunction with web-based resources was the most accessible technology to support family contact, as discussed by Cadoni et al. (2023) in this special issue. Consequently, one area for future research is in the area of equitable access which includes, but is not limited to, video-visit costs. Another dimension of equitable access is for people located in rural or remote communities with comparatively poor network coverage.

Beyond equitable access there is scarce research on equitable engagement with this technology. As video visits become part of the business-as-usual landscape in some places we might turn our attention to who benefits, and in what ways, who is not able to effectively engage with loved ones in prison via video visit, and what can be done to offer support? Outside of the United States, there is limited research attention on visit quality and how interpersonal and person-technology connections can be maximised to promote diverse and quality contact experiences.

The technology-enabled visitation field of inquiry is in its infancy, and consequently there is a dearth of theoretical and conceptual work. Fruitful future research questions might consider how the affordances of ICT might be harnessed to add value to relationships via technology-enabled visits, if and how cultural connection can be fostered via video visits and how ICT can support other outcomes such as re-entry planning. We hope that this collection of research and practice contributions provides inspiration to tackle these questions and more.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.