NCJ Number
213012
Journal
Criminal Justice Review Volume: 30 Issue: 2 Dated: September 2005 Pages: 141-154
Date Published
September 2005
Length
14 pages
Annotation
A survey of Pennsylvania's jail wardens was conducted in order to determine the characteristics of jail visitation policies across the State's counties.
Abstract
The authors of this article recommend clarifying and standardizing jail visitation policies across the State of Pennsylvania, increasing collaborative efforts among county jails, developing specialized training for corrections officers in the management of inmate visits, and improving methods for providing information to visitors. The authors specifically recommend the clarification and standardization of forms of visitor identification accepted in all jails, so as to assist jail personnel in tracking visitors. Responses were received from 58 counties, representing an 85-percent response rate. Just over half of the jails had fewer than 250 visitors per week; 46 jails had fewer than 500 visitors per week. It was not possible to distinguish between first-time and repeat visitors. Approximately 71 percent of the jails required visitors to sign their names on a visiting list prior to visitation. A similar percentage assigned times for visitors to see inmates. Times were scheduled based on either inmates' housing assignment, alphabetically by inmates' last names, or according to security classification. Ninety-seven percent of the jails required photo identification; 14 percent of the jails accepted other forms of identification. Seventy-five percent of the jails reported having visitor dress codes, and approximately 64 percent of the jails allowed visitors to bring items to inmates. Seventy-five percent of the wardens were concerned about contraband (drugs, weapons, and/or tobacco) being smuggled to inmates by visitors. Generally, the wardens viewed inmate visits as beneficial for inmates, but considered them potentially dangerous because of the unpredictability of visitors' behavior. The survey instrument consisted of forced choice, contingency, and open-ended questions. 6 tables and 55 references