Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey, Boudin, 2012

• Aug. 9, 2016 • Locations: United States of America • Topics: Visiting

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey
November 20121

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
Part I. Methodology..................................................................................................................... 3
Part II: Key Findings ................................................................................................................... 6
Part III: Overnight Family Visits and Virtual Visitation .......................................................... 19
A. Overnight Family Visits ............................................................................................ 19
B. Virtual Visitation ....................................................................................................... 24
Part IV: Next Steps for Potential Research Projects ................................................................. 32

Chesa Boudin is a 2011 graduate of the Yale Law School. Trevor Stutz is a 2012 graduate of the Yale Law School.
Aaron Littman is a member of the Yale Law School class of 2014. The authors thank the Liman Program at Yale
Law School and Judith Resnik, Hope Metcalf, Fiona Doherty, Nina Rabin, and Sia Sanneh for their supervision. We
thank the directors of the Departments of Corrections of all fifty states for their time and effort in providing us with
information about their inmate visitation policies that was not available on the departments’ websites. That
assistance was facilitated by the Association of State Correctional Administrators and in particular by President
Ashbel T. Wall, II, Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, who provided constructive guidance
throughout our research. We also express our appreciation to the Association’s staff – particularly Co-Executive
Director George Camp, and Senior Associate Wayne Choinski – who were instrumental in making the entire data
collection process so successful. Finally, many generously read and commented on early drafts: Brett Dignam,
David Fathi, Philip Genty, David Menschel, Chief Administrative Law Judge Brenda Murray, Myrna Raeder, and
Michael Wald.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2171412

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum presents a summary of the findings from a survey of prison visitation
policies in the fifty states and in the system run by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”). We
embarked on the project with two primary goals. First, we wanted to provide for relatively easy
state-by-state comparisons across a group of common visitation-related categories. Second, we
hoped to identify similarities and differences across states in the categories we tracked. In
practice, these two goals tended to converge because many of the variations warranted their own
categories in the spreadsheet we used to present the data. We also discovered some significant
issues that did not lend themselves to neat or easy comparisons. Thus, in addition to the attached
spreadsheet, this memo provides a summary of our key findings, analyses, and areas for further
research.
The lives of prisoners and their families are deeply affected by visitation policies and, to
date, there has been no comprehensive effort to compare these policies across all of the fifty
states.2 We believe the dataset presented here is the first of its kind to explore the contours of
how prison administrators use their discretion in prescribing visitation policies. This comparative
analysis has many uses, both in identifying best practices and in uncovering policies that warrant
concern as a matter of law or policy.

Fifty state surveys exist in related areas. See, e.g., LEGAL ACTION CENTER, AFTER PRISON: ROADBLOCKS TO
REENTRY (2004) (comparing barriers to reentry from prison); NAT’L INST. OF CORR., U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE,
SERVICES FOR FAMILIES OF PRISON INMATES (2002) (surveying the services available for families of prisoners),
available at http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2002/017272.pdf; BRENDA V. SMITH, FIFTY STATE SURVEY OF STATE
CRIMINAL LAWS, PROHIBITING THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF INDIVIDUALS UNDER CUSTODIAL SUPERVISION (2008)
(documenting policies preventing sexual abuse in prisons). Note, too, that in 2002 the Department of Justice and the
National Institute of Corrections sent out a survey to the Department of Corrections for all fifty states with questions
about initiatives related to families of inmates. See Jade S. Laughlin, Bruce A. Arrigo, Kristie R. Blevins & Charisse
T. M. Coston, Incarcerated Mothers and Child Visitation: A Law, Social Science, and Policy Perspective, 19 CRIM.
JUST. POL’Y REV. 215, 225-26 (2008).

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2171412

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
Comparative analysis of visiting is particularly important given that the contours of
prison visitation are determined almost exclusively by administrative discretion, unconstrained
except at the margins by judicial interference. The Supreme Court and other federal courts have
been largely deferential to prison administrators, granting them wide latitude generally, and in
the realm of visitation regulations specifically.3
As a result, decisions made by corrections officials are among the primary determinants
of whether and how inmates are able to maintain relationships with their parents, spouses,
siblings, and children. Recent studies show that visitation is strongly correlated with decreased
recidivism and improved penological outcomes.4 Visitors often represent the only contact
inmates have with the world outside the prison walls, to which they will most likely return after
serving out their sentences; the strength of the connections inmates maintain with their
communities may depend substantially on visitation regulations promulgated by administrators.
The nearly unrestrained discretion officials have in crafting and implementing prison visitation
regulations makes clear how consequential these policy choices are, both to inmates’ experiences
of incarceration and to the success of the correctional enterprise.
This memo is organized as follows. Part I describes the methodology we employed and
discusses the challenges and limitations of our research. Part II provides our key substantive
findings, beginning with broad observations about the similarities and differences across the fifty
states, and then discussing specific highlights of the data in several key areas. Part III provides a
3

See Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (holding unanimously that a ban on visits by minors and a restriction
on visits for inmates with substance abuse violations violated neither the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause,
the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, or the inmates’ right to freedom of association
under the First Amendment, on the grounds that both regulations were, as required under the four-part standard for
evaluating challenges to conditions of confinement articulated in Turner v. Saffley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987),
“reasonably related to legitimate penological interests”).
4
See, e.g., Grant Duwe & Valerie Clark, Blessed be the social tie that binds: The effects of prison visitation on
offender recidivism, 20 CRIM. JUST. POL’Y REV. 1 (2011) (finding that visitation significantly decreased the risk of
recidivism).

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2171412

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
detailed description of two sub-policy areas within visitation regulations that raise particularly
complex and specialized considerations: virtual visitation and overnight family (also called
“conjugal” or “extended”) visitation. Finally, Part IV outlines possible next steps for research on
this topic.

PART I. METHODOLOGY
A.

Sources of Data
Three layers of rules govern prison visitation. The first two - administrative regulations

(often general grants of rulemaking authority to correctional administrators) and policy directives
(more detailed rules promulgated by those administrators) – apply to the state system as a whole.
Facility-specific rules, which form the third layer, vary considerably, and are usually the most
detailed, although they do not always cover the full scope of visitation policies.5
We began by reviewing the websites for the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) for each
of the fifty states and the federal BOP. We found that some websites contained direct links to the
various departmental policy directives, others only gave thumbnail sketches of their visitation
policies, and others had little or no information available on topic. Some of these websites also
included visitor “handbooks.”6

For the purposes of this memo a “regulation” or “administrative regulation” is the code promulgated pursuant to
each state’s administrative law procedures. A “policy directive” is a list of policies promulgated and signed by the
head of the DOC or his / her designee. Throughout this memo, we differentiate between policy directives and
administrative regulations, although this distinction can at times be murky, since jurisdictions do not always use the
same terminology when referring to the policies that guide their discretion. Often, the policy directives closely track
the language in the regulation.
6
Visitor handbooks or rules on the website are primarily informational, and not binding. Where available,
handbooks provide a range of information about visitation policies and procedures in plain English rather than
legalese. Often the handbooks closely track the policy directives or the regulations. Handbooks are issued both
statewide, for an entire prison system, and by individual facilities. We considered the statewide ones only.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
We compiled copies of all the available policy directives, regulations, and any other
materials directly related to visitation that were available online. Roughly half of the jurisdictions
have administrative regulations available on Westlaw;7 the vast majority of jurisdictions have
policy directives.
Where a directive was not available online, we contacted DOCs through the Association
of State Corrections Administrators (ASCA), which counts as its members corrections directors
from every state. ASCA sent its members a draft of this report, including a spreadsheet, and
solicited feedback. We received valuable updates from more than half of the departments; most
of the others responded to confirm that we had accurately represented their most recent policies.
Through this process, we were able to obtain information about the visitation policies of all fifty
state prison systems and the BOP.8
We chose to focus our review at the level of policy directives for several reasons.9 First,
the directives articulate policy more comprehensively than institution-specific rules,10 and in
much more detail than most regulations. They also contain the DOC’s policy rationale for and
philosophy of visitation. While we missed out on some variation between facilities within each
of the jurisdictions, this approach allowed us to develop an understanding of visitation policies
7

See Prison Visitation Regulations Spreadsheet, Column F (attached). We also acquired some administrative
regulations that were not available on Westlaw directly from the DOCs.
8
As of 2005, the last time comprehensive data was collected, there were 1,190 confinement (as opposed to
community-based) correctional facilities operated under state authority (including private facilities), and 102
operated under federal authority. JAMES J. STEPHEN, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, CENSUS OF STATE AND
FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, 2005, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS 10 tbl.2 (2008). This data set does not
map perfectly onto ours, but the match is close, since it excludes facilities like city, county and regional jails,
military facilities and immigration detention centers, which are not under the authority of state DOCs.
9
While we relied principally on policy directives, we included information from administrative regulations for states
where information was different or more detailed. Although administrative regulations are generally less specific,
some are quite detailed, and so we considered these. Five states (FL, IL, OR, UT, VT) rely exclusively on such
regulations rather than policy directives.
10
Institution-specific rules proved too numerous, inaccessible, and subject to change for productive study, given our
limited time and resources. We do reference institution-specific policies in the more detailed discussions of family
and video visitation, infra Part III.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
across the nation in a manageable way. Second, we focused on policy directives because they
are most amenable to systemic assessment, and, if necessary, reform. Policy directives are issued
by a single, common entity – the director of the state’s DOC. Each policy directive is issued and
signed by the state director and governs all facilities, with some amount of discretion left up to
each facility’s warden. Amending policy directives may be the most pragmatic approach to
advancing policy goals, because it is likely easier to amend a policy directive than it is to change
state-level regulations. Additionally, amendment or replacement of policy directives would likely
have a broader and more lasting impact than changing practices at a single facility.

Methodological Limitations
This methodology yields data that are limited in several ways. First, our analysis does not

provide a picture of how each of the numerous provisions is actually implemented, institution by
institution. Disparities between policy and practice might occur for any number of reasons,
including variation in the inmate populations housed within different facilities, locations of the
facilities, physical infrastructure and staffing capacity, and attitudes towards visitation held by
management and officers. Conducting case studies to see how policies work in practice would
add valuable nuance to this study. On-the-ground research will, we hope, be the next stage of our
project.
Second, this survey does not account for distinctions among particular prison
populations. One key sub-group is female prisoners, who may be affected differently than male
prisoners by visitation rules. Security classification also likely has a significant impact on how
prisoners are permitted visitation. These key differences, which could be a rich area for future
research, are rarely accounted for adequately by the categories we tracked in policy directives.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
Third, in order to create data points for comparison, we organized our review into several
categories. The policy directives and regulations, however, range from a few to dozens of pages
and contain a disparate breadth and depth of information, and hence did not always fit neatly into
the categories we used. Our review necessarily left much more to do.
Based on our initial review of the policy directives, we chose categories to target issues
that came up frequently, for which there was a wide range of responses, or that presented
important questions. We also chose to delve more deeply into two areas that both potentially
provide greater access to and alter the experience of visitation: overnight family visitation and
virtual visitation.

PART II: KEY FINDINGS
In this section, we offer observations about the similarities and differences the data
revealed between and across jurisdictions. We then provide a more detailed summary of the key
findings on several specific aspects of visitation policies. While most of the factual information
in this section is also presented in the spreadsheet, the discussion that follows provides additional
analysis and, in synthesizing the data, provides a context in which to place the policies of any
particular state.

Overview of Key Findings
This Part reviews the main findings from our survey, organized thematically. It includes

both summary statistics and illustrative examples.

Institutional Authority Over Visitation

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
Forty-six jurisdictions had DOC policy directives – policies promulgated by the head of
the DOC. All of the five states that lacked policy directives (FL, IL, OR, UT, VT) followed an
administrative regulation and or had written policies on the department website.

Number and Duration of Visits
Thirty jurisdictions promote or encourage visitation at the outset of their policy directives
or regulations. (BOP, AK, AR, CA, CO, GA, HI, ID, IN, IA, LA, MD, MN, MO, MT, NH, NJ,
NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WY). For example, in Alaska, “[t]he
Department encourages prisoner visitation because strong family and community ties increase
the likelihood of a prisoner’s success after release. Visitation is subject only to the limitations in
this policy and as necessary to protect persons and maintain order and security in the
institution.”11 However, these states are not necessarily the ones in which visitation is most
liberally permitted, and indeed some have policies that severely limit visitation.12
Twenty-eight jurisdictions have a floor for the minimum number of days or hours
visitation must be made available (AK, AR, CA, CT, FL, GA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MN, MS,
MO, NM, NY, NC, ND, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, WI, WY). For example, in Georgia,
“[a] minimum of SIX (6) hours shall be allotted each day for visitation periods on Saturdays,
Sundays and holidays. Normally, there will be no restrictions placed on the length of visits
during the facility’s established visitation periods.”13

Alaska Dep’t Corr. Policy 810.02 VI.A.
A number of other jurisdictions explained in communication with us that their correctional philosophy does
recognize the value of visitation; we have included in this count only those states that articulate this in an official
policy document.
13
Ga. Dep’t of Corr. Policy IIB01-0005.VI.C.1.
12

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
Several other states provide for ceilings to visitation hours. Oregon allows only one visit
per day per visitor on weekends and holidays;14 Utah allows no more than two hours per visit per
day. Overall, New York State’s maximum security prisons provide perhaps the most welcoming
visitation policy, allowing for up to six hour visits 365 days per year and overnight conjugal
visits approximately every two months, while North Carolina is perhaps the most restrictive,
establishing a ceiling of no more than one visit per week of up to two hours (plus legal and
clergy visits).

Inmate Eligibility for Visits
Twenty-two jurisdictions specify that offenders at different security classifications will be
subject to limits on visitation (AR, AZ, CA CT, DE, MA, MN, MS, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OK,
PA, SC, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA). In addition to security classification, several states indicate
special provisions for sex offenders, limiting the ability of minors to visit. Many jurisdictions
note that though the policy directives do not limit visitation based on inmate classifications,
individual facilities will determine their own specific rules. In most states that differentiate based
on security classification, higher security inmates are allowed fewer visiting opportunities.
In Oklahoma, for example, maximum security inmates are given up to four hours per
week of visitation, while minimum security inmates get up to eight hours per week. Likewise,
Mississippi’s regulations state that Long-Term Administrative Segregation Status offenders are
allowed only “[o]ne (1) hour non-contact visit on the 2nd Monday in the last month of each

Under this system, inmates are given a number of points per month to spend on visits. Weekend and holiday visits
deduct two points per visitor per session (only one session per day is allowed for any given visitor), weekday visits
deduct one point per visitor per session (two sessions per day are allowed for any given visitor), and visits with
minor children do not deduct any points. Or. Admin. Rule 291-127-0250.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
quarter with any approved visitor on their visitation list.”15 In contrast, New York is the only
state that provides more visitation opportunities, and more flexible timing of visits, to inmates in
higher security settings.16
In general, higher security inmates and those in segregation within the prison may face
additional barriers to visitation, such as requirements of ‘no-contact’ visits. Georgia, however,
has a specific provision to allow visitation to inmates in the most restrictive custody.17
Additionally, prisoners may be temporarily or permanently banned from visits for disciplinary
violations. Michigan enforces a mandatory permanent ban on visiting in some circumstances,18
and new regulations in New York introduce harsher penalties for inmate misconduct, including a

Miss. Dep’t of Corr. Policy 31-03-01.
“At maximum security facilities, visiting is allowed every day of the year and at hours intended to encourage
maximum visitation. At medium and minimum facilities, visiting is allowed on weekends and holidays only. At
Work Release facilities, only inmates held in restriction status shall be allowed visitors.” N.Y. Dep’t of Corr. Policy
4403.III.A.
17
“K. Special Visitation Requirements: 1. Protective custody and administrative segregation inmates shall in general
have the same rights to visitation as general population inmates unless this is not feasible. Non-feasibility must be
documented. An example would include inmates with documented assaultive and destructive behavior.” Ga. Dep’t
of Corr. Policy IIB01-0005.VI.K.1.
18
These two provisions in combinations seem to effectuate a permanent ban:
“Except as set forth in Paragraph AAA, the Director may restrict all of a prisoner’s visits if the prisoner is
convicted or found guilty of any of the following:
1. A felony or misdemeanor that occurred during a visit.
2. A major misconduct violation that occurred during a visit or was associated with a visit.
3. Escape, attempted escape, or conspiracy to escape.
4. Two or more violations of the major misconduct charge of substance abuse for behavior that occurred on
or after January 1, 2007, which do not arise from the same incident. This includes failure to submit to
substance abuse testing.”
Mich. Dep’t. of Corr. Policy 5.03.140.XX.
“The Director may remove a restriction upon written request of the Warden or the restricted prisoner,
subject to the following: 1. The restriction shall not be removed if it is based on a felony or misdemeanor
that occurred during a visit or if it is based on an escape, attempted escape, or conspiracy to escape
associated with a visit.”
Mich. Dep’t. of Corr. Policy 5.03.140.BBB.
16

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
six-month to year-long suspension of all visiting privileges for any drug-related charges, whether
stemming from a visit or not.19

Approval of Visitors
Thirty-two jurisdictions limit the number of visitors an inmate may have on an approved
visiting list;20 Pennsylvania allows the longest visitor list (40) and South Dakota the shortest (two
plus immediate family). In contrast, California affirmatively places no limit on the number of
approved visitors: “Limitations shall not be placed on the number of visitors approved to visit an
inmate.”21
Many states allow a visitor to be on only one inmate’s approved visitors list, unless a
visitor has multiple immediate family members incarcerated. In Connecticut, “[n]o visitor,
except an immediate family member, shall be on more than one (1) inmate’s visiting list at the
same facility (i.e., to visit two or more inmates at the same facility, the visitor must be an
immediate family member to all the inmates on whose list the visitor is on). This requirement
may be waived at the discretion of the Unit Administrator.”22 In Maine, “[v]isitors shall not be
approved to be placed on the approved visitor list of more than one prisoner within a facility,
unless they are members of the immediate family (spouse, natural, foster or adoptive mother,
father, son, daughter, grandfather or grandmother, grandchild, brother or sister, or stepmother,

N.Y. DEP’T OF CORR., VISITING PROGRAM GUIDELINES, available at
http://www.doccs.ny.gov/PressRel/2012/Visiting_Program_Guidelines_20121001.pdf.
20
AL: 8, AR: 20; AZ: 20, CO: 12 plus minor children, CT: 5-10 depending on security classification, FL: 15 plus
children under twelve, GA: 12, IN: 10 family and 2 friends, IA: 4 plus immediate family, KS: 20 with restrictions on
higher security classifications, KY: 3 plus immediate family, LA: 10, MD: 15, MI: 10 plus immediate family, MN:
24, MS: 10 plus children, MO: 20, NH: 20 plus immediate family, NM: 15, NC: 18, OH: 15, OK: 6 plus immediate
family, OR: 20, RI: 9, SC: 15, TN: 8 plus immediate family, TX: 10, WI: 12 plus children, WY: 10 plus children.
21
Calif. Dep’t of Corr., Operations & Rehabilitation Manual 54020.18.
22
Conn. Dep’t of Corr. Policy 10.6.4.A.4.b.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
stepfather, stepson, stepdaughter, stepgrandfather or stepgrandmother, stepgrandchild or
stepbrother or stepsister) of more than one prisoner.”23
States vary in their policies for adding and removing visitors to the “approved visitors”
list. In some cases, such as North Carolina and Wisconsin, they provide opportunities to add or
remove visitors from the list only every six months. Tennessee requires a visitor taken off one
inmate’s list to wait a full year prior to appearing on another inmate’s list. Utah requires that all
visitors reapply every year to stay on an inmate’s visitors list.

Exclusion of Visitors
Almost every jurisdiction excludes some categories of visitors, often former felons.
Sometimes these restrictions bar former felons from ever visiting. Idaho denies anyone who has
a felony conviction, or arrest within the last five years or a misdemeanor drug arrest within last
two years. Michigan restricts from visiting “a prisoner or a former prisoner in any jurisdiction.
However, a prisoner or former prisoner who is an immediate family member may be placed on
the prisoner’s approved visitors list with prior approval of the Warden of the facility where the
visit will occur.”24 Hawaii, by contrast, specifically allows former felons to visit inmates, as do
Massachusetts and Vermont.25 New Jersey26 and Nebraska are the only states that explicitly
provide for inmate-to-inmate visitation in their written policies. States require various levels of
background checks for visitors, ranging from nothing to a detailed criminal history check.

Me. Dep’t of Corr. Policy 21.4.VI.B.7.
Mich. Dep’t. of Corr. Policy 5.03.140.J.2.
25
“No group of persons, such as parolees or ex-offenders may be excluded from visiting residents solely because of
their status.” Vt. Admin. Code 12-8-22:966.
26
“Visits shall be permitted between incarcerated relatives that are incarcerated in facilities under the jurisdiction of
the New Jersey Department of Corrections. [Conditions and limitations follow.]” N.J. Admin. Code 10A: 18-6.6.
24

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
Many states do not allow victims to visit inmates. In Indiana, “[v]ictims generally shall
not be allowed to visit offenders, unless the visit is for therapeutic reasons and a therapist has
requested the visit and will be a part of the visit.”27 Several jurisdictions have highly specific,
and sometimes unique, rules excluding other categories of visitors. The BOP only allows visits
from people inmates knew prior to their incarceration.28 Oklahoma prohibits married inmates
from receiving visits from friends of the opposite gender.29 Washington is the only state to
explicitly require, in its written policy directive, non-citizens who wish to visit to provide proof
of their legal status in the US,30 although Arkansas and Kentucky require visitors to include a
social security number on the visiting information form.31 Utah prohibits visitors from speaking
any language besides English.32

Searches and Behavior of Visitors
Forty-one jurisdictions specify, with varying levels of detail, the search procedures for
visitors (BOP, AL, AK, AR, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, KS, LA, MD, MA, MN,
MS, MO, MT, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WV,
WI, WY). In some cases searches may extend to vehicles and to body cavities of visitors.
27

Ind. Dep’t of Corr. Policy 02-01-102.IX.
“The visiting privilege ordinarily will be extended to friends and associates having an established relationship
with the inmate prior to confinement, unless such visits could reasonably create a threat to the security and good
order of the institution. Exceptions to the prior relationship rule may be made, particularly for inmates without other
visitors, when it is shown that the proposed visitor is reliable and poses no threat to the security or good order of the
institution. Regardless of the institution’s security level, the inmate must have known the proposed visitor(s) prior to
incarceration. The Warden must approve any exception to this requirement.” CFR § 540.44.c.
29
“If the offender is married, no person of the opposite gender may be added as a ‘friend’ on the approved visiting
list.” Okla. Dep’t of Corr. Policy 030118 add. 01.A.
30
“Persons who are not United States (U.S.) citizens must provide proof of legal entry into the U.S. Aliens require
documentation to visit. [List of acceptable documentation follows.]” Wash. Dep’t of Corr. Policy 450.300.IH.
31
Ark. Dep't of Corr. Policy 11-49. Attach. 1; Ky. Corr. Policy 16.1.II.D.2(b).
32
The DOC website provides a list of rules for visitors including: “All visits will be conducted in English.” Visiting
Rules, UTAH DEP’T OF CORR., http://corrections.utah.gov/visitation_facilities/visiting_rules.html (last visited Oct.
10, 2012).
28

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
Various additional methods of search are specified. For example, in Arizona, “[a]ll visitors and
their possessions are subject to physical search by staff, electronic metal detection devices,
barrier sniff screening (Narcotics Detection) by a Department Service Dog, and/or Ion Scanning.
. . . All vehicles on Department property are subject to search.”33
In some cases, the refusal to submit to a more intrusive search bars entrance to the
facility, and can be a cause for sanctions. In Georgia, “[i]f a person refuses to be searched, an
incident report will be completed and this could be cause for removal from the inmate’s
approved visitor list.”34 Pennsylvania, however, prohibits its correctional officers from
conducting pat or strip searches of incoming visitors.
Several states also have noteworthy policies controlling what visitors can wear or bring
with them into the prison. Tennessee’s visitor dress code specifically requires visitors to wear
undergarments but prohibits “thong and water brassieres.”35
Many policy directives limit displays of physical affection. In New Hampshire,
“[p]hysical contact and displays of affection will be kept within bounds of decorum with hugging
and kissing allowed only at start and end of visits for 15 seconds or less,”36 and in Kentucky,
“[a]n inmate in the regular visiting area shall be allowed brief physical contact (example: holding
hands, kissing, and embracing). This contact shall be permitted within the bounds of good taste
and only at the beginning and end of the visit.”37

Children Visiting

Ariz. Dep’t of Corr. Policy 911.03.1.1.1.
Ga. Dep’t of Corr. Policy IIB01-0005.VI.J.7.
35
Tenn. Dep’t of Corr. Policy 507.01.VI.M.1.b.
36
N.H. Dep’t of Corr. Policy 7.09.IV.N.1.d.).
37
Ky. Corr. Policy 16.1.II.H.1.
34

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
Some states have in place policy directives pertaining to minor visitors. Many provide for
the termination of visits if children cannot be controlled.38 New Hampshire prohibits all toys
from the visiting room.39 At the opposite end of the spectrum, some states, like Washington,
provide for child-friendly visiting rooms, including toys, games and rule enforcement sensitive to
children.40 Maine has a specific provision to ensure that minors can visit.41

Extended Visits
Nearly all states offer some form of extended daytime visit, and some offer overnight
family visits. These visits look different in each jurisdiction, however, as there is no consistent
length of time allotted for an “extended” visit, and there is no consistent definition of “family”
for the purposes of overnight visit eligibility – in some cases, this category includes only children
(of a certain age) or only spouses (and sometimes domestic partners), while in others it includes
all immediate family members and legal guardians.
Forty-seven jurisdictions provide for “Special Visitation,” which in most instances
specifically includes visitors who have traveled a great distance to the prison (BOP, AL, AK,
AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN,

See, e.g., Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just. Policy I-218.3.14.1.
“Although children are allowed in the visiting room, no toys are allowed.” N.H. Dep’t of Corr. Policy 7.09.IV.I.3.
40
“Visit rooms will provide toys and games suitable for interaction by family members of all ages[;] rule
enforcement will be sensitive to visitors, particularly children.” Wash. Dep’t of Corr. Policy 450.300.I.A.1(a).
Georgia’s women’s prison also has a separate visiting room for children, called the Children’s Center.
41
“Visits by Minors. Each facility shall ensure that minors (persons under 18 years of age, unless married or
emancipated by court order) are permitted to visit prisoners, unless the minor is on the prisoner’s Prohibited Visitor
List. A minor visitor must have an application completed on their behalf and must be accompanied at the visit by an
immediate family member or legal guardian who is an adult (persons 18 years of age or older, married, or
emancipated by court order). An adult who is not an immediate family member or legal guardian may also be
allowed to bring in a minor visitor with the written permission of the parent(s) having legal custody or the legal
guardian of the minor and with the prior approval of the Chief Administrative Officer, or designee. A professional
visitor from the Department of Health and Human Services may also be allowed to bring in a minor visitor with the
prior approval of the Chief Administrative Officer, or designee.” Me. Dep’t of Corr. Policy 21.4.VI.H.
39

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
MS, MO, MT, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WA,
WV, WI, WY). In Iowa, for example, “[t]he Warden/Superintendent or designee may permit
special visits not otherwise provided for in this policy. These may include, but are not limited to,
extended visits for close family members traveling extended distances, immediate visits for close
relatives or friends about to leave the area, visits necessary to straighten out critical personal
affairs, and other visits for similar reasons.”42 A number of states exempt visitors who have
traveled long distances from early visit termination due to overcrowding.
Nine jurisdictions allow for overnight family visits (CA, CO, CT, MS, NB, NM, NY, SD,
WA). California provides for “Family Visiting” in great detail. Connecticut offers “Extended
Family Visit. A prolonged visit between an inmate and specified immediate family member(s),
and/or a legal guardian, in a designated secure area separate from the inmate population.”43
However, family visitation is not currently operational in any Connecticut facilities.44 Only
Mississippi refers to these visits as “conjugal” visits. Nebraska only allows for overnight visits in
one women's facility, and only for children under age six.45 According to communication with
the Director of the DOC, Colorado also has overnight visits in its women’s prison, though its
official policy directives do not mention this. Though not in its formal policy, South Dakota also
provides for weekend-long visits for incarcerated mothers and their children, “intended to
alleviate some of the familial stress associated with the mother’s incarceration, create a better

Iowa Dep’t of Corr. Policy 5.IV.J.2.
Conn. Dep’t of Corr. Policy 10.6.5.E.
44
This information has been confirmed with the director of ASCA and with family members of CT inmates.
45
See Nebraska Correctional Center for Women, NEB. DEP’T OF CORR. SERVS.,
http://www.corrections.nebraska.gov/nccw.html (last visited Oct. 10, 2012).
43

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
understanding of the parent role, and provide the opportunity of the inmate mother to maintain
some direct responsibility for the care of her children.”46

Virtual Visits
At least eighteen jurisdictions have some form of virtual (video) visitation (AK, CO, FL,
GA, ID, IN, LA, MN, MO, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, PA, VA, WA, WI). Indiana and Wisconsin
allow video visitation where the inmate is not allowed other forms of visitation, on a temporary
or permanent basis. New Mexico and Pennsylvania, by contrast, allow for video visitation as a
supplement to, rather than a replacement for, other forms of visitation. Alaska, Colorado,
Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York and Ohio reported that they also have programs,
many of which are limited in scope and/or privately operated, but these programs do not appear
in their policy directives or regulations.
The Alaska program is only for inmates at a contract facility in Colorado, and it is run by
that contractor and the Tanana Chiefs Conference; the Colorado program likewise applies to only
one facility; the Georgia program is being piloted by JPay in women’s facilities; the New York
program is facilitated, in part, by the Osborne Association; the Ohio program operates in four
facilities; and the Virginia program has recently expanded from one facility to ten and is now
incorporated into its official state-level policy. Oregon explicitly permits video visitation in its
policy documents but has decided to allow access to video interactive phones and cover the
related policy directives as part of their administrative phone rule. Oregon will offer video
interactive phone calls at all institutions after piloting the concept at the two located most

South Dakota Dep’t. of Corr., South Dakota Women’s Prison, available at:
http://doc.sd.gov/adult/facilities/wp/mip.aspx.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
remotely from population centers. Florida, Idaho, Missouri and Washington also have limited
programs that do not appear in their policy directive or regulations.47

Similarities and Differences Across the Fifty States
Substantial consistency and significant commonalities exist across all the jurisdictions

surveyed. All states have some provisions for prison visitation; all states screen visitors and place
limitations on who can visit and when, and all states provide a substantial level of discretion to
each prison’s warden or superintendent in implementing the policy directives. Reading through
the various policy directives, administrative regulations, and visitation codes makes clear that all
DOCs treat visitation as a privilege, not a right. In most of the policies reviewed, DOCs note that
inmates are not entitled to visits.48
However, some jurisdictions generally restrict visitation, while other states specifically
encourage and promote visitation as a core part of the rehabilitation process. While the various
state policies exist on a continuum, these extremes symbolize divergent policy approaches to
visitation and suggest key questions for further exploration: Do states that promote and
encourage visitation have better or worse outcomes in terms of institutional security or
recidivism rates? To what extent, if any, does the general attitude towards visitation articulated in
policy directives correlate with actual visitation policy? Does it correlate with other related
policies in the jurisdiction, such as family law provisions preserving or dissolving custodial
relationships when parents or children are incarcerated?

See PATRICK DOYLE, CAMILLE FORDY & AARON HAIGHT, VERMONT LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH SERVICE, PRISON
VIDEO CONFERENCING 3 (2011), available at
http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/CriminalJusticeandCorrections/prison%20video%20conferencing.pdf.
48
The Supreme Court held in Overton v. Bazetta, 539 U.S. 126, 136-37 (2003), that bans on all visitation for two
years following an inmate’s second substance-abuse violation did not violate the Eighth Amendment, although it
noted that “indefinite withdrawal of visitation or dential of procedural safeguards” might not also pass muster.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
The differences between states’ visitation policies are also revealing. First, limits on
visitation are often justified in terms of security, which may lead one to expect consistent
policies across jurisdictions. We do not know why similar security concerns yield widely variant
statewide policies. Jurisdictions evaluate security in different ways in different contexts, so we
need to learn more about policy in practice in order to understand this variation.
No clear regional, geographic, or political trends appear to explain variation in policies.
One might expect that certain policies – for example, overnight family visits – would exist in a
state or group of states with certain common characteristics. Instead, the states in each category
we examined do not appear to have much in common. The eight states that allow for overnight
family visits, for example, are not from any one or even two geographic regions, and it is unclear
what else of significance California, Colorado, Connecticut, Mississippi, Nebraska, New
Mexico, New York, and Washington have in common.
Further, while the states often serve as laboratories of policy experimentation, one might
expect some harmonization of best practices. If there has been such a harmonization or crosspollination process, it is not apparent in several key areas. For example, North Carolina allows
just one visit per week for a maximum of two hours, while New York allows its maximumsecurity offenders 365 days of visiting. While South Dakota allows only two people (plus family
members) to be placed on an inmate’s list of approved visitors, California allows inmates to list
an unlimited number of visitors. It would be useful to know more about how these policies are
developed and revised, both procedurally and substantively. What resources and which
stakeholders are consulted when policy directives are drafted or updated? What prompts the
issuance of new policies?

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
PART III: OVERNIGHT FAMILY VISITS AND VIRTUAL VISITATION
Two particular types of visitation stood out in our research as worthy of additional focus:
overnight family visits and virtual visits. These forms of visitation are extremes – overnight
family visits that allow for the most intimate of human contact, and virtual video visits that allow
for secure visitation without contact and across great distances. Both kinds of visits are present in
a minority of states. Overnight family visits have existed for approximately 100 years in at least
one state, while virtual visitation only became technologically feasible in recent years. Yet both
of these forms of visitation present opportunities and risks from the perspective of prison safety
on the one hand, and the rights of inmates and their families on the other. In short, these cutting
edge topics make for an excellent point of departure for the research that will hopefully flow
from our dataset.
These subsections will describe the policies that currently exist, and then discuss some
potential costs and benefits of each.

Overnight Family Visits
While most prisons limit visiting to specially designated rooms under close supervision

by correctional officers, several states allow for overnight family visits. Specifically, the policy
directives in six states (CA, CT, MS, NM, NY, WA)49 allow for some sort of overnight family
visit. Some other states, such as Colorado, Nebraska, and South Dakota, provide for extended
family visitation in some facilities, even though this program is not mentioned explicitly in their
policy directives or regulations. Others, such as Tennessee, allow for outdoor visits including
cooking and picnicking in lower security classifications, or longer visits with family in
49

See also Kacy E. Wiggum, Defining Family in American Prisons, 30 WOMEN’S RTS. L. REP. 357, 357 (2009).

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
supervised visitation rooms, but do not provide for overnight visiting. This section describes the
range of policies in those few states that address the issue of overnight visiting in their policy
directives, as well as the costs and benefits of these rare programs.
California’s “Family Visitation” program is described in the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation Code.50 Participating correctional facilities allow for overnight visitation,51
and provide the inmates and their families with all the necessary accommodations, except for
food, at no cost. Only those visitors meeting the statutory definition of “immediate family” are
allowed to participate in the program.52 Inmates convicted of sex offenses or violent offenses
involving minors are barred from participating in the program, as is a broader class of inmates
with extremely long sentences (e.g. life without parole).
Connecticut’s “Extended Family Visitation” program is described in the general
visitation policy directive. The program is defined as “[a] prolonged visit between an inmate and
specified immediate family member(s), and/or a legal guardian, in a designated secure area
separate from the inmate population.” All inmates wishing to participate in the program must be
tested for tuberculosis and other unspecified contagious diseases. The policy directive does not
provide many details but allows each facility offering the program to develop local rules.53
Mississippi does not have a policy directive, but the DOC website briefly mentions
“conjugal visitation” as being available only for married inmates. These visits are not referred to

Title 15, § 3177
Note that the regulations do not stipulate the length of visits.
52
This definition includes domestic partners.
53
Note that the CT DOC does not, in practice, currently have any facilities that allow for overnight visitation. See
supra note 43.
51

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
either as a “program” or as having any relationship to “family.” This form of visitation has been
in continual existence for nearly a hundred years.54
New Mexico’s policy directive provides for “family visits” defined as “extended visit[s]
between eligible inmates and their families where physical contact is allowed. Visits are
conducted in the Family Visitation units,” and the DOC provides all of the necessary
accommodations in mobile or modular homes. These visits are generally limited to spouses and
children of inmates. The goal of the program is to “promote family stability, encourage
participation in programming, and enhance the reintegration/rehabilitation process.”55 The DOC
charges a fee to defray all costs associated with the family visit.56 Access to the program is
limited by type of conviction, disciplinary status, and security classification. New Mexico has a
detailed list of eligibility requirements that must be met prior to approval of a family visit and
varying by the inmate’s sentence. For example, all inmates eligible for family visit must request,
schedule, and receive a family visit counseling session with medical staff before the family visit
is allowed to take place. Information about the inmates’ health may be communicated to his or
her family prior to a family visit. In addition, inmates and their spouses are encouraged to use
prophylactic devices when engaging in sexual activity, and condoms are available upon request.

Christopher Hensley, Sandra Rutland & Phyllis Gray-Ray, Inmate Attitudes Toward the Conjugal Visitation
Program in Mississippi Prisons: An Exploratory Study, 25 AM. J. CRIM. JUST. 137 (2000); COLUMBUS B. HOPPER,
SEX IN PRISON: THE MISSISSIPPI EXPERIMENT WITH CONJUGAL VISITING (1969).
55
Note that New Mexico has two directives on point: one is a general family visit program directive and the other is
specific for female inmates. It appears from the language of the directives that there is a female specific program
that is designed to allow children of female inmates to visit overnight though a program administered by a
contractor. There is also a more general program – though it is unclear if this program is male only – that allows
spouses, family, and children to visit overnight. While this gender distinction may accurately reflect the reality of
who visits whom and which inmates are likely to be actively engaged in parenting from prison, the gender
distinction also raises significant concerns. Compare N.M. Dep’t of Corr. Policy CD-100205 with N.M. Dep’t of
Corr. Policy CD-100202.
56
Fees range from $10 to $30.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
The family visit program is highly structured and divided into three phases. Phase I
consists of 6-hour family visits. Phase II consists of 12-hour family visits. Finally, Phase III
consists of 24-hour family visits, but only those inmates who have successfully completed
Phases I and II and are within one year of a projected release or discharge date may apply for
Phase III visits.
New York’s Family Reunion Program “is designed to provide approved inmates and their
families the opportunity to meet for an extended period of time in privacy. The goal of the
program is to preserve, enhance, and strengthen family ties that have been disrupted as a result of
incarceration.”57 Only those inmates on good behavior and with active participation in prison
programming will have access to the Family Reunion visits. Some prisoners may be denied the
privilege of participating on the basis of their convictions or security statuses. Only immediate
family members (including partners in same-sex marriages and civil unions) may visit, and they
may only use the Family Reunion Program once they have “established a recent visiting pattern”
in regular visiting rooms. The policy directive defines this as at least three regular visits over the
preceding twelve months, although this requirement may be waived. The New York policy
directive provides explanations of the program, including the application process, the
punishment for violations (for example, testing positive for drug use), contagious disease testing
and prevention, and the various forms used in administering the program.
Most of the state policy directives do not provide enough detail for a meaningful
comparison of overnight family visitation programs. Without knowing how many individual
prisons actually offer the overnight visitation programs within each state, and how many inmates
are eligible, it is difficult even to compare the sizes of the programs. However, the relative rarity
of these programs was, in itself, notable; we wondered why more overnight family visitation
57

N.Y. Dep’t of Corr. Policy 4500.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
programs do not exist around the country. Family visitation programs could be costly, because
they would require institutions to construct modular or mobile homes, and secure them within
appropriate fencing or walls. Allowing inmates, some of whom may be violent offenders, to have
unsupervised visits over extended periods of time may present certain risks, including the
potential for physical violence and smuggling of contraband. Contagious diseases may be spread,
and female inmates may become pregnant, increasing medical costs for the state.
On the other hand, those states that do have family visitation programs maintain them,
and other states might consider making the investment, given their apparent positive impact on
offender behavior. As far back as 1980, studies showed positive outcomes from participation in
family visitation.58 Participation in such programs could be a powerful incentive for good inmate
behavior (if its revocation effectively disincentives inmate misconduct), and the strengthened
family ties that result may ease the transition home upon release.59 Allowing conjugal visitation
may also decrease sexual violence within prisons.60 Family members and children who visit and
58

See, e.g., D. G. MACDONALD & D. KELLY, NAT’L INST. OF JUSTICE, FOLLOW-UP SURVEY OF POST-RELEASE
CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR OF PARTICIPANTS IN FAMILY REUNION PROGRAM 1 (1980) (finding that inmates who had
participated in overnight visiting programs with their families were as much as 67 percent less likely to recidivate).
59
Studies evaluating the impact of family connections on recidivism have consistently found a strong positive effect.
See MINN. DEP’T OF CORR., THE EFFECTS OF PRISON VISITATION ON OFFENDER RECIDIVISM (2011) (noting that
visits from former romantic partners were not, however, correlated with reduced recidivism), available at
http://www.doc.state.mn.us/publications/documents/11-11MNPrisonVisitationStudy.pdf; see also NANCY G. LA
VIGNE, CHRISTY VISHER & JENNIFER CASTRO, URBAN INSTITUTE, CHICAGO PRISONERS’ EXPERIENCES RETURNING
HOME 8-9 (2004), available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311115_ChicagoPrisoners.pdf; MARTA
NELSON, PERRY DEESS & CHARLOTTE ALLEN, VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, THE FIRST MONTH OUT: POSTINCARCERATION EXPERIENCES IN NEW YORK CITY 8-13 (1999), available at
http://www.vera.org/download?file=219/first_month_out.pdf; CHRISTY VISHER, VERA KACHNOWSKI, NANCY LA
VIGNE & JEREMY TRAVIS, URBAN INSTITUTE, BALTIMORE PRISONERS’ EXPERIENCES RETURNING HOME, available at
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310946_BaltimorePrisoners.pdf; William D. Bales & Daniel P. Mears, Inmate
Social Ties and the Transition to Society: Does Visitation Reduce Recidivism?, 45 J. RES. CRIME & DELINQ. 287
(2008); Rebecca L. Naser & Christy Visher, Family Members’ Experiences with Incarceration and Reentry, 7 W.
CRIMINOLOGY REV. 20 (2006).
60
See Stewart J. D’Alessio, Jamie Flexon & Lisa Stolzenberg, The Effect of Conjugal Visitation on Sexual Violence
in Prison, AM. J. CRIM. JUST. (2012) (finding that after controlling for a variety of likely determinants of prison rape,
the rate of inmate-on-inmate sexual violence was approximately four times lower – a statistically significant finding
– in states with conjugal visitation programs than in those without), available at

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
are thus able to build and sustain more meaningful relationships with their incarcerated parent or
family member may benefit tremendously. Indeed, more generally, the positive impact of
visitation on visiting family and on inmates has been well documented.61 But to reap these
benefits, DOCs must be willing to invest the resources to establish, maintain, and administer
family visitation programs, and also to take on the liability that inevitably comes with extended,
unsupervised visits.
Finally, political obstacles to developing family visitation programs in other states might
include the difficulty of appropriating funds for prison programing, especially in times of
widespread budget deficits. Overnight visitation programs may be particularly subject to attack
as insufficiently punitive. Thus, before arguing for expansion into other jurisdictions, policy
advocacy in this area may have to begin by justifying those programs that exist.

Virtual Visitation
Virtual visitation has been implemented in a limited number of states, either to enable

visitation where long distance is a barrier or to enhance security where a contact visit presents
safety concerns. Many inmates are incarcerated far away from friends and family; sheer distance

http://www.prearesourcecenter.org/sites/default/files/library/theeffectofconjugalvisitation.pdf; see also Rachel
Wyatt, Note, Male Rape in U.S. Prisons: Are Conjugal Visits the Answer?, 37 CASE W. RES. J. INT’L L. 579 (2006).
61
See CHILDREN WITH PARENTS IN PRISON: CHILD WELFARE POLICY, PROGRAM, & PRACTICE ISSUES 13 (Cynthia
Seymour & Creasie Finney Hairston eds., 2001); Denise Johnston, Parent–Child Visitation in the Jail or Prison, in
CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS (Katherine Gabel & Denise Johnston eds., 1995) 135; Joseph Murray &
David P. Farrington, The Effects of Parental Imprisonment on Children, 37 CRIME & JUST. 133 (2008) (reviewing
literature and citing studies); Christy Visher & Jeremy Travis, Transitions from Prison to Community:
Understanding Individual Pathways, 29 ANN. REV. SOC. 89, 100 (2003); Note, On Prisoners and Parenting:
Preserving the Tie That Binds, 87 YALE L.J. 1408 (1978) (arguing that facilitating child–parent bonds in the context
of incarceration is in the interests of the children); see also STEVE CHRISTIAN, NAT’L CONFERENCE OF STATE
LEGISLATURES, CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS 1, 13 (2009) (suggesting that visitation may be a crucial part
of breaking intergenerational cycles of incarceration), available at
http://www.cga.ct.gov/COC/PDFs/fatherhood/NCSL_ChildrenOfIncarceratedParents_0309.pdf.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
serves as a major barrier to visitation.62 Some inmates are incarcerated out of state due to a lack
of prison bed space or inadequate facilities for housing specific offenders, or because out-of-state
facilities are more cost-effective than in-state facilities. Other inmates are housed within their
home states, but still hundreds of miles from their homes (for example, New York City residents
housed in upstate New York). From a security standpoint, in-person visitation presents a number
of acknowledged concerns, among them the potential to exchange contraband or to engage in
dangerous conduct.
These programs generally, although not always, charge inmates and their visitors money.
DOCs may also pay to install and operate virtual visitation facilities, both in correctional
institutions and in the centers where visitors come to use the system. In assessing the value of
virtual visitation programs for inmates, visitors, and institutions, it will be important to compare
the costs of these visits to each party to the costs of contact visits and phone calls.63
In the last decade, several private vendors have developed technologies that facilitate
virtual visits over web-based or closed-circuit cameras.64 One company, JPay, has developed
electronic kiosks installed in prison facilities that allow inmates to participate in video visits with

For example, sixty-two percent of parents in state correctional facilities and eighty-four percent of parents in
federal facilities were incarcerated more than one hundred miles from their place of residence at arrest; only fifteen
percent of parents in state facilities and about five percent of parents in the federal system were within fifty miles of
their place of residence at arrest. SARAH SCHIRMER, ASHLEY NELLIS, & MARC MAUER, THE SENTENCING PROJECT,
INCARCERATED PARENTS AND THEIR CHILDREN: TRENDS 1991–2007, at 8 (2009), available at
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/inc_incarceratedparents.pdf. See also Susan D.
Phillips, Video Visits for Children Whose Parents Are Incarcerated: In Whose Best Interest? (2012), available at
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_video_visitation_white_paper.pdf.
63
Phone calls from prisons are often very expensive, as a result of additional security technologies and because
facility operators receive revenues from the phone companies that operate these systems. See Todd Shields, Prison
Phones Prove Captive Market for Private Equity, BLOOMBERG, Oct. 4, 2012,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-04/prison-phones-prove-captive-market-for-private-equity.html.
64
In addition to JPay, Primonics, Inc. has created a “TeleCorrections” system to “reduce the need for physical
visits” to jail facilities. See Press Release, Primonics, Westchester County Department of Corrections Selects
Primonics’ Televisit Corrections Solution (Mar. 6, 2009) (promoting its product as cost-saving for Westchester
County, New York’s jail system), http://www.corrections.com/vendor/show_press/15701.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
friends and family using a personal computer. JPay advertises the service as “reduc[ing] traffic at
the facilities and sav[ing] friends and family the cost of traveling to and from the facilities. Video
visitation also facilitates a reduction in inmate movement; thereby increasing security within the
facility.”65 Private industry will likely play a continued role in promoting this form of visitation.
Private vendors stand to gain from expanding their market. Companies like JPay will profit from
installing access points for inmates, charging visitors and inmates for using the service, and
potentially even from including advertising on the video feeds.66
The oldest continually running virtual visitation program in the country is in
Pennsylvania.67 In 2001, with a federal grant,68 the Pennsylvania DOC and the nonprofit
Pennsylvania Prison Society entered a partnership to provide inmates at a handful of state prisons
the opportunity to visit with their families in Philadelphia via videoconferencing.69 The goal of
the program is to maintain family ties.70 The initial program received positive feedback from
65

Lisa Chunovic, KDOC Contracts for Inmate Banking, Electronic Messaging, Video Visitations, GOV. SECURITY
NEWS, Sept. 23, 2009,
http://www.gsnmagazine.com/article/19246/kdoc_contracts_inmate_banking_electronic_messaging.
66
Jail Selling Ad Space on Video Visitation Monitors, NBC2, Oct. 7, 2009 (“A few months ago, the Charlotte
County Jail added video visitation for inmates in a separate building so inmates can have video contact with their
friends, loved ones, and professionals. Visitors are no longer allowed to go into the main jail building for visitations.
Officials with the Bureau of Corrections say the video terminals offer the opportunity to place advertisements that
will be seen by both inmates and visitors and say the idea may be the first in the whole country.”), http://www.nbc2.com/Global/story.asp?S=11267954 (last accessed Oct. 10, 2012).
67
Predating the 2001 program, video conferencing for incarcerated inmates had “been used for inmates to attend
court hearings, reducing the costs and risks of transporting inmates to court. Video conferencing has [also] been
discussed for possible use during inmate medial examinations.” Melissa Crabbe, Virtual Visitation Program Uses
Video Conferencing to Strengthen Prisoner Contacts with Families and Children, 6 OFFENDER PROGRAMS REP. 35
(2002). In Michigan, the Department of Corrections provided video visitation at no cost from 1998 to 1999, while
the state temporarily housed prisoners in Virginia.
68
Id. (noting that the “program is funded through a 3-year Federal grant through the Pennsylvania Commission on
Crime and Delinquency”).
69
Katy Califa, Prisoners as Parents: The Importance of Strong Parent-Child Relationships During Parental
Incarceration 21, Stanford U. Criminal Just. Center Working Paper (2006), available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=977050.
70
It appears that the program, while it still exists in a very similar form, is as of November 2011 no longer operated
in partnership with the Pennsylvania Prison Society, “due to a lack of funding.” See Virtual Visitation, PA. PRISON
SOC’Y (“Family Virtual Visitation’s goal was to help inmates incarcerated far from home stay connected to their

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
inmates and corrections officials.71 Today, the program has expanded from four prisons to eight
prisons in Pennsylvania, one in Michigan, and one in Virginia.72 The program allows families
“real time” visits with the inmate. Families can schedule a 55-minute visit once a month in the
Prison Society’s Philadelphia office, where the Society provides family friendly rooms.73 Visits
cost $20, effectively pricing out many prisoners and their families. According to the DOC policy
directive, families can also schedule visits in the Pittsburgh area.74
As we noted, seven jurisdictions provide for some form of video visitation in their policy
directives or regulations (IN, MN, NM, OR, PA, VA, WI), while another eleven (AK, CO, FL,
GA, ID, LA, MO, NJ, NY, OH, WA) have also implemented programs that are not mentioned in
the policy directives.75 Indiana and Wisconsin allow video visitation where the inmate is not
permitted other forms of visitation. Wisconsin’s regulations provide that among the limitations
that can be placed on visitation, “no contact visits or visitation provided by technological means
not requiring direct personal contact, such as video connections” can be applied.76 Indiana’s
families. Some family members cannot travel the long distance to prison locations due to their age, the cost of
transportation, or disabilities. The virtual visits provided an opportunity for families who might not otherwise have a
chance to see their loved ones at all. We believe that creating stronger links between families is important for the
stability of the inmate’s family and his/her successful reentry into the community. Increasing the frequency of
family visits helped support family relationships and improves the inmate’s ability to adjust to life in prison.”),
http://www.prisonsociety.org/progs/ifs_fvv.shtml (last visited Oct. 10, 2012).
71
Crabbe, supra note 65 (“Participating in the virtual visitation program has been viewed as an effective inmate
management tool. Better behavior from inmates involved in the program has been identified, as well as inmates
providing positive feedback, indicating program success. However, the program has not come about without
encountering obstacles, such as whether to allow program participation by sex offenders, and future funding. Part of
the success of the program is that few, if any negative incidents have taken place in the first year of operation.”).
72
Supra note 68, Virtual Visitation, PA. PRISON SOC’Y.
73
Id.
74
Pa. Dep’t of Corr. Policy DC-ADM 812 §1-K (“Virtual Visitation”).
75
Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Washington’s
programs are not addressed in detail because they do not appear in the states’ policy directives. Washington plans to
pilot a JPay program at its women’s prison in the imminent future. Note, too, that Michigan has used video
conferencing technology for more than a decade to save on inmate transportation costs for doctor visits, parole
hearings and so forth, but not for visiting. Patrick Doyle et al., Prison Video Conferencing, supra note 45.
76
Wis. Adm. Code DOC § 309.08(3). Wisconsin also intends to create a program for tele-visits, with terminals at
community sites, for visitors who would have to travel long distances.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
policy directive has merged the two concepts of video visitation and “non-contact” visitation, so
that video visitation is offered as an alternative to contact visits only where contact visits are
prohibited.77 Offenders in segregation may also have access to video visitation where restricted
to “non-contact” visits. Indiana defines video visitation as a “method of visitation which allows
offenders to visit through electronic media”78 and does not specify whether a visitor can conduct
her visit from home or is required to appear at a specific location. One provision does indicate
that visitors could video-conference from outside a facility through vendors, where available:
Offenders who are placed on non-contact visitation may have the option of
regular non-contact visits, intra-facility video visitation or video visitation through
a vendor, if these options are available at the facility. There shall be no cost for
intra-facility video visitation; however, there may be a cost associated with video
visitation provided by a vendor.79
Pennsylvania’s policy directive provides the most comprehensive explanation of any
virtual visitation program:
1. Virtual Visitation shall be available at the facilities listed in the Virtual Visiting
Program Facilities . . . and limited to persons living in the Philadelphia and
Pittsburgh areas.
2. The Virtual Visitation Program uses video conferencing technology as a means
to:
a. enhance the parenting skills program;
b. allow an inmate to visit with immediate family members, caregivers of
the inmate’s children, and other individuals on the inmate’s approved
visiting list approved by the Facility Manager/designee with whom he/she
would otherwise not be able to visit;
c. increase the frequency of visits for an inmate with the individuals listed
on the inmate’s approved visiting list; and
d. permit the scheduling of visits at times that are best for the individuals
77

“The Department recognizes that in some cases, the visitation privilege can be abused or used for inappropriate
purposes and for this reason the Department shall establish visitation guidelines. These guidelines may include the
imposition of restrictions ranging from non-contact visits, including video visits, to not allowing certain persons to
visit.” Ind. Dep’t of Corr. Policy & Admin. Proc. 02-01-102 §II (“Policy Statement”).
78
Id. §III (“Definitions”).
79
Id. §XVIII (“Bodily Contact Between Offenders and Visitors”). Message boards indicate that the vendor option
may only be available in a handful of facilities. See Video Visits, JPAY FORUM,
http://forum.jpay.com/showthread.php?57-video-visits (last visited Oct. 10, 2012) (last posting Aug. 24, 2009).

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
listed on the inmate’s approved visiting list.
3. The cost to the inmate or his/her family participating in this program shall be
determined by the Department.
4. Inmate participation in the Virtual Visitation Program is voluntary and every
inmate in general population status, regardless of his/her custody level, is eligible.
An inmate housed in Administrative and Disciplinary Custody is not permitted to
participate in the Virtual Visitation Program. . . .
6. The Department shall attempt to reserve at least 10 percent of the Virtual
Visitation Program visiting slots per month for long-term offender inmates. A
long-term offender inmate is defined as having a minimum sentence of 10 or
more years and an inmate serving a life sentence.
7. Up to five persons will be permitted to visit if space permits. . . .80
New Mexico and Oregon follow the Pennsylvania model of affirmative forms of virtual
visitation. New Mexico distinguishes between video visitation and tele-visits. A video visit is a
limitation—a “non-contact visit using video cameras to permit visits between an inmate and any
visitor”81 which is used within the prison “when a resident is not allowed to visit face-to-face.”82
Tele-visits are “[p]rearranged televised visits coordinated through [partner organization] PBJ
Family Services, Inc. and the facility between inmates and their child/children from the facility
to a community site. The visits are designed to promote healthy family relationships by
reunifying and connecting children with their incarcerated parents.”83 Inmates must meet certain
criteria to be eligible for tele-visits and the “child/children participating in the visit must be
relatives or the inmate must have been in a parenting relationship prior to the incarceration.”84
Once inmates have met the eligibility requirements, New Mexico provides a detailed step-by-

Pa. Dep’t of Corr. Policy DC-ADM 812 §1-K (“Virtual Visitation”).
N.M. Dep’t of Corr. Policy CD-100200, at 4.
82
N.M. DEP’T OF CORR., GUIDE FOR FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF JUSTICE INVOLVED NEW MEXICANS 16, available at
http://www.corrections.state.nm.us/family/docs/Offender_Family_Guidebook.pdf.
83
N.M. Dep’t of Corr. Policy CD-100200, at 4.
84
N.M. Dep’t of Corr. Policy CD-100204.
81

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
step process for arranging a tele-visit.85 In a parallel manner, Oregon determined that the
limitations caused by inclusion of video visiting within the visiting rule could be avoided if the
chance to have visual and audio contact were open to all inmates through video interactive
phones.” The decision to allow video interactive phones maintains security limits within the
visiting rule while allowing contact with friends and family who may visit by computer from
home.86
According to the Virginia DOC website, it appears that Virginia has followed
Pennsylvania’s model of partnering with nonprofits and establishing off-site visiting centers for
visitors to log into the system.87 Virginia’s program is now included in its DOC policy for those
“selected facilities” where it is available.88
As with any technological innovation, and any correctional policy judgment, video
visitation has potential trade-offs. Among the salutary benefits, video visits can enhance access
to visits for far-flung relatives and friends, young children who may be unable to comply with
85

Id.

1. The facility coordinator will communicate with the designated contact staff at Peanut Butter and
Jelly (PB & J) Family Services, Inc., to inform of the approval and the regional area where the
child/children are located. The Tele-visit Application Form (CD-100204.1) indicating approval
will be faxed to PB & J informing that the visit was approved at the facility level.
2. PB & J will contact the family and provide assistance in preparing the child/children for the
visit, through support and therapy as needed. PB & J will inform the designated prison coordinator
that the family has agreed to the visit and services.
3. PB & J will schedule the visit at the community site, make arrangements for transportation, and
coordinate the time and date with the prison sponsor.
4. PB & J will provide ongoing support and therapy for the child/children following each of the
visits. PB & J will coach inmate parents before and after the visit if needed.
5. Following each visit, PB & J staff will document an evaluation of the televised visit.
6. Prior to the actual visit, PB & J will conduct a tele-visit orientation with the inmate parent. The
session will explain the program and process.
7. PB & J staff will conduct a group session yearly with the parent inmate for feedback and
evaluation. The Corrections Family Services Liaison will coordinate this session.
86
Or. Admin. Rule 291-127-0210. This program becomes active November 01, 2012.
87
Video Visitation Program, VA. DEP’T OF CORR., http://www.vadoc.state.va.us/offenders/prisonlife/videoVisitation.shtm (last accessed Oct. 10, 2012) (effective date Jan. 30, 2010).
88
Va. Op. Proc. 851.1.IV.O.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
prison visiting rules, and elderly and disabled visitors. Video visits can save the cost and time of
travel for visitors, as well as reduce costs for prison facilities.89 The possibility for the exchange
of contraband is eliminated, and prisons reduce the movement of persons through their facilities.
Visitors would not be subjected to intense processing and search procedures. Visitors, especially
children, could choose to avoid the potential trauma and intimidation of entering a prison.90
The flip side, however, is that video visitation could be used as an alternative or
replacement for in-person visits. If video visitation is cheaper, easier, and safer, then prisons may
begin to prefer this form of visitation, reducing or eliminating the availability of contact visits,
and placing less of a priority on locating inmates in facilities near their families.91 Virtual visits
that replace contact visits, even if potentially more frequent and less costly for visitors, might not
serve as effectively to strengthen or maintain family ties and thereby reduce recidivism.
Additionally, the loss of non-contact visits (which might be viewed as equivalent to telephone
call privileges) may not provide as strong a disincentive to disciplinary infractions in the prison,
thereby decreasing rather than increasing security in correctional facilities.92

Primonics, Inc. claimed the technology would save Westchester County $300,000 by increasing the efficiency of
visits. See Press Release, Primonics, supra note 62 (“County officers like bail expeditors and probation officers
don’t have to visit the jail. It saves on the cost of transportation and of correction officers to take the prisoners in and
out of the housing locations.”).
90
As the Indiana Directive notes, “Facilities shall take into consideration the impact that visits with parents or
grandparents in a correctional facility may have on young children, especially preschool age children.” Ind. Dep’t of
Corr. Policy 02-01-102.IV.
91
This concern was raised by the Washington Post, in response to the decision to replace in-person visits at the D.C.
jail with (free) virtual visits. Editorial, Virtual Visits for Inmates?, WASH. POST, July 26, 2012 (“While there may be
benefits to video visitation, there are also significant drawbacks. In-person visits provide the obvious benefit of
strengthening family ties in times that can threaten those bonds, and they do much to preserve inmates’ morale.”),
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/virtual-visits-for-inmates/2012/07/26/gJQAultJCX_story.html; see also
Adeshina Emmanuel, In-Person Visits Fade as Jails Set Up Video Units for Inmates and Families, N.Y. TIMES,
Aug. 7, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/us/some-criticize-jails-as-they-move-to-video-visits.html.
92
This point and the preceding one are necessarily speculative; because virtual visitation in prisons is a relatively
new phenomenon, there has been no research evaluating its impact on family relationships and on inmate behavior –
or assessing whether it in fact increases visitation rates, by how much, and for whom.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
Virtual visitation in prisons is still an emergent concept. Advocates in Illinois have
pushed for virtual visits;93 Florida has experimented with it;94 and Congress inserted it into a
2004 House bill, though it did not pass.95 More generally, virtual visitation is a new concept in
family law, where there is a relatively sparse literature analyzing virtual visitation in child
custody disputes.96 Undoubtedly, the technology will spread.
As virtual visitation expands, any jurisdiction seeking to implement such a program will
have to consider several important factors: (1) how and where inmates will access the interface –
in the yard, in a private booth, in a shared visiting room; (2) where visitors will access their
interface – at the prison itself, at a partner organization, from their homes; (3) the degree to
which video visits will be used to supplement or replace in-person visits; and (4) all of the
related rules that accompany other forms of visitation—the degree of monitoring for the visits,
eligibility to participate, sanctions for breaking the rules, the frequency and duration of visits,
etc. These decisions will likely determine the contours of virtual visitation in a state or institution
– how much it is used, by whom, and to what effect.

PART IV: FURTHER RESEARCH
Our fifty-one jurisdiction survey was a significant undertaking, but much work remains
to be done. This final Part considers four categories of next steps: (1) further analysis of the
93

Jeffrey M. Levring, Illinois Virtural Visitation for Incarcerated Fathers, FATHERS’ RIGHTS, Apr. 1, 2009,
http://dadsrights.com/index.php/illinois-virtual-visitation-for-incarcerated-fathers/.
94
Califa, supra note 67, at 22.
95
Id. at 23 n.3. The 2004 Re-Entry Enhancement Act, H.R. 5075, 108th Congress § 101(a)(17) (2004) was
proposed, but not passed, by Congress. The bill generally supported enhanced visitation opportunities, including
“developing programs and activities that support parent-child relationships, such as . . . (B) using videoconferencing
to allow virtual visitation when incarcerated persons are more than 100 miles from their families”). The proposed
Act also promoted family visits of the sort discussed in our previous sub-part.
96
See, e.g., Charles P. Kindregan, Jr., Family Interests in Competition: Relocation and Visitation, 36 SUFFOLK U. L.
REV. 31 (2003); Anne LeVasseur, Note, Virtual Visitation: How Will Courts Respond to a New and Emerging Issue,
17 QUINNIPIAC PROB. L.J. 362 (2004).

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
information already available to us; (2) relating the data we have gathered to existing indicators
of correctional success or failure; (3) gathering of additional information to add depth and
breadth to our survey; and (4) presentation of these findings in accessible formats.
First, the areas detailed supra in Part III – extended family visitation and virtual visitation
– as well as other topics in the accompanying spreadsheet, such as grievance procedures and
limitations on numbers of visitors or hours of visitation, warrant more detailed treatment. As an
example, additional research might track language in regulations referring to children (or to
gender, marital status, or any number of other variables) and analyze the ways in which children
(or males/females, or married/unmarried persons) are specially privileged or burdened in the
context of prison visitation. Another analysis might scrutinize the various ways that visitation
policies define “family,” where family members are granted special privileges. For example,
which states recognize civil unions as equivalent to marriages for the purposes of visitation?
Further analysis might likewise focus on the category of “special visits” by attorneys, clergy, and
child welfare officials bringing children in their charge to see a parent. These arrangements tend
to be subject to their own particular rules, and many of states have detailed provisions on point.
With the wealth of information in our spreadsheet and database, there are numerous other topics
that could be worth pursuing.
Second, it could be valuable to combine the data we have gathered about visitation
policies with data about correctional outcomes, such as recidivism rates and institutional
security, to learn about correlations between certain visitation policies and better or worse
correctional outcomes. These correlations could then in turn prompt research to better understand

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
whether and how overall rates of visitation and specific features of visitation systems contributed
to or detracted from the correctional mission of security and rehabilitation.97
Third, gathering more information could substantially enhance the value of our data for
scholars, policymakers, and practitioners. Specifically, as we discussed, it would be useful to get
more information on how visitation policies operate at the level of individual institutions. The
administrator of each facility has substantial discretion to implement polices, and hence there is
an inevitable gap between policies on paper and in practice. Similarly, it would be useful to look
into the legislative or regulatory process used in each jurisdiction to develop the regulations or
policy directives currently on the books. In addition, other studies could adopt a broader scope
by looking at visitation policies in detention facilities not covered by this data set, including jails
and immigration detention centers.
Fourth, it would be valuable to present the information we have gathered in a format that
is accessible not only those who make and study visitation regulations, but also to those whose
interpersonal relationships are so profoundly affected by them: inmates and their families and
friends. Ensuring that prisoners and prison visitors can easily access clear and comprehensive
information about the rules governing their visits would allow them to maximize contact with
loved ones and avoid frustration, and promote institutional security though compliance.
Discretion will always be a necessary feature of visitation management, but making visitation
policies and their implementation in practice more transparent might even create opportunities
for those who participate in the visitation process to work with correctional administrators to
improve it.
In conducting the first fifty state survey of prison visitation regulations, we have likely
raised more questions than we answered. This report offers a sense of the policy landscape, and
97

See, e.g., MINN. DEP’T OF CORR., supra note 57.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Chesa Boudin, Trevor Stutz & Aaron Littman
through further work on our part and the part of other researchers, we aim to better understand
the ways these policies work in practice and impact specific groups of inmates and their families
and friends. We hope, too, that this research will offer correctional administrators the tools to
consider their own and other states’ approaches and develop best practices.

Prison Visitation Policies: A Fifty State Survey

Accessing Visiting Policies Online
Department
of
Any
Visiting
Corrections Policies on Policy on URL for
("DOC")
DOC
DOC
Policies on
Website
Website? Website? Website

Has a Visiting
Regulation
available on
Westlaw?

Written Visiting Policies
Has a
Policy
Has a Visitor's
Directive Handbook or
from
Plain English
DOC?
Instructions?

50 State BOP Corrections: Tone
Visiting
ofDirectives
Policies Regulations

Date of
most
recent
source
document

Basic Limitations

Promotes / Encourages visitation in policy documents?

Limits number of visitors on approved list?

Sets a floor for minimum visitation hours/days?

Yes
8. Can change list only every six months.
Ala. Admin. Reg. 303, "Visitation," at V.B (2006).

Alabama

Alaska

http://www.do
c.state.al.us/ Yes

http://www.co
rrect.state.ak.u
s/corrections/i
ndex.jsf
Yes

http://www.doc.s
tate.al.us/adminr
egs.asp
No
Statutes &
Admin:
http://www.corre
ct.state.ak.us/cor
rections/commis
h/statutes.jsf

Yes

Policies &
Procedures:
http://www.corre
ct.state.ak.us/cor
rections/pnp/poli
cies.jsf

Yes

http://www.azcor No
rections.gov/Poli
cies/900/0911.pd But see Arizona
f
Admin. Code, Title 5 Yes

Yes

Information
about sending
Packages and
Mail, not
Visiting

"It is the policy of the ADOC to afford inmates the privilege of
participating in the
visitation program in accordance with this regulation."

Visitors can only be on one inmate's visitation list
unless family.

Varies by institution.

Ala. Admin. Reg. 303, "Visitation," at II (2006).

Id. at V.B.12.

Ala. Admin. Reg. 303, "Visitation," at V.J.1 (2006).

2009

Yes
22 Alaska Admin.
Code 05.130.
Visitation of
prisoners.

Yes

2010

Specifies gender/relationship status of allowed
visitors. Id. at V.B.6.
No

Yes

"The Department encourages prisoner visitation because strong
family and community ties increase the likelihood of a prisoner’s
success after release. Visitation is subject only to the limitations in
this policy and as necessary to protect persons and maintain order and
security in the institution."

"Visitation must be made available on at least three
week days and one weekend day; a facility must make
reasonable efforts to schedule visitation to
accommodate day and night work shifts of potential
visitors."

Alaska Dep't Corr. Policy 810.02 VI.A.

Alaska Dep't Corr. Policy 810.02 VII.B.1.(e).

Yes

Arizona

http://www.az
corrections.go
v
Yes

20
Yes

2012

Ariz. Dep't of Corr. Policy 911.01.1.1.1.

Page 1 of 26

50 State BOP Corrections:
Visiting Directives Regulations
Specific Procedures

Special Visiting Provision
Contains provision for
Contains provision for long- overnight visiting (referred to as
distance visitors ("special
family reunion / extended /
visitors")?
conjugal visiting)?

Contains provisions for
video visitation?

Contains provisions for grievance procedures for
when visitation is suspended?

Specifies search procedures for visitors?

Specific Rules

Limits visitors based on security
classifications?

Has child-specific rules?

Yes
Children defined as "Anyone
under 19 nineteen years of age."
Ala. Admin. Reg. 303,
"Visitation," at III.B (2006).
Yes
Once per six months for out of
state family.

Yes
Write the warden.

Alabama

"Visitors who bring minor
children to visit will be expected
to control the behavior of the
children so that they do not
interrupt other visitors."

Ala. Admin. Reg. 303,
"Visitation," at V.B.13 (2006). No

Yes

Ala. Admin. Reg. 303, "Visitation," at V.N.9 (2006). Ala. Admin. Reg. 303, "Visitation," at V.L (2006). No

Id. at V.I.2.

No
Yes
But does exist only for
inmates at contract facility in
Hudson, Colo. Service offered
by contractor and by Tanana
Chiefs Conference.

"The Superintendent may
authorize extended visits for
situations such as families
traveling long distances or for
professionals requiring
extended hours of contact."

Alaska

Alaska Dep't Corr. Policy
810.02 VII.C.3(d).

"A prisoner may file a grievance concerning the
denial or restriction of
visitation directly to the Director of Institutions
through the facility
See
Grievance Coordinator. See policy #808.03, Prisoner
http://www.correct.state.ak.us/ Grievances."
Yes
corrections/institutions/images
/Hudsonvideovisitation.pdf
Alaska Dep't Corr. Policy 810.02 VII.D.4.
Alaska Dep't Corr. Policy 810.02 VII.F.5.
Yes

Yes

Arizona

Ariz. Dep't of Corr. Policy
911.05.

Yes

"The visitor may submit a written statement to the
Warden or unit Deputy Warden for review within
five work days of the incident."
"After reviewing all available information, the
Warden or Deputy Warden shall determine
appropriate action based on the specific
circumstance and/or types of contraband detected."
"Visitor appeals relating to visitation suspensions
shall be addressed to, reviewed by, and decided by
the Warden and not a designee. The Warden shall
forward the appeal to the appropriate Regional
Operations Director for review. The Regional
Operations Director’s decision is final."
"Inmate visitation suspensions may be addressed
through the inmate disciplinary system. Inmate
appeals involving visitation suspensions may be
addressed through the inmate disciplinary system
appeals process."

"Maximum Custody Inmates Maximum custody inmates shall
be allowed to visit a maximum of
one, 2-hour block per week.
"All visitors and their possessions are subject to Visitation shall be by appointment
physical search by staff, electronic metal detection only. All maximum custody
devices, barrier sniff screening (Narcotics
inmate visitations shall be for one
Detection) by a Department Service Dog, and/or block, and is always non-contact,
Ion Scanning."
regardless of what phase the
"All vehicles on Department property are subject inmate is in."
to search. The owner/user shall be present during Greater privileges for lower
the search."
custody & various "phases."

Ariz. Dep't of Corr. Policy 911.06.

Ariz. Dep't of Corr. Policy 911.03.

Alaska Dep't Corr. Policy 810.02
VII.E.

Yes

Page 2 of 26

Ariz. Dep't of Corr. Policy 911.08. No

Notes for reader

Accessing Visiting Policies Online
Department
of
Any
Visiting
Corrections Policies on Policy on URL for
("DOC")
DOC
DOC
Policies on
Website
Website? Website? Website

Has a Visiting
Regulation
available on
Westlaw?

Written Visiting Policies
Has a
Policy
Has a Visitor's
Directive Handbook or
from
Plain English
DOC?
Instructions?

50 State BOP Corrections: Tone
Visiting
ofDirectives
Policies Regulations

Date of
most
recent
source
document

Basic Limitations

Promotes / Encourages visitation in policy documents?

Limits number of visitors on approved list?

Sets a floor for minimum visitation hours/days?

Yes
20
Yes
Ark. Dep't of Corr. Policy 11-49.III.A.9.

Arkansas

http://www.ad
c.arkansas.gov
/
Yes

Yes

http://adc.arkans Yes
as.gov/resources/
Documents/adca Ark. Admin. Code
r_pdf/AR865.pdf 004.00.2-865

Yes

2011

Yes

Notes that visitation "is essential to maintaining good morale,
sustaining family life and ensuring relationship in the community
upon release."

If a visitor is removed from list, must wait 6 months Saturdays and Sundays from Noon until 4 p.m.,
to be placed on any other inmate visitor list.
depending on security level.

Ark. Dep't of Corr. Policy 11-49.II.

Ark. Dep't of Corr. Policy 11-49.III.G.1.

Ark. Dep't of Corr. Policy 11-49.III.C.

Yes

Yes
Yes

California

http://www.cd
cr.ca.gov/
Yes

Yes

http://www.cdcr. CA Code of Reg
ca.gov/Regulatio Title 15, Art. 7,
ns/index.html
Visiting

Operations
Manual, Ch
5, Art. 42,
Visiting
Yes

2011

"The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) encourage inmates to develop and maintain healthy family
and community relationships." It is a privilege for inmates to have
personal contact visits while confined in CDCR institutions and
facilities. Visiting in CDCR institutions and facilities shall be
conducted in as accommodating a manner as possible in keeping with
the need to maintain order, the safety of persons, the security of the
No
institution/facility, and the requirements of prison activities and
operations."
Affirmative ban on limiting the number of visitors.
Op. Man. 54020.1
Op. Man. 54020.18

Yes
"Each institution/facility shall establish a schedule that
provides a minimum of 12 visiting hours per week."
Op. Man. 54020.7

Yes

Colorado

http://www.do
c.state.co.us/ Yes

Yes

http://www.doc.s No
tate.co.us/visitin (But see 8 Colo.
g-rules
Code Reg. 1503)

Yes

2009

"[P]romotes the furtherance of family and other supporting
relationships important to offender stability while incarcerated, as
well as upon release; while foremost maintaining the security and
integrity of the facility."

Yes

Colo. Admin. Reg. 300.01.I & II. But see id. at IV. A.1.

Colo. Admin. Reg. 300.01.IV.B.1.

Page 3 of 26

12; minor children must be named on the visitor
application but do not count towards this cap.
No

50 State BOP Corrections:
Visiting Directives Regulations
Specific Procedures

Contains provisions for
video visitation?

Contains provisions for grievance procedures for
when visitation is suspended?

Specifies search procedures for visitors?

Yes
Yes
Alabama

Arkansas

Ark. Admin. Reg. 865,
"Visitation," at VI.F.1 (2001);
Ark. Dep't of Corr. Policy 1149.III.B.

Visitors must submit to searches, including of
wigs and religious headgear. Brief cut and
provocative clothing is not permitted.
No

Ark. Dep't of Corr. Policy 11-49.III.E.

Specific Rules

Limits visitors based on security
classifications?
Yes

Has child-specific rules?

All Class I inmates will be
permitted weekly Sunday
visits.All Class II, III and IV
inmates will be permitted two
visits a month, either the first and
third Saturday of the month or the
second and fourth Saturday of the
month as determined by the Unit’s
schedule. In cases where inmates
of the same immediate family are
housed at the same unit/center, the
Warden/Center Supervisor may
approve requests by those inmates Yes
to visit on the same day, per the
schedule of the lower class
Only visitors over the age of 12
inmate.
must present photo ID.
Ark. Dep't of Corr. Policy 1149.III.C.

Ark. Dep't of Corr. Policy 1149.III.D.

Notes for reader

The Ark. Dep't of Corr.
Indicated in
correspondence with the
authors that it is
considering
implementing a virtual
visitaiton program. The
DOC also referenced
the availability of a
guidebook as noted in
column H.

Yes
"Minors shall be accompanied by
an adult who has been approved
to visit the inmate. Approval of
an emancipated minor's visit
requires a one-time submission of
a certified copy of the court order
of emancipation."
Op. Man 54020.10

Yes
Yes
Yes

California

Colorado

Termination of visits due to
overcrowding will not apply if
a visitor has traveled a distance
of 250 miles or more and has
not visited within the last 30
days. This exception is applied
to allow two consecutive days
of visiting.
Yes

Yes
A "privilege earned by the inmate
through successful program
participation," Family Visiting is
outlined in detail.
Op. Man. 54020.33 - 33.20.13

Termination of visits due to
overcrowding does not apply to
visitors who have traveled over
200 miles one way. Extended
visits are available for visitors Yes
who have traveled a long
distance.
Denver Women's Correctional
Facility has implemented the
Colo. Admin. Reg.
Apartment Program, which allows
300.01.IV.A,C.
overnight visits with children.

Visitation can be denied under Op. Man. 54020.23.
To then appeal: "Visitors who wish to discuss
visiting-related issues are encouraged to contact the
visiting supervisor for resolution. Interviews shall be
conducted or scheduled at the earliest opportunity.
Visitors and/or inmates may register
complaints/appeals regarding visiting through
procedures contained in CCR Section 3179 and
Chapter 5, Article 42."
Op. Man. 54020.34

Includes provisions for:
Contraband / Metal Detectors - Op. Man.
54020.13.1
Clothed Searches - Op. Man. 54020.13.2
Unclothed Searches - Op. Man. 54020.13.3
Visitor Consent for Search - Op. Man. 54020.14
Refusal to Submit to Search - Op. Man.
54020.14.1
Documentation of Info Leading to Search - Op.
Man. 54020.14.2
Search of Minors - Op. Man. 54020.14.3

CCR Section 3170

"Any inmate convicted of
specified criminal acts against
minors shall be prohibited from
visiting with minors in accordance
with provisions of CCR
Section 3173.1"
Op. Man 54020.10.1

Yes

Yes
No
Visitation can be suspended/denied when visitor has
But does exist: the Centennial not come for 1 year. For any suspension the Visitor
Correctional Facility currently may appeal in writing to Administrative Head.
implements virtual visitation. Sanctions can include permanent denial of Visitor's
See
right to visit. Focuses on visitor's rights and not
http://www.doc.state.co.us/faci inmates'.
Yes
lity/ccf-centennial-correctionalfacility
Colo. Admin. Reg. 300.01.IV.K
Colo. Admin. Reg. 300.01.IV.H.

Page 4 of 26

Both the Regulations
and the Operations
Manual are available
online and contain
overlapping
information.

Accessing Visiting Policies Online
Department
of
Any
Visiting
Corrections Policies on Policy on URL for
("DOC")
DOC
DOC
Policies on
Website
Website? Website? Website

Has a Visiting
Regulation
available on
Westlaw?

Written Visiting Policies
Has a
Policy
Has a Visitor's
Directive Handbook or
from
Plain English
DOC?
Instructions?

50 State BOP Corrections: Tone
Visiting
ofDirectives
Policies Regulations

Date of
most
recent
source
document

Basic Limitations

Promotes / Encourages visitation in policy documents?

Limits number of visitors on approved list?

Sets a floor for minimum visitation hours/days?

Yes

Connecticut

http://www.ct.
gov/doc/site/d
efault.asp
Yes

Yes

http://www.ct.go
v/doc/cwp/view.
asp?a=1492&Q=
450576&docNav
=|

From 5-10 depending on security classification.

At least one (1) evening visit weekly; 2. Weekend
visits; and, 3. Visits of at least one (1) hour in duration.
Inmates shall normally be allowed a minimum of two
regular visits each week.

Conn. Dep't of Corr. Policy 10.6.4.B.

Conn. Dep't of Corr. Policy 10.6.6.B.

Yes
No
But see Conn.
Agencies Regs. Title
18.
Yes

Yes

2009

Delaware

http://doc.dela
ware.gov/
Yes

http://doc.delawa
re.gov/informati
on/DOC_Policy_
Manual.shtml
No

Visits are by appointment only. Visiting hours range
from one 45 minute visit per month to 1.5 hours per
week.
Yes

Yes

2001

Del. Dep't. of Corr. Pol. 5.2, at IV.A, G (2001).

Yes
No

Florida

http://www.dc.
state.fl.us/
Yes

Yes

http://www.dc.st
ate.fl.us/secretar But see Fla. Admin.
y/legal/ch33/inde Code Title 33, Chpt.
x.html
33-5.
No

2010

15 plus children under age 12.

Visits allowed between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. each
Saturday and Sunday.

Fla. Admin. Code 33-601.716(3) (2005).

Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r.33-601.722 (2005).

Yes
Yes

Georgia

http://www.dc
or.state.ga.us/ Yes

Yes

http://www.dcor.
state.ga.us/Inmat
eInfo/FamilyInfo
/FamiliesFriends.html

(Georgia Admin.
Code, Title 125,
Chpt. 125-3-4.
Visitation)

Yes

2006

"[P]rovide visiting programs that are conducive to the establishment
and maintenance of positive relationships with family and Significant Yes
Others. Visitation is a privilege for inmates and should not be
considered a right."
12

A minimum of 6 hours shall be allotted each day for
visitation periods on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.

Ga. Dep't of Corr. Policy IIB01-0005.I.

Ga. Dep't of Corr. Policy IIB01-0005.VI.C.1.

Page 5 of 26

Ga. Dep't of Corr. Policy IIB01-0005.VI.D.1.

Yes

50 State BOP Corrections:
Visiting Directives Regulations
Specific Procedures

Yes

Extended Family Visit. A
prolonged visit between an inmate
and specified immediate family
member(s), and/or a legal
guardian, in a designated secure
area separate from the inmate
population.

For out-of-state one-time
visitors.

Conn. Dep't of Corr. Policy
10.6.5.E.

Contains provisions for
video visitation?

Contains provisions for grievance procedures for
when visitation is suspended?

Specifies search procedures for visitors?

Specific Rules

Limits visitors based on security
classifications?

Yes
Limits the number based on level
of facility.
Yes

Connecticut

Conn. Dep't of Corr. Policy
10.6.5.A.

Not currently offering conjugal
visits in any state facilities.

Has child-specific rules?

See Conn. Dep't of Corr. Policy 10.6.4.A.6.

Conn. Dep't of Corr. Policy 10.6.6.G.
Yes

Alabama

Yes
Conn. Dep't of Corr. Policy
10.6.6.k.

Scattered references.

Yes

Del. Dep't. of Corr. Pol. 5.2, at
IV.G (2001).

Del. Dep't. of Corr. Pol. 5.2, at
IV.C, D, F (2001).
Yes

Criminal background check may be required.
Yes
Del. Dep't. of Corr. Pol. 8.48, at VI.B (2011).
For visitors living more than
100 miles away.

Delaware

Various clothing requirements (e.g. no tight
clothing) specified.

Del. Dep't. of Corr. Pol. 5.2, at
IV.Q (2001).
No

Del. Dep't. of Corr. Pol. 5.2, at IV.E, T (2001).

Warden to "ensure that games,
small toys and other suitable
activities are available for small
children to assist visitors with
keeping their children occupied
during visitation."
Yes
May allow additional visiting
hours based on such factors as
great travel distance or
infrequency of visits.

Florida

See also Fla. Admin. Code
Ann. r.33-601.736 (2005).

Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r.33601.721 (2005).

But does exist. See Patrick
Doyle, et al., Prison Video
Conferencing, Vermont
Legislative Research Service
3, May 15, 2011

Inmates shall be allowed to file grievances
concerning visiting privileges in accordance with the
provisions of Rule 33-103.005.
Yes
Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r.33-601.732(5) (2005).

Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r.33-601.726, (2005).

Visit Subject to termination if
child misbehaves.

Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r.33601.727 (2005).
Yes

Visitors are responsible for
keeping children under their
control.

No
Yes

Georgia

See Ga. Dep't of Corr. Policy
IIB01-0005.VI.C.5.

Family programming exists
through the Children's Center in
the women's prison, but no
overnight visitation occurs.

Georgia reported a program
that does not appear in its
directive.

Yes
No

See Ga. Dep't of Corr. Policy IIB01-0005.VI.J.

Page 6 of 26

Ga. Dep't of Corr. Policy IIB010005.VI.O.6.

Notes for reader

Accessing Visiting Policies Online
Department
of
Any
Visiting
Corrections Policies on Policy on URL for
("DOC")
DOC
DOC
Policies on
Website
Website? Website? Website

Hawaii

http://hawaii.g
ov/psd
Yes

Yes

Has a Visiting
Regulation
available on
Westlaw?

Written Visiting Policies
Has a
Policy
Has a Visitor's
Directive Handbook or
from
Plain English
DOC?
Instructions?

http://hawaii.gov
/psd/policies-andprocedures/P-P/3COR/3-PP%20Table%20o
f%20Contents/3COR/COR%20PP%20Table%20o
f%20Contents% Yes
2003-23Code of Hawaii
2009.html/?searc Rules, Title 23,
hterm=Visitation Subtitle 2, Chpt 100 Yes

50 State BOP Corrections: Tone
Visiting
ofDirectives
Policies Regulations

Date of
most
recent
source
document

Basic Limitations

Promotes / Encourages visitation in policy documents?

Limits number of visitors on approved list?

Sets a floor for minimum visitation hours/days?

Yes
Privilege not a right, but "visitation is intregral to the correctional and
rehabilitative process of inmates."
No

2010

Haw. Dep't of Pub. Safety Policy COR.15.04.3.0.

Yes

Idaho

http://www.co
rr.state.id.us/ Yes

Yes

Yes
http://www.corr.s Idaho Admin. Code,
tate.id.us/about_ Agency 06, Title 01,
us/policy.htm
Chpt 01.604
Yes

"The Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) encourages visitation
between offenders and
their friends and family. Visitation is important for offenders to
maintain relationships and
contact with the outside world."
Yes

2009

Idaho Dep't of Corr. Policy 604.02.01.001.

Illinois

http://www.id
oc.state.il.us/ Yes

Yes

http://www.idoc. Yes
state.il.us/subsec
tions/visitationru Ill. Admin. Code,
les/default.shtml Title 20, Part 525.20 No

"[E]ach correctional facility shall establish regular
visiting hours."

2003

Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20, § 525.20(a), "Visiting
Privileges."

Yes
"[E]ncourage offender communication and contact with family and
friends. . . . [T]he majority of offenders will be released into the
community and that the offender’s eventual reintegration will be more
effective if a visitation program permits the maintenance of social
relationships. In addition to traditional forms of visitation (contact
Yes
and non-contact), alternative methods of visitation may be made
available to help facilitate persons unable to travel to facilities."
10 family and 2 friends.
Indiana

http://www.in.
gov/idoc/
Yes

Yes

http://www.in.go
v/idoc/2322.htm No

Yes

2009

Yes

Iowa

http://www.do
c.state.ia.us/ Yes

Yes

http://www.doc.s Iowa Admin. Code,
tate.ia.us/visiting Agency 201, Chpt
hours.asp
20.3(904)

Yes

2010

Ind. Dep't of Corr. Policy 02-01-102.II.
Yes

Ind. Dep't of Corr. Policy 02-01-102.VI.

"It is the policy of the IDOC to allow offenders, including violator
program offenders, visiting privileges to maintain and strengthen
relationships with family members and friends."

Yes

Iowa Dep't of Corr. Policy 3 at II.

Iowa Dep't of Corr. Policy 3 at IV.A.1.

Page 7 of 26

4 plus family and children.
No

50 State BOP Corrections:
Visiting Directives Regulations
Specific Procedures

Contains provisions for
video visitation?

Contains provisions for grievance procedures for
when visitation is suspended?

Specifies search procedures for visitors?

Specific Rules

Limits visitors based on security
classifications?

Has child-specific rules?

Notes for reader

Yes
Where not on the same island.

Hawaii
Alabama

Idaho

Haw. Dep't of Pub. Safety
Policy COR.15.04.3.2.
Yes

Normally limited to immediate
family members who have
traveled a distance and time
does not permit normal
processing of the visiting
application.
Idaho Dep't of Corr. Policy
604.02.01.001.22.

See Haw. Dep't of Pub. Safety Policy
COR.15.04.3.9.

Yes

See Haw. Dep't of Pub. Safety
Policy COR.15.04.3.8.

Yes
No

But does exist. See Patrick
Doyle, et al., Prison Video
Conferencing, Vermont
Legislative Research Service
3, May 15, 2011

If denied, and the offender is immediate family,
reapplies in 90 days or files an appeal. If denied, and
the offender is not immediate family, reapplies one
(1) year. Decision cannot be appealed.
Yes

Yes

Idaho Dep't of Corr. Policy 604.02.01.001 at Table
9.1.

See Idaho Dep't of Corr. Policy
604.02.01.001.6.

See Idaho Dep't of Corr. Policy 604.02.01.001. at
Table 15.1.
No

Yes

Yes
Yes

Illinois

Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20, §
525.20(a)(2), "Visiting
Privileges."

Visitors shall be subject to search in accordance
with Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20, § 501.220.

The link for the Inmate
Visitation Policy is to
Depending on age, children must the Illinois Department
be accompanied by an approved of Corrections directive
visitor and have the written
in the Illinois
consent of a parent or guardian, Administrative Code.
unless waiver granted.
There is also an agency
administrative directive,
Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20, §
and each facility has an
525.20(b)(2)
institutional directive.

Yes
Yes

Indiana

Yes

Only as punishment where
inmate not allowed noncontact or contact visists.

Ind. Dep't of Corr. Policy 02-01102.XIV.
No

Ind. Dep't of Corr. Policy 0201-102.XV & XVIII.

Yes

Includes possibility of frisk search, metal
detectors and ion scanning equipment, and trained
K-9s.

See Ind. Dep't of Corr. Policy 02-01-102.XVI.

Ind. Dep't of Corr. Policy 02-01-102.XII.

Ind. Dep't of Corr. Policy 02-01102.XX.

Restrictions on visits with minors.

Yes
Yes

Iowa

Iowa Dep't of Corr. Policy 3 at
IV.J.
No

Applicant can appeal denial of visit or restriction
within 45 days.
No

Iowa Dep't of Corr. Policy 3 at IV.D.

Page 8 of 26

Accessing Visiting Policies Online
Department
of
Any
Visiting
Corrections Policies on Policy on URL for
("DOC")
DOC
DOC
Policies on
Website
Website? Website? Website

Has a Visiting
Regulation
available on
Westlaw?

Written Visiting Policies
Has a
Policy
Has a Visitor's
Directive Handbook or
from
Plain English
DOC?
Instructions?

50 State BOP Corrections: Tone
Visiting
ofDirectives
Policies Regulations

Date of
most
recent
source
document

Basic Limitations

Promotes / Encourages visitation in policy documents?

Limits number of visitors on approved list?

Sets a floor for minimum visitation hours/days?

Yes

Kansas

Kentucky

http://www.dc.
state.ks.us/
Yes

http://www.co
rrections.ky.go
v/
Yes

Yes

Yes
http://www.doc.k
s.gov/kdocKansas Admin.
policies/impp/?s Regulations, 44-7earchterm=IMPP 104

Yes

http://corrections
.ky.gov/commun
ityinfo/Policies%
20and%20Proce
dures/Pages/defa
ult.aspx

20 for Inmates Level II and III, "Inmates assigned to Yes
Level I shall be limited to visits from attorneys,
clergy, law enforcement, a primary visitor, and
Minimum of four (4) hours per week of visiting for all
immediate family members."
inmates in the general population.
Yes

Kan. Dep't of Corr. Policy 10-113.

Kan. Dep't of Corr. Policy 10-113.V.

Yes

Kentucky Admin.
Regulations, Title
501, Chpt 3:140

3 plus family

Minimum of eight (8) hours per month.

Ky. Corr. Policy 16.1.II.D

Ky. Corr. Policy 16.1.II.C.1.

Yes

2009

2012

Yes

Louisiana

http://www.do
c.louisiana.go
v
No

Yes
La. Admin. Code,
Title 22, Sec 316

"The department recognizes the importance of visitation in the
maintenance of an offender’s family ties; visitation is an integral
component of institutional management. ... Visiting can improve
public safety and encourage offender accountability. Authorized
visitation is permitted by the department to facilitate an offender’s
institutional adjustment in accordance with the department’s goals
and mission."
Yes

Yes

2009

L.A. Dep't Pub. Saf. & Corr. Policy C-02-008.5.

Page 9 of 26

Yes
Yes

Two visits per month per visitor

Two hour visit is "optimum."

L.A. Dep't Pub. Saf. & Corr. Policy C-02-008.7.C.

L.A. Dep't Pub. Saf. & Corr. Policy C-02-008.7.F.

50 State BOP Corrections:
Visiting Directives Regulations
Specific Procedures

Contains provisions for
video visitation?

Contains provisions for grievance procedures for
when visitation is suspended?

Specifies search procedures for visitors?

Specific Rules

Limits visitors based on security
classifications?

Has child-specific rules?

Notes for reader

Yes
1. Requests for a single visit
prior to background
verification and approval of
subsequent visits;
2. When the visitor has traveled
a distance of 150 miles (one
way) or more; or, (ACI 3-4442)
3. When the special visit is in
the best interest of the inmate's
rehabilitative needs or other
correctional goals.
Yes
Kansas
Alabama

Kan. Dep't of Corr. Policy 10113.VIII.B.
No
Yes

Kan. Dep't of Corr. Policy 10-113.XI.

Factors include: Distance the
visitor travels; Frequency of
visits for a particular inmate;
Health problems of an inmate
or visitor; or A visit for
business purposes if a decision
is needed that substantially
affects the assets or prospects
of a business or property.
Kentucky

Ky. Corr. Policy 16.1.II.C.3

Yes
Defines "immediate
family" broadly, to
include "those who may
reared the inmate in
palce of parents" and "a
Ky. Corr. Policy 16.1.II.H.6.
child to whom the
inmate, although not a
Inmates may hold child or
natural parent, acted as
stepchild on lap. Ky. Corr. Policy a parent." Ky. Corr.
16.1.II.H.10.
Policy 16.1.I.
Visitors are responsible for
keeping children under their
control.

No
Yes

The Warden or designee shall notify the visitor in
writing that he has been removed from all applicable
visiting lists, the reason why and that the removal
will be reviewed after a specified amount of time.
The visitor shall also be notified in writing that he
may appeal the Warden's decision to the Secretary by
sending a letter within 15 days of the date of the
notice.

Yes

Louisiana

L.A. Dep't Pub. Saf. & Corr.
Policy C-02-008.7.N.

If the visitor exercises this appeal right, the Secretary
or designee shall review the appeal and investigate,
No
as appropriate, within 30 days of notice. If
necessary, a hearing shall be scheduled and the
Though Louisiana reported a visitor shall be notified of the time, date and location Yes
program that does not appear of the hearing.
in its directive explicitly, but is
See La. Admin Code. tit. 22, pt. I, § 303; L.A.
included under special
L.A. Dep't Pub. Saf. & Corr. Policy C-02-008.12.I.(1- Dep't Pub. Saf. & Corr. Policy C-02-008
visitation.
2).
Attachment.

Page 10 of 26

Yes
Minors must be accompanied by
parents or legal guardians at all
times. Adults are responsible for
behavior of children.

L.A. Dep't Pub. Saf. & Corr.
Policy C-02-008 Attachment.

Accessing Visiting Policies Online
Department
of
Any
Visiting
Corrections Policies on Policy on URL for
("DOC")
DOC
DOC
Policies on
Website
Website? Website? Website

Maine

http://www.sta
te.me.us/corre
ctions/
Yes

Massachusetts

http://www.dp
scs.state.md.u
s/
No
http://www.ma
ss.gov/?pageI
D=eopsagency
landing&L=3
&L0=Home&
L1=Public+Sa
fety+Agencies
&L2=Massach
usetts+Depart
ment+of+Corr
ection&sid=E
eops
Yes

Michigan

http://www.mi
chigan.gov/cor
rections
Yes

Maryland

Has a Visiting
Regulation
available on
Westlaw?

Yes

http://www.state.
me.us/correction No
s/PublicInterest/ (But see, Code of
policies.htm
Maine Rules, 03)

http://www.dsd.s
tate.md.us/comar
/SubtitleSearch.a
spx?search=12.0
2.16.*;
http://www.dpsc
s.state.md.us/loc
ations/prisons.sh
tml

Written Visiting Policies
Has a
Policy
Has a Visitor's
Directive Handbook or
from
Plain English
DOC?
Instructions?

Yes

50 State BOP Corrections: Tone
Visiting
ofDirectives
Policies Regulations

Date of
most
recent
source
document

2006

Basic Limitations

Promotes / Encourages visitation in policy documents?

Limits number of visitors on approved list?

Sets a floor for minimum visitation hours/days?

Yes

Yes
Code of Md.
Regulations. Title
12, Subtitle 2, Chpt
16

Yes

2011

The Division of Correction (DOC) encourages visiting by family,
Yes
friends, and community groups to
maintain the morale of the inmate and to develop closer relationships 15
between the inmate and family
members or others in the community.
Md. Division of Corr. Inmate Handbook at IV. L
(2007). See also Md. Div. of Corr. Policy
Md. Div. of Corr. Policy 195.0001.01
195.0001.05.M.1.

Yes
Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday visiting hours. At
least two visits per week.
Md. Div. of Corr. Policy 195.0001.05.F, G.

Yes

http://www.dpscs Yes
.state.md.us/loca Code of Mass.
tions/prisons.sht Regulations, Title
ml
103, Chpt 483.00

Yes

http://www.mich
igan.gov/correcti
ons/0,1607,7-119-Yes
1441_44369--- Mich. Admin. Code,
,00.html
R791
Yes

3 days per week (including a weekend day and a
weekday evening)

Yes
Yes

Yes

2004

Mass. Dep't of Corr. Family and Friends Handbook 18 (2001)

103 CMR 483.08(4)

Yes
10 plus immediate family
Yes

2007

Mich. Dep't. of Corr. Policy 5.03.140.G

Page 11 of 26

50 State BOP Corrections:
Visiting Directives Regulations
Specific Procedures

Contains provisions for
video visitation?

Contains provisions for grievance procedures for
when visitation is suspended?

Specifies search procedures for visitors?

Specific Rules

Limits visitors based on security
classifications?

Has child-specific rules?

Yes
Any suspension of the prisoner’s visiting privileges
may be imposed only by the Chief Administrative
Officer and only with the approval of the
Commissioner of Corrections. The suspension may
last only as long as necessary to resolve the risk to
safety, security, or orderly management. A
suspension of the prisoner’s visiting privileges shall
not be imposed in any case in which a restriction of
visiting privileges, such as a requirement of noncontact visitation, would be sufficient to address the
risk.
The prisoner shall be notified in writing of a
suspension or restriction of visiting privileges,
whether imposed on the prisoner or the visitor.
A prisoner may use the grievance process to grieve a
decision to terminate a visit or to deny, suspend or
restrict visiting privileges. A visitor may contest a
denial, suspension or restriction of visiting privileges
by writing to the Chief Administrative Officer, or
designee, within seven (7) business days of written
notification.

Alabama
Yes
In extenuating circumstances,
e.g., visit from out of state.

Maine

Me. Dep't of Corr. Policy
21.4.VI.A.9.

Me. Dep't of Corr. Policy 21.4.VI.G.

Yes
Each facility shall ensure that
minors are permitted to visit
prisoners. . . .

Me. Dep't of Corr. Policy
21.4.VI.H.

Yes
Yes

Maryland

Where travel one way is
greater than 200 miles, etc.
Md. Div. of Corr. Policy
195.0001.05.T.

Yes
Code of Md. Reg. 12.02.16.06 Visitor Searches.

If space is available may provide
facilites for children visitors.

See also Md. Div. of Corr. Policy 195.0001.05.I, J,
K, V.
No

Md. Div. of Corr. Policy
195.0001.05.E.7

Yes
No

Md. Div. of Corr. Policy 195.0001.05.W, X.

Yes

Massachusetts

Yes

Special accomodations, which
vary by facility, are available
for visitors travelling long
distances.
No

Visitor's may contest restrictions in a letter within 15
days
Yes
No

103 CMR 483.16(6)

See 103 CMR 483.14

Termination of visits due to
overcrowding does not apply to
visitors who have traveled over
400 miles round trip.

Yes

Mich. Dep't of Corr. Policy
5.03.140.HH

See Mich. Dep't. of Corr. Policy 5.03.140. (scattered
provisions including L; LL; XX).
No

Depends on the particular
institution.

Requires consent forms for
visiting minors unaccompanied by
parents. There are specific
clothing exclusions and allowable
items for children and infants, and
each visiting room has a children's
area.

Yes

Michigan

Page 12 of 26

Notes for reader

Accessing Visiting Policies Online
Department
of
Any
Visiting
Corrections Policies on Policy on URL for
("DOC")
DOC
DOC
Policies on
Website
Website? Website? Website

Has a Visiting
Regulation
available on
Westlaw?

Written Visiting Policies
Has a
Policy
Has a Visitor's
Directive Handbook or
from
Plain English
DOC?
Instructions?

50 State BOP Corrections: Tone
Visiting
ofDirectives
Policies Regulations

Date of
most
recent
source
document

Basic Limitations

Promotes / Encourages visitation in policy documents?

Limits number of visitors on approved list?

Sets a floor for minimum visitation hours/days?

Yes

Minnesota

http://www.do
c.state.mn.us/ Yes

Yes

http://www.doc.s
tate.mn.us/DOcp Yes
olicy2/html/DP (see, e.g. Minn.
W_Main.asp
Rules 2945.2520)

Yes

2010

Yes

To provide the opportunity for offenders to receive visits from
carefully screened family and friends while incarcerated.

Time limit: 2 hours, extendable with permission.

Minn. Dep't of Corr. Policy 302.100

Minn. Dep't of Corr. Policy 302.100.B.1.

Minn. Dep't of Corr. Policy 302.100.A.1.
Yes

10, not including children. Updated every 6
months. No cross listing of visitors.

Varies by institution and security level.
Medium & Minimum Custody Offenders – Saturday or
Sunday, 0900 – 1400 hours. Each unit has its own
assigned visitation days.
Special Treatment Units –
Protective Custody Offenders - Minimum Custody every Monday, (except 5th)
Medium Custody – 2nd & 4th Monday; Closed
Custody – 3rd Monday.
Closed Custody Offenders – Unit 29 – 3rd or 4th
Tuesday & 3rd or 4th Wednesday. (Please contact
MSP Visitation Department for further information).
Closed Custody Offenders – Unit 32 – Alpha Building
– 2nd Tuesday, Bravo Building – 1st Wednesday
Closed Custody General Population: Unit 29 -2nd
Tuesday monthly; Unit 32–4th Tuesday
Behavior Management Program – NO VISITS
Death Row Offenders – 1st & 3rd Tuesday
Long-Term Administrative Segregation Status – One
(1) hour non-contact visit on the 2nd Monday in the
last month of each quarter with any approved visitor
on their visitation list.

Miss. Dep't of Corr. Policy 31-03-01 at 417-26.

Miss. Dep't of Corr. Policy 31-03-01.

Yes

Mississippi

http://www.m
doc.state.ms.u
s/
No

Yes

No
(But see Miss.
Admin. Code, Title
29)

Yes

2011

Yes
Friday, Saturday, Sunday. Two separate four hour
blocks of visiting.

Yes
Yes

Missouri

http://doc.mo.
gov/
No

No
(But see, Missouri
Code of State
Regulations, Title 14) Yes

Yes

2010

Strongly supports and encourages use of the visiting privilege to
assist the offender population in maintaining strong ties to the
community.

Mo. Dep't of Corr. Policy IS13-3.1.III.F.
20. May change list twice per year. No cross
visiting. Background check on all proposed visitors. Minimum of 8 visits per month.

Mo. Dep't of Corr. Policy IS13-3.1. I.

Mo. Dep't of Corr. Policy IS13-3.1.III.I.1., L.1.

Page 13 of 26

Mo. Dep't of Corr. Policy IS13-3.1.III.H.

50 State BOP Corrections:
Visiting Directives Regulations
Specific Procedures

Contains provisions for
video visitation?

Contains provisions for grievance procedures for
when visitation is suspended?

Specifies search procedures for visitors?

Specific Rules

Limits visitors based on security
classifications?

Has child-specific rules?

Notes for reader

Yes
Yes

Yes

May request an extension of
visiting time when there are
special circumstances or the
visitor has driven more than
100 miles to visit.

Minnesota

Minn. Dep't of Corr. Policy
302.100.A.1; G.

Yes

Minn. Dep't of Corr. Policy
302.100OPH.

Denial of visiting privileges may be appealed in
writing within 15 days of an official written decision
to the warden or designee, who will render a
decision within 5 days from the receipt of the appeal. Yes
Minn. Dep't of Corr. Policy 302.100.F.

Minn. Dep't of Corr. Policy 302.100.D.

Levels 5 and 4: 16 hours per
month
Level 3: 24 hours per month
Levels 2 and 1: 36 hours per
month

Minors can visit only if
accompanied by a parent or
guardian or another adult they
authorize. There are additional
restrictions on visitation within
inmates who have abused children
in the past.

Minn. Dep't of Corr. Policy
302.100.A.1.

Minn. Dep't of Corr. Policy
302.100.B.2.

Alabama

Yes

Yes
Death bed visits and family
members not on approved list

Mississippi

Conjugal visit/extended family
visit, but not available for inmates
married to other inmates after
1999. Ten dollar per night fee.
Maximum of 5 nights every three
months. Spouses of inmates with
STD's may be prohibited.

Yes
Diaper bags allowed. Toys not
allowed.
Yes

Miss. Dep't of Corr. Policy 31-03Miss. Dep't of Corr. Policy 31- 01 at 99-100, 634-82, 745-47, 77303-01 at 506.
85.
No

Yes
No

Miss. Dep't of Corr. Policy 31-03-01 at 193-220.

Miss. Dep't of Corr. Policy 31-0301 at 261-263, 288.
Miss. Dep't of Corr.
See Miss. Dep't of Corr. Policy 31Policy 31-03-01 at 59703-01 at 453-505.
598.
Yes

Yes
Play areas for children will be
provided.

"Food visits" as an incentive
for good behavior.

Missouri

Yes

Mo. Dep't of Corr. Policy IS133.1.III.K.3.

Various kinds of special visits
(military leave; long distance
travel; terminal illnes; etc.).
Mo. Dep't of Corr. Policy IS133.1.III.S.
No

But does exist. See Patrick
Doyle, et al., Prison Video
Conferencing, Vermont
Legislative Research Service
3, May 15, 2011

Mo. Dep't of Corr. Policy IS133.1.III.D.3.

A visitor may appeal visiting restrictions or
suspension of visiting privileges to the appropriate
deputy division director in Central Office. May also
reapply after one year.
Yes
Mo. Dep't of Corr. Policy IS13-3.1.III.L.11. See also "Trace technology searches."
Mo. Dep't of Corr. Policy IS13-3.1.III.R (termination
of visiting privileges - visitor).
Mo. Dep't of Corr. Policy IS13-3.1.III.N.

Page 14 of 26

Offenders who have
immediate family
incarcerated at the same
facility will be allowed
to visit each other two
(2) times per year
(January and July).

Children's birthday celebrations
within one month of actual
birthday (12 and under).

Mo. Dep't of Corr. Policy IS133.1.III.K.4.

Accessing Visiting Policies Online
Department
of
Any
Visiting
Corrections Policies on Policy on URL for
("DOC")
DOC
DOC
Policies on
Website
Website? Website? Website

Has a Visiting
Regulation
available on
Westlaw?

Written Visiting Policies
Has a
Policy
Has a Visitor's
Directive Handbook or
from
Plain English
DOC?
Instructions?

50 State BOP Corrections: Tone
Visiting
ofDirectives
Policies Regulations

Date of
most
recent
source
document

Basic Limitations

Promotes / Encourages visitation in policy documents?

Limits number of visitors on approved list?

Sets a floor for minimum visitation hours/days?

Yes

Montana

http://www.cor
.mt.gov/defaul
t.mcpx
Yes

Nebraska

http://www.co
rrections.nebr
aska.gov/
Yes

Nevada

http://www.do
c.nv.gov/
Yes

Yes

No
http://www.cor. (But see, Admin.
mt.gov/Resource Rules of Mont.,
s/Policy/default. 20.9.622 (for
mcpx
juvenile facilities))

Yes

2011

Mont. Dep't of Corr. Policy 3.3.8.I.

Yes

http://www.corre
ctions.nebraska.g Yes
ov/policiesmailp Neb. Admin. Code.
honevisit.html
Title 68, Chpt 4

Yes

2010

Yes

No
http://www.doc.n (But see, Nev.
v.gov/ar/index.p Admin. Code, Ch.
hp?idnum=0
211 on jails)

Encourages family ties and supportive relationships important to the
stability of offenders while incarcerated and upon release.

No
Yes

2011

But see Nev. Dep't of Corr. Admin. Reg. 719.7.

Yes
20 plus family.
Yes
N.H. Code Admin. R. Corr. 305.02(i).

New Hampshire

New Jersey

http://www.nh
.gov/nhdoc/
Yes

http://www.sta
te.nj.us/correct
ions/pages/ind
ex.shtml
No

Yes

http://www.nh.g Yes
ov/nhdoc/docum N.H. Code Admin. R.
ents/7-09.pdf
Cor 305
Yes

http://www.mich
ie.com/newjerse
y/lpext.dll?f=tem Yes
plates&fn=main- N.J. Admin. Code
h.htm&cp=
10A, Chpt 18

To foster relationships with family and community volunteers that
will improve the opportunities for inmates to successfully reintegrate No visitor can visit more than one inmate unless
into the community.
family.
No

2009

N.H. Dep't of Corr. Policy 7.09.I.
Yes

N.H. Dep't of Corr. Policy 7.09.IV.I.10.

But see N.H. Dep't of Corr. Policy 7.09. (Hours of
each unit listed).

"It is the mission of the Department of Corrections' inmate visit
programs to encourage inmates to maintain the closest ties possible
with family, friends and other members of the community, including
clergy, and any other persons as determined by the Department, who
may have a constructive influence on the inmate."
Yes

N.J. Dep't of Corr. Policy IMM.007.000.

Page 15 of 26

50 State BOP Corrections:
Visiting Directives Regulations
Specific Procedures

Contains provisions for
video visitation?

Contains provisions for grievance procedures for
when visitation is suspended?

Specifies search procedures for visitors?

Specific Rules

Limits visitors based on security
classifications?

Has child-specific rules?
Yes
Children must be accompanied by
parent, guardian, or other
approved adult.

Yes

Mont. Dep't of Corr. Policy
3.3.8.IV.C.2.

Long distance; deathbed;
clergy; etc.

Facilities issue specific rules
related to children.

Yes
No
Montana

Mont. Dep't of Corr. Policy
3.3.8.IV.K.

But See Mont. Dep't of Corr. Policy 3.3.8.IV.D.

Mont. Dep't of Corr. Policy 3.3.8.IV.G.
See also Mont. Dep't of Corr. Policy 3.1.17.

Mont. Dep't of Corr. Policy
3.3.8.IV.B.1.f.

Yes
Alabama

Yes
Long distance, health
emergency, clergy, legal, etc.

Yes
Only in one women's facility for
children under age 6.

Must control children, but cannot
use corporal punishment.

Nebraska

Neb. Dep't of Corr. Policy
205.02.IV.

See
http://www.corrections.nebraska.g
ov/nccw.html.
No

Nevada

But see Neb. Dep't of Corr. Policy 205.02.VII.A
(dress code).

Neb. Dep't of Corr. Policy
205.02.VI.A.

No
Yes
Restrain children from disruptive
behavior.
N.H. Code Admin. R. Corr.
305.02(q)(3).

Yes

New Hampshire

New Jersey

N.H. Dep't of Corr. Policy
7.09.IV.K.

Yes

Yes
Yes
N.H. Dep't of Corr. Policy 7.09.J.6.; N.H. Code
Admin. R. Corr. 305.02(m).

Yes
No
See video visitation
description:
But inmates whose contact visit privileges are
http://www.state.nj.us/correcti revoked may petition after 1 year for reinstatement.
ons/pages/VideoConference.ht
ml
N.J. Admin. Code 10A:18-6.20.

Yes
N.J. Admin. Code 10A:18-6.14.

Page 16 of 26

N.H. Dep't of Corr. Policy
7.09.IV.C
Yes

No toys allowed; joint
responsibility of visitor and
inmate.
N.H. Dep't of Corr. Policy
7.09.I.3.

Although not described in policy
documents, limitations on
frequency and duration of visits
exist for inmates in the
Management Control Unit, those Yes
with zero tolerance offenses, and
close custody inmates.
N.J. Admin. Code 10A:18-6.8.

Notes for reader

Accessing Visiting Policies Online
Department
of
Any
Visiting
Corrections Policies on Policy on URL for
("DOC")
DOC
DOC
Policies on
Website
Website? Website? Website

Has a Visiting
Regulation
available on
Westlaw?

Written Visiting Policies
Has a
Policy
Has a Visitor's
Directive Handbook or
from
Plain English
DOC?
Instructions?

50 State BOP Corrections: Tone
Visiting
ofDirectives
Policies Regulations

Date of
most
recent
source
document

Basic Limitations

Promotes / Encourages visitation in policy documents?

Limits number of visitors on approved list?

Sets a floor for minimum visitation hours/days?

Yes
Hours from 830-3 at least on weekends.
Guide for Families and Friends of Justice Involved
New Mexicans, N.M. Dep't of Corr. at 18 (no date).
Yes

New Mexico

http://www.co
rrections.state.
nm.us/
Yes

Yes

http://www.corre
ctions.state.nm.u
s/policies/current
/CD100200English.p
df
No

Yes

2010

The number of visitors an inmate may receive and the
length of visits may be limited only by the institution’s
schedule, space, and personnel constraints, or when
there are substantial reasons to justify such limitations.

Shall provide a visiting program designed to enhance the inmates'
opportunities to establish or maintain family and personal
relationships.

Yes

N.M Dep't of Corr. Policy CD-100200 at Policy B.

N.M Dep't of Corr. Policy CD-100200 at Policy C.1. N.M Dep't of Corr. Policy CD-100200 at Policy I.

Yes

New York

www.docs.stat
e.ny.us/
No

Yes

Yes
http://www.docs. N.Y. Code of Rules
state.ny.us/Rules and Regulations,
Regs/index.html Title 7, Chpt IV
Yes

Yes

No
http://www.doc.s N.C. Admin. Code
tate.nc.us/public Title 15, Sec .0200
ations/
REPEALED

To provide inmates with an opportunity to maintain relationships with
friends and relatives in order to promote better community adjustment
upon release.
Yes

1991

N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 7, § 200.1.

Yes

2006
(2010 for
handbook) No

Yes
Varies by security classification.
No

N.Y. Dep't of Corr. Policy 4403.III.
Yes

Yes

North Carolina

www.doc.state
.nc.us/
Yes

Yes
(unsigned
'rules')

18. Can only make changes every 6 months.
N.C. Dep't of Corr. Policy 956 at 1.

No more than 1 visit per week of up to two hours (plus
legal/clergy visits)
N.C. Dep't of Corr. Policy 956 at 2.
Yes
Three days per week for two hours per day.
N.D. Dep't of Corr. Policy 6G-4.3.A.3.

North Dakota

www.nd.gov/d
ocr/
No

No
(But see, North
Dakota Admin.
Code, Title 94)

Yes

2010

Up to a total of 20 hours per month.

But see N.D. Dep't of Corr. Policy 6G-4.3.B.

N.D. Dep't of Corr. Policy 6G-4.3.C.2.

Yes

Ohio

www.drc.ohio.
gov/
Yes

Yes

Yes
(Baldwin's) Ohio
Admin. Code 5120-915
Yes

2009

The visiting program is designed to enhance contact with family and Yes
other support persons that will enable the offenders to successfully reenter society at the conclusion of their incarceration.
15

Ohio Dep't of Corr. Policy 76-VIS-01.II.

Ohio Admin. Code 5120-9-15(I).

Page 17 of 26

Ohio Dep't of Corr. Policy 76-VIS-01.VI.C.1.

Discretion of each warden.

50 State BOP Corrections:
Visiting Directives Regulations
Specific Procedures

Contains provisions for
video visitation?

Contains provisions for grievance procedures for
when visitation is suspended?

Specifies search procedures for visitors?

Specific Rules

Limits visitors based on security
classifications?

Has child-specific rules?

Notes for reader

Yes

Alabama

New Mexico

Yes

Hospitality centers to provide
comfortable space for kids after
long trip. The number of visitors
an inmate may receive and the
Yes
Guide for Families and Friends of length of visits may be limited
Justice Involved New Mexicans, only by the institution’s schedule,
Guide for Families and Friends of Justice
N.M. Dep't of Corr. at 14, 18-19 space, and personnel constraints,
Involved New Mexicans, N.M. Dep't of Corr. at 14 (no date).
or when there are substantial
(no date).
reasons to justify such limitations
Depending on security level you (8)
Published dress code.
can/cannot hold your own
children.
Guide for Families and Friends of
N.M Dep't of Corr. Policy Attachment CDJustice Involved New Mexicans,
100201.B.
N.M Dep't of Corr. Policy CDN.M. Dep't of Corr. at 16 (no
N.M Dep't of Corr. Policy CD-100201, "Visitor
100201, "Visitor Investigations; date).
Investigations; Termination and Suspension of
Termination and Suspension of
N.M Dep't of Corr. Policy CDVisiting Privileges" at G.
Visiting Privileges" at A.
100200 at Policy I.
Yes

Guide for Families and Friends of Yes
Justice Involved New Mexicans,
N.M. Dep't of Corr. at 16 (no
Guide for Families and
date).
Friends of Justice Involved
New Mexicans, N.M. Dep't of
Up to 24 hours, but fee for visits. Corr. at 16 (no date).
N.M Dep't of Corr. Policy CD100201, 2-CO-5D-01.
"PB&J program." Especially
for inmates for whom contact
See also N.M Dep't of Corr.
visitation is restricted.
Policy CD-100205, "Family
overnight Visitation for Female
N.M Dep't of Corr. Policy CDOffenders."
100200, "Televised Visits."

Yes
N.M Dep't of Corr. Policy CD-100201, "Visitor
Investigations; Termination and Suspension of
Visiting Privileges."
See also N.M Dep't of Corr. Policy CD-100203,
Indefinite/Permanent Suspensions of a Relatives
Visiting Privileges."

Yes
Yes
Yes

New York

See N.Y. Dep't of Corr. Policy
4500.

Yes

Yes
New program run by Osborne
Association - not in policy
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 7, § 200.5.
documents.
N.Y. Dep't of Corr. Policy 4403.VIII.C.

Higher security classifications
have expanded visiting hours.
Yes
N.Y. Dep't of Corr. Policy 4403.VI.
Yes

Yes
Scattered references.

N.Y. Dep't of Corr. Policy
4403.III.

N.Y. Dep't of Corr. Policy 4403.
No

North Carolina

Dep't of Corr., Handbook for Dep't of Corr., Handbook for
Family and Friends of Inmates Family and Friends of Inmates 32
31 (2010).
(2010).
No

Dress code
Yes
N.C. Dep't of Corr. Policy 956 at 2.
Dep't of Corr., Handbook for Family and Friends of Dep't of Corr., Handbook for Family and Friends N.C. Dep't of Corr. Policy 956 at
Inmates 33 (2010).
of Inmates 29-30 (2010).
2.

But see Dep't of Corr., Handbook
for Family and Friends of Inmates
36 (2010).

Yes
Yes

North Dakota

N.D. Dep't of Corr. Policy 6G4.3.D; N.D. Dep't of Corr.
Policy 6G-4.3.B.4.o.
No

Visitors with children may bring a
diaper bag.
Yes
No

N.D. Dep't of Corr. Policy 6G-4.3.F.2, 6, 7.

N.D. Dep't of Corr. Policy 6G4.3.F.8
Yes
Minor children do not count
towards visitor list limitations.

No
Yes

Ohio

Ohio Dep't of Corr. Policy 76VIS-01.VI.E.
No

No
But does exist as a new
program, not in policy
documents, at four facilities.

Ohio Dep't of Corr. Policy 76-VIS01.VI.C.9.

But visitor applicants are background checked,
including an electronic search through records
kept by the Department of Corrections.

But see Ohio Dep't of Corr. Policy 76-VIS-01.VI.F.8- Ohio Dep't of Corr. Policy 76-VIS-01.VI.C.3.
10; Ohio Admin. Code 5120-9-15(H).

Page 18 of 26

Visit will be terminated if visitor
fails to control children.

Ohio Dep't of Corr. Policy 76-VIS01.VI.F.8.c.

Separate policy
directive for general
inmate visitor program,
family reunion program,
and legal visiting.

Accessing Visiting Policies Online
Department
of
Any
Visiting
Corrections Policies on Policy on URL for
("DOC")
DOC
DOC
Policies on
Website
Website? Website? Website

Has a Visiting
Regulation
available on
Westlaw?

Written Visiting Policies
Has a
Policy
Has a Visitor's
Directive Handbook or
from
Plain English
DOC?
Instructions?

50 State BOP Corrections: Tone
Visiting
ofDirectives
Policies Regulations

Date of
most
recent
source
document

Promotes / Encourages visitation in policy documents?

Yes

Oklahoma

http://www.do
c.state.ok.us/ Yes

Yes

No
(But see, Okla.
http://www.doc.s Admin. Code, Title
tate.ok.us/offtech 170, Dept. of
/toc03.htm
Corrections)

Basic Limitations

Limits number of visitors on approved list?

Sets a floor for minimum visitation hours/days?

Yes

Visits are encouraged within the Department of Corrections (DOC) to 6 plus family, but family is narrowly defined.
No
enable the offender to strengthen family and community ties,
Children do not count. Parents count as one visitor.
increasing the likelihood of the offender’s success after release.
Varies by facility.
Ceiling is set per security classification.
Yes

Yes

2011

Okla. Dep't of Corr. Policy 030118.

Okla. Dep't of Corr. Policy 030118.I.A; II.D.

Okla. Dep't of Corr. Policy 030118.I.B, C, D.

Yes
Inmates are allowed one visit per day per visitor, but
up to four in total, on weekends and holidays.
Yes

Oregon

http://www.or
egon.gov/DO
C/index.shtml Yes

Yes

http://www.oreg
on.gov/DOC/PU
BSER/rules_poli Yes
cies/rules_alpha. Oreg. Admin. Rules,
shtml
291-127
No

Yes
In partnership
with family
advocacy group. 2011

Yes

Or. Admin. R. 291-127-0260(5)(c).
The Department encourages productive relationships between
20, exclusive of children under age 13.
families and inmates and sees inmate visitation as a positive means to Prisoners may add or remove visitors from the list at Complicated point system for allocating visiting room
strengthen ties and increase the likelihood of success upon release.
any time.
space on a monthly basis.
Or. Admin. R. 291-127-0200(2).

Or. Admin. R. 291-127-0240(6)(A).

See Or. Admin. R. 291-127-0250.
Yes

Pennsylvania

http://www.cor
.state.pa.us/po
rtal/server.pt/c
ommunity/dep
artment_of_co
rrections/4604 Yes

Yes

http://www.cor.st
ate.pa.us/portal/s
erver.pt/commun
ity/department_o
f_corrections/46
04/doc_policies/
612830

Yes
Penn. Admin. Code,
Title 37, Chpt 93.3 &
95.233
Yes

2009

Yes

Up to every day of year, with possible morning,
afternoon, and evening visiting hours. At least one
hour per visit and at least one visit per week.

37 Pa. Code § 93.3(h)(3)-(4).

Pa. Dep't of Corr. Policy DC-ADM 812 § 1 at E.1.

Pa. Dep't of Corr. Policy DC-ADM 812 § 1 at B.3.

Yes

Rhode Island

http://www.do
c.ri.gov/index.
php
Yes

Yes

http://www.doc.r Yes
i.gov/friends/ind R.I. Admin. Code, 17ex.php
1-16
Yes

2007

It is the policy of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections
(RIDOC) to encourage inmates, in a manner consistent with sound
security practices, to have regular social visits with relatives and other Yes
individuals in order to maintain close family ties and other positive
relationships.
9

3 visiting periods per week, minimum. 1.5 hour
minimum per visiting period. Discretion of warden.

R.I. Dep't of Corr. Policy 24.03-3.II.

R.I. Dep't of Corr. Policy 24.03-3.III.B.

Page 19 of 26

R.I. Dep't of Corr. Policy 24.03-3.III.D.3.

Yes

50 State BOP Corrections:
Visiting Directives Regulations
Specific Procedures

Contains provisions for
video visitation?

Contains provisions for grievance procedures for
when visitation is suspended?

Specifies search procedures for visitors?

Specific Rules

Limits visitors based on security
classifications?

Has child-specific rules?

Yes

Oklahoma

The higher security status the
lower the number of hours for
visits per week (max is just 4
No
hours/week plus holidays; min is
8).
Local rules govern children.

Yes

Okla. Dep't of Corr. Policy
030118.III.D.

Okla. Dep't of Corr. Policy 030118A, Okla. Dep't Okla. Dep't of Corr. Policy
of Corr. Policy 030118D.
030118.I.B, C, D.

Okla. Dep't of Corr. Policy
030118.III.A.5.
Yes
Visiting points shall not be
deducted for a child one year of
age and under, as long as the child
is held during the visiting session.
Visiting points shall not be
deducted for visitors age 65 and
older.

Alabama

Or. Admin. R. 291-1270250(1)(b).
Yes
Also scattered provisions on
diaper bags; visit termination if
children not controlled; no
children to be left unattended in
parked cars; etc.

Robust policy provisions in
place to allow video visitation
both by prisoners on "basic"
visitation and those for whom
it is more convenient, but does
not appear to exist in practice
yet.
Yes

Yes

Yes
Oregon

Or. Admin. R. 291-127-0280.

Some facilities have special
programming for infants and
children, including extended
visits, and visiting rooms designed
for children and families.

Yes

Pa. Dep't of Corr. Policy DCADM 812 § 1 at B.3.

Pa. Dep't of Corr. Policy DCADM 812 § 1 at D.3.

Dress code; no blue denim; must wear underwear.
No

Or. Admin. R. 291-1270210(29).

Or. Admin. R. 291-127-0240(9)(b); Or. Admin. R.
291-127-0245; Or. Admin. R. 291-127-0330.

Or. Admin. R. 291-127-0290.

Yes
Yes

Prohibits pat/frisk searches. In some cases metal
detector alarm will result in a no contact visit.
Electronic drug detection can be used on
individuals and their vehicles

Yes
"Virtual visitation"

Pennsylvania

Pa. Dep't of Corr. Policy DCADM 812 § 2 at B; 37 Pa.
Code § 93.3(h)(7).

Yes
No

Pa. Dep't of Corr. Policy DCADM 812 §2 at K.
Pa. Dep't of Corr. Policy DC-ADM 812 § 1 at N.

Pa. Dep't of Corr. Policy DC-ADM 812 § 3.
Yes

Yes
Narcotics equipment, metal detector, hand or
wand frisk. Visual inspection of open mouth.

Failure to control children will
lead to termination of visit.
Children are not to run or play
loudly.

R.I. Dep't of Corr. Policy 24.03-3.III.F.
Yes

Rhode Island

R.I. Dep't of Corr. Policy 24.033.III.G.
No

Yes

Dress code

R.I. Dep't of Corr. Policy 24.03-3.III.F.10.

R.I. Dep't of Corr. Policy 24.03-3 Attachment 1.

Page 20 of 26

R.I. Dep't of Corr. Policy 24.033.III.B.11(s).

Notes for reader
If the offender is
married, no person of
the opposite gender may
be listed as "friend" on
the approved visiting
list.
Okla. Dep't of Corr.
Policy 030118. Add01.A.

Accessing Visiting Policies Online
Department
of
Any
Visiting
Corrections Policies on Policy on URL for
("DOC")
DOC
DOC
Policies on
Website
Website? Website? Website

Has a Visiting
Regulation
available on
Westlaw?

Written Visiting Policies
Has a
Policy
Has a Visitor's
Directive Handbook or
from
Plain English
DOC?
Instructions?

50 State BOP Corrections: Tone
Visiting
ofDirectives
Policies Regulations

Date of
most
recent
source
document

Promotes / Encourages visitation in policy documents?

Basic Limitations

Limits number of visitors on approved list?

Sets a floor for minimum visitation hours/days?

Yes

South Carolina

http://www.do
c.sc.gov/
Yes

Yes

15, must have no criminal record. Changes to list
only once per 120 days.

Only on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. One
visit per day. No more than 8 visits per month.

S.C. Dep't of Corr. Policy OP-22.09.4
Yes

S.C. Dep't of Corr. Policy OP-22.09.2, 3.

2, plus family.
Must clear background check first.

Yes

Admin. Rules of So.
Dak., 17:50:02
Yes

S.D. Dep't of Corr. Policy 1.5.D.1.IV at "Approval
for Visits" A.23; S.D. Admin. R. 17:50:02:01.

Yes

No
(But see, Rules &
Regs. Of State of
Tennessee, Chpt.
0420)

Yes

http://www.tdcj.s
tate.tx.us/docum
ents/cid/Offende
r_Rules_and_Re
gulations_for_Vi
sitation_English.
pdf

Yes

No
http://www.doc.s (But see, S.C. Code
c.gov/family/visi of Regulations, Chpt.
tation.jsp
33)
Yes

Practice is to enable and encourage inmates, consistent with security
and classification requirements, to visit with family members and
friends.
Yes

2006

S.C. Dep't of Corr. Policy OP-22.09.

Discretion of facility
South Dakota

http://doc.sd.g
ov/
No

Yes

2007

S.D. Admin. R. 17:50:02:02.

Yes
Yes

Tennessee

http://www.sta
te.tn.us/correct
ion/
Yes

Yes
Yes

By facility

2010

8 plus family. One year wait between being on one
list and being put on another.

Weekends, and holidays, plus one weeknight per week,
plus more at discretion. Cannot visit both at evening
and on weekend.

Tenn. Dep't of Corr. Policy 507.01.VI.B.6(a), (o).

Tenn. Dep't of Corr. Policy 507.01.VI.E.

Yes

Texas

http://www.tdc
j.state.tx.us/ Yes

No
(But see, Tex.
Admin. Code, Title
37)

Yes

2008

Yes

Yes
10. Ex-offenders require written permission from
the supervising agency, based on which Warden
Weekends from 8am to 5pm. One visit per weekend
makes a decision to grant or deny visit. Changes to with up to two adult visitors for a maximum of two
list allowed every 6 months.
hours at a time.

Tex. Dep't of Crim. Just. Policy I-218.

Tex. Dep't of Crim. Just. Policy I-218.2.1 - 2.3.

Page 21 of 26

Tex. Dep't of Crim. Just. Policy I-218.1.4.

50 State BOP Corrections:
Visiting Directives Regulations
Specific Procedures

Contains provisions for
video visitation?

Contains provisions for grievance procedures for
when visitation is suspended?

Specifies search procedures for visitors?

Specific Rules

Limits visitors based on security
classifications?

Has child-specific rules?
Yes
Only immediate family allowed to
visit.

Yes

South Carolina

Yes

Dress code.

Must be immediate family and
on the visiting list.

S.C. Dep't of Corr. Policy OP-22.09.7.1.

S.C. Dep't of Corr. Policy OP22.09.5.12.
No

Yes

Search procedures.

S.C. Dep't of Corr. Policy OP-22.09.17.2

S.C. Dep't of Corr. Policy OP-22.09.8, 9.

No
Alabama

South Dakota

S.C. Dep't of Corr. Policy OP22.09.5.1.

Yes

Visit subjection to termination if
children are disturbing other
visitors.

S.C. Dep't of Corr. Policy OP22.09.2, 3.

S.C. Dep't of Corr. Policy OP22.09.7.7.

Yes

But see Women mother's weekendlong program:
S.D. Dep't of Corr. Policy
http://doc.sd.gov/adult/facilities/w
1.5.D.1.IV at "Special Visits." p/mip.aspx
No

But subject to search
S.D. Dep't of Corr. Policy 1.5.D.1.IV at
"Searches." S.D. Admin. R. 17:50:02:08.

No, but two classes of visiting
room.

No
Yes
Scattered provisions. Special
family visitation program (pg 7).
Tenn. Dep't of Corr. Policy
507.01.VI.E.4(b).
"The TDOC recognizes the value
of family bonding in regards to
the development
of children (especially toddlers
and infants). Visitation rules of
each facility should therefore
make reasonable allowances for
some physical contact between
parents and toddlers and infants."

Yes
Yes
Yes
For children, those from over
200 miles away, attorneys,
crisis intervention, etc.

Tennessee

Tenn. Dep't of Corr. Policy
507.01.VI.E.4.
Yes

Yes

Dress code: no thongs, no water brassieres.

Review of visitation suspension every 6 months.

Tenn. Dep't of Corr. Policy 507.01.VI.M.

Tenn. Dep't of Corr. Policy 507.01.VI.G.4.