Consented inmates were interviewed by a researcher in a private area within the cell block, with security staff nearby. We asked jailed parents about demographics, children’s living arrangements prior to and following incarceration (i.e., caregiving stability), children’s experience of incarcerated-related events (e.g., distress resulting from witnessing the parent’s crime, arrest, sentencing), and previous and current contact with children and children’s caregivers. During interviews with jailed parents, researchers also asked the inmate: for the contact information of the child’s caregiver; to sign a consent form for the child’s participation and for the observed jail visit; and to sign release forms to contact the child’s caregiver. We were unable to compensate jailed parents for their study participation.

Researchers contacted children’s caregivers by phone, letter, in person, email or text messages. Children and caregivers were assessed in two settings: a visit with the jailed parent and a home visit. During the initial visit, caregivers were asked to sign an informed consent form for their own and the child’s participation (read aloud because of potential literacy issues), and children were asked for verbal assent.

The Jail-Prison Observation Checklist (JPOC, Appendix A; Poehlmann, 2012) was used to rate children’s reactions to visits. The JPOC is an observational rating scale designed to be rated in vivo by trained researchers in jail or prison settings starting from when a child enters the corrections facility for a visit until the time that the child leaves. Because researchers are generally not able to videotape in corrections setting, ratings are made live, as the behaviors occur, and interrater reliability is established in the corrections setting.

Observers rate the presence or absence of security procedures (metal detector, frisking of adults or children, shoe removal, bag search, and checking identification), and the presence or absence of children’s behaviors in the following domains: Child’s Affect During Entry, Wait, and Visit; Child’s Attachment Behaviors During Entry, Wait, and Visit; and Child’s Behaviors Toward the Incarcerated Parent. Additional items refer to cleanliness and noise in the jail or prison environment, families’ interactions with staff members, length of wait time, type of visit, length of visit, and presence of child-friendly materials (e.g., stickers, coloring materials). Following the visit, researchers also complete global ratings of children’s activity level, behavioral dysregulation (i.e., how well the child is able to modify their own behaviors in response to demands of the context), and emotional lability as displayed throughout their time at the corrections facility. These ratings are made on a 1 to 5 scale, with higher ratings indicating more activity, dysregulation and lability.

For the present study, interrater reliability for items on the JPOC was established between two independent observers across 15 observed jail visits. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) fell within an acceptable to high range. ICCs for Security Procedures items ranged from .70 to 1.0 with a mean of .93, Child’s Affect During Entry ranged from .65 to 1.0, with a mean of .89, and Child’s Attachment Behaviors During Entry ranged from .75 to 1.0 with a mean of .93. In addition, Child’s Affect During Wait ranged from .55 to 1.0 (mean = .83), Child’s Attachment Behavior During Wait range from .80 to 1.0 (mean = .93), Child’s Affect During Visit ranged from .65 to .90 (mean = .78), Child’s Attachment Behavior During Visit ranged from .85 to 1.0 (mean = .87), and Child’s Behavior Towards Incarcerated Parent ranged from .75 to 1.0 (mean = .91). The six items on the Security Procedures scale were summed to reflect total number of security procedures used in the jails (Cronbach’s α = .65). ICCs for global ratings of children’s behaviors in the jail were .50 for exact ratings but significantly higher when ratings were examined within one point (activity level = .95, behavioral dysregulation = 1.0, and emotional lability = .85). Global ratings of children were also made in the home, at the end of the home visit in which the research team collected data that is summarized in other reports. ICCs for global ratings of children’s behaviors in the home ranged from .45 to .70 for exact ratings but were higher when ratings were examined within one point (activity level = 1.0, behavioral dysregulation = 1.0, and emotional lability = .95).

First we describe the findings from the Jail-Prison Observation Checklist regarding security procedures, children’s affect, children’s behaviors exhibited toward caregivers and incarcerated parents in the jail setting, and ratings of jail environments. Second, we examine potential differences between ratings of video and Plexiglas visits and between children’s behaviors in the jail and home settings. Third, we present themes identified regarding the content of children’s visits with incarcerated parents. Finally, we present a case study that illustrates a typical visit that our research team observed (with names and identifying information removed).

Table 3.2 indicates the type of security procedures experienced by children and their caregivers in the jail settings. Most families needed to show some form of identification to enter the jail setting, most often a driver’s license for the adult and sometimes a birth certificate for the child. Slightly less than half of children were asked to go through a metal detector, and some families were asked to remove their shoes or present their bag for search. Notably, no children were frisked or patted down at any of the jails.