{"id":5635,"date":"2017-04-24T14:20:25","date_gmt":"2017-04-24T18:20:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/?p=5635"},"modified":"2021-03-29T16:21:32","modified_gmt":"2021-03-29T20:21:32","slug":"aca_video_policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/2017\/04\/24\/aca_video_policy\/","title":{"rendered":"American Correctional Association says that video visitation should not replace in-person visits"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.aca.org\/ACA_Prod_IMIS\/docs\/GovernmentAffairs\/ACA_PUBLIC_CORRECTIONAL_POLICIES_BOOK.pdf?WebsiteKey=139f6b09-e150-4c56-9c66-284b92f21e51&#038;=404%3bhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.aca.org%3a80%2fACA_Prod_IMIS%2fACA_Member%2fdocs%2fGovernmentAffairs%2fACA_PUBLIC_CORRECTIONAL_POLICIES_BOOK.pdf\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"\/images\/ACA%20Public%20Correctional%20Policy.png\" alt=\"ACA policy on family-friendly communication and visitation\" width=\"250\" height=\"300\" class=\"right reportcover thumb250\"\/><\/a>As we mentioned in our January 2015 <a href=\"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/visitation\/report.html\">report<\/a>, in four conferences going back to 2001, our nation&#8217;s leading professional organization for correctional officials, the American Correctional Association, has consistently declared that &#8220;visitation is important&#8221; and &#8220;reaffirmed its promotion of family-friendly communication policies between offenders and their families.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\nLast August, the American Correctional Association went further by explicitly declaring that emerging technologies (like video visitation) should only be used to supplement existing in-person visitation.<\/p>\n<p>The ACA isn&#8217;t the only national association to take a stand; the American Bar Association&#8217;s <a href=\"http:\/\/web.archive.org\/web\/20170429054015\/http:\/\/www.americanbar.org\/content\/dam\/aba\/publishing\/criminal_justice_section_newsletter\/treatment_of_prisoners_commentary_website.authcheckdam.pdf\">standards<\/a>  state that video visitation should not replace in-person visitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\nThese resolutions are important because they tell the hundreds of jails that have replaced in-person visits with video visitation that these jails are violating correctional best practices.\n<\/p>\n<p>\nSince jails incarcerate people who tend to be extremely <a href=\"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/reports\/incomejails.html\">poor<\/a>, video visitation can come at a great cost to their families. At up to $1.50 per minute, a single 15-minute video visit can be the difference between buying a day&#8217;s worth of food, or forgoing <a href=\"http:\/\/www.gallup.com\/poll\/156416\/americans-spend-151-week-food-high-income-180.aspx\">groceries<\/a> to speak with a loved one.  The American Correctional Association understands this economic reality, urging correctional facilities to &#8220;not place unreasonable financial burdens upon the offender or their family and friends.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\nAs a supplement to in-person visits, video visitation can help connect families who are far apart. We are thrilled to see the ACA include in their <a href=\"http:\/\/www.aca.org\/ACA_Prod_IMIS\/docs\/GovernmentAffairs\/ACA_PUBLIC_CORRECTIONAL_POLICIES_BOOK.pdf?WebsiteKey=139f6b09-e150-4c56-9c66-284b92f21e51&#038;=404%3bhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.aca.org%3a80%2fACA_Prod_IMIS%2fACA_Member%2fdocs%2fGovernmentAffairs%2fACA_PUBLIC_CORRECTIONAL_POLICIES_BOOK.pdf\">Public Correctional Policies<\/a> the common sense idea that emerging technologies should supplement \u2013 not replace \u2013 in person visits.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n<i>For more information on this issue and to see country wide press coverage, see our <a href=\"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/visitation\/\">report and organizing<\/a> on the for-profit video visitation industry in prisons and jails.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>We are thrilled to see the ACA support the common sense idea that emerging technologies should supplement, not replace, in person visits.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":30,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,1],"tags":[],"coauthors":[42],"class_list":["post-5635","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-phones","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5635","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/30"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5635"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5635\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11869,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5635\/revisions\/11869"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5635"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5635"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5635"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.prisonpolicy.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=5635"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}