Alabama seeks to curb high cost of prison and jail phone calls

Alabama Public Service Commission caps phone rates and limits fees charged for phone calls from correctional facilities.

by Aleks Kajstura, October 9, 2013

In a sweeping proposal to rein in the exorbitant costs of calls to people in jails and prisons, the Alabama Public Service Commission seeks to cap all call rates and place strict limits on fees and other charges. We are particularly happy to see this comprehensive proposal addresses fees because, as we explain in our recent report, we found that fees account for 38% of the money spent on calls from correctional facilities.

The proposed rules seek to cap calls at $0.25 per minute, and video visitation at $0.50 per minute, noting that “[a]ffordable VVS [Video Visitation Service] rates are in the best interests of Alabama inmates, their families, and the confinement facilities.” (Video visitation still accounts for only a small part of communication with family members in jail and prison, but this cap is an important component of regulation because video visitation is a quickly growing service.)

We have previously identified commissions paid to correctional facilities as a major factor in the exorbitant rates charged for phone calls in jails and prisons, and the proposed rules similarly blame commissions for the high rates and fees charged by ICS (Inmate Calling Services) companies. The Commission found that “[e]ither ICS providers are operating at a loss, or are generating revenue by means other than inmate calls, or are shielding some portion of ICS revenue from commissions.” Furthermore, the commission found that “unnecessary or excessive ICS provider fees decreases the amount [of funds] devoted for inmate calls and reduces commissionable revenue.” To put it simply, high fees hurt incarcerated people as well as jails.

Mass. court to decide when sentencing enhancement zone reform takes effect

Leah reports back from a hearing on the zone law before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

by Leah Sakala, October 8, 2013

The Massachusetts Legislature took a step in the right direction last year when it reformed the state’s sentencing enhancement zone law. But now the highest court in Massachusetts must decide just when the new law began to take effect.

Basically, lots of states have sentencing enhancement zone laws that aim to keep illegal drug activity away from kids by saying that if you commit drug offenses within a certain distance of a place like a school, you get a mandatory extra sentence for your crime. But until last August, the Massachusetts law created enormous 1,000-foot zones that blanketed entire urban areas. Our two reports found that huge zones end up defeating the whole purpose of the law because when you make everywhere special, nowhere is special. Furthermore, the law increases racial disparities in the justice system because dense, urban communities that are disproportionately made up of people of color are most impacted by zone laws.

Last August, the Massachusetts legislature realized that the 1,000-foot zones weren’t doing the job, and were actually causing harm. So lawmakers took our advice to reduce the size of the zones, reining them in to a more reasonable 300 feet.

Yesterday I attended a hearing in Boston before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to consider which version of the law should apply to people who were arrested before last year’s law change, but sentenced afterwards. Since this case is largely revolves around a procedural question, much of the hearing was spent talking about the technicalities of the legislation.

For me, the most memorable moment was when the District Attorney raised a concern that applying the law retroactively could create a disparity between people who had their court dates before the law was changed, and everyone else. Without skipping a beat, Justice Gants responded by pointing out that the legislature changed the law precisely because the old policy created disparities by giving prosecutors incredible power to bring an extra sentencing charge against people who primarily come from urban communities of color.

At the end of the day, as FAMM’s Barbara Dougan argued in her Amicus Brief, it’s clear that last year’s reform to shrink the size of the zones was intended to immediately improve a major flaw in the 1,000-foot law. Sentencing people to extra prison time based on a law that the legislature has since rejected is clearly not a good policy.

We’ll be following the outcome of this case closely, so stay tuned for updates and a ruling. Also, keep your eyes peeled for our newest video on sentencing enhancement zones. We’re hoping to wrap it up this week!

Think U.S. indefinite detention just happens in Guantanamo? Think again.

Disturbing laws that allow state and federal governments to keep certain people convicted of sex offenses behind bars indefinitely.

by Peter Wagner, October 2, 2013

Our friend and colleague James Ridgeway has released a must-read expose on disturbing laws that allow state and federal governments to keep certain people convicted of sex offenses behind bars indefinitely:

Through a legal procedure called “civil commitment”, you can be classed as a sexually violent predator based solely on the subjective opinion of a state-employed psychologist or sex expert.

Once placed under a civil commitment, you are essentially in prison indefinitely. This can quickly become a nightmare, particularly in instances such as an “agreed disposition” – similar to a plea bargain in a criminal trial – where a person may have been pushed to waive his right to appeal during negotiations.

The article concludes:

While there are, undoubtedly, some irremediable sex offenders who need to be confined for reasons of public safety, the civil commitment protocol denies some of the basic rights afforded other criminal defendants. These include the right to a speedy trial, full right to counsel and, perhaps most importantly, the right to introduce testimony from a defendant’s own experts. Without the protection of this last right, some defendants are sent off to prison for an indefinite sentence on the basis of questionable opinions from the state’s expert witnesses.

Civil commitment for sex offenders needs to be reformed root-and-branch or abandoned. The policy may be popular in law enforcement circles, fewer than half of US states have such laws. But in those states that have it […] most do not escape this largely invisible American gulag.

PPI’s work featured in “42 Amazing Maps”

Our map showing which countries allowed the execution of juveniles as recently as 2002 was just featured in a great new Vlogbrothers video.

by Leah Sakala, September 23, 2013

We’re excited to share that our map showing which countries allowed juveniles to be executed as recently as 2002 was just featured in a great new Vlogbrothers video, “42 Amazing Maps” (watch closely at about 1:55):

Juvenile-In-Justice blog features the Prison Policy Initiative

Check out the interview with us about our work to expose how mass incarceration harms families, communities, and our nation.

by Leah Sakala, September 10, 2013

Yesterday our friends at Juvenile-In-Justice featured the Prison Policy Initiative on their blog, posting an interview with us about our work to end prison gerrymandering, and our projects to preserve family communication in prisons and jails via telephone and letter. Check it out!

New PPI video: Why jails shouldn’t ban letters from home

A harmful new trend is sweeping through local jails as a growing number of sheriffs are banning letters from home.

by Leah Sakala, September 9, 2013

Our new video reveals that a harmful new trend is sweeping through local jails as a growing number of sheriffs ban letters from home:

Want to learn more about this disturbing trend? Check out our page on jail letter bans.

Prison phone giant Securus cashes in, raises fees

While the FCC drags its feet on regulating the prison phone industry, the industry is wasting no time raking in the profits.

by Peter Wagner, September 5, 2013

While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) drags its feet on regulating the prison phone industry, an industry leader is wasting no time raking in the profits. Just this week, Securus, the second largest company in the prison phone industry, has quietly raised some of its fees.

In our report, Please Deposit All of Your Money: Kickbacks, Rates, and Hidden Fees in the Jail Phone Industry, we wrote that the companies’ hidden fees can double the price of a call. Unlike the regular phone industry, these companies want their money upfront, and they charge additional fees to take, hold, and refund families’ money.

Securus, for example, didn’t think it was enough to charge a family $7.95 to accept a deposit via the web or over the telephone. Now, the company charges $9.95 to deposit money with a credit card over the phone. The company charges this same higher rate regardless of whether you speak to a customer service agent or use the automated system. (By contrast, I can’t think of a business that I use regularly that charges me a fee to take my money. Generally, companies absorb those costs because they want my business. Because this industry has its customers locked in (pun intended), they don’t have to worry as much about competition. But Securus is clearly out of line compared to its competitors. The prison phone company PayTel, which has none of Securus’ economies of scale, charges $3.00 for an automated payment and $5.95 for payments made via a live operator.)

Securus has another, hidden profit-boost as well. Buried in its long list of questionable monthly charges is an increase in one: Securus is keeping the bill processing charge ($1.49/month), Billing Statement Fee ($3.49/month), Federal Regulatory Recovery Fee ($3.49/month), USF Administrative Fee ($1.00/month) and increasing the “Wireless Administration Fee” from $2.99/month to $3.99 a month.

Food for thought: Is Securus raising its fees because it wants to raise every dollar it can now, before the FCC rules take effect, or does this have to do with the recent sale of the company from one investment bank (Castle Harlan) to another (ABRY Partners)? I note that competitor NCIC, which isn’t owned by an investment bank, lowered some fees after our report brought public attention to fees.

Bonus question: Are any sheriffs out there aware that these fees are not commissionable and that their partner Securus just increased its corporate profits at local taxpayers’ expense?

Extra bonus question: Is the FCC aware of what the industry is doing while we wait for the publication of the order to regulate the industry?

Sources:

• New fees
• Old fees

Step one to reduce recidivism in Santa Barbara County: stop banning letters from home

Ending the letter ban would help keep Santa Barbara's community safe and families intact.

by Leah Sakala, August 28, 2013

A new Santa Maria Times article reports that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors are exploring a potential solution to the decades-old problem of overcrowding in the local jail. The county is considering studying the impact of allowing private investors to finance social service programs, with an eye towards reducing recidivism and therefore government expenditures.

While I certainly support the Supervisors’ creative long-term efforts to reduce recidivism, Santa Barbara County is missing a simple and more immediate opportunity to keep people from returning to jail: stop banning families from writing letters to incarcerated loved ones.

When Sheriff Brown started banning letters from home earlier this year, he apparently ignored the significant body of social science research that says that one of the most effective ways to help incarcerated people succeed when they return home is to allow them to preserve family ties. He also ignored the best practices on correspondence touted by major professional organizations such as the American Correctional association, the American Jail Association, and the American Bar Association, government bodies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and regulatory agencies such as the Texas Association on Jail Standards.

In March, when the Santa Barbara County letter ban was first announced, more than 50 national criminal justice and civil rights organizations submitted a letter to Sheriff Brown urging him to cancel the ban. But a child in Santa Barbara is still currently prohibited from writing a letter or sending a drawing to an incarcerated parent.

Working with Sheriff Brown to end the jail’s ban on letters from home is a simple and evidence-based step that the Board of Supervisors can take today to keep Santa Barbara’s community safe and families intact.

PPI helps overturn a harmful banishment ordinance in Colorado

Peter Wagner was an expert witness in the case, finding that the ordinance essentially amounted to complete banishment from the city of Englewood.

by Peter Wagner, August 23, 2013

The map that I prepared for the case (area in blue is off limits).

The ACLU of Colorado has announced that federal Judge R. Brooke Jackson has invalidated an Englewood, Colorado city ordinance that severely restricts where persons convicted of certain sex offenses can live, ruling that the ordinance violates the Colorado Constitution.

I was an expert witness in the case, and I found that the ordinance essentially amounted to complete banishment from the city of Englewood. Judge Jackson summarized my findings in his opinion:

During trial the City presented a map showing the parts of the City that are off limits under Ordinance 34 as well as a list of residence addresses that are located in parts of the City that are unrestricted. Exhibit 7. The result, according to the City, is that 209 addresses within the City are not restricted, of which 126 addresses are residential. However, according to Peter Wagner, plaintiff’s geographic information systems and mapping expert, the correct number of parcels available to sex offenders is 55 unrestricted parcels out of 11,314 parcels total in the City. Either way approximately 99% of the City is off-limits to most sex offenders.

The case was brought by the ACLU of Colorado and pro bono counsel from Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. For more on our other litigation efforts on prison gerrymandering and the issue of banishment of people on sex offender registries, see our litigation page.

When is a customer not a customer? (In prison.)

A New York Times Magazine article exposes how the broken prison commissary industry leaves the people footing the bill out of the equation.

by Leah Sakala, August 20, 2013

A fascinating “It’s the Economy” column by Adam Davidson in this week’s New York Times Magazine, ‘Orange’ Is the New Green, takes a good, hard look at some serious market failures in the U.S. prison system. Along the way, the article provides great first-hand reporting about how the prison commissary system works, and it explains the economic theory in a way that may be helpful to our allies working to bring justice to the prison and jail telephone industry.

(As a refresher on what’s wrong with the prison phone industry, state prison systems and local jails grant exclusive monopoly contracts to telephone corporations. In exchange, the corporations charge sky-high bills to the families of incarcerated people and kick back the lion’s share of the profit to the prisons and jails.)

In our reports, we explain that the prison and jail telephone industry is so broken because the customers, which is to say the people who are actually using the provided service and footing the bills, aren’t actually the customers in the eyes of the corporations.

The New York Times article makes it clear that the prison phone industry is unfortunately not unique in this regard. The prison commissary industry, too, operates in what Davidson calls a “third-party-decider economy.”

Davidson found that allowing prison systems to be the “third party” in these industry transactions actually means that the corporations that are less responsive to the needs of incarcerated people are more successful in the marketplace. As he explains:

How can that possibly be? Because the people choosing the company aren’t the ones using the products.

This immediately looked familiar to us. In our most recent report, we found that some companies in the prison phone industry actually profit by providing bad service, such as forcing customers through convoluted refund processes or dropping calls.

But to add to Davidson’s argument, it’s important to remember that the people choosing the companies are also not the ones paying for the products or service, which is how you end up with the families of incarcerated people paying an outrageous $17 for a single 15-minute phone call from a loved one. From a corporation’s perspective, the literally captive market in prisons and jails is a boon for the bottom line.

Fortunately it looks like some relief for families is in sight, at least in the prison phone industry. The FCC has voted to rein in charges for the most expensive interstate calls, and may take more action in the future. But there’s lots more work to be done. The uniquely American project of mass incarceration has created many markets rife with perverse economic incentives to line the pockets of prison systems and corporations by dunning poor families. And corporations are not about to pass that up.