Alternative Spring Break at the Prison Policy Initiative

Arielle Sharma reports back on her week working on prison gerrymandering research and sentencing enhancement zone messaging development.

by Arielle Sharma, March 19, 2014

I spent the last week here at PPI for an Alternative Spring Break. I am from Connecticut, went to Boston University and am now at University of Connecticut Law School. I was excited to spend my week at PPI because of the excellent work they do to document the effects of mass incarceration with real numbers. I think my interest in prison began at a young age. I am of mixed race, half Indian and half Israeli. I had family who had been put in “prisons” during the Holocaust in Europe, and on my father’s side, I had family put in prison for marching with Gandhi. When I was young, the people I knew who had been in prison were not bad people. Too often, we dismiss incarcerated people because they are or have been deemed ‘criminals’ by society. Whether or not they have broken a law, they are still people who must be treated with respect.

2014 Alternative Spring Break Law Interns Arielle Sharma (right) and Corey Frost (left) at the Connecticut State House.

This week, I was able to work on a project explaining one way in which exploitation of incarcerated people undermines the democratic rights of those of us not in prisons- Prison gerrymandering. Prison gerrymandering lessens the voice we have in our government. When the area each elected official represents is distributed based on population, people in prisons are sometimes used to boost numbers in certain areas even though the prisoners have no vote in government. This means that people who live near a prison get more of a say because the representative they elect is not serving the prison population and so each vote cast by the actual residents of the district is counted more.

This week, I continued the research on how/if this gerrymandering is happening on one of the most local scales: school board elections. (Fun fact I wish my school board had taught me in high school: School boards have A LOT of power. In many places, they have a say in curriculum, extra-curriculars, budgets, and some hiring and firing decisions) Even though school boards may seem too small to matter, the effects of prison gerrymandering actually become greater as the total population gets smaller. In my research, I found a majority of school boards don’t have problems with prison gerrymandering because they have at-large elections, which means everyone gets to vote for every school board member in their area, regardless of where they live. They are all sharing their voting power with each other, so everyone’s vote weighs the same.

I learned Bureaucracy is no joke. We all know the outcome of policy decisions, but few know how we’ve gotten to the system we have. Luckily, 99% of the people talked in the schools and town halls were super nice. Unluckily, these fine folks generally haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about prison gerrymandering. I called school boards in New Jersey, Connecticut, Missouri, Michigan, Alabama and Colorado. After many questions, many gentle rephrasings and many call transfers, I found two schools districts that allocate voting power based on population:

• The people lines in RE-1 Valley School District in Sterling, CO were super on top of things, and were savvy enough to take out their prison population.
• Despite a lot of help from a lot of people in Hunterdon County, NJ, it is still unclear if prison populations are kept in when North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional board member districts.

Either way, the Supreme Court has supported ending prison gerrymandering and more than 200 local governments have already ended it on their own so hopefully this will soon be moot on every level.

PPI works on a lot of issues, so I had the luck to help on some other problems, too. I went with Aleks who was testifying in Connecticut on a bill trying to at least lessen the enhanced penalty zones (currently a 1500ft radius) for selling or possessing drugs around a school, public housing, or day care. Of course, research shows that kids are far more likely to get drugs from each other than random adults.

But in addition to that, the zones are way too big to make a difference in deterring drug activity away from schools. In Connecticut, school zones are 1500 feet. Do you know how far that is? You could lay the empire state building on its side, and still have a few hundred feet to spare! That’s way too long (Watch this guy free climb 1500ft mountain and then tell me that’s not a crazy distance- the video doesn’t even get all the way to the top!).

When whole cities are turned into enhanced penalty zones, where is the incentive to specifically stay away from schools? Instead, zone policies end up giving extra penalties to people who are often doing things in their own homes (over 90% of some Connecticut cities’ residences are in these zones). Plus, the areas aren’t marked so there is no way to tell if you’re on the bad side of the line (assuming the other side hasn’t put you into another school zone).

Prison gerrymandering and enhanced penalty school zones are just two of the MANY things going on at PPI, make sure to check out the rest of the site for more!

-Arielle

Our new briefing reveals “Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie”

Our newest briefing includes the first graphic we’re aware of that aggregates the disparate systems of confinement in this country into one big-picture chart.

March 12, 2014

Ever wonder exactly how many people are locked up in the U.S. and why? Many people, interested citizens and policy wonks alike, find that seemingly simple question to be frustratingly difficult to answer. Until now.

Today, the Prison Policy Initiative releases its newest briefing, Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie, that includes the first graphic we’re aware of that aggregates the disparate systems of confinement in this country into one big-picture chart:

As we discuss in our briefing, this broader context pulls back the curtain and reveals answers to questions such as:

• How many people are behind bars for drug offenses?
• Which system holds more people: state prisons, federal prisons, or local jails?
• How many kids are locked up for offenses that most people don’t even think of as crimes?
• Where do we even have to look to find everyone who’s behind bars for immigration-related issues?

At the end of the day, locking up the more than 2.4 million people represented on this pie chart gives the United States the dubious distinction of being the number one incarcerator in the world. Policymakers and the public both have a pressing responsibility to take a good hard look at each slice of this pie and weigh any potential benefit of keeping those people behind bars against the significant social and fiscal cost.

Three weeks with PPI

As an undergraduate sophomore studying comparative politics at Smith College, this nonprofit granted me skills that exceeded my expectations.

by Catherine Cain, February 27, 2014

Over the month of January, I worked full-time with the Prison Policy Initiative for three consecutive weeks. As an undergraduate sophomore studying comparative politics at Smith College, this nonprofit granted me skills that exceeded my expectations and any of my previous experiences with research.

Before working with PPI I had been building a potential passion for prison justice. In my prior work with the legal department at El Sol Neighborhood Resource Center, I became more aware of racial profiling and its effect on immigrant communities. That same summer the Trayvon Martin case sparked protests against Stand Your Ground laws. I delved into documentaries, such as The House I Live In, and flipped through The New Jim Crow as I began to think about these issues within the context of mass incarceration. Although I had become engaged in these issues, I had not yet developed an agenda to act upon this interest.

As soon as I heard about the Prison Policy Initiative, I got in contact with a friend interning with them. I browsed their website and was impressed by their presence on social media pages. I did not have a strong idea what prison gerrymandering was before coming across the Prison Policy Initiative, but I quickly found videos of Executive Director Peter Wagner explaining this and other concepts central to this nonprofit’s mission.

My first project was creating a state legislator outreach database. Our goal was to find state legislators that have passed “progressive” bills relating to PPI’s efforts in order to have them as a contact regarding these issues in the future. Through this project I became more fluent in the bill-making process. While I understood that the War on Drugs and related legislation significantly contribute to the United States’ alarmingly high incarceration rate, I also became familiar with bills addressing mental health of incarcerated people, lowering the size of drug free zones, repealing mandatory minimum sentences, decriminalizing marijuana and other “soft” drugs, and requiring racial impact statements.

By individualizing each letter, the initiative could quickly connect with the legislator. The last thing we wanted was to spam them with generic pages of information because it would simply waste both the legislator’s and our time. I was surprised at how much thought went into the legislator’s response on behalf of Peter and Leah, who guided me through this project. At the end of my time with PPI, we sealed 200 customized letters and sent them to their respective offices.

My second project with the Prison Policy Initiative was crosschecking their internal Locator database against census data to ensure that correctional institution populations match up. Locator files are organized by state, giving the incarcerated population for census blocks and matching these blocks to specific facilities. This is essential to PPI’s work for identifying and addressing circumstances of gerrymandering.

So how do you find prisons? State and Federal facilities are much easier to find online than local facilities (i.e. county jails). Florida’s Department of Corrections actually has great and up-to-date information on their state and local facilities. These were extremely useful when matching up incarcerated populations. Apart from the Locator tool, the Initiative has extensive resources that allow you to look at facilities for each state through Google Earth and Google Maps among other excellent features.

Most of the research I did at PPI used tools to navigate raw data with rather than swimming through secondary sources, as I had been used to within my academic endeavors. Although this intimidated me at first, I received tremendous support from the staff at PPI.

Throughout my time here, I continuously felt like an equal — intellectually and on a personal level. For example, since I am focusing on comparative politics in my studies, I was asked to give feedback on an upcoming project on international incarceration rates. First of all, I thought this was a great idea to publish on the website. But I was really pleased that my opinion was so valued by a strong non-profit like PPI. This sentiment did not fade throughout my time here.

At some point, every staff member at PPI pulled me aside to show me what they’re working on. I read letters from incarcerated people who came across the Prison Policy Initiative, was asked for feedback on an upcoming presentation, and was introduced to Peter Wagner’s favorite books about American criminal justice system. Even on my last day of work, I was encouraged to chime in on conversations about PPI’s next moves.

HuffPo: FCC Bests Prison Telephone Industry Just in Time for Valentine’s Day

Peter and Leah wrote a new Huffington Post piece about the start of the FCC's inter-state prison phone rate regulation on Tuesday.

by Leah Sakala, February 13, 2014

To celebrate the FCC’s inter-state prison phone call charge regulation going into effect on Tuesday (just in time for Valentine’s Day!), Peter and I wrote a new piece for the Huffington Post.

The FCC’s regulation is a huge milestone in the decade-long fight for fair phone charges for the families of incarcerated people, and there’s lots more to be done. As we wrote:

…the fight for fair phone charges is one that the families of the 12 million people cycling through jails each year can’t afford to lose. Interstate rate regulation was a huge step forward that must now be defended in court, and the FCC and state and local governments need to keep going in order to protect all families, regardless of whether their loved ones are incarcerated in the same state or elsewhere. Our movement is strong, and we’re committed to ensuring that all parents, partners, and kids can afford to affirm their love for one another over the phone next Valentine’s Day.

We also spoke with American Public Media’s Marketplace yesterday for a story on the FCC’s prison phone regulation.

For more on what this regulation means for families and friends, check out the Campaign for Prison Phone Justice’s great new FAQ.

Today the FCC dragged the prison telephone industry kicking and screaming into the 21st century

The two largest prison phone companies, mislead correctional facilities and federal regulators by acting like communications technology is stuck in the 1950s.

by Peter Wagner, February 11, 2014

Today is a historic day: the Federal Communications Commission’s new rules take effect that cap the cost for inter-state calls home from prison and jail at a still-expensive but much-improved rate of 21 to 25 cents per minute. The FCC is exploring expanding its regulation to apply to the bulk of calls which are in-state in nature, and other important proposed restrictions have been stayed by the federal courts while prison telephone giants like Securus and its corporate allies sue the federal government for daring to end the industry’s monopolist price gouging.

As we’ve demonstrated in several lengthy reports and filings to the FCC, the high cost of phone calls from prison is driven by a kickback system in which private companies get monopoly contracts in exchange for sharing the majority of the revenue with the same correctional agency that awarded the contract.

So while Securus sues to protect its windfall profits off the backs of families, I’d like to point out just how far out of step rates like $1/minute are in a world of modern electronic communications.

Contrary to what the phone companies would have you believe, important security technology isn’t what’s driving the cost of these calls. In fact, a call home from New York State prisons costs 4.8 cents a minute because that state refuses kickbacks and negotiates the contract on the basis of the lowest cost to the consumer. But the very same company charges close to $1/minute in other states. As we’ve said again and again, it’s all about the profit.

But aside from the contemporary arbitrariness of the charges in this industry, taking a look at the historical perspective sheds some additional light on why the FCC has to drag this industry kicking and screaming into the 21st century. You see, Securus and Global Tel*Link, the two largest prison phone companies, mislead correctional facilities and federal regulators by acting like it’s still the 1950s, when transmitting a long-distance call was a deeply expensive and laborious manual process.

Why do most prison and jail phone contracts assume that a long distance call requires an army of telephone operators like the ones in this photo from 1919?

The phone companies profit by pretending it’s the 1950s.

Download (1.5MB, 1:30)

Check out this radio dramatization from Dragnet of a long distance call in 1954. That tedious 1 minute 22 second process wasn’t much better than the very first inter-continental telephone call in 1919, which took 5 operators 23 minutes to connect Alexander Graham Bell with his former assistant Thomas Watson. Fortunately technology has vastly improved since then, and these days prison and jail telephone companies sell digital communications products for which distance is simply not a factor. These companies know, however, that it’s in their best interest to leave sheriffs in the dark about these 21st century technological advances. With the possible exception of some of the smaller companies that are pushing one-size-fits-all “postalized” rates, the phone corporations don’t appear to be lifting a finger to educate the sheriffs about the real cost of the telephone services being contracted.

The industry’s lack of transparency about the actual cost of providing telephone service is quite similar to its practice of hiding fees, which we discussed in detail in our second report. Essentially, the phone industry rakes in additional profit by tacking on extra fees and hiding them from the commission system. As a result, the sheriffs are led to believe that they have negotiated a good deal with the phone company, but the hidden fees preserve far more profit for the industry than it lets on. That’s why our report included an appendix with questions that the sheriffs should ask about fees when negotiating these contracts.

So, at the end of the day, how far out of whack is a $1 a minute phone call? We did some research to figure out the last time a regular U.S. long distance phone call cost $1 per minute. Adjusting for inflation, a call hasn’t cost that much since 1950:

Western Massachusetts criminal justice advocates’ meet and greet is next Tuesday, 2/11!

Mark your calendars and RSVP today!

by Leah Sakala, February 6, 2014

Hey Western Massachusetts-area friends, mark your calendars and RSVP today for an opportunity next Tuesday evening to meet and network with some awesome local advocates and organizations working towards more fair and effective justice policy, including:

• American Friends Service Committee
• ARISE
• Baystate Health
• Civil Liberties and Public Policy Program
• Communities for Restorative Justice
• EPOCA
• Hampshire Students Against Mass Incarceration (SAMI)
• Justice for Ayyub
• Justice for Pioneer Valley
• Just Schools Project
• Mount Holyoke College Students Against Mass Incarceration (SAMI)
• Out Now
• The Performance Project
• Prison Birth Project
• Prison Legal News
• Prison Policy Initiative
• Real Cost of Prisons Project
• Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps
• Rosenberg Fund for Children
• Springfield Institute
• Tranzmission Prison Project
• UMass Students Against Mass Incarceration (SAMI)
• Western Mass. Jobs with Justice
• Western Mass Recovering Learning Community

The Prison Policy Initiative is co-organizing this event with the Prison Birth Project, and here are the details:

When: Tuesday, February 11th 2014 from 6-7:30 PM
Where: Peace Development Fund Office, 44 N. Prospect St. Amherst, MA
What: Pizza, conversation, and one-minute introductions from each organization

Hope to see you there!

Meeting new PPI board members: Jennifer Sellitti

Jennifer Sellitti, Deputy Public Defender in Essex County, NJ, shares her thoughts on her work and why she joined our board.

by Leah Sakala, February 3, 2014

We are thrilled to begin a blog series introducing several accomplished new members of the Prison Policy Initiative board! We spoke with each of them about their important work and thoughts on the Prison Policy Initiative.

First up, Jennifer Sellitti, who is Assistant Deputy Public Defender in Essex County, New Jersey.

Why did you decide to join the PPI board?

Jennifer Sellitti: Although I currently work as a criminal defense attorney, I began my career in prisoners’ rights. I guess you could say that the mission of prison reform has been and always will be in my professional blood. It is unacceptable to me that what passes for justice in this country is a broken, unrelenting, and soulless system of mass incarceration. I am honored to be a part of an organization that not only brings attention to some of the most pressing issues in prison reform but also leads the way in proposing groundbreaking solutions to the American prison crisis.

What does your work focus on? And what’s the connection between that work and PPI?

JS: As an assistant deputy public defender for the State of NJ, my work focuses on the criminal defense of indigent people accused of felonies in the NJ Superior Court. In my experience, busy criminal defense attorneys often forget that our clients live with the repercussions of their cases long after the case is resolved and the file is closed. Whether our clients go to prison, spend time on probation, or go back into their communities, their lives will be forever impacted by the choices their attorneys help them make. Through my work at PPI, I hope to spread the message to my colleagues in the criminal defense bar that we should be just as concerned about broader legal issues as we are about individual cases. These issues include prison conditions, attorney and family access, sentence enhancements, solitary confinement, provision of rehabilitative programs and other concerns that directly impact both the quality of life and the futures of our clients and their families.

What do you think is most unique about the Prison Policy Initiative and the projects it takes on?

JS:This is not your parents’ prison reform. By that I mean what makes PPI unique is that, unlike other prisoners’ rights organizations, it does not try to tackle every issue in criminal justice reform at the same time. It takes a more tailored, surgical approach that maximizes resources and organizational efficiency. By focusing on key areas – such as prison gerrymandering, high rates of prison and jail telephone calls, and sentence enhancement zones – PPI can make a tremendous impact and see results in a shorter amount of time.

What’s something that you wish more people knew about the Prison Policy Initiative?

JS: PPI Executive Director Peter Wagner and I began our careers together as student interns at the same prisoners’ rights organization. I have many fond memories of our talks, most of which took place in prison waiting rooms, about our plans to take on the justice system in our own distinct ways. Peter was passionate about bringing attention to “prison gerrymandering,” his discovery that the size of the prison population was combining with an outdated Census Bureau rule to undermine electoral fairness. When we reconnected recently, I was amazed to see how Peter’s idea has transformed PPI from a law student’s dream into one of the nation’s leading criminal justice policy organizations. What did not surprise me is that Peter still has the same passion, energy and enthusiasm for the work that he did all those years ago and that same zeal is now reflected in his talented staff and my fellow board members.

FCC should remain persistent on prison phone progress

We submitted additional comments to the FCC confirming more kickbacks, and urging the FCC to keep protections in place for people in jail.

by Aleks Kajstura, January 15, 2014

The prison and jail phone industry has been busy recently, urging the Federal Communications Commission to roll back regulations and allow companies to charge exorbitant rates and fees for calls. Meanwhile, we’ve submitted a few comments of our own, highlighting bloated payment fees and showing that phone services in jails require regulation just like in the prisons.

Although we, and the FCC, have suspected that phone companies take a cut of the fees charged by third party payment services such as Western Union, we were finally able to confirm the practice. On Monday we submitted a comment that documents the kickbacks from Western Union.

The FCC also sought additional information on the differences between jails and prisons, and whether the new phone regulations should protect people from unconscionable prices no matter where they, or their family members, are incarcerated. We demonstrated the industry’s inability to articulate a good reason to roll back regulations of jail phone services, and we urged the FCC to continue its protection for people confined in jails.

We also signed on to -->

T-shirts, bumper stickers and buttons, oh my!

Show your support for our work with some PPI gear.

by Leah Sakala, January 15, 2014

Looking for a new way to proudly show your support for our work to end mass incarceration?

You can now sport a snazzy new Prison Policy Initiative t-shirt (like Elena, at right), spread the word with a bumper sticker about ending prison gerrymandering, or stick a PPI pin on your backpack or magnet on your fridge.

Place your order today!

Portion of FCC prison phone regulations put on hold; rate caps to go into effect 2/11

Court orders stay on some of the FCC's new prison phone regulations, but caps on call rates still go into effect on February 11th.

by Aleks Kajstura, January 14, 2014

Recently, prison phone companies took the FCC to court for the right to charge the families of incarcerated people exorbitant rates for talking to their loved ones in prison. (Securus Technologies v. FCC and United States of America (D.C. Cir. Docket No. 13-1280)). Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals granted a partial stay of the FCC’s new prison phone regulations, but allowed the new rate caps to take effect on February 11.

Communications Daily reports that the Court

kept in place the interim rate cap of 21 cents per minute for debit and prepaid calls, and 25 cents a minute for collect calls. It put on hold three other sections of the FCC’s rules: the requirement that rates and ancillary services be “cost-based”; low safe-harbor rates that presume charges are reasonable; and the annual reporting requirement.

The article quotes Peter Wagner’s analysis of the order:

It is important that the court left intact the most important and immediate of the FCC’s reforms… [b]ut I’m disappointed that the court stayed three sections of the FCC’s order, including the section that reined in the fees….Those fees can double the price of a call…. With new fairer rates, Global Tel*Link will make far more from deposit fees than from multiple 15-minute calls.

Several FCC commissioners were also disappointed in the ruling, but optimistic. Chairman Tom Wheeler, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel issued a joint statement highlighting how even having the partial regulation remain in effect is still a significant stride toward more reasonable phone bills:

We are pleased that millions of families will finally see relief from outrageous rates for inmate calling services when the interim rate caps… go into effect in February 2014. These families have been forced to pay exorbitant rates for far too long. Although we are disappointed that the court granted a partial stay on other aspects of the Inmate Calling Services Order, we look forward to a hearing on the merits soon, and to adopting further reforms quickly.

We are among the organizations intervening in the lawsuit, stay tuned for updates!