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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
by Leah Sakala, August 9, 2013
This afternoon the Federal Communications Commission voted to approve a new set of regulations to control the exploitative prison and jail phone industry. Currently, prisons and jails grant exclusive contracts to telephone companies that charge families outrageous bills and kick back a hefty portion of the profit to the correctional facilities. But now, the FCC is finally stepping up to the plate to protect families from having to choose between staying in touch and paying the bills.
While the official text for the order and notice won’t be available until next week, today the FCC announced that the regulation will mandate:
The FCC also opened a new comment period to gather information on two topics:
Advocates for fair phone rates have been calling for regulation for more than a decade, beginning with a 2000 class action lawsuit brought against the Corrections Corporation of America and several prison phone companies. A federal judge decided that the case fell under the jurisdiction of the FCC, where it sat for years. Today’s ruling marks the first definitive action from the FCC to control the broken prison and jail telephone industry.
This victory was the result of a strong and sustained campaign, and we are proud to be celebrating with our movement partners. Stay tuned for a more in-depth analysis next week when the details are available!
by Leah Sakala, August 9, 2013
The campaign for phone justice just posted a 2002 video of prison phone providers talking about the industry:
Talk about a blast from the past. The video is a perfect example of how much the industry has changed in the last decade. Here’s why:
But now? The nation’s largest prison phone company, Global Tel*Link (which most people have probably never heard of), has been conspicuously silent. Not only are Global Tel*Link representatives not responsive to the public and to the media, but they’re also not talking to the Federal Communications Commission, refusing to participate in discussions about regulation or provide data the FCC is requesting.
Calls home from prisons and jails were outrageously expansive when the video was shot, and they’re outrageously expensive now. That alone is reason enough for the FCC to approve comprehensive regulation this morning. But the extreme price gouging combined with a shocking lack of transparency from prison phone corporations should leave no question in the Commissioners’ minds: It’s time to get this broken industry under control.
Tune in at 11AM EST to watch the historic vote and see what happens.
by Leah Sakala, August 9, 2013
Great news for families in Santa Clara County, California: Sheriff John Hirokawa has scrapped a destructive plan to ban families from writing letters to loved ones in jail. As my report, “Return to Sender: Postcard-only policies in jail,” found, jail letter bans jeopardize the critical family ties that help incarcerated people succeed when they return home.
Santa Clara residents were rightly outraged when they discovered that the Sheriff was planning on banning letters from the jail. With the leadership of local media and community organizing group Silicon Valley De-Bug, they held a powerful public forum to share their concerns with the Sheriff’s Department. And, to the sheriff’s credit, he called off the ban.
Meanwhile, Santa Barbara County residents in Southern California are still fighting to overturn the letter ban in the local jail. Santa Barbara Sheriff Bill Brown would be wise to follow Santa Clara County’s example and end the letter ban that undermines public safety and drives families apart.
by Leah Sakala, August 8, 2013
At the end of July, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers awarded Peter the “Champion of State Criminal Justice Reform Award” at the 12th Annual State Criminal Justice Network Conference in San Francisco, California. It was a great honor!
We recently got some pictures from NACDL of the award ceremony, and took a few shots of the award going up in the office:
NACDL President Jerry J. Cox, Peter Wagner, and State Legislative Affairs Director Angelyn Frazer at the NACDL conference (Image source: NACDL)
Peter speaking at the NACDL conference (Image source: NACDL)
Hanging the award in the Prison Policy Initiative office
by Leah Sakala, July 9, 2013
Last week Oregon made great strides towards racial justice when Governor Kitzhaber signed SB 463 into law, a bill that enables the legislature to evaluate whether a bill or human service program is likely to lead to increased racial disparities. The bill, sponsored by Senator Chip Shields and Representative Gallegos, passed both chambers with overwhelming bipartisan support.
This law gives legislators the tools they need to be able to avoid passing legislation that unintentionally increases racial inequality. It has two different provisions:
This bill is designed to foster informed criminal justice policymaking. Preparing racial impact statements for proposed legislation means that policymakers and voters can consider the larger impact of a bill before it is passed, rather than discovering any racially disparate consequences only after the damage has been done.
Prospective evaluations of racial impact are especially critical in the criminal justice context. The U.S. prison system is infamous for perpetuating fundamental racial inequalities. Nationally, Black people are incarcerated nearly six times as much as White people are, and Latinos are incarcerated nearly three times as much as Whites:
The racial disparities on the state level, too, are stark. In Oregon, for example, Black people make up 1.6% of the total population but more than 9% of the prison population. Latinos are 9% of the total population, but more than 13% of the prison population.
It’s impossible pinpoint a single reason for such stark racial inequality, but social scientists generally point to a complex combination of social disparities, policy decisions and systemic biases. Racial impact statements are a preventative measure to ensure that at least one critical factor in that equation — policy decisions — doesn’t unintentionally make things worse.
Not only are racial impact statement policies good for racial justice, but ensuring that bills are likely to do only what they are intended to do is just plain smart government policy. As SB 463 sponsor Rep. Gallegos said, “racial and ethnic disparities suggest that we are using state resources inefficiently and ineffectively.”
Bills like Oregon’s help policymakers:
Oregon’s new law makes good common sense, but Oregon is only the third state to pass racial impact legislation, following on the heels of Iowa and Connecticut. It’s time for the rest of the states to join them.
We’ve been working on a comprehensive research review in order to help more states adopt similar racial impact statement policies. We aim to make two main contributions to the discourse on these useful policy tools:
The criminal justice system is at a crossroads right now, and evaluating legislation before it is passed is the best way to avoid harmful racial disparities down the line. By establishing that racial impact statements are a common-sense tool for rational policymaking, and giving lawmakers some clear best practice guidelines, we can pave the way for more states to follow Oregon’s lead.
But we need financial support to bring this project forward.
If you can support this research project to help bring racial justice to criminal justice in more states, or know of anyone who can, please get in touch.
And congratulations to Oregon!
Resources, tips, and best practices to help advocates working to end mass incarceration.
All of our recent reports about prison/jail growth, racial disparities, and more, re-organized by state.
The U.S. incarcerates nearly 2 million people. Where are they locked up and why? Read our report.
