A National Perspective on Prison Telephone Systems

Rates
We have gathered information about the rates of prisoner calls in all but 5 states. We have compared those rates to one another and ranked them in the table below – from lowest rates to highest rates.

Ranking	State	Comment
1	FL
2	RI
3	MO	Tie
3	NE	Tie
4	NY
5	NH
6	WV
7	OK
8	KY
9	ND
10	WI
11	MD
12	LA
13	VA
14	IN
15	NM
16	VT
17	MA
18	SC	Tie
18	WY	Tie
19	SD
20	UT
21	KS
22	IA
23	CO
24	MT
25	TN
26	MN
27	AK
28	ME
29	AL	Tie
29	AR	Tie
30	PA
31	MS	Tie
31	NC	Tie
32	ID
33	WA
34	CA	Tie
34	NJ	Tie
35	NV
36	CT
37	OH
38	MI
39	OR
40	IL
41	GA
42	AZ
	DC	Data incomplete
	DE	No data; unable to rank
	HI	No data; unable to rank
	TX	No data; unable to rank

Debit Calling
The following states offer both collect and debit calling with debit calling at reduced rates:

Colorado  Idaho  Kansas  Maine  Maryland  Michigan*  Minnesota

Missouri Nebraska New Mexico North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina

South Dakota Tennessee Vermont Virginia Washington Wyoming

* The debit rates in Michigan are only slightly lower than the collect rates.

---

Commissions
The following states accept no commission on calls placed by incarcerated citizens:

Missouri  Nebraska  New York

Oklahoma Rhode Island

---

Unique Features
There are several states that have rather unique systems.

1. Nebraska is the only state that currently accepts no commission from the phone company. The rates charged to customers are the lowest in the country. On April 1, 2007, New York will become the second state in the country to refuse commissions.
   
2. Iowa only offers debit calling.
   
3. Washington is the only state that offers debit calling, but excludes interstate calls.
4. Most Texas prisoners are not allowed to make telephone calls.  Trustees are allowed to call once a quarter.  Other prisoners make no calls at all.
5. The Michigan prison system allows calls to Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) phones. We do not know it that is unique to Michigan, but it is an important development. In the past, some have viewed VOIP as a call forwarding system. It has the potential to reduce rates. (The decision was announced February 1, 2007.)
6. Michigan has also announced that it will allow prepaid or debit calls to cell phones. Systems are inconsistent in this regard, and, again, we do not know how many systems allow it.
7. To our knowledge, the DC Jail is the only facility that allows inmates to call 800 numbers.
8. On June 21, 2007, the New York State Senate and Assembly reached agreement on legislation (A05407) that will require that rates for phone calls from prisons will be comparable to rates in the surrounding community, and will be based upon the lowest rates to inmates using the phones.  As summarized by the New York Campaign for Telephone Justice, “(The) legislation would treat prison telephone service as a right, not as a revenue generator.”  The changes will be reflected in a new contract that will be implemented April 1, 2008.
9. In the spring of 2007, the DOC began introducing a system to allow prisoners to receive email.  The cost is $0.60 per standard page.  The message is screened before being delivered.  Because of security concerns, prisoners cannot send email.

---

Call Blocking
Prison telephone service providers in the majority of states now block collect calls if the telephone provider of the call recipient does not have a billing agreement with them. For example:

1. A prisoner (John Doe) makes a call to Mary Doe from a phone provided by Sprint.
2. Mary Doe uses AT&T as her telephone provider.
3. Because Sprint has no billing agreement with AT&T, Sprint will block calls to Mary.

The only way Mary can receive collect calls is to deposit money (often a $50 minimum deposit) with Sprint.  Mary may never receive an accounting of how the $50 is spent.  Nor will she receive notice when the $50 has been exhausted.  She will likely only discover that when another block is placed on the phone.

Companies known to block calls include:

Embarg
T-NETIX
Global Tel*Link
Evercom

---

Federal Legislation
In January 2007, Congressman Bobby Rush introduced H.R. 555, The Family Telephone Connection Protection Act. The bill, if enacted, would empower the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to regulate interstate calls from prisoners in the following manner:

• Prescribe maximum rates
• Require both collect and debit calling
• Prohibit commissions
• Require competition
• Prohibit call blocking solely because there is no billing agreement in place between the prison phone company and the local phone company
  

The bill is now in the House Energy & Commerce Committee. Members of that committee are listed by state below. You may want to contact your congressperson to let them know how you feel about this legislation.

AR	Mike Ross	NC	G. K. Butterfield Sue Myrick
AZ	John Shadegg	NE	Lee Terry
CA	Henry A. Waxman Anna G. Eshoo Lois Capps Jane Harman Hilda L. Solis George Radanovich Mary Bono	NJ	Frank Pallone, Jr. Mike Ferguson
CO	Diana DeGette	NM	Heather A. Wilson
FL	Cliff Stearns	NY	Edolphus Towns Eliot L. Engel Anthony Weiner Vito J. Fossella
GA	John Barrow Nathan Deal	OK	John Sullivan
IL	Bobby L. Rush (Bill Sponsor) Jan Schakowsky J. Dennis Hastert John Shimkus	OR	Darlene Hooley Greg Walden
IN	Baron P. Hill Steve Buyer	PA	Mike Doyle Joe Pitts Tim Murphy
KY	Edward Whitfield	TN	Bart Gordon Marsha Blackburn
LA	Charlie Melancon	TX	Gene Green Charlie Gonzalez Joe L. Barton Ralph M. Hall Michael C. Burgess
MA	Edward J. Markey	UT	Jim Matheson
MD	Albert R. Wynn	VA	Rick Boucher
ME	Tom Allen	WA	Jay Inslee
MI	John D. Dingell, Chair Bart Stupak Fred Upton Mike Rogers	WI	Tammy Baldwin
MS	Charles W. Pickering, Jr.	WY	Barbara Cubin

---

American Correctional Association Policy on Inmate/Juvenile Offender Access to Telephones
Recognizing that there is no constitutional right for inmates/juvenile offenders to have access to telephones, nonetheless consistent with the requirements of sound correctional management, inmates/juvenile offenders should have access to a range of reasonably priced telecommunications services. 

Correctional agencies should ensure that:

1. Contracts involving telecommunications services for inmates/juvenile offenders comply with all applicable state and federal regulations;
2. Contracts are based on rates and surcharges that are commensurate with those charged to the general public for like services.  Any deviation from ordinary consumer rates should reflect actual costs associated with the provision of services in a correctional setting; and
3. Contracts for inmate/juvenile offender telecommunications services provide the broadest range of calling options determined to be consistent with the requirements of sound correctional management.

(Unanimously ratified by the ACA Delegate Assembly at the Winter Conference in Nashville, TN, January 24, 2001)

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
Criminal Justice Section
Approved by Criminal Justice Section Council 5.14.05

RESOLVED, that the American Bar Association encourages federal, state, territorial and local governments, consistent with the constraints of sound correctional management, law enforcement and national security principles, to afford prison and jail inmates every reasonable opportunity to maintain telephonic communication with the free community, and to offer telephone services in the correctional setting with an appropriate range of options at the lowest possible rates.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN JUDGES
In a letter to Congressman Bobby Rush dated May 1, 2006, Vanessa Ruiz, President of the National Association of Women Judges (NAWJ) expressed support for the federal legislation H.R. 4466:

NAWJ supports H.R. 4466’s (now H.R. 555) passage for the reasons set forth in Section 2 of that Legislation, which focuses on the dual reality: (1) that “…maintaining frequent and meaningful communications between people who are incarcerated and family members is key to the successful reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals, [reducing] recidivism and [facilitating] rehabilitation, which in turn reduces crime and the future costs of imprisonment,” and (2) that the currently prevailing system often burdens or prevents frequent communications between incarcerated persons and family members, thereby weakening “the family and community ties that are necessary for successful reentry into society by persons who were formerly incarcerated and the reduction in crime resulting from successful reentry.”




Latest eTc Update
Current Status By State
More about eTc