Showing posts with label phone service. Show all posts
Showing posts with label phone service. Show all posts

Monday, May 18, 2020

Blakinger scores big victory for hungry TDCJ inmates, visitation denied, why people convicted of unconstitutional statutes are innocent, and other stories

Here are a few odds and ends that merit Grits readers' attention:

TDCJ to improve lockdown food
The Marshall Project's Keri Blakinger hit another home run recently with her story on what Texas prisoners are being fed during lockdown. It was sprinkled with stomach-churning contraband cell-phone pics from prisoners that corroborated years of allegations about how awful food could be when prison units are locked down. On Friday, she reported on Twitter that TDCJ has told inmate families they will begin providing raw vegetables, cartoned milk instead of powdered, and are considering how to source fruit, pizza and hot pockets. Good for TDCJ, even if it took being shamed to improve things. And thank God for Keri Blakinger!

Many prisoners denied visits, phone calls before the lockdowns
Prisoners' families have been upset during the COVID crisis that so many inmates were forbidden access to phones to call them. Recently, some on lockdown have been allowed 5 minute calls, but that's still not much. Michael Barajas at the Texas Observer reminds us that a significant portion of Texas inmates couldn't call their families and had been banned from visitation even before the coronavirus, but TDCJ doesn't track how many are banned or why. Great job, Michael! Grits readers may recall that, earlier this year, TDCJ made visitation and mail policies even more restrictive, punitive and arbitrary. It's great to see some journalistic light shed on the subject.

Texas women inmates cope with COVID
At the Waco Tribune Herald, reporter Brooke Crum provided a window into how women inmates in Gatesville and their families are coping with coronavirus restrictions.

COVID testing rates vary widely at county jails
There are wide disparities in how frequently county jails are testing inmates and staff for the COVID virus, reported the Dallas News. Harris County is testing more broadly; Dallas County, not so much. Travis County, by contrast, is testing far less frequently than either of them. The thinking appears to be that, if you do not test, you won't have to report that anyone is sick. As of yesterday, 1,314 Texas jail inmates and 234 jail staff had been reported as testing positive to the Texas Commission on Jail Standards. But because some jails are testing so few people, those numbers are surely an undercount.

Ex-prosecutor could be disciplined for withholding exculpatory evidence
Daniel Rizzo, a former Harris County prosecutor, faces an attorney discipline lawsuit for withholding exculpatory evidence in Alfred Dewayne Brown's murder case, Texas Lawyer reported. Rizzo claims he never saw the phone records which later led Mr. Brown to be declared actually innocent, though they were available in his files.

People convicted of unconstitutional online solicitation statute were actually innocent 
The Texas Supreme Court has ruled that people convicted of online solicitation of a minor after the statute was deemed unconstitutional by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals  qualify for innocence compensation under Texas statutes. (The Legislature enacted a new online-solicitation statute in 2015, but not nearly as stringent as the original.) Grits has wondered for years about how innocence claims from these cases would be handled. Now we know.

Thursday, May 07, 2020

TDCJ inmates on COVID lockdown now have access to phone service

Grits had earlier discussed how COVID lockdowns at TDCJ were keeping inmates from communicating with their families. Apparently phone access has been restored for these units. TDCJ has posted this on the COVID FAQ page on their website:
The Offender Telephone System (OTS) is now operating 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Offenders are being escorted to phones when they are available even after traditional hours. Each offender is receiving 2 free 15-minute calls a week which reset every Tuesday. Disciplinary restrictions have been suspended. Offenders who do not have access to the OTS are being escorted to hardline phones in the units to make calls.
This is excellent news. Given that roughly a third of TDCJ prisoners are presently on lockdown over the virus, with more than 21,000 on medical restrictions because they had contact with an infected person, limiting phone access was untenable and cruel. 

UPDATE: Our pal Keri Blakinger tells me she doesn't think this is true for all units. Will update when I learn more.

MORE: Blakinger spoke to TDCJ spokesman Jeremy Desel who told her the FAQ page was somewhat overstated. Here's what he told her:
"I won’t say all but most of the precautionary lockdown units are doing phone access in limited amounts while going to and from showers. So they found a way to manage that to give a five-minute phone call. It’s not logistically feasible every single unit. But the majority of units people are at least getting SOME phone calls."

Thursday, April 23, 2020

Deitch on possible solutions for prisoner phone calls during COVID lockdown

The Texas prison system has placed about 1/3 of the inmate population on lockdown status, including denying them access to visitation and phone calls. Michele Deitch of UT's LBJ School had a good idea on how to mitigate the situation: Providing burner phones for in-cell use. In an email to Just Liberty, she wrote:
I agree it is a very reasonable accommodation to allow people to have phones calls during a lockdown, especially when it is as likely to be as prolonged as this one will surely be. It is not only good from a humanitarian prospective, but it mitigates the harms caused by the lack of family connectedness, the idleness, and the lack of any type of outside eyes on what is happening inside. It can also help prevent violence and provide a lifeline to any person experiencing abuse or who cannot access health care. (Speaking of which, without access to phones, how does the PREA hotline work?) I have advocated for this approach from the beginning, and support it wholeheartedly. 
That said, the practicalities will be incredibly challenging. There are usually one or two wall phones per housing unit, and they are located in the dayroom. I don’t know if they are allowing folks individual access to the dayroom during the lockdowns (they should be), but they probably aren’t. If they are, they should be allowed to use the phones then. If not, TDCJ should get some kind of mobile phone booth that can be taken around to the cells (it’s pretty awkward- looking, but I have seen one in use at another facility before). Of course, the phone would have to be sanitized between uses, which isn’t so easy to do, and if it isn’t done, it could just risk spreading the virus more. 
What REALLY should happen is that TDCJ should obtain and issue burner phones with no data that can just be used for phone calls and let the prisoners have them. They are doing this in England now. Believe it or not, they are literally surveying the inmates to find out which cell phone companies work best behind the walls (based on their illegal usage)! 
And of course, any of this is something TDCJ could do tomorrow. No legislative act required.
I looked up England's use of secure phones for prisoners and found this article from the East Anglian Daily Times. According to that source:
A total of 900 secure phone handsets will be given to prisoners at 55 jails, allowing risk-assessed inmates to speak to a small number of pre-authorised contacts.

Strict measures will ensure the phones are not misused with calls time limited and monitored closely and they will not have internet access, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said.

The handsets will also include measures to prevent non-secure SIM cards being used, the MoJ added. ...
Currently more than 50 prisons across England and Wales have in-cell telephony which allows prisoners to stay in touch with their family members in a controlled manner.

The MoJ said the new handsets will make sure this ability is balanced across all prisons, and promote stability in jails without existing in-cell phones.

Thursday, February 28, 2019

Reasonably Suspicious podcast: Harris commissioners nixed DA hiring request, and other stories

The Harris County District Attorney can't hire more prosecutors, the Houston PD can't find the informant behind a botched SWAT-style narcotics raid, and the chairman of the House Corrections Committee can't understand why local government spends so much money jailing people. My co-host Mandy "Tiger" Marzullo and I discussed all this and more in the better-late-than-never February episode of the Reasonably Suspicious podcast:


Here's what we discussed on the show this month:

Top Stories
  • Harris County rejects DA request for new prosecutors (2:15)
  • Houston PD can't find informant behind botched, deadly SWAT raid (8:00)
Interview
House Corrections Committee Chairman James White (14:30)

Data Corner
Conversation with Just Liberty's Chris Harris about Class C misdemeanors (21:00)

The Last Hurrah (31:38)
  • Texas jails and prisons gathering voiceprint data from inmate phone calls
  • Long lines at DPS staffing centers
  • Guard salaries, A/C, and staff turnover at TDCJ
Find a transcript of the podcast below the jump.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Previewing Texas Lege hearings on #CJReform next week

Next Monday and Tuesday will be full days at the capitol for criminal-justice reform topics, with three different committees holding hearings relevant to the subjects covered on this blog. The Legislative Reference Library helpfully compiled these background resources regarding the interim charges those panels will consider:

House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence (May 16) 
Charge: Asset forfeiture
House Committees on Corrections and Criminal Jurisprudence (Joint Hearing, May 17) 
Charge: Probation & parole - fees and revocations
Senate Committee on Criminal Justice  (May 17)
Charge 3: Reentry programs provided by TDCJ and the Windham School, including inmates in administrative segregation; Certified Peer Support Services; Darrington Seminary Program   
Charge 4: Pretrial diversion and treatment programs   
Charge 5: Dissemination of bulk criminal records   
Charge 6: Costs for family members to maintain contact with incarcerated family members    

Friday, November 14, 2014

Contractors press behind the scenes to preserve profitable contracts with Dallas justice system

A coupla stories about vendor contracts in Dallas caught my eye. At the county level, Texas Lawyer reported (Nov. 10) on Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins' failed attempt to halt a "high profit" jail contract with Securus for provision of phone service, though he did succeed in preserving in-person visitation at the jail, at least for now.  The article closed with news that the FCC may soon end profiteering off jail phone calls:
The outcome "illustrates the incredible power" that companies like Securus have over public officials nationwide, when they offer potential revenues for local governments from jail calls, Jenkins said.

Richard A. "Rick" Smith, CEO of Securus, did not return a call for this story by press time. A press release posted Oct. 31 on the company's website states that in the past 10 years Securus "has collected and remitted to jails, prisons and state, county and local governments over $1.3 billion in the form of commissions. Commissions are collected from inmates and their family and friends on outbound telephone calls that Securus completes over its proprietary inmate calling platform. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) eliminated commission payouts on interstate long distance calls effective Feb. 11, 2014, and will likely eliminate or significantly reduce intrastate commissions early in 2015 in an effort to reduce calling rates, provide more affordable calling and reduce recidivism."

The release quotes Smith, who states: "Clearly these commission payments that have been used to fund critical inmate welfare programs and support facility operations and infrastructure have improved the lives of inmates, victims, witnesses and individuals working in the correctional environment, and helped to fund government operations. And it appears, sadly, that regime may come to an end in the not too distant future. …We have been a vocal advocate of maintaining commissions and have spent approximately $5 million in legal fees and other costs on behalf of our facility customers over the last decade to maintain commissions, but the FCC maintains that it is not good public policy to have the poorest in society help to fund government operations, even though the programs funded are worthwhile. … If commission payments are eliminated or reduced—we are advocating a transition period that will allow our facility customers to secure funding from other sources or some type of phase-in of the new rules so as not to impact our facility customers—that phase-in is important and we have discussed that with the FCC on numerous occasions."
It's a virtual certainty Dallas isn't the only county in Texas that would be forced to readjust phone contracts if the FCC says they must cease mulcting inmate families for in-state phone calls. Lots of jails have similar, profit-centered phone contracts, quite a few with Securus. (See more from the Unfair Park blog about the video visitation issue.)

Meanwhile, the Dallas City Council narrowly voted 8-7 to change contractors for court collections, reported the Dallas Morning News (Nov. 12), snubbing a vendor who'd contributed significant sums to 12 out of 15 decision makers. The article opened:
The Dallas City Council narrowly approved a staff recommendation Wednesday to hire a new company to collect delinquent municipal court fines.

In an 8-7 vote, the council awarded the contract to Municipal Services Bureau. Alone among six bidders, MSB guaranteed the city that it would collect from deadbeats — $21.9 million over three years. If collections fall short of that target, the company said, it will pay the difference out of its pocket.

Some council members wondered how MSB could make such a promise when no one else did. And some praised the work of the current collector, the law firm of Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson.
Linebarger’s bid was ranked third by the city staff. The firm, which has been in the collections business for more than 35 years, is known throughout Texas for its political connections. It has donated thousands of dollars to City Council members, including Mayor Mike Rawlings.

Of the 15 council members, 12 have received money from Linebarger. The three who have not are Jennifer Staubach Gates, Sandy Greyson and Lee Kleinman.

Those three voted to accept the staff recommendation and award the contract to MSB, as did Rawlings, Rick Callahan, Scott Griggs, Sheffie Kadane and Philip Kingston.

Opposing the MSB bid were Jerry Allen, Monica Alonzo, Tennell Atkins, Dwayne Caraway, Carolyn Davis, Vonciel Jones Hill and Adam Medrano.
One notices MSB doesn't guarantee collections for the Driver Responsibility surcharge, where around 60 percent of assessed charges go uncollected.

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Prison phone rates decline after FCC vote.

Source: Campaign for Prison Phone Justice
The Campaign for Prison Phone Justice has put out this fact sheet (pdf) in the wake of the Federal Communication Commission's recent decision to regulate prison phone rates. "In their order, the FCC acknowledged that the prison telephone industry has failed to deliver either competitive rates or choices to inmates and their families." The new rules regulate how much prison systems and vendors can profit from phone revenue, setting maximum "safe harbor" rates for phone calls where excessive rates are presently on the books.

On the campaign's website, there's a fascinating chart (pdf) created before the FCC ruling showing how widely states vary in prison phone costs. Texas' rates are around the middle of the pack, to the extent it's possible to make apples to apples comparisons. That table had TDCJ receiving a 40% "kickback" on the costs families pay for inmate phone calls. Under the new rules, said the fact sheet, "Costs resulting from kickbacks cannot be passed on to inmates and their families, and are no longer considered part of the cost of providing phone service."

After the FCC ruling, according to this chart (pdf) posted by the campaign, TDCJ rates for a 15-minute call would decline by 32.5%, from $6.45 to $4.35. The old rate for collect calls was $.26 per minute for in-state calls and $.43 for calls out of state, with $2.49 per month tacked on for "billing" costs. (Source.) Grits emailed the TDCJ Public Information Office to ask for the updated rates and will pass them along when I get them.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

FCC webcast today on inmate phone service

For those interested in the always-hot topic of inmate phone service, particularly the unconscionably high rates charged by some vendors to inmate families, Cindy George at the Houston Chronicle brings word of an all-day webcast today on the subject. Here are the details:
In a daylong workshop beginning at 8 a.m. CST [sic: surely CDT] on Wednesday, the Federal Communications Commission will explore the possibility of new regulations that could potentially cap state-to-state rates and eliminate per-call charges as well as examine policy issues related to inmate phone services.

A live webcast will be available at www.fcc.gov/live and click here for the full agenda. Viewers can submit questions to livequestions@fcc.gov.

A “consumers and public policy” panel will explore impacts of inmate calling fees on society and individuals, rate reform and increasing contact between incarcerated individuals and their families.

Spurred by pleas from inmates and their loved ones, Acting FCC Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn urged a look at new regulations.

“It’s a justice issue, it’s a civil liberties issues, it’s an issue of trying to keep families as intact as possible,” she said in the McClatchy story. “This is a situation that cries out for attention.”

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Selected cell-phone jamming may boost prison phone revenue

With the feds seemingly unlikely to approve comprehensive cell phone jamming in prisons anytime soon, Texas is considering a different technology that selectively blocks non-approved numbers, which seems like a much more reasonable and effective approach. Reports the Austin Statesman's Mike Ward, "Instead of jamming cellphone calls around prisons as Texas officials had earlier proposed, the California system would block outgoing cell calls, Web access and text messages by managing the cellphone signals at prisons — and allowing only signals from approved numbers to go through."

In California, the prison phone service provider paid for the new equipment because of massive lost revenue from unused pay phones, and the new technology supposedly has turned that dynamic around:
Efforts to curb cellphone smuggling into prisons have come up short, even though the state has spent millions of dollars on screening devices, surveillance cameras, detection devices and even phone-sniffing dogs.

[TDCJ spokesman Jason] Clark said Texas prison employees last year seized 904 cellphones in prisons or headed there, down from 1,480 three years ago. Prison officials attribute the decline to $60 million in security upgrades.

By contrast, California last year confiscated 15,000 cellphones at its 33 prisons. That's up from just 1,200 five years ago, according to officials.

Dana Simas, an information officer for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said that under a new contract, Global Tel Link has agreed to spend as much as $35 million to install new equipment at each prison within the next three years. The first California unit is to get the gear by October, she said.

The company will pay all costs, Simas said, because it will get the revenue from the pay phones inside prisons that will once again be in demand.

The way the new system works: Each prison will get its own cell tower that will allow prison officials to control all incoming and outgoing calls. All others will not go through.

"After this system goes in, smuggled cellphones will be nothing more than glorified paperweights," Simas said. "A couple of years ago, there were long lines at the pay phones — hours long. By this year, no one was using them, there were so many smuggled cellphones."

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Beaumont Enterprise argues both sides of recording confidential attorney-client communications in jail

There's an odd editorial in the Beaumont Enterprise about the Galveston County Jail ending its policy of taping inmate-attorney phone conversations. According to the Houston Chronicle, "Defense attorneys say the practice is common statewide." The Enterprise opines against the practice, favoring protection of client confidentiality, etc.. They close by pointing out that "Prosecutors wouldn't want defendants listening to their phone conversations. That right should be shared by both sides."

Then, strangely, in an argument as detailed than their own editorial judgment, they add:
ANOTHER VIEW: Continue for safety

Jail inmates need to remember an important reality: They simply do not have many of the same rights that other people enjoy. Most jails have a blanket policy of tape-recording all telephone conversations for a good reason: safety.

Jails are hard enough to run as it is. They are filled with many inmates who are dangerous or violent. Their interaction with outsiders has to be closely monitored, even with attorneys.

Prosecutors do not eavesdrop on these recorded conversations to learn tidbits they can use in court. The attorney-client conversations are simply included in the overall taping that goes on each day - again, for safety.

If this tradition is changed, what could prevent inmates from arguing that they should be able to talk to family members without being recorded? That could lead to all kinds of problems, such as inmates planning additional crimes.

This practice has not been a problem in our criminal justice system. It doesn't need fixing.
Grits finds this editorial construction fascinating: A publication basically arguing with itself, and giving its unnamed, theoretical opposition the last word. Is this a minority opinion from an editorial board member? Views expressed privately by the DA or law enforcement? Something somebody read on the Interwebs? Who knows? And what an argument, elevating this practice to a "tradition," no less!

I especially love the phony, red-herring question, "what could prevent inmates from arguing that they should be able to talk to family members without being recorded?' Uh ... perhaps the fact that attorneys engage in privileged communications with their clients while they're incarcerated and family members do not?

Grits doesn't doubt that recording attorney-client conversations in jail is common, and I wonder how often prosecutors or police sneak a listen, not for evidence to use in court but for leads, potential corroboration, etc.? Especially in high-profile cases where there's pressure to convict, but even under more workaday circumstances, the temptation to do so could be great without managerial checks, logs, etc. restricting who can access the data for what reason.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Inmate phone time doubled to boost victim compensation revenue

The Texas Tribune reports that TDCJ inmates would have their maximum phone time doubled under an amendment by Rep. Jerry Madden to HB 1 that would allow up to 480 minutes per month, up from 240.
The 240-minute cap was expected to raise $7.5 million for the Compensation to Victims of Crime Fund, but only managed to bring in $5 million. Madden said he hopes to see the $7.5 million raised with this new 480-minute cap.

“This is an easy way to raise more revenue for the state,” he said.

Friday, April 15, 2011

Madden's omnibus prison bill: Reducing inmate numbers, shifting costs to families, employees

House Corrections Committee Chairman Jerry Madden on Wednesday unveiled the committee substitute for his big, omnibus TDCJ bill, HB 3386; see the hearing online here beginning at the 48:30 mark, as well as Mike Ward's coverage in the Austin Statesman. The bill will significantly reduce the number of technical probation violators sent to prison each year and parole illegal immigrants back to Mexico - perhaps even accounting for the 4,000 beds TDCJ chief Brad Livingston says they'll be short if the cuts in House Bill 1 are enacted. But it also contains provisions that aim to cut the budget on the backs of inmate families and prison employees.

'Shock probation'
First, the portions reducing the number of inmates. The biggest reductions would come from using "shock probation" for technical violations. Mike Ward was the first to report on the:
plan to expand the use of "shock probation" sentences with limited prison time, to charge imprisoned felons more for their medical care, to study hiring additional private companies to run state jails and transport convicts between prisons, to consider releasing some critically ill convicts to save on medical bills and to begin selling over-the-counter medications to convicts rather than giving them away.

A fiscal note on the proposed changes says they could save nearly $13.5 million in two years, according to a copy of the document obtained by the American-Statesman. But House leaders said they expect that the savings could be at least twice that.

"We think this is a way to save money, lots of money, without endangering public safety," said House Corrections Committee Chairman Jerry Madden, R-Richardson, who said he will unveil the specifics of the changes in House Bill 3386 at an afternoon committee meeting today .

"The biggest piece of this is that instead of sending low-level probation violators to prison to finish their sentence, which can be years, we will send them to prison for up to a year as shock probation," Madden said.
"This may produce the most savings for taxpayers of any single bill this session in this area."
I haven't seen the committee substitute, which is not yet online, but judging from the discussion the language is permissive, creating alternative revocation procedures that let judges send probationers to TDCJ for one year on technical violations, then gives them the option to let them let them back out on supervision. Long-time readers know the Legislature has been targeting technical violators, with only limited success, for reduced incarceration via recent probation reforms. This would make it much more explicit, while still leaving judges discretion in individual cases, that the Legislature does not intend for probationers to be sent to prison long-term for technical violations alone.

Paroling illegal immigrants
An amendment by Rep. Erwin Cain would expedite release of 2,057 "parole-eligible criminal illegal aliens" who did not commit violent crimes or sex offenses. Cain suggested prioritizing their parole would save $76 million over the biennium. Brad Livingston said the amendment would cause a "one-time spike in number of offenders who are paroled and ready for ICE custody," after which those paroles would presumably be expedited.  Those targeted for release make up about 58% of the total parole-eligible illegal aliens in the system (roughly 3,500).

Livingston emphasized that HB 1 leaves 4,000 beds unfunded, so the Lege must cut inmate numbers by at least that much before anyone can talk about "savings."

Mulcting inmate families
Other provisions of the bill would mulct revenue from inmate families and potentially employees at state jails whose jobs may be privatized, their salaries reduced, benefits eliminated, etc.. Amendments direct the agency to study privatization of both state jails and inmate transportation. Ward describes the extra costs proposed for inmate families:
The revised bill also calls for each imprisoned convict to be charged a $100 annual fee to cover the cost of their health care instead of the current charge of $3 per visit to a prison doctor.

That change could bring in about $13.5 million over two years, according to an internal memo.

While an earlier version of the plan did not detail how the fee would be collected, the revised bill allows prison officials to take the $100 from inmates' trust fund accounts — either the full amount if it's in the account, or half of any deposits into the account until the $100 is paid.

At present, prison officials said that more than half of the state's 154,000 convicts have trust funds containing more than $100.

The revised bill will also double the number of minutes prison convicts are allowed to use prison pay phones each month, from 240 minutes to 480. Madden said that change, if approved, is expected to raise $2.9 million more per year than the nearly $6 million expected under current rules.

The rewritten bill would also allow some over-the-counter medicines — aspirin, ointments and other medications for upset stomach and pain relief — to be sold through prison commissaries for the first time.

Under current policy, prison clinics dispense the over-the-counter drugs for free to convicts.
I'm at least glad to see them raising money from phones by increasing minutes instead of hiking the price. Somewhat humorously to me, in California the availability of contraband cell phones has become a minor budget issue because they're so common inmates are using the landlines less. But taking money from inmate trust accounts and making inmates pay at the commissary for over the counter medication amounts to passing on costs not to inmates but their families. And unlike with increased phone minutes, there's no marginal benefit to families in return. After a certain point, families will stop putting money there; you can't get blood from a stone.

Potential privatization would save on employee pay, benefits
The other group from whom legislators want long-term savings are employees at 15 state-owned and operated state jails. Amendments to the bill would require TDCJ to study privatization of both state jails and inmate transportation (the latter of which would seem to raise some security issues).

Rep. Cain says privately run jails offer the "same or better services" as state-run facilities, but the main source of savings, he said, is that privatization would "reduce state exposure to pension and healthcare costs" in the long term. TDCJ chief Brad Livingston added that salaries at private facilities are lower than state-run units, raising the specter of state employees being fired and offered their old jobs at lower wages, no pension, etc.. Cain's amendment doesn't privatize immediately. He would commission a study by TDCJ in which they solicit and evaluate competitive bids from private vendors.

TDCJ presently has 20 state jails, according to testimony - 15 state-owned and operated state jails, and five state-owned units operated by private companies. Livingston said that while it's difficult to compare apples to apples, private operators are cheaper than the state by roughly $7-8 per inmate per day because of lower salary and benefits. Bottom line: Private vendors pay their staff less money and have a less favorable benefit package than state employees. Also, it's still not a true apples to apples comparison, said Livingston, because if offenders become disruptions, have significant discipline problems, or require extra healthcare services, they're transferred back into the state system. So the privates really do only house the lowest-cost, lowest-risk, best-behaved inmates. They cost less mainly because they cherrypick the least expensive inmates, not because their model is inherently superior.

The issue of privatizing prison transportation raises a lot of vexatious questions. Some of TDCJ's recent escapes have involved transportation scenarios, so it's not an area where you want to skimp on security. And the big drivers on transportation costs are a) the price of gas and b) the distant location of rural units. Focusing on privatization is arguably a too-narrow way to address rising transportation costs. They should also be considering the impact of changes like closing rural units or releasing inmates directly from the facilities where they're housed that would reduce the number of miles covered. There's likely minimal savings to be had from privatization because everybody pays the same gas prices.

Sunday, May 09, 2010

Lawmakers surpised at TX inmates receiving email

Federal inmates already had email privileges, but apparently the Texas Legislature didn't realize they'd authorized the same thing, reports Mike Ward at the Statesman ("Inmates get email? Lawmakers want details," May 8):

Surprised by a revelation that Texas convicts can receive e-mails in state prisons, legislative leaders said Friday that they plan to investigate how the multimillion-dollar, no-bid deal came about and without any public debate.

And lawmakers and prison investigators said they have security concerns because e-mails can be sent from anonymous users with little trace of their true source.

Prison officials defended the e-mail system, saying the contract was handled properly and the system has operated without problems or security issues.

Even so, House leaders said they are researching to determine whether the e-mail system is allowed by a 2007 state law that permitted pay phones in Texas' 112 prisons.

Only incoming e-mails to convicts are allowed. In February alone, 111,000 e-mails were sent into state prisons, officials said.

Legislators said they first learned of the system in an American-Statesman report Thursday about an investigation of a prison smuggling ring, in which authorities had intercepted incoming e-mails as part of their ongoing case.

"This e-mail system may have tremendous benefits, but I have a lot of questions," said House Corrections Committee Chairman Jim McReynolds, D-Lufkin. "My committee is looking into this — how the contract came about, who signed it, what the rationale was behind it, whether the safeguards are appropriate, why the Legislature was kept out of the loop on this.

The security benefits are enormous from providing inmates secure avenues for legitimate communications and monitoring illicit contacts. As evidence of that effectiveness, the fact that inmates may receive email came to light after saved incoming messages helped break up a prison contraband smuggling gang. Before the new system was installed, those communications might take place through smuggled notes or illegal cell phones.

Communications, like contraband, can always enter and exit prisons through illegitimate means. So providing a venue for legitimate communication gives prison operators more tools to encourage positive interaction with family members, attorneys, etc., in the outside world and discourage or punish those violating the rules. Legislators are right to look closely at the agreement if they weren't aware of it. But when they do, I suspect they'll discover that - for the exact same reasons it was wise to install the new phone system - it makes sense to allow limited, monitored inmate email and would be a disservice to discontinue it.

Monday, April 12, 2010

New payphones fully rolled out in Texas prisons, says vendor

Making Texas the last US state to provide regular phone access for prisoners, the vendor chosen to install Texas' prison phone system has completed installation at all of TDCJ's 112 units, the company reports in a press release:
Embarq Payphone Services, Inc. (EPSI) a subsidiary of CenturyTel, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink and a leading provider of inmate communications services, has completed a significant phone system installation project for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ).

The project is the culmination of a multi-year effort which included a highly competitive bid process. The project was accomplished with technology partner Securus Technologies at all TDCJ state operated units across the state.

"The project with the TDCJ is unprecedented. Given the scope and complexity of the TDCJ contract, it is a significant achievement to deliver the service on time and within budget," said Paul Cooper, EPSI's general manager. "The project included installation of approximately 5,500 phones that will allow up to 120,000 inmates to make secure, controlled phone calls.

"Not only do Texas inmates have an affordable way to connect with friends and family members, but TDCJ now has a communications infrastructure that it can use to support its operations now and into the future," Cooper said, noting that EPSI installed new state-of-the-art network infrastructure within each TDCJ facility.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

TX prison phone installation complete

A press release from the company installing the new Texas prison phone system announces that the massive project was completed in December:
Securus Technologies, Inc. a leading provider of inmate communications services and innovative offender and case management software design, today announced that it, in a partnership with CenturyLink – completed the installation work at all Texas state-operated prison facilities in December, 2009.

Highlights:

  • Seven (7) year contract with Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ);
  • Installation of approximately 5,500 phones that are used on a tightly controlled basis to make secure outbound calls;
  • 120,000 Texas inmates are potentially eligible for phone privileges;
  • This contract represents the largest department of corrections contract ever signed in the inmate telecommunications sector;
  • The unique challenges of installing inmate telecommunications services at facilities where inmate phone calling was previously not allowed – were overcome;
  • Securus and CenturyLink successfully managed a $30 million installation project to completion over the last twelve (12) months.
This is welcome news. Texas was the last state to approve a prison phone system, which is widely acknowledged as beneficial for maintaining family ties and facilitating successful reentry. It also gives prison staff an excellent carrot they can give out and take away to improve inmate behavior. (In the federal system inmates will soon have limited access to email for the same reasons.) About half of men and 2/3 of women prisoners are parents of minor-age children, so if only for their sake I've always thought this was a good idea.

As an ancillary benefit, it's been suggested that to the extent inmates were using illegal contraband cell phones for family-related calls, perhaps having access to legal phone service will mitigate demand for them as contraband inside Texas prison units. I wouldn't count on it to the exclusion of more overt security measures, but it certainly can't hurt.

Monday, December 28, 2009

Comprehensive anti-recidivism legislation out of New Jersey

A New York Times editorial published on Christmas Eve titled "Smart Answers to Recidivism" highlights pending reentry legislation out of New Jersey that the Grey Lady suggests should be a national model:
New Jersey lawmakers heard some depressing testimony in hearings leading up to the legislation. Deterred by barriers to jobs, housing and education, about two-thirds of the people released from prison in New Jersey end up back inside within three years. Since taxpayers spend about $48,000 per prison inmate per year, by some estimates, the state could reap significant savings from even a small decline in the return-to-prison rate.

The proposed reforms in New Jersey seek to end practices under which former prisoners are denied employment because of minor convictions, even in the distant past, and crimes that have nothing at all to do with the work being sought.

No reasonable person would suggest that a sex offender be given a job in an elementary school or day-care center. An ex-offender could not be disqualified for employment unless the offense was directly related to the job. Job seekers would no longer be required to disclose convictions on applications for state, county or municipal jobs. The offenses could still be uncovered in background checks, but they would no longer automatically rule out an applicant from the start.

The bill would lift the state ban on food stamps and welfare benefits for people with felony drug convictions and would expand education and training opportunities for inmates. And it would end an odious practice under which the prison system earns a profit by overcharging poor families for the collect calls they receive from relatives inside a system. The added cost sometimes forces families to choose between putting food on the table or letting a child speak to an incarcerated parent.

The New Jersey Legislature has a chance to provide a new lease on life to thousands of families while offering a model for the rest of the nation.
All of these are smart suggestions. The idea of not requiring disclosure of criminal history on job applications has become colloquially known as "banning the box" (i.e., the "box" you must check if previously convicted of a crime), a tactic Travis County introduced last year with no known ill-effects. Employers still perform background checks before hiring, but don't screen out ex-offenders automatically on the front end.

Eliminating state bans on food stamps and welfare benefits could prevent placing ex-offenders in the position of having no options besides illegal activity to put food on the table or a roof over their heads. After the Clinton-era welfare reforms, that still doesn't mean they'll be supported by the state ad infinitum. But especially during a recession when jobs are scarce, the move mitigates to some extent economic motivations for crime. Coupled with expanded education and training opportunities that steer ex-offenders into the workforce, the suggestion makes a lot of sense.

And eliminating price gouging on jail and prison phone calls makes the most sense of all. There's not even a "punishment" justification for that, since the only people it harms are the offenders' families, who should be viewed as allies to prevent recidivism but instead are treated as cash cows mulcted by the state six ways from Sunday.

Texas only recently installed phones in prisons and expanded prisoners' access, but part of the justification for allowing it was the ability to profiteer off inmates' families. Lowering rates to market levels would increase communication with families and make it more likely offenders will be successfully reintegrated when they return home.

That sounds like a pretty comprehensive piece of state legislation. Any one piece of it would be a significant victory; collectively it's a particularly impressive effort that I hope succeeds and is replicated elsewhere.

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Jamming cell phones in prison debated at US Senate committee

A US Senate Committee yesterday heard testimony from Texas state Sen. John Whitmire, TDCJ Inspector General John Moriarty, and others regarding a proposed bill by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison that would change federal law to allow states to jam cell phones in prison.

Though Texas instituted a "zero tolerance" policy on cell phones last year after a death row inmate called Sen. Whitmire's office (leaving an open question what level of "tolerance" they operated under before), the senator told the committee that strategy cannot succeed, according to AP: "'Short of jamming and a complete shutting down of those phone signals, I don't think we can remedy the problem,' Whitmire told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. 'It is a public safety problem.'"

Information Week provided good coverage from the hearing ("Senate mulls jamming cell phone signals in prison," July 15):

The proposed legislation seeks to have Congress revise a 1934 law that blocks the jamming of phone signals. The bill, which would permit jamming cell phone signals in prisons, has been sponsored by Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, who noted that a prison inmate in Maryland used an illegally obtained cell phone to order the killing of a witness.

"Just more than two years ago, Carl Lackl, a young father of two in Maryland, was killed after an inmate used his cell phone to order a hit," Senator Mikulski said in a statement. "This is not an isolated incident and it must stop. All across the country, cell phones are being smuggled into prisons and being used by inmates to communicate with criminals on the outside."

The other side of the issue was presented in a letter to Commerce Committee members by several public interest organizations. According to Public Knowledge the letter maintained that there are ways better than jamming to deal with the illegal cell phones-in-prison problem.

"Jamming prison cell phones would jeopardize public safety because there is no way to jam only phones used by prisoners," said Public Knowledge's legal director Harold Feld in a statement. "All wireless communications could be shut down within a prison

"As spectrum experts have explained, jamming contraband cell phone signals without jamming authorized communications presents an extremely difficult engineering challenge. Cell phone signals use many bands, often proximate to or shared with public safety operations."

To alleviate the problem, Public Knowledge suggested that lowering the cost of legal calls in prisons -- currently costing as high as $300 for an inmate with family -- would help as would a stepped up effort to detect and stop the flow of unauthorized cell phones in prisons.

The flow of illegal mobile phone is eye-popping. California, for instance, confiscated more than 2,000 cellphones in 2008. Phones are sneaked into prisons by visitors and corrupt guards, or simply thrown over prison walls. In Brazil, where the problem has reached epidemic proportions, cell phones are delivered to prisoners by homing pigeons.

The part about the homing pigeons cracked me up. Prison smuggling often produces some surprisingly creative and resourceful schemes, when you pay attention to the details, but that one takes the cake! Guard corruption is still the principle culprit, though; TDCJ caught dozens of guards smuggling cell phones onto prison units after they instituted a lockdown last year.

Wireless companies also opposed the legislation, according to coverage in a Florida paper:

The cell phone lobby is fighting the prison officials. John Walls of CTIA - The Wireless Association (formerly known as the Cellular Telephone Industries Association) told the Chronicle that jamming technology "is imprecise. The problem with jamming technology is that's it's imprecise."

He added: "We're certainly not at odds on the intent. There's not one legitimate customer that we have behind bars, and shutting that off is as much of a concern to the industry as anybody else. … Where we think that perhaps we could do a better job ... is by looking at all the solutions available today and selecting the ones that protect legitimate use while still solving the problem, and that would be cell detection and managed access."

For more detail from critics of the idea, I've uploaded onto Google documents a copy of the letter to Sen. Hutchison from Public Knowledge and other interest groups critical of the jamming proposal.

MORE: Here's a little more detail about the bill from BroadbandConsensu.com that I hadn't seen published elsewhere: "While S. 251 does not call for an outright legalization of jamming technology, it allows for prisons to apply for a waiver from the ban and provides for Federal Communications Commission testing and certification of jamming technology."

See related Grits coverage:

Thursday, July 02, 2009

Inmate families viewed as revenue source instead of anti-recidivism partners

Inmate families offer the best and most frequently cited source of assistance for offenders who want to turn their lives around, but too often the state treats them as criminals, too, instead of as partners in promoting their loved ones' rehabilitation.

That trend was exacerbated by a Texas Supreme Court ruling last month allowing the state to deduct money from inmate commissary accounts to pay for court fees and victim restitution. According to the Austin Statesman ("Ruling gives courts access to inmate trust funds," June 30):
Texas state prison convicts could soon see their trust funds — more than $33 million overseen by the state — getting tapped to pay overdue court costs and related expenses.

A recent Texas Supreme Court decision allows prison officials to withdraw funds from the inmate trust accounts without first notifying a convict.

Before that, officials said, convicts had to be alerted in advance so they could challenge the garnishment — and many did.

"This changes everything — and allows the counties to go in and collect back court fees and costs up front, and the inmate will have to challenge that after the fact," said Huntsville lawyer Bill Habern, who is familiar with the case. "That will be difficult."

In addition, he said, the debits will likely come as a surprise, because many convicts are not notified of their court costs until after they are in a prison cell, if then.

"Considering the economic situation, we expect the counties to start fleecing trust fund accounts," said Helga Dill, a Dallas-based prison rights activist. "Our concern is that the inmate is deprived of funds sent by family members who are in most cases poor. ... If an inmate can waive child support until he is released and has employment, then that should be possible with court costs as well."

Lest convicts worry that they could now wake up to find their trust funds emptied to pay old court costs, Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman Michelle Lyons said state law limits how much money in those accounts can be taken: only 20 percent of the initial deposit into a trust fund, and 10 percent of any subsequent deposit.

In all, prison officials said the inmate trust accounts contain more than $33.6 million — including about $17.6 million in cash and another $16 million that is invested in Treasury bills.

Although most of the accounts contain only a few hundred dollars, which convicts use to buy snacks, hygiene items and other commissary items, some funds contain much more — including inheritances and other payments they received after going to prison. As of last week. the largest account contained almost $234,000, and next-largest was more than $168,000, prison officials confirmed.

Lyons said that more than $13.5 million is being sought from the inmate accounts by court officials across Texas, though she did not know the total amount that inmates owe.
For inmates with large amounts from an inheritance or other sources of personal money, it's justifiable to seize a portion of inmate trust funds for court costs. But for the vast majority of inmates whose relatives supply what little money is in those accounts, seizing these funds harms families (since it's really their money) more than the prisoner. Perhaps by rule TDCJ should set a threshold of, say, a couple hundred dollars below which commissary funds won't be raided.

Prisoner families are similarly being squeezed by high costs for the new prison phone service, from which half of profits goes into the state crime victim compensation fund. The installation of new phone systems dramatic improved inmates' ability to stay in closer contact with families. But the state's focus on profiteering from the phone calls siphons off family resources and tangibly reduces families' interaction with their loved ones - both results that can worsen inmate recidivism.

So can inmate families afford these extra costs? Probably not, according to a recent survey of 427 relatives of returning inmates in Houston by the Urban Leauge (pdf):
As a group, the family members in this study were better educated than their returning relatives. More than seven in ten family members (71 percent) reported educational attainment at or above the high school level, and over a third (37 percent) reported at least some college education. Despite these credentials, only half (52 percent) were employed at the time of the interview. Among those who were not employed, the most common reasons provided were that they were retired or too old to work (39 percent), were permanently disabled (23 percent), or had other health problems that prevented them from working (16 percent). Among those who were employed, some were working long hours or multiple jobs. Two in five (40 percent) were working more than 40 hours per week, and one in eight (13 percent) was working more than one job. The median wage reported by employed family members was $12.00 per hour.
Assuming these are the same folks who'd likely be calling inmates in prison or contributing to their commissary accounts, these are mostly very poor people, many of whom live on fixed incomes. By creating what amount to economic punishments where families serve as stand-ins for the offender, the state lessens precisely the type of support most likely to help offenders succeed when they get back to their home communities.

In both the Supreme Court ruling and the case of phone fees, the state behaves as though families bear the same responsibility for court costs and crime reparations as the person who actually did the deed. In reality, though, if that offender is going to turn his or her life around it will more likely be because of their family's help than any punishment or assistance the state gives out. If state policies valued public safety as much as revenue generation, we'd treat inmate families as partners instead of constantly looking for ways to bleed them of cash.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Texas prison cell-phone scandal making national news

The latest issue of Wired magazine includes a feature on the problem of cell phone smuggling in Texas prisons by Vince Beiser, highlighting the much-ballyhooed case where a death-row inmate began calling state Sen. John Whitmire, launching a statewide lockdown that revealed dozens more phones at units statewide.

Though certainly there are cases out there of prisoners using phones to commit crimes, and Wired runs through the most frequently cited examples, most cell phone use, of course, is to stay in touch with family and friends not to "order hits" or commit new offenses. Still the issue certainly constitutes a security threat, most immediately because it contributes to guard corruption, a point the story emphasizes:
the easiest—and probably most common—way mobiles are moving into prisons is in the pockets of guards and other prison staff. "There's no question that corrupt officers are involved," says Texas inspector general [John] Moriarty. The risk is small, the payoff big. Correctional staff coming to work are typically searched only lightly, if at all, and a phone can fetch a couple thousand dollars. One California officer told investigators he made more than $100,000 in a single year selling phones.
Deep into the article after listing several stories of crimes related to illegal cell phones, the tone changes when Beiser begins to talk about solutions:
There's no question that prisoners are using cell phones to foment all kinds of mayhem. But investigations have established that most calls placed on contraband mobiles are harmless—just saying hi to family and friends. Whatever their crimes, most convicts have parents, children, and others they're desperate to stay in touch with. Letters are slow, and personal visits often involve expensive, time-sucking travel. Some prisons have public phones for making collect calls, but access is limited, conversations are often monitored, and phone companies often charge much higher rates than on the outside.
Texas prison officials quoted in the story agreed part of the solution must be expanding legal communication between inmates and their families:
the most compelling reason to let inmates ... talk to their families isn't that it's nice for them or even their mothers. It's that it could reduce crime and save the public a bundle by cutting recidivism. Most of the more than 2 million men and women behind bars in the US will eventually be released, and decades of research show that those who maintain family ties are much less likely to land back in jail. Every parolee who stays straight saves taxpayers an average of more than $22,000 a year.

Even tough-on-crime Texas has embraced that logic. The state has long refused to allow phones of any sort for inmates in its prisons, but this year officials are installing landlines. "Once they're in place, we expect a decrease in the problem," Moriarty says.

Wired's story was followed up by pieces in Time magazine and on CNN referencing Texas' cell phone smuggling woes.

The best solution here, unfortunately, must come from the federal level: A 1934 law bans state and local governments from jamming broadcast signals and would have to be altered by Congress, according to officials at the FCC.

See related Grits coverage:

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Corrupt guards still smuggling phones onto death row

Two more cell phones were found on Texas death row Tuesday. Can their be any doubt the Polunsky Unit has a serious, continuing problem with corrupt guards on its staff?

UPDATE: And another one.