Ed. Note: In April 2011, Prison Legal News published a comprehensive cover story on the prison telephone industry based on two years of research into prison phone contracts, rates and kickbacks nationwide. This article provides a summary and update of issues related to the prison phone industry, including the Wright Petition, which remains pending before the FCC. See the Prison Phone Justice Campaign ad on page 25 for additional information.

Exorbitant phone rates make the prison telephone industry one of the most lucrative businesses in the United States today. The industry is so profitable because prison phone companies have state-sanctioned monopolistic control over the state prison markets,1 and the sole federal agency with authority to rein in prison phone rates nationwide has thus far failed to provide meaningful relief.

Prison phone companies are awarded monopolies through bidding processes in which they submit contract proposals to the state prison systems; in all but eight states, these contracts include provisions to pay “commissions”—in effect, kickbacks—in either the form of a percentage of revenue, a fixed up-front payment or a combination of the two.2 Thus, state prison systems have no incentive to select the telephone company that offers the lowest rates; rather, they ...

On April 5, 2011, a Texas state court issued a temporary injunction ordering the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to provide telecommunications to hearing impaired prisoners using the Texas Relay Service (TRS).

Leslie Arrington, Janet Lock, Kathy Williams and Laura Beeman are Texas state prisoners who, with the assistance of the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP), filed a lawsuit in state court challenging the unavailability of telecommunications for hearing impaired prisoners. Aided by TCRP attorneys Abigail Frank and Scott Medlock, they filed a motion for a temporary injunction which the court granted.

The temporary injunction requires the TDCJ to immediately make TRS services available to hearing impaired prisoners so they can communicate with people on their approved lists under conditions similar to those applied to prisoners without hearing impairments.
The only exception is that hearing impaired prisoners must submit a written request to the warden or designee two hours in advance of the requested TRS phone call.

The TDCJ was also ordered to “investigate ways to implement the use of videophone technology to accommodate inmates with disabilities within TDCJ facilities.” See: Arrington v. Securus Technologies, Inc., 419th J.D. Court, Travis Co. (TX), Case No. D-1-GN-10-000515.

The TDCJ appealed, but ...

The Prison Phone Justice Campaign is gaining momentum nationally. As announced in last month’s issue, a number of organizations, including the Human Rights Defense Center (the parent organization of Prison Legal News) have launched a campaign to end the practice of price gouging prisoners and their families for the cost of phone calls.

Right now a critical issue is getting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to act on the Wright Petition, which would cap interstate prison phone rates. If you and your friends, family members and supporters can call, write or e-mail the FCC, as described in the ad on page 21, that will let the FCC know this is an important issue affecting millions of prisoners and those who care about them.

In addition to organizing the Prison Phone Justice Campaign, we are also updating the information for all 50 states and the Bureau of Prisons with respect to their telephone contracts, the actual cost of prison phone calls, the kickbacks paid by phone companies, and who holds the contracts. We will report our progress in upcoming issues of PLN and will publish a comprehensive report on the topic in early 2013.

We have added almost a dozen new ...

by Matt Clarke

In 2007, when Texas became the last state in the nation to let prisoners make phone calls on a regular basis, the limit on phone usage was 120 minutes a month. [See: PLN, Nov. 2007, p.11]. Two years later the Texas Board of Criminal Justice (TBCJ) responded to requests by prisoners’ families and doubled the monthly phone minute allotment to 240. In 2011 the Texas legislature considered, but ultimately did not adopt, an amendment that would have increased the number of minutes to 480; regardless, the limit on phone usage was upped anyway.

Not surprisingly, Texas officials have not increased the number of phone minutes solely for the benefit of prisoners and their families, for whom phone calls are a primary means of communication. Rather, the reason for allowing additional phone minutes is strictly financial. The legislature needs to plug a large budget deficit and money from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) phone system is an attractive source.

Currently, phone calls from Texas state prisoners cost $.234/minute for debit in-state phone calls ($.26/minute for collect or prepaid) and $.387/minute for debit out-of-state calls ($.43/minute for collect or prepaid). While those rates are significantly less than ...

On November 30, 2011, a Missouri circuit court held that adding optional services to the state’s prisoner telephone contract without putting those services out for competitive bidding would render the contract void. The court found the current contract was valid, but to amend it to include the optional services would require the entire contract to be rebid.

From 2006 to 2011, Public Communications Services (PCS) provided phone services to more than 30,000 prisoners in the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC). The PCS phone system handled 12.1 million calls that totaled more than 117 million minutes in 2010. There are three methods by which prisoners can make calls: 1) debit calls, which are debited directly from the prisoner’s account; 2) pre-paid calls with accounts set up by friends and family members; and 3) collect calls that result in the accepting party being billed.

In December 2010, Missouri’s Office of Administration (OA), through its Director of Purchasing and Materials Management (DPMM), issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a new prison phone service provider following the expiration of the PCS contract in May 2011. Seven companies submitted acceptable responses: CenturyLink, Consolidated Communications Public Services, PCS, Securus Techonologies, Synergy Telecom Service Company/Telcomate, Talk ...

For the past 22 years, PLN has been at the forefront of reporting on the gouging of prisoners’ families by prisons, jails and the telecommunications industry as prisoncrats and corporations profit by charging families exorbitant phone rates for the ability to communicate with their incarcerated loved ones. PLN’s groundbreaking report on the prison phone industry last year – see our April 2011 cover story – has led to a growing movement that seeks real change regarding this issue. To date, we are the only news media organization to tackle this topic on a national level.

To end the injustice of unfair prison phone rates, the Human Rights Defense Center, the Center for Media Justice and Working Narratives have launched a national campaign to end the kickback “commissions” routinely provided to prisons and jails by prison phone companies. We have launched two websites, www.phonejustice.org and www.kitescampaigns.org/campaign/prison-phone-justice, where we have massive amounts of information on prison phone rates, contracts and corruption; these sites also include resources for people affected by prison phone rate gouging to tell their story and take action.

In March 2012 I was among a number of advocates on the topic of prison phone justice who met in Washington, ...

On October 14, 2011 the Iowa Supreme Court held that a prison telephone company did not commit a “cramming” violation by improperly billing a third party for fraudulent collect calls made by a prisoner.

Evercom Systems, Inc. provides phone services to more than 2,900 detention facilities nationwide, including the Bridewell Detention Center (Bridewell) in Bethany, Missouri.
On January 25, 2006, Evercom informed Iowa resident Ken Silver that on the previous day “over fifty dollars of collect calls had been accepted by his (Des Moines, Iowa) business line and that Evercom was placing a temporary block on his line.”

Silver denied accepting or having any knowledge of the calls. Evercom agreed to investigate and get back with him in 7-10 days. The next day, however, the company sent Silver a letter stating the charges would not be removed because “a thorough investigation” found no system deficiencies. Silver did not receive the letter because Evercom mailed it to an incorrect address; his local telephone company billed him $78.21 for the collect calls.

After several unsuccessful attempts to get Evercom to remove the charges, on February 27, 2006, Silver filed a complaint with the Iowa Attorney General’s office. Evercom quickly investigated and “concluded ...

by Matt Clarke

On January 21, 2011, a U.S. District Court held that state prisoners in Arkansas have no First Amendment right to less expensive phone rates, a decision that was subsequently affirmed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Arkansas state prisoners Winston Holloway and Joseph Breault filed a civil rights action in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that excessive contractual kickbacks resulted in high telephone rates for prisoners in the Arkansas Department of Corrections (ADC), which infringed on their First Amendment rights.

The magistrate judge assigned to the case issued a report recommending that a First Amendment violation be found and that the ADC’s phone service provider, Global Tel*Link (GLT), be enjoined from paying any “commission” kickbacks to the ADC. The district judge rejected that part of the report and dismissed the suit on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

The ADC established telephone services for prisoners in 2006 by contracting with GTL. Under the contract, GTL pays for all costs of equipment, installation and phone service, and gives the ADC a 45% “commission” on the income the company receives from prisoner phone calls. The phone rates include a $3.00 surcharge plus $0.12/minute for ...

The bidding process used to select the telephone contractor for Pennsylvania’s Allegheny County Jail (ACJ) was rigged by an official previously accused of improperly influencing a prior phone contract at the jail. That was the basis of a lawsuit filed by a local taxpayer, Matthew E. D’Eramo, in an effort to void the contract.

Previously, Common Pleas Judge Judith Friedman ruled in May 2006 that ACJ’s former Internal Affairs Chief, Capt. Thomas R. Leicht, Jr., conspired with other county employees to rig the bids on the jail’s telephone contract the last time it was put out for bid. See: Lemansky v. Allegheny County, Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (PA), Case No. GD 06-3583.

An appellate court ordered the 2006 contract bid to be reopened, and Securus Technologies subsequently won the jail’s phone contract after Leicht was prohibited from participating in the re-bid process. See: Lemansky v. Allegheny County, 926 A.2d 1003 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007). However, Leicht was again assigned to evaluate bids when the phone contract was up for renewal in 2009, and he gave a low score to Securus based on a failed system test.

“Despite Judge Friedman’s opinion and past finding[s] of Capt. Leicht’s corruption, the county ...

Most people are familiar with Crime Stoppers, the “snitch line” for individuals with information about crimes. Successful tips can result in benefits to the tipster – which can take the form of cash, leniency with a new case or a time cut if the tipster is already in prison. Not surprisingly, Crime Stoppers receives a lot of calls from prisoners.

Rather than calling to report crimes, though, some crafty South Carolina state prisoners figured out a way to use the Crime Stoppers phone line to make personal calls, racking up some $7,000 in charges at Crime Stoppers’ expense, according to a July 2011 news report. The toll-free tip line was billed for 4,000 calls in one month, apparently after prisoners used the Crime Stoppers phone number as a third-party billing source for long distance calls.

“Some inmates are very resourceful and have a lot of time on their hands,” said Joey Hudson, President of Greenville County Crime Stoppers. “We know definitively the calls were made from corrections institutes in the Pee Dee area,” he stated. “We are still working to see if we can trace the calls back to a specific inmate or inmates.”

Telecompute, the company that provides Crime ...