ICS Advocates - FCC Comments on Draft #Solutions2020 Plan, 2016
Download original document:
Document text
Document text
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Before The FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In re: ) ) ) #Solutions 2020 Call to Action Plan Public Notice #342689 COMMENTS ON DRAFT #SOLUTIONS2020 ACTION PLAN The Wright Petitioners, 1 Prison Policy Initiative, New Jersey Advocates for Immigrant Detainees, and United Church of Christ, OC Inc. (collectively, the "ICS Advocates"), hereby respond to the above-referenced Public Notice and submit these Comments on the Draft #Solutions2020 Action Plan released on December 19, 2016 (the "Action Plan"). While the Public Notice sought comment on a number of issues discussed in the Action Plan, these comments are limited to those raised therein regarding the Comprehensive Reform of Inmate Calling Services ("ICS"). In particular, the ICS Advocates have long-supported the Action Plan's call for the development of "real competition" and "reasonable rates in ICS and video visitation services," as well as the abolishment of "kickbacks to correctional facilities."2 Moreover, the ICS Advocates applaud the Action Plan's recognition that any rule changes adopted with regard to contraband cell phones should be mindful of the imposition of additional costs on inmates and their families. The Wright Petitioners are: Dorothy Wade, Annette Wade, Ethel Peoples, Laurie Nelson, Winston Bliss, Sheila Taylor, Katharine Goray, Ulandis Forte, Charles Wade, Earl Peoples, Darrell Nelson, Melvin Taylor, Jackie Lucas, Peter Bliss, David Hernandez, Lisa Hernandez, Vendella F. Oura, along with The D.C. Prisoners’ Legal Services Project, and Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants. Martha Wright, the grandmother of Ulandis Forte, passed away on January 18, 2015. 1 2 See Action Plan, pg. 2. 87383168.1 1 As set forth below, the ICS Advocates are supplying information regarding the current state of the ICS industry with respect to the rates charged by ICS providers. This information was gathered by undersigned counsel and Prison Policy Initiative staff in late 2016 from publically-available rate information supplied by the ICS providers. The ICS Advocates are also providing additional information regarding efforts to confront the serious issue of contraband cellphones. Specifically, included in these comments are studies discussing the connection between the recent efforts to reduce ICS phone rates and the reduction in confiscations of contraband cellphones, as well as case studies of past implementations of costly Managed Access Systems ("MAS") which raise serious doubts whether the cost of such systems (which is passed on to inmates and their families and/or taxpayers in general) are sufficiently outweighed by the benefits these systems provide. I. BACKGROUND The Wright Petitioners have been actively seeking ICS reform before the Federal Communications Commission since 2002. While their interest originated in a desire to terminate exclusive contracts between private correctional authorities and ICS providers, 3 when the Commission expressed its reluctance to intercede, the Wright Petitioners sought comprehensive reform for ICS rates in 2007. 4 Since the submission of the Alternative Proposal, the ICS industry has undergone tremendous changes. See Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Petition of Martha Wright et al. for Rulemaking or, in the Alternative, Petition to Address Referral Issues in Pending Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-128 (filed Nov. 3, 2003) ("Wright Petition"). 3 See Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Petitioners’ Alternative Rulemaking Proposal, CC Docket No. 96128 (filed Mar. 1, 2007) ("Alternative Petition"). 4 2 Gone are the dominant incumbent local exchange carriers. With the exception of CenturyLink, no incumbent LEC provides ICS to the public. Now, the marketplace is dominated by a small number of companies, each vying to becoming a "one-stop shop" for correctional authorities. These companies route all communications (i.e., phone, video, email) to their centralized call centers, whereby the security measures requested by correctional authorities are imposed, and then are passed onto the recipients. As a result, even if a communication is local in nature, the ICS provider routes the communication to its centralized location (in most cases, out of state) before delivering it across the street. As the ICS Advocates conclusively demonstrated in WC Docket 12-375, this consolidation among the ICS providers, along with rapid technological changes, have led to a steep decline in the cost to provide ICS to the public. The Action Plan highlights two issues that have yet to be resolved with finality – establishing reasonable rates and charges for ICS communications (phone and video visitation) and introducing competition into the ICS marketplace. Also addressed are the "kickbacks" that ICS providers voluntarily agree to pay to correctional authorities in order to secure monopoly control over all inmate communications at a particular correctional facility, including visitations involving the families of inmates. As discussed below, because certain ICS providers have obtained a court-ordered stay of the rules that would have capped intrastate ICS rates, several ICS providers are charging substantially higher intrastate ICS rates than what they charge for interstate ICS rates. 5 These rates were adjusted by ICS providers after the FCC's October 2015 Second Report and Order in WC Docket 12-375 so to ensure that the ICS provider and correctional 5 See Securus Technologies Inc. v. FCC, No. 16-1321 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 2, 2016). 3 facility "remain whole." 6 The result is that some ICS providers charge $10 - $15 more to make an ICS call across the street than they charge for a call between Alaska and Florida. Finally, with respect to the serious security issues arising from the use of contraband cell phones in correctional facilities, the Wright Petitioners have previously expressed a concern regarding the possibility that the cost of high-priced surveillance systems may be passed onto inmates and their families through higher ICS rates and fees. The Wright Petitioners have also urged the Commission to adopt policies to protect nonoffending inmates and their families from such costs, especially in light of several less- costly options that would reduce the possibility of introducing contraband cell phones into the correctional facilities. II. DISCUSSION A. Ensuring Reasonable Rates and Fees For All ICS Products. Not surprisingly, the ICS Advocates strongly support the Action Plan's goal of encouraging reasonable rates in ICS phone and video visitation services. The Alternative Proposal submitted in 2007 provided extensive evidence that the cost of providing ICS phone service was no more than 15 cents per minute, even for the smallest of facilities. To ensure that ICS providers would receive just and reasonable compensation, the Alternative Proposal urged the Commission to establish benchmark rates at 21 cents for prepaid and debit interstate ICS phone calls, and 25 cents for interstate collect ICS phone calls. The 2008 Wood Study confirmed that determination. 6 See Opposition to GTL’s Petition for Waiver, dated June 17, 2016, at Appendix B, Appendix C. See also Wright Petitioners Ex Parte Presentation, dated July 29, 2016, at Exhibit B. 4 Subsequent evidence, including ICS contracts that promised site commissions above 50% and ICS rates less than 10 cents conclusively demonstrated that the cost of actually providing ICS to consumers was substantially below those set forth in the Alternative Proposal. As such, the Wright Petitioners urged the Commission in 2013 to establish ICS rates at 7 cents per minute, with no ancillary fees. The 2013 Order established safe-harbor and benchmark ICS rates, 7 and the 2015 Order eliminated the safe-harbor rate, and established a tiered rate plan depending on the size of the correctional facility. 8 Subsequently, the 2016 Order on Reconsideration raised the ICS rate caps adopted in 2015 Order to account for the argument made by ICS providers and correctional authorities that it was more costly to serve smaller correctional facilities. 9 Despite the adoption of ICS rate caps that were well above the demonstrated cost of providing ICS service, both the ICS providers and several correctional authorities appealed the 2015 Order and the 2016 Order on Reconsideration, and they remain pending at this time. Moreover, even though the Commission upwardly adjusted the ICS rate caps in the 2016 Order on Reconsideration, the ICS providers and correctional authorities appealed that decision, and obtained a stay. The most obvious result of the pending appeals of the Commission's efforts to implement comprehensive ICS rate cap reform is that there is now a substantial disparity between the rates that ICS providers are charging for intrastate calls as compared to interstate calls. See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 14,107 (2013)("2013 ICS Order"). 7 See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 12,763 (2015) ("2015 ICS Order"). 8 9 See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 9,300 (2016) ("2016 Order on Reconsideration"). 5 Attached as Exhibit A is a table consisting of intrastate rates that were being charged by the major ICS providers in late 2016. As reflected therein, it is clear that some ICS providers are taking advantage of the absence of rate caps for intrastate ICS phone calls by substantially raising the per-minute rate. Moreover, it would appear that some providers are charging a substantially higher first-minute rate than for all subsequent minutes. At first glance, this appears to be permissible because the intrastate ICS rate cap has been stayed. However, Section 64.6080 of the Commission's rules went into effect in March 2016. That rule prohibits the imposition of "per-connection" charges. 10 That rule was adopted to eliminate the prior practice of ICS providers whereby their customers would be charged a "connection fee" of $3.00 to $5.00, then a per-minute charge on top of that fee. As reflected in Exhibit B, it would appear that, for many correctional facilities, Securus charges substantially higher first-minute rates than what it charges for all subsequent minutes. Global Tel*Link also follows this practice, as shown in Exhibit C. Finally, as reflected in Exhibit D, Legacy Inmate Communications continues to charge a connection fee for intrastate calls, in apparent violation of Section 64.6080 of the Commission's rules. It also bears mentioning that, despite providing service to more than 200 correctional authorities, Legacy Inmate Communications conceded to undersigned counsel that it failed to participate in the 2014 Mandatory Data Collection. 11 This rate information demonstrates that the Commission has a long way to go to ensure that ICS consumers are protected from unjust, unreasonable and unfair intrastate ICS rates. This information also demonstrates that several ICS providers have taken 10 11 See 47 C.F.R. §64.6080 (2016). See Exhibit E. 6 advantage of the uncertainty surrounding ICS rates to gouge intrastate ICS consumers in county or local correctional facilities by charging widely-divergent per-minute rates that bear a remarkable similarity to prior rate structures that have since been prohibited under Section 64.6080 of the Commission's rules. While there have been some reductions at the county level, 12 a majority of ICS providers continue to charge unjust, unreasonable, and unfair intrastate ICS rates. Therefore, the ICS Advocates urge the Commission to incorporate specific language into the Action Plan which outlines the efforts to be taken to bring parity among intrastate and interstate ICS rates. As noted in a prior submission, it would appear that state public utility commissions have largely abandoned their regulatory authority to address this matter at the state level, 13 so it is incumbent upon the Commission to continue to press for comprehensive reform which will protect ICS consumers from unjust, unreasonable and unfair ICS rates and fees for all ICS communication services. B. Introducing Competition Into ICS Marketplace. The ICS Advocates strongly support the Commission's efforts to introduce competition into the ICS marketplace. In fact, the original Wright Petition sought to end exclusive contracts between privately-owned prisons and ICS providers. 14 The Wright Petitioners conclusively demonstrated that, even in 2003, it was possible to introduce multiple ICS providers at a correctional facility while still maintaining the requisite security protocols. As the Wright Petitioners noted seventeen years ago, the introduction of 12 See New Jersey P.L.2016, c.37 (2016). 14 See Wright Petition, pg. 3. See Opposition to Petition for Stay Pending Judicial Review by State and Local Government Petitioners, WC Dkt. 12-375, pgs.6-7 (filed Sept. 9, 2016). 13 7 competition would "quickly bring the rates charged by [ICS providers] down to their actual efficient costs." 15 In light of the Commission's reluctance to adopt the proposal to introduce competition into the ICS marketplace, the Wright Petitioners' submitted the Alternative Petition in an effort to minimize the impact of such reluctance on ICS consumers. The Alternative Proposal preserved the monopolistic practices of correctional authorities and ICS providers, but sought the adoption of benchmark ICS rates at levels well above the demonstrated cost of providing service. 16 Because the Commission's past reliance on competition to reduce rates was shown to be misguided due to the existence of exclusive contracts, the Wright Petitioners argued that the adoption of benchmark rates would preserve the monopolistic practices, but deliver urgently-needed relief to ICS consumers. 17 The first two orders released in WC Docket 12-375 did not substantively address the issue of introducing competition into the ICS marketplace. The Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sought comment on "whether there are ways to promote competition within the ICS market to enable the Commission to sunset or eliminate our regulations adopted herein in the future." 18 The Commission also sought comments on whether there were "ways to mitigate concerns raised in the record that multiple providers could increase burdens and make it 'more difficult…to maintain security.'" 19 15 16 Id., pg. 12. See Alternative Petition, pg. 4. Billed Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls, Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 6122 (1998), mod., 16 FCC Rcd 22,314 (2001). 17 See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 12,900 (2015) ("3rd FNPRM"). 18 19 Id., 30 FCC Rcd at 12,902 (quoting County of Butler Prison Board). 8 In response, the Wright Petitioners updated its 2003 competition proposal, and supplied a detailed outline demonstrating how competition in the ICS marketplace could be introduced. In light of the fact that the Commission has yet to act on the 3rd FNPRM, the ICS Advocates have attached the proposal that was previously presented, and hereby incorporate that proposal herewith. 20 All parties to WC Docket 12-375 have been aware of this proposal, and several parties provided their response to the proposal in their reply comments. Since at least 2003, the Commission could have adopted rules to introduce competition into the ICS marketplace, and since 2003 it has also been true that the ICS providers and correctional authorities have rejected those efforts. It is clear that the Commission's reliance on market forces over the intervening 17 years has utterly failed to deliver the statutorily-mandated just, reasonable and fair rates. Therefore, the ICS Advocates encourage the incorporation of their 2016 proposal into the final draft of the Action Plan. C. Eliminating Site Commissions (Kickbacks) To Correctional Facilities. In 2003, the Wright Petitioners urged the Commission to prohibit the practice of ICS providers paying correctional authorities a site commission in exchange for monopoly control of a correctional facility. As noted then, the payment of site commissions reinforced the absence of competition to service ICS consumers, and led to the perverse incentive for ICS providers to raise ICS rates and fees. See Exhibit F (Wright Petitioners' 3rd FNPRM Comments); See Exhibit G (Wright Petitioners' 3rd FNPRM Reply Comments). 20 9 In the more recent proceeding that commenced in 2013, the ICS Advocates have expressed the opinion that the Commission can reign in excessive site commission payments by introducing competition into the ICS marketplace and/or establishing caps on ICS rates or fees that effectively limited the ability of ICS providers to pay site commissions. The Commission agreed with this approach, which led to the adoption of caps on all ICS rates and fees. After years of playing coy regarding the payment of site commissions, 21 ICS providers ultimately renounced their interest in participating in this practice, but also mandated that the Commission establish a "per-minute" facility fee that would be tacked onto the ICS rates and would go directly to the correctional authority. 22 The Wright Petitioners objected to this proposal, noting that ICS providers funnel additional forms of consideration to correctional authorities through many different avenues, and that the correctional authorities had failed to establish that their costs in making ICS available were sufficient to justify reimbursement. Not surprisingly, the correctional authorities also rejected this approach. 23 Thus, as in the case of introducing competition into the ICS marketplace, the Commission's approach in regulating the ICS rates and fees will protect ICS consumers, and give ICS providers and correctional authorities the ability to divvy up the profits how they See Overnight Tech: Inmate Phone Industry Says It's Not The 'Bad Guy', The Hill (Oct. 19, 2015) (stating that GTL did not advocate for the elimination of site commissions previously “because it would have been business suicide."). See also 2016 Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd at 9313, nt. 98, and 31 FCC Rcd at 9316, nt. 116 (noting Lipman's lack of disclosure as to the identity of his client in the proceeding.). 21 See Letter from Brian D. Oliver, Chief Executive Officer, GTL, et al., to Chairman Tom Wheeler, Chairman, FCC, WC Docket No. 12-375, at 5 (filed Oct. 16, 2016). 22 23 Opposition of the National Sheriffs’ Association, WC Docket No. 12-375 (filed Mar. 23, 2016). 10 see fit. The ICS Advocates would prefer that (i) no site commissions are paid, (ii) there is competition in the ICS marketplace, and (iii) rates are capped at $0.07 or below for all forms of ICS communications. However, to the extent that correctional authorities demand site commissions and ICS providers reject competition, the Action Plan's promotion of just, reasonable, and fair rates and fees for all ICS communications (i.e., phone, video visitation, email) is the best approach to protect ICS consumers. D. Protecting Inmates and Families From Shifting Costs Relating to Contraband Cell Phone Detection and Control Technology. Lastly, the Action Plan correctly recognizes that the costs associated with the development and installation of technology to thwart the use of contraband cell phones should not be shifted onto ICS consumers. This is a very real concern, especially as ICS providers begin to include costly Managed Access Systems into their ICS contracts. For example, in June 2016, Securus announced that successfully delivered MAS systems in a third state department of correction facility. 24 In the Press Statement, Securus noted that it had invested $40 million in developing the technology. Richard A. Smith, the Chief Executive Officer of Securus, also stated: MAS systems do not usually stand on their own economically – but when we combine them with inmate audio communications, video, inmate funding, jail management systems, electronic medical records, grievance reporting, data analytics, parolee GPS tracking, location based services, inmate tablets, electronic books, and inmate education/job searches – that is a bundle of products that helps everyone. 25 This statement is particularly alarming for two reasons. First, Mr. Smith confirms that the systems are not economic as stand-alone acquisitions. Second, Mr. Smith confirms that the See Securus Announces Third DOC Facility to Approve/Accept Its Managed Access Systems (MAS) Technology, Press Statement, June 20, 2016. 24 25 Id. 11 "one-stop shop" approach that has taken hold in the ICS marketplace will lead to the recovery of the $40 million investment from inmates and their families through higher ICS rates and fees. Making matters worse for the pocketbooks of inmates and their loved ones is that several studies have demonstrated that the MAS technologies do not offer a comprehensive solution to the presence of contraband cellphones in correctional facilities. Previously, the Wright Petitioners submitted a report by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice which highlighted the prominent role of correctional officers in smuggling cell phones into their own facilities. 26 Two studies that separately reviewed the installation of MAS technology in the Mississippi State Penitentiary and the Baltimore City Jail Complex raise similar questions regarding those systems. For example, with respect to the Baltimore City Jail Complex, the report concluded that: A significant conclusion that can be made is that while managed access had a significant impact within the facilities where it was deployed, other factors unrelated to the technology such as policy changes also contributed to the overall decline of illegal cellphone use throughout the prison system (to include faculties with deployed managed access systems). When queried about this overall trend system-wide, DPSCS suggested that increased vigilance implemented through policy changes, as well as increased mandatory penalties for those caught with an illegal device contributed to this reduction. For example, it was suggested that rotating correctional staff between regional prison entrance check points likely impacted the ability for staff members to smuggle in illegal devices. The consequences of possession of an illegal cellular device in a Maryland correctional facility have changed to now include criminal penalties, via misdemeanor charges which can result See Ex Parte Submission, GN Docket 13-111, July 11, 2016. That submission also cited thenrecent RFI response by CenturyLink to the Virginia Department of Corrections, wherein CenturyLink asserted that the cost of MAS installations "must be 'priced in' to the [provider's] financial offer" and that this type of system will not 'pay for itself" by an increase in ICS call volume. In light of the bulky nature of the July 11, 2016 submission, the ICS Advocates hereby incorporate that filing by reference (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10712066601324). 26 12 in up to a 3 year jail sentence. It was also noted that administrative sanctions that can now be levied against prisoners, to include disciplinary segregation and loss of privileges. 27 A similar finding was made in the report analyzing the implementation of MAS in Mississippi. That report sounded a strong cautionary warning with respect to the costly MAS technology: The corrections community must understand that managed access is not – and should not – be considered a silver bullet solution for the contraband cell phone problem. Cellular devices that cannot transmit a call or text pose potential harm in the correctional environment. Managed access should be utilized in conjunction with physical search and seizures of contraband cell phones. As noted above, multifunction device capabilities that fall outside of the scope of cellular communications simply cannot be managed with managed access technology and have to be mitigated via other means. Managed access technology serves as a tool to mitigate use of these devices by denying cellular service, diminishing the overall utility of smuggling these devices into a correctional facility. Clearly inmate use of multifunction device capabilities which fall outside of cellular communications requires mitigation using non-managed access system methods, to include physical intervention. Put simply, managed access technology should be viewed as supplemental to existing contraband policies and practices.28 Similarly, some correctional authorities have shifted away from the costly MAS technology. For example, despite entering into an 2012 agreement with GTL to implement MAS technology at all state correctional facilities, the State of California recently announced that it was acquiring significantly cheaper cell phone detection systems from Metrasens. 29 In a related news article, the decision was made to move "from call blocking to trying to keep the phones out in the first place." 30 Finally, the State of Missouri recently amended a See Analysis of Managed Access Technology In An Urban Deployment: Baltimore City Jail Complex, Fred Frantz, Phil Harris, September 2016, pgs. 36-37 (attached as Exhibit H). 27 28 A Case Study of Mississippi State Penitentiary's Managed Access Technology, Eric Grommon, Ph.D., et al, August 2015, pg. 87 (attached as Exhibit I) (emphasis added). 29 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Chooses Cellsense from Metrasens, Press Statement, Digital Media Online, Sept. 1, 2016. 13 pending Request for Proposal to eliminate the MAS requirement, shifting instead to significantly less expensive contraband detection systems. 31 As noted above, the ICS Advocates' sole concern with respect to the contraband cellphone subject matter is to ensure that the costs associated with the acquisition and implementation of these systems are not passed onto non-offending inmates and their families. It is well established that a cognizable share of contraband cellphone usage relates to an effort on the part of inmates to avoid the unjust, unreasonable and unfair ICS rates and fees that are currently being charged by ICS providers. 32 In fact, the Acting Commissioner of the New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision previously submitted a letter, wherein he stated: The Department believes that a lower calling rate has also contributed to a lower rate of illicit cell phone use by inmates in New York. In 2012, the Department confiscated less than 100 cell phones, compared to over ten thousand annual seizures in comparably-sized correctional systems…Phone rates are a contributing factor [to the reduction], but so too are good security measures for both visitation and perimeter security, adequate training and Cellphones Keep Cropping Up Inside California Prisons, Andria Borba, et al, Nov. 15, 2016 (www.sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/11/15/cellphones-keep-cropping-up-inside-californiaprisons/). 30 Addendum #2 to Solicitation No. RFP T30034901700137, State of Missouri (http://missouribuys.mo.gov/bidboard.html). 31 32 See, e.g., Disconnected–The Safe Prisons Communications Act Fails To Address Prison Communications, Jane C. Christie, 51 Jurimetrics Journal 17, 50-53 (2010) ("Lack of affordable and regular telephone communication between inmates and their families has pushed many desperate families to turn to contraband cell phones….Even proponents of jamming technology have recognized that increased legal access to telephones could decrease the amount of contraband cell phones.") (citing Deadly Weapon, Vince Beiser, Wired, June 2009, pg. 132, 137 ("But investigations have established that most calls placed on contraband mobiles are harmless—just saying hi to family and friends.") and Cheap Calls For Inmates Cut Cell Phone Smuggling, Paul Hammel, Omaha World-Herald, May 17, 2010, at B1 ("Houston said several states and even private prison corporations have contacted Nebraska about its relatively few problems with cell phone smuggling. He has recommended that they lower their phone call rates.")). 14 compensation for line staff, and a zero tolerance policy that does not allow anyone to possess a cell phone inside a New York State prison. 33 As such, to the extent that the Commission can establish lasting reforms with respect to ICS rates and fees, correctional authorities will see that the demand for contraband cellphone will be reduced. Furthermore, to the extent that there are less expensive options, including cutting off the flow of contraband cellphones through the enforcement of staff inspections and acquiring the substantially cheaper passive detection systems, it is likely that the supply of contraband cellphones will be significantly cut-off. Only after the correctional authorities have taken these straight-forward approaches to addressing contraband cellphones, and have seen these efforts not be effective, should a determination be made as to whether inmates and their families should be left holding the bill for these million-dollar technological solutions. However, in no respect should the Commission permit ICS providers or correctional authorities to shift the cost of these systems onto the backs of inmates and their families through unregulated ICS rates and fees, and the ICS Advocates appreciate the acknowledgement of that risk in the Action Plan, and strongly support efforts to reduce the impact on ICS consumers.. III. CONCLUSION As always, the ICS Advocates would like to express their gratitude to Commissioner Clyburn for her relentless efforts to ensure that inmates and their families are protected from unjust, unreasonable and unfair ICS rates, fees and practices imposed upon them by the ICS providers and correctional authorities. 33 Letter of Anthony J. Annucci, Acting Commissioner, dated July 8, 2013, pg. 2, nt. iii, WC Docket 12-275. 15 The #Solutions2020 Action Plan demonstrates Commissioner Clyburn's dedication to protecting consumers, and we stand ready to assist in any way to reach that goal. Respectfully submitted, THE WRIGHT PETITIONERS, PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE, NEW JERSEY ADVOCATES FOR IMMIGRANT DETAINEES, and UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, OC INC. By: January 11, 2017 Lee G. Petro DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1500 K Street N.W. Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005-1209 (202) 230-5857 Counsel to the Wright Petitioners 16 EXHIBIT A Intra-State Rates for ICS Providers (collected November 28 – December 12, 2016) State Facility ICS Provider AL AZ FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL ID KS KS KS KS KS LA MO MO MO NC NV NV NV TX UT UT WI WI WI WI WI WV AL AL AR Department of Corrections – All Locations Department of Corrections – All Locations Escambia County Hernando County Hillsborough County Leon County Okeechobee County Pasco County Putnam County Sumter County Walton County Department of Corrections – All Locations Department of Corrections – All Locations Johnson County Kansas Juvenile Larned Hospital Larned Juvenile East Baton Rouge Parish Cole County Sheriff Jackson County Platte County Lenoir County Jail Clark County Department of Corrections – All Locations Las Vegas City Department of Criminal Justice–All Locations Department of Corrections – All Locations Salt Lake County Department of Corrections – All Locations Milwaukee HOC Milwaukee Jail Resource Center Sand Ridge Department of Corrections – All Locations Fayette County Jail Jefferson County – All Locations Jefferson County Adult Jail CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink CenturyLink GTL GTL GTL * # 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.21 0.40 0.15 0.40 0.16 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.11 0.25 0.26 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.21 0.21 4.64 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.21 0.40 0.15 0.40 0.16 0.25 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.11 0.25 0.26 0.19 0.19 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.21 0.21 0.69 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.75 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.00 3.15 3.75 3.15 3.75 3.75 3.75 1.65 2.55 3.15 6.00 2.25 6.00 2.40 3.75 1.50 3.75 3.75 3.15 1.65 3.75 3.90 2.85 2.85 1.80 2.10 2.10 1.80 1.50 0.47 3.15 3.15 14.30 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State AR AR AR AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA * # Facility Sebastian County Jail Washington County AR Jail White County Jail APACHE Junction AZ- City Detention Unit Avondale City Detention Facility CCA Saguaro Correctional Center Chandler City Detention Facility Gila County – All Locations Glendale City Jail Maricopa County – All Locations Mesa City Holding Facility Mohave County Juvenile Detention Center Pima County - All Locations Alameda County – All Locations CADOC – Department of Corrections – All Locations CADOC – Custody to Community Transitional Reentry Program CADOC – Division of Juvenile Justice Contra Costa County – All Locations El Dorado County – All Locations Glenn County Sheriff Department Humboldt County – All Locations Kern County – All Locations Lake County Jail – All Locations Los Angeles County Los Angeles Police Department Marin County Jail Marin County Probation Mendota FCI Merced County – All Locations Orange County, CA San Benito County San Bernardino County Juvenile San Diego MCC San Francisco County Jail San Joaquin County Juvenile Detention San Luis Obispo County Santa Clara County Shafter Community Correctional (CCF) Shasta County GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.75 5.00 4.09 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.46 0.22 0.20 3.70 0.21 0.20 3.65 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.25 0.00 0.29 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.46 0.22 0.20 0.30 0.21 0.20 0.65 15 Min. Rate ($) 7.25 5.00 8.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 6.90 3.30 3.00 7.90 3.15 3.00 12.75 GTL 0.14 0.13 2.02 GTL 0.21 0.21 3.15 GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 0.03 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.42 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.40 3.65 0.29 0.48 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.21 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.42 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.40 0.65 0.29 0.48 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.21 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.45 3.75 6.00 6.00 6.30 4.65 4.35 4.35 4.35 6.00 12.75 4.35 7.20 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 3.15 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 ICS Provider Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO DE * # Facility Solano County Solano Probation Juvenile Hall Sonoma County Sonoma County - Juvenile Justice Center Stanislaus County – All Locations Tehama County Jail Terminal Island FCI Tulare County USMC Camp Pendleton Brig USN_CA-USMC Miramar NAVONBRIG Ventura County - Juvenile Probation Ventura County Jail Victorville USP Yolo County Jail Yuba County Jail Arkansas Valley (AVCF) Bent County Correctional (BCCF) Buena Vista Correctional (BVCC) Canon Minimum Centers (CMC) Centennial Correctional (CCF) Cheyenne Mountare-Entry (CMRC) Colorado Correctional Center Colorado DOC – Youthful Offender System Colorado State Penitentiary Colorado State Penitentiary II Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility Colorado Youth Corrections – All Locations Crowley County Correctional Facility - CCA Delta Correctional Center Denver R and D Center (DRDC) Denver Women's Correctional (DWCF) El Paso County – All Locations Fremont Correctional (FCF) La Vista Correctional Facility Limon Correctional Facility Rifle Correctional Center San Carlos Correctional Facility Sterling Correctional Facility Trinidad Correctional Facility Department of Corrections – All Locations ICS Provider GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.16 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.44 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.05 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.16 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.44 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.05 15 Min. Rate ($) 2.40 2.40 3.75 3.75 3.45 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.65 4.65 4.35 4.35 4.35 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.65 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 6.60 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 0.75 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL GA GA GA GA GA GA GA HI IA IA IA IL IL IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN * # Facility ICS Provider Blackwater River Facility (GEO) Brevard County Charlotte County Collier County Duval County – All Locations GEO Bay Correctional Facility GEO Graceville Correctional Facility GEO Moore Haven Correctional Facility Highlands County FL-Jail Indian River County Lee County – All Locations Manatee County Detention Martin County Miami-Dade County – All Locations Orange County Jail Pinellas County Polk County – All Locations Santa Rosa County FL-Work Release St. Lucie County Clarke County GA- Jail Cobb County, GA Department of Corrections – All Locations East Point Law Enforcement Center Georgia Gwinnett County, GA- Correctional Complex Pelham County South Fulton Department of Corrections – All Locations Black Hawk County Jail Iowa State Training School Scott County Jail DuPage County Corrections Peoria County IL-Jail Allen County IN-Work Release Clay County-IN Delaware County, IN Department of Corrections – All Locations Heritage Trails Correctional Facility - GEO Howard County, IN Lake County – Community Corrections Madison County – Justice Center GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.11 0.25 0.16 0.16 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.30 0.26 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.36 0.21 0.25 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.21 0.13 2.19 2.70 0.13 0.22 0.11 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.67 2.55 0.24 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.32 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.11 0.25 0.16 0.16 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.22 0.22 0.30 0.26 0.14 0.14 0.24 0.36 0.21 0.25 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.21 0.13 0.19 0.00 0.13 0.22 0.11 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.67 0.30 0.24 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.32 15 Min. Rate ($) 1.65 3.75 2.40 2.40 4.20 1.65 1.65 1.65 2.40 3.30 3.30 4.50 3.90 2.10 2.10 3.60 5.40 3.15 3.75 1.65 1.80 2.55 3.15 1.95 4.85 2.70 1.95 3.30 1.65 2.40 3.15 3.15 3.60 10.05 6.75 3.60 3.15 3.60 3.60 4.80 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State Facility ICS Provider IN IN IN IN IN IN KS KS KS KS LA LA LA MA MA MA MA MA MA MD MD MD MD MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MN MO MO MS MS Madison County – Men's and Women's WR Marion County – Main Jail Marion County Superior Court Juvenile Monroe County Jail St. Joseph County Jail Tippecanoe County Jail JRFC Ft. Leavenworth Leavenworth County Jail Riley County USDB Ft. Leavenworth Concordia Parish Jackson Correctional Center Ouachita Parish Correctional Department of Corrections - All Locations Hampden County - Alcohol Center Hampden County - Pre-release Center Hampden County - Regional Women's Center Norfolk County Jail Plymouth County Caroline County Department of Corrections Department of Corrections – All Locations Juvenile Services Department – All Locations Montgomery County Berrien County Department of Corrections – All Locations Detroit City Jail Hillsdale County Lake County Jail, MI Lenaewee County Monroe County, MI Northlake Detention VT DOC – GEO Northlake Detention WA DOC - GEO Oak Park MI - City Jail Oakland County Oceana County Jail Department of Corrections – All Locations Buchanan County Greene County Alcorn County - Regional Jail Bolivar County GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL * # 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.32 0.26 4.45 1.75 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.55 0.21 2.30 2.24 0.18 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.21 0.25 0.03 0.03 0.65 1.10 0.20 3.65 0.99 0.75 1.09 4.60 0.11 0.11 0.50 4.00 0.67 0.05 0.36 1.82 0.36 0.68 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.32 0.26 0.00 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.55 0.21 0.15 0.09 0.18 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.21 0.25 0.04 0.04 0.00 1.10 0.20 0.65 0.99 0.75 1.09 0.65 0.11 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.67 0.05 0.36 0.32 0.36 0.68 15 Min. Rate ($) 4.80 3.90 4.45 5.25 3.60 3.60 3.15 2.85 8.25 3.15 4.40 3.50 2.70 1.50 1.80 1.80 1.80 2.40 3.15 3.75 0.52 0.52 0.65 16.50 3.00 12.75 14.85 11.25 16.35 13.70 1.65 1.65 7.50 11.00 10.05 0.75 5.40 6.30 5.34 10.14 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NE NE NE NH NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ * # Facility Caroll-Montgomery County Chickasaw County Coahoma County Covington County Department of Corrections – All Locations George-Greene County Jail Hinds County – All Locations Holmes-Humphrey County Issaquena County Jefferson-Franklin County Kemper-Neshoba County Lawrence County Leake County Marion-Walthall County Natchez City Jail Natchez City Jail - Adams Juvenile Pearl River County Pike County Pontotc County DC Rankin County - Adult Rankin County - Juvenile Washington County Wilkinson County Correctional CCI Winston-Choctaw County Cumberland County Department of Adult Corrections – All Locations Department of Public Safety – All Locations Durham County GEO Rivers Correctional Mecklenberg County Jail Central Mecklenberg County Jail North Department of Corrections – All Locations Douglas County DOC Douglas County Youth Center Strafford County Department of Corrections Atlantic County Justice Facility Bergen County Jail Bo Robinson – CEC, Inc. Burlington County Camden County GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.57 0.11 3.25 3.25 0.11 0.56 0.45 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 0.58 2.71 3.25 0.49 0.49 0.19 3.25 0.73 0.26 0.26 3.25 0.69 3.25 0.16 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.57 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.56 0.45 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.58 0.21 0.25 0.49 0.49 0.19 0.25 0.73 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.69 0.25 0.16 15 Min. Rate ($) 8.50 1.65 6.75 6.75 1.65 8.43 6.72 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 8.70 5.65 6.75 7.35 7.35 2.85 6.75 10.95 3.94 3.94 6.75 10.35 6.75 2.40 GTL 0.10 0.10 1.50 GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 0.10 0.16 0.21 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.29 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.21 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.29 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.05 0.05 1.50 2.40 3.15 1.74 1.74 1.50 1.95 1.95 4.35 0.66 0.66 1.53 0.76 0.76 ICS Provider Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NM NM NV NV NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY * # Facility Cumberland County Delaney Hall – CEC, Inc. Delaney Hall – ICE (CEC, Inc.) Department of Corrections – All Locations Essex County Jail Essex County Juvenile Detention Hudson County Jail Hudson County Jail Annex Hudson County Juvenile Detention Hunterdon County Juvenile Justice Commission – All Locations Mercer County Middlesex County Adult Correctional Middlesex County Juvenile Detention Monmouth County Morris County Ocean County Salem County Correctional Facility Somerset County Sussex County Talbot Hall – CEC, Inc. Toller Hall / Logan Hall – CEC, Inc. Tulley House – CEC, Inc. Union County Jail Union County Juvenile Warren County Cibola County Detention Center Luna County Washoe County Jail Main Jail Washoe County Jan Evans JDF Albany County Allegany County Bayview Correctional Facility Beacon Correctional Facility Broome County Butler ASACSC Correctional Cattaraugus County Cayuga County Chateaugay Correctional Facility Chautauqua County ICS Provider GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.21 2.90 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.19 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.14 0.07 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 1.85 4.35 0.05 0.05 4.35 0.05 4.35 4.35 0.05 4.35 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.21 0.40 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.19 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.40 0.05 0.05 0.40 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.05 0.40 15 Min. Rate ($) 0.76 1.44 2.25 0.66 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 3.15 8.50 0.66 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 2.85 0.76 0.76 1.24 2.02 1.04 3.75 3.75 0.76 2.25 2.25 2.10 2.10 3.25 9.95 0.72 0.72 9.95 0.72 9.95 9.95 0.72 9.95 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY * # Facility Chemung County Sheriff's Office Chenango County Clinton County Columbia County Cortland County Cortland County Delaware County Department of Corrections – All Locations Dutchess County Essex County Franklin County Fulton County Genesee County Green Haven Correctional Facility Greene County Herkimer County Jefferson County Lewis County Livingston County Madison County Monroe County Monterey Correctional Facility Montgomery County Mt McGregor Correctional Facility Nassau County Niagra County Oneida County Onondaga County Orange County Orleans County Oswego County Otsego County Putnam County Queens Detention Facility – GEO Renssalaer County Rikers Island Rockland County Saratoga County Schenectady County Schuyler County ICS Provider GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 2.90 4.35 1.76 1.95 4.35 4.35 4.35 0.05 4.35 1.95 1.95 1.95 4.35 0.05 1.76 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 0.05 1.95 0.05 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 0.21 4.35 0.25 4.35 1.85 1.85 4.35 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.40 0.40 0.18 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.05 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.05 0.18 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.05 0.20 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.21 0.40 0.25 0.40 0.10 0.10 0.40 15 Min. Rate ($) 8.50 9.95 4.28 4.75 9.95 9.95 9.95 0.72 9.95 4.75 4.75 4.75 9.95 0.72 4.28 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 0.72 4.75 0.72 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 3.15 9.95 3.75 9.95 3.25 3.25 9.95 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH * # GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 0.05 4.35 4.35 4.35 1.95 1.95 1.95 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 0.36 0.22 0.18 0.24 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.05 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.36 0.22 0.19 0.24 15 Min. Rate ($) 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 0.72 9.95 9.95 9.95 4.75 4.75 4.75 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 5.40 3.30 2.78 3.60 GTL 0.05 0.05 0.75 GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 0.05 0.36 0.04 0.05 3.11 0.34 0.36 0.13 0.20 0.23 0.24 0.36 0.36 0.30 0.36 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.36 0.36 0.05 0.36 0.04 0.05 0.36 0.34 0.36 0.13 0.20 0.23 0.24 0.36 0.36 0.30 0.36 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.36 0.36 0.75 5.40 0.60 0.75 8.15 5.10 5.40 1.95 3.00 3.45 3.60 5.40 5.40 4.50 5.40 3.45 3.30 3.30 5.40 5.40 Facility ICS Provider Seneca County St. Lawrence County St. Lawrence County Sullivan County Taconic County Tioga County Tompkins County Tompkins County Warren County Warren County Washington County Wayne County Westchester County Wyoming County Yates County Brook Park Cleveland – House of Corrections Cuyahoga County Delaware County Department of Rehab. And Corrections – All Locations Department of Youth Services – All Locations East Cleveland Franklin County Hamilton County Jefferson County Lake County Adult Detention Facility Lakewood Jail Lucas County Mahoning County – All Locations Montgomery County – MonDay Correctional Muskingum County Jail Parma Heights Jail Richmond Heights Jail SEPTA Correctional Facility Solon Jail Stark County Regional Corrections Trumbull County Trumbull County – Juvenile Westlake Jail Zanesville Jail Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State OK OK OK OK OK OK OR OR OR OR OR OR PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA * # Facility Cimarron Correctional-Cushing Department of Corrections – All Locations Great Plains Correctional Facility - GEO Lawton Correctional – GEO Muskogee County Ponca City Jail Columbus County Douglas County Linn County Multnomah County Warm Springs Yamhill County Adams County Allegheny County Armstrong County Bradford County Bucks County Cambria County Chester County Clearfield County Cumberland County Dauphin County Delaware County Franklin County Jefferson County Lackawanna County Lehigh County Luzerne County Lycoming County Mercer County Montgomery County Northampton County Pennsylvania County Philadelphia County Schuykill County Somerset County Washington County Wayne County Westmoreland County York County ICS Provider GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.11 3.20 0.25 5.31 5.24 1.96 0.20 0.16 0.24 0.21 0.34 0.24 0.33 0.25 0.16 0.27 0.14 0.22 0.25 0.22 3.55 0.21 0.24 0.16 0.37 0.22 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.17 0.25 0.22 0.25 3.59 0.30 0.25 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.11 0.25 0.25 0.89 0.69 0.11 0.20 0.16 0.24 0.21 0.34 0.24 0.33 0.25 0.16 0.27 0.14 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.55 0.21 0.24 0.16 0.37 0.22 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.17 0.25 0.22 0.25 0.59 0.30 0.25 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.00 3.00 3.15 3.00 1.65 6.70 3.75 17.77 14.90 3.50 3.00 2.40 3.60 3.15 5.10 3.60 4.89 3.75 2.40 4.05 2.10 3.30 3.75 3.30 11.25 3.15 3.60 2.40 5.55 3.30 2.55 2.40 2.10 2.58 3.75 3.30 3.75 11.85 4.50 3.75 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State PA RI RI SC SC SC SC SC SD SD TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX * # Facility York County Department of Corrections – All Locations Providence County Charleston County Department of Corrections – All Locations Greenville County Richland County Spartanburg County Department of Corrections – All Locations Pennington County Davidson County Department of Corrections – All Locations Fayette County Madison County Montgomery County Obion County Robertson County Sevier County Shelby County Williamson County Wilson County Arlington Big Spring – GEO Bowie County Burnet County Cass County Detention Center Central Texas Detention – GEO Colorado County Corpus Christi Duncanville El Paso County Gaines County Galveston County Gonzales County Gonzales County - Inter Sanction ISF Gregg County Guadalupe County Hidalgo County Hill County Hood County ICS Provider GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.25 0.05 1.65 0.14 0.08 2.83 0.25 0.16 0.08 0.18 0.05 0.16 0.19 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.12 0.20 0.14 1.50 0.10 0.47 0.21 4.17 4.10 4.65 0.21 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.09 0.27 0.39 0.40 0.49 3.40 0.49 0.45 0.45 0.39 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.25 0.05 0.30 0.14 0.08 0.33 0.25 0.16 0.08 0.17 0.05 0.16 0.19 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.12 0.20 0.14 0.00 0.10 0.47 0.21 0.40 0.34 0.20 0.21 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.09 0.27 0.39 0.40 0.49 0.39 0.49 0.45 0.45 0.39 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.75 0.70 5.85 2.10 1.20 7.45 3.75 2.40 1.20 2.62 0.75 2.40 2.85 4.20 3.75 3.30 1.80 3.00 2.10 1.50 1.50 7.05 3.15 9.80 8.86 7.45 3.15 7.35 7.50 7.35 1.35 4.05 5.85 6.00 7.35 8.86 7.35 6.75 6.75 5.85 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX UT UT UT UT VA VA VA VA VA VA * # Facility Houston County – All Locations Jefferson County – All Corrections Joe Corley Detention – GEO Johnson County Jones County Karnes Correctional Center – GEO Karnes County Panna Maria Ave Jail Karnes County Wall St Jail Lee County Lubbock County Community Corr Lubbock County Detention Ctr Maverick County McLennan County – All Locations Montgomery County Pasadena City Jail Pecos County Potter County Randall County Red River County Reeves County Reeves County Detention – GEO Rio Grande Detention – GEO Rusk County Smith County Tom Green County Val Verde Correctional – GEO Waller County Washington County Wichita County Wilbarger County Box Elder County Duchesne County Sanpete County Weber County Chesterfield County Culpeper County Department of Corrections - All Locations Gloucester County Hanover County Henrico County Regional Jails ICS Provider GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.22 0.49 1.75 0.52 0.53 0.21 0.50 0.50 0.47 0.46 0.23 0.41 0.35 0.53 0.53 0.50 0.49 0.49 4.15 0.49 0.11 0.21 0.49 0.44 0.41 0.21 4.05 0.47 0.55 0.49 1.00 0.22 2.92 0.19 0.11 4.64 0.04 0.17 0.23 0.13 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.22 0.49 0.25 0.52 0.53 0.21 0.50 0.50 0.47 0.46 0.23 0.41 0.35 0.53 0.53 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.39 0.49 0.11 0.21 0.49 0.44 0.41 0.21 0.33 0.47 0.55 0.49 0.04 0.22 0.12 0.19 0.11 0.69 0.04 0.17 0.23 0.13 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.30 7.35 5.25 7.80 8.00 3.15 7.50 7.50 7.05 6.90 3.45 6.15 5.25 7.95 7.95 7.50 7.35 7.35 9.54 7.35 1.65 3.15 7.35 6.60 6.10 3.15 8.67 7.05 8.25 7.35 1.56 3.30 4.60 2.82 1.65 14.30 0.61 2.55 3.45 1.94 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VT WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WI WI WI WI WI WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV WV AZ * # Facility Mecklenburg Jail Meherin River County Regional Jail Middle River County Regional Jail New River Valley Norfolk City Northwestern County Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Piedmont Regional Jail Portsmouth Jail Prince William County Rappahannock Regional Jail Richmond Jail Riverside District Regional Jail Southside Regional Jail Southwestern Regional Jail Western Tidewater Regional Jail Department of Corrections - All Locations Department of Corrections – All Locations Grant County - County Jail Issaquah City Jail Snohomish County - Denney Juvenile Snohomish County - Main Jail Spokane County - Geiger Correctional Spokane County Jail Thurston County - Nisqually Tribal Jail Clark County Jail Kenosha County Detention Center Menominee County - Tribal Jail Outagamie County Jail Sauk County Jail Central Regional Jail Eastern Regional Jail North Central Regional Jail Northern Regional Jail Potomac Highlands Jail South Central Regional Jail South West Regional Jail Tygart Valley Jail Western Regional Jail Graham County Sheriff ICS Provider GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL ICSolutions 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.23 0.16 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.24 0.07 0.11 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.12 0.11 0.19 0.26 0.20 0.20 0.26 0.26 0.28 4.64 0.50 0.55 0.16 0.22 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.21 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.28 0.28 0.13 0.23 0.15 0.19 0.22 0.25 0.15 0.25 0.24 0.07 0.11 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.12 0.11 0.19 0.26 0.20 0.20 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.69 0.50 0.55 0.16 0.22 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.21 15 Min. Rate ($) 4.20 4.20 1.94 3.45 2.32 2.85 3.30 3.75 2.25 3.75 3.60 1.05 1.65 2.70 2.70 3.75 1.76 1.65 2.85 3.90 3.00 3.00 3.90 3.90 4.20 14.30 7.50 8.25 2.40 3.30 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 3.15 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State AZ AZ CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CO CO CO FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA * # Facility Mohave County Sheriff Navajo County Jail GEO WRDF San Diego Kings County MTC Taft Correctional Institution Placer County Sheriff Sacramento County Sheriff Santa Ana City Jail Santa Barbara County Santa Cruz County Sheriff Adams County Boulder County Larimer County Escambia County GEO South Bay Correctional Facility Hamilton County Hernando County Hillsborough County Kissimmee County Lafayette County Leon County Monroe County Sheriff Ocala Re-Entry Center Jail Okeechobee County Osceola County Corrections Pasco County Sheriff Putnam County Detention Sumter County Sheriff Walton County Department of Corrections Atlanta Bartow County Sheriff Bulloch County Carroll County Prison Coweta County Dawson County Detention Center Floyd County Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Hall County Correctional Institute Jackson County Correctional Institution Mitchell County ICS Provider ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.08 0.37 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.11 0.18 0.18 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.08 0.37 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.21 0.11 0.18 0.18 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.15 3.15 3.00 3.15 1.20 5.55 3.15 3.15 2.40 2.40 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 1.65 3.15 3.15 3.00 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.75 3.15 3.15 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.70 2.40 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 3.15 1.65 2.70 2.70 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State GA GA GA GA GA GA IA IA IA ID IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IN IN IN IN IN KS KS KS KS KS KS KS LA MA MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD * # Facility Screven County Correctional Institute Spalding County Correctional Institution Stephens County Sheriff Terrell County Correctional Institute Thomas County Board of Commissioners Troup County Correctional Institute Dubuque County Jasper County Sheriff Muscatine County Jail Department of Corrections – All Locations Champaign County Fayette County Sheriff Jo Daviess County Jail Kane County Sheriff Marion County Sheriff McHenry County Sheriff Sangamon County Sheriff Blackford County Boone County Sheriff Fayette County Sheriff Huntington County Jackson County Sheriff Cowley County Sheriff Department of Corrections – All Locations Douglas County Finney County Sheriff Johnson County Kansas Juvenile Justice Authority Learned State Hospital East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff Hampshire County Anne Arundel County Sheriff Baltimore County Corrections Carroll County Cecil County Detention Center Charles County Detention Center Frederick County Harford County Detention Howard County Department of Corrections Kent County Sheriff ICS Provider ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.21 0.22 0.20 0.11 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.45 0.15 0.16 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.18 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.21 0.22 0.20 0.11 0.17 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.45 0.15 0.16 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 15 Min. Rate ($) 2.70 2.40 2.70 2.70 2.70 1.65 3.15 3.30 3.00 1.65 2.55 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.30 3.15 3.90 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 2.70 3.15 3.15 3.15 6.75 2.25 2.40 3.15 2.40 2.40 2.55 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State MD MD MD MD MD MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MN MN MN MN MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MS MS MS MS MS MS * # Facility Montgomery County Somerset County Detention Center St. Marys County Detention Center Washington County Wicomico Co. Department of Corrections Calhoun County Sheriff Cass County Sheriff Kalkaska County Sheriff Lake County Sheriff Livingston County Macomb County Mason County Sheriff Mecosta County Monroe County Oakland County Sheriff Osceola County Sheriff Tuscola County Jail Anoka County Detention Facility Olmsted County Sheriff Ramsey Workhouse Stearns County Jail Butler County Sheriff Camden County Cass County Christian County Cole County Sheriff Dent County Sheriff Jackson County Laclede County Sheriff Marion County Detention Center Miller County Sheriff Pemiscot County Sheriff Platte County Sheriff St. Louis County Clay County Sheriff Department of Corrections – MTC Facilities Holmes-Humphreys County Lamar County Simpson County Sheriff Sunflower County ICS Provider ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.21 0.21 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.21 0.21 15 Min. Rate ($) 1.22 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.70 3.15 3.15 3.30 3.75 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.75 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.75 3.15 1.50 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.75 3.15 3.15 1.65 1.65 3.15 3.15 3.15 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State MS MT MT NC NC NC NE NE NH NH NH NM NV NV NV NV NY NY NY NY OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OK OR SC SD * # Facility Winston County Missoula County Sheriff Two Rivers Regional Detention Center Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Gaston County Sheriff Lenoir County Lancaster County Scotts Bluff County Sheriff Department of Corrections – All Locations Grafton County Hillsborough County Otero County Prison Facility – MTC Carson City Sheriff Clark County Department of Corrections – All Locations Las Vegas Detention Center Erie County Sheriff Onondaga Department Of Correction Orleans County Correctional Services Ulster County Law Enforcement Center Coshocton County Sheriff Franklin County Community Based Correctional Facility Gallia County Sheriff Greene County Sheriff Highland County Sheriff Huron County Sheriff Lorain/Medina Community Based Correctional Facility Ohio River Valley Corrections Center Stark County Sheriff Summit County Jail Tuscarawas County Sheriff Warren County Washington County West Central Community Correctional Facility Rogers County Sheriff Douglas County Sheriff Beaufort County Detention Center Minnehaha County ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.11 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.25 0.21 0.15 0.21 0.22 0.21 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.11 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.25 0.21 0.15 0.21 0.22 0.21 15 Min. Rate ($) 1.65 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.75 3.15 3.15 0.68 3.15 3.15 2.25 3.15 3.15 1.65 3.75 3.15 2.25 3.15 3.30 3.15 ICSolutions 0.21 0.21 3.15 ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 ICSolutions 0.21 0.21 3.15 ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 ICSolutions 0.21 0.21 3.15 ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.21 3.15 3.15 1.80 3.15 ICS Provider Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State TN TN TN TN TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX UT UT UT UT VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA WA WI * # ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.19 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.08 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.19 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.25 3.25 3.25 1.65 3.75 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 1.13 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.00 3.15 2.03 3.15 3.15 2.03 3.15 2.40 2.85 3.15 2.85 ICSolutions 0.16 0.16 2.40 ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.09 0.21 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.09 0.21 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.15 0.15 0.24 0.21 3.15 3.15 3.15 2.10 1.35 3.15 2.25 2.70 3.15 2.25 2.25 3.60 3.15 Facility ICS Provider Anderson County Sheriff McNairy Sheriff Rutherford County Work Release Trousdale Turner Correctional Center Bexar County Jail Calhoun County Cameron County CARE Montgomery County – GEO Correct Care Texas Civil Commitment Center Giles W. Dalby Correctional Facility Hunt County Jackson County Detention Center Laredo Processing Center Milam County Sheriff Nacogdoches County Sheriff Nueces County Sheriff Palo Pinto County Jail TDCJ Facilities – MTC Van Zandt County Sheriff Webb County Willacy Regional Detention Facility – MTC Williamson County Sheriff Davis County Sheriff Department of Corrections – All Locations Kane County Sheriff Salt Lake County Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Arlington County Chesapeake Sheriff Danville Police Department Fairfax County Sheriff Farmville Regional Jail - ICE Middle Peninsula Regional Roanoke County Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority Sussex County Jail Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority Yakima City Jail Ashland County Jail Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WV WV WY WY AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AR AZ AZ AZ CA CA CA CA CA * # Facility Calumet County Sheriff Clark County Jail Dane County Sheriff Dodge County Door County Fond Du Lac County Iowa County Kewaunee County Langlade County Marinette County Milwaukee County Ozaukee County Walworth County Sheriff Washington County Waukesha County Waushara County Jail Winnebago County Sheriff Department of Corrections – All Locations McDowell County Department of Corrections – All Locations Laramie County Sheriff Adamsville Police Department Albertville City Police Department Arab City Police Department Daphne City Police Department Dothan Police Department Geneva County Jail Guntersville City Police Department Houston County Jail Montgomery County Detention Center Orange Beach Police Department Izard County Jail Hualapai Adult Detention Center White Mountain Apache Corrections Center Yuma County Detention Center Alhambra Police Department Bell Gardens Police Department Beverly Hills Police Department Buena Park Police Department Burbank Police Department ICS Provider ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions ICSolutions Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.37 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.21 0.28 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.30 0.28 1.25 0.65 0.75 0.40 1.15 0.75 1.15 1.25 1.15 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.37 0.21 0.21 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.21 0.28 0.28 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.30 0.28 1.25 0.65 0.75 0.40 1.15 0.75 1.15 1.25 1.15 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 2.10 3.15 3.15 3.15 5.55 3.15 3.15 0.48 0.48 1.65 3.15 4.20 4.20 4.50 4.20 4.20 4.50 4.50 4.20 4.50 4.20 18.75 9.75 11.25 6.00 17.25 11.25 17.25 18.75 17.25 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CO GA GA GA GA ID ID ID IL IL IN * # Facility Chula Vista City Jail Colusa County Jail Corona Police Department Costa Mesa Police Department El Segundo Police Department Fremont Police Department Fresno County Jail Gardena Police Department Glendale Police Department Hawthorne Police Department Hayward Police Department Hermosa Beach Police Department Huntington Beach Police Department Inglewood Police Department Lodi Police Department Long Beach Police Department Manhattan Beach Police Department Mendocino County – All Locations Montebello Police Department Monterey Park Police Department Newport Beach Police Department Pasadena Police Department Redondo Beach Police Department Signal Hill Police Department Tuolumne County Jail Ventura County Sheriff Westminster Police Department Whittier Police Department Yolo County Sheriff Grand County Jail Acworth Coffee County Jail Decatur County Correctional Prison Decatur County Jail Adams County Sheriff Clearwater County Sheriff Lewis County Sheriff Winnebago County Jail Winnebago County Juvenile DC Hammond Police Department ICS Provider Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy 1st Min. Charge ($) 1.15 0.73 1.25 1.25 1.10 1.15 0.20 1.10 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.35 1.25 0.90 0.65 1.25 0.45 0.75 1.15 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.25 0.22 3.99 1.25 0.85 9.50 0.50 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.47 1.15 1.15 0.55 0.55 0.45 Add. Min Charge ($) 1.15 0.73 1.25 1.25 1.10 1.15 0.20 1.10 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.35 1.25 0.90 0.65 1.25 0.45 0.75 1.15 1.25 1.15 0.95 1.25 0.22 0.99 1.25 0.85 1.49 0.50 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.47 1.15 1.15 0.55 0.55 0.45 15 Min. Rate ($) 17.25 10.95 18.75 18.75 16.50 17.25 3.00 16.50 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 5.25 18.75 13.50 9.75 18.75 6.75 11.25 17.25 18.75 17.25 14.25 18.75 3.30 18.84 18.75 12.75 31.85 7.50 2.70 2.85 2.85 2.85 7.05 17.25 17.25 8.25 8.25 6.75 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State KS LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA MA MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI * # Facility Rooks County Jail Acadia Parish Detention Center Acadia Parish Jail Baker City Police Department Beauregard Parish Jail Christian Acres Juvenile Youth Center Eunice City Jail Leesville City Jail Morgan City Jail Opelousas City Jail Sulphur Police Department Vermilion Parish Sheriff Ville Platte Police Department West Feliciana Parish Jail Boston – All Districts Allen Park Police Department Berkley Police Department Berkley Police Department Beverly Hills Police Department MI Birmingham Police Department Brownstown Police Department Canton Township Police Department Charlevoix County Clinton Township Police Department Crawford County Jail Dearborn Police Department East Lansing Police Department Eastpointe Police Department Ecorse Police Department Farmington Hills Police Department Farmington Police Department Fenton Police Department Ferndale Police Department Garden City Police Department Grosse Pointe Woods Harper Woods Police Department Hazel Park Police Department Huron County Jail Inkster Police Department Kalkaska County Jail ICS Provider Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy 1st Min. Charge ($) 1.55 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 1.05 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.35 1.25 0.35 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.35 1.25 0.35 Add. Min Charge ($) 1.55 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 1.05 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.50 1.25 0.50 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.50 1.25 0.50 15 Min. Rate ($) 23.25 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.00 15.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 7.85 18.75 7.85 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 3.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 7.85 18.75 7.85 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MO MO MO MO MS MS MS MS NC ND NE NE * # Facility Leelanau County Jail Lincoln Park Police Department Livonia Police Department Madison Heights Police Department Manistee County Jail Milford Police Department Northville Police Department Novi Police Department Plymouth Township Police Department Redford Police Department Rochester Police Department Romulus Police Department Royal Oak Police Department Southfield Police Department Southgate Police Department St. Clair Shores Police Department Sterling Heights Police Department Taylor Police Department Trenton Police Department Troy Police Department Utica Police Department Van Buren Township Police Department Warren Police Department West Bloomfield Police Department Westland Police Department White Lake Police Department Wixom Police Department Wyandotte Police Department Douglas County Sheriff Louisiana Police Department Montgomery County Jail Scott City Police Department Itawamba County Jail Marshall County Sheriff Department Natchez Police Department Tishomingo County Sheriff Department Moore County Detention Center Gerald Fox Adult Detention Center Lancaster Youth Services Center Pierce County Sheriff ICS Provider Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.35 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.35 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.85 0.60 0.75 0.55 0.19 0.19 0.55 0.19 0.55 0.75 0.50 0.95 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.50 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.50 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.85 0.60 0.75 0.55 0.19 0.19 0.55 0.19 0.55 0.75 0.50 0.95 15 Min. Rate ($) 7.85 18.75 18.75 18.75 7.85 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 12.75 9.00 11.25 8.25 2.85 2.85 8.25 2.85 8.25 11.25 7.50 14.25 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State NJ NM NM NM NM NY OH OH OH OK OK OK OK OR OR OR OR SC SC SC SD TX TX TX TX TX TX VA WA WA WA WA WA WI WI AL AL AL AZ CA * # Facility Paterson Police Department Dona Ana County Detention Center Pueblo of Laguna Detention Facility Ramah Navajo Police Department Zuni Department of Corrections Central New York Psychiatric Center Cuyahoga Falls Police Department Middletown Police Department Shelby Police Department Edmond Police Department Lawton City Police Department Okmulgee County Jail Yukon Police Department Benton County Jail Jackson County Main Jail Jackson County Transition Center Josephine County Jail Darlington County Prison Farm McCormick County Sheriff Newberry County Detention Center Rosebud Sioux Tribe Adult Corrections Bedford Police Department Blue Mound Police Department Lewisville The Colony Police Department Walker County Jail West Columbia Police Department Accomack County Sheriff Adams County Sheriff Hoquiam Police Department Lynnwood Jail Whatcom County Jail/ Interim Work Center Whatcom County Juvenile Hall Dunn County Jail Jackson County Jail Bullock County Sheriff Office Covington County Jail Foley Police Department Colorado River Indian Tribes Detention Atascadero State Hospital ICS Provider Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.50 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.69 0.95 0.95 0.65 0.95 0.85 0.60 0.60 1.05 0.35 0.35 1.05 0.25 0.55 0.55 0.65 1.25 0.90 1.15 0.75 0.75 1.25 0.35 0.95 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.42 1.05 1.05 3.99 2.25 3.25 0.50 15.09 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.50 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.69 0.95 0.95 0.65 0.95 0.85 0.60 0.60 1.05 0.35 0.35 1.05 0.25 0.55 0.55 0.65 1.25 0.90 1.15 0.75 0.75 1.25 0.35 0.95 0.45 0.45 0.42 0.42 1.05 1.05 0.99 0.30 0.49 0.75 1.15 15 Min. Rate ($) 7.50 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 10.35 14.25 14.25 9.75 14.25 12.75 9.00 9.00 15.75 5.25 5.25 15.75 3.75 8.25 8.25 9.75 18.75 13.50 17.25 11.25 11.25 18.75 5.25 14.25 6.75 6.75 6.30 6.30 15.75 15.75 18.84 6.75 10.60 11.75 32.34 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State CA CA CA CA CA CA FL ID IL LA LA LA MA MD MO MO MO MO MO MO MO NE NE NJ NJ NM NM NM NY NY NY NY NY NY NY OH OK OK OK OK * # Facility Bell Police Department Clovis Police Department Metropolitan State Hospital Napa State Hospital Patton State Hospital West Care Foundation Department of Corrections – Pay Telephones Clark County Sheriff McHenry County Jail Springhill Jail Vivian Police Department Welsh Police Department Everett Police Department-TIPS Carroll County Detention Center Blue Springs Police Department Chaffee Police Department De Soto PD Dixon Police Department Independence City Jail Kinloch Police Department Webb City Scotts Bluff County Detention Center Thurston County Jail Lindenwold Police Department-TIPS Ocean County Juvenile Detention Center Eunice Police Department Jal Law Enforcement Socorro County Detention Center Greece Town Police Department Lackawanna Jail Lancaster Police Department Niagara Falls Police Department Town of Evans Police Department Troy Police Department West Seneca Police Department Fostoria Police Department Anadarko City Jail Bethany City Jail Bixby Police Department Broken Arrow City Jail ICS Provider Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* 1st Min. Charge ($) 12.66 9.50 2.70 2.70 2.70 20.00 1.20 3.00 3.01 10.43 10.43 10.43 11.99 3.99 0.81 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.70 3.00 3.00 2.25 3.95 11.99 9.78 3.99 3.99 0.50 2.75 9.66 9.66 3.99 9.66 3.99 9.66 2.79 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.89 1.49 0.38 0.38 0.38 1.15 0.06 0.69 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.29 0.99 0.50 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 0.30 0.69 1.29 1.15 0.99 0.99 0.10 0.30 0.89 0.89 0.99 0.89 0.99 0.89 0.49 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 15 Min. Rate ($) 26.01 31.85 8.40 8.40 8.40 37.25 2.10 13.35 6.76 14.18 14.18 14.18 31.34 18.84 12.15 26.25 26.25 26.25 25.50 26.25 26.25 6.75 14.30 31.34 27.03 18.84 18.84 2.00 7.25 23.01 23.01 18.84 23.01 18.84 23.01 10.14 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK PA PA TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX * # Facility Clinton City Jail El Reno City Jail Elk City Police Department Henryetta City Jail Locust Grove Police Department Manford Police Department Mustang City Jail Owasso Police Department Roland City Jail Seminole City Jail Tonawa Police Department Yukon City Jail Nesbitt Hospital Wernersville State Hospital 7 Points Police Department Addison City Jail Allen City Jail Angleton City Jail Aransas Pass City Jail Armstrong County Atascosa County Azle City Jail Balch Spring Police Department Bonham City Jail Brazoria Police Department Brazos Rehab Place Cameron County Cameron County Boot Camp Cedar Park City Jail Center Police Department Childress Police Department Cleveland City Jail Cochran County Cockrell Hill City Jail Commerce Police Department Converse Police Department Crowley Police Department Dallas Marshall's Dalworthington Gardens Police Department Davy Crockett Regional Juvenile Facility ICS Provider Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* 1st Min. Charge ($) 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 11.75 13.09 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.00 1.50 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 1.50 1.50 1.50 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.00 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 1.50 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.35 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.79 0.99 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.75 0.75 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.75 15 Min. Rate ($) 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 7.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 23.60 27.94 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 15.25 12.75 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 12.75 12.75 12.75 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 15.25 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 12.75 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX * # Facility Denton City Jail Donely County Duval County Electra City Jail Elsa Police Department Ennis City Jail Everman City Jail Farmers Branch City Jail Fisher County Flower Mound Police Department Forest Hills City Jail Friendswood Police Department Frisco Garland Police Department Gladewater City Jail Glenn Heights City Jail Granbury GRAPEVINE CITY JAIL Greenville Police Department GUN BARREL CITY JAIL Harlingen Police Department Hidalgo City Jail Highland Park City Jail Highland Village City Jail Hillsboro City Jail Hurst Police Department Hutchins Police Department INGLESIDE CITY JAIL JACINTO CITY JAIL Jacksonville JCW Default Jones County Justice Center PD Keene City Jail Kennedale Police Department Kilgore City Jail Lake Dallas City Jail Lake Worth Police Department Little Elm Police Department Los Fresnos City Jail ICS Provider Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* 1st Min. Charge ($) 4.75 4.00 1.50 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.00 13.56 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 1.50 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.15 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.00 13.56 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 Add. Min Charge ($) 1.25 0.75 0.75 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.15 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.10 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.15 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 15 Min. Rate ($) 23.50 15.25 12.75 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 15.25 30.81 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 12.75 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 5.65 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 15.25 30.81 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX AL CA CA FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL * # Facility Midland County JRTC Mineola City Jail New Boston City Jail Oliver Office Olney City Jail Palmview Police Department Pantego City Jail Pecos Justice Center RICHARDSON CITY JAIL River Oaks Police Department Rockdale Juvenile Rockdale Police Department Rowlett Police Department Saginaw Police Department Santa Fe City Jail Seagoville Shackelford County Sommerville County Jail Spring Valley City Jail Springtown City Jail Taylor City Jail Terrell County Jail Terrell Police Department Tom Green County University Park Police Department Westworth Village Police Department Whitesboro City Jail Wilmer Police Department Wylie City Jail Barbour County Jail Charlie Byrd Youth Corrections Center Siskiyou County Jail Citrus County Jail Desoto County Jail Flagler County Jail Franklin County Jail Gadsden Co. Correctional Center Holmes County Jail Jefferson County Jail Levy County Jail ICS Provider Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel 1st Min. Charge ($) 4.75 4.75 4.75 3.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 13.56 4.75 4.75 1.50 4.75 13.56 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.00 13.56 4.75 4.75 4.75 13.56 4.75 1.50 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 0.21 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.40 Add. Min Charge ($) 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.40 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.15 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.15 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.75 1.15 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.15 1.25 0.75 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.21 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.40 15 Min. Rate ($) 23.50 23.50 23.50 9.75 23.50 23.50 23.50 30.81 23.50 23.50 12.75 23.50 30.81 23.50 23.50 23.50 15.25 30.81 23.50 23.50 23.50 30.81 23.50 12.75 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 3.15 7.50 7.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 3.00 6.00 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State FL FL FL GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA * # Facility St Johns County Jail Wakulla County Detention Facility Washington County Jail Berrien County Jail Bleckley County Jail Burke County Butts County Jail Chatham County Colquitt County Jail Colquitt County Prison Columbia County Jail Coweta County Jail Crisp County Jail Dodge County Jail Dooly County Jail Dougherty County Jail Elbert County Detention Center Emanuel County Jail Forsyth County Jail Franklin County Jail Gilmer County Jail Glynn County Detention Center Gordon County Jail Greene County Jail Haralson County Jail Heard County Jail Houston County Jail Jasper County Jail Jones County Jail Lamar County Jail Laurens County Jail Lumpkin County Jail Madison County Jail McIntosh County Jail Meriwether County Jail Mitchell County Jail Monroe County Jail Morgan County Detention Center Murray County Jail Newton County Jail ICS Provider PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.40 0.20 0.40 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 15 Min. Rate ($) 6.00 3.00 6.00 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA KS MD MD MD MO NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC * # Facility Oconee County Jail Peach County Jail Pickens County Jail Pierce County Jail Pulaski County Jail Putnam County Jail Randolph County Jail Schley County Jail Taylor County Jail Telfair County Jail Thomas County Detention Center Toombs County Jail Treutlen County Jail Twiggs County Jail Upson County Jail Walton County Jail Washington County Jail Wayne County Jail White County Jail Whitfield County Worth County Wyandotte County Detention Center Allegany County Detention Center Calvert County Detention Center Garrett County St Charles Department Corrections Alexander County Jail Allegany County Jail Ashe County Detention Center Beaufort County Detention Center Bertie-Martin Regional Jail Burke Catawba District Jail Burke County Jail Carteret County Jail Caswell County Jail Catawba County Jail Chatham County Jail Craven County Jail Currituck County Jail Davidson County Detention ICS Provider PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.34 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.34 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 15 Min. Rate ($) 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 5.10 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC * # Facility Davie County Jail Duplin County Annex Duplin County Jail Edgecombe County Courthouse Edgecombe County Jail Forsyth County Jail Granville County Jail Greene County Jail Guilford County Greensboro & High Point Guilford County Juvenile Detention Halifax County Jail Harnett County Courthouse Harnett County Jail Hertford County Jail Jones County Jail Lee County Jail Lincoln County Jail McDowell County Detention Center Nash County Jail Northampton County Jail Onslow County Jail Orange County Jail Pamlico County Detention Center Pitt County Jail Polk County Jail Randolph County Jail Robeson County Jail Sampson County Jail Stanly County Jail Stokes County Jail Surry County Jail Vance County Jail Wake County Jail Wake County Jail - Hammond Warren County Jail Washington County Jail Wayne County Annex Wayne County Jail Wilkes County Jail Wilson County Jail ICS Provider PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 15 Min. Rate ($) 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 15 Min. Rate ($) 6.00 6.00 6.00 3.45 3.60 3.75 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 PayTel 0.40 0.40 6.00 PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 PayTel 0.25 0.25 3.75 PayTel PayTel PayTel PayTel Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 0.40 0.21 0.45 0.25 0.21 5.35 5.35 4.85 0.20 0.40 0.21 0.45 0.25 0.21 1.40 1.40 0.90 0.20 6.00 3.15 6.75 3.75 3.15 24.95 24.95 17.45 3.00 State Facility ICS Provider NC NM NM OH OH PA SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC Yadkin County Jail McKinley County Jail McKinley County Juvenile Detention Center Montgomery County – All Locations Seneca County Jail Perry County Prison Anderson City Jail Anderson County Jail Barnwell County Jail Colleton County Jail Dorchester County Jail Florence County Law Enforcement Complex Marion County Jail Marlboro County Detention Center Orangeburg/Calhoun Regional Detention Center Saluda County Jail Williamsburg County Jail York County Prison Meigs County Jail Alleghany/Covington Regional Jail Botetourt County Jail Charlotte County Jail Eastern Regional Jail Fauquier County Jail Franklin County Jail Henry County Jail Martinsville City Jail Page County Jail Pittsylvania County Jail Rappahannock Shenandoah Warren Regional Jail Rockbridge Regional Jail Rockingham Harrisonburg Regional Okanogan County Corrections Center South Correctional Entity Department of Corrections – All Locations Arkansas County Jail Baxter County Sheriff Clay County Jail Community Transitional Services - Pine Bluff SC SC SC TN VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA WA WA AK AR AR AR AR * # Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA * # Facility ICS Provider Conway County Detention Center Cross County Jail Department of Corrections – All Locations Garland County Detention Center Greene County Detention Facility Johnson County Detention Center Lake Village City Jail Marion County Jail Mississippi County Detention Center Nevada County Jail Osceola Criminal Justice Center Saline County Detention Center Sheridan City Detention Center White River Regional Juvenile Ak-Chin Police Department Apache County Jail CCA Central Arizona Detention Center CCA Eloy Detention Center CCA Florence Correctional Center CCA Florence Correctional Center (VTDOC) Cochise County - All Locations Greenlee County Sheriff Pinal County Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community San Luis Regional Detention Center Yuma County Juvenile Justice Center Amador County Jail Butte County Jail Butte County Juvenile Hall Calaveras County Sheriff Del Norte County Sheriff Fresno County Juvenile Justice Center Hemet City Police Department Inyo County Jail Lassen County Jail – All Locations Lompoc City Jail Madera County Doc Mariposa County Sheriff Modoc County Jail Mono County Mammoth Lakes Courthouse Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.50 4.85 3.12 4.93 3.65 3.50 3.90 4.64 5.35 5.10 4.64 3.99 5.14 4.85 0.47 0.40 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.16 0.15 0.21 0.47 3.30 2.67 2.67 2.91 2.88 2.55 2.18 3.22 4.08 3.61 3.32 3.79 2.80 3.79 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.50 0.90 0.12 0.98 0.65 0.50 0.40 0.69 1.40 0.90 0.69 0.34 1.19 0.90 0.40 0.40 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.47 0.47 0.16 0.15 0.21 0.47 0.80 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.38 0.30 0.95 0.72 0.98 0.51 0.57 0.69 0.30 0.69 15 Min. Rate ($) 10.50 17.45 4.80 18.65 12.75 10.50 9.50 14.30 24.95 17.70 14.30 8.75 21.80 17.45 6.07 6.00 3.15 3.15 3.15 1.87 7.05 7.05 2.40 2.25 3.15 7.05 14.50 8.55 8.55 8.65 8.20 6.75 15.48 13.30 17.80 10.75 11.30 13.45 7.00 13.45 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO * # Facility Mono County Sheriff Monterey County Jail Monterey County Probation Office Monterey County Youth Center Napa County DOC Napa County Juvenile Probation Riverside County – All Locations San Benito County Juvenile Department San Bernardino County – All Locations San Diego County – All Locations San Joaquin County Jail San Mateo County - Maguire Correctional San Mateo County Youth Services Center Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall Seal Beach Police Department Sutter County Sheriff Trinity County Probation Trinity County Sheriff Volunteers Of America - Los Angeles Yuba Sutter Juvenile Hall Alamosa County Detention Center Arapahoe County Sheriff Aurora Municipal Court Administration Bent County Jail Boulder County Jail Broomfield City Jail Chaffee County Jail Chief Ignacio Justice Center Clear Creek County Jail Delta County Jail Delta County Work Release Denver County Jail Downtown Detention Center Elbert County Jail Fremont County Detention Center Gunnison County Jail Huerfano County Jail Jefferson County Sheriff's Booking Jefferson County Sheriff's Detention Facility Lake County Sheriff ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.79 2.50 3.79 3.79 3.88 3.88 0.14 4.85 0.20 0.32 0.24 3.84 2.50 2.75 3.50 3.31 3.79 3.05 3.79 3.50 2.66 2.60 2.92 2.60 2.75 3.02 3.32 4.31 2.71 2.79 2.79 2.55 2.55 2.90 3.08 2.80 3.07 2.53 2.53 3.01 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.69 0.17 0.69 0.69 0.78 0.78 0.14 0.90 0.20 0.32 0.24 0.69 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.30 0.69 0.30 0.69 0.50 0.27 0.10 0.62 0.35 0.00 0.52 0.43 0.56 0.17 0.30 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.29 0.15 0.43 0.33 0.33 0.26 15 Min. Rate ($) 13.45 4.88 13.45 13.45 14.80 14.80 2.10 17.45 3.00 4.80 3.60 13.50 6.00 6.25 10.50 7.51 13.45 7.25 13.45 10.50 6.44 4.00 11.60 7.50 2.75 10.30 9.34 12.15 5.09 6.99 6.99 2.69 2.69 6.54 7.14 4.90 9.09 7.15 7.15 6.65 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CT FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL * # Facility Laplata County Jail Las Animas County Jail Lincoln County Sheriff Logan County Jail Mesa County Jail Mesa County Jail Work Release Moffat County Jail Montezuma County Jail Montrose County Jail Morgan County Jail Otero County Jail Park County Detention Center Prowers County Jail Pueblo County Detention Center Pueblo County Judicial Building Rio Grande County Jail Routt County Jail Saguache County Jail Southern Ute Indian Tribe Summit County Jail Teller County Jail Washington County Jail Weld County – All Locations Department of Corrections – All Locations Alachua County Jail Baker County Detention Center Bradford County Jail Broward County – All Locations Clay County Jail Columbia County Detention Facility Department of Corrections – All Locations Escambia County Road Prison Florida Civil Commitment Center Gadsden Correctional Facility - MTC Hardee County Jail Jackson County Jail Lake City Correctional Facility - CCA Lake County Detention Center Lake County Jail/Sheriff Madison County Jail ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.00 2.49 3.04 3.02 2.48 2.48 3.53 2.97 2.83 2.87 2.80 2.96 2.99 2.74 2.74 2.55 2.79 3.40 2.74 3.19 2.85 3.28 3.38 0.25 2.36 2.13 2.05 2.05 1.98 0.21 0.14 2.53 1.57 0.06 0.35 2.43 0.12 2.15 2.15 2.58 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.50 0.10 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.39 0.43 0.44 0.23 0.40 0.32 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.25 0.51 0.20 0.44 0.31 0.39 0.13 0.25 0.40 0.38 0.30 0.30 0.03 0.21 0.14 0.42 0.22 0.06 0.35 0.43 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.22 15 Min. Rate ($) 10.00 3.89 6.54 6.24 5.70 5.70 8.99 8.99 8.99 6.09 8.40 7.44 5.79 6.10 6.10 4.65 6.29 10.54 5.54 9.35 7.19 8.74 5.20 3.75 7.96 7.45 6.25 6.25 2.40 3.15 2.10 8.41 4.65 0.90 5.25 8.45 1.80 7.75 7.75 5.66 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL FL GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA * # Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 2.14 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.39 15 Min. Rate ($) 7.60 Securus 2.30 0.41 8.04 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 2.10 0.21 2.99 2.11 2.27 2.08 2.08 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.35 0.21 0.24 0.36 0.41 0.33 0.33 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 7.00 3.15 6.35 7.15 8.01 6.70 6.70 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.70 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.40 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.70 2.70 2.85 2.85 2.70 2.70 2.85 2.70 2.70 2.85 2.70 2.70 2.85 2.85 2.85 Facility ICS Provider Marion County Jail Okaloosa County Department Of Correctional Services Palm Beach County Main Detention Sarasota County Jail Seminole County Jail Suwannee County Jail Taylor County Jail Volusia County Branch Jail Volusia County Correctional Facility Athens Clarke County Jail Athens Clarke Diversion Center Atkinson County Jail Baldwin County Jail Barrow County Sheriff Bibb County Annex - G Wing Bibb County Main Jail Bibb County New Jail Brantley County Jail Brooks County Jail Bryan County Sheriff Bulloch County Sheriff Carroll County Jail Catoosa County Jail Chattooga County Jail Clarke County Correctional Institution Clayton County Detention Center Dekalb County Jail Dougherty County Jail Fannin County Jail Fayette County Jail Fulton County – All Facilities Grady County Jail Gwinnett County Sheriff Hall County Jail Harris County Prison Henry County - Annex Henry County Jail Jackson County Jail Jefferson Correctional Institution Jefferson County Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA IA ID ID * # Facility Lincoln County Sheriff Macon County Jail Marion County Sheriff McDuffie County Sheriff McRae Correctional Facility – CCA Oglethorpe County Jail Pike County Sheriff Richmond County Correctional Institution Rockdale County Sheriff Smyrna City Jail Stephens County Jail Stewart Detention Center – CCA Tattnall County Sheriff Tift County Law Enforcement Center Troup County Jail Walker County Sheriff Wilkes County Sheriff Wilkinson County Sheriff Allamakee County Jail Appanoose County Jail Audubon County Jail Bremer County Sheriff Cass County Jail Cedar County Sheriff Clarke County Jail Crawford County Jail Mahaska County Jail Marion County Jail Mitchell County Jail Monona County Sheriff Pocahontas County Jail Polk County Pottawattamie County Jail Story County Jail Wapello County Jail Webster County Jail Woodbury County Jail Woodbury County Work Release Benewah County Jail Custer County Jail ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 4.25 4.00 4.00 3.74 0.22 3.45 3.75 4.00 3.92 3.75 3.75 4.00 4.00 2.60 3.20 0.25 3.88 3.92 3.95 3.95 0.31 3.25 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.74 0.22 0.45 0.25 0.50 0.32 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.01 0.40 0.25 0.28 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.31 0.50 15 Min. Rate ($) 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.70 2.85 2.70 2.70 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 11.25 7.50 11.00 14.10 3.30 9.75 7.25 11.00 8.40 7.25 7.25 11.00 11.00 2.74 8.80 3.75 7.80 8.40 4.09 4.09 4.65 10.25 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State ID ID ID IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL * # Facility Idaho County Jail Nez Perce County Jail Valley County Jail Adams County Jail Alton City Police Department Bond County Sheriff Boone County Jail Clark County Jail Clay County Jail Clinton County Jail Collinsville City Police Department Cook County Facilities Crawford County Jail Department of Corrections – All Locations Dewitt County Sheriff Douglas County Jail Ford County Jail Fulton County Jail Granite City Jail Greene County Sheriff Grundy County Sheriff Henderson County Sheriff Henry County Jail Iroquois County Jail Jackson County Jail Jersey County Jail Kankakee County Jail Kankakee County Jerome Combs Detention Kendall County Jail Knox County Jail Lake County Adult Correctional Facility Lawrence County Jail Lee County Sheriff Department Logan County Jail Macon County Jail Macoupin County Jail Madison County Jail Marshall County Sheriff Mason County Sheriff Massac County Sheriff ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.25 1.75 3.46 3.93 3.82 3.91 3.65 3.66 3.81 3.19 3.21 0.13 3.65 3.35 3.65 3.20 3.86 3.16 3.77 3.18 3.82 3.21 3.62 3.66 3.22 3.66 0.48 0.16 3.74 0.22 0.18 3.69 3.26 3.25 3.16 3.90 3.85 4.01 3.80 3.24 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.50 0.25 0.41 0.38 0.27 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.29 0.29 0.13 0.30 0.02 0.30 0.30 0.49 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.47 0.29 0.27 0.29 0.32 0.29 0.16 0.16 0.39 0.22 0.18 0.32 0.36 0.35 0.26 0.30 0.35 0.51 0.30 0.32 15 Min. Rate ($) 10.25 5.25 9.20 9.25 7.60 7.97 7.85 7.72 8.15 7.25 7.27 1.95 7.85 3.63 7.85 7.40 10.72 6.80 7.55 6.82 10.40 7.27 7.40 7.72 7.70 7.72 2.72 2.40 9.20 3.30 2.70 8.17 8.30 8.15 6.80 8.10 8.75 11.15 8.00 7.72 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IL IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN * # Facility McDonough County Jail Mclean County Jail Menard County Jail Mercer County Sheriff Monroe County Jail Morgan County Jail Ogle County Jail Perry County Jail Piatt County Sheriff Pike County Jail Randolph County Jail Richland County Jail Rock Island Sheriff Saline County Jail Shelby County Jail St Clair County Jail Stark County Jail Stephenson County Jail Tazewell County Justice Center Union County Jail Vermilion County Jail Warren County Jail Washington County Jail White County Jail Whiteside County Jail Will County – All Locations Williamson County Jail Woodford County Jail Allen County Juvenile Justice Center Bartholomew County Jail Benton County Jail Cass-Pulaski Community Corrections Daviess County Jail Decatur County Jail Dekalb County Jail Dubois County Security Center Elkhart County – All Locations Floyd County Jail Franklin County Jail Gibson County Jail ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.67 3.95 3.80 3.66 3.81 3.65 3.90 3.19 3.84 4.31 4.15 3.66 3.86 3.80 3.16 4.23 4.01 3.82 4.00 3.22 3.96 3.65 3.21 4.02 3.69 3.26 3.22 3.86 0.24 0.24 3.40 3.40 3.45 2.41 0.60 3.30 0.24 0.24 3.74 3.51 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.32 0.60 0.30 0.29 0.31 0.30 0.40 0.29 0.49 0.81 0.80 0.29 0.51 0.30 0.26 0.68 0.51 0.32 0.38 0.32 0.61 0.30 0.29 0.52 0.32 0.29 0.32 0.36 0.24 0.24 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.24 0.60 0.80 0.24 0.24 0.74 0.51 15 Min. Rate ($) 8.15 12.35 8.00 7.72 8.15 7.85 9.50 7.25 10.70 15.65 15.35 7.72 11.00 8.00 6.80 13.75 11.15 8.30 9.32 7.70 12.50 7.85 7.27 11.30 8.17 7.32 7.70 8.90 3.60 3.60 9.00 9.00 9.75 5.77 9.00 14.50 3.60 3.60 14.10 10.65 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN KS KS KS KS KS * # Facility ICS Provider Grant County – All Locations Greene County Sheriff Hammond City Jail Hendricks County Work Release Jackson County Sheriff Jefferson County Jail Johnson County Community Corrections Johnson County Sheriff Kosciusko County Jail Kosciusko County Work Release Lagrange County Sheriff Laporte County Community Corrections Laporte County Jail Lawrence County Sheriff Madison County Sheriff Marion County Juvenile Detention Center Montgomery County Sheriff Morgan County Jail Newton County Jail Porter County Sheriff Pulaski County Jail Putnam County Jail Rush County Jail Shelby County Sheriff Steuben County Jail Sullivan County Jail Switzerland County Jail Tippecanoe County Community Corrections Tipton County Jail Vigo County Community Correctional Center Vigo County Jail Wabash County Jail Warren County Jail Warrick County Sheriff White County Jail Barton County Jail Butler County Corrections Dickinson County Jail Edwards County Jail Elk County Jail Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.22 3.59 3.74 0.24 3.40 3.61 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 3.81 0.24 0.24 3.65 0.22 0.24 3.53 3.81 0.68 0.24 0.85 3.40 3.58 3.75 3.57 3.57 3.40 0.24 3.40 0.24 0.24 3.48 3.40 3.40 0.79 2.69 4.01 3.85 4.01 4.01 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.22 0.59 0.74 0.24 0.40 0.61 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.81 0.24 0.24 0.65 0.22 0.24 0.53 0.81 0.68 0.24 0.35 0.40 0.58 0.75 0.57 0.57 0.40 0.24 0.40 0.24 0.24 0.48 0.40 0.40 0.29 0.69 0.51 0.85 0.95 0.51 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.30 11.85 14.10 3.60 9.00 12.15 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 15.15 3.60 3.60 12.75 3.30 3.60 10.95 15.15 10.20 3.60 5.75 9.00 11.70 14.25 11.55 11.55 9.00 3.60 9.00 3.60 3.60 10.20 9.00 9.00 4.85 12.35 11.15 15.75 17.31 11.15 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KS KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY * # Facility Ellsworth County Jail Ford County Jail Graham County Jail Labette County Jail Leavenworth Detention Center – CCA Lincoln County Jail MacPherson County Jail Meade County Jail Osborne County Jail Ottawa County Jail Phillips County Jail Rice County Law Enforcement Center Saline County Jail Sedgwick County – All Locations Seward County Shawnee County Adult Detention Center Shawnee County Juvenile Detention Center Smith County Jail Stevens County Jail Sumner County Jail Barren County Detention Center Big Sandy Regional Detention Center Boyd County Detention Center Caldwell County Jail Carroll County Detention Center Clay County Detention Center Clinton County Jail Community Transitional Services Crittenden County Detention Center Department of Corrections – All Locations Estill County Jail Floyd County Detention Center Franklin County Fiscal Court Hardin County Annex Hardin County Detention Center Hardin County Restricted Custody Building Henderson County Community Services Henderson County Detention Center Kentucky River Regional Jail Leslie County Detention Center ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.82 5.50 4.01 4.61 0.21 3.45 5.27 4.11 2.13 3.77 3.36 3.00 3.93 1.60 5.30 4.00 4.00 3.35 4.16 2.41 1.80 3.16 2.07 1.78 3.18 1.85 3.21 1.68 1.87 0.21 1.78 1.90 0.22 1.79 1.79 1.79 3.32 3.32 3.01 3.10 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.36 0.83 0.51 1.01 0.21 0.35 0.85 0.51 0.75 0.77 0.36 0.50 0.43 0.10 0.88 0.01 0.01 0.35 0.66 0.41 0.30 0.41 0.32 0.28 0.43 0.35 0.21 0.18 0.37 0.21 0.28 0.40 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.57 0.57 0.41 0.35 15 Min. Rate ($) 8.86 17.12 11.15 18.75 3.15 8.35 17.17 11.25 12.63 14.55 8.40 10.00 9.95 3.00 17.62 4.14 4.14 8.25 13.40 8.15 6.00 8.90 6.55 5.70 9.20 6.75 6.15 4.20 7.05 3.15 5.70 7.50 3.30 5.85 5.85 5.85 11.30 11.30 8.75 8.00 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA MA * # Facility Letcher County Jail Lewis County Detention Center Lexington Fayette Urban Detention Logan County Detention Center Louisville / Jefferson County Metro Govt – All Locations Meade County Jail Nelson County Detention Center Otter Creek Correctional Center – CCA Pulaski County Detention Center Rowan County Detention Center Scott County Detention Center Three Forks Regional Jail Warren County Regional Jail Woodford County Fiscal Ct Berwick City Police Department Cedarwood Manor Cedarwood Manor Women's Department of Corrections – All Locations East Carroll Parish Female East Carroll Parish Male East Carroll Riverbend Detention Phase I Jefferson Parish (Gretna) Kenner Police Department Lafourche Parish – All Locations Morehouse Parish – All Locations Natchitoches Parish Work Center Orleans Parish – All Locations Slidell Police Department Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex Terrebonne Parish Trustee Ash Street Jail & Regional Lock Up Barnstable County Corrections Facility Berkshire County House Of Corrections Berkshire County Jail Bristol County Faunce Corner Dukes County Jail Essex County – All Locations Franklin County Jail Middlesex Billerica Hoc Suffolk County House Of Corrections Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 1.89 3.08 0.14 1.92 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.39 0.33 0.14 0.42 15 Min. Rate ($) 7.35 7.70 2.10 7.80 Securus 1.73 0.23 4.95 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 2.95 1.82 1.70 1.78 3.06 1.87 3.10 1.97 1.80 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 3.16 3.10 3.17 3.17 3.16 3.10 2.65 3.21 0.21 2.95 0.45 0.32 0.20 0.28 0.31 0.37 0.35 0.47 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.10 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.10 9.25 6.30 4.50 5.70 7.40 7.05 8.00 8.55 6.00 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.15 2.40 2.40 2.40 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 5.40 4.50 5.55 5.55 5.40 4.50 4.75 6.15 3.15 4.35 ICS Provider Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State MA MA MD MD MD MD MD ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI * # Facility Suffolk County Jail Worcester County Jail Dorchester County Detention Center Garrett County Sheriff Queen Anne\'S County Detention Center Talbot County Detention Center Worcester County Detention Center Androscoggin County Jail Cumberland County Jail Franklin County Jail Hancock County Jail Kennebec County Jail Knox County Jail Oxford County Jail Penobscot County Jail Piscataquis County Jail Waldo County Jail Washington County Jail York County Jail Alcona County Sheriff Alger County Sheriff Alpena County Jail Antrim County Sheriff Arenac County Jail Baraga County Jail Bay County Law Enforcement Center Benzie County Sheriff Branch County Jail Cheboygan County Jail Chippewa County Jail Clare County Jail Clinton County Jail Delta County Jail Detroit Madison Center Dickinson County Jail Eaton County Sheriff Emmet County Sheriff Flint Police Department Genesee County Jail Gladwin County Jail ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 2.95 3.10 0.22 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.70 1.48 1.75 1.48 1.48 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.48 1.75 5.11 5.65 5.26 5.33 5.40 5.36 5.40 5.90 5.79 5.23 5.52 5.61 5.29 5.40 5.11 4.16 4.93 5.25 4.64 4.88 5.40 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.10 0.10 0.22 0.25 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.14 0.32 0.14 0.14 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.14 0.32 0.69 0.69 0.84 0.91 0.69 0.69 0.69 1.19 1.08 0.81 0.88 1.19 1.05 0.69 0.69 0.37 0.69 0.83 0.69 0.93 0.69 15 Min. Rate ($) 4.35 4.50 3.30 3.75 2.21 3.75 3.75 5.48 3.44 6.23 3.44 3.44 6.23 6.23 6.23 6.23 6.23 3.44 6.23 14.77 15.31 17.02 18.07 15.06 15.02 15.06 22.56 20.91 16.57 17.84 22.27 19.99 15.06 14.77 9.34 14.59 16.87 14.30 17.90 15.06 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI * # Facility Gogebic County Sheriff Grand Traverse County Gratiot County Jail Grosse Pointe Park City Holland Police Department Houghton County Sheriff Houghton County Work Release Ingham County Correctional Facility Ionia County Jail Iosco County Sheriff Iron County Sheriff Isabella County Jail Jackson County Chanter Road Facility Jackson County Jail Kent County Correctional Facility Kent County Courthouse Holding Lansing Police Department Lapeer County Courthouse Lapeer County Jail Mackinac County Jail Marquette County Community Corrections Detention Center Marquette Sheriff Mason County Jail Menominee County Jail Midland County Jail Missaukee County Sheriff Montcalm Sheriff Montmorency Sheriff Muskegon County Jail Newaygo County Jail Niles Law Enforcement Complex Ogemaw County Jail Ontonagon County Jail Otsego County Jail Ottawa County Jail Ottawa County Juvenile Detention Center Presque Isle County Jail Roscommon County Jail Saginaw County Sheriff Sanilac County Jail Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 5.40 3.62 5.05 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 4.32 4.83 4.45 5.40 5.39 4.93 4.93 4.64 4.64 4.79 5.31 5.31 5.40 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.69 0.62 0.82 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.53 0.88 0.45 0.69 0.97 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.25 1.07 1.07 0.69 15 Min. Rate ($) 15.06 12.30 16.53 15.06 15.06 15.06 15.06 11.74 17.15 10.75 15.06 18.97 14.59 14.59 14.30 14.30 8.29 20.29 20.29 15.06 Securus 5.87 1.16 22.11 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 5.87 5.40 5.40 3.64 5.41 5.70 5.36 5.64 5.14 5.40 5.47 5.65 5.11 5.39 5.14 5.65 5.90 5.73 8.20 1.16 0.69 0.69 0.64 0.99 0.99 0.69 0.97 1.19 0.69 1.05 0.69 0.69 1.19 1.19 0.69 1.19 1.02 0.01 22.11 15.06 15.06 12.60 19.27 19.56 15.02 19.22 21.80 15.06 20.17 15.31 14.77 22.05 21.80 15.31 22.56 20.01 8.34 ICS Provider Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State Facility ICS Provider MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MN MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO Schoolcraft County Jail Shiawassee County Jail St Clair County Jail St Joseph County Jail Van Buren County Jail Washtenaw County Sheriff Wayne County - Baird Detention Facility Wayne County - Dickerson Detention Facility Wayne County - Old Wayne County Jail Wayne County - Road Patrol Lockup Facility Wexford County Jail Brooklyn Park Police Department Carlton County Jail Carver County Jail Goodhue Sheriff Hennepin County – All Locations Many Rivers Juvenile Detention Center McLeod County Jail Meeker County Jail Northwest Regional Corrections Center Olmsted County Adult Detention Center Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center Rice County Jail Rice County Jail Annex Scott County Jail Sherburne County Jail Sibley County Jail Wadena County Sheriff Waseca County Jail Washington County Jail Arnold City Jail Aurora City Police Department Berkeley City Police Department Boone County Commission Cape Girardeau County Jail Cape Girardeau Police Department Crawford County Jail Department of Corrections – All Locations Doniphan City Jail Ferguson City Police Department Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus * # 1st Min. Charge ($) 5.40 5.09 5.52 1.20 5.90 5.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.48 5.87 3.00 2.10 2.10 4.17 0.14 3.29 4.10 0.25 0.21 3.29 2.15 2.10 2.10 2.26 2.24 3.00 2.15 3.25 2.07 3.51 3.51 3.26 2.65 0.61 3.76 3.91 0.05 3.51 2.90 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.69 0.85 1.10 0.70 1.19 0.69 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.48 1.16 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.57 0.14 0.39 0.50 0.25 0.21 0.39 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.41 0.39 0.50 0.30 0.50 0.32 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.40 0.61 0.66 0.66 0.05 0.66 0.40 15 Min. Rate ($) 15.06 16.99 20.92 11.00 22.56 15.06 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.20 22.11 6.50 7.00 7.00 12.15 2.10 8.75 11.10 3.75 3.15 8.75 2.29 7.00 7.00 8.00 7.70 10.00 6.35 10.25 6.55 12.75 12.75 12.50 8.25 9.15 13.00 13.15 0.75 12.75 8.50 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS * # Facility Festus City Police Department Grundy County Detention Center Jefferson County Jail Jennings Adult Correctional Facility Kansas City Police Dept. – All Locations Lee's Summit City Police Department Mississippi County Detention Center Moline Acres City Police Department Monett City Police Department Northwoods City Police Department Overland City Police Department Phelps County Sheriff Pike County Detention Center Scott County Jail Sikeston Department Of Public Safety St Francois County Jail St Genevieve County Jail St Peters Police Department Threads Training 2 Threads Training 3 Wright County Jail Adams County Correctional Center - CCA Adams County Jail Amite County Jail Chickasaw County Jail Clarke County Jail Copiah County Detention Center Desoto County Adult Detention Center Desoto County Expansion Facility Forrest County Juvenile Detention Center Forrest County Regional Jail Greene County Jail Grenada County Jail Hancock County Adult Detention Center Harrison County Detention Center Humphreys County Jail Jackson County Adult Detention Center Jasper County Jail Jones County Jail Jones County Juvenile Detention Center ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.26 3.76 0.73 4.01 2.65 3.26 3.82 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 2.89 2.67 3.00 3.51 2.90 3.15 3.21 0.26 0.26 3.24 0.21 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.66 1.16 0.73 1.16 0.40 0.66 0.57 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.64 0.42 1.00 0.66 0.65 0.90 0.45 0.26 0.26 0.74 0.21 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 15 Min. Rate ($) 12.50 20.00 10.95 20.25 8.25 12.50 11.80 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75 11.85 8.55 17.00 12.75 12.00 15.75 9.51 3.90 3.90 13.60 3.15 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT * # Facility Lafayette County Detention Center Lauderdale County Detention Facility Leake County Correctional Facility - County Leake County Correctional Facility - State Leflore County Jail Lincoln County Jail Lowndes County Adult Detention Center Lowndes County Courthouse Holding Cell Madison County Detention Center Neshoba County Detention Center Newton County Jail Oktibbeha County Jail Oktibbeha County Jail-Trustee Facility Panola County Detention Center Perry County Jail Picayune City Jail Pike County Detention Center Prentiss County Jail Scott County Jail Tallahatchie County Correctional – CCA Tate County Jail- JSI Tippah County Jail - JSI Tunica County Sheriff - JSI Union County Jail Walthall County Jail - JSI Warren County Jail Warren County Juvenile Facility Wayne County Jail Webster County Jail Yalobusha County Jail Anaconda Police Department Beaverhead County Jail Broadwater County Butte Silverbow County Jail Cascade County Cascade County Adult Detention Center CCCS – Nexus CCCS – Start CCCS – Watch East Treatment Center Chippewa Cree Tribal Justice Center ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 4.59 4.59 3.02 4.70 4.59 4.59 1.30 1.28 1.34 1.34 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.12 0.61 0.64 0.64 0.30 0.28 0.20 0.20 15 Min. Rate ($) 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 1.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 11.59 11.59 4.70 13.24 13.55 13.55 5.50 5.20 4.14 4.14 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC * # Facility Chouteau County Detention Center Custer County Jail Fallon County Sheriff Fergus County Sheriff Flathead County Jail Hill County Detention Facility Jefferson County Detention Facility Lake County Detention Facility Lewis & Clark County Detention Center Lincoln County Jail Musselshell County Jail Park County Detention Center Pondera County Sheriff Powell County Sheriff Ravalli County Sheriff Richland County Sheriff Sanders County Jail Toole County Jail Alamance County Detention Center Alamance County Detention Center Annex Albemarle District Jail Anson County Sheriff Avery County Sheriff Bladen County Sheriff Brunswick County Jail Cabarrus County Sheriff Caldwell County Detention Center Cherokee County Detention Facility Chowan County Detention Facility Cleveland County Detention Facility Cleveland County Jail Annex Columbus County Detention Center Dare County Detention Center Franklin County Detention Center Henderson County Detention Center Hoke County Detention Center Iredell County Annex Iredell County Detention Center Jackson County Jail Johnston County Jail ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 4.55 4.78 4.64 4.45 4.62 5.03 2.99 4.59 2.95 4.78 4.88 4.74 5.30 1.50 4.59 4.78 3.10 4.55 3.09 3.09 2.82 2.82 0.22 2.62 2.82 2.86 2.83 2.86 2.99 2.84 2.84 2.91 2.49 1.38 2.94 2.91 2.90 2.90 2.98 1.11 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.50 0.69 0.69 0.50 0.67 0.67 0.01 0.50 0.05 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.50 0.69 0.50 0.50 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.29 0.24 0.36 0.33 0.28 0.31 0.26 0.26 0.33 0.24 0.01 0.36 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.40 0.06 15 Min. Rate ($) 11.55 14.44 14.30 11.45 14.00 14.41 3.13 11.59 3.65 14.44 14.54 14.40 14.68 10.88 11.59 14.44 10.10 11.55 6.73 6.73 6.18 6.18 3.30 6.68 6.18 7.90 7.45 6.78 7.33 6.48 6.48 7.53 5.85 1.52 7.98 7.53 7.38 7.38 8.58 1.95 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC ND ND ND ND ND NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NJ NJ NJ NM NM * # Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 2.87 0.25 2.82 2.80 2.60 2.66 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.85 2.87 2.55 1.17 3.60 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.29 0.25 0.24 0.30 0.27 0.41 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.17 0.60 15 Min. Rate ($) 6.93 3.75 6.18 7.00 6.38 8.40 7.98 7.98 7.98 6.63 6.93 6.89 3.55 12.00 Securus 2.20 0.27 5.98 Securus 0.08 0.08 1.20 Securus 2.76 0.40 8.36 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 2.65 2.88 2.88 4.74 4.16 4.64 4.16 2.53 2.75 2.27 1.71 1.50 2.27 1.62 0.40 0.63 0.63 0.79 0.66 0.69 0.66 0.38 0.50 0.30 0.21 0.19 0.30 0.07 8.25 11.70 11.70 15.80 13.40 14.30 13.40 7.85 9.75 6.47 4.65 4.16 6.47 2.60 Securus 2.39 0.42 8.27 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1.44 0.21 2.55 2.55 0.08 0.08 0.19 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.08 0.08 4.10 3.15 6.05 6.05 1.20 1.20 Facility ICS Provider Macon County Detention Center Madison County Detention Center Montgomery County Sheriff New Hanover County Detention Center Pender County Jail Richmond County Jail Rockingham County Jail Rowan County Detention Center Rowan County Detention Center Annex Rutherford County Detention Center Scotland County Sheriff Union County Jail Bismarck Transition Center Cass County Sheriff Dakota Women's Correctional And Rehabilitation Center Department of Corrections – All Locations Heart Of America Correctional & Treatment Center Adams County Jail Dakota County Jail Dakota County Jail Hall County Doc Kimball County Sheriff Phelps County Correctional Richardson County Jail Saunders County Jail Washington County Jail Belknap County House of Corrections Carroll County Department of Corrections Cheshire County Department of Corrections Coos County House Of Corrections Merrimack County Department of Corrections Rockingham County Department of Corrections Sullivan County Department of Corrections Cape May County Correctional Center Passaic Co Jail - Work Release/Motor Pool Passaic County Jail Bernalillo County Metro Detention Center Bernalillo County Youth Services Center Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State Facility ICS Provider NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV NV Chaves County Adult Detention Center Cibola County Correctional Center – CCA Curry County Detention Center De Baca County Detention Center Department of Corrections – All Locations Eddy County Adult Detention Eddy County Adult Women Detention Center Grant County Jail Guadalupe Correctional Facility - GEO Hidalgo County Detention Center Hobbs Police Department City Jail Lea County Detention Center – GEO Lea Hobbs County - GEO Lincoln County Detention Center Los Alamos Police Department NM Women's Correctional Facility – CCA Northeastern NM Detention Facility – GEO Otero County Jail Quay County Detention Center Rio Arriba County Detention Facility - JSI Roosevelt County Adult Detention Center San Juan County Adult Detention Center San Miguel County Detention Center Sandoval County Detention Center - JSI Santa Fe County Adult Detention Facility Sierra County Detention Taos County Adult Detention Center Torrance County Detention Facility – CCA Valencia County Detention Center Vigil Maldonado Detention Center Churchill County Sheriff Douglas County - Lake Tahoe Jail Douglas County - Minden Jail Eureka County Jail Henderson Detention Center Humboldt County Sheriff Lander County Sheriff's Lincoln County Jail Lyon County Jail Mesquite City Police Department Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus * # 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.14 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.15 1.49 1.91 1.91 1.95 1.87 1.94 1.75 2.04 1.83 1.81 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.14 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.15 0.25 0.41 0.41 0.31 0.37 0.30 0.25 0.54 0.33 0.31 15 Min. Rate ($) 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.20 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.20 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.20 2.10 2.25 1.20 1.20 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.80 1.20 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.50 2.25 4.99 7.65 7.65 6.29 7.05 6.14 5.25 9.60 6.45 6.15 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State NV NV NV NV NY NY NY NY NY NY NY OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH * # Facility Mineral County Sheriff Pershing County Sheriff Storey County Sheriff White Pine County Jail Livingston County Jail New York City Department of Corrections Niagara County Correctional Facility North Tonawanda Police Department Ontario County Jail Suffolk County Jail Suffolk County Jail / Yaphank Allen County Sheriff Ashland County Jail Ashtabula City Police Department Ashtabula County Jail Auglaize County Jail Bedford Heights Police Department Bedford Police Department Belmont County Jail Broadview Heights Police Department Brown County Adult Detention Center Carroll County Sheriff Central Ohio Youth Center Clark County Jail Clark County Juvenile Detention Center Clinton County Adult Detention Columbiana County Jail Columbiana Minimum Security NAC Corrections Commission Of NW Ohio Crawford County Jail Cuyahoga County Juvenile Detention Center Darke County Jail East Ohio Correctional Center Erie County Jail Fairborn City Police Department Fairfield County – All Locations Fayette County Sheriff Findlay Guernsey County Jail Hancock County Sheriff ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 1.89 1.25 1.81 1.81 4.82 0.50 4.35 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 3.11 3.02 3.11 2.55 3.11 0.35 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.00 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.25 0.25 0.31 0.31 0.40 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.36 0.27 0.36 0.30 0.36 0.24 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.25 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 15 Min. Rate ($) 5.39 4.75 6.15 6.15 10.42 1.20 9.95 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 8.15 6.80 8.15 6.75 8.15 3.71 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 6.50 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH * # Facility Harrison County Jail Holmes County Jail Jackson County Correctional Knox County Jail Lawrence County Jail Licking County Justice Center Logan County Juvenile Detention Center Logan County Sheriff Lorain County Correctional Facility Lorain Police Department Maple Heights Police Department Medina County Jail Medina County Juvenile Detention Center Meigs County Jail Mercer County Sheriff Miami County Incarceration Facility Miami County Jail Middleport City Jail Morrow County Sheriff Multi-County Correctional Center Multi-County Juvenile Detention Center Noble County Sheriff North Central Ohio Rehabilitation North Royalton City Police Department Northeast Ohio Correctional Center - CCA Northwest Community Correctional Center Northwest Ohio Juvenile Detention Center Ottawa County Detention Facility Ottawa County Minimum Security Parma Police Department Pickaway County Jail Portage County Jail Portage/Geauga Juvenile Detention Center Preble County Jail Putnam County Sheriff Richland County Community Alternative Center Richland County Jail Ross County Jail Scioto County Scioto County Correctional Center Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 0.22 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 0.21 3.11 3.11 2.90 2.90 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.22 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.21 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 15 Min. Rate ($) 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 3.30 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 3.15 8.15 8.15 7.94 7.94 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 Securus 2.95 0.20 5.75 Securus Securus Securus Securus 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 ICS Provider Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA * # Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 2.88 3.11 2.65 3.11 3.11 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.36 0.36 0.15 0.36 0.36 15 Min. Rate ($) 7.92 8.15 4.75 8.15 8.15 Securus 3.11 0.36 8.15 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.60 3.60 3.85 0.50 3.60 3.23 3.60 3.60 2.43 1.00 2.67 0.17 0.17 0.17 2.87 2.68 2.27 1.95 1.85 2.05 0.06 2.20 1.88 1.88 2.15 0.21 0.21 1.95 3.78 2.49 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 1.10 0.11 0.01 0.50 0.33 0.22 1.10 0.80 0.25 0.57 0.49 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.25 0.27 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.06 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.35 0.49 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 19.00 5.14 3.99 4.00 8.22 6.31 19.00 14.80 5.93 8.98 9.53 2.55 2.55 2.55 4.13 6.18 6.05 4.75 4.65 6.25 0.90 5.00 3.70 3.70 4.25 3.15 3.15 4.75 8.68 9.35 Facility ICS Provider Shelby County Sheriff Southeast Ohio Regional Jail Strongsville Police Department Tri County Regional Jail Van Wert County Correctional Facility Wayne County Discipline & Rehabilitation Center Wayne County Jail Western Ohio Regional Treatment Wood County Jail Wyandot County Sheriff Cherokee County Jail Davis CCA Del City Police Department Diamondback Correctional Facility – CCA Ottawa County Jail Sand Springs City Police Department Texas County Jail Washington County Jail Clatsop County Sheriff Jefferson County Sheriff Klamath County Sheriff Multnomah County Detention Center Multnomah County Inverness Jail Multnomah County Juvenile Department Polk County Sheriff Union County Sheriff Butler County Prison Clinton County Correctional Facility Columbia County Prison Crawford County Correctional Facility Department of Corrections – All Locations Elk County Jail Erie County Community Correctional Facility Erie County Prison Greene County Prison Lancaster County Prison Lancaster County Youth Intervention Center Monroe County Correctional Facility Potter County Jail Tioga County Prison Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State PA PA PA SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SD SD SD SD SD TN TN TN * # Facility Union County Prison Warren County Prison Wyoming County Correctional Facility Abbeville County Detention Center Aiken County Detention Center Bamberg County Jail Cherokee County Jail Chesterfield County Detention Center Chesterfield County Work Camp Clarendon County Jail Darlington County Detention Center Dillon County Detention Center Edgefield County Jail Fairfield County Detention Center Georgetown County Detention Center Greenville County Detention Center Greenwood County Jail Hampton County Jail Hill Finklea Detention Center Horry County Detention Center Jasper County Detention Center Lancaster County Jail Laurens County Jail Lexington County Jail Oconee County Law Enforcement Pickens County Detention Facility Pickens County Prison Rock Hill City Jail Sumter County Detention Center Union County Jail Union County Prison Camp York County Jail Brown County Jail Codington County Jail Davison County Jail Fall River County Jail Pennington County Juvenile Bradley County Jail Campbell County Jail Carroll County Jail ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.95 2.26 2.68 2.50 2.50 0.95 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.25 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.15 0.12 2.50 2.50 1.58 1.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 1.75 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 1.25 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.28 3.61 2.14 3.00 0.28 1.53 1.89 3.37 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.45 0.26 0.68 0.40 0.40 0.28 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.15 0.12 0.33 0.40 0.33 0.38 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.40 0.40 0.22 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.64 0.47 0.50 0.36 0.28 0.13 0.20 0.78 15 Min. Rate ($) 10.25 5.90 12.20 8.10 8.10 4.87 8.10 8.10 8.10 6.85 8.10 8.10 8.10 3.25 1.80 7.12 8.10 6.20 6.82 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 3.15 8.10 8.10 5.08 8.10 6.85 8.10 8.10 8.10 12.24 10.19 9.14 8.04 4.20 3.35 4.69 14.29 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TN TX TX TX * # Facility ICS Provider Carter County Jail Cheatham County Jail Chester County Jail Cumberland County Justice Center Decatur County Justice Complex Dekalb County Jail Fentress County Justice Center Fentress County Sheriff Greene County Detention Center Greene County Jail Workhouse Hamblen County Jail Hamilton County Jail Hancock County Jail Hardeman County Correctional Center – CCA Hardin County Sheriff Henderson County Detention Center Jefferson County Detention Center Jefferson County Workhouse Johnson City Jail Knox County Detention Facility Knox County Jail Knox County Work Release Center Marion County Jail McMinn County Justice Center Morgan County Jail Scott County Jail Building 2 Sequatchie County Sheriff Silverdale Detention Facilities – CCA Smith County Jail Sullivan Correctional Facility Building 2 Sullivan County Sheriff Sumner County Sheriff And Jail Tipton County Jail Weakley County Jail West Tennessee Detention Facility – CCA White County Jail Whiteville Correction Facility – CCA Andrews County Jail Atascosa County Jail Bastrop County Jail Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.62 2.24 4.25 1.91 0.31 2.37 3.03 3.03 1.90 1.90 4.28 1.60 1.91 0.16 2.20 2.09 1.76 1.76 4.34 2.80 2.80 2.80 0.32 1.76 2.29 1.82 1.81 0.31 1.87 4.17 4.22 2.06 1.89 1.84 0.21 0.90 0.16 2.45 4.19 4.62 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.58 0.05 0.57 0.22 0.21 0.27 0.43 0.43 0.21 0.21 0.60 0.10 0.22 0.16 0.10 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.66 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.22 0.16 0.10 0.13 0.22 0.21 0.18 0.58 0.58 0.02 0.20 0.15 0.21 0.30 0.16 0.01 0.57 0.12 15 Min. Rate ($) 11.74 2.94 12.23 4.99 3.25 6.15 9.05 9.05 4.84 4.84 12.68 3.00 4.99 2.40 3.60 4.19 4.00 4.00 13.58 2.94 2.94 2.94 3.40 4.00 3.69 3.64 4.89 3.25 4.39 12.29 12.34 2.34 4.69 3.94 3.15 5.10 2.40 2.59 12.17 6.30 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX * # Facility Bell County Central Jail Bell County Loop Jail Bensmihen Brazoria County Sheriff Jail Brownsville Police Department Burleson County Jail Central Texas Treatment Coastal Bend Collin County – All Locations Collingsworth County Jail Comal County Jail Cooke County Jail Coryell County Sheriff Crystal City Correctional Center Cypress Creek Dallas County – All Locations Denton County – All Locations Desoto City Jail Dover Duval County Jail Ector County Detention Center Ector County Jail – CEC/CiviGenics Eden Detention Center – CCA Fannin County Jail Fannin County Jail Farrar Fort Bend County Correctional Facility Fort Bend County Juvenile Probation Grand Prairie Police Department Gray County Jail Grayson County Hale County Sheriff Hall County Jail Hamilton County Law Enforcement Center Harris County – All Locations Hays County Juvenile Facility Hays County Law Enforcement Center Hopkins County Jail Hudspeth County Sheriff - JSI Irving Police Department ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.21 0.21 0.27 4.16 3.92 3.99 5.63 5.57 3.45 3.92 4.09 3.66 4.32 4.90 1.65 0.24 0.26 3.91 0.27 3.91 5.38 5.38 0.21 4.86 4.86 0.27 0.32 0.32 5.38 5.22 4.35 5.44 0.22 5.12 4.03 0.22 5.55 4.03 4.31 3.86 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.21 0.21 0.27 0.65 0.41 0.47 0.68 0.62 0.01 0.41 0.49 0.64 0.70 0.25 0.00 0.24 0.26 0.39 0.27 0.39 0.43 0.43 0.21 0.61 0.61 0.27 0.32 0.32 0.53 0.27 0.58 0.49 0.22 0.35 0.45 0.22 0.60 0.53 0.70 0.36 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.15 3.15 4.05 13.26 9.66 10.57 15.15 14.25 3.59 9.66 10.95 12.62 14.12 8.40 1.65 3.60 3.90 9.37 4.05 9.37 11.40 11.40 3.15 13.40 13.40 4.05 4.80 4.80 12.80 9.00 12.47 12.30 3.30 10.02 10.33 3.30 13.95 11.45 14.11 8.90 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX * # Facility Jack County Jail Jasper County Law Enforcement Center Jim Hogg County Kaufman Co. Jail Kaufman County Law Enforcement Center Kleberg County La Salle County Jail Lamar County Jail Lamb County Jail Lasalle Regional Detention Center Leboeuf Liberty County Jail Limestone County Detention Center Limestone Old County Jail Madison County Sheriff Menard County Sheriff Mesquite Police Department Midlothian City Jail Montague County Sheriff – JSI Nicholson Nolan County Sheriff Nueces County Residential Services Oldham County Jail Plano Police Department Princeton Board Room Ray D Anderson Community Corrections Rockwall County Jail Rohr Rolling Plains Regional Jail & Detention Center San Jacinto County Sheriff San Patricio County Jail Sandy Creek Starr County Jail T. Don Hutto Residential Center - CCA Tarrant County – All Locations Taylor County Substance Abuse Treatment Center Texas Department Of Criminal Justice Titus County Jail Travis County – All Locations Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 5.22 3.93 3.66 3.91 4.01 4.69 3.68 3.64 5.50 4.24 0.27 3.91 0.21 0.21 4.37 3.91 3.86 4.01 5.43 0.27 5.61 2.11 5.76 5.05 1.78 4.42 0.50 0.27 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.27 0.66 0.39 0.39 0.49 0.49 0.18 0.62 0.55 0.72 0.27 0.64 0.21 0.21 0.85 0.39 0.36 0.39 0.48 0.27 0.66 0.24 0.41 0.55 0.28 0.91 0.50 0.27 15 Min. Rate ($) 9.00 13.17 9.12 9.37 10.87 11.55 6.20 12.32 13.20 14.32 4.05 12.87 3.15 3.15 16.27 9.37 8.90 9.47 12.15 4.05 14.85 5.47 11.50 12.75 5.70 17.16 7.50 4.05 Securus 0.21 0.21 3.15 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 4.20 4.03 1.65 4.15 0.09 3.06 0.68 0.51 0.00 0.63 0.09 0.01 13.72 11.17 1.65 12.97 1.35 3.20 Securus 4.02 0.50 11.02 Securus Securus Securus 0.26 4.17 0.14 0.26 0.65 0.14 3.90 13.27 2.10 ICS Provider Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT UT VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA VA * # Facility Trinity County Sheriff Upshur County Jail Uvalde County West Texas Detention Facility Wichita County Jail Annex Willacy County Jail Wilson County Jail Wise County Sheriff Wood County Sheriff Department Zavala County Jail Beaver County Jail Cache County Jail Carbon County Jail Daggett County Jail Davis County Jail Emery County Jail Garfield County Jail Grand County Jail Iron County Jail Juab County Jail Millard County Jail San Juan County Jail Summit County Jail Tooele County Jail Utah County Jail Wasatch County Jail Alexandria Detention Center Blue Ridge Regional Jail Authority Bristol Virginia City Jail Central Virginia Regional Jail Hampton City Jail Hampton Roads Regional Jail Lancaster County Jail Lebanon Community Correctional Center Newport News City – All Locations Newport News City – Juvenile Detention Northern Neck Regional Jail Patrick County Jail Roanoke City Jail Southampton County Jail ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.91 4.12 4.41 0.21 3.87 4.08 4.25 4.16 4.33 4.11 3.46 0.22 3.30 5.04 3.91 3.30 3.68 3.51 3.40 3.30 4.00 3.46 0.25 3.31 0.29 3.40 3.50 0.23 3.40 3.54 3.55 0.17 2.75 4.99 4.66 4.66 2.70 2.42 3.52 0.22 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.39 0.60 0.31 0.21 0.39 0.56 0.73 0.64 0.56 0.49 0.20 0.22 0.30 0.58 0.01 0.30 0.47 0.30 0.18 0.30 0.79 0.51 0.25 0.31 0.29 0.40 0.50 0.23 0.40 0.54 0.55 0.17 0.50 0.69 0.71 0.71 0.20 0.35 0.52 0.22 15 Min. Rate ($) 9.37 12.52 8.75 3.15 9.33 11.92 14.47 13.12 12.17 10.97 6.26 3.30 7.50 13.16 4.05 7.50 10.26 7.71 5.92 7.50 15.06 10.60 3.75 7.65 4.35 9.00 10.50 3.45 9.00 11.10 11.25 2.55 9.75 14.65 14.60 14.60 5.50 7.32 10.80 3.30 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State VA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI * # Facility Southampton County Jail Farm Aberdeen Police Department Asotin County Benton Franklin Juvenile Facility Clallam County Correctional Facility Clallam County Juvenile Cowlitz County Jail Cowlitz County Juvenile Facility Forks City Police Department Grandview Police Department Island County Jail Island County Juvenile Detention Facility Kent Corrections Facility King County – All Locations Kittitas County Sheriff Marysville City Jail Mason County Jail Pierce County Detention Corrections Center Pierce County Juvenile Detention Center Sunnyside City Police Department Toppenish City Jail Walla Walla County Jail Walla Walla County Juvenile Wapato City Jail Yakima County Correctional Center Yakima County Jail Adams County Jail Barron County Sheriff Department Bayfield County Sheriff Brown County Jail / Juvenile Detention Center Brown County Work Release Center Buffalo County Sheriff Chippewa County Sheriff Department Columbia County Jail Department of Corrections – All Locations Eau Claire County Jail Eau Claire County Jail - Main Florence County Sheriff Forest County Jail Grant County Sheriff Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.22 2.74 2.69 4.54 2.44 2.05 4.73 2.60 3.30 2.19 3.47 3.11 1.76 0.13 4.79 2.37 2.37 0.15 0.15 2.68 2.74 2.89 2.60 3.35 1.50 1.50 5.29 5.37 1.00 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.22 0.35 0.30 0.59 0.55 0.30 0.64 0.35 0.50 0.30 0.67 0.50 0.26 0.13 0.70 0.48 0.48 0.15 0.15 0.54 0.35 0.25 0.35 0.35 0.12 0.12 1.17 0.78 0.50 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.30 7.64 6.89 12.80 10.14 6.25 13.69 7.50 10.30 6.39 12.85 10.11 5.40 1.95 14.59 9.09 9.09 2.25 2.25 10.24 7.64 6.39 7.50 8.25 3.18 3.18 21.67 16.29 8.00 Securus 4.67 0.72 14.75 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 4.67 4.64 5.33 5.31 0.12 3.88 3.88 5.11 5.36 4.74 0.72 0.69 0.74 1.19 0.12 0.71 0.71 0.69 0.77 0.79 14.75 14.30 15.69 21.97 1.80 13.82 13.82 14.77 16.14 15.80 ICS Provider Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State Facility ICS Provider WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WI WV WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY WY Green County Sheriff Green Lake County Jail Iron County Sheriff Jefferson County Sheriff Juneau County Justice Center La Crosse County Jail Lincoln County Sheriff Manitowoc County Jail Marathon County Jail Marathon County Juvenile Facility Monroe County Sheriff Oconto County Jail Oneida County Jail Pierce County Jail Polk County Jail Portage County Jail Price County Jail Racine County Jail Racine County Juvenile Detention Center Rusk County Jail Sawyer County Sheriff Shawano County Jail Shawano County Work Release Sheboygan County Detention Center Sheboygan County Jail Vernon County Sheriff Vilas County Sheriff Jail Waupaca County Jail Division of Juvenile Services – All Locations Big Horn County Detention Center Converse County Detention Center Crook County Detention Facility Goshen County Detention Center Hot Springs County Detention Center Natrona County Detention Center Natrona County Juvenile Detention Center Park County Detention Center Platte County Detention Center Sublette County Detention Facility Teton County Detention Center Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus * # 1st Min. Charge ($) 4.81 5.36 5.80 5.36 0.12 4.81 5.19 5.35 5.37 5.37 4.64 4.70 0.12 5.11 5.53 5.11 5.61 3.60 3.60 1.00 5.11 5.65 5.65 3.15 3.15 4.70 5.28 5.20 1.70 3.81 3.55 0.22 4.20 3.71 3.03 1.91 3.57 3.49 3.35 3.20 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.69 0.77 0.95 0.77 0.12 0.69 0.77 0.76 0.87 0.87 0.69 0.70 0.12 0.69 1.11 0.69 1.11 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.69 1.06 1.06 0.48 0.48 0.75 0.69 0.20 0.37 0.61 0.35 0.22 0.50 0.76 0.46 0.41 0.37 0.49 0.35 0.50 15 Min. Rate ($) 14.47 16.14 19.10 16.14 1.80 14.47 15.97 15.99 17.55 17.55 14.30 14.50 1.80 14.77 21.07 14.77 21.15 5.00 5.00 8.00 14.77 20.49 20.49 9.87 9.87 15.20 14.94 8.00 6.88 12.35 8.45 3.30 11.20 14.35 9.47 7.65 8.75 10.35 8.25 10.20 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State WY WY WY AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AZ AZ AZ CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA * # Facility Uinta County Detention Center Washakie County Jail Weston County Detention Center Albertville: Police Department Arab Police Department Boaz City Jail Calhoun County Jail Cherokee County Detention Center Colbert County Jail Coosa County Jail Covington County Cullman County Detention Center Dallas County Jail Decatur City Jail Dekalb County Detention Center Etowah County Jail Franklin County Jail Hale County Jail Jackson County Jail Lauderdale County Jail Lee County Detention Facility Marshall County Jail Marshall County Work Release Center Morgan County Jail Randolph County Jail St Clair County Jail Talladega County Jail Walker County Jail Winston County Jail Coconino County Detention Facility Florence Service Processing Center Santa Cruz County Jail Adelanto Detention Center Imperial County Jail Imperial Regional Detention Facility Los Angeles Staging Facility Mesa Verde Detention Facility Nevada County Nevada County - Carl F Bryan Juvenile Hall Otay Mesa Detention Center ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.08 2.90 3.71 DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA Add. Min Charge ($) 0.53 0.35 0.76 DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA 15 Min. Rate ($) 10.50 7.80 14.35 DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State CA CA CO CO CO FL FL FL FL FL FL GA GA GA GA GA GA GA IA ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID * # Facility Placer County San Mateo County Aurora ICE Processing Center Douglas County Mesa (Trinity) Broward Transitional Center Flagler FL (Trinity) Glades County Hendry County Jail Krome Service Processing Center Walton County Douglas County Effingham County Folkston ICE Processing Center ICE Tertiary Holding Cells Atlanta Miller County Jail Paulding County Seminole County Polk County (Trinity) 3B Juvenile Detention Center Ada County Jail Ada County Juvenile Detention Center Bannock County Bingham County Blaine County Bonner County Detention Center Bonneville County Canyon County Caribou County District 1 Juvenile Detention Elmore County Fort Hall Fremont County Gooding County Jefferson County Jerome County Kootenai County Jail Latah County Madison County Mini-Cassia Justice Center ICS Provider Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# 1st Min. Charge ($) DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA Add. Min Charge ($) DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA 15 Min. Rate ($) DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State ID ID ID ID ID ID ID IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY LA LA LA LA MI MI MI MO MO MO * # Facility Owyhee County Payette County Power County Shoshone County Jail Southwest Idaho Juvenile Detention Center Twin Falls Washington County Delaware County Hamilton County Jail Hamilton County Work Release Knox County Jail Lake County Jail Lake County Magistrate Marshall County Miami County Monroe County Jail Porter County Jail Vanderburgh County Washington County Whitley County Jail Boyle County Detention Center Carter County Detention Center Christian County Jail Community Transitional Services Harlan County Detention Center Jessamine County Detention Center Laurel County Correctional Center Marion County McCracken County Pulaski County Detention Center Caddo Parish (Trinity) Lafayette Parish Corrections Lasalle Detention Facility Pine Prairie Allegan County Corrections Center Kalamazoo County Jail St Clair (Trinity) Greene County Jail Kirkwood Police Department Wentzville Police Dept ICS Provider Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# 1st Min. Charge ($) DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA Add. Min Charge ($) DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA 15 Min. Rate ($) DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT NC NE NE NJ NM NM NV NY NY NY OK OK OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR OR SC TN TN TX TX * # Facility Dawson Correctional Facility (County) Dawson Correctional Facility (State) Gallatin County Montana State Prison Montana Women's Prison Pine Hills Correctional Facility Riverside Correctional Facility Yellowstone County Detention Center Wayne County Jail Buffalo County Sarpy County Jail Elizabeth Detention Center Otero County Processing Center - ICE San Juan (Trinity) Nye County Albany County Jail Buffalo Federal Detention Center St Lawrence County (Trinity) Beckham County Oklahoma County Baker County Clackamas County Coos County Jail Curry County Jail Department of Corrections – All Locations Deschutes County Adult Jail Lane County Linn County Jail Malheur County Marion County NORCOR Adult Facility Ontario Red Apple Kiosk Tillamook County Umatilla Washington County Chester County Detention Center Bradley (Trinity) Rutherford County Aransas County Austin County ICS Provider Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# 1st Min. Charge ($) DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA Add. Min Charge ($) DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA 15 Min. Rate ($) DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX UT UT UT UT UT WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WI WY WY WY WY * # Facility Bandera County Dimmit Co Jail El Paso Processing Center Fayette County Gillespie County Jail Houston Processing Center Karnes County Residential Center Medina County Jail Parker County Jail Port Isabel Detention Center Prairieland Detention Center San Antonio Detention Center South Texas Detention Complex South Texas Family Residential Sutton County Jail Victoria County Victoria Juvenile Webb County Jail Sanpete County Sevier County Jail Uintah County Washington County - Purgatory Correctional Weber UT (Trinity) Benton County Jail Chelan County Clark County Kitsap County Lewis County Jail Nisqually Public Safety Complex Skagit County South Correctional Entity Tacoma Contract Detention Facility Thurston County ARC Rock County Albany County Campbell County Sheridan County Sweetwater Detention Center ICS Provider Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# Telmate# 1st Min. Charge ($) DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA Add. Min Charge ($) DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA 15 Min. Rate ($) DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA DNMA Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." EXHIBIT B Intra-State Rates for ICS Providers (collected November 28 – December 12, 2016) State MI MI MI MI MI MI MI WI MI TX MI MI MI MI MI WI WI MI TX MI TX WI TX TX WI MI MI KS TX MI TX TX MI MI MI MI MI Facility Sanilac County Jail Benzie County Sheriff Roscommon County Jail Van Buren County Jail Marquette County Community Corrections Detention Center Marquette Sheriff Wexford County Jail Iron County Sheriff Branch County Jail Oldham County Jail Saginaw County Sheriff Montcalm Sheriff Alger County Sheriff Ontonagon County Jail Presque Isle County Jail Shawano County Jail Shawano County Work Release Muskegon County Jail Central Texas Treatment Clare County Jail Nolan County Sheriff Price County Jail Coastal Bend Hays County Law Enforcement Center Polk County Jail Chippewa County Jail St Clair County Jail Ford County Jail Lamb County Jail Ogemaw County Jail Hale County Sheriff Montague County Sheriff – JSI Missaukee County Sheriff Arenac County Jail Bay County Law Enforcement Center Delta County Jail Gladwin County Jail Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 8.20 5.90 5.90 5.90 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.01 1.19 1.19 1.19 15 Min. Rate ($) 8.34 22.56 22.56 22.56 Securus 5.87 1.16 22.11 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 5.87 5.87 5.80 5.79 5.76 5.73 5.70 5.65 5.65 5.65 5.65 5.65 5.64 5.63 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.57 5.55 5.53 5.52 5.52 5.50 5.50 5.47 5.44 5.43 5.41 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 1.16 1.16 0.95 1.08 0.41 1.02 0.99 0.69 0.69 0.69 1.06 1.06 0.97 0.68 1.19 0.66 1.11 0.62 0.60 1.11 0.88 1.10 0.83 0.55 1.05 0.49 0.48 0.99 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 22.11 22.11 19.10 20.91 11.50 20.01 19.56 15.31 15.31 15.31 20.49 20.49 19.22 15.15 22.27 14.85 21.15 14.25 13.95 21.07 17.84 20.92 17.12 13.20 20.17 12.30 12.15 19.27 15.06 15.06 15.06 15.06 ICS Provider State MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI TX TX TX WI WI WI MI MI WI WI WI AR AR AR WI MI WI MI MI WI KS MT MI WI WI KS MI MI Facility Gogebic County Sheriff Grosse Pointe Park City Holland Police Department Houghton County Sheriff Houghton County Work Release Iron County Sheriff Mackinac County Jail Mason County Jail Menominee County Jail Niles Law Enforcement Complex Schoolcraft County Jail Washtenaw County Sheriff Isabella County Jail Ottawa County Jail Ector County Detention Center Ector County Jail – CEC/CiviGenics Grand Prairie Police Department Barron County Sheriff Department Marathon County Jail Marathon County Juvenile Facility Baraga County Jail Montmorency Sheriff Forest County Jail Green Lake County Jail Jefferson County Sheriff Arkansas County Jail Baxter County Sheriff Mississippi County Detention Center Manitowoc County Jail Antrim County Sheriff Chippewa County Sheriff Department Lapeer County Courthouse Lapeer County Jail Columbia County Jail Seward County Pondera County Sheriff Clinton County Jail Adams County Jail Vilas County Sheriff Jail MacPherson County Jail Alpena County Jail Emmet County Sheriff ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.39 5.39 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.37 5.37 5.37 5.36 5.36 5.36 5.36 5.36 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.35 5.33 5.33 5.31 5.31 5.31 5.30 5.30 5.29 5.29 5.28 5.27 5.26 5.25 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.97 1.19 0.43 0.43 0.53 0.78 0.87 0.87 0.69 0.69 0.77 0.77 0.77 1.40 1.40 1.40 0.76 0.91 0.74 1.07 1.07 1.19 0.88 0.67 1.05 1.17 0.69 0.85 0.84 0.83 15 Min. Rate ($) 15.06 15.06 15.06 15.06 15.06 15.06 15.06 15.06 15.06 15.06 15.06 15.06 18.97 22.05 11.40 11.40 12.80 16.29 17.55 17.55 15.02 15.02 16.14 16.14 16.14 24.95 24.95 24.95 15.99 18.07 15.69 20.29 20.29 21.97 17.62 14.68 19.99 21.67 14.94 17.17 17.02 16.87 State MI TX TX WI WI AR MI MI TX MI MI MI WI WI WI WI AR MI MI TX UT MT VA AR MI MI MI TX MI MT TX TX AR AR AR CA MI NY WI WI MI WA Facility Cheboygan County Jail Gray County Jail Jack County Jail Waupaca County Jail Lincoln County Sheriff Sheridan City Detention Center Newaygo County Jail Ottawa County Juvenile Detention Center Hamilton County Law Enforcement Center Alcona County Sheriff Detroit Madison Center Otsego County Jail Florence County Sheriff Pierce County Jail Portage County Jail Sawyer County Sheriff Nevada County Jail Shiawassee County Jail Gratiot County Jail Plano Police Department Daggett County Jail Hill County Detention Facility Lebanon Community Correctional Center Garland County Detention Center Eaton County Sheriff Jackson County Chanter Road Facility Jackson County Jail Crystal City Correctional Center Genesee County Jail Musselshell County Jail Fannin County Jail Fannin County Jail Clay County Jail Cross County Jail White River Regional Juvenile San Benito County Juvenile Department Ionia County Jail Livingston County Jail Green County Sheriff La Crosse County Jail Lansing Police Department Kittitas County Sheriff ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 5.23 5.22 5.22 5.20 5.19 5.14 5.14 5.14 5.12 5.11 5.11 5.11 5.11 5.11 5.11 5.11 5.10 5.09 5.05 5.05 5.04 5.03 4.99 4.93 4.93 4.93 4.93 4.90 4.88 4.88 4.86 4.86 4.85 4.85 4.85 4.85 4.83 4.82 4.81 4.81 4.79 4.79 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.81 0.27 0.27 0.20 0.77 1.19 1.19 1.19 0.35 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.90 0.85 0.82 0.55 0.58 0.67 0.69 0.98 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.25 0.93 0.69 0.61 0.61 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.40 0.69 0.69 0.25 0.70 15 Min. Rate ($) 16.57 9.00 9.00 8.00 15.97 21.80 21.80 21.80 10.02 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.77 14.77 17.70 16.99 16.53 12.75 13.16 14.41 14.65 18.65 14.59 14.59 14.59 8.40 17.90 14.54 13.40 13.40 17.45 17.45 17.45 17.45 17.15 10.42 14.47 14.47 8.29 14.59 State MT MT MT MT NE WI WA MT WI WI TX WI WI VA VA AR AR MI MI MI MT NE WI WI MT TX KS MT MT MT MT MT MT MT MT WA MI MT TX TX TX NY Facility Custer County Jail Lincoln County Jail Richland County Sheriff Park County Detention Center Hall County Doc Grant County Sheriff Cowlitz County Jail Butte Silverbow County Jail Oconto County Jail Vernon County Sheriff Kleberg County Brown County Jail / Juvenile Detention Center Brown County Work Release Center Newport News City – All Locations Newport News City – Juvenile Detention Marion County Jail Osceola Criminal Justice Center Flint Police Department Kent County Correctional Facility Kent County Courthouse Holding Fallon County Sheriff Phelps County Correctional Buffalo County Sheriff Monroe County Sheriff Flathead County Jail Bastrop County Jail Labette County Jail Anaconda Police Department Beaverhead County Jail Lake County Detention Facility Ravalli County Sheriff Cascade County Cascade County Adult Detention Center Chouteau County Detention Center Toole County Jail Benton Franklin Juvenile Facility Iosco County Sheriff Fergus County Sheriff Ray D Anderson Community Corrections Uvalde County Madison County Sheriff Niagara County Correctional Facility Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 4.78 4.78 4.78 4.74 4.74 4.74 4.73 4.70 4.70 4.70 4.69 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.79 0.79 0.64 0.61 0.70 0.75 0.49 15 Min. Rate ($) 14.44 14.44 14.44 14.40 15.80 15.80 13.69 13.24 14.50 15.20 11.55 Securus 4.67 0.72 14.75 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 4.67 4.66 4.66 4.64 4.64 4.64 4.64 4.64 4.64 4.64 4.64 4.64 4.62 4.62 4.61 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.59 4.55 4.55 4.54 4.45 4.45 4.42 4.41 4.37 4.35 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.12 1.01 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.64 0.64 0.50 0.50 0.59 0.45 0.50 0.91 0.31 0.85 0.40 14.75 14.60 14.60 14.30 14.30 14.30 14.30 14.30 14.30 14.30 14.30 14.30 14.00 6.30 18.75 11.59 11.59 11.59 11.59 13.55 13.55 11.55 11.55 12.80 10.75 11.45 17.16 8.75 16.27 9.95 ICS Provider State TX TN TX MI TX CO IL TX TN IA TN TX TX IL TN TX WY TX MN TN TX KS MI NE NE TX TX IL TX TX KS TX MN TX CA TX TX TX TX IL TX IL Facility Grayson County Johnson City Jail Wood County Sheriff Department Ingham County Correctional Facility Coryell County Sheriff Chief Ignacio Justice Center Pike County Jail Hudspeth County Sheriff - JSI Hamblen County Jail Allamakee County Jail Chester County Jail Wilson County Jail Lasalle Regional Detention Center St Clair County Jail Sullivan County Sheriff San Jacinto County Sheriff Goshen County Detention Center Atascosa County Jail Goodhue Sheriff Sullivan Correctional Facility Building 2 Titus County Jail Stevens County Jail Dickinson County Jail Kimball County Sheriff Richardson County Jail Wise County Sheriff Brazoria County Sheriff Jail Randolph County Jail Starr County Jail Upshur County Jail Meade County Jail Zavala County Jail McLeod County Jail Comal County Jail Lassen County Jail – All Locations Willacy County Jail Harris County – All Locations San Patricio County Jail Hopkins County Jail White County Jail Taylor County Substance Abuse Treatment Center Marshall County Sheriff Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 4.35 4.34 4.33 4.32 4.32 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.28 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.24 4.23 4.22 4.20 4.20 4.19 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.15 4.15 4.12 4.11 4.11 4.10 4.09 4.08 4.08 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.02 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.58 0.66 0.56 0.53 0.70 0.56 0.81 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.57 0.73 0.72 0.68 0.58 0.68 0.50 0.57 0.57 0.58 0.65 0.66 0.37 0.66 0.66 0.64 0.65 0.80 0.63 0.60 0.51 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.98 0.56 0.45 0.51 0.53 0.52 15 Min. Rate ($) 12.47 13.58 12.17 11.74 14.12 12.15 15.65 14.11 12.68 11.25 12.23 14.47 14.32 13.75 12.34 13.72 11.20 12.17 12.15 12.29 13.27 13.40 9.34 13.40 13.40 13.12 13.26 15.35 12.97 12.52 11.25 10.97 11.10 10.95 17.80 11.92 10.33 11.17 11.45 11.30 Securus 4.02 0.50 11.02 Securus 4.01 0.51 11.15 ICS Provider State IL KS KS KS KS MO TX TX IA IA IA IA IA IL KS KS UT AR TX IL IA IA IL PA IL KS TX IA IA TX TX IL MO TX TX TX TX TX TX UT AR IL Facility Stark County Jail Butler County Corrections Elk County Jail Graham County Jail Edwards County Jail Jennings Adult Correctional Facility Midlothian City Jail Kaufman County Law Enforcement Center Appanoose County Jail Audubon County Jail Crawford County Jail Monona County Sheriff Pocahontas County Jail Tazewell County Justice Center Shawnee County Adult Detention Center Shawnee County Juvenile Detention Center Millard County Jail Saline County Detention Center Burleson County Jail Vermilion County Jail Woodbury County Jail Woodbury County Work Release Mclean County Jail Union County Prison Adams County Jail Saline County Jail Jasper County Law Enforcement Center Mahaska County Jail Webster County Jail Brownsville Police Department Collingsworth County Jail Bond County Sheriff Crawford County Jail Desoto City Jail Duval County Jail Kaufman Co. Jail Menard County Sheriff Trinity County Sheriff Liberty County Jail Davis County Jail Lake Village City Jail Macoupin County Jail ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.01 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.99 3.99 3.96 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.95 3.93 3.93 3.93 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.91 3.90 3.90 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.95 1.16 0.39 0.49 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.38 0.01 0.01 0.79 0.34 0.47 0.61 0.01 0.01 0.60 0.45 0.38 0.43 0.66 0.32 0.32 0.41 0.41 0.29 0.66 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.64 0.01 0.40 0.30 15 Min. Rate ($) 11.15 11.15 11.15 11.15 17.31 20.25 9.47 10.87 7.50 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 9.32 4.14 4.14 15.06 8.75 10.57 12.50 4.09 4.09 12.35 10.25 9.25 9.95 13.17 8.40 8.40 9.66 9.66 7.97 13.15 9.37 9.37 9.37 9.37 9.37 12.87 4.05 9.50 8.10 State IL CA CA IA WI WI TX IL IL IL TX TX IL KS OK CA IL IL IL IL KS MO IL IL IN IN WY IL IL IL CA CA CA CA CA CA CA PA IL KS MO MO Facility Ogle County Jail Napa County DOC Napa County Juvenile Probation Wapello County Jail Eau Claire County Jail Eau Claire County Jail - Main Wichita County Jail Annex Woodford County Jail Ford County Jail Rock Island Sheriff Irving Police Department Mesquite Police Department Madison County Jail Dickinson County Jail Del City Police Department San Mateo County - Maguire Correctional Piatt County Sheriff Alton City Police Department Stephenson County Jail Grundy County Sheriff Ellsworth County Jail Mississippi County Detention Center Clay County Jail Monroe County Jail Lagrange County Sheriff Morgan County Jail Big Horn County Detention Center Mason County Sheriff Menard County Jail Saline County Jail Mariposa County Sheriff Mono County Mammoth Lakes Courthouse Mono County Sheriff Monterey County Probation Office Monterey County Youth Center Trinity County Probation Volunteers Of America - Los Angeles Potter County Jail Granite City Jail Ottawa County Jail Cape Girardeau Police Department Grundy County Detention Center ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.90 3.88 3.88 3.88 3.88 3.88 3.87 3.86 3.86 3.86 3.86 3.86 3.85 3.85 3.85 3.84 3.84 3.82 3.82 3.82 3.82 3.82 3.81 3.81 3.81 3.81 3.81 3.80 3.80 3.80 3.79 3.79 3.79 3.79 3.79 3.79 3.79 3.78 3.77 3.77 3.76 3.76 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.40 0.78 0.78 0.28 0.71 0.71 0.39 0.36 0.49 0.51 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.85 0.01 0.69 0.49 0.27 0.32 0.47 0.36 0.57 0.31 0.31 0.81 0.81 0.61 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.35 0.27 0.77 0.66 1.16 15 Min. Rate ($) 9.50 14.80 14.80 7.80 13.82 13.82 9.33 8.90 10.72 11.00 8.90 8.90 8.75 15.75 3.99 13.50 10.70 7.60 8.30 10.40 8.86 11.80 8.15 8.15 15.15 15.15 12.35 8.00 8.00 8.00 13.45 13.45 13.45 13.45 13.45 13.45 13.45 8.68 7.55 14.55 13.00 20.00 State IA IA IA IN IA IL IN IN WY WY IL IL TX UT IL IL IL IL IL IL TX TX AR IL IL IL IL IL IN MI TX IL MI TN CA IN SD ND OK OK OK OK Facility Clarke County Jail Marion County Jail Mitchell County Jail Shelby County Sheriff Bremer County Sheriff Kendall County Jail Franklin County Jail Hammond City Jail Hot Springs County Detention Center Weston County Detention Center Lawrence County Jail Whiteside County Jail La Salle County Jail Garfield County Jail McDonough County Jail Clark County Jail Iroquois County Jail Jersey County Jail Mercer County Sheriff Richland County Jail Jim Hogg County Cooke County Jail Greene County Detention Facility Boone County Jail Crawford County Jail Dewitt County Sheriff Morgan County Jail Warren County Jail Lawrence County Sheriff Midland County Jail Lamar County Jail Henry County Jail Grand Traverse County Carter County Jail Lompoc City Jail Jefferson County Jail Codington County Jail Cass County Sheriff Davis CCA Ottawa County Jail Washington County Jail Cherokee County Jail ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.74 3.71 3.71 3.69 3.69 3.68 3.68 3.67 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.64 3.64 3.62 3.62 3.62 3.61 3.61 3.61 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.74 0.39 0.74 0.74 0.76 0.76 0.32 0.32 0.18 0.47 0.32 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.39 0.64 0.65 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.65 0.64 0.62 0.27 0.62 0.58 0.51 0.61 0.47 0.60 0.11 0.33 0.80 1.10 15 Min. Rate ($) 7.25 7.25 7.25 14.25 14.10 9.20 14.10 14.10 14.35 14.35 8.17 8.17 6.20 10.26 8.15 7.72 7.72 7.72 7.72 7.72 9.12 12.62 12.75 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 12.75 12.60 12.32 7.40 12.30 11.74 10.75 12.15 10.19 12.00 5.14 8.22 14.80 19.00 State OK WI WI IN IN IN IN WY VA WY VA CO IN VA IN MO MO MO MO MO MO MO MO UT AR AR CA CA VA WY IN WA ID UT UT IA IN KS TX CO IN IN Facility Texas County Jail Racine County Jail Racine County Juvenile Detention Center Greene County Sheriff Rush County Jail Steuben County Jail Sullivan County Jail Park County Detention Center Hampton City Jail Converse County Detention Center Central Virginia Regional Jail Moffat County Jail Montgomery County Sheriff Roanoke City Jail Gibson County Jail Arnold City Jail Aurora City Police Department Doniphan City Jail Moline Acres City Police Department Monett City Police Department Northwoods City Police Department Overland City Police Department Sikeston Department Of Public Safety Grand County Jail Conway County Detention Center Johnson County Detention Center Seal Beach Police Department Yuba Sutter Juvenile Hall Alexandria Detention Center Platte County Detention Center Wabash County Jail Island County Jail Valley County Jail Beaver County Jail San Juan County Jail Cedar County Sheriff Daviess County Jail Lincoln County Jail Collin County – All Locations Saguache County Jail Benton County Jail Cass-Pulaski Community Corrections ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.59 3.58 3.57 3.57 3.57 3.55 3.55 3.54 3.53 3.53 3.52 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.49 3.48 3.47 3.46 3.46 3.46 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.40 3.40 3.40 Add. Min Charge ($) 1.10 0.10 0.10 0.59 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.37 0.55 0.35 0.54 0.39 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.48 0.67 0.41 0.20 0.51 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.01 0.51 0.40 0.40 15 Min. Rate ($) 19.00 5.00 5.00 11.85 11.70 11.55 11.55 8.75 11.25 8.45 11.10 8.99 10.95 10.80 10.65 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75 7.71 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 10.35 10.20 12.85 9.20 6.26 10.60 9.75 9.75 8.35 3.59 10.54 9.00 9.00 State IN IN IN IN IN IN UT UT VA CO TN KS IL KS WA WY CA CO KY KY CA UT CA IN UT UT UT WA MN MN CO SD IL IL MO MO MO ID ID IL MN IL Facility Jackson County Sheriff Putnam County Jail Switzerland County Jail Tipton County Jail Warren County Jail Warrick County Sheriff Iron County Jail Wasatch County Jail Bristol Virginia City Jail Weld County – All Locations Carroll County Jail Phillips County Jail Department of Corrections – All Locations Smith County Jail Wapato City Jail Sublette County Detention Facility Madera County Doc Chaffee County Jail Henderson County Community Services Henderson County Detention Center Sutter County Sheriff Tooele County Jail Amador County Jail Dubois County Security Center Carbon County Jail Emery County Jail Juab County Jail Forks City Police Department Many Rivers Juvenile Detention Center Olmsted County Adult Detention Center Washington County Jail Brown County Jail Will County – All Locations Lee County Sheriff Department Berkeley City Police Department Festus City Police Department Lee's Summit City Police Department Custer County Jail Idaho County Jail Logan County Jail Waseca County Jail Massac County Sheriff ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.38 3.37 3.36 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.32 3.31 3.31 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.29 3.29 3.28 3.28 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.26 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.24 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.18 0.40 0.40 0.13 0.78 0.36 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.57 0.43 0.57 0.57 0.30 0.31 0.80 0.80 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.64 0.29 0.36 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.50 0.50 0.35 0.50 0.32 15 Min. Rate ($) 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 5.92 9.00 9.00 5.20 14.29 8.40 3.63 8.25 8.25 8.25 11.30 9.34 11.30 11.30 7.51 7.65 14.50 14.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 10.30 8.75 8.75 8.74 12.24 7.32 8.30 12.50 12.50 12.50 10.25 10.25 8.15 10.25 7.72 State MO OK CA IL IL IL IL IL IL KY MA MO IA IL WY CO IL IL IL KY MA MA IL IL IL KY MA MA MO WI WI AR OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH Facility Wright County Jail Sand Springs City Police Department Inyo County Jail Jackson County Jail Union County Jail Williamson County Jail Collinsville City Police Department Henderson County Sheriff Washington County Jail Clinton County Jail Franklin County Jail St Peters Police Department Pottawattamie County Jail Douglas County Jail Teton County Detention Center Summit County Jail Clinton County Jail Perry County Jail Greene County Sheriff Carroll County Detention Center Berkshire County House Of Corrections Berkshire County Jail Fulton County Jail Macon County Jail Shelby County Jail Big Sandy Regional Detention Center Ash Street Jail & Regional Lock Up Bristol County Faunce Corner St Genevieve County Jail Sheboygan County Detention Center Sheboygan County Jail Department of Corrections – All Locations Allen County Sheriff Ashtabula City Police Department Auglaize County Jail Bedford Police Department Belmont County Jail Broadview Heights Police Department Brown County Adult Detention Center Central Ohio Youth Center Clark County Jail Clark County Juvenile Detention Center ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.24 3.23 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.22 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.19 3.19 3.19 3.18 3.18 3.17 3.17 3.16 3.16 3.16 3.16 3.16 3.16 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.12 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.74 0.22 0.72 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.21 0.21 0.45 0.40 0.30 0.50 0.44 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.43 0.17 0.17 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.41 0.16 0.16 0.90 0.48 0.48 0.12 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 15 Min. Rate ($) 13.60 6.31 13.30 7.70 7.70 7.70 7.27 7.27 7.27 6.15 6.15 9.51 8.80 7.40 10.20 9.35 7.25 7.25 6.82 9.20 5.55 5.55 6.80 6.80 6.80 8.90 5.40 5.40 15.75 9.87 9.87 4.80 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 State OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH Facility Clinton County Adult Detention Columbiana County Jail Columbiana Minimum Security NAC Corrections Commission Of NW Ohio Crawford County Jail Cuyahoga County Juvenile Detention Center Darke County Jail East Ohio Correctional Center Erie County Jail Fairborn City Police Department Fairfield County – All Locations Fayette County Sheriff Findlay Guernsey County Jail Hancock County Sheriff Harrison County Jail Holmes County Jail Jackson County Correctional Knox County Jail Lawrence County Jail Licking County Justice Center Logan County Juvenile Detention Center Logan County Sheriff Lorain County Correctional Facility Lorain Police Department Maple Heights Police Department Medina County Jail Medina County Juvenile Detention Center Meigs County Jail Miami County Incarceration Facility Miami County Jail Middleport City Jail Morrow County Sheriff Multi-County Correctional Center Multi-County Juvenile Detention Center Noble County Sheriff North Central Ohio Rehabilitation North Royalton City Police Department Northwest Community Correctional Center Northwest Ohio Juvenile Detention Center Parma Police Department Pickaway County Jail ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 15 Min. Rate ($) 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 State OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH WA KY KY MA MA MA MT NC NC CO KY WY CO KY TX CA CO TN TN WY CO CO MT OH CO KY Facility Portage County Jail Portage/Geauga Juvenile Detention Center Preble County Jail Putnam County Sheriff Richland County Jail Ross County Jail Scioto County Scioto County Correctional Center Southeast Ohio Regional Jail Tri County Regional Jail Van Wert County Correctional Facility Wayne County Discipline & Rehabilitation Center Wayne County Jail Western Ohio Regional Treatment Wood County Jail Wyandot County Sheriff Island County Juvenile Detention Facility Leslie County Detention Center Three Forks Regional Jail Barnstable County Corrections Facility Dukes County Jail Worcester County Jail Sanders County Jail Alamance County Detention Center Alamance County Detention Center Annex Fremont County Detention Center Lewis County Detention Center Uinta County Detention Center Huerfano County Jail Rowan County Detention Center Tarrant County – All Locations Trinity County Sheriff Lincoln County Sheriff Fentress County Justice Center Fentress County Sheriff Natrona County Detention Center Logan County Jail Broomfield City Jail Broadwater County Ashland County Jail Lake County Sheriff Kentucky River Regional Jail Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 15 Min. Rate ($) 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 Securus 3.11 0.36 8.15 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.09 3.09 3.08 3.08 3.08 3.07 3.06 3.06 3.05 3.04 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.01 3.01 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.50 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.26 0.26 0.29 0.33 0.53 0.43 0.31 0.01 0.30 0.25 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.23 0.52 0.12 0.27 0.26 0.41 8.15 8.15 8.15 8.15 10.11 8.00 8.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 10.10 6.73 6.73 7.14 7.70 10.50 9.09 7.40 3.20 7.25 6.54 9.05 9.05 9.47 6.24 10.30 4.70 6.80 6.65 8.75 ICS Provider State CO KS MN MN MO OH SD CO FL MT NC NC CO CO KY MA MA MT OH NC NC NC NC CO CA NC NC CO MO MO NC NC OH OH WY MO WA CA NE NE OH CO Facility Laplata County Jail Rice County Law Enforcement Center Brooklyn Park Police Department Sibley County Jail Scott County Jail Carroll County Sheriff Fall River County Jail Prowers County Jail Seminole County Jail Jefferson County Detention Facility Chowan County Detention Facility Jackson County Jail Montezuma County Jail Park County Detention Center Meade County Jail Suffolk County House Of Corrections Suffolk County Jail Lewis & Clark County Detention Center Richland County Community Alternative Center Henderson County Detention Center Rockingham County Jail Rowan County Detention Center Rowan County Detention Center Annex Aurora Municipal Court Administration Calaveras County Sheriff Columbus County Detention Center Hoke County Detention Center Elbert County Jail Ferguson City Police Department St Francois County Jail Iredell County Annex Iredell County Detention Center Ottawa County Detention Facility Ottawa County Minimum Security Washakie County Jail Phelps County Sheriff Walla Walla County Jail Del Norte County Sheriff Dakota County Jail Dakota County Jail Shelby County Sheriff Morgan County Jail Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.99 2.98 2.97 2.96 2.95 2.95 2.95 2.95 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.36 0.20 0.24 0.01 0.31 0.40 0.43 0.32 0.45 0.10 0.10 0.05 15 Min. Rate ($) 10.00 10.00 6.50 10.00 17.00 6.50 8.04 5.79 6.35 3.13 7.33 8.58 8.99 7.44 9.25 4.35 4.35 3.65 Securus 2.95 0.20 5.75 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.92 2.91 2.91 2.91 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.90 2.89 2.89 2.88 2.88 2.88 2.88 2.87 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.62 0.41 0.33 0.33 0.26 0.40 0.65 0.32 0.32 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.64 0.25 0.38 0.63 0.63 0.36 0.23 7.98 7.98 7.98 7.98 11.60 8.65 7.53 7.53 6.54 8.50 12.00 7.38 7.38 7.94 7.94 7.80 11.85 6.39 8.20 11.70 11.70 7.92 6.09 ICS Provider State NC NC OR NC NC CO NC NC NC CO NC NC NC NC NC CA CO CO NC TN TN TN CO CO CO ND CA CO NE VA CO CO CO WA WA CO VA KS WA OR PA WA Facility Macon County Detention Center Scotland County Sheriff Polk County Sheriff Cherokee County Detention Facility Cabarrus County Sheriff Teller County Jail Rutherford County Detention Center Cleveland County Detention Facility Cleveland County Jail Annex Montrose County Jail Caldwell County Detention Center Albemarle District Jail Anson County Sheriff Brunswick County Jail Montgomery County Sheriff Modoc County Jail Gunnison County Jail Otero County Jail New Hanover County Detention Center Knox County Detention Facility Knox County Jail Knox County Work Release Center Routt County Jail Delta County Jail Delta County Work Release Heart Of America Correctional & Treatment Center Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall Boulder County Jail Washington County Jail Lancaster County Jail Southern Ute Indian Tribe Pueblo County Detention Center Pueblo County Judicial Building Aberdeen Police Department Toppenish City Jail Clear Creek County Jail Northern Neck Regional Jail Barton County Jail Asotin County Union County Sheriff Wyoming County Correctional Facility Sunnyside City Police Department Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.86 2.86 2.85 2.85 2.84 2.84 2.83 2.83 2.82 2.82 2.82 2.82 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.79 2.79 2.79 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.29 0.29 0.09 0.28 0.36 0.31 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.44 0.33 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.30 0.15 0.40 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.30 0.30 15 Min. Rate ($) 6.93 6.93 4.13 6.78 7.90 7.19 6.63 6.48 6.48 8.99 7.45 6.18 6.18 6.18 6.18 7.00 4.90 8.40 7.00 2.94 2.94 2.94 6.29 6.99 6.99 Securus 2.76 0.40 8.36 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.74 2.71 2.70 2.69 2.69 2.68 2.68 2.68 0.25 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.35 0.35 0.17 0.20 0.69 0.30 0.25 0.68 0.54 6.25 2.75 9.75 9.75 5.54 6.10 6.10 7.64 7.64 5.09 5.50 12.35 6.89 6.18 12.20 10.24 ICS Provider State CA CA MO OR CO NC MA MO MO NE OH NC CO CO IA NC WA WA FL CA CO CO CO NC NJ NJ OH CO CO FL NE CA CA SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC Facility Butte County Jail Butte County Juvenile Hall Pike County Detention Center Klamath County Sheriff Alamosa County Detention Center Richmond County Jail Essex County – All Locations Boone County Commission Kansas City Police Dept. – All Locations Adams County Jail Strongsville Police Department Bladen County Sheriff Arapahoe County Sheriff Bent County Jail Polk County Pender County Jail Cowlitz County Juvenile Facility Walla Walla County Juvenile Madison County Jail Fresno County Juvenile Justice Center Denver County Jail Downtown Detention Center Rio Grande County Jail Union County Jail Passaic Co Jail - Work Release/Motor Pool Passaic County Jail Ashtabula County Jail Jefferson County Sheriff's Booking Jefferson County Sheriff's Detention Facility Escambia County Road Prison Saunders County Jail Monterey County Jail San Mateo County Youth Services Center Greenville County Detention Center Abbeville County Detention Center Aiken County Detention Center Cherokee County Jail Chesterfield County Detention Center Chesterfield County Work Camp Darlington County Detention Center Dillon County Detention Center Edgefield County Jail ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.66 2.66 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.62 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.58 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.53 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.49 0.27 0.41 0.15 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.15 0.29 0.10 0.35 0.01 0.27 0.35 0.35 0.22 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.31 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.33 0.33 0.42 0.38 0.17 0.25 0.33 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 15 Min. Rate ($) 8.55 8.55 8.55 9.53 6.44 8.40 4.75 8.25 8.25 8.25 4.75 6.68 4.00 7.50 2.74 6.38 7.50 7.50 5.66 6.75 2.69 2.69 4.65 6.89 6.05 6.05 6.75 7.15 7.15 8.41 7.85 4.88 6.00 7.12 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.48 2.48 2.45 2.44 2.43 2.43 2.42 2.41 2.41 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.24 0.49 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.55 0.43 0.25 0.35 0.24 0.41 15 Min. Rate ($) 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 8.10 3.89 5.85 9.35 5.70 5.70 2.59 10.14 8.45 5.93 7.32 5.77 8.15 Securus 2.39 0.42 8.27 Securus Securus Securus Securus 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.36 0.27 0.48 0.48 0.40 6.15 9.09 9.09 7.96 Securus 2.30 0.41 8.04 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 2.29 2.27 2.27 2.27 2.27 2.26 2.26 2.24 2.24 0.10 0.41 0.30 0.30 0.27 0.41 0.26 0.39 0.05 3.69 8.01 6.47 6.47 6.05 8.00 5.90 7.70 2.94 Securus 2.20 0.27 5.98 Securus 2.20 0.20 5.00 State Facility ICS Provider SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC SC CO NC PA CO CO TX WA FL OR VA IN KS NH Greenwood County Jail Horry County Detention Center Jasper County Detention Center Lancaster County Jail Laurens County Jail Oconee County Law Enforcement Pickens County Detention Facility Rock Hill City Jail Union County Jail Union County Prison Camp York County Jail Las Animas County Jail Dare County Detention Center Tioga County Prison Mesa County Jail Mesa County Jail Work Release Andrews County Jail Clallam County Correctional Facility Jackson County Jail Clatsop County Sheriff Patrick County Jail Decatur County Jail Sumner County Jail Rockingham County Department of Corrections Dekalb County Jail Marysville City Jail Mason County Jail Alachua County Jail Okaloosa County Department Of Correctional Services Morgan County Jail Taylor County Jail Belknap County House of Corrections Coos County House Of Corrections Butler County Prison Scott County Jail Warren County Prison Sherburne County Jail Cheatham County Jail Dakota Women's Correctional And Rehabilitation Center Elk County Jail TN WA WA FL FL TN FL NH NH PA MN PA MN TN ND PA State TN WA CA FL FL MN MN PA FL SD FL KS FL TX FL MN MN MN MN TN FL FL KY MN TN FL FL PA WA NV SC FL KY NV PA PA NV KY NV NV TN TN Facility Hardin County Sheriff Grandview Police Department Hemet City Police Department Lake County Detention Center Lake County Jail/Sheriff Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center Wadena County Sheriff Greene County Prison Marion County Jail Davison County Jail Baker County Detention Center Osborne County Jail Suwannee County Jail Nueces County Residential Services Palm Beach County Main Detention Carlton County Jail Carver County Jail Rice County Jail Rice County Jail Annex Henderson County Detention Center Volusia County Branch Jail Volusia County Correctional Facility Boyd County Detention Center Washington County Jail Sumner County Sheriff And Jail Bradford County Jail Broward County – All Locations Crawford County Correctional Facility Clallam County Juvenile Lincoln County Jail Pickens County Prison Clay County Jail Warren County Regional Jail Eureka County Jail Clinton County Correctional Facility Monroe County Correctional Facility Humboldt County Sheriff Logan County Detention Center Douglas County - Lake Tahoe Jail Douglas County - Minden Jail Cumberland County Justice Center Hancock County Jail ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 2.20 2.19 2.18 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.15 2.14 2.14 2.13 2.13 2.11 2.11 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.09 2.08 2.08 2.07 2.07 2.06 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.04 2.00 1.98 1.97 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.94 1.92 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.91 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.10 0.30 0.95 0.40 0.40 0.01 0.30 0.15 0.39 0.50 0.38 0.75 0.36 0.24 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.15 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.02 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.54 0.22 0.03 0.47 0.31 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.22 0.22 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.60 6.39 15.48 7.75 7.75 2.29 6.35 4.25 7.60 9.14 7.45 12.63 7.15 5.47 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 4.19 6.70 6.70 6.55 6.55 2.34 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 9.60 5.08 2.40 8.55 6.29 4.75 4.75 6.14 7.80 7.65 7.65 4.99 4.99 State Facility ICS Provider WY KY TN TN KY NV TN TN PA PA KY KY NV TN KY PA TN NV KY TN NV NV NV TN KY KY KY KY KY KY KY KY TX TN TN TN WA ID ME ME ME ME Natrona County Juvenile Detention Center Floyd County Detention Center Greene County Detention Center Greene County Jail Workhouse Letcher County Jail Mineral County Sheriff Campbell County Jail Tipton County Jail Erie County Community Correctional Facility Erie County Prison Crittenden County Detention Center Scott County Detention Center Henderson Detention Center Smith County Jail Clay County Detention Center Columbia County Prison Weakley County Jail Lyon County Jail Nelson County Detention Center Scott County Jail Building 2 Mesquite City Police Department Storey County Sheriff White Pine County Jail Sequatchie County Sheriff Barren County Detention Center Woodford County Fiscal Ct Hardin County Annex Hardin County Detention Center Hardin County Restricted Custody Building Caldwell County Jail Estill County Jail Pulaski County Detention Center Princeton Board Room Jefferson County Detention Center Jefferson County Workhouse McMinn County Justice Center Kent Corrections Facility Nez Perce County Jail Franklin County Jail Knox County Jail Oxford County Jail Penobscot County Jail Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 1.91 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.89 1.88 1.88 1.87 1.87 1.87 1.87 1.85 1.85 1.84 1.83 1.82 1.82 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.80 1.80 1.79 1.79 1.79 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.78 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.41 0.40 0.21 0.21 0.39 0.25 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.18 0.35 0.20 0.15 0.33 0.32 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.22 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.26 0.25 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 15 Min. Rate ($) 7.65 7.50 4.84 4.84 7.35 5.39 4.69 4.69 3.70 3.70 7.05 7.05 7.05 4.39 6.75 4.65 3.94 6.45 6.30 3.64 6.15 6.15 6.15 4.89 6.00 6.00 5.85 5.85 5.85 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.40 5.25 6.23 6.23 6.23 6.23 State ME ME ME NV SC KY NH KY ME WV KY TX TX NH KS TN SC FL TN MT NH SC WA WA NV ME ME ME ME NH NC MT MT MT MT NV SC SC MI ND SC NC Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.25 0.10 15 Min. Rate ($) 6.23 6.23 6.23 5.25 3.15 Securus 1.73 0.23 4.95 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1.71 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.68 1.65 1.65 1.62 1.60 1.60 1.58 1.57 1.53 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.49 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.48 1.44 1.38 1.34 1.34 1.30 1.28 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.20 1.17 1.15 1.11 0.21 0.20 0.27 0.37 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.33 0.22 0.13 0.67 0.19 0.38 0.12 0.12 0.25 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.01 0.20 0.20 0.30 0.28 0.25 0.40 0.40 0.70 0.17 0.15 0.06 4.65 4.50 5.48 6.88 4.20 1.65 1.65 2.60 3.00 3.00 6.20 4.65 3.35 10.88 4.16 6.82 3.18 3.18 4.99 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.44 4.10 1.52 4.14 4.14 5.50 5.20 4.75 6.85 6.85 11.00 3.55 3.25 1.95 Facility ICS Provider Piscataquis County Jail Waldo County Jail York County Jail Lander County Sheriff's Lexington County Jail Louisville / Jefferson County Metro Govt – All Locations Carroll County Department of Corrections Otter Creek Correctional Center – CCA Androscoggin County Jail Division of Juvenile Services – All Locations Community Transitional Services Cypress Creek Sandy Creek Merrimack County Department of Corrections Sedgwick County – All Locations Hamilton County Jail Hampton County Jail Florida Civil Commitment Center Bradley County Jail Powell County Sheriff Cheshire County Department of Corrections Hill Finklea Detention Center Yakima County Correctional Center Yakima County Jail Churchill County Sheriff Cumberland County Jail Hancock County Jail Kennebec County Jail Washington County Jail Sullivan County Department of Corrections Franklin County Detention Center CCCS – Watch East Treatment Center Chippewa Cree Tribal Justice Center CCCS – Nexus CCCS – Start Pershing County Sheriff Clarendon County Jail Sumter County Detention Center St Joseph County Jail Bismarck Transition Center Fairfield County Detention Center Johnston County Jail State Facility ICS Provider OR WI WI SC TN IN IN MO IN MO IN MI MI MI MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS Jefferson County Sheriff Bayfield County Sheriff Rusk County Jail Bamberg County Jail White County Jail Pulaski County Jail White County Jail Jefferson County Jail Newton County Jail Cape Girardeau County Jail Dekalb County Jail Wayne County - Baird Detention Facility Wayne County - Dickerson Detention Facility Wayne County - Old Wayne County Jail Adams County Jail Amite County Jail Chickasaw County Jail Clarke County Jail Copiah County Detention Center Desoto County Adult Detention Center Desoto County Expansion Facility Forrest County Juvenile Detention Center Forrest County Regional Jail Greene County Jail Grenada County Jail Hancock County Adult Detention Center Harrison County Detention Center Humphreys County Jail Jackson County Adult Detention Center Jasper County Jail Jones County Jail Jones County Juvenile Detention Center Lafayette County Detention Center Lauderdale County Detention Facility Leake County Correctional Facility - County Leake County Correctional Facility - State Leflore County Jail Lincoln County Jail Lowndes County Adult Detention Center Lowndes County Courthouse Holding Cell Madison County Detention Center Neshoba County Detention Center Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.79 0.73 0.68 0.61 0.60 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.57 0.50 0.50 0.28 0.30 0.35 0.29 0.73 0.68 0.61 0.60 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 15 Min. Rate ($) 8.98 8.00 8.00 4.87 5.10 5.75 4.85 10.95 10.20 9.15 9.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 State MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS NY NY NY NY NY OK TX IL MI AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ AZ FL OH CA TN TX TX ID TN Facility ICS Provider Newton County Jail Oktibbeha County Jail Oktibbeha County Jail-Trustee Facility Panola County Detention Center Perry County Jail Picayune City Jail Pike County Detention Center Prentiss County Jail Scott County Jail Tate County Jail- JSI Tippah County Jail - JSI Tunica County Sheriff - JSI Union County Jail Walthall County Jail - JSI Warren County Jail Warren County Juvenile Facility Wayne County Jail Webster County Jail Yalobusha County Jail New York City Department of Corrections North Tonawanda Police Department Ontario County Jail Suffolk County Jail Suffolk County Jail / Yaphank Diamondback Correctional Facility – CCA Rockwall County Jail Kankakee County Jail Wayne County - Road Patrol Lockup Facility CCA Florence Correctional Center (VTDOC) Ak-Chin Police Department Cochise County - All Locations Greenlee County Sheriff Yuma County Juvenile Justice Center Apache County Jail Hardee County Jail Bedford Heights Police Department San Diego County – All Locations Marion County Jail Fort Bend County Correctional Facility Fort Bend County Juvenile Probation Benewah County Jail Decatur County Justice Complex Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.31 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.16 0.48 0.10 0.40 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.40 0.35 0.24 0.32 0.22 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.21 15 Min. Rate ($) 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 1.20 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 4.00 7.50 2.72 7.20 1.87 6.07 7.05 7.05 7.05 6.00 5.25 3.71 4.80 3.40 4.80 4.80 4.65 3.25 State TN UT SD TX TX TX TX TX TX MO MO TX TX CT IA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA MD MD MD MD MN NC UT CA IN IN IN IN IN IN IN Facility Silverdale Detention Facilities – CCA Utah County Jail Pennington County Juvenile Bensmihen Dover Farrar Leboeuf Nicholson Rohr Threads Training 2 Threads Training 3 Denton County – All Locations Texas Department Of Criminal Justice Department of Corrections – All Locations Story County Jail Berwick City Police Department Cedarwood Manor Cedarwood Manor Women's Jefferson Parish (Gretna) Kenner Police Department Lafourche Parish – All Locations Morehouse Parish – All Locations Natchitoches Parish Work Center Orleans Parish – All Locations Slidell Police Department Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex Terrebonne Parish Trustee Queen Anne\'S County Detention Center Garrett County Sheriff Talbot County Detention Center Worcester County Detention Center Meeker County Jail Madison County Detention Center Summit County Jail San Joaquin County Jail Allen County Juvenile Justice Center Bartholomew County Jail Elkhart County – All Locations Floyd County Jail Hendricks County Work Release Johnson County Community Corrections Johnson County Sheriff ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.31 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.21 0.29 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.25 4.35 4.20 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 4.05 3.90 3.90 3.90 3.90 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 2.21 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 State Facility ICS Provider IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN TX VA IA IL IN IN KY MD NC OH TX TX UT VA VA WY AK AZ AZ AZ AZ FL FL KS KY LA MA MN MS NJ OH PA PA Kosciusko County Jail Kosciusko County Work Release Laporte County Community Corrections Laporte County Jail Marion County Juvenile Detention Center Porter County Sheriff Tippecanoe County Community Corrections Vigo County Community Correctional Center Vigo County Jail Dallas County – All Locations Blue Ridge Regional Jail Authority Cass County Jail Knox County Jail Grant County – All Locations Madison County Sheriff Franklin County Fiscal Court Dorchester County Detention Center Avery County Sheriff Mercer County Sheriff Hall County Jail Hays County Juvenile Facility Cache County Jail Southampton County Jail Southampton County Jail Farm Crook County Detention Facility Department of Corrections – All Locations CCA Central Arizona Detention Center CCA Eloy Detention Center CCA Florence Correctional Center San Luis Regional Detention Center Columbia County Detention Facility Sarasota County Jail Leavenworth Detention Center – CCA Department of Corrections – All Locations Department of Corrections – All Locations Middlesex Billerica Hoc Northwest Regional Corrections Center Adams County Correctional Center - CCA Cape May County Correctional Center Northeast Ohio Correctional Center - CCA Lancaster County Prison Lancaster County Youth Intervention Center Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.45 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 State TN TX TX TX TX TX TX TX AR CA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 Securus 0.21 0.21 3.15 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 3.15 3.00 3.00 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 Facility ICS Provider West Tennessee Detention Facility – CCA Bell County Central Jail Bell County Loop Jail Eden Detention Center – CCA Limestone County Detention Center Limestone Old County Jail Rolling Plains Regional Jail & Detention Center West Texas Detention Facility Community Transitional Services - Pine Bluff San Bernardino County – All Locations Athens Clarke County Jail Athens Clarke Diversion Center Atkinson County Jail Baldwin County Jail Bibb County Annex - G Wing Bibb County Main Jail Bibb County New Jail Brantley County Jail Brooks County Jail Bryan County Sheriff Bulloch County Sheriff Catoosa County Jail Chattooga County Jail Clarke County Correctional Institution Dougherty County Jail Fannin County Jail Grady County Jail Harris County Prison Jackson County Jail Jefferson Correctional Institution Jefferson County Lincoln County Sheriff Macon County Jail Marion County Sheriff McDuffie County Sheriff McRae Correctional Facility – CCA Oglethorpe County Jail Richmond County Correctional Institution Stephens County Jail Stewart Detention Center – CCA Tattnall County Sheriff Tift County Law Enforcement Center State GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA GA IL OR OR OR VA AZ GA IL LA LA LA TN TN AZ NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 15 Min. Rate ($) 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 Securus 0.18 0.18 2.70 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.55 2.40 2.40 Securus 0.16 0.16 2.40 Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 Facility ICS Provider Troup County Jail Walker County Sheriff Wilkes County Sheriff Wilkinson County Sheriff Barrow County Sheriff Clayton County Detention Center Dekalb County Jail Fayette County Jail Fulton County - Alpharetta Annex Fulton County - South Fulton Municipal Regional Jail Fulton County Jail Fulton County Jail - Marietta Annex Gwinnett County Sheriff Hall County Jail Henry County - Annex Henry County Jail Pike County Sheriff Rockdale County Sheriff Smyrna City Jail Lake County Adult Correctional Facility Multnomah County Detention Center Multnomah County Inverness Jail Multnomah County Juvenile Department Hampton Roads Regional Jail Pinal County Carroll County Jail Kankakee County Jerome Combs Detention Center East Carroll Parish Female East Carroll Parish Male East Carroll Riverbend Detention Phase I Hardeman County Correctional Center – CCA Whiteville Correction Facility – CCA Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community Chaves County Adult Detention Center Cibola County Correctional Center – CCA Curry County Detention Center De Baca County Detention Center Eddy County Adult Detention Eddy County Adult Women Detention Center Grant County Jail Hidalgo County Detention Center State NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM WA WA CA FL KY MN NM TX IL WA FL NM SC WI WI WI MS NM TX ND NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM FL Facility Hobbs Police Department City Jail Lea County Detention Center – GEO Los Alamos Police Department Otero County Jail Quay County Detention Center Rio Arriba County Detention Facility - JSI Roosevelt County Adult Detention Center San Juan County Adult Detention Center San Miguel County Detention Center Sierra County Detention Taos County Adult Detention Center Torrance County Detention Facility – CCA Vigil Maldonado Detention Center Pierce County Detention Corrections Center Pierce County Juvenile Detention Center Riverside County – All Locations Department of Corrections – All Locations Lexington Fayette Urban Detention Hennepin County – All Locations Lincoln County Detention Center Travis County – All Locations Cook County Facilities King County – All Locations Lake City Correctional Facility - CCA Sandoval County Detention Center - JSI Georgetown County Detention Center Department of Corrections – All Locations Juneau County Justice Center Oneida County Jail Tallahatchie County Correctional – CCA Valencia County Detention Center T. Don Hutto Residential Center - CCA Department of Corrections – All Locations Bernalillo County Metro Detention Center Bernalillo County Youth Services Center Guadalupe Correctional Facility - GEO Lea Hobbs County - GEO Department of Corrections – All Locations NM Women's Correctional Facility – CCA Northeastern NM Detention Facility – GEO Santa Fe County Adult Detention Facility Gadsden Correctional Facility - MTC ICS Provider Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 15 Min. Rate ($) 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 1.95 1.95 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.50 1.50 1.35 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.90 State PA MO Facility Department of Corrections – All Locations Department of Corrections – All Locations ICS Provider Securus Securus 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.06 0.05 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.06 0.05 15 Min. Rate ($) 0.90 0.75 EXHIBIT C Intra-State Rates for ICS Providers (collected November 28 – December 12, 2016) State OR OR AR TX AR VA WI MI IN NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY Facility Douglas County Linn County Washington County AR Jail Cass County Detention Center Jefferson County Adult Jail Culpeper County Clark County Jail Monroe County, MI Marion County Superior Court Juvenile Allegany County Broome County Cattaraugus County Cayuga County Chautauqua County Chenango County Cortland County Cortland County Delaware County Dutchess County Genesee County Herkimer County Jefferson County Lewis County Livingston County Madison County Monroe County Nassau County Niagra County Oneida County Onondaga County Orange County Orleans County Oswego County Otsego County Putnam County Renssalaer County Rockland County Schuyler County ICS Provider GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 5.31 5.24 5.00 4.65 4.64 4.64 4.64 4.60 4.45 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.89 0.69 0.00 0.20 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.65 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 15 Min. Rate ($) 17.77 14.90 5.00 7.45 14.30 14.30 14.30 13.70 4.45 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 State NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY TX TX TX AR TX MI AR AZ CA CA MI PA PA TX MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS MS OK OH UT NJ NY SC Facility Seneca County St. Lawrence County St. Lawrence County Sullivan County Tioga County Tompkins County Tompkins County Wayne County Westchester County Wyoming County Yates County Bowie County Red River County Burnet County White County Jail Waller County Oakland County Sebastian County Jail Mesa City Holding Facility Alameda County – All Locations Marin County Probation Detroit City Jail Wayne County Jefferson County Gregg County Coahoma County Covington County Holmes-Humphrey County Issaquena County Jefferson-Franklin County Kemper-Neshoba County Marion-Walthall County Pike County Washington County Winston-Choctaw County Ponca City Jail Jefferson County Sanpete County Hunterdon County Chemung County Sheriff's Office Greenville County ICS Provider GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.17 4.15 4.10 4.09 4.05 4.00 3.75 3.70 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.59 3.55 3.40 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.20 3.11 2.92 2.90 2.90 2.83 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.34 0.29 0.33 0.50 0.25 0.30 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.59 0.55 0.39 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.36 0.12 0.40 0.40 0.33 15 Min. Rate ($) 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.95 9.80 9.54 8.86 8.15 8.67 11.00 7.25 7.90 12.75 12.75 12.75 11.85 11.25 8.86 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.70 8.15 4.60 8.50 8.50 7.45 State MS GA IN LA LA GA OR NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY MO NY NY IN TX RI TN MI MI UT MI MI MS MS MS IN MI MD MS MS MS KS TX Facility Leake County South Fulton Delaware County, IN Concordia Parish Jackson Correctional Center Pelham County Multnomah County Columbia County Essex County Franklin County Fulton County Montgomery County Warren County Warren County Washington County Albany County Saratoga County Schenectady County Greene County Clinton County Greene County Monroe County Jail Joe Corley Detention – GEO Providence County Williamson County Berrien County Lenaewee County Box Elder County Hillsdale County Lake County Jail, MI Pontotc County DC Wilkinson County Correctional CCI Bolivar County Clay County-IN Oceana County Jail Montgomery County Lawrence County Caroll-Montgomery County George-Greene County Jail Riley County Wichita County ICS Provider GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 2.71 2.70 2.55 2.30 2.24 2.19 1.96 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.85 1.85 1.85 1.82 1.76 1.76 1.75 1.75 1.65 1.50 1.10 1.09 1.00 0.99 0.75 0.73 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.65 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.55 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.21 0.00 0.30 0.15 0.09 0.19 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.32 0.18 0.18 0.25 0.25 0.30 0.00 1.10 1.09 0.04 0.99 0.75 0.73 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.55 15 Min. Rate ($) 5.65 2.70 6.75 4.40 3.50 4.85 3.50 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 3.25 3.25 3.25 6.30 4.28 4.28 5.25 5.25 5.85 1.50 16.50 16.35 1.56 14.85 11.25 10.95 10.35 10.14 10.05 10.05 0.65 8.70 8.50 8.43 8.25 8.25 State WI TX TX TX TX MI TX TX TX TX WI MS MS TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX CA TX TX TX AZ TX MS TX TX CO TX CA TX TX CA CA CA TX Facility Menominee County - Tribal Jail Jones County Montgomery County Pasadena City Jail Johnson County Oak Park MI - City Jail Corpus Christi Karnes County Panna Maria Ave Jail Karnes County Wall St Jail Pecos County Kenosha County Detention Center Natchez City Jail Natchez City Jail - Adams Juvenile Colorado County Duncanville Gonzales County - Inter Sanction ISF Guadalupe County Jefferson County – All Corrections Potter County Randall County Reeves County Rusk County Wilbarger County Merced County – All Locations Arlington Lee County Washington County Gila County – All Locations Lubbock County Community Corr Hinds County – All Locations Hidalgo County Hill County El Paso County – All Locations Smith County Humboldt County – All Locations Maverick County Tom Green County El Dorado County – All Locations Glenn County Sheriff Department Marin County Jail Gonzales County ICS Provider GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.55 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.55 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 15 Min. Rate ($) 8.25 8.00 7.95 7.95 7.80 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.35 7.20 7.05 7.05 7.05 6.90 6.90 6.72 6.75 6.75 6.60 6.60 6.30 6.15 6.10 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 State TX TX PA FL MO MS OH OH OH OH OH OH OH OH TX OH PA PA IN IN CA CA CA FL OH PA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA Facility Galveston County Hood County Lycoming County Polk County – All Locations Buchanan County Alcorn County - Regional Jail Brook Park East Cleveland Lakewood Jail Parma Heights Jail Richmond Heights Jail Solon Jail Westlake Jail Zanesville Jail McLennan County – All Locations Lake County Adult Detention Facility Armstrong County Bucks County Madison County – Justice Center Madison County – Men's and Women's WR Kern County – All Locations Ventura County - Juvenile Probation Ventura County Jail Manatee County Detention SEPTA Correctional Facility Westmoreland County Lake County Jail – All Locations Los Angeles County Los Angeles Police Department Mendota FCI Orange County, CA San Benito County San Bernardino County Juvenile San Diego MCC San Francisco County Jail San Luis Obispo County Santa Clara County Shafter Community Correctional (CCF) Shasta County Tehama County Jail Terminal Island FCI ICS Provider GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.39 0.39 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.39 0.39 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 15 Min. Rate ($) 5.85 5.85 5.55 5.40 5.40 5.34 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.25 5.10 5.10 4.89 4.80 4.80 4.65 4.65 4.65 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 State CA CA CA CA CA CA NH FL TN VA VA WA PA TX FL IN MS MS WA WA WA CA CA CA FL FL MD NJ NJ NY OR PA PA PA PA PA PA SC TN VA VA Facility Tulare County USMC Camp Pendleton Brig USN_CA-USMC Miramar NAVONBRIG Victorville USP Yolo County Jail Yuba County Jail Strafford County Department of Corrections Duval County – All Locations Madison County Mecklenburg Jail Meherin River County Regional Jail Thurston County - Nisqually Tribal Jail Clearfield County Gaines County Martin County Marion County – Main Jail Rankin County - Adult Rankin County - Juvenile Issaquah City Jail Spokane County - Geiger Correctional Spokane County Jail Contra Costa County – All Locations Sonoma County Sonoma County - Juvenile Justice Center Brevard County St. Lucie County Caroline County Department of Corrections Union County Jail Union County Juvenile Rikers Island Columbus County Cambria County Delaware County Schuykill County Washington County York County York County Richland County Montgomery County Piedmont Regional Jail Prince William County ICS Provider GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 15 Min. Rate ($) 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.35 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.05 4.05 3.90 3.90 3.94 3.94 3.90 3.90 3.90 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 State VA FL IN IN IN IN IN IN OH OH PA PA PA VA CA OH OH TX VA VA AZ FL FL IA OH OH OH PA PA PA PA TN TX UT VA WI AL AL AZ AZ AZ Facility ICS Provider Western Tidewater Regional Jail Pinellas County Allen County IN-Work Release Department of Corrections – All Locations Howard County, IN Lake County – Community Corrections St. Joseph County Jail Tippecanoe County Jail Delaware County Muskingum County Jail Adams County Bradford County Lehigh County Rappahannock Regional Jail Stanislaus County – All Locations Montgomery County – MonDay Correctional Stark County Regional Corrections Lubbock County Detention Ctr Hanover County New River Valley Glendale City Jail Indian River County Lee County – All Locations Black Hawk County Jail Cleveland – House of Corrections Trumbull County Trumbull County – Juvenile Dauphin County Franklin County Mercer County Somerset County Obion County Houston County – All Locations Duchesne County Peumansend Creek Regional Jail Sauk County Jail Fayette County Jail Jefferson County – All Locations APACHE Junction AZ- City Detention Unit Avondale City Detention Facility CCA Saguaro Correctional Center GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.75 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.45 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.30 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 State AZ AZ CA CA FL GA IL IL IN KS KS MA NC NJ NY OK PA PA TX TX TX TX TX AZ AZ MI OH OK OK OK OR TN WA WA KS MS NJ TN UT VA Facility Chandler City Detention Facility Mohave County Juvenile Detention Center CADOC – Custody to Community Transitional Reentry Program San Joaquin County Juvenile Detention Santa Rosa County FL-Work Release East Point Law Enforcement Center Georgia DuPage County Corrections Peoria County IL-Jail Heritage Trails Correctional Facility - GEO JRFC Ft. Leavenworth USDB Ft. Leavenworth Plymouth County GEO Rivers Correctional Hudson County Juvenile Detention Queens Detention Facility – GEO Great Plains Correctional Facility - GEO Allegheny County Lackawanna County Big Spring – GEO Central Texas Detention – GEO Karnes Correctional Center – GEO Rio Grande Detention – GEO Val Verde Correctional – GEO Maricopa County – All Locations Pima County - All Locations Department of Corrections – All Locations Mahoning County – All Locations Cimarron Correctional-Cushing Department of Corrections – All Locations Lawton Correctional – GEO Warm Springs Sevier County Snohomish County - Denney Juvenile Snohomish County - Main Jail Leavenworth County Jail Pearl River County Salem County Correctional Facility Fayette County Weber County Northwestern County GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.21 0.21 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.21 0.21 15 Min. Rate ($) 3.15 3.15 GTL 0.21 0.21 3.15 GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.15 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.82 2.85 ICS Provider State WA SD LA VA VA OH GA PA PA VA VA CA CA FL FL FL IA MA NC NC OR PA PA PA SC TN WI NJ NM NM VA CA NJ FL FL NV NV PA PA SC Facility Grant County - County Jail Pennington County Ouachita Parish Correctional Southside Regional Jail Southwestern Regional Jail Cuyahoga County Department of Corrections – All Locations Montgomery County Philadelphia County Gloucester County Norfolk City Solano County Solano Probation Juvenile Hall Charlotte County Collier County Highlands County FL-Jail Scott County Jail Norfolk County Jail Cumberland County Durham County Yamhill County Chester County Luzerne County Northampton County Spartanburg County Department of Corrections – All Locations Outagamie County Jail Delaney Hall – ICE (CEC, Inc.) Cibola County Detention Center Luna County Portsmouth Jail CADOC – CA Department of Corrections – All Locations Toller Hall / Logan Hall – CEC, Inc. Miami-Dade County – All Locations Orange County Jail Washoe County Jail Main Jail Washoe County Jan Evans JDF Cumberland County Pennsylvania County Charleston County GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.19 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 15 Min. Rate ($) 2.85 2.62 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.78 2.55 2.55 2.58 2.55 2.32 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 GTL 0.14 0.13 2.02 GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 2.02 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 ICS Provider State Facility ICS Provider TN GA HI NE NE OH VA VA CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO GA MA MA MA NC NC TN VT WV WV WV Shelby County Gwinnett County, GA- Correctional Complex Department of Corrections – All Locations Douglas County DOC Douglas County Youth Center Lucas County Henrico County Regional Jails Middle River County Regional Jail Arkansas Valley (AVCF) Bent County Correctional (BCCF) Buena Vista Correctional (BVCC) Canon Minimum Centers (CMC) Centennial Correctional (CCF) Cheyenne Mountare-Entry (CMRC) Colorado Correctional Center Colorado DOC – Youthful Offender System Colorado State Penitentiary Colorado State Penitentiary II Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility Crowley County Correctional Facility - CCA Delta Correctional Center Denver R and D Center (DRDC) Denver Women's Correctional (DWCF) Fremont Correctional (FCF) La Vista Correctional Facility Limon Correctional Facility Rifle Correctional Center San Carlos Correctional Facility Sterling Correctional Facility Trinidad Correctional Facility Cobb County, GA Hampden County - Alcohol Center Hampden County - Pre-release Center Hampden County - Regional Women's Center Mecklenberg County Jail Central Mecklenberg County Jail North Robertson County Department of Corrections - All Locations Central Regional Jail Eastern Regional Jail North Central Regional Jail GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 15 Min. Rate ($) 2.10 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.94 1.94 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.74 1.74 1.80 1.76 1.80 1.80 1.80 State WV WV WV WV WV WV CO FL FL FL FL GA IA MI MI MS MS OK TX VA VA WA MA NC NC NE NJ NJ TN TX NJ SC SD NJ VA DE MN NJ NJ NJ Facility Northern Regional Jail Potomac Highlands Jail South Central Regional Jail South West Regional Jail Tygart Valley Jail Western Regional Jail Colorado Youth Corrections – All Locations Blackwater River Facility (GEO) GEO Bay Correctional Facility GEO Graceville Correctional Facility GEO Moore Haven Correctional Facility Clarke County GA- Jail Iowa State Training School Northlake Detention VT DOC – GEO Northlake Detention WA DOC - GEO Chickasaw County Department of Corrections – All Locations Muskogee County Reeves County Detention – GEO Chesterfield County Riverside District Regional Jail Department of Corrections – All Locations Department of Corrections - All Locations Department of Adult Corrections – All Locations Department of Public Safety – All Locations Department of Corrections – All Locations Bo Robinson – CEC, Inc. Delaney Hall – CEC, Inc. Wilson County El Paso County Talbot Hall – CEC, Inc. Department of Corrections – All Locations Department of Corrections – All Locations Tulley House – CEC, Inc. Richmond Jail Department of Corrections – All Locations Department of Corrections – All Locations Burlington County Camden County Cumberland County GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 15 Min. Rate ($) 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.50 GTL 0.10 0.10 1.50 GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 1.50 1.50 1.53 1.44 1.50 1.35 1.24 1.20 1.20 1.04 1.05 0.75 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.76 ICS Provider State NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY OH OH OH RI TN NJ NJ NJ NJ OH VA CA MD MD GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 15 Min. Rate ($) 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 GTL 0.05 0.05 0.75 GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL GTL 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.75 0.75 0.70 0.75 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.60 0.61 0.45 0.52 0.52 Facility ICS Provider Essex County Jail Essex County Juvenile Detention Hudson County Jail Hudson County Jail Annex Mercer County Middlesex County Adult Correctional Middlesex County Juvenile Detention Monmouth County Morris County Ocean County Somerset County Sussex County Warren County Bayview Correctional Facility Beacon Correctional Facility Butler ASACSC Correctional Chateaugay Correctional Facility Department of Corrections – All Locations Green Haven Correctional Facility Monterey Correctional Facility Mt McGregor Correctional Facility Taconic County Department of Rehab. And Corrections – All Locations Department of Youth Services – All Locations Hamilton County Department of Corrections – All Locations Davidson County Atlantic County Justice Facility Bergen County Jail Department of Corrections – All Locations Juvenile Justice Commission – All Locations Franklin County Department of Corrections - All Locations CADOC – Division of Juvenile Justice Department of Corrections – All Locations Juvenile Services Department – All Locations EXHIBIT D Intra-State Rates for ICS Providers (collected November 28 – December 12, 2016) State CA CA TX TX TX TX TX TX PA CA MA NJ PA LA LA LA NJ NY NY NY NY CA CA TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX * # Facility West Care Foundation Atascadero State Hospital Flower Mound Police Department Justice Center PD Pecos Justice Center Rowlett Police Department Sommerville County Jail Terrell County Jail Wernersville State Hospital Bell Police Department Everett Police Department-TIPS Lindenwold Police Department-TIPS Nesbitt Hospital Springhill Jail Vivian Police Department Welsh Police Department Ocean County Juvenile Detention Center Lackawanna Jail Lancaster Police Department Town of Evans Police Department West Seneca Police Department Yolo County Sheriff Clovis Police Department 7 Points Police Department Addison City Jail Allen City Jail Angleton City Jail Aransas Pass City Jail Azle City Jail Balch Spring Police Department Bonham City Jail Brazoria Police Department Cedar Park City Jail Center Police Department Childress Police Department Cleveland City Jail Cockrell Hill City Jail ICS Provider Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* 1st Min. Charge ($) 20.00 15.09 13.56 13.56 13.56 13.56 13.56 13.56 13.09 12.66 11.99 11.99 11.75 10.43 10.43 10.43 9.78 9.66 9.66 9.66 9.66 9.50 9.50 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 Add. Min Charge ($) 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.99 0.89 1.29 1.29 0.79 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.15 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.49 1.49 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 15 Min. Rate ($) 37.25 32.34 30.81 30.81 30.81 30.81 30.81 30.81 27.94 26.01 31.34 31.34 23.60 14.18 14.18 14.18 27.03 23.01 23.01 23.01 23.01 31.85 31.85 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX * # Facility Commerce Police Department Converse Police Department Crowley Police Department Dallas Marshall's Dalworthington Gardens Police Department Denton City Jail Electra City Jail Elsa Police Department Ennis City Jail Everman City Jail Farmers Branch City Jail Forest Hills City Jail Friendswood Police Department Frisco Garland Police Department Gladewater City Jail Glenn Heights City Jail GRAPEVINE CITY JAIL Greenville Police Department GUN BARREL CITY JAIL Harlingen Police Department Hidalgo City Jail Highland Park City Jail Highland Village City Jail Hillsboro City Jail Hutchins Police Department INGLESIDE CITY JAIL JACINTO CITY JAIL Jacksonville JCW Default Keene City Jail Kennedale Police Department Kilgore City Jail Lake Dallas City Jail Lake Worth Police Department Little Elm Police Department Los Fresnos City Jail Midland County JRTC Mineola City Jail New Boston City Jail ICS Provider Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* 1st Min. Charge ($) 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 Add. Min Charge ($) 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 15 Min. Rate ($) 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX AL CA MD NM NM NY NY NE TX AL IL ID MO MO MO * # Facility Olney City Jail Palmview Police Department Pantego City Jail RICHARDSON CITY JAIL River Oaks Police Department Rockdale Police Department Saginaw Police Department Santa Fe City Jail Seagoville Spring Valley City Jail Springtown City Jail Taylor City Jail Terrell Police Department University Park Police Department Westworth Village Police Department Whitesboro City Jail Wilmer Police Department Wylie City Jail Hurst Police Department Armstrong County Cochran County Donely County Fisher County Jones County Shackelford County Bullock County Sheriff Office Ventura County Sheriff Carroll County Detention Center Eunice Police Department Jal Law Enforcement Niagara Falls Police Department Troy Police Department Thurston County Jail Oliver Office Foley Police Department McHenry County Jail Clark County Sheriff Chaffee Police Department De Soto PD Dixon Police Department ICS Provider Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* 1st Min. Charge ($) 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.75 4.15 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.99 3.95 3.75 3.25 3.01 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Add. Min Charge ($) 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.10 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.69 0.40 0.49 0.25 0.69 1.55 1.55 1.55 15 Min. Rate ($) 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 23.50 5.65 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 15.25 18.84 18.84 18.84 18.84 18.84 18.84 18.84 14.30 9.75 10.60 6.76 13.35 26.25 26.25 26.25 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State MO MO OH NY CA CA CA OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK AL NE MO KS TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX TX AR CA CA CA * # Facility Kinloch Police Department Webb City Fostoria Police Department Greece Town Police Department Metropolitan State Hospital Napa State Hospital Patton State Hospital Mustang City Jail Anadarko City Jail Bethany City Jail Bixby Police Department Broken Arrow City Jail Clinton City Jail El Reno City Jail Elk City Police Department Henryetta City Jail Locust Grove Police Department Manford Police Department Owasso Police Department Roland City Jail Seminole City Jail Tonawa Police Department Yukon City Jail Covington County Jail Scotts Bluff County Detention Center Independence City Jail Rooks County Jail Atascosa County Brazos Rehab Place Cameron County Cameron County Boot Camp Davy Crockett Regional Juvenile Facility Duval County Granbury Rockdale Juvenile Tom Green County Izard County Jail Buena Park Police Department Corona Police Department Costa Mesa Police Department ICS Provider Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy* Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy 1st Min. Charge ($) 3.00 3.00 2.79 2.75 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.35 2.25 2.25 1.70 1.55 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Add. Min Charge ($) 1.55 1.55 0.49 0.30 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.35 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.30 0.30 1.55 1.55 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 15 Min. Rate ($) 26.25 26.25 10.14 7.25 8.40 8.40 8.40 7.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 16.60 6.75 6.75 25.50 23.25 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI * # Facility Glendale Police Department Hawthorne Police Department Hayward Police Department Hermosa Beach Police Department Inglewood Police Department Manhattan Beach Police Department Newport Beach Police Department Signal Hill Police Department Westminster Police Department Berkley Police Department Berkley Police Department Beverly Hills Police Department MI Birmingham Police Department Brownstown Police Department Canton Township Police Department Clinton Township Police Department Dearborn Police Department East Lansing Police Department Eastpointe Police Department Ecorse Police Department Farmington Hills Police Department Fenton Police Department Ferndale Police Department Garden City Police Department Grosse Pointe Woods Harper Woods Police Department Hazel Park Police Department Inkster Police Department Lincoln Park Police Department Livonia Police Department Madison Heights Police Department Milford Police Department Northville Police Department Novi Police Department Plymouth Township Police Department Redford Police Department Rochester Police Department Romulus Police Department Royal Oak Police Department Southfield Police Department ICS Provider Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy 1st Min. Charge ($) 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Add. Min Charge ($) 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 15 Min. Rate ($) 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI MI TX TX FL CA CA CA CA CA CA CA ID ID TX CA CA MI OR OR WI WI CA NE OH OH OK WA * # Facility Southgate Police Department St. Clair Shores Police Department Sterling Heights Police Department Taylor Police Department Trenton Police Department Troy Police Department Utica Police Department Van Buren Township Police Department Warren Police Department West Bloomfield Police Department Westland Police Department White Lake Police Department Wixom Police Department Wyandotte Police Department Bedford Police Department West Columbia Police Department Department of Corrections – Pay Telephones Alhambra Police Department Beverly Hills Police Department Burbank Police Department Chula Vista City Jail Fremont Police Department Monterey Park Police Department Pasadena Police Department Clearwater County Sheriff Lewis County Sheriff Lewisville El Segundo Police Department Gardena Police Department Allen Park Police Department Benton County Jail Josephine County Jail Dunn County Jail Jackson County Jail Redondo Beach Police Department Pierce County Sheriff Cuyahoga Falls Police Department Middletown Police Department Edmond Police Department Adams County Sheriff ICS Provider Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy* Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy 1st Min. Charge ($) 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.20 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.10 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Add. Min Charge ($) 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 0.06 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.10 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 15 Min. Rate ($) 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 2.10 17.25 17.25 17.25 17.25 17.25 17.25 17.25 17.25 17.25 17.25 16.50 16.50 15.75 15.75 15.75 15.75 15.75 14.25 14.25 14.25 14.25 14.25 14.25 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State CA TX CA MO OK MO AZ CA CA MO ND TX TX CA NY AZ CA OH SD MO OK OK IL IL MO MS NC SC SC NM CO NE NJ AZ ID CA IN WA WA WA * # Facility Lodi Police Department Blue Mound Police Department Whittier Police Department Douglas County Sheriff Lawton City Police Department Blue Springs Police Department White Mountain Apache Corrections Center Bell Gardens Police Department Montebello Police Department Montgomery County Jail Gerald Fox Adult Detention Center The Colony Police Department Walker County Jail Colusa County Jail Central New York Psychiatric Center Hualapai Adult Detention Center Long Beach Police Department Shelby Police Department Rosebud Sioux Tribe Adult Corrections Louisiana Police Department Okmulgee County Jail Yukon Police Department Winnebago County Jail Winnebago County Juvenile DC Scott City Police Department Natchez Police Department Moore County Detention Center McCormick County Sheriff Newberry County Detention Center Socorro County Detention Center Grand County Jail Lancaster Youth Services Center Paterson Police Department Colorado River Indian Tribes Detention Adams County Sheriff Mendocino County – All Locations Hammond Police Department Hoquiam Police Department Lynnwood Jail Whatcom County Jail/ Interim Work Center ICS Provider Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy* Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy* Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy* Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.73 0.69 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.42 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.73 0.69 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.10 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.42 15 Min. Rate ($) 13.50 13.50 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.15 11.25 11.25 11.25 11.25 11.25 11.25 11.25 10.95 10.35 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.75 9.00 9.00 9.00 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 8.25 2.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 11.75 7.05 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.30 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State WA AZ CA OR OR VA MI MI MI MI MI MI AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL AL LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA MI SC CA CA MA * # Facility Whatcom County Juvenile Hall Yuma County Detention Center Huntington Beach Police Department Jackson County Main Jail Jackson County Transition Center Accomack County Sheriff Charlevoix County Crawford County Jail Huron County Jail Kalkaska County Jail Leelanau County Jail Manistee County Jail Arab City Police Department Geneva County Jail Guntersville City Police Department Montgomery County Detention Center Adamsville Police Department Albertville City Police Department Daphne City Police Department Dothan Police Department Houston County Jail Orange Beach Police Department Acadia Parish Detention Center Acadia Parish Jail Baker City Police Department Beauregard Parish Jail Christian Acres Juvenile Youth Center Eunice City Jail Leesville City Jail Morgan City Jail Opelousas City Jail Sulphur Police Department Vermilion Parish Sheriff Ville Platte Police Department West Feliciana Parish Jail Farmington Police Department Darlington County Prison Farm Tuolumne County Jail Fresno County Jail Boston – All Districts ICS Provider Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.42 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.20 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.42 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.20 15 Min. Rate ($) 6.30 6.00 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 7.85 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 4.20 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.30 3.00 3.00 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." State GA GA GA MS MS MS GA NM NM NM NM * # Facility Coffee County Jail Decatur County Correctional Prison Decatur County Jail Itawamba County Jail Marshall County Sheriff Department Tishomingo County Sheriff Department Acworth Dona Ana County Detention Center Pueblo of Laguna Detention Facility Ramah Navajo Police Department Zuni Department of Corrections ICS Provider Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy Legacy 1st Min. Charge ($) 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Add. Min Charge ($) 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 15 Min. Rate ($) 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.85 2.70 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate). Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA." EXHIBIT E Petro, Lee G. From: Sent: To: Subject: Rafael Quinto <rquinto@legacyinmate.com> Friday, July 29, 2016 3:18 PM Petro, Lee G. RE: Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. Mr. Petro, We do not have a stamped copy to provide, due to the fact that we honestly did not file the data. The data was compiled, but was never submitted on or before the August 18, 2014 deadline as instructed. At the time we were working with three different tariff attorneys and unfortunately the filing was overlooked by all parties. The data that I provided you is the data that would have been submitted for filing. Thank you, Rafael Quinto Operations Legacy Long Distance Int’l, Inc. Legacy Inmate Communications 10833 Valley View Street Suite 150 Cypress, CA 90630 800‐577‐5534 ext. 208 rquinto@legacyinmate.com From: Petro, Lee G. [mailto:Lee.Petro@dbr.com] Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:59 AM To: Rafael Quinto Subject: RE: Legacy Long Distance International, Inc. Thank you. Do you have an FCC‐stamped copy of this submission? There is no record of it being filed at the FCC nor has there been any mention of Legacy in any FCC decision, suggesting that they did not receive this submission by August 18, 2014. Absent a stamped copy of this submission, please provide some evidence that it was submitted on or before August 18, 2014. Thank you. Lee G. Petro Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP 1500 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-1209 (202) 230-5857 office (202) 842-8465 fax (703) 798-2001 mobile Lee.Petro@dbr.com www.drinkerbiddle.com 1 EXHIBIT F comprehensive rules to reform practices and charges by ICS providers, which have led to almost two decades of unjust, unreasonable and unfair ICS rates and ancillary fees. As discussed herein, the FCC must review the responses to the issues raised in the 3rd FNPRM, and adopt rules that will close the loop on the egregious practices of ICS providers and their vendors. In particular, the Petitioners urge the FCC to (i) take steps to encourage a competitive ICS marketplace; (ii) adopt rules and rate caps relating to video visitation and other bundled services; (iii) require annual mandatory data collection submissions, including both cost and revenue information; (iv) establish a docket that will receive all ICS contracts; (v) extend the adopted rate and ancillary fee caps to International calling; and (vi) prohibit the pass-through of all financial transaction fees – both by affiliates of ICS providers and thirdparties. DISCUSSION I. COMPETITION IN THE ICS INDUSTRY. In the 3rd FNPRM, the FCC renews its call for comments on different approaches to introduce competition into the ICS market. Noting the overwhelming evidence in the record that the ICS industry is a marketplace failure, the FCC seeks proposals “to promote competition within the ICS market to enable the FCC to sunset or eliminate our regulations adopted herein in the future.” 3 The FCC correctly notes that the Petitioners have been calling for the introduction of competition in the ICS market for more than 15 years, and in fact, this goal served as the basis for Martha Wright and the Petitioners to file the original lawsuit. 4 As noted in the 3rd FNPRM, both the ICS providers and the correctional authorities have rejected any effort to introduce competitive ICS service at a particular facility. While there 3rd FNPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 12,900. Id. (citing Petition for Rulemaking Or, In the Alternative, Petition To Address Referral issues In Pending Rulemaking, pg. 2, filed Oct. 31, 2003). 3 4 2 may be different vendors providing different services, 5 the Petitioners are not aware of any instance in the US where there is more than one ICS provider that is authorized to provide competing ICS services at a particular correctional facility. Instead, the pace of consolidation within the prison-industrial complex has accelerated in recent years, resulting in attempts by ICS providers to serve all aspects of the correctional authorities’ needs at the facility. For example, in 2015, Securus Technologies acquired JPay Inc., of the largest commissary companies serving prisons and jails. 6 Another large conglomerate – Keefe Group – owns an ICS provider – ICSolutions – which provides telephone and video visitation services, and also owns the largest commissary service company – Keefe Commissary Network – along with Access Corrections – which provides payment, email, photo and other entertainment services. 7 In addition, GTL provides a menu of services, including ICS telephone, investigative services, facility management solutions, in-person and video visitation management, payment and deposit solutions and educational content solutions. 8 Telmate also offers a laundry list of services – dubbed, the Telmate Ecosystem – which includes telephone, video visitation, 3rd FNPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 12,901, nt. 1016 (citing GTL’s Second FNPRM Comments). Petitioners note that GTL’s comments do not state there is more than one ICS provider at a particular facility, but rather, that multiple companies provide distinct services at that facility. 5 See Securus Technologies, Inc. Completes Transaction to Acquire JPay Inc., Press Release (July 31, 2015) (http://tinyurl.com/h3cf8s2) (merger will “provide the ultimate platform for digitized payments, communications, entertainment and education in the correctional space.”). 7 See Keefe Group – Companies, www.keefegroup.com/companies-101 (“Today, Keefe is comprised of six operating companies, each focused on distinct aspects of commissary operations: Keefe Supply Company, Keefe Commissary Network, Access Securepak, Access Corrections, ICSolutions and Advanced Technologies Group.”) 8 See GTL – Services, http://www.gtl.net/correctional-facility-services/ (“We are committed to pushing the envelope on how technology can help improve virtually every aspect of your operations, including the day-to-day experiences of everyone in the corrections ecosystem: staff, inmates, family and friends. From the hardened exteriors of our kiosks, phones and other in-pod devices to the reliability and security of the software that powers our solutions, everything we provide is designed from the ground up with the rigors of the corrections environment in mind.”). See also GTL Second FNPRM Comments, filed Jan. 12, 2015, pgs. 4044 (discussing GTL Genesis service). 6 3 voicemail, email, messaging, photo sharing and education services. 9 Even ICS providers that primarily focus on jails, such as Pay Tel Communications 10 and NCIC, 11 offer correctional authorities a suite of services beyond just ICS telephone calls. Thus, the trend in the prison-industrial complex is for each company to promote itself as a one-stop shop for a correctional facility. As discussed below, recent bid proposals submitted to correctional facilities offer a bundle of services, and the companies compete to make the best offer to win the contract with the correctional facility. Importantly, these bundled contracts include the sharing of revenue earned on both ICS and non-communication services, which is one of the main reasons that the Petitioners advocated for the FCC to avoid involving itself with regulating site commissions. As we noted, the FCC would not be able to get a firm handle on the many ways that these companies could share their revenue with the correctional facilities as these services expanded to cover additional services, and the FCC’s determination to not ban site commissions was appropriate. In light of these trends, and in order for the FCC to meet its goal in promoting competition in the ICS market, the FCC must focus on developing rules to re-structure the ICS market so that it delivers just, reasonable and fair rates and ancillary fees for consumers. Previously, the Petitioners filed comments urging the FCC to adopt ICS access rules similar to the Inside Wiring and Exclusive Contract rules for multi-dwelling units. 12 In those proceedings, the FCC prohibited anti-competitive practices that prevented new entrants “from See Telmate Ecosystem – http://www.telmate.com/the-telmate-ecosystem/. See Pay Tel Communications – Products and Services, https://www.paytel.com/ interested-facilities/products-and-services/ (offering jail management, visitation, kiosk, messaging and ICS telephone services). 11 See NCIC - https://www.ncic.com/ice.htm (offering voicemail, commissary, jail management services). 12 Petitioners FNPRM Comments, filed Dec. 10, 2013, pg. 17. See also Exclusive Service Contracts For Provision of Video Services in Multiple Dwelling Units and Other Real Estate Developments, 22 FCC Rcd 20,235 (2007), aff'd sub nom. Nat'l Cable & Television Ass'n v. FCC, 567 F.3d 659 (2009). See also Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring: Customer Premises Equipment, 22 FCC Rcd 10,640, 10,641 (2007). 9 10 4 competing for consumers in multi-unit buildings based on regulatory technicalities or costly and inefficient industry practices.” 13 The Petitioners noted that correctional authorities differentiate ICS providers almost exclusively on which company will promise to pay the highest site commission, so it must be correct that the service offerings by the ICS providers are largely uniform. As such, the Petitioners suggested that the FCC adopt rules to prohibit exclusive contracts and other practices that prevent competition at a correctional facility. Correctional authorities could create a list of required security measures that all ICS providers seeking to provide service must agree to provide, and then permit ICS customers to select a provider of their choice. While there would be additional steps in setting up this structure, the competition among ICS providers for customers would lead to lower ICS rates and fees. In response, correctional authorities and ICS providers uniformly rejected the idea of multiple ICS providers at a particular facility, with the ICS providers indicating that they would likely not bid to serve under a competitive regime, and correctional authorities stating that they “would likely eliminate ICS rather than allowing multiple ICS vendors.” 14 On the other hand, HRDC correctly notes that, until there is competition among ICS providers at a particular correctional facility, “the discussion will continue to revolve around ways to gouge consumers and extract money from them – not on how to deliver the best, most cost-efficient ICS services to prisoners and their families.” 15 One way to reach this goal is to establish rules under which a correctional authority’s service provider does not offer service directly to ICS customers. Instead, the FCC would create two separate classes of ICS — wholesale and retail. Wholesale providers would respond to a correctional authority’s request for proposal, and the successful wholesale provider would be 13 14 15 22 FCC Rcd at 10,641 (2007). 3rd FNPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 12,901. Id., nt. 1015 (citing HRDC July 29, 2015 Ex Parte Letter, at pg. 8). 5 responsible for installing equipment at the facility, but it would not be authorized to provide retail service at the facility, either directly or through subsidiaries. The wholesale ICS provider would provide a standardized level of service satisfying the facility’s requested security biometrics and call monitoring capability. As a result, the correctional authorities would maintain their existing level of security for ICS. Furthermore, the wholesale provider (or correctional facility) would be responsible for installing and maintaining payment kiosks, video visitation/video phone equipment (collectively, “video visitation”), and inmate ICS end user services/equipment, but retail ICS providers would be guaranteed equal access to all such equipment without barriers to provide retail ICS to their customers. The wholesale ICS provider would establish a demarcation point or permit colocation at the facility. Under this structure, correctional authorities would contract with one wholesale ICS provider, and ICS customers would be permitted to choose among retail ICS providers for the lowest rates and fees. After establishing a rate structure for the wholesale ICS providers to charge retail ICS companies, the FCC would then avoid involving itself in the state and local bidding processes. Moreover, the FCC would have created the direct relationship between ICS providers and their customers, and would permit consumers to choose an ICS retail provider that best meets their needs. This proposal tracks the steps taken by the FCC to promote facilities-based retail competition in the wireline local telephone market. The FCC could create competition in the ICS industry by mandating equal access to ICS site-based services at wholesale rates, with ICS customers finally getting the opportunity to choose their service provider and reap the associated economic advantages arising from competition in the marketplace. The Petitioners acknowledge that this proposal suggests a significant overhaul to the ICS rules and the prison-industrial complex, and we urge the FCC to fully implement the rate and 6 ancillary fee caps adopted in the Second R&O while it studies this proposal in more detail. 16 However, the FCC was directed by Congress to “promote competition and the widespread deployment of payphone services,” 17 and correctional authorities steadfastly argue that dealing with separate ICS providers is too costly. Maintaining a structure whereby correctional authorities deal only with one entity would eliminate this concern, and creating a competitive marketplace for ICS customers would serve the public interest. The alternative, of course, is that ICS providers and correctional authorities acknowledge (i) that the current ICS structure does not promote competition, (ii) that their practices have led to unjust, unreasonable and unfair rates being charged to ICS customers, and (iii) that the appropriate and legally sustainable solution is to accept the FCC’s authority to cap ICS rates and ancillary fees as set forth in the Second R&O. Stated another way, if the prison-industrial complex seeks to maintain its current structure – with each company offering to provide a complete suite of services on the condition that it is the sole provider at particular correctional facility – it must, at the very least, acknowledge that their practices do not ensure just, reasonable and fair ICS rates and fees, and accept the FCC’s steps taken in the Second R&O to protect ICS consumers. II. THE FCC MUST ENSURE THAT ICS PROVIDERS DO NOT GOUGE VIDEO VISITATION CONSUMERS. As noted above, companies providing ICS telephone service are increasingly bundling additional services to provide to correctional facilities and inmates. GTL, Securus, ICSolutions, Telmate, Pay Tel Communications and NCIC all offer a suite of services, including video visitation. The 3rd FNPRM seeks additional information regarding video visitation, including whether the FCC should adopt caps on rates and ancillary fees charged for video visitation Id., at 12,902 (“should the Commission, as suggested, first adopt rate and ancillary service charge reform and then determine if additional steps are necessary and perhaps revisit the idea of intra-facility competition then.”). 16 17 Id. at 12,901 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 276). 7 EXHIBIT G As discussed below, the Wright Petitioners urge the FCC to: (i) adopt rules that will introduce competition into the ICS marketplace; (ii) establish rate and fee caps for international ICS, ICS video visitation, and other advanced ICS communication services, (iii) require the submission of ICS providers’ cost and revenue information for at least five years, starting with 2015 data, (iv) mandate the submission of ICS contracts within 30 days of execution; and (v) close remaining loopholes regarding third-party fees which serve only to inflate fees paid by ICS consumers. DISCUSSION I. COMPETITION IN THE ICS INDUSTRY. In our Comments to the 3rd FNPRM, the Wright Petitioners urged the FCC to adopt rules to introduce competition into the ICS marketplace. We noted that the prison- industrial complex has become consolidated, with a limited number of companies offering a “suite” of inmate-related services, including commissary services, email, video visitation, video phone, and telephone services. 3 Other commenters also discussed this consolidation. 4 In light of the accelerating movement among ICS providers to become a “one-stop” shopping alternatives for correctional facilities, we suggested that the FCC create two classes of ICS, wholesale and retail. We noted that this structure would insulate ICS consumers from the ICS provider that has contracted with the correctional authority (and perhaps has chosen to share its revenue through a site commission), and permit retail 3 Wright Petitioners Comments, pg. 4 (Jan. 19, 2016) (“3rd FNPRM Comments”). 4 See Prison Policy Initiative Comments, Loophole On The Horizon: The Regulatory Harms Of Phone Companies Bundling Telecommunications Services With Prison Financial Services In One Contract, pg. 2 (Jan. 19, 2016). See Human Rights Defense Center Comments, pg. 4 (Jan. 19, 2016). 2 ICS providers to purchase access to that facility from the wholesale ICS provider. The consumer would then choose among the various retail ICS providers to determine the lowest rate. 5 Competition among the retail ICS providers would satisfy the goal expressed in Section 276(b) of the Communications Act, as amended, to “promote competition among [inmate telephone service] providers and promote the widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the general public.” 6 We concluded that if the correctional authorities and ICS providers are opposed to introducing competition into the ICS marketplace, then they must “acknowledge (i) that the current ICS structure does not promote competition, (ii) that their practices have led to unjust, unreasonable and unfair rates being charged to ICS customers, and (iii) that the appropriate and legally sustainable solution is to accept the FCC’s authority to cap ICS rates and ancillary fees as set forth in the Second R&O.” 7 Only one correctional organization filed comments in response to the 3rd FNPRM. The California State Sheriffs’ Association urged the FCC “to refrain” from banning exclusive ICS contracts, citing “security concerns, impose logistical burdens, increase costs of providing ICS…, and perhaps diminish the quality of ICS that are provided.” 8 The ICS providers were equally unsupportive. CenturyLink claimed that banning exclusive contracts would lead to higher costs and that the FCC lacks the statutory authority to do so. 9 GTL made similar arguments, stating that there are “unique security 5 3rd FNPRM Comments, pg. 6. 6 47 U.S.C. § 276(b)(1) (2016) (emphasis added). 7 3rd FNPRM Comments, pg. 7. 8 California State Sheriffs’ Association Comments, pg. 1 (Jan. 19, 2016). 9 CenturyLink Comments, pgs. 3-4 (Jan. 19, 2016). 3 needs” and that providing the ability of ICS consumers to choose among competing ICS providers would lead to higher ICS rates, or the elimination of ICS altogether. 10 Securus argued that competition already exists in the ICS marketplace, and extensively cited the previously-provided December 8, 2014 Declarations from Geoff Boyd and Dave Kunde to argue against introducing multiple providers. 11 Finally, Pay Tel Communications expressed its opinion that banning site commissions and introducing a cost-recovery fee would have introduced competition, but “having multiple providers provide ICS in the same facility is unworkable.” 12 Thus, it is clear that ICS providers and correctional authorities are strongly against the introduction of competition into the ICS marketplace. Similar opinions were expressed by these parties in earlier phases of this proceeding, and it would appear that nothing has changed. 13 While Securus argued that “robust competition” already exists, 14 it is clear from the record that ICS providers only compete to earn the right to be the monopoly provider at a particular correctional facility, and that ICS consumers do not benefit from this competition. 15 Instead, ICS consumers never get to choose among ICS providers, and no ICS provider or correctional authority supports a change in this approach. 10 GTL Comments, pgs. 9-11 (Jan. 19, 2016). 11 Securus Comments, pgs. 1-6 (Jan. 19, 2016). Pay Tel Communications, Inc., Comments, pgs. 4-5 (Jan. 19, 2016). Telmate, LLC, did not address this points in its comments. 12 13 Third FNPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 12,900-12,901 14 Securus Comments, pg. 1. Second R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 12,765 (“[t]here is little dispute that the ICS market is a prime example of a market failure.”)(citing First R&O, 28 FCC Rcd 14,107, 14,129-30, para. 41). See also Dissenting Statement of Michael O’Reilly, Second R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 12,972 (“there is no dispute that the prison payphone market as a whole does not seem to be functioning properly.”)(“O’Reilly Dissent”). 15 4 Therefore, in light of this marketplace failure, and the unwillingness of ICS providers and correctional authorities to support multiple ICS providers serving a correctional facility, the FCC had only one other choice to protect ICS consumers – adopt caps on ICS rates and ancillary fees charged to ICS consumers. While the Second R&O took this approach, Securus, GTL, CenturyLink and Telmate have filed petitions for review and motions for stay in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging the FCC’s exercise of its statutory authority to set caps on ICS rates and ancillary fees. 16 It would seem that no approach taken by the FCC to regulate ICS interstate and intrastate rates and ancillary fees would be acceptable to the ICS providers unless the FCC also relieves ICS providers from their existing, voluntary obligation to pay site commissions. Apparently, Securus, GTL and Telmate would have accepted caps on the ICS rates and ancillary fees if the FCC shifted the burden of site commissions onto ICS consumers through a cost-recovery fee. 17 GTL, Securus and Telmate even advocated, on See Global Tel*Link, et al., No. 15-1461 and consolidated cases. Pay Tel has taken a different tack by setting up a website – www.mandatorycostrecovery.com – which urges correctional authorities to contact their congressional representatives to “ensure that phone access is preserved for inmates by mandating a specific per minute cost recovery rate additive for facilities.” It also contains an analysis from Don J. Wood which incorrectly asserts that “If rate caps are properly set at the level of efficiently-incurred costs (and site commissions are explicitly excluded from this definition of costs), there will be no money available for ICS providers to pay commissions.” See An Analysis of the Treatment of Site Commissions in the FCC’s Second Report and Order in the Inmate Calling Services Proceeding, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Mr. Wood presents similar reasoning to that which was presented in a document submitted by the Wright Petitioners on February 3, 2016. See http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001422245. While the Wright Petitioners do not assert that Pay Tel is the author of the previously-submitted document, the justification presented in that document is nearly identical to that contained in Mr. Wood’s analysis (compare Wood’s statement with Section II of the submitted document - “In setting the rate caps, the FCC excluded the cost of site commissions and set rates below provider's costs to force them to stop paying site commissions.”). 16 Ex Parte Submission of GTL, Securus and Telmate (Sept. 14, 2014). See also Ex Parte Submission of GTL, Pay Tel, Securus and Telmate (Oct. 15, 2015) (urging summit to address proposal by Securus counsel, Andrew D. Lipman). See also Ex Parte Submission of GTL, Securus and Telmate (Oct. 15, 2015) (the FCC has authority to regulate interstate and intrastate ICS site commissions). 17 5 the eve of the adoption of the Second R&O, that “[p]romoting competition in the market for payphone services requires attention to the rates charged for every call, not just interstate ones” and that Section 276 granted to “the FCC the authority to regulate intrastate matters.” 18 It is, therefore, astounding that the very same parties who advocated that the FCC has authority to regulate both interstate and intrastate ICS rates when they were trying to have the FCC step in and relieve them of their onerous but entirely voluntary business decision to pay site commissions, have since filed petitions for stay with the FCC, 19 and petition for review and motions for stay with the US Court of Appeals, challenging the FCC’s authority under Section 276 to cap intrastate ICS rates. 20 In the end, only one conclusion can be reached from reviewing their flip-flops in advocacy and their refusal to compete against each other for ICS consumers – namely, that the ICS providers would prefer to simply maintain the status quo. However, the FCC does not have that luxury, as it is obligated to correct market failures to ensure that ICS rates and fees are just, reasonable and fair. 21 See Ex Parte Submission of GTL, Securus and Telmate, pg. 6 (citing New England Public Communications Council, 334 F.3d 69, 76-77 (recognizing that, “in passing the 1996 Act’s payphone competition provision and the local competition provisions, Congress had exactly the same objective: to authorize the Commission to eliminate barriers to competition,” and noting that it would be similarly impossible to implement the Section 276 competition provisions “while limiting the Commission’s authority to interstate services”)). 18 See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Order, DA 16-83 (Jan. 22, 2016)(dismissing petitions for stay filed by GTL, Securus and Telmate). See also CenturyLink’s Petition for Stay Pending Judicial Review, WC Dkt. 12-375 (Jan. 29, 2016). 19 See, e.g., Motion for Global Tel*Link for Partial Stay Pending Judicial Review, No. 15-1461, pg. 3 (Jan. 27, 2016) (“Even more fundamentally, the Order is unlawful because the FCC lacks authority to set rate caps for intrastate ICS calls.”). 20 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) (“any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful.”) (emphasis added); See 47 U.S.C. § 205(a) (“the Commission is authorized and empowered to determine and prescribe what will be the just and 21 6 II. THE FCC MUST ENSURE VIDEO VISITATION AND ADVANCED ICS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ARE NOT USED TO AVOID FCC REGULATION OF ICS INDUSTRY. As noted in our 3rd FNRPM comments, the FCC has requested a substantial amount of information that can only come from ICS providers and correctional facilities. We even provided a helpful chart – Exhibit A – which detailed the information requested by the FCC so that ICS providers and correctional authorities could respond to the FCC’s request. 22 The Wright Petitioners did make an attempt to obtain the video visitation rate information requested by the FCC, and provided what could be found as Exhibit B. The information provided therein showed a great range of rates charged by ICS providers. 23 The Wright Petitioners also provided a discussion of the FCC’s authority to regulate video visitation and other new services offered by ICS providers, concluding that the FCC has ample authority to prescribe just, reasonable and fair rates for ICS video visitation and advanced ICS communications services. 24 Other parties, such as the Prison Policy Initiative, HRDC, Verizon, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, also support the FCC reasonable charge or the maximum or minimum, or maximum and minimum, charge or charges to be thereafter observed, and what classification, regulation, or practice is or will be just, fair, and reasonable.”) (emphasis added); See 47 U.S.C. §276(b)(1) (“In order to promote competition among [ICS] providers and promote the widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the general public…the Commission shall take all actions necessary…to establish a per call compensation plan to ensure that all [ICS] providers are fairly compensated.”) (emphasis added). Rather than just being an optional “a la-carte” order (See O’Rielly Dissent, pg. 1), these obligations were imposed upon the FCC by Congress in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. 22 3rd FNPRM Comments, pg. 9, Exhibit A. 23 Id., pg. 10. 24 Id., pgs. 13-14. 7 EXHIBIT H The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment: Baltimore City Jail Complex Author(s): Fred Frantz, Phil Harris Document No.: 250263 Date Received: September 2016 Award Number: 2010-IJ-CX-K023 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this federally funded grant report available electronically. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment: Baltimore City Jail Complex Fred Frantz Engility Corporation Phil Harris Engility Corporation Engility Corporation, Rome NY Award Number: 2010-IJ-CX-K023 September 2015 The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, or Engility Corporation. Research in support of this report has been conducted in accordance with NIJ’s requirements for research independence and integrity, and the authors have no vested interests in commercial communication technology products, processes, or services. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment ii Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 2 The Baltimore City Jail Complex ....................................................................................................... 4 The Metropolitan Transition Center (MTC) .................................................................................... 5 The Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC) ................................................................................ 6 Nearby Jail Complex Facilities ....................................................................................................... 7 Technology and Illegal Cell Phone Management ................................................................................ 8 Network Coverage and Managed Access .......................................................................................... 10 MAS Architecture: Macro versus Small Cells versus DAS ............................................................ 14 Rural (Macro) versus (Urban) DAS: A Real World Example ........................................................ 23 System Interconnections: 911 and Other Authorized Calls ............................................................ 27 Managed Access Technology at the Baltimore City Jail Complex .................................................... 28 MAS Deployment in Baltimore ..................................................................................................... 30 MTC Managed Access .................................................................................................................. 30 BCDC Managed Access ................................................................................................................ 31 System Testing and Operation....................................................................................................... 32 BCBIC and MRDCC .................................................................................................................... 33 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 34 Appendix A: Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Activity .............................................................. 41 Appendix B: Managed Access Technology ...................................................................................... 43 Cellular Telephony ....................................................................................................................... 43 Managed Access ........................................................................................................................... 47 Managed Access Network Coverage ............................................................................................. 49 Network Coverage Related Maintenance....................................................................................... 56 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment iii List of Tables Table 1. DPSCS System-Wide Reported Contraband Cell Phones Found ......................................... 38 Table 2. Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Criminal Activity ....................................................... 41 List of Figures Figure 1. The Baltimore City Jail Complex ......................................................................................... 5 Figure 2. Conceptual View a Managed Access System RAN Signal Coverage ................................. 12 Figure 3. Conceptual View Managed Access RAN Signal Coverage Underlay ................................. 13 Figure 4. Traditional Macro Cellular Site ......................................................................................... 15 Figure 5. Small Cells Augmenting Macro Network RAN Coverage .................................................. 16 Figure 6. Distributed Antenna System Technology ........................................................................... 18 Figure 7. DAS for In-building & Outdoor RAN Coverage ................................................................ 20 Figure 8. MAS RAN coverage via Distributed Antenna technology .................................................. 22 Figure 9. MAS RAN coverage via macro site technology ................................................................. 23 Figure 10. Urban/DAS in contrast to Rural/Macro based MAS ......................................................... 25 Figure 11. MSP Parchman Complex and Surrounding Area .............................................................. 26 Figure 12. Baltimore MTC and BCDC Managed Access Systems .................................................... 27 Figure 13. Managed Access System and Cellular System Interconnections ....................................... 28 Figure 14. MTC Cell Phone Confiscations July 2011 – February 2013 ............................................. 29 Figure 15. BCBIC and MRDCC Cell Phone Seizures ....................................................................... 34 Figure 16. MTC Cell Phone Confiscations July 2011 – Feb 2013 ..................................................... 35 Figure 17. MTC & BCDC Cell Phone Searches 2011 – 2015 ........................................................... 35 Figure 18. MTC & BCDC Cell Phone Confiscations 2011 – 2015 .................................................... 36 Figure 19. MTC & BCDC Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) 2011 – 2015 ............................ 36 Figure 20. Cellular Radio Access Network ....................................................................................... 48 Figure 21. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Nearby Environment .............................. 50 Figure 22. Conceptual Top-Down View of RAN Coverage from Cellular Carrier “A” ...................... 51 Figure 23. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Carriers “B” and “C” ............................. 52 Figure 24. Top-Down View of RAN Coverage from Cellular Carriers “B” and “C” ......................... 53 Figure 25. Hypothetical Correctional Facility with Carriers “A”, “B” and “C” ................................. 54 Figure 26. Top-Down View: Signal Coverage: Cellular Carriers “A”, “B” and “C” .......................... 55 Figure 27. Managed Access System Coverage Hole ......................................................................... 57 Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Nancy Merritt, Joseph Heaps, Jay Miller, Secretary Steven T. Moyer and Casey Joseph for their support of this project, as well as their insights throughout its completion. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment Executive Summary Managed access, as a category of technology, has become an increasingly significant tool for denying illegal inmate use of cellular telephone services. This report is the second of a set of reports examining the impact of managed access technology on contraband cell phone use in prisons. The focus of this report is the use of Distributed Antenna System (DAS) Technology, deployed in support of cellular Managed Access System (MAS) use in an urban correctional facility—the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DSPCS) Baltimore City Complex. This report builds upon technical information in a previous assessment of MAS which described operation of managed access technology deployed in a rural correctional facility. The technical background material is presented in a conceptual format rather than providing detailed implementation specifics. This study concludes the following: 1. While managed access had a significant impact within the facilities where it was deployed, other factors unrelated to the technology such as policy changes also contributed to the overall decline of illegal cellphone use throughout the prison system (to include faculties with deployed managed access systems). 2. Good working relationships with nearby cellular carriers are critical. 3. MAS can effectively be implemented in an urban setting. Technology such as Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) allows operators to refine and control system coverage within tightly constrained environments. 4. DAS deployment is heavily reliant upon physical installation of cable, conduits and other supporting infrastructure. Retrofitting an existing correctional structure is particularly challenging with unique logistical challenges involved with deploying it in areas where inmates reside and securing the system infrastructure from sabotage. 5. Cellular managed access technology only addresses cellular communications capabilities and cannot, for instance, prevent use of non-cellular wireless capabilities, such as Wi-Fi, stand-alone computing or photographic capabilities which have become standard features in modern cellular devices. Managed access mitigates the connection of cellular radio transmissions between a handset and an external (e.g., commercial) network. Elimination of cellular communications capabilities makes other features present in these devices less useful to the inmates that possess them. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 1 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment Introduction This report is the second of a set of reports examining the impact of managed access technology on contraband cell phone use in prisons. The focus of this report is the use of Distributed Antenna System (DAS) Technology, deployed in support of cellular Managed Access System (MAS) use in an urban correctional facility—the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DSPCS) Baltimore City Complex. This report builds upon technical information in a previous assessment of MAS which described operation of managed access technology deployed in a rural correctional facility (the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, MS)1, referenced as the “Parchman Report” in the remainder of this report. As with the Parchman Report, much of the technical background material presented herein is presented in a conceptual format rather than providing detailed implementation specifics. Managed access technology has become an increasingly significant tool for denying inmate use of cellular telephone services. Managed access, in contrast to radio frequency jamming, or passive signal sensing, selectively denies service to unauthorized users.2 Passive radio sensing is another category of technology described in the Parchman Report. Passive sensing provides an alternative approach to interdiction of illegal cell phone use, one which recognizes cellular radio signals and alerts a system operator of an active wireless device. Stated in another way, passive sensing technology works in a “listen only” mode which informs physical intervention by prison 1 Grommon, E., Carter, J., Frantz, F., Harris, P., A Case Study of Mississippi State Penitentiary’s Managed Access Technology, report to the National Institute of Justice, August 2015, currently under publication review. 2 Jamming technology is currently illegal for non-Federal users. The Communications Act of 1934, Section 333 prohibits willful or malicious interference with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. Government (47 U.S.C. § 333). It is a violation of federal law to use a cell jammer or similar devices that intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications such as cell phones, police radar, GPS, and Wi-Fi, see http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jamming-cell-phones-and-gps-equipmentagainst-law This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 2 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment staff. Unlike managed access or jamming technologies, passive technology cannot directly intervene or mitigate access to cellular services. In contrast to passive technologies, managed access technology is an active (licensed) technology. Managed access technology is designed to actively manage service requests from cellular devices providing the ability to selectively allow or deny cellular communications to/from cellular devices. Service in this context is limited to voice and/or data calls from cellular devices on cellular network frequencies. Unlike jamming technology, managed access technology mitigates communications to/from approved cellular devices so that legitimate calls be processed and completed, while cellular network service requests to/from non-approved, presumably contraband cell phones are legally disrupted. Managed access use is guided by operational policy and guidelines of the deploying agency3. Managed access technology “manages” cellular network services available to specific cellular users and/or cellular devices. Like cellular jamming technology, managed access systems actively transmit radio signals on cellular network radio frequency bands so they are subject to FCC licensing, or NTIA authorization4,5. From an operational perspective managed access capabilities and operational effectiveness are relatively new topics and subject to agency choices related to system architecture, system deployment details, and ongoing operation. Total cost of ownership, system functionality, and actual impact on cell phone use, both within and 3 This report uses the terms “call” and “connection” in this document interchangeably to describe a request for service (voice, messaging via text/email/multimedia and/or Internet access) placed from a cell phone via a commercial cellular network. 4 This includes bands associated with the commercial cellular service, broadband personal communications and certain advanced wireless services. 5 In this paper the terms “active” and “passive” used in context of regulatory and licensing describe technology that actively transmits radio energy using frequencies within commercial mobile service bands (active) or only receive signals in these bands (passive). This is in contrast to usage that describes operational capability, i.e., technology that “passively” disables the use of cellular services from a distance, in contrast to those that simply provide the ability to locate an illegal device; requiring “active” intervention on behalf of prison personnel to seize and disable the illegal devices. Both uses appear in this paper. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 3 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment outside of the designated managed access coverage area, are topics that can benefit from increased knowledge. Each managed access system deployment will have unique design and implementation challenges associated with both the physical implementation and the local commercial cellular environment within which it resides. This report seeks to further inform the decision process, complementing the Parchman Report by describing an active system operating in an urban environment; specifically managed access systems deployed in the Baltimore MD City Jail Complex. This report is not a product evaluation; the purpose of this report is to document the managed access use in Baltimore MD, specifically: To examine MAS technology operating at correctional facility in an urban setting; To describe the use of Distributed Antenna System technology (DAS); and To describe how managed access technology using DAS contrasts with managed access using macro-cellular technology6. The Baltimore City Jail Complex The Baltimore City Jail Complex is operated by the DPSCS and consists of the Baltimore City Correctional Center (BCCC), the Metropolitan Transition Center (MTC), The Baltimore City Detection Center (BCDC), the Chesapeake Detention Facility (CDF) and the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center (BCBIC). Only the MTC and BCDC have managed access systems. 6 Use of the term “macro cell site” in this report describes use of a small number of relatively high-power base stations located in cell sites designed to cover a large area (for example in a correctional facility located in a rural setting.) This is in contract to small cell and DAS technologies described n this report. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 4 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment Source: Google Earth. Annotations: Phil Harris Engility Corporation Figure 1. The Baltimore City Jail Complex The Metropolitan Transition Center (MTC) The Metropolitan Transition Center in Baltimore was built in 1811 and it is the nation’s oldest correctional facility. It houses 698 offenders in a minimum security setting. The MTC is operated by the DPSCS and inmates at this facility serve time as the result of a court imposed This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 5 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment sentence. The FY2015 DPSCS appropriation for MTC was $41,402,746 with 393.6 authorized positions. 7 The Division of Corrections Annual Report Fiscal Year 2013 states that the MTC offers high school equivalency diplomas (GED) in reading, writing and arithmetic and provides intensive substance abuse treatment through Therapeutic Communities, a program that treats about 200 offenders a year.8 Training programs offered by the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, through the Occupational Skill Training Center include state certification programs in automotive repair and maintenance, roofing, HVAC, information technology, warehousing, carpentry, printing and graphics and plumbing. MTC inmates do not participate in outside details. The Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC) The Baltimore City Detention Center was originally constructed as a jail in 1806. It has been renovated 11 times between 1859 and 1999 9. In 1991, Baltimore City Jail consisted of seven buildings: five of these were maximum- and medium-security structures. Minimum-security inmates were housed in two satellite facilities. In July 1991, the State took over administration of the jail from the city, and renamed it the Baltimore City Detention Center under the Division of Pretrial Detention and Services (Chapter 59, Acts of 1991) 10. The BCDC now primarily consists of four buildings: the Women’s Detention Center (WDC), the Men’s Detention Center (MDC), the Jail Industries Building, and the Wyatt Building. The current WDC was opened in 1967 to house female detainees. The FY2015 DPSCS appropriation for BCDC was $85,338,930 with 7 http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/22dpscs/html/dpscs.html#baltimore http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/DOC2013AnnualRpt.pdf 9 http://www.mgaleg.maryland.gov/Pubs/Committee/2013-legislative-policy-committee-june.pdf 10 http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/22dpscs/html/22agen.html 8 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 6 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 748 authorized positions 11 . Following corruption issues publicized in April 2013, 7 $22.7 million has been provided to improve security and staffing within BCDC. Approximately $15.6 million has been provided to upgrade security cameras, implement a cellular managed access system, install x-ray machines, metal detectors and purchase intelligence software 12. The BCDC is one of the largest municipal jails in the nation; over 40,000 inmates are committed to the center annually. The daily number of inmates averages over 2,000 of which about 100 are post-sentencing; the remainder are very transient (though there are also a significant number of people who have been released and are returned). Even though the BCDC is a city facility it is operated by the state. It is a jail; inmates typically are serving sentences of less than 18 months. The BCDC is also a pretrial detention facility for any person committed or transferred to the custody of the Commissioner of Pretrial Detention and Services. The Center may house any person held in custody by any agency of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. In January 2015, a bill was introduced into the state legislature to transfer ownership of BCDC from the state back to the City of Baltimore. 13 Nearby Jail Complex Facilities There are additional facilities operated by the Division of Corrections located nearby, including: 14 The Baltimore Pre-Release Unit (BPRU) and Occupational Skills Training Center (OSTC). 11 http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/22dpscs/html/dpscs.html#baltimore See http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2015RS/fnotes/bil_0000/hb0210.pdf 13 Maryland House Bill 210 has been introduced in 2015. It will abolish the Division of Pretrial Detention and Services within the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; providing for the transfer of property, assets, licenses, credits, and rights of the Baltimore City Detention Center to the Mayor of Baltimore City; requiring the State to pay all the operating and capital costs of the Baltimore City Detention Center in fiscal years 2016 through 2018 and one-half the costs in 2019; providing that Baltimore City pay all the operating and capital costs in fiscal year 2020. See http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb0210&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2015rs 14 http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-youth-jail-20150513-story.html 12 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment The Chesapeake Detention Facility (CDF). The Maryland Reception Diagnostic and Classification Center (MRDCC) . The Baltimore City Correctional Center (BCCC) . The Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center (BCBIC) . Technology and Illegal Cell Phone Management The illegal use of contraband cell phones by inmates to access commercial cellular services continues to present operational challenges to correctional agencies and jail operators. The term “cell-phone use” in this report, specifically in the context of managed access, is the use of an illegal cellular device in a prison or jail to obtain commercial cellular voice or data services. The term “managed access” describes a category of technology or process, rather than a specific commercial product. Managed access systems from multiple vendors are currently in service, or authorized for deployment, in California, South Carolina, Texas, Maryland and Mississippi (see FCC NPRM 13-58 page 6, 2013). In early 2015 the Alabama Department of Corrections requested funds to install managed access technology at four correctional institutions 15 . Fundamentally, all managed access products are deployed to accomplish the same task: to disrupt illegal cellular communications. Managed access technology is being deployed or considered for deployment because, unlike jamming technology, FCC regulations facilitate a legal path for its adoption and use. The use of jamming technologies has been publicly demonstrated and the effectiveness of jamming technology in some venues has also been documented.16 This report acknowledges jamming technology as a potential alternative for which legality is currently under debate. This report neither advocates for jamming, nor suggests that 15 See http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/04/alabama_prisons_planning_syste.html#incart_river For more information about jamming see http://www.wjbf.com/story/21716332/sc-prison-cell-phone-jammingdemonstration-conducted and http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/contrabandcellphonereport_december2010.pdf and http://wisconsinlawreview.org/wp-content/files/3-Fitzgerald.pdf 16 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 8 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment jamming is unsuitable for mitigation of illegal cell phone use. As of the writing of this report, radio frequency jammer use by non-Federal agencies remains illegal in the United States and evaluating it as a technology is beyond the scope of this report. As this report was written many regulatory aspects specific to MAS deployment and implementation continue to be under FCC regulatory review. FCC proceedings are underway to examine deployment regulations to include cellular network spectrum lease issues and carrier notification obligations to MAS operators following changes in nearby commercial cellular networks. The impact of these proceedings on future managed access deployment and operation will remain unknown until the proceedings are complete. Generic managed access functionality was documented in the Parchman Report, and is republished as Appendix B: Managed Access Technology, of this report to provide complete context for the following discussion. Readers unfamiliar with the concepts of managed access technology should read the Appendix before proceeding through the remainder of this report. This report emphasizes managed access using distributed antenna systems (DAS) based radio access network technology. The Parchman Report described a different approach, the use of more traditional macro site technology, as deployed at a rural correctional facility. Technologies like DAS (and small cells) were not addressed in the Parchman Report because they were not part of that system. Details of cellular provider networks near these correctional facilities and/or related cellular technology protocols are not provided. Since this report is not a product evaluation, specific managed access system network interfaces and vendor-specific product features are not described. Terminology used is intended to be generic with exception to references specific to This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 9 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment the system provider for the agencies noted in this report17. Each deployment of managed access capability will have the similar goals, but to achieve those goals each system needs to be designed to address location-specific unique physical and environmental characteristics regardless of the chosen managed access technology, or product. Each system design is dependent upon facility-specific physical constraints and characteristics of the local commercial wireless environment. Because of these unique requirements, concepts associated with the topic of managed access coverage are presented in a generic manner, independent of venue-specific implementation choices. Network Coverage and Managed Access Wireless coverage associated with a managed access system radio access network (RAN), and how the RAN interacts with nearby commercial cellular networks, is a baseline consideration for any managed access deployment, regardless of the underlying technology used to establish this coverage. Managed access technology is used to establish a RAN that is in essence a multi-carrier multi-band cellular network, of limited scope and coverage. Managed access system RAN coverage is designed to present the dominant network signal within its designed coverage area; an area legally defined by geographical boundaries established in FCC approved cellular carrier spectrum leases. RAN coverage may be designed to span an entire correctional facility or at a minimum, coverage within specific areas within that lease area deemed by correctional officials to present the greatest risk. The managed access RAN presents itself as an extension of nearby commercial cellular networks, allowing it to capture transmissions from cellular user devices (e.g., cell phones, cellular equipped computers/tablets). 17 Being generic also avoids the pitfalls of using endless variation of technical jargon associated with multiple generations, and versions, of cellular networking technology currently in use; each of which must be addressed by cellular mitigation technologies. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 10 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment Managed access processes control all cellular communications capabilities associated with devices connected to the RAN. The topic of RAN coverage is presented, in a simplified way, in Figure 2 and Error! Reference source not found.18. Areas with grey shading are intended to depict managed access RAN coverage as an underlay to commercial network RAN coverage. Note that a managed access system operator has a legal obligation to ensure that system coverage is contained within areas/parameters defined by their spectrum lease. This is in contrast to an operational need to establish and verify managed access operational effectiveness inside of its defined coverage area. A managed access RAN is activated and calibrated so that meets obligations associated with carrier spectrum leases and FCC rules first followed by optimizations related to effectiveness. Ongoing compliance testing requirements and methodology related to spectrum lease. Compliance testing can occur on a regular schedule or in an ad-hoc fashion; exact requirements and testing procedures need to be defined via spectrum lease details. After all spectrum-lease lease obligations are achieved and confirmed through testing, the system can be further optimized to minimize coverage holes and maximize operational effectiveness inside operational boundaries. Testing obligations and methodology associated with ongoing managed access performance goals, related to operational effectiveness within coverage boundaries, are completely agency-defined because agency operational goals are not constrained by mandatory spectrum lease or Federal regulatory constraints. Operational requirements within the coverage area should be documented in a concise technical manner by the deploying agency, and clearly defined as a performance requirement in procurement documents if the deploying agency intends to make ongoing performance verification part of a 18 RAN coverage depicted in this way is acknowledged to be overly simplistic from a technical perspective, but adequate to convey concepts. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 11 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 12 contractual requirement. Costs associated with operational performance testing obligations must be understood by system operators, system suppliers, and end users. If an agency intends to use internal agency resources for recurring performance testing, then the associated operational costs and testing methodology should be well defined. Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 2. Conceptual View a Managed Access System RAN Signal Coverage Figure 2 and Error! Reference source not found. show managed access network RAN signal coverage. It is designed to overwhelm signals from nearby commercial network towers (i.e., nearby carrier RANs). A simplified way to envision this is to think about managed access RAN signal coverage as a cloud of radio energy that sits between illegal cellular devices and nearby commercial cellular networks. Commercial network RAN signals are overwhelmed by signals from the managed access system RAN. Cellular devices operating within the managed access RAN connect to the managed access cellular network; this is analogous to, but not quite This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 13 technically the same as, roaming processes that routinely occur between commercial cellular networks. Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 3. Conceptual View Managed Access RAN Signal Coverage Underlay With managed access, a cellular device connects to the managed access RAN as if it were part of a commercial carrier’s network. Once a cellular device is captured by a managed access system, unique identifying information retrieved from the device is compared against a list of known authorized devices. An authorized list is commonly referred to as a “white list”. If a device is documented on a white list (indicating system operator authorization) the MAS will re- This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment direct that device to the commercial network for call completion. If a device is not authorized and included on the list, then service requests to or from a captured device are denied. In managed access all connected devices are, by definition, assumed to be contraband and blocked by default. Authorized handsets appear on an exception list called a “white-list.” Conversely, commercial carriers employ “black-lists” by to deny service to specific handsets, assuming all other connected cellular devices are authorized by default (assuming a valid cellular service agreement is in place.) Managed access system technology-related choices are important. Regardless of the underlying wireless technology used to provide managed access RAN signal coverage, once a device is captured managed access network processes mitigate access to cellular services. Disposition of wireless service requests associated with devices falling under the control of any managed access network is dependent on MAS functions riding atop the RAN. Correctional facility policies, regulations, and guidelines ultimately define how a MAS operates. MAS Architecture: Macro versus Small Cells versus DAS Effective managed access RAN coverage, regardless of the underlying cellular technology, is critical to facilitate consistent capture of cellular devices. Managed access via DAS technology is presented to illustrate how DAS-based managed access contrasts with and complements traditional cellular macro-site and small cell technologies. MAS RAN coverage throughout large open spaces can often be established using cellular topology based on a small number of relatively high-power base stations located in cell sites designed to provide coverage throughout a relatively large area (e.g., in a correctional facility located in a rural setting.) In a commercial network macro sites would be spaced to provide overlapping and continuous regional RAN coverage. This type of cell site technology is This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 14 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 15 categorized as “macro” cellular technology within this report. In this type of network, macro cellular sites may be supplemented by low-power, location-specific, repeaters and/or small cells which augment RAN coverage within specific buildings or outdoor areas. Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 4. Traditional Macro Cellular Site Figure 4 shows an example traditional macro cellular site that utilizes a sectorized antenna system (directional antennas each fed by a radio operating on a discrete frequency). Commercial cellular RANs are comprised of many (hundreds/thousands) of similar sites optimized for specific coverage and frequency re-use requirements. Commercial cellular networks use macro cell sites that support mobility so that cellular handsets can be “handed-off” between cellular base stations while maintaining service while users move throughout the network coverage area. Use of a macro cellular architecture for a managed access RAN is suitable for some applications, but it presents coverage challenges for managed access deployments in correctional institutions located in a densely populated urban environment or for institutions that have a relatively small (or otherwise constrained) footprint. An alternative approach, for this type of constrained environment, is to establish managed RAN coverage via distributed antenna and/or This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 16 Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 5. Small Cells Augmenting Macro Network RAN Coverage small cell technology. Unlike macro sites, RANs established with distributed antenna and small cell technologies (shown in Figure 5) rely on small antenna systems and relatively low power transmitters.19 Use of DAS technology within a MAS architecture provides the ability to finely tailor (or augment) RAN network coverage in support of constrained functional environments. Distributed antenna system technology is not unique to managed access; DAS technology is deployed by many commercial operators to augment RAN commercial networks, primarily as a tool to increase capacity or to improve network coverage within specific venues such as office buildings, shopping centers or sports complexes where macro network coverage is inadequate. Low-power DAS and small cell technologies are also becoming increasingly relevant for 19 Small cell technology is described here to be analogous to DAS in terms of signal coverage, and certainly analogous to distributed antenna technology from the perspective of physical plant requirements. Small cells are not part of the Baltimore deployment, and at the time of this report the authors were not aware of MAS products based on small cell technology. Small cell technology is acknowledged in this report because the technology is becoming an increasingly prevalent within commercial cellular network operations. Understanding the difference between the two technologies clarifies how DAS technology is unique. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment commercial operations in densely populated urban areas where frequency re-use in the RAN has become important tool to increase network density and improve network capacity. Network RAN designs based on distributed antenna and small cell technologies, for both managed access and commercial networks, are highly dependent upon the specific venue where they are deployed. DAS technology and small cell technology are often interchangeable because, from a user’s perspective, network services provided through them are indistinguishable. Setting coverage similarities aside, there are significant architectural differences between small cell and DAS technologies. The primary difference between small cell and distributed antenna technologies is how and where network signals and service data are processed within the cellular network. Radio antennas are used within the RAN to establish the wireless interface through the atmosphere by converting electrical signals (at radio frequencies) into electromagnetic waves which are transmitted into the atmosphere (and vice versa in the receive direction.) An important point, in context of DAS technology, is that all wireless signals including digital cellular network wireless signals are analog as they pass through an antenna system. System and customer data in a small cell network is conveyed through the network, in digital format, all the way to the edge of the network where it is processed by a transceiver into an analog radio signal operating at the desired radio frequency for interaction with the an antenna system. In contrast to small cell technology, network signals in a (optical) DAS system are processed into analog electrical signals, at the RAN operating frequency, at a central location (often referred to as a DAS “head-end”) where they are immediately converted from electrical to optical format for transport through fiber optic cable to/from a remote RF head location were the analog radio signal is converted back to an electrical signal at the desired RAN operating This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 17 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 18 frequency20. Figure 6 depicts an optical DAS system in context of managed access. A centrally located DAS “head-end” can feed multiple remote “RF heads” via optical fiber interconnections. Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 6. Distributed Antenna System Technology Cellular communications are obviously bi-directional. In the network transmit (downlink) direction once converted back in to electrical format by the remote RF head, the analog radio signal can be further filtered and processed though an analog amplifier system before the signal is applied to an antenna. The receive (uplink) direction can also be filtered and amplified in a similar way at the remote RF head before conversion from electrical into optical format for transport to the central head end. Depending on system complexity and features, the final transmit power at each antenna can often be fine-tuned remotely to adjust RAN coverage. A prime benefit of DAS technology is that it facilitates centralization of many network functions at a single central location. Because all radio signal processing occurs at a central location, system components at the remote RF head are less complex, and technology upgrades can occur at the head-end location instead of upgrading multiple small cell radio components at remote antenna locations. With DAS the over-all system architecture is less complex. Remote upgrades (within 20 Some DAS technology uses coaxial cable instead of fiber optic technology, eliminating the electro-optical conversion process. The use of coax includes cost and performance trade-offs that are beyond the scope of this report. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment hardware limitations) may be implemented without being observed by inmates, resulting in a more secure and safer process. In a correctional facility managed access functionality, deployed atop DAS RAN technology, requires deployment of fiber optic cables to interconnect the DAS “head-end” with remote optical RF heads. AC Power must be provided at the DAS RF head location to support system telemetry, optical conversion and analog signal amplifiers. Antenna installation usually also requires relatively short coaxial cable runs from the remote RF head(s) to nearby antennas that are optimized for specific frequencies and RAN coverage goals (in some cases it may be useful to think of a single remote head supporting a cluster of nearby antennas.) DAS deployment usually requires significant infrastructure costs. Logistical support required for the installation of conduit and associated hardware to support of any kind of cable-based signal distribution system is not insignificant, because it is usually “retrofitted” into an existing structure, or series of structures, not originally designed to accommodate it. Installation can involve deployment of extensive hardened cable raceways and/or electrical conduit designed to meet fire and electrical codes while protecting fragile optical and coaxial cables against vandalism. Antenna installations must also be hardened, and installed in a secure fashion. Installation of a DAS usually involves construction within spaces normally occupied by inmates21. Officials in Baltimore noted that inmates were able to sabotage the managed access system by damaging antennas in some locations even though they were installed on walls 15 to 20 feet above the floor. DAS components located in areas only accessible to staff members were also able to be sabotaged. DAS head end equipment, and remote optical radio heads must also be 21 Note that this is equally true for any cable-based technology, to include DAS, distributed sensing, or distributed jamming technologies. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 19 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 20 secured and protected. Remote management of all active MAS components is critical for diagnosis and understanding of system status prior to entering prisoner occupied areas. Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 7. DAS for In-building & Outdoor RAN Coverage Radio signals rapidly degrade in the atmosphere and the ability of a RAN network to present a dominant signal and maintain effectiveness decreases with increasing distance from a base station antenna. Simply increasing base station transmit power, or optimizing antenna orientation to increase coverage reaches a point of diminishing returns because maintaining desired coverage and effectiveness is a balancing process constrained by the legal obligation to constrain managed access system signals within authorized coverage boundaries. RAN coverage is optimized by carefully optimizing transmit signal power levels at the lease boundary perimeter against those received from nearby commercial networks. The result of this balancing act may be coverage This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment holes within the facility or within specific buildings where, for a number of reasons, commercial network signals remain dominant. Establishing ubiquitous coverage using macro technology can be complicated because prisons are made from materials that attenuate (block) and reflect RF signals in ways that are often impossible, or impractical to predict. For example, signals from a macro base station located on one side of a jailhouse may be attenuated enough by the building structure to allow an illegal cell phone to connect to a commercial network when used near the opposite side of the same building. DAS based managed access technology utilizes a network of low-power antenna sites to establish an effective RAN signal throughout a correctional facility. DAS technology allows system operators to establish RAN coverage in a much more granular fashion. For example, Figure 8 shows a hypothetical correctional facility using DAS technology with directional (e.g., flat panel) antennas around the perimeter of the facility. Antennas deployed in this way around the facility perimeter would focus RAN signal energy inward toward the controlled area, rather than outward in a transmission pattern typical for a centrally located macro antenna system (Figure 9.) The DAS example shown Figure 8 also includes antennas interior to compound buildings. This can be particularly helpful when dealing with irregularshaped urban coverage areas because RAN coverage can be constrained to specific buildings, or within specific areas accessible to inmates; minimizing the need for the managed access RAN to blanket the entire facility. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 21 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 22 Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 8. MAS RAN coverage via Distributed Antenna technology This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 23 Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 9. MAS RAN coverage via macro site technology Rural (Macro) versus (Urban) DAS: A Real World Example Figure 10 compares the relative coverage area and equipment density of a DAS-based network equipment in an urban setting (Baltimore, MD) to a macro type of installation in a rural location (Parchman, MS). The two areas shown in Figure 10 are scaled to emphasize the difference in size: the two DAS systems in Baltimore City Jail complex use nearly 500 antennas to achieve managed access coverage within a significantly smaller footprint when compared to This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment the system installed at MSP in Parchman. The Parchman RAN is designed to provide coverage for a significantly larger area, using a single macro cell site with a water tower mounted antenna system (Figure 11.) The Parchman MAS RAN coverage extends throughout an area of approximately four square miles, via a single macro site augmented with in-building repeaters for coverage inside specific buildings.22 In contrast, the combined coverage of the two urban DAS-based systems in Baltimore cover approximately one million square feet of building space located within a single (~1200 x 1200 square foot) city block. 22 Source: Tecore This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 24 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 25 Image Source: Google Earth Data Source: Tecore Annotations: Phil Harris Engility Corporation Figure 10. Urban/DAS in contrast to Rural/Macro based MAS This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment Image Source: Google Earth Data Source: MSP Annotations: Phil Harris Engility Corporation Figure 11. MSP Parchman Complex and Surrounding Area This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 26 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 27 The DAS-based systems in Baltimore use a total of 46 transceivers feeding 496 antennas (475 interior + 21 exterior) to provide RAN coverage spanning 14 buildings (see Figure 12.) Image Source: Google Earth Annotations: Phil Harris, Engility Corp Tecore provided system data Figure 12. Baltimore MTC and BCDC Managed Access Systems System Interconnections: 911 and Other Authorized Calls Procedures for handling of legitimate emergency service (911) call requests placed via the MAS will be dependent upon local agency MAS policy, state and local regulations, and FCC rules which legally define what a legitimate service request is. Depending on local policy, 911 calls may be triaged locally within the facility, routed directly to cellular carriers for further processing, or routed directly to an appropriate public safety answering points (PSAP). The latter case is how 911 calls are managed by the Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP) in Parchman. In contrast to MSP, any 911 call processed by the MAS in Baltimore is routed to a correctional facility master control center for triage by correctional personnel. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 28 Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 13. Managed Access System and Cellular System Interconnections To directly route legitimate 911 calls to a nearby PSAP, network connectivity is required between the managed access network and nearby cellular carrier networks and/or directly to the local/regional PSAP. These interconnections are acknowledged and depicted in Figure 13. Implementation choices and the cost of these interconnections are subject to local requirements that define implementation choices and PSAP driven policies. It is important that MAS operators consider agency policies, physical implementation issues, and ongoing operation of any inter-network connections to ensure associated one-time and recurring operating costs are acknowledged. Managed Access Technology at the Baltimore City Jail Complex Officials from the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) indicated that the incentive for seeking a solution to illegal cell phone use within the Baltimore complex increased significantly following use of an illegal cell phone to arrange a This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 29 successful “hit” on a witness. This hit was arranged, or ordered, using an illegal cell phone within Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC). DPSCS indicated that they were not entirely sure if managed access technology could be successfully deployed in the city. The MTC complex had a higher number of cell phone confiscations, and deployment of a system at the MTC was less complicated than it would be at BCDC, so DPSCS decided to deploy managed access at the MTC first. A managed access system was subsequently installed at BCDC in April 2013, as part of an emergency procurement following the indictment of 13 BCDC correctional officers for smuggling contraband. Prior to deploying managed access in the Baltimore complex, traditional security practices were in place. For example, there are two points of entry to the BCDC facility: the main entrance/lobby for civilians/staff and a sally port for prisoner processing. The front lobby is the primary entry point for the facility. Metal detectors are used to screen visitors and employees at these entry points, in conjunction with physical searches, x-rays of incoming packages, and vehicle searches. All inmates are searched upon entry or exit to/from the facility. These security procedures remained in place when the managed access systems were installed. Data Source: Mr. Jay Miller, MD DPSCS Figure 14. MTC Cell Phone Confiscations July 2011 – February 2013 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment In general as noted in the number of illegal cellular devices confiscated at the MTC has declined, and data provided by DPSCS in February 2015 indicate that there had been no cell phone confiscations at that facility since April 2013. Note that the annual fiscal year in Maryland runs from July 1– June 30, so FYTD, as of midJanuary 2015, essentially covered a six and a half month period. Figure 17 and Figure 18 summarize the number of non-routine housing searches in the MTC and BCDC facilities for fiscal year 2010 through mid-January in 2015. These data suggest positive effect of managed access technology in regard to possession and use of illegal cellular devices. MAS Deployment in Baltimore Both the MTC and BCDC managed access systems utilize DAS technology. The system in the BCDC (yellow in Figure 1) is the newest/most recently installed and it is based on a more recent generation of DAS technology. Both systems were provided by the same manufacturer, Tecore. The two systems are separate and RAN coverage does not overlap, however there is a fiber optic control link between the two systems which provides redundancy in case of control system failure. MTC Managed Access The MTC complex (blue in Figure 1) is comprised of 15 transceivers and 172 antennas (including 13 outdoor antennas). It provides coverage for 8 buildings. The MTC managed access system was authorized under contract in April 2012 and activated a year later, in April 2013, following a 19 month purchase and deployment period23. September 27, 2011: initial RFP was released. 23 This timeline provided did not include time required to prepare and release an RFP process that initiated the procurement. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 30 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment October 12, 2011: a pre-proposal conference was held. November 9, 2011: proposals were submitted. February 2012: the Secretary approved the recommendation of award. April 18, 2012: the Board of Public Works approved the contract. April 19, 2013: Final acceptance testing completed. In an April 2012 press release, the DPSCS announced that the state agreed to pay Tecore approximately $2 million dollars to install the MTC managed access system and following a 60day trial evaluation, enter into a three year service contract. DPSCS budget documents indicate that approximately $600,000 of the MTC project funding was provided by the Federal government 24 . A press announcement indicated that if the MTC MAS deployment was successful other facilities would be considered for deployment. 25 All FCC and spectrum lease issues were handled by the system supplier and the MTC managed access system was activated in 2013 at a cost of approximately $2,000,000.26 BCDC Managed Access In contrast to the MTC deployment, the BCDC managed access system is comprised of 31 transceivers, 325 antennas (including eight exterior) for coverage that encompasses six buildings. The BCDC deployment was accelerated and deployed via an emergency procurement process that was initiated on May 7, 2013. The BCDC managed access system was activated in 2014; system acceptance occurred on January 4th, 2014 following a deployment timeline of just under 24 See http://www.dpscs.maryland.gov/publicinfo/news_stories/in_the_news/20120423c.shtml and http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs/budgetfiscal/2015fy-budget-docs-operating-Q00-DPSCS-Overview.pdf 25 See http://www.dpscs.maryland.gov/publicinfo/news_stories/in_the_news/20120420a.shtml 26 See http://www.dpscs.maryland.gov/publicinfo/news_stories/in_the_news/20120420a.shtml This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 31 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 7 months. The system supplier handled all FCC/spectrum lease issues for this system as well. Funding for this system was included in a, $4,714,647, FY2014 deficiency allocation. 27 DPSCS noted that the end date of the newer BCDC contract was aligned with the end date of the MTC contract so support for both systems can be renewed via a single competitively awarded service contract. DPSCS indicated that the initial period of performance for the MTC service contract will end in October, 2015. At the time of this report, the MD DPSCS was initiating the RFP process to procure ongoing maintenance of these two systems following the current end date. System Testing and Operation MAS RAN coverage related to spectrum lease compliance should be followed by performance related acceptance testing. This was accomplished by the system vendor and prison staff to check/validate RAN coverage using commercial cellular handsets. System performance acceptance criteria specified for the Baltimore facilities requires network coverage throughout 98% of defined points within the prison; a point is defined by a physical location, a commercial carrier, and a cellular technology. DPSCS indicated that staff members also conduct ongoing coverage testing on a monthly basis, using a defined grid pattern check and confirm coverage inside each facility. Staff members also make spot checks outside of buildings, but they generally do not conduct a comprehensive outdoor test. Tecore conducts tests outside each facility on a regular basis, and the commercial carriers can also test to verify that there is no RAN coverage outside the authorized managed access system footprint. 27 This total also included funding to deploy video cameras at the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Facility. No further breakdown of this total is noted. See http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs/budgetfiscal/2015fy-budget-docsoperating-Q00-DPSCS-Overview.pdf This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 32 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment DPSCS noted that system complaints received were general in nature, and not related to specific calls being blocked. Since the BCDC was accepted, a DPSCS representative noted that he was only aware of one call incorrectly captured originating from a nearby legitimate user.28 DPSCS indicated that interaction with commercial carriers had been, in general, fairly smooth, stating that the major carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) have corporate managed access support units to interface with managed access vendor and correctional facility deployment teams. It was also noted that, for the most part, these support units are technical in nature and do not address policy or spectrum leasing issues. DPSCS also indicated that carriers do not provide much advance information about changes to their networks; therefore managed access system operators must continue to operate and manage their systems in a reactive rather than proactive posture. Both Baltimore MAS maintenance contracts require the system provider to upgrade the system in response to technology and/or coverage changes in the nearby commercial cellular environment. BCBIC and MRDCC Approximately $7.2 million in funding was allocated in the FY2015 DPSCS budget to deploy managed access technology at the BCBIC and MRDCC. This award, if placed, would extend managed access coverage to nearly all buildings within the Baltimore complex. As shown in Table 1 and Figure 15, the rate of illegal cell phone seizures in these facilities has fallen significantly without managed access technology in place. 28 Two separate incidents were reported in the media shortly after the system was activated. See http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-02-09/news/bs-md-ci-jail-cellphone-blocking-issues-20140208_1_cell-phonecity-jail-tavon-white This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 33 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 34 BCBIC Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center MRDCC Maryland Reception Diagnostic Classification Center 150 115 100 58 14 50 0 FY2010 2 FY2011 129 1 FY2012 30 6 FY2013 17 3 FY2014 3 1 FYTD2015* *Through January, 2015 Data Source: https://data.maryland.gov/Public-Safety/DPSCS-Data-Templates-Directory/rvm2-6rkn Figure 15. BCBIC and MRDCC Cell Phone Seizures The (January 2015) DPSCS Fiscal 2016 budget overview indicates that funding for these systems has been eliminated: “The department’s fiscal 2015 appropriation includes nearly $7.2 million in general funds to implement cell phone managed access systems at the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center (BCBIC) and the Maryland Reception, Diagnostic, and Classification Center (MRDCC). Although the department had plans to expand implementation of managed cell phone access systems, which are already in place at the Metropolitan Transition Center and the BCDC, the fiscal 2016 allowance does not include funding for new systems. The department has not yet awarded a contract for the managed access systems at BCBIC or MRDCC.29” Conclusions In general, as noted in Figure 16 the number of illegal cellular devices confiscated at the MTC has declined, and data provided by DPSCS in February 2015 indicate that there have been no cell phone confiscations at that facility since April 2013. 29 See http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs/budgetfiscal/2016fy-budget-docs-operating-Q00-DPSCS-Overview.pdf This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 35 Data Source: Mr. Jay Miller, MD DPSCS Figure 16. MTC Cell Phone Confiscations July 2011 – Feb 2013 Figure 17 and Figure 18 summarize the number of non-routine housing searches in the MTC and BCDC facilities for fiscal year 2010 through mid-January in 2015. These data suggest a positive effect of managed access technology in regard to possession and use of illegal cellular devices. Figure 19 suggests that the availability of controlled dangerous substances also declined following the deployment on managed access technology. *As of mid-January, 2015 Data Source: Mr. Jay Miller, MD DPSCS Figure 17. MTC & BCDC Cell Phone Searches 2011 – 2015 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment MTC Cell Phones Found 600 400 BCDC Cell Phones Found 456 348 328 306 266 200 0 36 161 74 79 FY2010 4 80 0 15 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FYTD2015* *Through January, 2015 Data Source: https://data.maryland.gov/Public-Safety/DPSCS-Data-Templates-Directory/rvm2-6rkn Figure 18. MTC & BCDC Cell Phone Confiscations 2011 – 2015 Figure 19 suggests that the availability of controlled dangerous substances may have also declined following the deployment of managed access technology. *As of mid-January, 2015 Data Source: Mr. Jay Miller, MD DPSCS Figure 19. MTC & BCDC Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) 2011 – 2015 Data retrieved from publicly available Maryland Open Data Portal describes illegal cell phone seizure rates system-wide30. This data are summarized in Table 1 and they indicate that, system-wide, the rate of contraband Inmate cell phones found within Maryland correctional facilities has fallen in recent years. This trend is apparent both for facilities equipped with Managed Access technology as well as within facilities not equipped with the technology. A significant conclusion that can be made is that while managed access had a significant impact within the facilities where it was deployed, other factors unrelated to the technology such as policy changes also contributed to the overall decline of illegal cellphone use throughout the 30 Data for each facility obtained via the Maryland Open Data Portal at https://data.maryland.gov/PublicSafety/DPSCS-Data-Templates-Directory/rvm2-6rkn. This data shown above was retrieved on July 1st, 2015. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment prison system (to include faculties with deployed managed access systems). When queried about this overall trend system-wide, DPSCS suggested that increased vigilance implemented through policy changes, as well as increased mandatory penalties for those caught with an illegal device contributed to this reduction. For example, it was suggested that rotating correctional staff between regional prison entrance check points likely impacted the ability for staff members to smuggle in illegal devices. The consequences of possession of an illegal cellular device in a Maryland correctional facility have changed to now include criminal penalties, via misdemeanor charges which can result in up to a 3 year jail sentence. It was also noted that administrative sanctions that can now be levied against prisoners, to include disciplinary segregation and loss of privileges. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 37 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment Table 1. DPSCS System-Wide Reported Contraband Cell Phones Found A paragraph in the 2016 DPSCS budget document suggests the deployment of managed access technology deployment is complementary to other methods such as the recovery of contraband via canine unit searches: “The department reports the rate of items found per 100 scans conducted by the Canine Unit. Between fiscal 2011 and 2013, the overall rate of contraband finds decreased from 1.34 to 0.42 items per 100 scans. However, the rate of contraband finds increased This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 38 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment significantly in fiscal 2014, to 0.93 items per 100 scans overall. 39 The majority of items found in fiscal 2014 were weapons and drugs. The department attributes the increased finds to enhanced search techniques and increased use of intelligence and phone monitoring capabilities, which have allowed the Canine Unit to conduct fewer scans leading to an increased number of recoveries. The rate of cell phone finds remained stable in fiscal 2014 at 0.07 per 100 scans. As was to be expected, the rate of cell phone finds declined in the Central Region from 0.33 in fiscal 2013 to 0.13 in fiscal 2014 as a result of implementation of managed access systems at Baltimore facilities31 In addition to the observations noted above, the following conclusions can also be made: As noted in the report about the rural system deployed in Parchman MS, good working relationships with nearby cellular carriers is critical. In Baltimore, the system vendor is responsible to maintain this responsibility, and this relationship is enforced in the service contract. MAS can effectively be implemented in an urban setting. Technology such as Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) allows operators to refine and control system coverage within tightly constrained environments. DAS deployment is heavily reliant upon physical installation of cable, conduits and other supporting infrastructure. While this can be a challenging and costly task for any pre-existing facility, retrofitting an existing correctional structure is particularly challenging. Deployment of technology in a correctional environment creates unique logistical challenges involved with deploying it in areas where inmates reside and securing the system infrastructure from sabotage. 31 See Page 11: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs/budgetfiscal/2016fy-budget-docs-operating-Q00Q-DPSCSOperations.pdf This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment Finally, note that cellular devices are becoming more complex and multi-function in nature and, as a result they present an increasing number of threats based on capabilities other than communication via cellular telephony. Cellular managed access technology only addresses cellular communications capabilities and cannot, for instance, prevent use of non-cellular wireless capabilities, such as Wi-Fi, stand-alone computing or photographic capabilities which have become standard features in modern cellular devices. Managed access simply mitigates the connection of cellular radio transmissions between a handset and an external (e.g., commercial) network. Elimination of cellular communications capabilities makes other features present in these devices less useful to the inmates that possess them. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 40 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 41 Appendix A: Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Activity Contraband cell phones have been used for a variety of criminal activities inside and outside correctional facilities. While specific estimates of such activity have not been routinely collected or published, there is significant body of anecdotal evidence that the problem is widespread and continues to pose a public safety problem. Table 2 illustrates some recent examples of alleged or noted criminal activities that have been associated with inmate use of contraband cell phones. Table 2. Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Criminal Activity State/ Country Year Report Criminal Act(s) Noted Inside or outside prison Reference URL South Carolina 2010 Murder (attempted) Outside http://newsone.com/753345/prisoner-ordered-hitoutside-of-prison-with-smuggled-cell-phone/ Georgia 2011 Organized Inmate Uprisings Inside http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/local/x13313611 64/Cell-phones-spark-Georgia-prison-unrest North Carolina 2012 Kidnapping & Harassment Outside http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/11/3776630/ kelvin-melton-imprisoned-for-life.html and/or http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/12/nort h-carolina-inmate-kidnapping-mobile-phone Ohio (other locations mentioned) 2012 Multiple Inside/ Outside http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/cellp hones-weapons-and-drugs-flood-ohio-prisons1/nMySK/ South Carolina 2012 Smuggling, blackmail, harassment Inside/ Outside http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120430/PC 16/120439959 and http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120430/PC 16/120439971 Georgia 2013 Planning Violent Robberies Outside http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/inmateaccused-planning-violent-crimes-prison/nXbw8/ Georgia 2013 Homicide Inside http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/2013-0324/gangs-cell-phones-blamed-rise-homicidesgeorgia-prisons Indiana 2013 Harassment Outside http://www.theindychannel.com/news/call-6investigators/families-victims-targeted-by-indianastate-prisoners-with-illegal-phones Tennessee 2013 “violent crimes” Outside http://www.newschannel5.com/story/23631961/priso ners-confiscated-cell-phones-help-non-profit This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment State/ Country Year Report Criminal Act(s) Noted Inside or outside prison 42 Reference URL Georgia 2013 Prison Brawl Video Inside http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C77wyuzh3oM California 2014 Drug Trafficking & Violent Crime Outside http://abc30.com/archive/9531064/ Maryland (Baltimore is mentioned) 2014 Smuggling etc. Inside/ Outside http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_2_baltimorecorrectional-services-corruption.html Florida (other locations mentioned) 2014 Multiple Inside/ Outside http://tbo.com/news/crime/prisoners-use-ofsmuggled-cellphones-on-rise-20140216/ Florida, Georgia (and other locations) 2014 Multiple Inside/ Outside http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cellphones-n327311 Georgia 2015 Extortion Inside/ Outside http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2015-0331/augusta-man-shown-beaten-leashed-prisoncellphone-photo Brazil (Baltimore is mentioned) 2014 Murder Honduras 2014 Extortion International Outside Outside http://www.firstthings.com/webexclusives/2014/04/prisoners-are-calling-whosanswering http://dialogoamericas.com/en_GB/articles/rmisa/features/regional _news/2014/05/30/honduras-seguridad This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment Appendix B: Managed Access Technology Cellular Telephony The material in this section consists of background information originally included in the unpublished Parchman report. This information is included here as a supplementary technical overview of managed access technology operations. Cellular telephony, as a wireless radio service, functions much like other radio technologies. Radio technology, when boiled down to bare essentials, involves a process of inserting (modulating) information of various forms onto a radio signal which utilizes radio frequency energy to convey the information through the environment wirelessly. As this wireless energy transits through the atmosphere and surrounding environment some level of radio signal degradation occurs prior to reaching a receiver. This degradation is expected and attributed to a number of predictable and/or unpredictable factors. When the signal arrives at an antenna intact, a receiver converts the information back into a format useful for its intended purpose: this process is called demodulation. Protocols and procedures are used to process (modulate/demodulate) information during wireless transmission, using specific radio frequencies to support the transmission. Some receive processes are based on open standards and others use proprietary technologies. Specific engineering and business needs drive how radio access network (RAN) systems are developed and deployed. For example, commercial carriers Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T each use RAN technologies based on 3GPP LTE standards, but their RAN interfaces are different in many ways, and therefore non-interoperable because of specific implementation choices. Cellular network operators are authorized via Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses to use specific radio spectrum frequencies throughout defined geographical areas. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 43 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment Licenses are often granted following successful bids levied in a spectrum auction, often at costs to a carrier measured in billions of dollars. In exchange for the proceeds received from winning auction bids, the FCC grants the winning carrier exclusive use of frequencies in defined areas so they can invest in RAN infrastructure in a predicable way to provide customer services in the most optimal way suitable to their business plans. They can do what they want and need to, as long as they do not exceed the technical and regulatory limitations associated with their FCC authorizations. Exclusivity means that commercial carriers retain sole legal access to authorized spectrum; a right that operators defend vigorously. 32 Any unauthorized signals emitted in carrier controlled spectrum space are considered to be interference by the carrier and the FCC. Managed access, considered as a category of technology (rather than a specific vendor product) operates as a tenant using carrier RAN frequencies. This spectrum lease process requires close coordination between MAS operators and carriers to ensure systems operate in a legal manner. For readers who are unfamiliar with wireless cellular technology, it is important to understand that there are constraints related to how wireless systems are designed and how they operate. Subtle details are significant when considered in context of how RAN coverage is established and maintained. Many radio technologies, such as land mobile radios, are designed to operate in relatively quiet and interference/noise-free wireless environments. These radio services are typically designed to function with relatively few high-powered transmitters using antennas mounted atop tall towers to create networks engineered to operate in a relatively uncluttered radio environment. This type of network provides efficient signal coverage 32 There are a number of Federal proceedings underway that are investigating ways to “share” spectrum, with a goal to more efficiently utilize limited spectrum resources. For example, FCC Docket GN 13-185, Regard to Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands, is examining approaches to sharing spectrum between commercial and federal users; Docket GN 12-354 is considering commercial operations in the range of 3550-3650 MHz, currently used by federal users.. If these efforts are successful, and commercial carriers are allowed access to new spectrum resources, or other spectrum users are allowed shared access to cellular frequencies, the technical implications facing managed access technology may become very complicated. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 44 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment throughout an area using the fewest number of network sites and the minimal amount of supporting infrastructure (i.e., additional base stations/repeaters). This type of technology is often referred to as “noise-limited”. Commercial cellular radio infrastructure can be characterized by a few key distinguishing characteristics: 1. Cellular networks, similar to trunked land mobile radio technology, are bifurcated, composed of a wireless customer air interface between the customer and the carrier network, often referred to as the “radio access network, or RAN”. A second, carrier backbone network, is also established for interconnect cellular towers and to connect customers to off-network services. 2. A typical commercial cellular network is comprised of a relatively large number of base stations designed with relatively low profile towers, densely spaced in a way to efficiently support the greatest number of connections (i.e., users) via the RAN and/or to convey the largest amount of data through the access network. Cellular operators route customer traffic through their network backbone using back-haul connections (e.g., microwave radio, fiber optic cable, copper cable); 3. Cellular technology, similar to land mobile radio, must support customer mobility. Cellular networks are designed to support the movement of large numbers of relatively low-powered user devices between cell towers that make up the RAN, while maintaining network and data connections, and; This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 45 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 4. Cellular RAN’s are constructed using a defined set of radio frequencies with a high level of frequency re-use and efficiency (i.e., using the same frequency resources over and over again). Because of the high level of frequency re-use, cellular technologies are designed to operate amid a relatively high level of radio interference created by adjacent cell sites. This is referred to as an “interference-limited” RF environment, whereby a baseline level of signal interference is expected in exchange for increased levels of spectrum re-use and spectrum efficiency, resulting in the greatest rate of return on a carrier’s investment. Cellular base station density varies by business needs and typically mirrors the number of potential cellular customers; thus the number of base stations in an urban setting is typically greater and more densely deployed than the number of base stations in a rural setting where potential rate of return on investment is significantly less. In a cellular environment, as with land mobile radio, wireless transmission occurs in two directions. Cellular transmissions from a base station radio transmitter directed to receiver components within portable cellular device are typically described as “downlink” transmissions. A transmission in the reverse direction, originating from a relatively low-powered end user device (e.g., cell phone) towards a base station receiver, is often referred to as an “uplink” connection. In a cellular network, the constraining wireless link is usually the uplink from a lowpowered end-user device. If either the downlink or uplink connection fails, or becomes interrupted, then communications services requested by the cellular device user will not work. To combat illegal cell phone use, both managed access and jamming technologies rely on highly engineered systems to provide radio frequency signal coverage using cellular network access frequencies. However, there is a significant difference in how this coverage is used is This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 46 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment used. For example, jamming technology disrupts the communications path between the user and the network. Managed access does not, it depends on establishing successful communications between the network and cellular device to capture a wireless device and then use of network control to selectively grant or deny requested network services. Managed Access A managed access system is, fundamentally, a cellular network with limited scope and reach. A managed access network is designed to present the “dominant” network signal within its limited authorized RAN coverage area. Managed access networks are designed to operate using the same frequencies and protocols as those used in the RAN of nearby commercial cellular carriers. Cellular devices work by listening for a RAN downlink control signal, interacting with the strongest cell tower, and then attaching to the cellular RAN. A managed access system “intercepts” contraband cell phones by presenting a stronger RAN presence to a cellular device, overwhelming signals from nearby commercial RAN’s. Device to tower communications occurring via the RAN air interface uplink/downlink connections and network core should be further envisioned as providing/having two distinct components: network signaling and customer traffic. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 47 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 48 Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corporation Figure 20. Cellular Radio Access Network Managed access technology leverages the distinct split between network control and user connection aspects of cellular technology by “managing” network services granted to a specific end user or device. When a cell phone is turned on it initializes its operating system software, searches for and finds a compatible RAN and then connects to the strongest cell tower. Overhead signaling communications processes are used to first “capture” and then direct how the cellular device interacts with the network. This overhead process is used to identify the device, manage how the device interacts with core network resources (i.e., cellular base stations, cell towers, radio frequencies cellular services.) Signaling transactions between the device and network that pass through the RAN are essentially part of a process used by the network to capture, identify and then verify service levels available to the calling device. Once a device is captured the network can control service provided to the device. Wireless network backbone capacity is typically limited; therefore it is allocated to customers for services on an as-needed basis. The network establishes and then releases network resources as calls, data connection requests, or when inbound received calls are This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment directed from the network towards/from a specific cellular device. These control communications are often referred to, collectively, as “overhead” communications. Overhead communications associated with network and service management constantly occur and from a resource perspective are typically minimal in comparison to bandwidth required to support user voice or data communications. 33 Phrased differently, a contraband cellular device essentially “roams” onto a managed access system when it is operated in a managed access RAN coverage area. Once connected to the managed access system RAN, it becomes subject to MAS control34. Managed access technology is used to enforce agency policy defining which calls can be completed and which calls are terminated. A managed access system also provides the ability to selectively complete authorized call requests made to/from specific cellular devices, to include emergency calls. MAS operation is guided by facility policies and legal guidelines. In addition to managing the use of contraband cellular devices, managed access systems can be used to capture data about the illegal devices that attach to the system and/or data related to call attempts made from attached devices for investigative purposes. Managed Access Network Coverage Wireless network signal coverage, envisioned from a simplified conceptual perspective, can be thought of as an invisible cloud of RAN energy that operates at specific radio frequencies. RAN energy within the coverage cloud associated with a network is additive, comprised of The term Over The Top, or OTT communications described 3rd party services that occur entirely outside of carrier core network resources. OTT communications and OTT overhead are not directly mitigated by managed access, but OTT services are indirectly denied/ blocked when data services are denied by managed access technology. 34 The term “roaming” is used loosely here; managed access systems actually appear to be part of the commercial network by presenting a valid commercial cellular Mobile Network Code to cellular devices. Outbound service requests are explicitly “denied” or “blocked”. Inbound requests are also defeated because the managed access system does not make unauthorized phones visible to the commercial networks; therefore inbound calls to unauthorized phones connected to the managed access network cannot be completed. 33 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 49 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 50 overlapping signals emitted from antennas located on adjacent cell towers that operate using the same frequencies. Areas in commercial networks with inadequate signal levels are often described as “coverage holes”35. Transmitter components in a portable/mobile cellular device also emit a similar cloud of radio frequency energy, centered on the current location of the device. Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 21. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Nearby Environment How radio energy propagates through the atmosphere is predictable, with some practical limitations, particularly in highly engineered cellular environments. Figure 21 depicts a hypothetical correctional facility located adjacent to a town and residential area. At the risk of oversimplification, for the purposes of illustration, RAN signals from competing commercial cellular carriers are depicted using different colors. In this example 35 Note that the term “coverage hole” in context of commercial network coverage describes an area from which calls cannot be completed. A “coverage hole”, in context of a managed access (or jamming) system describes exactly the opposite, an area within the managed access footprint from which connection to a commercial network can be completed. Both describe locations with inadequate signal levels. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment “Carrier A” RAN (blue) provides wireless services throughout the town and surrounding areas using two frequencies that including wireless coverage extending throughout the correctional facility. This cellular RAN operates on two different frequency bands (band A and band C, providing differing areas of coverage.) Figure 22 provides a top-down view of the carrier A RAN coverage. Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 22. Conceptual Top-Down View of RAN Coverage from Cellular Carrier “A” To reflect a typical real-world environment two additional, competing RAN networks from carrier B (orange) and carrier C (green) are similarly depicted in Figure 23 and Figure 24. Coverage for each of these three cellular RAN’s partially encompasses the hypothetical correctional facility. Each of these RAN’s designed and deployed to provide signal coverage tailored to the operator’s business model and customer base. Coverage is usually established This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 51 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 52 using uplink design criteria associated with a typical portable device performance profile. 36 Some level of inter-carrier resource sharing may occur when common network resources are used, or when a tower is leased to two or more competing carriers. Although each network is unique, there is likely to be significant overlap in overall network coverage. Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 23. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Carriers “B” and “C” 36 Service performance and wireless range in many environments is typically dependent upon relatively weaker uplink transmissions from a cellular device towards the network, particularly from within buildings and in rural settings where cellular network density results in longer wireless links. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 53 Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 24. Top-Down View of RAN Coverage from Cellular Carriers “B” and “C” This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 54 Figure 25 and Figure 26 combine individual carrier views to provide a single view of all three carrier RAN’s. They are included to depict the complexity of the entire cellular wireless environment, and how combined cellular carrier RAN coverage overlaps throughout the correctional facility. Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 25. Hypothetical Correctional Facility with Carriers “A”, “B” and “C” It is important to acknowledge, and understand this complexity as a combined threat, because any technology deployed to counteract illegal operation of cellular telephones in a correctional environment must, simultaneously, address the entire combined scope to prevent illegal devices from connecting to each carrier network. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 26. Top-Down View: Signal Coverage: Cellular Carriers “A”, “B” and “C” It is also important to note that the commercial carrier network environment is not static. Carriers have the freedom to change the topology and makeup of their network to optimize how RAN interface frequencies and other network resources support their business model. Towers/network base stations, and carrier-specific network protocols are all subject to change as the commercial networks evolve. Commercial RAN’s are not fully interoperable and each must be addressed separately because of differences in radio frequencies and protocols. For instance, Carrier A and Carrier B may both operate within the same frequency band, yet customer devices may not be interoperable with both networks because they have licensed and use different suballocations within the band. Carrier network changes lead to changes in how cellular customer devices operate, and which uplink/downlink frequencies and/or protocols are used in the RAN to support services. RAN coverage will change over time as well because cellular operators continually optimize their networks. Because of this, technology used to counteract the illegal This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 55 Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 56 use of cellular devices must also be adapted to ensure ongoing effectiveness. A correctional entity operating a MAS or consuming services provided via a leased MAS must ensure that adaptations to counter carrier network changes are handled in a pro-active manner in response to changes or the system will not retain its effectiveness as the surrounding cellular environment evolves and new end-user devices are introduced. Design, deployment, and operation of a managed access system is not a one-time event, it requires ongoing optimization and capability assessment in response to the surrounding environment. Network Coverage Related Maintenance Managed access operational conditions are defined within cellular spectrum leases: coverage must not extend beyond a well-defined service perimeter. System coverage changes can have significant impact on effectiveness if RAN coverage holes are created within a correctional facility. RAN coverage holes can allow users to bypass the managed access system and access commercial networks. Conversely, RAN signal leakage that extends beyond the agreed upon managed access coverage area will lead to disruption of legitimate cellular users in areas where the managed access signal strength overwhelms RAN coverage from a commercial cellular system operator. From a legal perspective compliance with coverage limits defined by a spectrum lease must be addressed first, followed by operational effectiveness within that coverage area. Effectiveness is an internal performance issue, unrelated to spectrum lease conditions. RAN coverage outside the authorized footprint (a.k.a. leakage/bleed) can lead to FCC enforcement action and/or complaints and public relation issues. Coverage issues must be addressed as part of ongoing system maintenance. As previously noted, RAN coverage changes may occur as a by-product of change within nearby cellular networks, or new capabilities This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment 57 introduced in commercial networks operated in areas adjacent to the correctional facility. For instance, a new commercial tower installation or a change in commercial network parameters (such as addition of a new band or protocol) can directly affect managed access system coverage37. Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 27. Managed Access System Coverage Hole Coverage issues may also result from RAN infrastructure damage to either the commercial network or to the managed access system. Coverage issues may result from damage due to inclement weather or from component failure. Any change that affects the relative balance between the strength of managed access and nearby commercial network signal strengths must be resolved. 37 A managed access system design, to include carrier-specific MAS antenna placement, needs to address and optimize coverage for each carrier's frequencies; especially if the towers are not co-located or there are different deployment scenarios and each carrier transmits at different power levels. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. EXHIBIT I The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: A Case Study of Mississippi State Penitentiary’s Managed Access Technology Author(s): Eric Grommon, Ph.D., Jeremy G. Carter, Ph.D., Fred Frantz, Phil Harris Document No.: 250262 Date Received: September 2016 Award Number: 2010-IJ-CX-K023 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this federally funded grant report available electronically. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. A Case Study of Mississippi State Penitentiary’s Managed Access Technology Eric Grommon, Ph.D. Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis Jeremy G. Carter, Ph.D. Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis Fred Frantz Engility Corporation Phil Harris Engility Corporation Engility Corporation, Rome NY Award Number: 2010-IJ-CX-K023 August 2015 The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Engility Corporation, Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis, or Indiana University Public Policy Institute. This research has been conducted in accordance with NIJ’s requirements for research independence and integrity, and the authors have no vested interests in commercial communication technology products, processes, or services. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology ii Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................5 Background and Context .........................................................................................................5 Purpose of the Technology Assessment ...................................................................................8 Evolution of the Contraband Cell Phone Problem ........................................................................8 Cellular Telephony and Services ..............................................................................................8 Technology to Actively Manage Illegal Cell Phone Use ............................................................ 10 Passive Sensing Technology .................................................................................................. 12 Jamming Technology ............................................................................................................ 13 Network-based Technology: The Kill Switch......................................................................... 14 Network-based Technology: Managed Access ....................................................................... 15 Technical Introduction to Managed Access Technology Concepts and Operations .................... 18 Cellular Technology ...................................................................................................................... 18 Managed Access Network Coverage .............................................................................................. 24 Capture and Roaming .................................................................................................................... 31 Coverage Related Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 35 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 38 Context: Mississippi State Penitentiary, Parchman Mississippi .................................................. 41 Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP) ..................................................................................... 41 Findings .................................................................................................................................... 43 Contraband Cell Phones in Mississippi State Penitentiary ...................................................... 44 Managed Access Operational Challenges ............................................................................... 47 Practices and Lessons Learned. .............................................................................................. 60 Contraband Cell Phone Activity ............................................................................................ 67 Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................................................................79 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 82 Future research ...................................................................................................................... 85 Caution for the Corrections Community ................................................................................ 87 References ................................................................................................................................ 87 Appendix A: Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Activity ....................................................... 91 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology iii Appendix B: Semi-Structured Focus Group Protocol and Teleconference Protocols .................. 93 Appendix C: Mississippi State Penitentiary Inmate Security Classifications .............................. 95 Appendix D: MSP Managed Access System Infrastructure........................................................ 96 List of Tables Table 1. MSP and MDOC Offender Populations ....................................................................... 43 Table 2. Summary of Operational Challenges and Associated Issues .........................................48 Table 3. Summary of Operational Lessons Learned and Context for their Application............... 60 Table 4. Overview of Call Attempts by Type, Channel Access, and Mobile Network Code ....... 70 Table 5. Frequency of Call Attempt by Time of Day ................................................................. 70 Table 6. Channel Access by Call Attempt Type ......................................................................... 71 Table 7. Mobile Network Code by Call Attempt Type ............................................................... 71 Table 8. Frequency of Occurrence Call Attempts by Unique Device .........................................71 Table 9. Cell Phone Lifespan by Unique Device ....................................................................... 73 Table 10. Frequency of Occurrence of Call Attempts by Destination Number ........................... 74 Table 11.Top 10 Destination Numbers Called ........................................................................... 75 Table 12.Top 10 Destination Numbers Texted........................................................................... 76 Table 13.Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Criminal Activity ............................................... 91 List of Figures Figure 1. Cellular Network Concepts......................................................................................... 23 Figure 2. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Nearby Environment ........................ 25 Figure 3. Conceptual Top-Down View of Signal Coverage from Cellular Carrier “A”............... 26 Figure 4. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Carriers “B” and “C” ........................ 27 Figure 5. Conceptual Top-Down View of Signal Coverage from Cellular Carriers “B” and “C” 28 Figure 6. Hypothetical Correctional Facility with Carriers “A”, “B” and “C” ............................ 29 Figure 7. Conceptual Top-Down View: Signal Coverage: Cellular Carriers “A”, “B” and “C” .. 30 Figure 8. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility with a Managed Access System .............. 32 Figure 9. A Conceptual Managed Access System Network and Underlay .................................. 33 Figure 10. Managed Access System and Cellular System Interconnections................................ 35 Figure 11. Managed Access System Coverage Hole .................................................................. 36 Figure 12. Mississippi State Penitentiary Grounds ..................................................................... 42 Figure 14. Monthly Total Call Attempts Detected by MAS ....................................................... 68 Figure 15. Daily Total Call Attempts Detected by MAS: Five Month Extract ............................ 69 Figure 15. Case Flow Trends: January to April 2012 ................................................................. 78 Figure 16. The MDOC Water Tower Equipment shelter ............................................................ 96 Figure 17. Equipment located in the MDOC Water Tower Equipment shelter .......................... 97 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology iv Figure 18. Antenna Equipment on the MDOC Water Tower ..................................................... 97 Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Nancy Merritt, Joseph Heaps, Mississippi Department of Corrections, David Scott, Jack Harne, John Shaffer, Casey Joseph, Rick Pruitt, Peter Small, Charles Scheer, Eric Piza, and Anthony Salvemini for their support of this project as well as their insights throughout its completion. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 1 Executive Summary Contraband cell phone use in a corrections facility is an ongoing challenge for corrections agencies. There are numerous anecdotes of contraband cell phones being used to conduct criminal activities from inside a prison. Physical searches of inmates and correctional staff are limited in their scope; contraband policies and legal punishments possess deterrent value, but the effect of such approaches are not well known; and technologies to jam cell phone signals are in violation of U.S. law1 and Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulations. Recently, managed access technology has emerged as another approach to affect contraband cell phone use. This technology allows completion of authorized calls placed from approved phone numbers (numbers which have been vetted and entered into a database) while, conversely blocking calls to/from devices or numbers which have not been pre-approved; a process often referred to as “white-listing”. The promise of this technology as an effective means to combat contraband cell phones has influenced correctional procurement decisions across the country. Yet, many unknowns exist with respect to its capability, functionality, and actual impact on contraband cell phone use. The present research seeks to inform these gaps and provide corrections administrators and policy-makers with information describing managed access technology, its deployment, and relevant data on cell phone transmissions captured by a managed access system. A case study approach was used to learn about the Mississippi Department of Corrections’ (MDOC) procurement and deployment processes used when they implemented managed access technology at the Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP). A series of interviews and 1 47 U.S. Code § 333: No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States Government. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 2 teleconferences, in addition to the secondary analysis of managed access system data, were employed to generate a fundamental understanding of managed access technology operations, identify challenges and lessons learned, and develop a baseline of contraband cell phone activity. This assessment is not an evaluation of the operational efficacy of managed access technology. More specifically, the present study does not seek to quantify potential vulnerabilities or manipulations of managed access systems. Such an evaluation would be insightful, but is beyond the scope of the present study. The present study identified the following challenges associated with deployment and operations of managed access technology: 1. Managed access has to be routinely “managed”. This task requires a significant labor commitment from the host agency, in addition to ensuring that personnel have appropriate technical skills. 2. Managed access requires an effective self-monitoring capability. 3. The system must be designed to prevent illegal access to cellular signals originating outside the corrections facility, and procedures must be developed to address legitimate calls that are blocked by the system. 4. The signal strength of managed access system must be strong enough to cover areas in the facility while ensuring emissions do not exceed authorized levels or exceed authorized coverage areas. 5. Coordination is required with carriers and local public safety answering points to ensure proper handling of 9-1-1 calls. 6. Technology upgrades by cellular carriers can significantly reduce system effectiveness; close coordination with the carriers is critical for effective system operations. 7. The managed access system and associated physical infrastructure may be vulnerable to weather conditions. 8. Inmates may attempt to sabotage system infrastructure. To address these challenges, and based on our observations, we note the following practices employed by MDOC: 1. Work with and educate representatives from the legislative community, the Executive Branch, and advocacy groups to advocate changes to existing laws and policies governing contraband cell phones. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 3 2. Establish cooperative partnerships with cellular carriers. 3. Cross-reference captured phone call information with existing pre-approved list of inmate land-line numbers. 4. Treat managed access as part of a layered approach for counter-measures beyond traditional search capabilities. 5. Use managed access to eliminate inmate use of cellphone technology as a way to circumvent mandatory monitoring of inmate conversations, a condition of use associated with landline based authorized Inmate Calling Systems (ICS). 6. Use managed access to create a general deterrent to impact contraband cell phone market value. 7. Create a housing unit for contraband cell phone violators within MSP at Parchman. 8. Correctional facilities must harden managed access system hardware and associated infrastructure to prevent damage, system failure, and system inefficiencies from both inclement weather and premediated attacks by prisoners. Despite these challenges, managed access technology does appear to detect and terminate a large number of cell phone transmissions. Our analysis of contraband cell phone activity data captured by MSP’s managed access system and provided by MDOC for a five month period in 2012 yielded several useful insights related to the detection and termination of cell phone transmissions. 1. Not all blocked calls can be assumed to originate from contraband cell phones; any cell or wireless phone not on an approved caller list will be blocked by the managed access system operating at MSP. 2. A number of dial strings were identified during our analysis that did not correspond to telephone numbers associated with voice calls but instead represented system commands (e.g., #777, #768 etc.) associated with data services or phone configuration. These likely originated from contraband devices with CDMA 2 data capabilities that automatically query the network when turned on. An agency implementing a managed access system may derive additional information by analyzing captured managed access data resources, 2 CDMA stands for Code-Division Multiple Access, a digital cellular technology. Tier one carriers Verizon and Sprint use CDMA technology in their 2G & 3G networks. Alternatively, AT&T and T-mobile use technology based on GSM (or Global System for Mobile) standards for their 2G/3G networks. These technologies, and their derivatives, are not interoperable. In addition to the tier-one carriers mentioned, there are approximately 50 regional CDMA and 70 GSM based regional carriers in the United States. An anecdotal but representative list of carriers can be found at http://www.ebay.com/gds/GSM-and-CDMA-Guide-/10000000009189079/g.html or http://www.unlockedshop.com/a-full-list-of-gsm-carriers-in-the-usa/ for a more comprehensive list of carriers. Note that these listings are subject to ongoing changes in the marketplace, in addition to interpretation by website authors, so they should be considered representative, but not authoritative sources. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 4 a process that will require analysis of database content to determine context associated with a specific dial string (which may require additional information from carriers or other vendors). This finding also has implications for agencies in determining policies for managing the approved list. 3. While many unique device identification numbers were detected only once, some device identification numbers were detected over 1,000 times by the system over a period of months. This could indicate that even after a device has been captured by the managed access system, repeated call attempts originating from the same device and number are persistent, a condition which may indicate that inmates are probing to determine if the managed access system is not operating, or down for maintenance. 4. Patterns in call attempt data suggest that a significant amount of call activity was for the purpose of social contact. Increased transmissions were detected by the managed access system on specific days such as Mother’s Day and federal or state holidays. Data on the patterns of call activity could not be used to identify or determine the frequency of transmissions to coordinate illegal activities. 5. The vast majority of documented/registered/captured contraband cell phone call attempts were voice calls (91%); the remaining 9% were texts. 6. The top-ten most commonly called numbers from inmates included cellular provider customer service lines, voicemail accounts, pay-as-you-go debit card companies, and a municipal library storyline for children. Most text messages were sent to private individuals. 7. Lastly, despite MSP personnel seizing slightly more contraband cell phones found in inmates’ possession at Parchman compared to other MDOC facilities, fewer cases of contraband cell phone possession were forwarded to the District Attorney for prosecution that led to pending grand juries. Limitations and assumptions for this report are provided in the concluding sections. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 5 Introduction Background and Context Cell phone accessibility in the United States has been increasing significantly, due to a combination of lower cost technology and pre-paid plans. A recent report by the Pew Research Center (2014) estimates 90 percent of American adults currently own a cell phone. This trend is mirrored in correctional facilities nationwide as cell phones have emerged as one of the most prevalent forms of contraband within prisons (Burke and Owen, 2010; Worley and Cheeseman, 2006). As with any contraband in correctional facilities, true estimates of the problem are elusive. Recent spikes in the number of cell phones confiscated within correctional facilities have shed some light on the scope of the problem. For example, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported an increase of confiscated phones, from 900 in 2007 to 10,700 in 2010 (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011). Increasingly, cell phones are being confiscated in more secure facilities (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011) The urgency to address contraband cell phones is driven in part by stories of violence and crime that are connected to inmate use of contraband cell phones in prison (see Appendix A). One such example is the attempted murder of Robert Johnson, the former captain in charge of finding contraband at the Lee Correctional Facility in Bishopville, South Carolina, where an inmate used a contraband cell phone to coordinate the attempted murder (CorrectionsOne, 2015). Gary Maynard, Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Service, summarized the complexity of the problem at a conference panel sponsored by NIJ (2010): When I first came here in January of 2007, the U.S. Attorney was investigating a homicide that occurred on the streets of Baltimore from a witness who was testifying in a criminal trial, and it was believed that that hit was called for by a Black Guerilla Family gang leader in a prison in Hagerstown, Maryland. That investigation did, in fact, conclude that that hit was called for. During that investigation, we found a lot of testimony that indicated that cell phones were being used for intimidation, drug This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 6 distribution and many other criminal activities within the prison. We really have to target cell phones. The more we target cell phones, the more we learn about gang affiliations; the more we target the gangs, the more we find about cell phones. So they are intimately entwined in each other. There are also ongoing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) activities and public debate on the cost of landline phones in prisons3. Contraband cell phones have emerged, in part, as a lower cost alternative to available landline phone plans. While recognizing that the factors that motivate contraband cell phone use are an open question and a relevant topic for future research, the focus of this study is the deployment of managed access technology to reduce contraband cell phone use. Current methods to combat contraband cell phone use in correctional facilities rely on a combination of searches, sanctions, and technologies. Physical searches of inmates and correctional staff to find and confiscate contraband phones are limited in scope and often generate mixed results. The physical size of modern cell phones make them easier to conceal and they can be transported into the facility not only by people entering the facility but also as simply as being projected over a facility fence or wall. Contraband policies and legal punishments are implemented as a deterrent, but understanding their effectiveness is anecdotal and subject to interpretation. The number of technology based methods currently available to combat contraband cell phone use in correctional facilities is currently limited by regulatory and technology issues, as well as fiscal constraints, that create uncertainly in the decision-making process when choosing to deploy these systems. All forms of communications signal jamming, including the jamming of cellular communications within non-Federal jails and prisons, remains 3 As this report was written FCC review of ICS (Inmate Calling Services) was underway. The FCC conducted a workshop in July 2014 regarding reform of inmate calling services. In September 2013 the Commission issued a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Docket WC 12-375 regarding rates of inmate calling services, and released a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in that proceeding on October 22, 2014. For more information, see http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-continues-push-rein-high-cost-inmate-calling-0 and http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017468678. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 7 illegal by way of Federal law as outlined in the Communications Act of 1934 and other FCC rules (see FCC Jamming, n.d., and FCC 2005)4. Alternative methods currently used to address illegal cell phone use, such as phone-sniffing dogs and random cell searches, even when supplemented by detection technology are labor-intensive and typically yield less-than optimal results (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011). Recently, a technology has emerged known as managed access. Managed access technology leverages core aspects of cellular technology by “managing” network services granted to a specific cellular user or cellular device. As with jamming technology, managed access technology actively transmits radio signals in many bands commonly used by commercial wireless providers 5 . Use of these bands is closely regulated by the FCC or NTIA 6 . In comparison, jamming technology simply disrupts all network communications denying service to all users7. Radio sensing technology is a passive alternative (i.e., receive-only technology does not require FCC authorization) in that it simply recognizes the presence of an active wireless uplink or downlink connection and then alerts the operator of its presence. As will be discussed in more detail to follow, managed access technology permits connections to/from approved phone numbers while intercepting and blocking call and other connection activity 4 Federal agency authorization to use radio spectrum is not regulated by the FCC. Federal entities fall under the authorization of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). It is possible for federal agencies to request authorization to deploy and use cellular jamming technology via NTIA processes. The extent to which jamming technology has been authorized and deployed in Federal correctional facilities is unclear. 5 Including bands associated with the Cellular Service, Broadband Personal Communications Service and certain Advanced Wireless Services. 6 Note that the terms “active” and “passive”, in context of regulatory and licensing discussion in this paper, describe technologies that actively transmit radio energy in commercial mobile service bands (active) or function as receiveonly in these bands (passive). This is in contrast to use that describes operational use that “passively” disables the use of cellphones from a distance versus those that simply locate and then require “active” intervention on behalf of prison personnel to physically seize illegal devices. Both uses appear in this paper. 7 The Communications Act of 1934, Section 333 - prohibits willful or malicious interference with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. Government (47 U.S.C. § 333). It is a violation of federal law to use a cell jammer or similar devices that intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications such as cell phones, police radar, GPS, and Wi-Fi, see http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jamming-cell-phones-and-gps-equipment-against-law This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology associated with non-approved, and presumably contraband, cell phones. 8 8 Managed access technology is one option to combat contraband cell phones, yet many unknowns exist with respect to its function, capabilities, and potential impact. Purpose of the Technology Assessment Given that managed access has been identified as a method to help control contraband cell phone use in correctional facilities, and corrections agencies have started to procure such systems, the purpose of this research is to provide objective, data-based information to inform procurement decisions. With this in mind, this study seeks to fulfill the following nine objectives: 1. Explain what managed access is and how it works; 2. Document the experience of the Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP) with contraband cell phones and attempts to combat the problem; 3. Explain how managed access was installed and operates within the MSP; 4. Provide an empirical illustration of contraband cell phone use at the MSP; 5. Provide an empirical illustration of the effect managed access has on contraband cell phone use at the MSP; 6. Identify operational challenges of the managed access system in the MSP; 7. Identify lessons learned from MSP that facilitate managed access effectiveness; 8. Draw conclusions for policymakers based on available data and information gleaned from interviews; and 9. Provide guidance for future research on contraband cell phones and managed access. Evolution of the Contraband Cell Phone Problem Cellular Telephony and Services There are currently four major nationwide carriers in the United States (AT&T Inc., Sprint Corp., T-Mobile USA, and Verizon Wireless), with some areas also served by unaffiliated 8 We use the terms “call” and “connection” in this document interchangeably to describe a request for service placed from a cell phone. This service may be voice service, messaging services (text/email/multimedia) and/or Internet services that can be obtained from a contraband wireless device. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 9 regional carriers.9 Network operators use a small number of standard, but typically customized, wireless air interfaces, supported by a rapidly evolving technology base that drives a continuous cycle of system technology upgrades. Cellular services, in addition to basic telephony, include access to the Internet, and capabilities for users to communicate using text messages, video, images, sound files, and email. Cellular telephony services and wireless data connectivity are provided by the wireless industry to end users through various types of contract mechanisms. For the purposes of this report, these mechanisms are grouped into two broad categories: post-paid and pre-paid contracts. Post-paid mechanisms typically consist of long-term contracts, of various types. In a typical consumer post-paid arrangement, cellular device cost is subsidized by the carrier. Monthly fees typically include a specific line item associated with the purchase cost of a specific cellular device, plus fees associated with basic wireless service and service options across monthly or multi-year contractual service agreements. Post-paid contractual information includes data associated with a well-known user, a specific wireless device, and a specific telephone number. In contrast to services obtained via post-paid service agreements, pre-paid cellular encompasses a category of cellular services that are independent of constraints associated with typical long term contracts. Pre-paid service is often competitive with, or available at a lower cost than post-paid services, resulting in a rapid increase in utilization of such accounts. 10 Prepaid service is available bundled with pre-packaged, off-the-shelf devices using the latest 9 An anecdotal but representative list of carriers can be found at: http://www.ebay.com/gds/GSM-and-CDMAGuide-/10000000009189079/g.html or http://www.unlockedshop.com/a-full-list-of-gsm-carriers-in-the-usa/ for a more comprehensive list of carriers. Note that these listings are subject to ongoing changes in the marketplace, in addition to interpretation by website authors, so they should be considered representative, but not authoritative sources. 10 For more information see http://phys.org/news/2013-02-cellphone-users-prepaid.html This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 10 technology that can be user-activated without direct carrier interaction or a long-term service contract. Most importantly, for the context of this report, many inexpensive pre-paid devices can be activated over the Internet, anonymously, or with the use of false credentials. In a U.S. General Accounting Office (2011) report describing the use of illegal cell phones in Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities, correctional officials noted the availability of less expensive cell phones as being a major challenge to the detection and confiscation of contraband cell phones. Technology to Actively Manage Illegal Cell Phone Use The National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices (2009) published a background paper outlining a number of approaches that are being taken by states to address the challenge of contraband cell phones, including detection, signal blocking, and punishment. The Department of Commerce (2010) published a study summarizing the results of a Notice of Inquiry into technologies to combat contraband cell phone use. Solutions proposed by industry to defeat the illegal use of cellular telephones included: technology to detect and locate contraband cell phones; radio frequency jamming technology and network-based capabilities that facilitate targeting and disabling of specific cellular devices; a subset which includes ”kill switches” and managed access technology. In this section, we summarize these technologies in more detail, with emphasis on managed access technology. As this report was written, nationwide institutional corrections community efforts underway to address the issue of illegal cell phone use were focused on changes to regulations that authorize (or prohibit) the use of technologies that actively disrupt operation of illegal cell phones in correctional facilities. These regulations are the subject of an ongoing FCC This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 11 proceeding (see FCC 13-58, 2013). FCC considerations include the potential establishment of guidelines, processes and timelines associated with spectrum lease agreements typically between wireless carriers and managed access system owner/operator. A common theme with each of the technologies under review by the FCC is the capability to remotely render cellular service ineffective through service denial, minimizing the utility of possessing an illegal device for prisoners 11. This may simultaneously decrease the number of risks associated with personnel enforcing the rules through physical search while simultaneously increasing the risk taken by the smugglers who bring these illegal devices into a correctional facility. Detailed descriptions of ongoing regulatory activities are beyond the scope of this report because they have not concluded and the outcome of these proceedings remained uncertain at the time this report was authored. Another significant FCC proceeding (FCC, 2012) established regulations associated with calling rate structures and regulations that define the rates correctional facility operators are allowed to charge for use of inmate landline calling services. As part of an FCC-sponsored workshop on the topic (FCC, 2010), correctional representatives testified that landline service revenues provide funding resources for programs used to counter illegal cell phone to include deployment of technology, in addition to revenues associated with inmate program support. Mississippi’s Department of Corrections Commissioner noted: “…by them not using the landlines that we have done the best math we can and we feel like it is a couple million dollars. And those funds in my state, if I don't capture those, then I have to use taxpayer dollars to provide the teachers, the counselors, et cetera.” 11 With the advent of smartphone technology many devices can be used as standalone computing devices, cameras, or used with non-cellular radio technology (i.e., Wi-Fi or Bluetooth) for other limited wireless use. The FCC regulates aspects of these devices that relate to radio emissions and equipment authorization. FCC responsibility does not extend to how these devices are used for other purposes. Use of alternate wireless modes (Wi-Fi/Bluetooth) is not specifically addressed in this report. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 12 Passive Sensing Technology Unlike technology that actively emits, or transmits, a signal in the cellular radio bands, sensing-only technology represents a category of passive technologies (passive in context of not transmitting on “carrier-licensed” cellular frequencies.) Passive technology includes FCC authorized, and legally operated, unlicensed technology that supports physical detection of illegal devices. There is more than one type of sensing technology; metal detectors, magnetometers, x-ray technology, ferromagnetic detection, and nonlinear junction detection devices transmit on non-cellular frequencies to discover and locate electronic components in cell phones. RF signal detection is a listen-only sensing technology that employs radio receivers designed to listen to cellular frequencies and sense the presence of cell phone transmissions and/or determine the location of an active cellular device. These products are collectively “passive” with respect to licensed cellular frequency bands because in comparison alternative active technologies such as jamming and managed access are designed to actively transmit RF energy in carrier-licensed cellular bands, therefore they have significant regulatory and spectrum leasing implications. Unlike the technologies that actively disrupt cellular communications, users employing unlicensed passive sensing technology do not require specific prior FCC licensing, or cellular carrier spectrum leases. 12 Manufacturers of unlicensed equipment obtain FCC authorization for all products prior to sale. Sensing technologies provide tools to assist with enforcement. Unlike technologies that effectively disable the ability to place voice calls or obtain other cellular data services from illegal cellular devices from a distance, sensing technology requires direct intervention by correctional staff to physically locate, confiscate, deny use of, or and analyze illegal devices. 12 To clarify, active sensing or detection-only technology also exists. These devices actively ping contraband devices to obtain identifying information. These pings are active emissions and therefore these systems are subject to FCC licensing and, like managed access technology, require carrier spectrum lease agreements. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 13 Institutions that use managed access technology typically use it alongside a combination of passive technology based tools to minimize the number of devices successfully smuggled into a correctional facility by screening visitors and employees as they enter a facility. The deployment and use of managed access technology in a real-world correctional setting is the focus of this report. Jamming Technology Jamming technology employs active transmitters that emit radio energy on cellular network frequencies; energy designed to disrupt all communication processes between network infrastructure and cellular devices. Jamming system signals used for this purpose need to be sufficiently strong enough to essentially “mask”, or overwhelm, key components of wireless signals associated with nearby cellular networks. Jamming signals are indiscriminant, meaning that they disrupt all communications, including 911 calls, not just calls associated with specific devices or telephone numbers. As with managed access, poorly implemented jamming technologies are often strong enough to disrupt signals from nearby legitimate commercial network customers including public safety radios operating on nearby frequencies. Deployment of this technology to combat illegal cellular phones involves detailed engineering design of a system tailored to each correctional facility as part of an implementation process. Inevitably, as with any wireless technology, there are variations in how jamming systems are implemented, and deployment specifics are highly dependent on the environment and specific jamming target. The end result is a blunt-force tool used to disable all cellular radio signals used for network connections. As noted above, current FCC policy is to consider all forms of radio frequency jamming to be illegal, including the use of jamming to counteract illegal cell phone use in correctional settings. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 14 Network-based Technology: The Kill Switch Network-based technology can facilitate targeting, and disabling, of specific cellular devices (i.e., activate a “kill switch”). A kill switch capability requires a two part solution; installation of intelligence into carrier network infrastructure alongside use of a “kill switch” function installed in all cellular devices sold in the United States. As with managed access this process relies on the success of processes to identify, capture and then ultimately deny the ability of a device to complete calls through a carrier’s network. In current FCC proceedings (FCC, 2013), the cellular industry suggests that a kill-switch capability, developed primarily to protect consumers and combat the growing problem of stolen phones, should be a voluntary or opt-in technology13,14. This opt-in approach would obviously not work to combat illegal cell phone use in correctional facilities. Technical changes associated with kill switch capabilities need to be accompanied by closely coordinated policy and procedures that outline how correctional personnel can legally request, process, and then disable specific cellular devices; a complex process with unknown costs for all entities involved. Ongoing debate in regard to policy and business issues associated with the use of both jamming and “kill switch” alternatives appear to be more challenging than underlying technical issues. The kill switch alternative would not require the installation of any active infrastructure at 13 This kind of blocking technology is employed today by cellular carriers as an optional service to disable lost/stolen phones: For example, see http://newsroom.sprint.com/blogs/sprint-perspectives/sprint--at-the-front-linesagainst-phone-traffickers.htm 14 In August 2014, California passed a law to require a kill switch in new smartphones. The law was created to address the increasing problem of stolen smartphones; it is not designed to address correctional issues. Kill-switch processes would need to be further revised to address correctional enforcement needs. Considered in context of correctional issues, if the kill switch function defined in the CA legislation is activated by default in all new handsets, is likely that it would simply be turned off/disabled before a phone is smuggled into a prison. The CA law does not apply to feature phones, and the law verbiage specifies that it only applies to smartphones based on LTE and/or successor technologies, meaning that 3G smartphones using non-LTE technology are likely exempt. It also does not apply to second-hand phones. There are several aspects of the California law that limit its utility to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0951addressing the correctional problem. See: 1000/sb_962_bill_20140812_enrolled.pdf This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 15 a correctional facility, instead requiring use of passive monitoring technology to assist in obtaining key information for identification and targeting of specific illegal cell phones. Network-based Technology: Managed Access Managed access, a term used here to describe a category of technology rather than a specific product, is an active technology. The FCC indicates that managed access products are in service, or authorized, in California, South Carolina, Texas, Maryland and Mississippi (see FCC NPRM 13-58 page 6, 2013). This technology is being deployed because, unlike jamming alternatives, it can be used within the bounds of current regulatory structure. Many aspects related to its implementation are currently under regulatory review to determine legal definitions, funding, specifications for deployment, adherence to cellular network spectrum lease issues, and carrier obligations related to ongoing changes in their networks. All of these decisions will affect managed access deployment and maintenance procedures. To gauge the complexities of managed access from the perspective of network carriers, the Department of Commerce (2010) engaged cellular providers to assess their perceptions of managed access technology. A sample of the informative viewpoints is provided below: “Prohibiting access to the commercial cellular networks would solve 90-95 percent of all illegal communications within a prison…Verizon Wireless mentions that a managed access system can prevent phones from switching to other bands and would not need to intercept as many spectrum bands within prisons” (p. 20). “T-Mobile USA reinforces the effectiveness of a managed access solution in protecting public safety spectrum…a managed access system will provide more precise control over the bands selected for disruption, thus preventing interference with public safety wireless communication .…unexpected interference to other services is reduced” (p. 21). This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 16 “The wireless providers – AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA – all respond in favor of a managed access solution. This is due in large part to the system‘s ability to allow public safety, 9-1-1, and authorized calls to reach the cellular networks” (p. 21). “Verizon Wireless states that managed access can allow the system operator to maintain a list of approved callers – a list that can be amended constantly as subscribers that live, work, or frequently visit areas near the prison and are captured by the system are identified – whose calls will be allowed to [be] completed rather than blocked. Managed access systems allow prison officials, working with the system operator and nearby licensees, to set the parameters of how captured calls are handled. For example, prison officials can decide to allow the first call from a device not on the approved list to be completed, but block subsequent calls in order to prevent blocking calls from random subscribers near the prison, can decide to limit the duration of calls from non-approved callers, or can deliver a message to non-approved callers letting them know their call is being blocked by the prison system and advising them to move away from the prison to try again” (p. 22). Anecdotal support, such as that noted above, is the only readily available currency upon which managed access can be evaluated by correctional officials who serve as potential consumers. This lack of reliable information is a result of the technology’s recent emergence. Perhaps the most informed and well-articulated assessment of managed access to date is California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) (2012) report. This research was driven by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s interest in a managed access system to combat cell phone problems in their facilities. Importantly, this study did not evaluate This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology an operational managed access system. 17 Rather, investigators conducted focus groups with subject matter experts on the technology, reviewed vendor literature, system performance, and engineering information, and consulted experts in the field of corrections. While the CCST report noted a number of interesting findings pertaining to contraband cell phones and prison security generally, the key findings related to managed access technology are highlighted here. Worth noting is that the report found glaring inconsistencies across physical screening at state prisons. This security shortcoming translates directly into the need for enhanced countermeasures within prisons such as managed access technology. Complexities of cellular signal capture were noted as a significant technological inhibitor of managed access to be implemented and maintained. A highly dynamic mobile industry that is driven by innovation and consumer demand makes it increasingly difficult to update mechanisms to capture signals and thus block calls. The CCST report also noted concerns regarding the efficacy of managed access and its ability to be effective within the correctional environment. Specifically, “…managed access system technology today is not mature enough for immediate large-scale deployments…[and] specific protocols for success have yet to be defined” (p. 6). These concerns with managed access were noted as resulting from a lack of available evidence and baseline performance benchmarks of the technology. As such, the report closes with a call for the need to conduct independent research of an operational managed access system within a correctional environment. The present report seeks to answer this call by providing evidence from the first operational managed access system in a prison in the United States. Next is a conceptual overview and technical description of how managed access technology operates. Following this discussion, the This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 18 case study approach is elaborated and the findings are presented. The report concludes with insights and recommendations for future research on managed access technology. Technical Introduction to Managed Access Technology Concepts and Operations In this report certain wireless concepts related to managed access of cellular technology are emphasized and described below. Concepts related to wireless interfaces and system coverage are independent of vendor-specific managed access implementation choices. For example, the architectural merits of distributed antenna technology and how they compare to alternative small cell technologies, and vice versa, are not addressed here. Nor are details of specific cellular provider networks and/or related cellular technology protocols. Each managed access technology product and deployment will be unique in many ways, dependent upon the local environment, regardless of the underlying managed access architecture. An examination of “features” associated with competing commercial managed access products are also outside the scope of this report. An overview of cellular system coverage follows, presented in the context of cellular and managed access technology. Managed access wireless system coverage, and how this type of system interacts with nearby commercial cellular networks is fundamental to all managed access deployments, regardless of which commercial managed access product is selected and deployed. Cellular Technology Cellular telephony, as a wireless radio service, functions much like other radio technologies. The use of radio technology, when boiled down to bare essentials, involves a process of inserting information of various forms into a radio transmitter which utilizes radio frequency energy to This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 19 convey the information through the environment wirelessly. As the wireless energy transits through the atmosphere and surrounding environment some level of radio signal degradation occurs due to a number of predictable and/or unpredictable factors prior to reaching a receiver. If the received signal is intact, a compatible receiver converts the information back into a format useful for its intended purpose. Protocols and procedures used to process the information during wireless transmission, and specific radio frequencies upon which the transmission occurs, vary. Some processes are based on open standards and others on proprietary technologies. Processes are also subject to specific engineering and business needs as radio network systems are developed and deployed. For example, commercial carriers Verizon, Sprint and AT&T each use wireless technologies based on 3GPP LTE standards, but their network wireless interfaces are different in many ways, and non-interoperable, because of specific implementation choices. Cellular network operators are licensed and authorized by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to employ specific radio spectrum frequencies throughout specific geographical areas. Licenses are often granted following successful bids levied in a spectrum auction, often at a cost to a carrier measured in billions of dollars. In exchange for the proceeds from winning auction bids, the FCC grants the winning carrier exclusive use of frequencies so they can build network infrastructure and customer interface in the most optimal way to suit their business plans, as long as they do not exceed the technical and regulatory limitations associated with their licenses. Exclusivity means that they retain sole legal access to authorized spectrum, and this is a right that operators defend vigorously. 15 Any unauthorized signals emitted in carrier 15 There are a number of Federal proceedings underway that are investigating ways to “share” spectrum, with a goal to more efficiently utilize limited spectrum resources. For example, FCC Docket GN 13-185, Regard to Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands, is examining approaches to sharing spectrum between commercial and federal users; Docket GN 12-354 is considering commercial operations in the range of 3550-3650 MHz, currently used by federal users. If these efforts are successful, and commercial carriers are allowed access to new spectrum resources, or other spectrum users are This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 20 controlled spectrum space are considered to be interference by the carrier and the FCC. Managed access, considered as a category of technology, operates on these cellular carrierexclusive network access frequencies to selectively disrupt cellular communications. This process requires close coordination with carriers to ensure systems operate in a legal manner. For readers who are unfamiliar with wireless cellular technology, it is important to understand that there are constraints related to how wireless systems are designed and how they operate. Subtle differences are significant when considered in context of how managed network coverage is established and maintained. Many radio technologies, such as land mobile radios, are designed to operate in relatively quiet and interference/noise-free wireless environments. These radio services are typically designed to function with relatively few high-powered transmitters using antennas mounted atop tall towers to create networks engineered to operate in a relatively uncluttered radio environment, using technology relatively intolerant of radio interference. This type of network provides efficient signal coverage throughout an area using the fewest number of network sites, via the minimal amount of supporting infrastructure (i.e., additional base stations/repeaters). This is often referred to as technology operating in a “noiselimited” radio environment. Commercial cellular radio infrastructure can be characterized by a few key distinguishing characteristics: 1. Cellular networks, similar to trunked land mobile radio technology, are bifurcated, composed of a network to customer air interface, often referred to as the “radio access network, or RAN” (i.e., wireless access to cellular towers/base stations) and a network backbone interconnecting the cellular towers; 2. Cellular networks are comprised of a relatively large number of lower powered base stations at cell sites designed with relatively low profile towers densely spaced in a way to efficiently support the greatest number of connections (i.e., users) via the customer allowed shared access to cellular frequencies, the technical implications facing managed access technology may become very complicated. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 21 wireless interface (i.e., the RAN) and/or to convey the largest amount of data through the access network by immediately offloading customer traffic from the RAN onto non-RAN network backbone connections (e.g., microwave radio, fiber optic cable, copper cable); 3. Cellular technology, similar to land mobile radio, must support mobility. Cellular networks are designed to support the movement of large numbers of relatively lowpowered devices between cell towers that make up the RAN, while maintaining network and data connections, and; 4. Cellular access networks are constructed using a defined set of radio frequencies and a high level of frequency re-use and efficiency in the RAN (i.e., using the same frequency over and over again). Because of the high level of frequency re-use, cellular technologies are designed to operate amid a relatively high level of radio interference created by adjacent cell sites. This is referred to as an “interference-limited” RF environment, whereby a baseline level of signal interference is expected, in exchange for increased levels of spectrum re-use and spectrum efficiency, driven by creating the greatest rate of return on a carrier’s spectrum investment. Cellular base station density varies by business needs and typically mirrors the number of potential cellular customers; thus the number of base stations in an urban setting is typically greater and more densely deployed than the number of base stations in a rural setting where potential rate of return on investment is significantly less. In a cellular environment, as with land mobile radio, wireless transmission occurs in two directions. Cellular transmissions from a base station radio transmitter, directed to receiver components within portable cell phone devices are often described as “downlink” transmissions. A transmission in the reverse direction, originating from a relatively low-powered portable transmitter (e.g., cell phone) directed to a base station receiver, is often referred to as an “uplink” connection. In a cellular network, the constraining wireless link is almost always the uplink between a low-powered end-user device and a network base station. If either the downlink or uplink connection components between a device and network fail, or become interrupted, then This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 22 communications to or from the cellular device will not work. Both managed access and jamming technologies rely on highly engineered systems to provide radio frequency signal coverage on cellular network access frequencies, but this coverage is required for quite different reasons. Jamming technology disrupts the communications path between the user and the network. Managed access does not; it depends on successful communications to first capture a wireless device and then grants or denies network services available to that device. A managed access system is, fundamentally, a cellular network with limited scope and reach. A managed access network is designed to present the “dominant” network signal within its limited coverage area. Managed access networks are designed to operate using the same frequencies and protocols as those used by nearby commercial cellular carriers. Cellular devices, such as mobile phones, work by listening for a downlink signal, interacting with the strongest cell tower, and then automatically attaching to the network. A managed access system “intercepts” contraband cell phones by presenting a stronger network presence to a cellular device than nearby commercial towers do. Device to tower communications occurring via the RAN air interface uplink/downlink connections and network core should be further envisioned as having two distinct components: network signaling and customer traffic. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 23 Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corporation Figure 1. Cellular Network Concepts Signaling transactions between the device and network that pass through the RAN are essentially part of a network management process used to identify and capture the calling device and then control service connections by requesting, establishing, reserving, and then releasing network resources as calls, data connection requests, or when inbound received calls are directed from the network towards a specific device. These communications are often referred to, collectively, as “overhead” communications. It is important to understand that wireless network backbone capacity is limited; therefore it is allocated to customers on an as-needed basis. Overhead communications associated with network and service management are constant and typically minimal in comparison to bandwidth required to support user voice or data communications. Managed access technology leverages the distinct split between network control and user connection aspects of cellular technology by “managing” network services granted to a specific end user or device. When a cell phone is turned on it initializes its operating system software, searches for and finds a compatible network and then connects to the strongest cell tower. Overhead signaling communications processes are used to “capture” and then direct This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 24 how the end-user cellular device interact with the network. This overhead process is used to identify the device, manage how the device interacts with the network (i.e., which tower, which frequency, device identification, user identification and service level) and to facilitate how services are delivered. To phrase this differently, a cellular device “roams” onto the managed access system when it is operated within the managed access coverage area and becomes subject to local control, implemented via the managed access network which then manages service requests associated with devices16. Managed access system operations center around policy that defines which calls can be completed and which can be terminated. A managed access system provides the ability to selectively complete call requests made from select authorized phones or emergency calls from all phones, per facility policies and legal guidelines. In addition to blocking illegal calls, managed access systems also provide the ability to capture statistical data in regard to devices that attach to the system and/or data related to call attempts made from attached devices. Managed Access Network Coverage Wireless access network signal coverage envisioned from a simplified conceptual perspective can be depicted as an invisible cloud of radio energy at specific radio frequencies. The energy within a cloud associated with an entire network is additive, comprised of overlapping signals emitted from all antennas located on adjacent cell towers that use the same frequencies. Areas with inadequate signal levels are often described as “coverage holes”17. Transmitter components 16 The term “roaming” is used loosely here; managed access systems actually appear to be part of the commercial network by presenting a valid commercial cellular Mobile Network Code to cellular devices. Outbound service requests are explicitly “denied” or “blocked”. Inbound requests are also defeated because the managed access system does not make unauthorized phones visible to the commercial networks; therefore inbound calls to unauthorized phones connected to the managed access network cannot be completed. 17 Note that the term “coverage hole” in context of commercial network coverage describes an area from which calls cannot be completed. A “coverage hole”, in context of a managed access (or jamming) system describes exactly the This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 25 in a portable/mobile cellular device also emit a similar cloud of radio frequency energy that is centered on the current location of the device. How radio energy propagates through the atmosphere is predictable, to some extent, particularly in highly engineered cellular environments. For the purposes of illustration, carrier signals are depicted as different shades of color in the illustrations that follow. Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 2. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Nearby Environment Figure 2 depicts a hypothetical correctional facility sitting adjacent to a town and residential area. In this example “Carrier A” provides wireless services throughout the town and surrounding areas, including wireless coverage that extends throughout the correctional facility. This cellular network operates on two different frequency bands (band A and band C, with opposite, an area within the managed access footprint from which connection to a commercial network can be completed. Both describe locations with inadequate signal levels. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 26 differing areas of coverage.) Figure 3 provides a top-down view of cellular network radio frequency (RF) coverage for carrier A in this setting. Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 3. Conceptual Top-Down View of Signal Coverage from Cellular Carrier “A” Two additional, competing, networks (B and C) are similarly depicted in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Coverage for each of these three cellular networks partially encompasses our hypothetical correctional facility. Each network is designed to provide a level of coverage suitable to the This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 27 operator’s business model and customer base, using uplink design criteria associated with a typical portable device performance profile. Some level of inter-carrier resource sharing may occur when common network resources are used or when a tower is leased to two or more competing carriers. Although each network is unique, there is likely to be significant overlap in network coverage. Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 4. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Carriers “B” and “C” This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 28 Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 5. Conceptual Top-Down View of Signal Coverage from Cellular Carriers “B” and “C” This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 29 Figure 6 and Figure 7 combine individual carrier views to provide a single view of all three carrier networks. They are included to depict the complexity of the entire cellular wireless environment, and how combined cellular carrier coverage overlaps throughout the hypothetical correctional facility. Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 6. Hypothetical Correctional Facility with Carriers “A”, “B” and “C” It is important to acknowledge and understand this complexity as a combined threat, because any technology deployed to counteract illegal operation of cellular telephones in a correctional environment must, simultaneously, address the entire combined scope of devices connecting to all carrier networks. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 30 Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 7. Conceptual Top-Down View: Signal Coverage: Cellular Carriers “A”, “B” and “C” It is important to note that the commercial carrier network environment is not static. Carriers have the freedom to change the topology and makeup of their network to optimize how their RAN interface frequencies and other network resources are used. Towers/network base stations, and carrier-specific network protocols are all subject to change as the commercial networks evolve. Commercial networks are not interoperable and must be addressed separately because different radio frequencies and protocols are used. For instance, Carrier A and Carrier B may both operate using the same frequency band, yet network devices may not be interoperable This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 31 because they have licensed and use different parts of the band. Network changes lead to corresponding changes in how cellular customer devices operate, and which uplink/downlink frequencies and/or protocols are used to support the services that they provide, and therefore network coverage changes as well. As noted above; as cellular operators make changes to their networks, the technology used to counteract the illegal use of cellular telephones must be adapted to ensure ongoing effectiveness. A correctional entity operating a managed access system or consuming services provided via a leased system must ensure that adaptations to counter carrier network changes are handled in a pro-active manner or the system will not retain its effectiveness as the surrounding cellular environment changes and new end user devices become available. Design, deployment, and operation of a managed access system is not a onetime event, it requires ongoing optimization and capability assessment in response to the surrounding environment. Capture and Roaming A managed access system is a multi-band, multi-carrier, cellular network of limited scope and coverage that presents itself as, and operates using frequencies leased from, each of the licensed commercial carriers. A managed access system emulates the protocols of each commercial carrier, simultaneously, so it can capture and control calls made using devices designed to work on all of the commercial carrier networks. Network coverage of a managed access system is designed to create and present a dominant signal on all commercial frequencies within a pre-defined area; typically defined by geographical boundaries established in spectrum leases established with each carrier and associated with an entire correctional facility, or at a minimum in specific areas where prisoners are present. This concept is illustrated in areas with grey shading, intended to depict managed access coverage in Figure 8 and Figure 9. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 8. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility with a Managed Access System This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 32 Case study of Managed Access Technology 33 Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 9. A Conceptual Managed Access System Network and Underlay Managed access signal coverage is designed to overwhelm those emitted by the nearby commercial network towers. Another, perhaps more familiar, way to describe this process is to envision the managed access network as a cloud of radio energy that sits between illegal devices and the commercial networks. Cellular devices operating within the managed access “cloud” (coverage area) “roam” onto, and connect to the “managed access cellular network” instead of towers that are part of neaby commercial networks. This is analogous to, (but not quite the same as) roaming processes that occur between compatible commercial networks, because the managed access system is presented to the cellphone as part of the commercial network. Once a connected device is captured, the “managed” aspects of the technology come into play. Disposition of calls originating from devices falling under control of the managed access This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 34 network is determined by state law, FCC regulations, correctional facility policies/regulations associated with operation of the network, and terms in the agreements established between the correctional facility and each of the comercial cellular carriers. Legitimate calls, such as those from authorized employees, or 911 emergency calls placed to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) can be handed off to cellular carriers for further processing, or routed directly to a PSAP. Implementation specifics associated with managed access are both deployment and system feature dependent. Similar to network backhaul connections noted above, to support legitimate calls, some form of network connectivity is required between the managed access network and nearby cellular carrier networks, and/or directly to local emergency 911 centers. Implementation choices are subject to local implementation decisions and policies, Connectivity is acknowledged as simple network back haul interconnections in Figure 10. It is important to acknowledge that MAS design must consider both local policies and physical implementation of interconnections, and the recurring cost for these connections must be acknowledged as an ongoing operating expense. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 35 Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 10. Managed Access System and Cellular System Interconnections Coverage Related Maintenance To comply with operational conditions defined within cellular spectrum leases, coverage must not extend beyond a well-defined service perimeter. System coverage changes can have significant impact on effectiveness if it creates coverage holes within the correctional facility. Correctional facility coverage holes can allow users to bypass the managed access system and access commercial networks. Conversely, signal leakage that extends coverage beyond the agreed upon managed access coverage area will lead to disruption of legitimate cellular users in areas where the managed access signal strength overwhelms coverage from a commercial cellular system operator. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 36 Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp. Figure 11. Managed Access System Coverage Hole Note that a managed access system operator has a legal obligation to ensure bleed-over does not occur beyond the defined coverage boundaries of a facility, in contrast to an operational need to establish ubiquitous managed access coverage within that facility. Once constructed a managed access system is carefully activated and calibrated so that meets obligations associated with carrier spectrum leases and FCC rules to ensure it does not interfere with nearby commercial operations. After spectrum-lease lease obligations are achieved, the system can then be tested and further optimized to minimize any coverage holes to ensure expected operational effectiveness is realized within connectional facility. Ongoing compliance testing requirements This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 37 and methodology related to spectrum lease compliance may occur on a regular schedule, or in an ad-hoc fashion, depending upon spectrum lease details. Testing obligations and methodology used to confirm ongoing performance goals linked to operational effectiveness are subject to interpretation because these goals are not mandatory; therefore they must be documented in a concise technical manner by the deploying agency, and clearly defined as a requirement in procurement documents to ensure that ongoing operational testing requirements, costs, and associated obligations are well understood by both system suppliers and operators. Coverage leakage can lead to FCC enforcement action and/or complaints and public relation issues. Coverage issues must be addressed as part of ongoing system maintenance. As previously noted, coverage changes may occur as a by-product of change within nearby cellular networks, or new capabilities introduced in commercial networks operated in areas adjacent to the correctional facility. For instance, a new commercial tower installation or a change in commercial network parameters (such as addition of a new band or protocol) can directly affect managed access system coverage 18. Coverage issues may also result from infrastructure damage to either the commercial network or the managed access system as a result of weather damage or component failure. Any change that affects the relative balance between the strength of managed access and nearby commercial network signal strengths must be resolved. This overview of managed access concepts and operations has described the conceptual functions of the technology and has identified some of the various factors that can influence system performance, establishing a foundation for subsequent research on user experiences with 18 A managed access system design, to include carrier-specific managed access antenna placement, needs to address and optimize coverage for each carrier's frequencies; especially if the towers are not co-located or there are different deployment scenarios and each carrier transmits at different power levels. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology managed access technology. 38 The following section of the report will discuss the research approach used to generate knowledge about a managed access system deployment. Methodology The objectives of this research are to systematically document and provide insight into the implementation, operations, and potential impacts of managed access communication technology. Given the contemporary emergence of managed access system technology as a method to control contraband cell phone use in correctional facilities, the current research is exploratory in nature. A case study approach is most appropriate for this study since very little is known about the technology and the environment in which the technology operates is highly complex (Fitzpatrick and Sanders, 2003; Yin, 1994). A series of interviews and teleconferences, in addition to the secondary analysis of managed access system data, are employed to generate a fundamental understanding of managed access experiences, identify challenges and lessons learned, and provide insights on contraband cell phone activity. In partnership with the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), a site visit to the Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP) was conducted May 2012 in support of this research. Members of the research team included two criminologists, two communications engineers, and a senior policy advisor from the National Institute of Justice. Additional site visit attendees included individuals that were directly responsible for the implementation, management, and oversight of the managed access system. This included a law enforcement officer (MDOC), a managed access systems administrator (MDOC), a managed access system senior manager (MDOC), a technician from the MSP inmate calling system vendor (Global Tel Link), and a technology executive from the managed access system vendor (Tecore Networks). This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology During the site visit researchers administered a semi-structured focus group. 39 Interview questions were targeted towards perceptions of managed access system usefulness in combating contraband cell phones, obstacles to implementation, successes, and areas in need of improvement (see Appendix B). King (1994) notes that semi-structured approaches are most appropriate for exploratory research as this method relies on open-ended questions that result from probing by the researcher and often times a free-flowing dialogue is created that guides the interview process. Detailed notes were taken individually by four members of the research team (two criminologists and two communications engineers) and then reviewed and transcribed into a single source document. To enhance the validity of interpretations from the site visit, additional teleconferences and continual communication exchanges with the Commissioner of MDOC and MDOC personnel occurred to solicit feedback, clarify and reaffirm the information gathered (see King, 1994). Official de-identified aggregate data was provided by MDOC for secondary data analysis. These data were extracted from MDOC management information systems used to monitor captured transmissions from the managed access system and cell phone confiscations. Two sets of managed access system data are used. The first consists of the monthly count of all call attempts captured by the managed access system implementation in August 2010 to July 2012. The second data set includes daily counts of call attempts captured by the system across a five month period of March 2012 to July 2012. These data are a disaggregated sub-sample of the monthly count data and demonstrates the type of raw information captured by the system. In addition to the frequency of daily call attempts detected, these data include a variety of useful information. The type of call attempts detected by the system can be separated by signals using call or SMS text cellular functions. The managed access system captures International Mobile This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 40 Station Equipment Identity (IMEI) numbers, which identifies a unique cell phone device. IMEI serves as a measure of the number of unique devices that are responsible for generating signals. Finally, the system also captures the destination number or combination of numbers or keys dialed to place outgoing calls and SMS texts. The results are presented as descriptives. It is important to note for the secondary analysis portion of this research that any call attempt captured by the system is assumed to emanate from an unauthorized, illegal, contraband cell phone. This assumption is informed by how the managed access technology system operates. Transmissions made from unauthorized cell phones are terminated and captured by the system, while transmission requests made from approved cell phones can be completed. A third and final set of secondary analysis examines the case flow processing of contraband cell phone devices. Managed access system data were merged with internal MDOC cell phone confiscation reports from January to April 2012. This enables a brief “snapshot” comparison of case flow trends in confiscation and subsequent sanction and prosecution at MSP relative to all of MDOC’s facilities. Confiscation reports include data on the number of confiscated cell phones found on inmates (on person) or in common areas of MSP as well as the number of rule violation reports filed, cases forwarded to the district attorney, and cases with grand jury pending. Data on the number of unique devices identified by the managed access system is only available for two out of the four month period. Descriptive results are presented. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 41 Context: Mississippi State Penitentiary, Parchman Mississippi Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP)19 Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP) is a maximum security facility located at the town of Parchman in Sunflower County, Mississippi. MSP is the state’s oldest correctional facility, opening in 1901. Parchman is a rural area of northwestern Mississippi, and the facility encompasses approximately 18,000 acres. MDOC operates their Agricultural Enterprises division at MSP, which farms 6,300 acres of vegetables, rice, soybeans and corn. Figure 12 provides an overview of the location of MSP, reflecting both the geographic dimensions of the MSP property and setting. The red line shows the approximate boundary of the penitentiary. The circle in the interior indicates the MSP water tower that serves as the primary managed access system antenna system support structure. Subsystems are installed within all of MSP’s inmate housing units. All of the units are identified by their unit number, except for the Hospital (Unit 42). 19 Information presented in this section describing MSP was gleaned from annual Mississippi Department of Corrections reports (see Mississippi Department of Corrections, n.d.). This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 42 Source: Google Earth, with annotation by Fred Frantz and Pete Small, Engility Corp. Figure 12. Mississippi State Penitentiary Grounds MSP has a capacity of approximately 4,648 beds and its infrastructure includes fifty-eight support buildings. MSP has seven different housing units, ranging in size from fifty-six beds in the hospital to 1,521 beds at a primary farming support unit (Unit 29). Only male offenders are housed at MSP. Custody levels managed at MSP include offenders assigned to minimum, medium, and close restricted security classifications. All offenders classified as protective custody, administrative segregation, and death row are housed at MSP. Definitions for these classifications are provided in Appendix C. Mississippi State Penitentiary operations are administered by management staff consisting of a superintendent, three area-based wardens, and five deputy or associate wardens. There are approximately 850 security and non-security employees at MSP. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 43 The facility’s capacity was reported to be 4,648. To provide context of the inmate population managed by MSP, Table 1 illustrates total annual inmates populations (as of June 30 each year) for the MDOC and the U.S. as a whole. The overall incarcerated population trend for the MDOC is consistent with state-level incarceration trends across the nation. Incremental increases are observed since 2000 that have been stabilizing in recent years. The population of offenders housed at MSP has been declining since 2000. Fifteen percent of the total incarcerated population managed by MDOC is housed at MSP. Table 1. MSP and MDOC Offender Populations Year MSP Total MDOC 2000 2005 2010 2011 2012 5,229 4,340 3,261 3,055 3,354 18,005 20,085 20,774 21,021 21,860 Percent of MDOC Population at MSP 29% 22% 16% 15% 15% US State Average of Total Incarcerated 38,770 43,900 45,402 44,812 44,568 Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections (2014a) and Bureau of Justice Statistics (2013). Note: US State Average of Total Incarcerated inmates was calculated as the total national population of incarcerated inmates divided by 50. Findings Findings are presented in the following three sections. The first section, “Contraband Cell Phones in Mississippi State Penitentiary,” provides insight on MDOC’s experiences managing the contraband cell phone issues at MSP. The next section, “Managed Access Operational Challenges and Lessons Learned.” will identify and discuss both operational challenges and lessons learned from the managed access installation at MSP. These first two set of findings were noted during the site visit and from numerous teleconferences and email exchanges with key informants and stakeholders involved with the managed access system deployment at MSP. The final section, “Contraband Cell Phone Activity,” presents descriptive results of MSP’s managed access system data. These findings pertain to captured cell phone transmissions from This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 44 within MSP and also provide profiles for select mobile devices operating within MSP to illustrate device usage. This section also begins to explore preliminary outcomes on the effect of managed access system on cell phone confiscations. Important limitations and assumptions of these findings are noted in the concluding sections of this report. Contraband Cell Phones in Mississippi State Penitentiary Extent of Problem. It is difficult to quantify the extent of contraband cell phones available. MDOC representatives estimated that approximately 25% of the total incarcerated population at MSP was believed to have been in possession of a contraband cell phone. Using the most recent data available on MSP’s total inmate population (see Table 1), this equates to 838 inmates in 2012. MDOC, like most states, did not begin keeping record of contraband cell phones confiscated until 2007. For the year 2008, 2,214 contraband cell phones were recovered at MSP. This number grew to over 3,400 in 2013 (Mississippi Department of Corrections, 2014b). There are a variety of factors that are influenced by the presence and use of contraband cell phones. MDOC representatives noted that cellular devices were being used to gain unapproved phone and Internet access privileges. Importantly, these cellular communications cannot be monitored or recorded. There are documented instances across the nation that these devices are also used to participate in criminal activities including drug dealing, planning and assisting escapes, extorting, threatening or ordering violence against a public or private citizen, and harassing crime victims. The potential for continued criminal behavior is one of the main concerns among focus group participants. Additionally, contraband cell phone use also affects state budgets and Mississippi taxpayer burdens. The use of contraband cell phones reduces the need for designated inmate phone system use, which decreases the amount of revenue available to MSP to support treatment and welfare programming. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 45 Means of Obtaining Contraband Cell Phones. MDOC representatives indicated that MSP’s contraband cell phone challenge is associated, at least in part, with visitors and correctional staff members that are paid by inmates to covertly smuggle contraband cell phones for inmate use. MDOC personnel estimate the market value for a contraband cell phone at MSP to range from $300 to $1,000 per phone; which makes these devices valuable commodities. A critical issue for MSP administrators has been the recruitment of MSP correctional officers. MSP is the largest employer in Sunflower County; a county with a 15% unemployment rate which is twice as high as the unemployment rate for the state of Mississippi as a whole (U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, 2015). It was stated that the location of the MSP facility limits the correctional officer employee applicant pool, making it difficult to select highly qualified personnel to fill necessary vacancies and maintain the security of the facility. Similarly, the entry level salary offered to correctional officers has the potential to incentivize contraband cell phone smuggling. That is, the sale of one cell phone has the potential to provide multiple days’ worth of wages as correctional offices across Mississippi earn an average wage of $13.88/hour (U.S. Department of Labor and Statistics, 2013). As noted, MSP is located in an expansive rural area. MDOC representatives discussed instances in which citizens have thrown or catapulted cell phones over outer MSP perimeter barriers. MSP inmates also spend a significant amount of time working for Agricultural Enterprises and/or performing community services to local municipalities, counties, and state agencies. All of these factors provide opportunities for a contraband cell phone to be accessed by an inmate. Toward a Managed Access Solution to Combat MSP’s Contraband Cell Phones. MDOC examined a number of potential alternative technologies as tools to assist in the battle to control This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 46 illegal cell phone use that would supplement their procedures for contraband searches of persons entering the facility. MDOC deployed and continues to use canine teams to detect and confiscate cell phones. MDOC and also explored several products/systems designed to identify the presence of phones, including passive cell phone detection technologies. There were a number of concerns with these technologies when they were piloted including: Products interfered with officers’ radios. Products disrupted cell phone communications of MSP employees who reside on the grounds of the facility. Products generated false detections, particularly around coax cables. Products did not perform well due to materials used in prison construction. Products provided detection, but not location information. Portable products were bulky, and their use could not be concealed, reducing their effectiveness. Manual searches were still required upon detection, which were labor intensive, disruptive, and exposed officers to potential safety issues. MDOC considered additional approaches to physically blocking the introduction of cell phones into the facility such as body scanners and large nets around the perimeter and concluded that additional measures were required. While MDOC was assessing various passive detection technologies, it was noted that the Commissioner received an advertisement for a managed access technology product. This information was passed to Global Tel Link, who held a contract to be MDOC’s designated landline phone service provider. After reviewing information pertaining to a similar system deployment in a Puerto Rico prison in December 2009, MDOC administrators determined that managed access provided the capabilities needed to affect This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 47 contraband cell phone use in their facilities. MDOC indicated that the managed access system at MSP was subsequently procured from Tecore on an expedited basis by Global Tel Link, and then installed, and made fully operational by Tecore in August 2010. MDOC supported the Global Tel Link deployment process by providing physical infrastructure required to support the system, to include AC power, fiber optic cable, concrete slabs and other items. MDOC representatives noted that that the brick and mortar aspects of the system deployment were completed quickly and the system provider (Tecore) noted that that the foundation for legal framework associated with spectrum leases had been well underway prior to this deployment. Significant details in regard to what happened in the first six or seven months in 2010, or in what order things happened were not provided. The fact that the MSP design is a single site system, which uses an existing water tower as the primary antenna support, certainly facilitated an accelerated deployment. Tecore Networks is the MSP managed access network technology provider. Tecore's technology foundation is a product referred to as the iCore®, a software defined all-IP core network component with a scalable software architecture that provides functionality compatible with large commercial systems. The iCore® product provides support for current 2G, 3G, and 4G cellular technologies with claims to be upgradeable in support of future 5G technologies. Managed Access Operational Challenges A number of operational challenges experienced by MDOC personnel while deploying and operating a managed access system at MSP were identified. These challenges are presented to inform practitioners and vendors alike. The former should be conscious of these issues leading up to, or perhaps in the wake of, a procurement decision. The latter should take these challenges This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 48 into consideration when evaluating their product delivery and maintenance services. Table 2 provides a summary of the operational challenges of managed access found in MSP. Table 2. Summary of Operational Challenges and Associated Issues Operational Challenge 1. Managed access has to be routinely “managed” 2. Managed access must include an effective self-monitoring capability 3. Signal strength of managed access systems - signal bleed over 4. Signal strength of managed access systems – coverage holes Issues Associated with the Challenge Creation and updating of approved “white list” phone numbers Without telemetry and self-monitoring features a system will not alert the operator about equipment or component failure leading to fluctuations in signal strength. The MSP system does not automatically self-adjust signal strength.20 System signal coverage must be routinely checked to ensure the signal remains within the designed coverage parameters and spectrum lease conditions outside the facility. Phones outside prison facility can be captured by system, resulting in blocked calls from legitimate commercial users. Coverage must be routinely checked to ensure the signal strength is dominant within the facility to remain effective. If competing signal strength from a nearby commercial network is stronger, illegal cellular call attempts may bypass the managed access system and create system coverage holes. 20 This may be true of other managed access products as well. Implementing a system capable of self-monitoring and adjustment of signal strength for lease compliance would require a network of permanent sensors throughout the periphery of the correctional facility operational area (e.g., lease area) constantly assessing signal levels to ensure bleed-over does not occur. Similarly to optimize effectiveness inside the periphery, a network of sensors would be required within the correctional facility to assess coverage. Both of these “sensor networks” would feed an automated system to monitor and adjust signal levels; not impossible, but a capability that would significantly increase system costs. For this reason, ongoing MAS maintenance procedures, to include signal level maintenance, must be defined as part of the ongoing cost of ownership. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology Operational Challenge 5. E-911 call management 6. Technology upgrades by cellular carriers can significantly reduce effect system effectiveness. 7. Managed access systems should be hardened to resist damaging weather conditions. 8. Managed access systems should be hardened against sabotage: Inmates may attempt to sabotage system infrastructure. 49 Issues Associated with the Challenge Requires cooperation with both cellular carriers and local Public Safety Answering Points. Implementation varies by vendor and local requirements; Tecore directs 911 calls to public safety answering. Managed access technology must be in sync with the technology deployed in nearby commercial networks. Failure to do so will result in system coverage holes, create coverage bleed over, or simply allow callers to bypass the system. Antennas need to be adjusted after strong winds to restore proper coverage. Commercial electrical power brown outs effect signal system performance. Inmates at MSP had attempted to cut exposed cables as well as drive a field tractor into managed access infrastructure. Managed access must be routinely managed. MDOC stated that they anticipated the system would be a “plug-and-play”, based on vendor information; however unexpected real-world elements came into play that changed initial expectations in regard to how the system should perform. MDOC stated that occasional system maintenance-related performance issues are addressed as they occur. MDOC stressed that confirmation of the coverage area was an ongoing maintenance task. MDOC personnel indicated that they did not anticipate the resources required to maintain and manage the authorized caller database. It was unclear what specific personnel were permitted for inclusion on the approved call list at MSP. No policies with respect to organizational rank or position for inclusion on the approved list were observed. Once this approved phone list was created and integrated into the managed access system, this approved list was constantly in need of updates to add or remove authorized devices as personnel were This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 50 hired, given access, or were no longer employed at MSP. No estimate was provided with regard to the frequency of occurrence of this task at MSP, just that it was “a regular occurrence.” MDOC emphasized that “managed access is ‘managed.” These sentiments were reiterated throughout the course of discussions. An over-arching, and generic concept that is critical to the operation of managed access systems is the fundamental capability to distinguish between telephone calls that will be blocked by the system from those that will be permitted (i.e., what other types of communications, such as instant messages or emails, will be passed through the system). As noted above, the goal is for all compatible cellular devices within system coverage to connect to the system so that call completion procedures and data service requests can be processed through the managed access system: therefore only authorized calls or data connection requests are successfully processed through the managed access system. To be successful, information about authorized users must be known in advance and pre-configured into the managed access system database. Once a cell phone connects to the managed access system it is captured by the system, and those not configured in the database are denied service. For voice calls, the system intercepts and blocks the call service requests. A voice notification advises callers that it is a felony to use an unauthorized cell phone device within the facility. Unlike intercepted voice calls, no feedback is provided to a user if a text message is blocked by the system; unauthorized data/text service requests are simply terminated and not completed by the managed access system. Global Tel Link telephone analysts work with MDOC to implement and maintain a database to identify devices from which authorized communications can be made once the device connected to the managed access system. Global Tel Link also records and maintains data generated by the systems that can be used to identify unauthorized call attempts from illegal This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 51 cellular devices that have connected to the managed access system. They also generate various managed access reports using data captured by the system. MDOC noted that data stored in confiscated phones include activity logs which can be compared against event logs created and stored in the managed access system. This data can be correlated to assist in identification of system maintenance-related issues. Correlation of these data sets can be used as a tool to identify times when an increase in completed calls occurred, which may provide an indication that the managed access equipment appeared to be malfunctioning or inoperable, confirming a need for system maintenance. Managed access must include some self-monitoring capability. Global Tel Link employees are responsible for overall general system maintenance. MDOC indicated that Global Tel Link initially monitored system operational status remotely and that information in regard to operational status to include notifications about system impairments, or equipment outages, were not always passed to MDOC from Global Tel Link. As a result system monitoring procedures were modified to add requirements for on-site technical support personnel, and adjustments were made to system fault information reporting procedures to ensure that information is passed to the MDOC Electronic Surveillance Center which monitors the facility’s security and operations via closed circuit television. Further complicating challenges associated with operating the MSP managed access system was the absence of an effective telemetry, or self-monitoring capability to detect equipment failures within the system. At the time of the site visit, system performance was measured by technicians as part of a routine scheduled maintenance program. This implementation lacked mechanisms to self-diagnose equipment failures that may lead to fluctuations in signal strength or inoperable equipment. This diagnostic shortcoming was compounded by the issue of adverse This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 52 weather. Weather issues at MSP were significant enough to warrant inclusion in this report to raise the issue for both practitioners and vendors of managed access 21. System requirements should be specified in the procurement process mandating that components be hardened sufficiently to withstand harsh weather conditions experienced at the correctional facility. Note that, for example, that an antenna which is misaligned as a result of a weather event may remain fully operational, but MAS transmission (and reception) would be pointed in an incorrect direction. This would result in unexpected changes in system coverage area resulting in signal bleed-over or unexpected coverage holes. Signal strength of managed access system and signal bleed over. Coverage within facility bounds is directly, and solely, related to system effectiveness and how it meets the needs of its operator; in other words operators with nearby facilities may have little interest in how a managed system performs as long as it does not impact their network. System coverage beyond the boundaries of the correctional facility will effect nearby commercial network users, and coverage bleed-over is also related to lease and regulatory issues. Core MSP managed access system components are housed in a telecommunications shelter that sits adjacent to the MSP water tower which is centrally located in the correctional facility. The water tower serves as the primary managed access system antenna support structure. The system also includes subsystems that extend, or improve, coverage within all seven of MSP’s inmate housing units on the grounds of the facility. It was noted that subsystem installations required engineering and construction of conduits routed through areas within the buildings to 21 At the time of this report, there were two news reports of weather-related system outages at Parchman, one in August-2010, and a second one in March 2014 that resulted in inmates sending images via illegal cell phones. This is documented as a news item at http://raycomnbc.worldnow.com/story/24945407/exclusive-contraband-phonesinside-parchman This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 53 ensure that cabling would be isolated to minimize vulnerability to inmate tampering. Appendix D provides additional information concerning MSP infrastructure. When the MSP system was initially installed, calls originating nearby, but outside of the penitentiary grounds, were captured resulting in a number of improperly blocked calls. To resolve this issue, coverage was adjusted, leading to a decreasing number of intercepted calls. As the success of managed access is reliant on its coverage area, the signal strength of the managed access system cell tower requires routine observation and adjustment to ensure it provides adequate signal strength throughout, but not outside the designated coverage area. Since a cellular phone automatically connects to the strongest available signal from the subscriber providers’ network, it is critical that a managed access system always presents the strongest signal to cell phones within the managed access system designated coverage area. Failure to actively monitor signal strength can result in a contraband cell phone connecting to a commercial tower outside the facility, bypassing the managed access system. Achieving optimal signal strength at MSP was not as simple as increasing or decreasing the managed access system signal power. Negotiations with at least one nearby cellular carrier was determined to be an important factor in maintaining proper coverage; MSP noted that they had to request that at least one carrier reduce downlink signal strength from a nearby cell tower. To remain effective, coverage within the managed area must also be confirmed as the equipment ages and as the wireless environment around the facility changes over time. System effectiveness requires balance between wireless signal strength of the managed access system and nearby cellular carrier base station signals; the managed access signal must be configured so that that the managed access system signal is only strong enough to “capture” cell phones operating within its pre-defined operational area, and weak enough to ensure commercial This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 54 networks capture all phones operating legitimately in adjacent areas. It was noted that Global Tel Link conducts a drive test at least once per week around the perimeter of the facility (and the leased fields) to ensure that the managed access system does not exceed pre-designated coverage areas. It was noted that the MSP system drive test route covers approximately 36 linear miles. The MDOC estimated that after about six months of effort the number of nearby calls intercepted reached a steady state of roughly one call per month. Tecore noted that they developed a wireless coverage design for the MSP system, and then worked with each carrier to define/quantify signal coverage. It was noted that carriers were helpful during the design process; for example they suggested technical parameters such as required angles for managed access system antenna down-tilt. Spectrum access and conditions associated with managed access system design will vary significantly, and coverage parameters will be unique to each facility and, as previously noted, will require site-specific managed access network designs. One example was provided by MSP personnel where a local farmer was tending his field near the facility and attempted to make a call while on his tractor. The farmer contacted MSP officials after receiving the automated recording generated by the system alerting the user of their illegal call attempt. This situation was remedied as MSP personnel reviewed his situation and included his number on the approved list. At the time of the site visit, MSP was in discussions with Tecore about the possibility of installing additional sub-sites (small cells) within the facility to improve system coverage within some buildings. These sub-systems would provide local signals strong enough to capture a cell phone in or near the building and then interact with the core switch. This would reduce the likelihood of bleed over by increasing the signal strength only within specific buildings. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 55 Signal bleed over constitutes a serious consideration for potential managed access users, especially those located in more urban environments. Signal bleed over, as well as cellular carrier cooperation have implications for a widely acknowledged concern of managed access; interference with emergency 911 calls. The Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 prohibits the use of any technology that can interfere with emergency 911 calls. The senior system administrator at MSP recalled that MSP and Tecore conducted tests of the call set up time for 911 calls through the managed access system. It was determined that a 911 call bypassing the managed access system took about 4.5 seconds to connect, compared to 7.0 seconds through the managed access system. Despite this slower time, this measurement is well-within the 10-20 second benchmark noted within the National Emergency Number Association (2006) call standards. 9-1-1 call management. A critical aspect of managed access system operation is the relationship between the managed access system, nearby commercial cellular system operators, and Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP). Authorized calls placed through managed access system are essentially placed once the user connects, or roams onto, the managed access system which processes the call for completion. Connection processes for service requests from authorized phones require network connections between the managed access system switch and cellular carrier mobile telephone networks and similarly, PSAP connections are required to successfully connect emergency 911 calls (see Figure 10.) System deployment tasks include the establishment of support mechanisms to facilitate routing of emergency 911 calls. Typically, this involves a direct routing of calls between the managed access system core and a local 911 or PSAP call center to handle emergency calls passed to them from the managed access system. System interconnection and call completion This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 56 processes are influenced by local PSAP technical requirements and local landline telephone services associated with how the local the 911 network operates. Tecore discussed how 911 calls are handled by the MSP system. It was noted that the MSP system routes 911 calls placed directly to the nearest PSAP. This is in contrast to other managed access implementations designed to simply pass emergency through cellular carriers for further processing and eventual call routing to a PSAP. It was noted that potential response issues will occur if the carrier is not provided information indicating that an emergency call originated within, or in the immediate vicinity of, the managed access system. As a result, cellular carriers may require emergency call routing directly to a 911 center/PSAP as a condition of a spectrum lease. Technology upgrades by cellular carriers can significantly reduce system effectiveness. Managed access system coverage, and how it coexists with the surrounding cellular carrier environment, affects the ability of the system to terminate/block unauthorized calls and capture calls placed by legitimate device users operating devices in locations directly adjacent to the space controlled by the managed access system. The wireless environment is the primary interface between a user device and either a commercial network, or the managed access system network. Blocking calls associated with nearby legitimate cellular system users is considered to be interference by cellular carriers Legal operation of a managed access system, using frequencies licensed to a network operator, must be carefully coordinated and authorized by both the carriers and the FCC to ensure legal access to carrier spectrum. MDOC indicated that there were several operational cellular carrier networks providing coverage in the Parchman area: AT&T, Verizon, C Spire, and either T-Mobile or Sprint. MDOC noted that commercial carriers had been cooperative, but the This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 57 processes associated with establishing managed access technology presented a new issue for commercial cellular network operators as well. When obtaining FCC authorization, spectrum lease arrangements are required for each carrier prior to operation of the system in their frequencies. As previously noted, the managed access system owner/operator needs to ensure that all wireless provider frequency bands in the area are covered by the managed access system. Tecore noted that the MSP project resulted in the first managed access spectrum lease agreement for Verizon. It was also noted that the MSP spectrum lease agreements do not involve recurring payments to the carriers although, in some cases, the cost of specific items such as carrier legal expenses required to prepare spectrum lease agreements were incurred. A Tecore representative indicated that the company spent 18 months lobbying, negotiating with the FCC, and with interfacing with cellular system operator legal teams to define a regulatory solution/process suitable for managed access system deployment. Tecore indicated that these activities were well underway prior to the MSP system deployment. MDOC and Tecore emphasized the importance of carrier cooperation when establishing spectrum lease agreements. Global Tel Link is responsible for the ongoing operation of both the non-cellular inmate phone service, and the MSP managed access system. If a commercial service provider deploys a new cellular technology (e.g., 3G/4G LTE), Global Tel Link works with the managed access vendor to acquire necessary hardware and software upgrades required to ensure the managed access system continues to restrict network access via devices using the new technology. This challenge requires collaboration and open communication with cellular carriers to manage network changes and carrier rollouts of new cellular device technology. Managed access system technology must be in sync with the commercial network to ensure that it can This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 58 capture devices made available to consumers. Advancements in cellular network technology occur over time, and then are activated in a very short timeframe. Even if managed access users are informed in advance of planned carrier updates, there are a number of potential negative consequences for managed access systems as a result of commercial network changes as a carrier makes an upgraded service or capability available within the market surrounding the managed access system. This was the case for MSP when AT&T activated 3G technology in the Parchman area. The managed access system at MSP was not yet capable of capturing 3G cell phones. As a result, any call attempts from a contraband cell phone using 3G went directly to the commercial carrier. Anecdotal information also suggests this AT&T 3G rollout coincided with a significant reduction in calls captured by the system. As the managed access system hardware and software were updated to be compatible with 3G technology, the number of denied calls appeared to elevate and return to pre-3G levels. It should be reinforced that this relationship is speculative and assumes that contraband cell phones were 3G capable. Data to test this relationship were unavailable. Network operators grow their networks and update technology over time, and these changes will impact the effectiveness of a managed access system. Timely notification to managed access operators about change in nearby commercial networks is paramount. MDOC noted that subsequent to MSP system deployment AT&T activated 3G services in the Parchman area, without advance notification to MDOC. It was several months before MDOC realized that the managed access system needed to be upgraded to intercept 3G calls. It was also noted that carriers were supportive in regard to notifications, but the notification process was not routine for them; therefore notifications were inconsistent. A managed access system operator needs to This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 59 receive notifications well in advance of carrier changes so that the impact to the managed access system can be assessed, allowing time for corresponding managed access system hardware/software upgrades, and/or coverage changes in response to the changing wireless environment. Global Tel Link and Tecore indicated that carrier sublease agreements include notification clauses but they do not include required enforcement mechanisms. Managed access infrastructure needs to be hardened. The MSP system experienced occasional power issues such as brown-outs and outages that were beyond the control of MDOC or managed access system vendors. A variety of additional uncontrollable factors affected system performance. For example inclement weather causing high winds can change the orientation of the antenna system. MDOC does some level of troubleshooting to identify when and where problems occur, and the attitude of the MDOC and their commercial partners is that all technical issues were solvable. Tecore indicated that the system was continually being improved, and that the issues described were occasional problems. Inmates may attempt to sabotage the system infrastructure. A final challenge that was observed at MSP was the ever-present need to harden system infrastructure against vandalism. There were two specific incidents in which inmates at MSP attempted to sabotage the managed access infrastructure. One attempt involved inmates cutting exposed cables running from underneath an equipment enclosure while the other involved an inmate on agricultural assignment running a field tractor into an equipment enclosure. Follow-up investigations into these incidents revealed a directed attempt to sabotage the system. To protect against such incidents, MSP personnel buried all cable and erected fencing around exposed system infrastructure. These hardening efforts constituted unplanned financial costs incurred by MSP. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 60 Practices and Lessons Learned. For organizations seeking to implement a managed access system, a number of lessons were learned from MSP’s experience. These lessons learned are provided to inform both practitioners and vendors of mechanisms to enhance the effectiveness of managed access. A summary of these lessons learned and the context within which they can be applied are provided in Table 3. Table 3. Summary of Operational Lessons Learned and Context for their Application Lesson Learned 1. Advocate for amendments to existing legislation governing contraband cell phones 2. Establish cooperative partnerships with cellular carriers 3. Cross-reference captured phone call information with existing pre-approved list of inmate landline numbers 4. Managed access provides a layered approach for counter-measures beyond traditional search capabilities Context of Application Legislation was amended to close loopholes in the law Rather than an inmate having possession of a complete cell phone, legislation prohibits possession of any part of a cell phone (i.e. battery, SIM card, etc.) Effective reach of managed access is greatly enhanced with additional carrier support Ability to prove a cell phone is operating within correctional facility to allow a carrier to permanently disable the device Managed access captures the destination phone number of illegal cellular call attempts and makes it possible to cross reference these destination numbers with existing preapproved inmates contact numbers for landline use This cross reference allows correctional personnel to identify the inmate likely possessing a contraband cell phone Deterrence resulting from legal sanction and inconsistencies with physical searches yield limited impact on combating contraband phones from reaching the hands of inmates Managed access provides a significant counter-measure that specifically targets cell phones that have been successfully smuggled into the facility This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 61 5. Increase in the number of monitored inmate conversations via landlines 6. General deterrent of managed access to impact contraband cell phone market value 7. Creation of a contraband cell phone unit within MSP Decreases in the success rate of contraband cell phones leads to an increase of landline use by inmates This increase allows for more conversations to be monitored for investigative and evidentiary purposes Anecdotal evidence suggests managed access impacts the value of contraband cell phones within the facility If a phone is perceived to work only once or not at all, inmates will likely not invest in the device By formally sanctioning and physically housing these habitual cell phone inmates, they can be more closely monitored as well as removed from the general population of inmates that may rely on them for access to a cell phone Amendments to existing legislation governing contraband cell phones. At the time managed access was installed in MSP, the state’s criminal code guiding inmate possession of contraband was limited to traditional items such as weapons and drugs. In order to establish a legal precedent for inmates not to be in possession of a cell phone, as well as serve as a sanction-based deterrent, the Mississippi legislature amended the criminal code to include “cell phone” in the language. However, the legislation could be circumvented by parting out cell phone devices to ensure that one could not be found in possession of a fully-assembled cellular device. To remedy this issue, MSP officials solicited further assistance from the state legislature to amend the criminal code again to control for this technicality. In early 2012 the state legislation amended the criminal code to include the language “unauthorized electronic device” as well explicitly identifying “cell phone.” This criminal code also now specifies that possession of a cell phone within a correctional facility is a felony with a three to fifteen year sentence. The This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 62 revised and now current criminal code guiding contraband within MSP is as follows (last revised in early 2012): “§ 47-5-193: Prohibitions generally: It is unlawful for any officer or employee of the department, of any county sheriff’s department, of any private correctional facility in this state in which offenders are confined or for any other person or offender to possess, furnish, attempt to furnish, or assist in furnishing to any offender confined in this state any weapon, deadly weapon, unauthorized electronic device, cell phone or contraband item. It is unlawful for any person or offender to take, attempt to take, or assist in taking any weapon, deadly weapon, unauthorized electronic device, cell phone or contraband item on property belonging to the department which is occupied or used by offenders, except as authorized by law” (State of Mississippi, 2012). This lesson learned may seem to be a daunting task. However, based on communications with MSP personnel, this logistical and political process was streamlined with Global Tel Link, Tecore, legislators, and the various MDOC supervisors working together with minimal obstruction in order to implement the entire operation smoothly. MDOC noted that the state legislature had “consistently shaped laws and policy to meet our needs.” The linear nature of the chain of command from the state-level through to the managed access supervisors appeared to greatly assist this effort. Perhaps even more important was the perception of MDOC personnel that the state administration was “wide open to legitimate change, they want to be hands-on and proactive in solving this problem.” The Commissioner of MDOC in particular was credited for taking a proactive leadership role in streamlining the technology’s implementation. Establish cooperative partnerships with cellular carriers. In the same vein, it was also found that cooperative partnerships between cellular commercial carriers, MSP, and MDOC officials have the potential to enhance the impact of managed access. Retrieving cell phone hardware or the entire device is the ultimate goal of contraband cell phone interdiction efforts but is not always possible. Through the detection of cell phone transmissions emanating from specific devices it is possible to permanently disable a cell phone on a commercial network. Personnel This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 63 at MSP and MDOC worked in collaboration with carriers to establish a process and set of evidentiary criteria to prove the use of a particular cell phone device from within MSP. With this evidence, MDOC and commercial carriers can request a court order to permanently disable the voice, text, and data transmission capability of a phone and/or de-authorize Subscriber Information Module (SIM) cards This process described is very analogous to the “kill switch” approach under consideration in ongoing FCC proceedings. . Data on the frequency with which cell phone devices were permanently disabled are not available. Discussions with key informants and affiliated stakeholders suggested that while a cell phone could be disabled, the frequency in which this process is executed is rare. Additionally, it must be noted that contraband cell phones can still produce harms without a transmission capability. Managed access or similar technologies should not be relied upon as a substitute for physical device confiscations. Cross-reference captured phone call information with existing pre-approved list of inmate landline numbers. In order for inmates to use the designated landline telephone system within MSP, they must first provide for approval, a list of up to ten telephone phone numbers they wish to call at any given time. MDOC personnel vet and if approved they are added to the inmates’ list of contacts contained in the landline phone system. Each inmate has a unique code they must enter when making a landline call. Once this unique code is entered, the inmate can only call contact numbers processed into the system. To ascertain if a particular cell phone was being operating from within MSP, transmissions intercepted by the managed access system are compared to inmates’ pre-approved landline call lists If a call attempt is captured by the managed access system is placed to a number that is also in an inmate’s pre-approved contact list, it is assumed that the inmate has the contraband phone This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 64 in their possession or has information pertaining to the phone. Through this method, MDOC estimates approximately 90% of captured transmissions can be linked to MSP inmates. Given the quantity of data produced from the managed access system, it was noted that personnel resources limit use of this investigative method for day-to-day operations. Managed access provides a layered approach for counter-measures beyond traditional search capabilities. The impact of managed access at MSP is perhaps best viewed through a layered approach. In this conceptual model, managed access provides two additional layers of safeguarding against cell phone use beyond traditional search protocols used in correctional facilities. Search activities involve sanction-based legal deterrents; physical pat-downs, metal detectors, dogs, and random search teams of inmate housing. With the exception of random cell searches, these attempts to combat contraband target offenders prior to a cell phone reaching the interior housing unit of a facility. A managed access system adds: 1) the capability to block cell phone transmissions originating or terminating within the facility, and 2) the potential to disable the transmission capability of a contraband device through collaboration with network carriers. It must be emphasized that sanctions and physical security are the foundation of countercontraband efforts. Managed access technology should not be interpreted as an appropriate substitute for these efforts. Managed access is a supplemental technology to contraband and specific only to cell phones. This layered approach is illustrated in Figure 13. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 65 Figure 13. Layered Approach to Combat Contraband Cell Phones Increase in the number of monitored inmate conversations via landlines. MDOC representatives believed the number of cell phones confiscated decreased as a result of the managed access system installation and associated revenue incurred from the inmate phone system. This suggests that installation of a managed access system increased inmate use of landline telephones to make calls. Aside from generating additional revenue for both the state department of corrections as well as the vendor, this increase in call activity via landline phones also leads to an increase in the number of conversations that are recorded and reviewed. Though MDOC officials could not determine the proportion of landline calls were later tied to criminal behavior, it seems apparent that by virtue of the increased land-line call volume there would be a This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 66 proportional increase in the number of inmate communications with evidentiary or investigatory value. General deterrent of managed access to impact contraband cell phone market value. In addition to the anecdotal increases in landline calls, MSP personnel indicated that inmates have begun to recognize the effect of the system on the contraband marketplace within the facility. It is believed that as cell phone transmissions are blocked, inmates are less willing to spend hundreds of dollars to obtain a cell phone that cannot complete call or text transmissions. Creation of a contraband cell phone unit within MSP. Lastly, one of the more interesting lessons learned at MSP was their creation of a special “contraband cell phone unit.” This unit was a stand-alone physical housing area for habitual cell phone users. As with general crime, it is believed the majority of cell phone use within prison results from a minority of the inmates engaged in the use of contraband cell phones. By formally sanctioning and physically housing these habitual cell phone inmates, they can be more closely monitored as well as removed from the general population of inmates that may rely on them for access to a cell phone. Inmates placed in this special unit lose privileges. Officials from MSP emphasized that correctional staff overseeing this unit were “hand-picked to avoid personnel who might have provided them with phones.” The MSP officials also explained that this approach is good in theory, but in practice it is difficult as the number of offenders that have repeat cell phone offenses is simply too large to assigning prisoners to the special cell phone unit. It appears this special unit is more of a temporary housing unit than a long-term solution to help remedy the problem. At the time of the research team site visit, MSP officials were discussing the need to identify what appropriate benchmarks would be for assigning someone to this special unit, such This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology as three or four violations before being admitted. 67 At the time of this report writing, no determinations had been made with respect to such benchmarks. Contraband Cell Phone Activity Total Monthly Call Attempts from August 2010 Implementation through July 2012. On average, 116,754 call attempts (SD = 36,848.07) were made each month, with a median of 120,800 call attempts. The maximum number of call attempts detected occurred immediately after implementation in August 2010. Gradual decreases in detected call attempts were observed after implementation, with the managed access system detecting 45,897 call attempts in June 2011. The number of monthly detected call attempts decreased by 79% from August 2010 to June 2011. Though it cannot be determined for certain, this dramatic decrease in call attempts captured by the managed access system is believed to have resulted from the rollout of 3G service from AT&T. Beginning in July 2011, the number of detected call attempts began to increase dramatically but did not return to the levels of detection observed in the first few months after implementation. The number of detected call attempts nearly doubled from June 2011 to July 2012. Acknowledging with the curvilinear U-shaped distribution of these data, there are linear and exponential decreases in the number of detected call attempts from August 2010 through July 2012. Figure 14 illustrates the distribution of these monthly call attempts. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 68 250000 AUG10: 216,260 200000 150000 100000 50000 JUN11: 45,897 Jul-12 Jun-12 May-12 Apr-12 Mar-12 Feb-12 Jan-12 Dec-11 Nov-11 Oct-11 Sep-11 Aug-11 Jul-11 Jun-11 May-11 Apr-11 Mar-11 Feb-11 Jan-11 Dec-10 Nov-10 Oct-10 Sep-10 Aug-10 0 Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data (Gleaned from Mississippi Department of Corrections, 2013) Figure 13. Monthly Total Call Attempts Detected by MAS Daily Call Attempt Volume March – July 2012. A total of 706,387 call attempts were detected from March 2012 through July 2012. It is important to note that this time frame is a period of gradual decline in monthly total call attempts after a peak in March 2012 (see Figure 14). The average number of calls per day is 4,678 (SD = 1,126.33), with a median value of 4,584 call attempts. The number of call attempts detected varied widely; ranging in value from 983 attempts on July 24th to 8,832 on April 9th (see Figure 15). Once again, there are linear and exponential decreases in the number of detected call attempts over time. Examining some of the milestone or anchor dates within the available timeframe, the frequency of occurrence for connection attempts detected was substantially higher than average for Mother’s Day (totaling to 6,110). This can be compared relative to the below average frequency of connection attempts detected for Easter Sunday (4,541), Father’s Day (3,758), and Memorial Day (3,191). This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 10000 4/9/12: 8,832 69 5/18/12: 8,486 9000 6/29/12: 7,500 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 4/7/12: 2,702 7/24/12: 983 03/02/12 03/08/12 03/13/12 03/18/12 03/23/12 03/28/12 04/02/12 04/07/12 04/12/12 04/17/12 04/22/12 04/27/12 05/02/12 05/07/12 05/12/12 05/17/12 05/22/12 05/27/12 06/01/12 06/06/12 06/11/12 06/16/12 06/21/12 06/26/12 07/01/12 07/06/12 07/11/12 07/16/12 07/21/12 07/26/12 07/31/12 0 Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data Figure 14. Daily Total Call Attempts Detected by MAS: Five Month Extract Overview of Cellular Connection Measures Captured by Managed Access. The average cell phone device transmission detected by the system was a call (rather than a SMS text) using a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) radio system. Detected call attempts tended to occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and midnight, with noon to 3:59 p.m. representing the time frame of most frequent detected call attempts. Comparing the cellular frequency band, mobile network provider code by call attempt type reveals some baseline characteristics of detected call attempts. Detected call attempts show that voice calls are more likely to occur on CDMA radio systems, while SMS texts are more evenly distributed between GSM and CDMA technologies. Mobile network provider codes were also relatively similar. Unknown/unlisted call attempts detected by the system appeared to come from calls. A higher proportion of AT&T services were being used for SMS texts rather than calls. Tables 4-7 present counts for captured cellular call and text call attempts across different technology, cellular radio frequency, network carrier, and time of day. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 70 It is important to contextualize the 40% of unknown/unlisted Mobile Network Codes observed in the data. The daily call attempt data provided by MDOC included International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) information captured by the managed access system, in standard format, from which the Mobile Network Code associated with the cellular service provider network could be derived. Unidentifiable or obsolete Mobile Network Codes were observed in the data (e.g., 006, 232, and 726) that could not be linked to a cellular service provider. The status of these MNCs remains unresolved. It is unclear if these codes are the result of device misconfiguration or some other use. Table 4. Overview of Call Attempts by Type, Channel Access, and Mobile Network Code Frequency of Occurrence Percent Attempt Type Call SMS 645,722 60,665 91% 9% Channel Access CDMA GSM 508,400 197,987 72% 28% Mobile Network Code Verizon Wireless AT&T T-Mobile Mid-Tex Cellular Airadigm Cincinnati Bell Unknown/Unlisted 220,633 171,034 27,292 3,287 115 1 284,025 31% 24% 4% 1% <1% <1% 40% Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data Table 5. Frequency of Call Attempt by Time of Day Time of Day 12:00-3:59 AM 4:00-7:59 AM 8:00-11:59 AM Frequency 26,616 80,704 140,146 Percent 4% 11% 20% This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 12:00-3:59 PM 4:00-7:59 PM 8:00-12:00 PM 71 179,098 155,212 124,611 25% 22% 18% Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data Table 6. Channel Access by Call Attempt Type Call Attempt Type Channel Access CDMA GSM Call 74% 26% SMS 47% 53% Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data Table 7. Mobile Network Code by Call Attempt Type Call Attempt Type Mobile Network Code Verizon Wireless AT&T T-Mobile Mid-Tex Cellular Airadigm Cincinnati Bell Unknown/Unlisted Call 31% 22% 4% <1% <1% <1% 43% SMS 37% 50% 3% <1% <1% --10% Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data Connection Attempt Volume by Unique Cell Phones. All of the detected connection attempts were generated from 3,654 unique cell phone devices. These attempts equate to an average of 193.32 attempts per cell phone device (SD = 855.23). A median value of 11 connection attempts and mode of one call attempt was observed. Distribution of call attempts by cell phone device was not constant. Table 8 presents the frequency of occurrence of call attempts by unique device. Table 8. Frequency of Occurrence Call Attempts by Unique Device Phone Used One Time Phone Used One to Two Times Frequency Occurrence (%) of Total Call Attempts 539 (<1%) 1,151 (<1%) Frequency Occurrence (%) of Cell Phones 539 (15%) 845 (23%) This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology Phone Used One to Three Times Phone Used One to Four Times Phone Used One to Five Times Phone Used One to 10 Times Phone Used 100+ Times Phone Used 1,000+ Times Phone Used 10,000+ Times 72 1,775 (<1%) 2,571 (<1%) 3,326 (<1%) 6,489 (1%) 661,213 (94%) 464,510 (66%) 92,884 (13%) 1,053 (29%) 1,252 (34%) 1,403 (38%) 1,811 (50%) 771 (21%) 153 (4%) 7 (<1%) Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data Of the 3,654 cell phone devices used, 15 percent (n=539) were used for one call attempt with no subsequent transmissions detected by the managed access system. The remaining 85 percent (n=3,200) of cell phone devices detected by the system were used more than one time. Most of the call attempts detected came from a small proportion of devices that were used frequently. Twenty-one percent of the cell phone devices used to make call attempts were responsible for 94 percent of the overall call attempts. Sixty-six percent of the total call attempts detected came from 153 cell phones devices, which were used more than 1,000 times. Seven devices were responsible for generating 10,000 or more call attempts. Preliminary analysis of one of the most used phones indicated series of stops and starts, with "blasts" of calls/texts within short timeframes to customer service lines and functional dial strings. However, note that this analysis was performed on a limited set of data that may or may not be representative, and we cannot derive any conclusion about the behavior of the phone or its user. Average Cell Phone Lifespan. The data allowed for a determination of a device’s lifespan. The difference in days between the date in which a device transmission was first captured by the system and the date in which the device transmission was last captured can be interpreted as how long a device had been used and detected by the managed access system. This analysis begins to dissect the aggregate trends and explore transmission patterns. The average lifespan for the top seven devices used 10,000 or more times were estimated (see Table 9). As a reminder, the period of observation is March 2012 through July 2012 which This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 73 totals to 151 days. Average lifespan of these top seven phone devices in the observation period is 96 days (SD = 43.25), with median and mode values of 86 days. Table 9. Cell Phone Lifespan by Unique Device Device A* B* C* D E F* G* Total Number of Transmissions 20,037 15,074 13,153 12,029 11,124 11,053 10,414 Lifespan (in Days) 86 129 150 65 26 130 86 Mean (SD) 13,269 (3373.37) 96 (43.25) The lifespan analyses allow for calculation of how long these devices were in use within the observation period. Asterisked devices in Table 9 identify devices with captured transmissions at the start or the end of the observation period. One of these five devices (Device C) was active at the start of this observation period, which means that this device was likely in use before March 2012. The remaining four devices (Devices A, B, F, and G) were active at the end of the observation period, suggesting these devices were likely in use after July 2012. In combination, these lifespans should be interpreted as very conservative estimates. These analyses provide preliminary evidence that devices were both used at a relatively constant rate across the 151 day observation period to become one of the top devices used 10,000 or more times (see Devices B, C, and F) as well as a highly variable or non-constant rate (see Devices D and E) to amass a large number of transmissions. Unfortunately, no data was available to determine if device lifespans with clear first and last transmission dates (i.e., Devices D and E) is a function of devices being confiscated, destroyed, or simply lacking a battery charge. It is also possible that while these devices may no longer be detected by the managed access system, they still may be used for other purposes (e.g., audio and video recording). This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 74 Call Attempt Volume by Destination Number. A total of 30,835 unique destination numbers were dialed within the five month data sample. These numbers contain a mixture of functional strings (e.g., XXX-XXX-XXXX, 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, or XXX-XXXX formats), SMS text shortcuts, and unusable numbers (.e.g. *#72). The average number of times a destination number was dialed was 23 times (SD = 1,656.92), but this estimate is extremely skewed with a few numbers being dialed thousands of times. The median number of times a number was dialed is twice, with a mode of one. As indicated by Table 10, most of the destination numbers used were repeatedly dialed less than 10 times. Table 10. Frequency of Occurrence of Call Attempts by Destination Number Number Dialed One Time Number Dialed One to Two Times Number Dialed One to Three Times Number Dialed One to Four Times Number Dialed One to Five Times Number Dialed One to 10 Times Number Dialed 100+ Times Number Dialed 1,000+ Times Number Dialed 10,000+ Times Frequency of Occurrence (%) of Numbers Dialed 13,058 (42%) 18,193 (59%) 20,833 (67%) 22,607 (73%) 23,820 (77%) 26,827 (87%) 360 (1%) 27 (<1%) 7 (<1%) Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data Call Attempt Volume by Top Destination Numbers. Table 11 presents the attempt frequency of occurrence of each number and a brief description of the number dialed for top 10 call attempts via cellular call. The most commonly attempted numbers called include a mix of services. These include a shortcut connection to wireless Internet access, a shortcut or 1-800 number to cellular provider customer service line, a variety of free, anonymous voicemail accounts, a chat line, pre-paid credit cards, and a 24/7 free service line where adults read children’s books and the recording of stories is available on a constant loop. A #777 dial string was used to provide a “tethered” data connection using 3G services. The #777 is used for Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM; affiliated with Verizon, This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 75 Alltel, and Sprint) and an analogous dial string for CDMA is #99xxxxx (affiliated with AT&T, Cingular, and T-Mobile). The #777 number was often (but not always) used in conjunction with a password that typically was the ten-digit cellular number associated with the phone service. It is interesting that the CDMA #99xxx number does not appear on this list as well. All of the Seattle, WA numbers are for voicemail services. This service provides users with free unique personal number that callers leave messages on and can listen to using the same number. Table 12 presents the attempt frequency of occurrence of each number and a brief description of the number dialed for top 10 SMS text attempts. Texted phone numbers are far less concentrated than phone numbers called. For the most part, texts are being delivered to private numbers. During an open source Internet search of these numbers, many were openly listed on social networking profiles of individuals or electronic wanted ads of individuals or businesses. The most commonly texted number (1111340002) is associated with automated “robot” dialing. Based on open-source research, this specific number appears to be associated with a debt collection service. Why this number would be the recipient of inmate text messages is unknown. Table 11.Top 10 Destination Numbers Called #777 Frequency Occurrence (%) of Total Call Attempts 280,911 (44%) Description Connect to wireless Internet 611 63,995 (10%) Access customer service (206) 208-XXXX 24,449 (4%) (509) 676-XXXX 21,123 (3%) 1-800-331-XXXX 11,995 (2%) Inactive voicemail account, Seattle (WA), International Telcom, Ltd. 1 to 1 chat line, Walla Walla (WA), Telewise AT&T customer service (206) 208-XXXX 11,702 (2%) Inactive voicemail account, Seattle (WA), International Telcom, Ltd. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 76 1-800-473-XXXX 10,926 (2%) Green Dot MoneyPak customer service 1-800-473-XXXXX 9,445 (1%) Misdial of Green Dot MoneyPak line (+1 digit) (206) 208-XXXX 6,356 (1%) Inactive laser voicemail account, Seattle (WA), International Telcom, Ltd. (601) 482-XXXX 3,875 (1%) Public Library Story Line, Meridian (MS), Bellsouth Telecomm Inc. Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data Table 12.Top 10 Destination Numbers Texted 1111340002 Frequency of Occurrence (%) of Total SMS Attempts 1,401 (2%) (662) 267-XXXX 781 (1%) (314) 225-XXXX 642 (1%) (562) 618-XXXX 550 (1%) (601) 613-XXXX 348 (1%) 1-601-502-XXXX 328 (<1%) (601) 529-XXXX 273 (<1%) (901) 483-XXXX 270 (<1%) (407) 403-XXXX 269 (<1%) (318) 837-XXXX 265 (<1%) Description Access Integrated Services Digital Network Private number, Batesville (MS), Sprint Private number, Ladue (MO), New Cingular Wireless Private number, Compton (CA), New Cingular Wireless Private number, Jackson (MS), New Cingular Wireless Private number, Jackson (MS), Bellsouth Telecomm Private number, Vicksburg (MS), New Cingular Wireless Private number, Memphis (TN), Cellco Partnership/Verizon Wireless Private number, Orlando (FL), New Cingular Wireless Private number, Wisner (LA), New Cingular Wireless Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data Note: These numbers represent the exact format in which numbers were dialed and captured. Case Flow of Call Attempts: January to April 2012. Figure 15 provides an illustration of case flow processing of cell phone confiscations at MSP and among the remainder of MDOC’s facilities. The overall trends identify two salient concerns for correctional administrators. First This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 77 is the confiscation-sanction gap. The number of cell phones confiscated exceeds the number of violation reports and prosecutions. Second is the gap between the number of cell phone devices available for use and the proportion that are confiscated. Noting that the data on the number of unique devices is only available for the months of March and April and likely underestimates the actual number of unique devices, it appears that only a small proportion of available devices are confiscated. A few points of comparison can be made between MSP and all of the remainder of MDOC’s facilities. MSP appears to have a slightly higher percentage of cell phones devices discovered on person relative to all other MDOC facilities. Contrary to this higher percentage of inmate possession of contraband cell phone devices, MSP has a lower proportion of cases moving forward with prosecution as compared to other MDOC facilities. It is also worthy to note that MSP appears to generate more rule violation reports and forward more cases to the local District Attorney net of the total number of cell phones confiscated. Since these de-identified data do not allow for determinations of individual case decisions at these phases, case flow trends for rule violation reports and forwarded cases must be interpreted with caution. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology Unique Devices (Mar-Apr) 2,260 78 Total Call Attempts 544,141 On Person On Person 110 (43%) Total Confiscated Cell Phones Total Confiscated Cell Phones 336 (30%) In Common Areas 257 1,108 In Common Areas 147 (57%) Rule Violation Report Filed Rule Violation Report Filed 149 332 Cases Forwarded to District Attorney Cases Forwarded to District Attorney 110 147 Cases with Grand Jury Pending Cases with Grand Jury Pending 10 (9%) 31 (21%) 772 (70%) MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTARY (MSP) MISSISSIPPI STATE, REGIONAL, AND PRIVATE FACILITES (EXCLUDING MSP) Figure 15. Case Flow Trends: January to April 2012 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 79 Discussion and Conclusions The present research provides four unique insights. First, the contraband cell phone problem is perhaps more significant than imagined. One of the themes discussed throughout the site visit was the increase of inmate access to contraband cell phones from within correctional facilities. Based on the managed access system data, the median number of daily call attempts within MSP was 4,584. This can be extrapolated to estimate that 1,673,160 illegal cellular call attempts will occur in MSP alone in a single year. Generally, the contraband cell phone problem has been illustrated to date by using the number of devices seized. The measurement of call attempts generated by the managed access system provides a useful alternative to understand the extent of contraband cell phone use. Moreover, call attempt data provides insight on the gap between estimated call attempts from unique cell phone devices and seized devices. While MSP is a relatively unique facility given its size, location, and history, the observed call attempt estimates may be similar across facilities with comparable rates of contraband cell phone confiscation within Mississippi and across other states. Second, the managed access system at MSP does appear to work. That is, the system is able to detect and inhibit transmissions from cell phone devices within MSP. The system handles a large volume of call and text attempts and captures a variety of information that can be crossreferenced to facilitate subsequent administrative or investigative decision points. At the same time the extent to which managed access works is contingent on a number of system, personnel, and interagency cooperation and communication factors discussed throughout this report. If these elements are not actively managed, the ability to detect and inhibit cell phone transmissions can be dramatically reduced or lost altogether. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 80 Relatedly, there is evidence to question the operational theory of managed access and what the system can provide correctional administrators. Perhaps the weakest proposition affiliated with managed access is the notion that such systems render cell phones as obsolete or useless. Managed access does not directly disable a cell phone by terminating voice, text, and data transmission capabilities and/or de-authorizing a SIM card. Instead, data generated from the managed access system is shared with commercial carriers to facilitate a court order to disable a cell phone. While feasible, this process is rarely pursued. Managed access does not ensure that once a cell phone is detected by the system the device is no longer used. The overwhelming majority (85%) of cell phones detected by the system were used more than one time and a small proportion of cell phones detected by the system attempted to transmit hundreds of call and/or text attempts. Managed access also does not appear to produce higher rates of cell phone confiscation relative to all other MDOC facilities. While call or text transmissions may be blocked by managed access, these devices do not seem to be discarded and subsequently confiscated by correctional personnel. Third, managed access technology has operational shortcomings. As discussed, the technology requires active management on behalf of the adopting organization (see Tables 2 and 3 for a summary). Relatedly, the effect of the technology on the repeated use of cellular devices is not entirely clear. As noted, there were a small proportion of cell phone devices that were continuously used across a number of months to attempt calls and/or texts. These devices were responsible for a large portion of the total transmissions detected by the managed access system. These findings call into question how data generated from the system are automated and analyzed to produce actionable intelligence. The sheer volume of data produced as well as the mix of functional, misdialed, or erroneous dial strings may make it difficult to cross-reference This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 81 the destination number of contraband call attempts and inmates’ pre-approved landline contact lists. The possibility does exist that this process could be automated to reduce the labor-intensive nature of cross-referencing numbers. However, such a process is likely to include specialized analytical skills, tools, and programming capabilities for translational comparison that may not be available to some corrections agencies. Lastly, and perhaps most intriguing, the present research has shed light on unauthorized contraband cell phone activity. As specifically illustrated in Tables 11 and 12, a wide-range of communications are being attempted with contraband phones. Though the present research falls dramatically short of determining social support versus criminal coordination with these transmission attempts, it lends some empirical support for the use of contraband cell phones to fulfill an array of user needs which may not differ from cell phone users in the community (see Aoki & Downes, 2003). This is certainly not to say criminal activity does not occur through these contraband phones; it is almost certain that it does as well. However, these attempted calls or texts are not prospectively identifiable in the managed access system data. The question is whether or not managed access is worth the financial investment. The answer to this question involves a myriad of complex issues and decisions. Managed access does capture a large quantity of cellular transmissions, but it is impossible to determine the rate with which attempted calls or texts successfully elude detection by the system. Even if a hypothetical rate of successful transmission detection was only 40 percent, that 40 percent would provide a substantial value-added effect to combating contraband cell phones problem relative to existing countermeasures. Thus, the decision comes down to this benefit versus the cost of installing and maintaining a managed access system. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 82 Cost estimates are difficult to obtain for proprietary reasons. However, based on open-source information a significant monetary investment is required. Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC) in Baltimore, Maryland implemented a managed access system. The technology will be deployed over 700,000 square feet of targeted area within the facility and utilize a full scope of commercial wireless spectrum (Tecore Networks, 2014). System costs are estimated at $5.4 million (Washington Post, 2014). Limitations This research has a number of limitations and rests upon a variety of assumptions. To begin with, this study is exploratory in nature and sought to establish a foundation upon which future research on managed access can be conducted and practitioner decisions regarding the procurement and implementation of managed access technology could be based. Given the infancy of managed access technology and the sparsely available operational systems that can be evaluated, relatively limited information was available to guide the present research. Despite the limitations to be addressed here, the research has yielded a number of insightful and intriguing findings that will impact future practice and research. Data limitations significantly hindered the study. Due to a number of unforeseen personnel changes within MSP and proprietary system concerns from the vendor which also owned the landline inmate calling system, an assortment of data was simply not available to the research team. Data was only available post-managed access system installation. Ideally the research team would have been able to collaborate with MDOC personnel to identify appropriate preinstallation measures related to contraband cell phone use at MSP. These metrics could have included inmate contraband and discipline reports, correctional staff discipline reports for smuggling cell phones, the type of cell phones confiscated, and survey and interview data from This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 83 inmates and staff at MSP regarding the prevalence of contraband cell phones, the catalysts behind inmates’ use of these phones, and inmates awareness of MSP efforts to combat the use of cell phones. Without pre-implementation measures, it is difficult to determine the effect of managed access technology on correctional operations. Data utilized by the present research is also limited in scope with regard to the temporal period examined. The managed access system became operational at MSP in August 2010, yet the available data utilized for secondary analysis only captured a five-month snapshot of a postdeployment period. The justification for utilizing this March – July 2012 time frame was 1) this time period is believed to be the most operationally-efficient of the system and 2) the tedious time-intensive process to clean and organize the data for analysis was significant. In addition, when the data from this time period is compared across previous post-deployment months (i.e., August 2010 to February 2012) there were no statistically significant differences in mean transmissions detected by the system. As such, the five-month snapshot data does not appear to be unrepresentative of broader monthly trends. This research is unable to identify and distinguish whether attempted calls or texts captured by the managed access system are coming directly from inmates who are actively using contraband cell phones. The fundamental operational assumption of this technology – nonapproved phone numbers that are intercepted and blocked are illegally made by inmates with contraband cell phones – could not be empirically examined. MDOC provided anecdotal estimates that 90 percent of attempted transmissions can be cross-referenced to pre-approved landline call lists and linked to MSP inmates, which increases the validity of managed access system data. At the same time, this estimate acknowledges measurement error that may be associated with the management of authorization lists and coverage leakage issues. There is also This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 84 some evidence to suggest that unauthorized call or text attempts may be made by a passive, automated process affiliated with cellular device hardware or software than user dialing. For example, earlier it was noted that #777 is a number dialed by a device to obtain data service from a wireless network. It is unclear if this number is manually dialed by a user seeking service or if the call attempts are from a cellular device programmed to continuously dial this number in search of service. It is possible that these call attempts are part of automated managed access coverage testing. Additionally, it is not clear if detected transmissions originate from users that have multiple cellular devices or from a user who possesses one Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) card that is shared among others with compatible cellular devices. The findings should be interpreted with these limitations in mind. This assessment does not include information pertaining to costs. Any attempt to quantify costs related to system build out, maintenance, or ancillary expenses (i.e., personnel and training) was deemed to be invalid and unreliable. Cost and affiliated financial estimates were requested. However, the system deployed at MSP was not owned by the state. It is part of a service provided by the service vendor of the facility’s inmate calling system. Therefore detailed cost information was not provided by this privately owned company. Moreover, managed access system cost factors will vary greatly by facility and the underlying cellular technology upon which a system operates. This case study provided a rural example whereby a single high-power cellular site provided coverage for the majority of the facility. The logistics associated with this type of installation are significantly different than a system using Distributed Antenna System technology (DAS), because DAS is based entirely on a network of low-power antennas distributed throughout the coverage area. The physical infrastructure required to support a DAS infrastructure is significantly more complex, and the associated costs to deploy will vary This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 85 significantly. DAS system manufacturers were/are hesitant to provide “budgetary” cost figures because of the significance of these differences. For this reason, cost estimates are not provided in this report. Given this high fidelity, any costs presented would likely not be generalizable. Lastly, on-site engineering assessments were not a component of this project. The research team discussed such methodologies and determined that a number of system and facility-specific factors made any vulnerability assessment non-feasible. As an alternative, the research team employed social science process and outcome evaluation methods to describe how the managed access system operates, present information on implementation challenges, and explore and generate potential outcome metrics with the use of available administrative data. Future research It is beyond the scope of this study to take into account social factors contributing to the problem of contraband cell phones. The “why this is a problem” and “what are the root causes” questions cannot, unfortunately, be answered. As mentioned, the lack of privacy afforded to inmates via landline calls and the financial cost associated with these calls are plausible motivations for contraband cell phone use. However, further research is needed to explore the intention of calls conducted with contraband cell phones. Relatedly, an exploration into the economics behind the contraband cell phone market could help quantify the problem and inform policy decisions. For example, if correctional officers and/or staff are smuggling phones for profit, it seems reasonable to assume that this cost is worth the risk of losing their legitimate job and facing likely criminal charges. Rational choice theory posits there should be an economic offset point where the proposed risk of smuggling is nolonger intriguing to an employee and they could be deterred from engaging in such behavior. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 86 Furthermore, the current research does not explore possible technical vulnerabilities a managed access system may have. The question begs; do inmates learn how to “beat the system?” Conversations with Global Tel Link and Tecore representatives revealed rumors of inmates circumventing managed access through a variety of different dialing mechanisms and cell phone setting specifications. Exploring these possible vulnerabilities will require a unique methodology and, likely, wide-ranging sample of inmates across different facilities. Consideration should be given to the examination of confiscated cell phones to identify what features have, and have not, been disabled by the managed access system. From an engineering and technical perspective, signal coverage to include coverage holes and coverage bleed over, should be examined in varying contexts. The deployment at MSP poses limited risk of cellular interference to nearby legitimate cell phone users. The rural setting includes a modest buffer between MSP grounds and public areas. In addition, the density of commercial cell sites in a rural setting is lower than in a typical urban setting. Installation of a managed access system in an urban environment will face a more daunting task to control and isolate signal bleed over because of the higher density of commercial cell sites combined with a small or non-existent buffer between the correctional facility and nearby public areas. Lastly, future research on contraband cell phones should attempt to quantify victimization. This is not a straightforward task. Media stories often retrospectively highlight the most serious of offenses when they occur, but conversations with corrections practitioners indicate a more pervasive victimization enabled through cell phones. An informed estimate of contraband cell phone victimization could help to justify investment costs in contraband cell phone technologies, including managed access. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 87 Caution for the Corrections Community The corrections community must understand that managed access is not – and should not – be considered a silver bullet solution for the contraband cell phone problem. Cellular devices that cannot transmit a call or text pose potential harm in the correctional environment. Managed access should be utilized in conjunction with physical search and seizures of contraband cell phones. As noted above, multifunction device capabilities that fall outside of the scope of cellular communications simply cannot be managed with managed access technology and have to be mitigated via other means. Managed access technology serves as a tool to mitigate use of these devices by denying cellular service, diminishing the overall utility of smuggling these devices into a correctional facility. Clearly inmate use of multifunction device capabilities which fall outside of cellular communications requires mitigation using non-managed access system methods, to include physical intervention. Put simply, managed access technology should be viewed as supplemental to existing contraband policies and practices. References Aoki, K., & Downes, E. J. (2003). An Analysis of Young People’s Use of and Attitudes Toward Cell Phones. Telematics and Informatics, 20(4), 349-364. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2013). Correctional Populations in the United States, 2012. NCJ 243936. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC. Burke, T. W. and Owen, S. S. (2010). Cell phones as prison contraband. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. July. Federal Bureau of Investigation. California Council on Science and Technology. (2012). Efficacy of Managed Access Systems to Intercept Calls from Contraband Cell Phones in California Prisons. FEMA Grant Programs Directorate. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. CorrectionsOne. (2015). S.C. towers will slow contraband, but cell phone jamming more effective. Retrieved from http://www.correctionsone.com/cell-phone- This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 88 jammers/articles/8348147-S-C-towers-will-slow-contraband-but-cell-phone-jammingmore-effective/ Entner, R. (2012). The Wireless Industry: The Essential Engine of US Economic Growth. Recon Analytics. Epps, C. (2008). Commissioner’s corner: Let this serve as a warning. Mississippi Department of Corrections. The Resource, 10(4), 1-16. Federal Communications Commission. (2010). Contraband Cell Phone Use In Prisons Workshop/Webinar. Heritage Reporting Corporation. Retrieved from http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/summits/contraband-cell-use-transcript.pdf. Federal Communications Commission (2005), Sale or Use of Transmitters Designed to Prevent, Jam or Interfere with Cell Phone Communications is Prohibited in the United States. Retrieved from: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1776A1.pdf Federal Communications Commission. (2012). Implementation of the pay telephone reclassification and compensation provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 et al. Hearings. Proceeding 12-375 retrieved from http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0711/DA-14-993A1.pdf Federal Communications Commission. (2013). FCC Reduces High Long-Distance Calling Rates Paid by Inmates. Media Release. Retrieved from https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-322749A1.pdf Federal Communications Commission (NPRM 13-58, 2013). Promoting Technological Solutions to Combat Contraband Wireless Devices Use in Correctional Facilities. Retrieved from: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-13-58A1.pdf Federal Communications Commission Jamming (n.d.) Jamming Tip Line. Retrieved from: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement Fitzpatrick, J. L. and Sanders, J. R. (2003). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. Allyn and Bacon. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hamel, J., Dufour, S. and Fortin, D. (1993). Case Study Methods. Newbury Park, CA. Sage. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (2014). Evolution of Cell Phone Technology. Global History Network. Retrieved from http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Evolution_of_Cell_Phone_Technology International Telecommunication Union. (2014). Mobile subscriptions near the 7‑billion mark: Does almost everyone have a phone? ITU News. Special Edition World Telecommunication Development Conference. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 89 Johnson, W. J., Leach, M. P. and Liu, A. H. (1999). Theory testing using case studies in business-to-business research. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(3), 201-213. Kennedy, M. M. (1979). Generalizing from single case studies. Evaluation Review, 3(4), 661678. King, N. (1994). The Qualitative Research Interview. In C. Cassell and G. Symon (Eds.), Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, pp. 14-36. Sage. London. Mississippi Department of Corrections. (n.d.). Mississippi Department of Corrections 2013 Annual Report. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Department of Corrections. Available at: http://www.mdoc.state.ms.us/Annual_report.htm. Mississippi Department of Corrections. (2013). Operational Cellblock: Locking Down Illegal Cell Phone Traffic. Presentation. American Correctional Association. Houston, TX. Mississippi Department of Corrections. (2014a). Mississippi Department of Corrections Inmate Custody Population For Year's End 1990 – 2012. Research and Statistics. Jackson, MS. Mississippi Department of Corrections. (2014b). The Resource. A Publication of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. MDOC Making Strides. Retrieved from http://www.mdoc.state.ms.us/News%20Letters/2014NewsLetters/January2014.pdf National Emergency Number Association. (2006). Call Answering Standard/Model Recommendation. National Emergency Number Association, Standard Operating Procedures Committing, Call-Taking Working Group. Document 56-005. Arlington, VA. National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices. (2009). State Strategies for Preventing Introduction and Use of Contraband Cell Phones in Prisons, January,2009. Retrieved from http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/864/NGA_Background_Paper__State_Strategies_for_Preventing_Introduction_and_Use_of_Contraband_Cell_Phones_1 -27-2009.pdf?1280164386. National Institute of Justice. (2010). Plenary Panel: Cell Phones in Prisons. NIJ Conference. Retrieved from http://nij.ncjrs.gov/multimedia/transcripts/audio-nijconf2010-plenarycell-phones-transcript.htm Nielsen. (2013). Pay-As-You Phone: How Global Consumers Pay for Mobile. NewsWire. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2013/how-global-consumerspay-for-mobile.html Pew Research Center. (2014). Mobile Technology Fact Sheet. Pew Research Internet Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewInternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 90 Schofield, J. W. (2002). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In, M. Huberman and M. B. Miles (Eds.), The Qualitative Researcher's Companion: Classic and Contemporary Readings, pp. 171-203. Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA. State of Mississippi. (2012). Miss. Code § 47-5-193. Title 47. Prisons and Prisoners; Probation and Parole. Chapter 5. Correctional System Alcoholic Beverages, Controlled Substance, Narcotic Drugs, Weapons, and other Contraband. Retrieved from http://www.mdoc.state.ms.us/PDF%20Files/MissCode1972.pdf Tecore Networks. (2014 Feb 20). Operating in a downtown Baltimore facility, Tecore releases unique details regarding its iNAC managed access capabilities. Retrieved from http://www.tecore.com/newsevents/release.cfm?newsID=205. U.S. Department of Commerce. (2010). Contraband Cell Phones in Prisons: Possible Wireless Technology Solutions. Retrieved from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/contrabandcellphonereport_december201 0.pdf U.S. Department of Labor and Statistics. (2013). Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2013. http://www.bls.gov/regions/southeast/newsrelease/occupationalemploymentandwages.htm U.S. Department of Labor and Statistics. (2015). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Retrieved from http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet;jsessionid=85C515BA0B883F3F938F9A0D 1B9F7C42.tc_instance5 U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). Bureau of Prisons: Improved Evaluations and Increased Coordination Could Improve Cell Phone Detection. Report to Congressional Committees. Report Number GAO-11-893. Washington, DC. Washington Post. (2014 Feb 11). Governor: Phone security decreases jail violence. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/omalley-to-announce-jailphone-security -system/20140207/cac734e6-8fdd-11e3-878e-d76656564a01_print.html. Worley, R. and Cheeseman, K. A. (2006). Guards as embezzlers: The consequences of “nonshareable problems” in prison settings. Deviant Behavior, 27(2), 203-222. Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Second Edition. Sage. Beverly Hills, CA. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 91 Appendix A: Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Activity Contraband cell phones have been used for a variety of criminal activities inside and outside correctional facilities. While specific estimates of such activity have not been routinely collected or published, there is significant body of anecdotal evidence that the problem is widespread and poses a public safety problem. Table 13. illustrates some recent examples of alleged or noted criminal activities that have been associated with inmate use of contraband cell phones. Table 13.Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Criminal Activity State/ Country Report Year Criminal Act(s) Noted Inside or outside prison Reference URL South Carolina 2010 Murder (attempted) Outside http://newsone.com/753345/prisoner-ordered-hit-outside-ofprison-with-smuggled-cell-phone/ Georgia 2011 Organized Inmate Uprisings Inside http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/local/x1331361164/Cellphones-spark-Georgia-prison-unrest North Carolina 2012 Kidnapping & Harassment Outside http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/11/3776630/kelvinmelton-imprisoned-for-life.html and/or http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/12/north-carolinainmate-kidnapping-mobile-phone Ohio (other locations mentioned) 2012 Multiple Inside/ Outside http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/cellphonesweapons-and-drugs-flood-ohio-prisons-1/nMySK/ South Carolina 2012 Smuggling, blackmail, harassment Inside/ Outside http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120430/PC16/1204399 59 and http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120430/PC16/1204399 71 Georgia 2013 Planning Violent Robberies Outside http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/inmate-accusedplanning-violent-crimes-prison/nXbw8/ Georgia 2013 Homicide Inside http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/2013-03-24/gangs-cellphones-blamed-rise-homicides-georgia-prisons Indiana 2013 Harassment Outside http://www.theindychannel.com/news/call-6investigators/families-victims-targeted-by-indiana-stateprisoners-with-illegal-phones Tennessee 2013 “violent crimes” Outside http://www.newschannel5.com/story/23631961/prisonersconfiscated-cell-phones-help-non-profit This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology State/ Country Report Year Criminal Act(s) Noted Inside or outside prison 92 Reference URL Georgia 2013 Prison Brawl Video Inside http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C77wyuzh3oM California 2014 Drug trafficking & Violent Crime Outside http://abc30.com/archive/9531064/ Maryland (Baltimore is mentioned) 2014 Smuggling etc. Inside/ Outside http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_2_baltimore-correctionalservices-corruption.html Florida (other locations mentioned) 2014 Multiple Inside/ Outside http://tbo.com/news/crime/prisoners-use-of-smuggledcellphones-on-rise-20140216/ Brazil (Baltimore is mentioned) 2014 Murder Outside http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/04/prisonersare-calling-whos-answering Honduras 2014 Extortion Outside http://dialogoamericas.com/en_GB/articles/rmisa/features/regional_news/2014 /05/30/honduras-seguridad International This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 93 Appendix B: Semi-Structured Focus Group Protocol and Teleconference Protocols Initial Focus Group Protocol – Mississippi Department of Corrections Kick-Off: Introductions a. Who we are (introductions, roles, background) b. Overall charter and focus of NIJ c. Work in corrections and communications d. Assessment experience 1. Background of the project a. What motivated you to install the managed access system? Were there specific issues, a specific event, or general concern? Did you conduct a needs assessment or develop metrics to quantify the extent of the problem? b. What alternative approaches were implemented? c. What alternative approaches were considered? 2. System procurement a. How was the current system procured? b. What was the installation cost? Ongoing maintenance costs? Training costs? How are those costs funded? c. What was the timeline of procurement, installation, training, operation, etc.? 3. Technical operation of the system a. Physically view the system. 4. Operation of the managed access system a. Who installed the system? Who operates the system? How is the system maintained (hardware, software, data)? b. How are users trained? c. What are the relevant policies regarding cell phone use (employees, visitors)? How are these policies enforced? d. What is the criteria and procedure for classifying cell phones? 5. Operational impact a. What was your expectation for mitigating the issue that they were trying to address? b. What is your overall perception of system performance and impact? c. What would you change if you could (technical, policy, and legislative)? d. What data have you collected to date on system performance and system impact? This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 94 e. Overall what data is collected? Is that data available for analysis? How can that data be accessed? Is there any data sets for which we can view representative samples at this time? f. How can we collect additional data if needed? Debrief: Action steps for the future This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 95 Appendix C: Mississippi State Penitentiary Inmate Security Classifications Security Level Classification Minimum Minimum: Community Minimum Status Minimum: NonCommunity Minimum Status Medium Close Death Row Definition Affords the offender a more relaxed atmosphere and extension of privileges and requires the ability to work satisfactorily with minimum supervision or security control. Least security and supervision required of an offender. Usually this type offender works in the community. Least security and supervision required of an institutionalized offender and usually housed under minimum security circumstances. The offender may participate in activities on facility grounds without direct supervision, but must be supervised by trained correctional staff when off grounds. Offender has displayed a desire to be considered responsible presents a moderate risk. Offenders are housed in a medium security facility and permitted to move about the housing unit or security work area, but are within direct observation of correctional staff. Offenders are under direct/constant armed correctional supervision when engaged in activities outside the perimeter of the correctional facility. Highest risk general population inmate and requires close supervision where the offender must be under positive security control at all times. The offender must be under armed supervision outside the perimeter. All male offenders sentenced to death in Mississippi are held in MSP's Unit 29. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology 96 Appendix D: MSP Managed Access System Infrastructure The pictures included in this section were taken during a site visit made by the Engility team to the Mississippi State Penitentiary on May 31, 2012. These pictures are included to document specific aspects of the managed access installation. As noted in the description of the installation, the system antennas were mounted on a water tower structure centrally located on the grounds of the MSP. Figure 16 shows the equipment shelter located at the base of the water tower structure. The equipment inside the shelter is shown in Figure 17, and the antennas, mounted on the structure, are shown in Figure 18 Figure 16. The MDOC Water Tower Equipment shelter This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Case study of Managed Access Technology Figure 17. Equipment located in the MDOC Water Tower Equipment shelter Figure 18. Antenna Equipment on the MDOC Water Tower This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 97