Prison Phone Justice

HOUSE
RESEARCH
ORGANIZATION bill analysis

5/1/2007

HB 1888
Haggerty, Madden, Hodge
(CSHB 1888 by Hochberg)

SUBJECT:

Requiring TDCJ to install inmate pay telephone service

COMMITTEE:

Corrections — committee substitute recommended

VOTE:

4 ayes — Madden, Hochberg, Dunnam, Jones
0 nays
3 absent — McReynolds, Haggerty, Oliveira

WITNESSES:

For — Joan Burnham, Austin/Travis County Reentry Roundtable; Delia
Cabello, Concerned Christians for Inmates; Edwin S. Davis, Restorative
Justice Ministries Network of TX; Helga Dill, TX CURE (Citizens Untied
For Rehabilitation of Errants); Curtis Hopfinger, Securus Technologies,
Inc; Nicole Porter, American Civil Liberties Union of Texas; Cheryl
White Mynar, Global Tel*Link; Cynthia Cabello; (Registered, but did not
testify: Verna Lee Carr, People Agai nst Violent Crime; Will Harrell,
ACLU, NAACP, LULAC; Dean McWilliams, Unisys Corp.; Susan “Suzi”
Paynter, Christian Life Commission Baptist General Convention of Texas;
Janice Sager, Texans for Equal Justice; Ana Yanez Correa, Texas
Criminal Justice Coalition;)
Against — None
On — Brad Livingston, Texas Department of Criminal Justice

DIGEST:

CSHB 1888 would require the board of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice (TDCJ) to award a contract to a single private vendor to install,
operate, and maintain an inmate pay telephone service. The contract would
be for at least seven years and would have to contain an option to renew
the contract for additional two-year terms. The contract would be awarded
by September 1, 2008.
TDCJ would be required to request proposals from private vendors for the
inmate pay telephone service. Under the contract, a vendor would have to
provide installation, operation, and maintenance of the phone service
without any cost to the state and wo uld have to pay TDCJ a commission of
at least 40 percent of the gross revenue from the service. There would

HB 1888
House Research Organization
page 2

have to be a ratio of no more than 30 eligible inmates per communication
device at each facility.
The phone system would have to:
•
•
•
•
•
•

compile approved inmate call lists;
verify numbers to be called by inmates, if necessary;
oversee the entry of personal identification numbers;
use a biometric identifier of the inmate making the call;
generate certain types of reports;
network the systems in all individual units to allow the same
monitoring from department headquarters that was available at all
facilities; and
• use cellular telephone detection technology.
CSHB 1888 would make other requirements of the system, including that
it be fully automated and that it provide on-site monitoring of calling
patterns. No charges could be assessed for uncompleted calls, and charges
for local calls could not be greater than the highest rate for local calls for
inmates in county jails. Inmates and persons acting on their behalf would
have to be able to prepay for the service.
TDCJ, with board approval, would have to adopt policies governing
inmate use of the pay phones. The policies could not unduly restrict
calling patterns or volume and would have to allow each eligible inmate to
make an average of eight calls per month, at an average of 10 minutes
each.
TDCJ would have to ensure that inmates were allowed to call only persons
who were on a pre-approved call list. All calls, except for confidential
attorney-client communications, would have to be recorded and preserved
for a reasonable time for law enforcement and security purposes.
The system also would have to allow for periodic review by the state
auditor of information about billing procedures and statements, rate
structures, commissions, and service metering.
Fifty percent of the commissions paid to TDCJ by the vendor would go to
the crime victims compensation fund and the rest to general revenue,
except that the first $10 million each year would have to go to the crime
victims compensation fund.

HB 1888
House Research Organization
page 3

The bill would take immediate effect if finally passed by a two -thirds
record vote of the membership of each house. Otherwise, it would take
effect September 1, 2007.
SUPPORTERS
SAY:

CSHB 1888 would give prison officials a useful management tool while
generating new revenue for crime victims and the state and supporting the
reintegration and rehabilitation of offenders. The bill would ensure that the
inmate telephone service would be implemented in a secure way that
contributed to crime detection and prevention by taping all calls except
those between prisoners and their attorneys.
Currently, eligible inmates in state prisons are allowed one, five -minute
collect phone call every 90 days, and offenders in state jails are allowed
one five -minute collect call every 30 days. To facilitate these calls,
inmates must be escorted individually to a regular phone in a room at a
unit and a staff member must remain in the room to monitor the call. This
is a labor-intensive practice that pulls correctional officers away from
other important duties.
The system to be established under CSHB 1888 would be similar to the
ones operated by many county jails in Texas — including jails in all major
counties — and by the vast majority of states. Inmate telephone services in
these venues have been safely and successfully operated, and there is no
reason that TDCJ would have similar results. Texas is the only state that
does not operate a pay phone system for its prisoners.
CSHB 1888 would provide a useful prison management tool. Currently
phone calls are limited to inmates with good behavior records, and the bill
would increase the potential to use phone access as a carrot to induce good
behavior because phones in the new system would be placed in common
areas, such as day rooms, and inmates would be allowed at least eight calls
per month. TDCJ would retain its current authority to decide who had
earned the privilege of using the phones.
Access to more telephone calls would help inmates stay in touch with their
families. This is especially important for parents who are inmates and need
to stay connected to their children, and for elderly or infirm family
members who may have trouble traveling to visit an inmate. The charges
that families would pay for phone calls would be much less than the costs
of gas, food, and lodging incurred by many families visiting inmates.

HB 1888
House Research Organization
page 4

Maintaining family relationships through phone calls can be a great help
for inmates upon reentry into society.
CSHB 1888 would be a new source of revenue for the state, and crime
victims especially would benefit from the bill. State revenue from the
phones would go first to the crime victims compensation fund for
payments to victims and programs that aid victims. The rest would go into
the general revenue account. When fully implemented, the system is
expected to generate between $25 and $30 million in revenue for the state.
The bill could help in the investigation and prosecution of crimes. Other
entities with inmate phone systems have used the monitoring function to
overhear inmates planning and discussing crimes, which later enabled
them to make arrests in the cases. By reducing the demand for cell phones
and requiring cell phone detection capabilities, CSHB 1888 also would
help reduce incidents of cell phones being smuggled into correctional
facilities, a practice that creates a serious security risk.
There are many features in CSHB 1888 to ensure the implementation of a
safe, secure phone system that would not be abused to plan crimes or
further harm victims. Inmates would be able to call only pre-approved
numbers, and the systems would have call forwarding and three-way
calling detection capabilities to ensure that calls made to pre-approved
numbers were not be forwarded to other numbers. In addition, all calls
would be monitored and calls would be restricted to inmates who had
earned phone privileges.
The specific requirements in the bill are included to ensure that the system
would meet the needs of the state. With current technology, vendors
should have no difficulty meeting all of the bill’s parameters. Because
TDCJ has not used its current authority to implement an inmate pay
telephone system, it is appropriate for the Legislature to use HB 1888 to
signal its intent that the agency do so.
OPPONENTS
SAY:

Increasing inmate access to phones could increase crime and potential
harm to victims and others in the outside world. Offenders are experts at
exploiting weaknesses in correctional facilities and likely would find ways
to use expanded phone access to plan illegal activities.
CSHB 1888 is unnecessary because TDCJ could implement an inmate pay
telephone system under its current authority. It would be best to let

HB 1888
House Research Organization
page 5

corrections professionals make decisions about implementing a phone
system and what shape such a system should take. CSHB 1888 contains
many specific requirements that might make awarding a contract difficult.
NOTES:

The committee substitute made several changes to the original bill,
including changing the minimum contract from five to seven years,
eliminating a requirement that the contract must allow for automatic
renewal until the vendor’s capital was recouped, and adding the
requirement that inmates be allowed a minimum of eight, 10-minute calls.
The companion bill, SB 1580 by Van de Putte, passed the Senate on t he
Local and Uncontested Calendar on April 26 and was reported favorably,
without amendment, by the House Corrections Committee on April 30.
According to the Legislative Budget Board, the bill would generate
approximately $15 million for the crime victims compensation fund in
fiscal 2008-09.