Video Visitation: How Private Companies Push for Visits by Video, Grassroots Leadership, 2014

• Oct. 1, 2014 • Locations: United States of America • Topics: Telephone Access, Telephone Rates, Visiting

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

Video Visitation:
how private companies push for visits by video
and families pay the price
October 2014

Introduction
“There are already too many industries taking advantage of inmates and their
families, everything from overpriced commissary goods to incredibly expensive
collect phone calls. We don’t need any more of these great, and expensive, ideas
that prey on those who can least afford it.” 1

–Bob Ray Sanders, Columnist, Ft. Worth Star Telegram

In September 2014, a group of Dallas-area advocates led a
fight against an initiative that would have introduced video
visitation capability to the Dallas County jail. The company
proposing to provide services to Dallas had buried in its
contract a requirement that the jail eliminate in-person
visitation, thus leaving those who wished to visit prisoners
only one option – visit by video. Or, don’t visit at all. Dallas
officials voted the proposal down, but it was the latest
front in a battle that has seen video-only visitation policies
spreading across the country, primarily in local lockups.
Embraced by jail officials as a way
to alleviate what many see as the
burdensome security aspects of prison
visitation, the primary attraction of
video-only visitation actually rests on
one facet: money.
While prison advocates have long
anticipated the technology that
would allow for video visits as a way
to increase communication between
incarcerated individuals, their family,
and community members, it was
always envisioned as a supplement
to in-person visitation. The reality
of incarceration is that many individuals are assigned to
units in rural communities, far away from their loved ones,
burdening mostly low-income families with travel and
lodging expenses far beyond their means. When one’s family
does not have a vehicle, lives hundreds of miles away, and
simply cannot afford the trip, a visit via video would be
welcomed.
But advocates always envisioned a choice for families with
incarcerated loved ones as to whether or not they would
make those sacrifices in order to support them – a choice
that should be left in the hands of those with the most stake
in the matter. Video-only visitation policies strip away
that choice; they are simply another outgrowth of the idea
that offering services to prisoners and their families can be
commercialized.
In fact, video visitation can be expensive for “visitors,” with
fees averaging 50 cents per minute for a 20-minute call.
While this may seem reasonable, video provider companies
likely realize that the ease with which some can schedule
a video visit means that more will be scheduled, and

skyrocketing costs (in the form of income for companies)
will follow. In addition, many companies require a minimum
deposit for opening a video account and do not readily
refund the balance if a prisoner is released.
In addition to this troubling aspect of visitation policies, they
pose other significant challenges
•

Disruptions to Family Bonding: Prison and jail
visitation policies should recognize that family support
is crucial to maintaining the relationships between
those incarcerated and those who love them, especially
as it pertains to developing and maintaining bonds
between parents and children. Every available study
agrees: Best practices for developing those bonds
involve in-person visitation, preferably contact.

•

Removal of Management Tool: Prison and jail
administrators have long recognized
that visitation can be a powerful
management tool. Incarcerated
individuals treasure those times with
their family and friends, and corrections
officials have always used the threat of
losing visits as an incentive for good
behavior. Taking away that tool may
make jails and prisons less secure,
as data from Travis County, Texas,
indicates, with violence and contraband
escalating a year after the elimination of
in-person visits.

•

Usage Difficulties due to Digital Divide: Using the
technology requires computer literacy, which becomes
a barrier for many desiring to use the service. Even
those with a firm grasp of computer technology
report frustration dealing with the many glitches and
interruptions of service. Given the demographics of
those in American jails and prisons – poor, mostly
minority, a significant portion of whom speak Spanish
as a first language – this technology may prevent any
meaningful communication.

•

Privacy Violations: Finally, there is evidence that
phone calls between them and their attorneys are
being recorded, and that prosecutors are using
evidence gained from jail-initiated calls and video
visits to secure convictions. This is a constitutional
violation of the right to be free of unreasonable
searches, and it may lead to unnecessary legal expenses
to municipalities in the form of lawsuits against the
practice itself or appeals of convictions gained by
questionable means.2

Video Visitation | October 2014 | 2

The benefits of in-person prison and jail visitation
“Corrections administrators should be cognizant that traditional contact visitation is the best means of communication
between children and their incarcerated parent; however, in many circumstances it is impractical for families to visit their
loved ones in prison.
Virtual visitation helps if the prison is too far, transportation is too expensive, or the prison environment is inappropriate
for a child. In-person visitation is regarded as the most effective form of child-incarcerated parent visitation.” 3

–Vermont Legislative Research Services

The American Bar Association (ABA), in its Standards on Treatment of Prisoners,
makes it clear that visitation policies for incarcerated individuals should include
in-person visits. The ABA emphasizes that correctional officials should “develop and promote other forms of communication
between prisoners and their families, including video visitation, provided that such options are not a replacement for
opportunities for in-person contact.”4
Jail visits can be chaotic. Visiting rooms are often crowded and noisy. Visitors can be subjected to physical pat-downs and
searches of their bodies and vehicles. The experience of walking under the razor wire and through metal detectors, and
then seeing one’s loved one only behind glass, can be disheartening and leave one shaken. These factors can be especially
unsettling for young children.
And already, children of incarcerated parents face challenges. In fact, for the estimated 2.6 million children who have a
parent in jail or prison,5 the separation between child and parent due to incarceration can result in feelings of guilt and
shame, social stigma, loss of financial support, weakened ties to the parent, poor school performance, increased delinquency,
and increased risk of abuse or neglect. Visitation, as one paper points out, “substantially decreases the negative impacts
of incarceration by preserving the child’s relationship with the parent.”6 This study further points to the Children of
Incarcerated Parents Bill of Rights, developed by the San Francisco Partnership for Incarcerated Parents, which states, “I have
the right to speak with, see, and touch my parent.”7
In-person visitation not only has positive effects on visiting children; it has benefits to society in the form of lowered
recidivism rates. A Minnesota study looked at over 16,000 incarcerated individuals between 2003 and 2007 and examined
visitation over their entire sentences, finding that even one visit reduced recidivism by 13 percent for new crimes and by 25
percent for technical violations.8 It is worth pointing out that every one of these visits was conducted face-to-face and in
person.

Growing restrictions on in-person visitation at the county level

Restrictions on visitation vary enormously from state to state, and there is a continuum within each state, allowing for more
or less visits depending on a given individual’s disciplinary history, security classification, and other factors. North Carolina
state prisons allow a maximum of one visit per week for a maximum of two hours, while New York prisons allows visits 365
days per year, along with providing for conjugal visits. South Dakota prisons allow incarcerated individuals to visit only with
family members, but California permits individuals in its prisons to list an unlimited number of visitors.
However, there is one area where all 50 states agree: Each allows in-person visitation, and not one has mentioned a policy
shift toward replacing in-person visitation with video-only visits. While seven states provide for a type of video visitation in
their policy directive, and another 11 have begun some type of program without mention in their regulations,9 these video
visits are supplemental to in-person visits.
It is curious that county jails – with a preponderance of individuals who have not been convicted, and whose security
concerns are not as dire as those of prisons – are the entities most likely to cite security concerns as a rationale for denying
in-person visits to family and friends. Why aren’t state prison systems similarly moving to eliminate in-person visitation,
even non-contact visitation? Aren’t their security concerns deeper than those of counties, since every person in a state prison
has been convicted of a felony and has received a prison sentence, while those in county jails have not?
Perhaps there is a clue in the above-cited study of visitation in the 50 states: Reducing visits “may not provide as strong a
disincentive to disciplinary infractions in the prison, thereby decreasing rather than increasing security in correctional
facilities.”10 In other words, from a prison administrator’s point of view, the basis for in-person visitation in prisons is that
their existence makes for safer prisons. Take that away and it may well be that individuals with little to look forward to will be
harder to manage.
That is what seems to have happened in Travis County, Texas.

Video Visitation | October 2014 | 3

Does limiting in-person visitation decrease violence and contraband?
A case study on Travis County, Texas
While Dallas County and Bexar County (which includes San Antonio) have begun to examine video-only visitation, Travis
County (which includes Austin) made that leap in May 2013. Although the proposal to introduce video visitation was
made to the county commissioners as a way to augment in-person visitation, jail officials quietly eliminated all visits other
than those conducted via video conference. And, as jail officials elsewhere have claimed, Travis County jail administrators
promised that eliminating in-person visits would increase jail security and reduce contraband and free up guards for other
duties.
These promises were tested through an Open Records Request, made in July 2014, which sought answers to the following
questions:

• How many inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff assaults had occurred at the jail the year since the policy began?
• How many inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff assaults had occurred at the jail the year previous to introducing
the policy, with in-person visiting options available?

• How many possession of contraband cases had the jail assessed the year since the policy began, and how many had it
assessed the year previous to instituting the policy, with in-person visits in place?

• How many total disciplinary cases had jail officials assessed in the year the policy had been in place, and how many
had it assessed the year previous to instituting the policy, with in-person visits in place?

The results were enlightening (see Appendix i, ii, and iii for details). Total disciplinary infractions and incidents increased, as
did assaults, within the year after the elimination of in-person visitation. Possession of contraband infractions also increased.
To be more specific:

• Disciplinary infractions in the Travis County Correctional Complex climbed from approximately 820 in May 2012

to 1,160 in April 2014. The facility averaged 940 disciplinary infractions per month during the prior year and it has
averaged 1,087 disciplinary infractions per month since then.

• Disciplinary cases for possession of contraband in the facility increased an overall 54 percent from May 2013
through May 2014.

• Inmate-on-inmate assaults saw a 20 percent increase between May 2012 and May 2014.
Most troubling, inmate-on-staff assaults immediately doubled after elimination of in-person visits, going from three in
April 2013 to six in May 2013, climbing to seven in July 2013, and topping out at eight in April 2014, with slight declines in
between.
It may well be that these figures are an aberration, and that they will trend downward in subsequent years. Other Texas
counties with video-only visitation policies have not yet responded to Open Records Requests, and it may be that these
results are not replicated.
However, it is also fair to point out that supporters of video-only visitation policies have not researched or uncovered any
positive effects that result from these policies in other jurisdictions, instead preferring to defer to optimistic predictions from
jail officials. But it is beyond debate that the incidents of violence and contraband have not been reduced at the Travis County
Jail as a result of this policy.
If social scientists agree that in-person visitation is best for families, and if prison administrators maintain that in-person
visitation is good prison policy, why is there such movement toward stripping incarcerated individuals of that privilege
and adopting video-only visitation policies?

Video Visitation | October 2014 | 4

Money, money, money
“Dollar bills, y’all.”

“For the love of money” – The O’Jays.

Dr. Patrice Fulcher, a tenured Associate Professor at the John Marshall Law School in Atlanta, Georgia, has written
extensively on visitation policies and does not mince words when describing the reasons behind the push for video visitation.
Fulcher blames the “Prison Industrial Complex,”11 which she describes as a “multimillion-dollar profiteering industry that is
driven by the greed of private corporations, the federal government, federal, state, and private correctional institutions, and
politicians.”12
If you think that is an exaggeration, consider the following:

• By their very nature, private companies that contract with jails and prisons depend on an increasing flow of

prisoners. Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and GEO Group spend millions each year on state, local,
and federal lobbying.13 They recognize, and are not shy about telling their investors, that their bottom line can
be “adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and
sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by criminal
laws.”14

• These same companies demand that their prisons be kept between 80 to 100 percent full, causing some states with

declining prison populations to divert prisoners from public prisons to private facilities just to fulfill their contracts.15

• In the Master Services Agreement that outlined the proposal from Securus Technologies to Dallas County to provide
video visitation technology and support, the company stipulated that Dallas County would “eliminate all face-to-face
visitation through glass or otherwise at the Facility and will utilize video visitation for all non-professional on-site
visitors” (see Appendix iv, p. 15). Securus was demanding that Dallas County structure its visitation policies in a way
that would maximize its access to individuals in the jail. And Dallas County Commissioners were ready to agree,
willing to cede control of the jails visitation policy for the $3.5 million that Securus was guaranteeing.

• Also in the Agreement, Securus required Dallas County to “reduce on-site [video] visitation availability to no more

than twenty hours per week” (see Appendix iv, p. 15). This meant that the only avenue the thousands of visitors to the
Dallas County jail had in order to be allowed a free video visit was to take advantage of that 20-hour window. Not
content, Securus went on to demand that Dallas County would “further reduce on-site visitation hours to achieve
minimum usage results of one (1) remote paid visit per inmate per month” (see Appendix iv, p. 15).

• Although one remote visit per month was Securus’ initial goal, the company also stipulated that Dallas County

would forfeit its 20 percent commission from video visitation if the average monthly video visits per inmate did
not reach 1.5 visits per month. But Securus offered carrots along with the stick. The contract provided incentives to
Dallas County if it successfully pushed incarcerated individuals to schedule more video visits, upping its percentage
of commissions to 22.5 percent if inmates averaged two video visits per month and 25 percent of commissions if
inmates averaged three video visits per month (see Appendix iv, p. 18).

• According to a recent article in the Los Angeles Times, Global Tel-Link, which provides the L.A. County jails with
its video visitation services, guarantees L. A. County $15 million yearly for undisputed access to the incarcerated
individuals.16

• Travis County received $1.6 million from Securus as pre-paid commissions in October 2007 from its telephone

contract, and the County is paid 23 percent of all gross revenue that Securus received from its monopoly on video
visitations (see Appendix v, p. 3).

Video Visitation | October 2014 | 5

Conclusion

The cycle that begins when poor
people are arrested goes thusly: They
cannot afford bail or bond so they
await trial in jail, they lose their lowpaying jobs, their families are forced to
scramble because of the lost income,
and, as Fulcher points out, “the money
depleted from families of incarcerated
inmates is excessive from the onset,
and may increase exponentially every
day their loved one is in custody.”17

money-making opportunities, and
they are indifferent to appeals rooted
in what is best for the public interest.
But, as in all matters involving the
criminal justice system, it is the
government’s responsibility to enact
policies that are fair, just, and humane,
and that will ensure incarcerated
individuals will return to society with
their dignity and relationships as
intact as possible.

Throughout the incarceration
experience, there has existed one
constant for those involved – the
prospect of visits from friends and
family, who take it upon themselves
to plan and save and endure the
indignities of entering a jail or prison
to deliver the message: You may have
made a mistake, but you are part of
our family and community, and you
are loved.

Video-only visitation policies ignore
best practices that call for face-to-face
visits to foster family relationships.
They advance arguments about
security that are dubious, not rooted
in research, and may be counterproductive. They rely largely on
payment from those who have not
been convicted of a crime, who are
without funds for representation or
freedom, and who now must pay for
simple human contact. These policies
are unconscionable and deserve
no place in American corrections
facilities.

The corporations and privately held
companies that have decided to
pursue profits from this marginalized
population are quick to see and seize

Texas counties that offer or are considering
video-only visitation policies
County

Video-Only
In Place

Considering

Company
Offering

Galveston

Since 2008

Fort Bend

Since 3/2009

Brazos

Since 2010

Midland

Since 6/2011

Travis

Since 5/2013

Securus

Hays

Since 11/2013

Securus

Tom Green

Since 4/2014

Edge Access

Ellis

Yes

McLennan

Yes

Smith

Yes

Bastrop

Plans to initiate
11/2014

Bexar

Vote before
Commissioner’s
Court

Dallas

Initially rejected,
but another vote
planned

Securus

Recommendations
1. Immediately restore in-person visitation at the Travis County Jail, and work with advocates and
appropriate entities to make policy change that allows for contact visits in the future. Prisoners at Travis
County Jail should have access to the highest level of visitor contact allowed by law.
2. Stop eavesdropping on prisoners’ conversations using Securus video conferences or any other
communications technologies.
3. Eliminate all commissions from the fees levied for Securus services, thereby reducing the fees for families
and loved ones; revenue from use of the service should not be used to line corporate pockets.
4. Address pressing technical problems with the Securus video service that hinder access to communication
between prisoners and their loved ones.

References
1. Sanders, B. (2014, September 13). It’s a bad idea to limit inmate
visits to video. Ft. Worth Star Telegram. Available at http://www.
star-telegram.com/2014/09/13/6116062/its-a-ad-idea-to-limit-jailinmate.html?fb_action_ids=767539953307183&fb_action_types=og.
comments&rh=1
2. Beach, P., Chavez, N., & Uloa, J. (2014, April 28). Lawsuit: Travis
County inmates’ calls to defense lawyers were recorded, shared with
prosecutors. Austin American-Statesman. Available at http://www.
mystatesman.com/news/news/crime-law/lawsuit-travis-countyinmates-calls-to-defense-law/nfktr/
3. Immarigeon, R. (2002). Virtual visitation program uses video
conferencing to strengthen prison contacts with families and
children. National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Ofender
Programs Report, p. 35-47. Available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/
Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=197834
4. ABA Criminal Justice Standards on Treatment of Prisoners.
American Bar Association, (2010). Standard 23-8-5 Visiting.
Available at http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_
justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_treatmentprisoners.
html#23-8.5

5. Phillips, S. (2012). Video visits for children whose parents are
incarcerated: In whose best interests? The Sentencing Project.
Available at http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_Video_
Visitation_White_Paper.pdf
6. Connecting children with incarcerated parents. Child Protection
Best Practices Bulletin. (2011). Available at http://childlaw.unm.
edu/docs/BEST-PRACTICES/Connecting%20Children%20with%20
Incarcerated%20Parents%20%282011%29.pdf
7. Ibid.
8. The effects of prison visitation on offender recidivism. Minnesota
Department of Corrections. (2011). Available at http://www.
doc.state.mn.us/PAGES/files/large-files/Publications/1111MNPrisonVisitationStudy.pdf
9. “Boudin, C., Littman, A., & Stutz, T. (2014). Prison visitation policies:
A fifty-state survey. p. 27. Social Science Research Network. Available
at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.fm?abstract_id=2171412
10. Ibid., p. 31.
11. Fulcher, P. (2014). The double edged sword of prison video visitation:
Claiming to keep families together while furthering the aims of the

Video Visitation | October 2014 | 6

prison industrial complex. Florida A & M Law Review, Spring issue,
p. 106. Abstract available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=2461815
12. Ibid, supra. p. 106.
13. Rasor, D. (2012, Spril 26). Prison industries: “Don’t let society
improve or we lose business.” Truthout. Available at http://truth-out.
org/news/item/8731-prison-industries-dont-let-society-improve-orwe-lose-business-part-i
14. CCA 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K, p. 26-27. Available at
http://ir.correctionscorp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=117983&p=irolreportsannual
15. Criminal: How lockup quotas and “low-crime taxes” guarantee
profits for private prison companies. In The Public Interest
(September 2013). Available at http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/
sites/default/files/Criminal-Lockup%20Quota-Report.pdf
16. Lazarus, D. (2014, September 8). Gouging L.A. County inmates with
high phones. Los Angeles Times. Available at http://www.latimes.
com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20140909-column.html.
17. Fulcher, supra. p. 108.

Appendix I, Discipline
Travis County Correctional Discipline Reports, May 2012 - April 2014
Year/Month

Disciplinary Incidents

Disciplinary
Infractions

2012 May

479

828

2012 June

481

897

2012 July

530

1003

2012 August

510

919

2012 September

440

763

2012 October

610

1114

2012 November

542

900

2012 December

527

969

2013 January

573

1033

2013 February

486

898

2013 March

593

1136

2013 April

476

905

2013 May

515

987

2013 June

539

1060

2013 July

537

1026

2013 August

566

1121

2013 September

566

1060

2013 October

612

1146

2013 November

557

1090

2013 December

518

1127

2014 January

550

1262

2014 February

431

880

2014 March

551

1084

2014 April

590

1150

23.17 percent increase May 2014 verus May 2012

38.88 percent increase May 2014 versus May 2012

Video Visitation | October 2014 | 7

Appendix II, Assaults
Travis County Correctional Assault Reports, May 2012 - April 2014
Year/Month

Inmate on Inmate
Assaults

Inmate on Staff
Assaults

2012 May

2012 June

2012 July

2012 August

2012 September

2012 October

2012 November

2012 December

2013 January

2013 February

2013 March

2013 April

2013 May

2013 June

2013 July

2013 August

2013 September

2013 October

2013 November

2013 December

2014 January

2014 February

2014 March

2014 April

20 percent increase May 2014 versus May 2012

166.66 percent increase May 2014 versus May 2012

Video Visitation | October 2014 | 8

Appendix III, Contraband
Travis County Correctional Contraband Reports, May 2012 - April 2014
Year/Month

Major Contraband

Minor Contraband

2012 May

2012 June

2012 July

2012 August

2012 September

2012 October

2012 November

2012 December

2013 January

2013 February

2013 March

2013 April

2013 May

2013 June

2013 July

2013 August

2013 September

2013 October

2013 November

2013 December

2014 January

2014 February

2014 March

2014 April

3.44 percent decrease May 2014 versus May 2012

333.33 percent increase May 2014 versus May 2012

Overall increase of 54.28 percent in contraband cases May 2014 versus May 2012

Video Visitation | October 2014 | 9

Appendix IV, SECURUS Service Agreement
(This reflects the first page of the agreement - the entire document can be found at: http://grassrootsleadership.org/research.html)

Master Services Agreement
Dallas County (TX)
This Master Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is by and between Dallas County, Texas (“County”), a political subdivision of
the State of Texas acting by and through the Dallas County Commissioners Court, and Securus Technologies, Inc.
(“Provider”), a Delaware corporation that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Securus Technologies Holdings, Inc., also a
Delaware corporation. This Agreement resulted from negotiations between County and Provider under County’s Request for
Proposals No. 2014-017-6399 (“RFP”). County and Provider are referred to herein collectively as the “parties” and
individually as a “party.” This Agreement supersedes any and all other oral or written agreements, if any, between the parties
and shall be effective as of the last date signed by either party (the “Effective Date”).
Whereas, County desires that Provider install an inmate telecommunication system, and provide telecommunications and
maintenance services according to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, and according to the Schedule and Work
Orders, which are incorporated by reference into this Agreement; and
Whereas, Provider agrees to install the inmate telecommunications system and provide telecommunications and
maintenance services according to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, and according to the Schedule and Work
Orders, which are incorporated by reference into this Agreement; and
Whereas, the following attachments are incorporated by reference into this Agreement and are made a part of this
Agreement as if set forth in their entirety herein:
Attachment A – County RFP No 2014-017-6399
Attachment B – Provider’s Proposal for RFP, except portions that Provider marked “proprietary” or “confidential”
Attachment C – Provider’s Best and Final Offer (“BAFO”) for RFP
Attachment D – Provider’s Response to County’s Ten (10) Additional Questions during BAFO Process for RFP
Attachment E – Time Schedule for Implementation of Inmate Telecommunications System
Attachment F – Time Schedule for Implementation of Inmate Video Visitation System
The Customer’s election of either (but not of both) Option A - Cost Recovery as Related to Operations and
Administrative Expenses or Option B - Reduced Cost to Public No Commission.
Whereas, Provider and County acknowledge that while the portions in “Attachment B” that are marked “proprietary” or
“confidential” will be redacted (“Redacted Portions”) in the copy of this Agreement that is filed with the Dallas County Clerk,
the “Redacted Portions” will remain part of this Agreement and Provider is equally responsible for the performance of those
portions of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, PROVIDER WILL PROVIDE ALL OF THE SERVICES AND APPLICATIONS THAT ARE REFERENCED IN
THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, AT THE RATES SPECIFIED, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE, IN “ATTACHMENT C” AND “ATTACHMENT D.”
Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
1.

Applications. This Agreement specifies the general terms and conditions under which Provider will perform certain
inmate-related services and applications (the “Application(s)”) for County. Additional terms and conditions with respect
to the Applications will be specified in the schedules entered into by the parties and attached hereto (the “Schedules”).
The Schedules are incorporated into this Agreement and are subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. In
the event of any conflict between this Agreement and a Schedule, the terms of the Schedule shall govern. In the event
of any conflict between any two Schedules for a particular Application, the latest in time shall govern.

Use of Applications. County hereby grants Provider the exclusive right and license to install, maintain, and derive
revenue from the Applications through Provider’s inmate systems (including, without limitation, the related hardware and
software) (the “System”) located in and around the inmate confinement facilities identified on the Schedules (the
“Facilities”). County is responsible for the manner in which County uses the Applications. Unless expressly permitted by
a Schedule or separate written agreement with Provider, County will not resell the Applications or provide access to the
Applications (other than as expressly provided in a particular Schedule), directly or indirectly, to third parties. During the
term of this Agreement and subject to the remaining terms and conditions of this Agreement, Provider shall be the sole
and exclusive provider of inmate related communications, including but not limited to voice, video and data (phone calls,
video calls, messaging, prepaid calling cards, and e-mail) at the Facilities in lieu of any other third party providing such
inmate communications, including without limitation, County’s employees, agents or subcontractors.

Compensation and Fiscal Funding Clause. Provider will be responsible for payment of all expenses and fees associated
with the Performance of this Agreement, including but not be limited to wages, salaries, labor, services, materials,
supplies, transportation, communications, licensing and inspection, taxes, insurance, and bonds. Compensation for
each Application, if any, and the applicable payment addresses are as stated in the Schedules; however, both parties
acknowledge that this Agreement is revenue generating and therefore, Provider will not pass any costs on to County.
The compensation for each Application will not change during the Term of this Agreement. Provider acknowledges that
County’s obligations under this Agreement are expressly contingent upon the availability of funding for each item and
Master Services Agreement - Page 1 of 29
© Securus Technologies, Inc.

Video Visitation | October 2014 | 10

Appendix V, SECURUS Contract Modification
(This reflects the first page of the contract modification - the entire document can be found at http://grassrootsleadership.org/research.html)

Video Visitation | October 2014 | 11

A .pdf of this document is also available on the Grassroots Leadership website.

Video Visitation: how private companies push for visits by video and families pay the price
A Collaboration between Grassroots Leadership and the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition
This report was written by Jorge Antonio Renaud, MSSW
Many thanks to Bob Libal, Kymberlie Quong Charles, Jaynna Sims, Molly Totman, and
Catherine Cunningham (design and layout)

For more information, please contact Grassroots Leadership at:
info@grassrootsleadership.org or (512) 499-8111
Twitter: @Grassroots_News
www.grassrootsleadership.org
or the Texas Criminal justice coalition at:
info@TexasCJC.org or (512) 441-8123
twitter: @TexasCJC
www.texascjc.org

Video Visitation | October 2014 | 12