Prison Phone Justice

~

1

Yale Law School
ARTHUR LIMAN P U BLIC INTEREST PROGRAM

ANNA VANCLEAVE

Director
Associate Research Scholar

October 27, 2016

203 436-3520
anna.vancleave@yale.edu

CHRISTINE DONAHUE MULLEN

Program Coordinator
203 432-9165
christine.mullen@yale.edu

JUDITH RESNIK

Arthur Liman Professor ofLaw
Founding Director
203 432-1447
judith.resnik@yale.edu

Thomas R. Kane
Acting Director
Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First St., NW
Washington, D.C . 20534

Re:

Elimination of Monthly Limit on Telephone Calls

Dear Acting Director Kane:
We write to request that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
revisit and rescind its monthly limit on telephone
calls. 1 This restriction, which appears to have first
become effective in 2002, 2 impedes policy goals aimed at
facilitating reentry and enabling prisoners to remain
connected to their communities and fam ilies . These
commitments are central to contemporary criminal justice
policy and reflect positions adopted by the Bureau, 3
Congress, 4 and the Department of Justice . 5
A word of introduction is in order, as this letter
comes to you from a Co-Chair of the National Association
of Women Judges' Committee on Women in Prison (NAWJ),
the Liman Program at Yale Law School, the Columbia Law
School prison clinic, and the Human Rights Defense
Center (HRDC) . Founded in 19 79 , NAWJ brings together
judges from all l evels of the judiciary to improve access
and equality in the justice system. The Liman Program at
Yale Law School works
to improve conditions of
confinement in prisons and to enhance access to justice
in both the civil and criminal systems. The Columbia
prison clinic advocates and litigates for people
incarcerated in federal prisons on issues related to
P . O . BO X 208215, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06520 - 8215, FACSIMILE 203 432-4876
COURIER ADDRESS 127 WALL STREET, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06511

2

their conditions of confinement. HRDC co-founded the Campaign for
Prison Phone Justice in 2011 and has worked with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to challenge the exorbitant rates
imposed on low-income families by the prisoner calling services
industry .

The cap on minutes for prisoners in the federal system is thus
of great concern to all of us. Communication with family members
and
support
networks
facilitates
rehabilitation
during
incarceration and is essential for successful reentry. Studies
have confirmed that people who maintain family relationships
during incarceration are better equipped to cope with the
psychological challenges of prison 6 and more likely to enjoy
success upon release. 7 Telephone access is an indispensable and
cost effective means of communication for supporting family
relationships. Further, telephone access is critical for postrelease planning between incarcerated people and community
organizations . Promoting both reentry and family relationships is
not only central to the wellbeing of prisoners but is also wise,
given that the overwhelming majority of people currently in prison
wil l return home. a

The BOP has repeatedly acknowledged the importance of
maintaining relationships during incarceration. In fact, the very
same program statement that imposes monthly limits on telephone
access states that its primary aim is to help incarcerated people
"maintain family and community contact via the telephone." 9
Similarly, the BOP's website states that "maintaining family ties
will improve the likelihood of a successful reentry into the
community, thus reducing the potential for recidivism." 1 ° Further,
in 2013, former Bureau Director Charles E. Samuels, Jr. wrote that
the BOP "remains committed to keeping inmates as close to home as
reasonably possible in order to assist with maintaining family
ties and preparation for reentry." 11

Last year, no less than the President made it a priority to
reduce the d egrees of isolation that people experience in prison.
The President not only v i sited people incarcerated at a federal
prison but also issue d a groundbreaking statement calling for
limits on solitary confinement. 1 2

3

The puzzle, therefore, is why the BOP continues to impose a
restriction that is in tension with the Bureau's own goals. The
monthly
limit
on
telephone
calls
significantly
undercuts
opportunities for meaningful communication . Were a prisoner to
make daily telephone calls, the average time for each call could
be less than ten minutes per day-less than even the fifteen-minute
limit on calls suggested by the BOP. 1 3

In practice, this time limit works hardships in a variety of
ways. As every parent knows, talking to children requires some
time to "warm up" and reconnect. Ten minutes does not allow for
opportunities to help with homework or talk about activities, let
alone to coordinate with caregivers and spouses or plan for
release. In large or extended families, family members might not
share phone lines or be in the same place . Moreover, the time that
people spend waiting on hold while communicating with government
and community organizations in the course of post-release planning
can rapidly deplete the 300-minute allotment.

The blanket application of this restriction to all federal
prisons is as unnecessary as it is unwise. Different institutions
will face varying challenges and constraints. As the language of
the BOP's suggested fifteen - minute limit on individual calls
implicitly recognizes, there is no need to mandate a nationwide
limit on access to telephones. Moreover, the relaxed limit of 400
minutes in November and December confirms that increased access to
telephones is feasible .

The BOP's monthly limit is also an outlier, in that state
prison systems typically do not impose monthly limits on the use
of telephones in general population. 14 These states recognize that
monthly caps on telephone access are unnecessarily burdensome and
counterpr oductive .

4

In sum, we believe that the current BOP policy is deeply misguided.
We write t o ask that the Bureau revisit and rescind the 300-minute
monthly limit on telephone access. We look -f orward to hearing from
you and would be happy to meet with you to discuss these changes.

Sincerely,

Judi th Resnik
Anna Vancleave
Skylar Albertson
Arthur Liman Public Interest Program , Yal e Law School

Hon . Brenda Murray
Co-chair, Committee on Women in Prison,
National Association of Women Judges

Brett Dignam
Clinic a l Professor of Law, Columbia Law School

Paul Wright
Executive Director , Human Rights Defense Center

cc : Sally Yates, Deputy Attorney Ge neral, Department of Justice

5

FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, PROGRAM STATEMENT P5264 . 08, INMATE TEL. REGULATIONS 9 (Feb . 11,
2008), https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5264 008 . pdf .

1

2

FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, PROGRAM STATEMENT P5264. 07, TEL. REGULATIONS FOR INMATES 4,
(Feb. 4, 2002) https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5264 007 . pdf.

See Press Release, Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Incarcerated Parents Reconnect
with Their Children, (Sept. 26, 2013), https://www.bop . gov/resources/news
/20130925 reconnecting.jsp.

3

4

See Second Chance Act of 2007, Pub . L . No. 110-199, 122 Stat. 657 (2008) ;
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, Justice Reinvestment Initiative: What is Justice
Reinvestment, U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE ( last visited, Oct. 1, 2016), https://www
. bja.gov/programs/justicereinvestment/what is jri.html ("[T]he Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA) launched the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI)
with funding appropriated by Congress in recognition of earlier successes of
justice reinvestment efforts . "); see also Press Release, Murphy, Gillibrand,
Lead Senate Effort Calling on Bureau of Prisons to Suspend Transfer of Female
Inmates from Danbury Women's Prison Until Critical Questions Answered (Aug.
2, 2013), https: //www .murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press - releases/murphygi l librand - lead-senate-effort-calling-on-bureau-of-prisons -to-suspendtransfer-of-female-inmates-from-danbury-womens-prison-unti l-critical guestions-answered.
5

See Press Release, Dep't of Justice, Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole
Delivers Remarks at the Children of Incarcerated Parents Initiative
"Champions of Change" Event, (June 12 , 2013), https://www . justice . gov/opa
/speech/deputy- attorney-general -james-m-cole-delivers-remarks-childrenincarcerated-parents.
6 John D. Wooldredge, Inmate Experiences and Psychological Well-Being,
CRIM. J. & BEHAVIOR 235 (1999).

26

Ryan Shanahan & Sandra Villalobos Agudelo, The Family and Recidivism, 26
AMER. JAILS 17 (2012) ; Mark T. Berg & Beth M. Huebner, Reentry and the Ties
that Bind: An Examination of Social Ties, Employment, and Recidivism, 28 JUST.
Q. 382 ( 2010) .
7

Timothy Hughes & Doris James Wilson, Reentry Trends in the U.S., BUREAU OF
JUSTICE STATISTICS (Sept. 28, 2016), http://www . bj s. gov/content/reentry
/reentry.cfm .

8

9

PROGRAM STATEMENT P5264 . 08

I

supra note 1, at 2.

lO Communications,
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS (last visited Sept. 28, 2016)
https : //www.bop.gov/ inmates / communications.jsp.

I

11
Letter from Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Dir . , Fed. Bureau of Prisons, to Sen.
Christopher Murphy (Sept . 27, 20 1 3).

Barack Obama, Why We Must Rethink Solitary Confi nement, WASH. POST (Jan. 25,
2016), https://www . washingtonpost.com/opinions/barack-obama-why-we-mustrethink-solitary-confinement /2016/0 l /25/29a361f2-c384-lle5-89650607e0e265ce story.html?utm term=.bfb52c9e959e; see also U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE,

12

6

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING THE USE OF RESTRICTIVE HOUSING (Jan. 2016)
https://www.justice . gov/dag / file/815551 / download.
13

14

I

PROGRAM STATEMENT P5264 . 08, supra note 1, at 9.

See, e.g . , COLO. DEP' T OF CORR. , ADMIN. REGULATION 850-12, TEL. REGULATIONS FOR
OFFENDERS (Nov. 15, 2015), https://drive.google.com/file/d
/O B4vYiI52Tz06eG9Ybzk3cUdieEE /vi ew i N. y. DEP' T OF CORR . AND CMTY. SUPERVISION I
DIRECTIVE 4423, INMATE TEL. CALLS (MAY 21, 2015) I http://www.doccs.ny.gov
/Directives/4423.pdf; VA. DEP'T OF CORR. I OPERATING PROCEDURE 803.3, OFFENDER TEL.
SERV. (June 1, 2015), https://vadoc.virginia.gov/about/procedures/documents
/800/803-3.pdf. These jurisdictions limit the duration of individual calls to
twenty or thirty minutes.