Prison Phone Justice

Media Justice Fund of the Funding Exchange Report

Criminal Charges: Excessive Prison Phone Rates Take a Toll on
Innocent Families
April 29, 2009
Introduction
In the last 20 years, incarceration rates have increased dramatically under the “War on Drugs”
and the “War on Terror.” From the 1980’s to the 1990’s, combined prison and jail populations
doubled, then further increased by another 50% from the 1990’s to the 2000’s. Mainly poor and
disproportionately people of color, America’s 2.3 million imprisoned people do not have easy
access to communication with the outside world. According to research conducted by the Media
Justice Fund of the Funding Exchange, staying in touch with family, advocates, or community
based services such as health professionals and therapists as well as seeking up-to-date
information about a changing world is often needlessly challenging. No imprisoned people have
the ability to browse internet or use private email accounts. A very small number have any email
access at all. Imprisoned people and their families are needlessly hindered from using even the
most basic communication tool – the telephone. Criminal justice activist Ellen Barry points out
that State-sanctioned violence and incarceration have always been used to demoralize, silence,
control and exploit poor people and people of color in the United States. For the last two
decades, one of the most widespread human rights abuses confronting people imprisoned and
their families has been excessive telephone rates. Journalist Noelle Hanrahan of Prison Radio
states, “Prison phones torture families.” Imprisoned people and their families have been either
silenced by unaffordable phone services or exploited by being excessively charged.
In this brief we give an overview of this issue, what work has been done on it, and current
recommendations offered by advocates working in this area. So far, the vast majority of work
done to lower phone rates has been by criminal justice reformers. Very little advocacy has been
done by telecommunications experts or media reform advocates. In fact, the telecomm and
media reform advocates we canvassed are largely unaware of it. We believe that support from
telecommunications advocates, coordinated with the efforts of those already working on the
issue, would create a tipping point leading to a timely and lasting resolution for this important
communications rights problem.
Throughout this report we make reference to imprisoned people, but it is important to note that
access to phones and the high cost of calls is also an issue for those held in federal facilities
Media Justice Fund

1

under suspicion of being illegal immigrants. A 2007 report by the Government Accountability
Office singled out hindered phone access as a “pervasive” issue at ICE run detention centers.
Background
The families of America’s 2.3 million imprisoned people shoulder the burden of paying
excessive telephone charges to speak to their loved ones. A typical interstate collect call from a
prison has a $3.95 connection fee. Rates per minute can be as high as $0.89 per minute. Just one
hour of calls per week at that rate can result in phone charges of nearly $300 per month. Such
high charges limit or prevent the amount of communication that loved ones can have with
imprisoned people in spite of the fact that phone contact is widely considered to have a
rehabilitative effect. Staying connected to family lowers recidivism rates, eases the transition
back into the community and helps people who have been to prison find and maintain gainful
employment.
Imprisoned people and their families are overwhelmingly long distance users. Due to the everincreasing numbers of people imprisoned in the last few decades, the average distance away
from home people are placed has also increased. Many states now contract private prisons
beyond their borders.
Prison phone rates have been an issue since shortly after the break-up of Ma Bell in 1984. After
the break-up, a strange monopoly niche market arose around prison phone services. By the
middle of the next decade, 98% of prison facilities in the United States were taking a portion of
profits from prison phone calls. Known as “commission payments” within the industry but
referred to as “kickbacks” by families of imprisoned people, this skimming off the top has been
as high as 60% in some states. For example, prior to recent reforms in New York State, the state
took 57.5% of the profits from prison phone calls, raising over 200 million dollars through this
method between 1996 and 2007. These excessive profits come directly from charging everhigher prices for prison calls. In turn, those costs are largely paid by the innocent and generally
low-income family members who receive collect calls from their imprisoned loved ones. Since
the break up of Ma Bell, US consumers are generally paying lower costs for long distance
services, while costs have risen dramatically for long distance services for imprisoned people and
their families.
Truly a grassroots issue, advocacy to reduce excessive phone charges began in the early 90’s
among the family support groups of imprisoned people. Since that time, important reforms have
been won at the state level. Grassroots pressure has been decreasing the number of states that
participate in accepting commissions, or “kickbacks.” Advocates for families of imprisoned
people have made a difference in reducing the phone rates for intrastate calls (calls that start and
end within a state), but the most expensive and excessive rates - those for interstate phone calls,
especially interstate collect calls - remain very high.
The Federal Communications Commission has the authority to require prisons to offer debit call
service as an option for interstate phone calls and to cap interstate calling rates. The standard
prison phone service for imprisoned people is the collect call. A little more than half of states

Media Justice Fund

2

now offer imprisoned people the option of debit or pre-paid calling as an alternative to collect
calling Families of imprisoned people are keen to have a choice of services universally
available to them via debit calling or prepaid calling. They are also seeking a price cap on prison
phone rates for interstate phone calls. In the words of Kay Perry of CURE (Citizens United for
the Rehabilitation of Errants), a long time activist on this issue, “The key issues are reasonable
rates and debit calling. We believe the FCC action may be achievable and would address the
worst of the problems.”
Actions to Reduce Excessive Interstate Phone Charges and Give Calling Choice.
Though the FCC has been aware of the issue of excessive rates for interstate prison phone calls
for at least 13 years, it has yet to resolve the issue. In 2003, prisoners and family members
sought relief from the FCC in the Wright Petition. In 2007, the Wright Petitioners filed an
“Alternative Rule-making Proposal.” They are asking the FCC to put a limit on the rates that
companies could charge for interstate prison calls and a requirement that debit calling be made
an available option for all interstate prison calls. Petitioners are recommending a cap of 25 cents
per minute for collect calls and 20 cents per minute for debit calls, with no connection fees. (The
Wright Alternative Proposal can be found on the FCC website as part of CC Docket No. 96-128.)
The Wright Petitioners believe that these recommended rate caps stand a good chance of being
adopted by the Commission. Even though a favorable ruling is possible if the Commission
addressed prison phone rates, there is no deadline for the FCC to act on this issue at this time. In
theory, they never have to act on it. Recently, the Commission has been instructed by Congress
to put all of their efforts into the DTV transition. Therefore, the current thinking of the Wright
Petitioners is that pressure from Congress will be required to move the FCC to act in the near
future.
If the FCC created a cap on interstate prison phone rates, it would not directly lower the cost of
all prison phone calls. The FCC can generally regulate only calls that cross state lines. States
would still get to decide the rates for calls that start and end within their borders. But interstate
calls are generally the most expensive calls. Therefore, action by the FCC to cap the price of
interstate phone calls is a direct remedy for the worst abuses being suffered by imprisoned
people’s families.
In addition to directly curbing the most expensive of the overpriced services, the Wright
Petitioners believe that a cap set by the FCC on interstate calls could provide leverage as well as
a persuasive precedent in dealing with state and local officials. A federal cap set by the FCC
could create a benchmark rate for state public utility commissions, state courts, legislators, and
prison officials. Advocates could argue that the cap is a standard that shouldn’t be exceeded. In
this context, it would be difficult for a state commission to conclude that an intrastate call should
be more expensive than an interstate call. While setting caps on the rates that can be charged
doesn’t directly address the kickback system, the Wright Petitioners also believe that reasonable
rate caps would strongly impact the practice. If the FCC capped rates at the proposed benchmark
levels, no service provider could afford to offer the now-typical 40%-plus kickback to the prison
or the state.

Media Justice Fund

3

Another key remedy that the Wright Petitioners are seeking is a requirement that the option of
debit calling be available for imprisoned people. Debit calls are cheaper than collect calls.
Current Status of Federal Action: Seeking Congressional Involvement
The easiest thing for Congress to do on behalf of imprisoned people’s families is to nudge the
FCC to act. The Wright Petitioners are currently seeking supporters to approach individual
Representatives and Senators to request them to write letters urging the FCC to act on the Wright
Petitioners’ Alternative Proposal. In addition, supporters may choose to write a letter of support
directly to the FCC.
Should the FCC fail to act in a timely way, Congress could pass a law that directly or indirectly
lowers prison phone rates, although that would be a much more difficult undertaking. A bill
introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush (D. IL.), the Family Telephone Connection Protection Act of
2007 (H.R. 1133), would require the FCC to consider a variety of remedies for the problem of
excessive interstate prison telephone rates. A different bill written by the Center for
Constitutional Rights would bypass the FCC and directly set a cap on the cost of interstate prison
phone calls. (Congress can’t change the rates for in-state calls.)
Actions to Reduce Intrastate Calling Charges and Give Calling Choice.
In the last few years a number of actions have led to improvements at the state level. Since
2000, four states have joined Nebraska in not accepting commissions. California is phasing them
out. Twenty-nine states are offering debit calls as an alternative to collect calls, up from three in
2000. Due to advocacy efforts, Texas is installing prison phone systems for the first time this
year.
While the goals are similar from state to state, the means to achieve them have varied. Tactics
have included appeals by families to directors of prisons, public utility commissions, and
governors. State court lawsuits have also been pursued. Legislation has been attempted in a few
states. On a local level, county commissioners have passed ordinances to regulate prison phone
contracts. These actions may be combined. For example, in New York State, after protracted
efforts by a large grassroots coalition, commissions were eliminated in 2007. At the time they
were eliminated, two legislators were promoting a bill to outlaw commissions and a lawsuit was
in the courts. Governor Eliot Spitzer also supported the reform.
Remedies Currently Sought:
According to imprisoned people’s advocates we spoke with, here is a list of reforms that are
being sought:
Eliminate or reduce commissions, or “kickbacks” (although capping rates at reasonable levels
would moot this issue);

Media Justice Fund

4

Allow debit phone calls, not just collect calls, allowing imprisoned people a cheaper option and
creating consumer choice;
Eliminate or reduce connection fees;
Establish timely and effective oversight of prison phone providers;
Allow prison phone calls to accommodate new technology, such as calls to cell phones or VOIP
numbers, the use of remote call forwarding, etc.
Criminal Justice Reform Groups Working to Lower Prison Phone Rates at the Federal
Level.
Groups working at the federal level include: CURE (Citizens for the Rehabilitation of Errants), a
prisoner and family self-help network which launched the Campaign to Promote Equitable
Telephone Charges, the etc campaign; Prison Legal News, a monthly magazine which covers
prison issues from a human rights perspective; and the DC Prisoners Legal Services Project, now
part of the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, lawyers who
advocate for federal and DC imprisoned people’s rights. The lead lawyer for the Wright
Petitioners’ Alternative Proposal is Frank W. Krogh of Morrison & Foerster LLP. National
work has also been done by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Brennan Center for
Justice.
Criminal Justice Reform Groups Working to Lower Prison Phone Rates at the State
Level.
Advocacy groups working on this issue vary from state to state. For example in Maine, “Fair
Rates for Maine”; in Illinois, “Illinois Campaign for Telephone Justice,” in New York, “New
York Campaign for Telephone Justice,” etc. CURE has chapters in several states and keeps tabs
on state activity related to the issue. The Campaign to Promote Equitable Telephone Charges (a
project of CURE) has many background documents on this issue, including tables of pending
legislation, a breakdown of rates, and tools for local activists to use in state-based campaigns.
The Center for Constitutional Rights was involved in a number of lawsuits at the state level on
this issue.
http://www.etccampaign.com/
Prison Legal News, in coordination with an SSRC Necessary Knowledge funded scholar Steve
Jackson, will soon be coming out with a study of contracts and rates for all 50 states. Prison
Legal News has a large archive with much information on prison phones.
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org

Media Justice Fund

5