HD70 - Review of the Department of Corrections' Inmate Telephone System


Executive Summary:
Providing inmates access to telephones may result in a number of positive benefits, according to some corrections officials. As a result, telephones have routinely been available to inmates in Department of Corrections (DOC) facilities since the early 1970s. However, problems with the early systems mitigated some of the potential benefits. There was no telephone system uniformity statewide, DOC's role in the operation of the system was staff intensive, and there were few proactive security features available. These shortcomings, in part, led to the 1991 acquisition by DOC of the current inmate phone system, operated by MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI).

The current inmate phone system successfully addresses many of the shortcomings of the previous methods used to provide phone service to inmates. DOC's involvement in the administration of the inmate phone system has been significantly reduced. Inmates' access to telephone service is reportedly more uniform across the DOC system. Moreover, the current inmate phone system has security features designed to proactively reduce fraudulent activities conducted by inmates over the telephone as well as to enhance the operation and security of DOC's institutions. Finally, MCI is also required to provide the State with a portion of the billable revenue generated by inmate calls.

Item 141 of the 1996 Appropriation Act directed the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) to examine a number of different issues related to the DOC inmate phone system. These issues include a comparison of policies in other states regarding inmate phone systems, the financial impact on inmate families, and the need for oversight by an entity independent of DOC.

While the current DOC inmate phone system has many beneficial features over the previous methods for providing inmate phone services, there are several issues which should be addressed to improve the existing system. Significant findings of this report include:

• Steps to reduce the fiscal impact on recipients of long distance collect calls from the inmate phone system should be taken. The fiscal impact on DOC inmate call recipients has been increasing steadily each year since FY 1992 and could mitigate any benefits attributed to the inmate phone system. Although a number of non-rate factors such as growth in the DOC system's inmate population have contributed to the increasing fiscal impact, the higher rates and long distance surcharges have also increased the fiscal impact on call recipients.

• If the fiscal impact on call recipients is reduced, any revenue the State could receive from the system should be retained. Many states receive commission revenue from their inmate phone systems. However, as in other states, the commission revenue should be used to provide or enhance programs or services that benefit DOC inmates.

• To improve administration and monitoring, responsibility for developing, administering, and monitoring the DOC inmate phone system should be assigned to the Department of Information Technology (DIT). DIT has the necessary infrastructure and resources available to address issues related to telecommunications services and is currently responsible for the acquisition and provision of these services for the State.

• To further improve the inmate phone system and provide for more proactive administration, DOC should require the submission of more detailed inmate phone system data, require an independent audit of the system's operations, and implement mechanisms intended to benefit inmate call recipients.

Steps to Reduce the Fiscal Impact on Inmate Call Recipients Should Be Taken

All calls from inmates in DOC facilities are completed as collect calls. As a result, the fiscal impact of receiving inmate calls is placed directly, although voluntarily, on the call recipient and not the inmate. This review indicates that the total billable charges to call recipients have increased significantly since FY 1992. A number of factors have contributed to this increase. Inmates are making more calls that last longer, and the total inmate population has increased since FY 1992. In addition, the increases in the rates charged, primarily the long distance surcharge, have also impacted the total billable charges.

A number of unintended consequences of the increasing billable charges of the phone system could occur. First, call recipients noted that the increasing costs associated with using the system may require them to reduce the number of calls they can accept from inmates, potentially mitigating any benefits that accrue through telephone contact. Second, the impact on call recipients varies by DOC facility. Inmates in DOC facilities located in more remote areas of the State place calls that cost more than calls placed by inmates in facilities located in the central region of the State. As a result, facilities that may be the most difficult to visit due to the distance from home are also the most costly from which to receive calls.

Therefore, steps should be taken to limit the fiscal impact of the telephone system on recipients of calls from DOC inmates. Individuals receiving collect calls appear to have an expectation that rates and charges will be similar to those levied on collect calls completed outside of the inmate phone system. Linking charges for calls made through the DOC inmate phone system to charges the public pays for collect calls would reduce the total fiscal impact on call recipients. Nonetheless, call recipients will need to exercise some personal responsibility to limit the number of calls accepted in order to reduce the fiscal impact of inmate calls.

Commission Revenue Could Be Retained and Utilized for Inmate Programs

Commission payments are used by telephone companies in part to secure the right to be the exclusive provider of inmate telephone services to state correctional systems. Reflective of this practice, many of the correctional systems in the United States receive some form of revenue from their inmate phone systems. However, unlike many other states, Virginia has not specified that any portion of commission revenue be used to enhance inmate programs or services. To identify the potential uses for any revenue from the inmate phone system, DOC should develop a proposal for utilizing the revenue and include measurable goals and objectives for enhancing inmate programs or services.

Commission Payments for State Telephone Systems Are Common. For this review, the study team interviewed corrections officials in a number of southeastern states regarding their inmate phone systems. These states all reported receiving commission payments from the companies that provide inmate phone services. In addition, other studies also indicate that prison inmate telephone system commission payments are common throughout the country. For instance, a 1995 study of state corrections departments in the United States reported that 38 of 41 respondents received commission payments from their inmate phone system.

Utilization of Inmate Telephone Revenue. The majority of the states contacted by JLARC staff indicated that either all or a portion of inmate telephone commission revenue is returned to the state corrections department or designated for specific inmate welfare programs. For example, in Arkansas, the revenue is to be used for the benefit of inmates and has been used to buy recreational equipment. In Kentucky, where the revenue is allocated entirely to the state corrections' department, the revenue is used by the department to offset the cost of providing health care to inmates. Moreover, corrections officials in other states have indicated that revenue from inmate telephone commissions has assisted them in providing programs which previously lacked adequate general fund appropriations.

DOC Inmate Programs Could Benefit from Commission Revenues. Although DOC inmate telephone system revenue is not specifically used for inmate purposes at this time, DOC staff indicated that there are inmate programs that could benefit from the revenue. Potential areas identified include inmate treatment programs, academic and vocational education programs, and the expansion of telemedicine videoconferencing between hospitals and DOC facilities. In order to prioritize programs' needs for this funding, DOC should develop a proposal for using the inmate telephone revenue to fund specific programs. The proposal should include goals and objectives for programs that are requested to receive the funding.

Administration of Inmate Phone System Contract Could Be Transferred

The mandate for this study also required JLARC to review the need for oversight of the inmate phone system. The principal framework in which the inmate phone system operates is the contract. Therefore, a properly written and proactively administered contract is necessary to ensure that the needs and expectations of DOC, inmates, and call recipients are met. Nonetheless, concerns with the adequacy of the oversight and monitoring provided the inmate phone system have been identified. In addition, a 1992 study by the State Crime Commission also cited concerns with DOC's oversight and monitoring of the system.

Moreover, the telecommunications industry is a rapidly evolving and technology-driven industry. Significant changes have occurred over the last decade in the industry and more will continue to occur. DIT appears to be the agency with the proper focus and infrastructure to best support more proactive and consistent administration of the inmate phone system in this rapidly changing environment. DIT also appears to be better suited to keeping pace with rapid changes in the telecommunications industry. Finally, including the inmate phone system as part of the next statewide telecommunication contract could also be beneficial in the negotiation process for the provision of the State's telecommunication services.

Additional Options for Improving the Inmate Phone System

In order to enhance the ability of the contracting agency to administer the inmate phone system, the next contract should require the submission of more detailed data related to the system's operation. The data should also be submitted in an automated format for easier analysis and auditing. Moreover, the next contract should require that an independent audit of the phone system's timing, billing, and billable and commission revenue be provided. Finally, additional mechanisms designed to benefit call recipients - such as notification of rate increases and input into the design of the next system - should be implemented.