This post was co-authored by Leticia Miranda of the Open Technology Initiative at New America Foundation.
Chris Duran understands
the value of a phone call. Duran pays roughly $2.80 for a 15-minute
phone call to talk with her partner who is incarcerated at a detention
center in Albuquerque, New Mexico. That same call in Colorado would be
$5.00, the difference is attributed to the unregulated prison phone rate
system. Phone companies will often include high commissions to state
prisons within contracts in exchange for being the exclusive service
provider. The rate of these commissions inflates the cost of phone calls
for families in states that have failed to regulate this practice.
Many
times expensive phone calls create a barrier between a prisoner and
their family’s ability to stay connected and provide crucial support for
loved ones. Luckily for Duran, she and her partner live in one of the
eight reformed states that have ended the practice of commissions . New
Mexico’s rates are relatively low; prisoners are charged roughly
$.20 a minute
to talk with loved ones. “The only way that our family stays together
and stands out is that she has someone to call on the outs who loves
her,” said Duran in a
video recorded last
year by the
Media Literacy Project
in Albuquerque, New Mexico. “Really that’s the only way we have to stay
in contact, through the PCS phone system.” For Duran’s partner and
others behind bars, phone calls can mean the difference between
maintaining relationships that make leading a healthy life outside of
prison or falling into a cycle of moving in and out of prison.
Research suggests that
prisoners who maintain contact with family or friends fare better upon
release than those who do not maintain contact. A 2005 report by the Anne
E. Casey Foundation found that families are a person’s first and last
resort for housing and support when released from prison. The prison
system considers a prisoner’s return home to their parents, children,
partner or other family members to be the primary reentry plan upon
release. It’s crucial that prisoners maintain connections with loved
ones for support and to adequately prepare for reentry into their
communities upon release. Whether or not a system ensures that prisoners
are adequately prepared for reentry has an impact on whether or not
they will return to the system.
The
average U.S. recidivism rate lingers around 40 percent. According to
a survey conducted
by Pew and the Associate of State Correctional Administrators, 43
percent of released prisoners in 2004 were re-incarcerated within 3
years for new offenses or parole violations. Between 1973 and 2009, the
nation’s prison population grew by 705 percent, resulting in more than
10 percent of adults behind bars.
Not
only do high incarceration and recidivism rates affect families, they
also affect taxpayers whose taxes fund a portion of state prison
budgets, according to the Vera Institute of Justice . Annual state
and federal spending on corrections exploded by 305 percent, or 52
billion people, during the past two decades. During that same period,
corrections spending doubled as a share of state funding and accounts
for 1 in 14 general state fund dollars, according to the Pew Center on the States .
These
astonishing trends incited various prison justice advocacy efforts and
drew the attention of conservative lawmakers whose shrinking budgets
have caused them to re-evaluate how correction dollars are spent. For
example, South Carolina ’s prison
population tripled over 25 years and was projected to grow by more than
3,200 inmates by 2014. Conservative groups like Right on Crime , a
partnership between the Texas Public Policy Foundation and Pat Nolan
Prison Fellowship, worked
on passing a prison reform package along with former Speaker of the
House Newt Gingrich. The initiative ultimately gained the support of
justice advocacy groups like the ACLU .
Prison
reform advocates recognized that over half of the state’s population
was incarcerated for nonviolent crimes. They found that the state could
save $350 million by adjusting sentences for nonviolent offenses and
targeting barriers prisoners face upon release. Within the past years,
all 19 states that cut their imprisonment rates also experienced a
decline in their crime rates, according to the Pew Center . It’s clear
that a dollar invested in rehabilitation yields a greater return by
keeping released prisoners out of the system and reducing the correction
costs for states over time.
Congress
also targeted this country’s high recidivism rate by passing the Second
Chance Act in 2008. This piece of legislation authorizes government
funds for nonprofits and agencies that would improve the conditions
facing prisoners upon their release. These programs use resources for
housing, employment, substance abuse treatment, continuing education and
family programming. Reducing recidivism saves taxpayer dollars in the
long run and reduces prison populations which would alleviate a prison
system’s dependence on funds collected from commissions.
A
policy reform that should be addressed by both states and the FCC is
ensuring that prisoners can stay connected with the loved ones by
keeping phone costs low. Other states can follow the lead of the eight
reformed states and outlaw the practice of commissions. The FCC can also
regulate interstate phone rates which would lower the costs for
families, enabling them to stay better connected. “Throughout the time I
was in the system I had a really strong support system with my family,”
said Duran. “The only way I could stay in contact with my family was
through the phone.” She was released in 2002 and has been able to stay
out of the detention system.