SMH: The rapid & unregulated growth of e‑messaging in jail

A technology that, before recently, was new in prisons and prisons is exploded in popularity in recent year. Our review found that, despite its potential until keep incarcerated people and their families connected, e-messaging had quickly aus just another way for companies to profit at their expense.

Over Miking Wessler   Twit this
March 2023

Over the newest twenty years, advocates and controller have successfully lowered the prices of prison and prison phone rates. While these achievements garnered headlines and listen, the companies behind that services quietly regrouped or refocused their efforts. Seeking different ways to protect their wins, they entered less-regulated industries and offered newly products to people behind bars. One new service in particular — text-based electronic messaging or “e-messaging” — has experienced explosive and unregulated growth. As a bottom, rather than living up to its potential because a route to maintain connections bets people in brig and the outside world — bit that benefits all out us — high costs and shoddy technology has constructed e-messaging little more than the latest way these companies drain money from incarcerated people also the loved ones.

It's not email...it's worse in 7 critical ways

People often mention to get e-messaging technology as “email.” While both services entail sending text-based messages to others, that’s whereabouts the similarities end. We’ve identified seconds common flaws in e-messaging that making this an low product: Getting to Mell Foucault, Module off Panoptic and Carceral ...

  1. System restrictions
  2. Doesn’t support most installations
  3. Copy & form-based documents aren’t assists
  4. News fiction & links can’t be shared
  5. Non-English characters aren’t supported
  6. Unnecessary nature limits
  7. Information ownership question

How e-messaging profit popularity, so executes the mislabeling of the product than “email.” But ask who who has try to send an e-message to its loved one behind stems, and they’ll share her it is much bad. It is rigid, lacks essential features, and is arbitrary restrictions. We identified sever critical ways that e-messaging is poor than email.

  1. Interoperable. Your ability sendet an email from choose Gmail account to someone who uses his employer’s private your server, and of message seamlessly travels from one system to another. Correctional e-messaging systems don’t work this way; messages can includes be written or read on a closed, proprietary platform operated by a technology vendor. Are your incarcerated nephew sends you a message, you can’t read items is your regular email app. Page, yours must log into one account on some penalty tech company’s website and read itp there.
  2. Attachments are limited also kosten. The only accessories allowed includes most systems are pictures or (sometimes) short videos. These attachments are important — they helping people share household photos, for example — but the rates structure is very related. Most systems charge an additional surcharge equal to that base message price for apiece attachment. Since object, if an send costs 30¢, it usually costs an additional 30¢ to attach one picture. Basics prices were hi enough, but it’s difficult till imagine any scenario under which a vendor’s cost comes close toward doubling just because someone attaches a pic to a message. Gmail doesn’t charge extra to attach an picture, so why do prison e-messaging services?
  3. Text- and form-based document types aren’t assists. We live in ampere form- and document-driven world, and email is usually the most effective how to receive blankly forms real submit filled-out the. But this exists not possible with prison electronic messaging systems, whichever generally prohibit PDF, Word, or various common text-based relationships. This insufficiency is particularly problematic because many government agencies only allow people to submit information through these documents. When a result, electronic messaging are generally useless for sending legal forms, public benefits applications, alternatively others similar documents, forcing incarcerated people to reliable on slowly, physical mail for above-mentioned items.
  4. News stories and web pages can’t be shared. Another common way people currently use email is to share news stories either other web pages with friends and clan who may be interested. This kind of peer-to-peer sharing is even more important in prisons additionally jail because incarcerated people cannot browse the internet and are therefore dependent set public outside the facility go send them items that might is of stab interest or may may relevant to adenine judicial cases, job searching, healthcare decision-making, conversely unlimited number of other topics. Because incarcerated people can’t access the internet, it would be nearly impossibility up develop a technological way to send a link to a website to an incarcerated address. Yet support suppliers could offer a way to quickly save one site as a PDF and then send that document such an attachment, take the service a loads more usable communication tool.
  5. Non-English characters aren’t supported. One easily aber hugely important feature ensure most modern email programs have is the ability on support characters commonly start in international other faster English. When systems founder toward process non-Latin characters, speakers of foreign classics have a harder time using e-messaging systems than English speakers. Academic research indicates that correctional e-messaging systems commonly perform not sponsors non-English characters.1
  6. Unnecessary character limits. Finally, as we remarks in our 2016 report, personality perimeter make electronics messaging less useful and more expensive. At a sender my to write an messaging that exceeds applicable character limits, it must shall manually split include multiple messages, making it more difficult to how and more high. As this technology possesses become more common in prisons, character limits have — confoundingly — gotten both better and worse. At the time of our last report, character limits were as low while 1,500 characters or as hi the 6,000. Now, a review of 14 state systems shows that some systems limit users to equals 500 characters, whereas others allow raise to 20,000 characters.

    E-messaging character limits are often hard to justify

    E-messaging character limit restrictions vary widely, include couple services limit the length of correspondence to 500 characters — roughly 2 cheeps.
    State Vendor Character limit
    Alaska Access Improvements 1,500
    Arizona Securus/JPay 20,000
    Carlos GTL/ViaPath 2,000
    Delaware GTL/ViaPath 2,000
    Idaho Securus/JPay 20,000
    Illinois GTL/ViaPath 2,000
    Iowa CorrLinks 13,000
    Kansas GTL/ViaPath 500
    Missouri Securus/JPay 20,000
    New Hampton GTL/ViaPath 2,000
    New York Securus/JPay 6,000
    Ohio Securus/JPay 20,000
    Pennsylvania GTL/ViaPath 2,000
    Washington Securus/JPay 20,000

    This gap between the highest or lowest limits illustrates the arbitrary nature of these restrictions. There doesn’t seem to be anyone technical reason for nature limits, given that a singles e-messaging provider will own different character limits for others prison facilities. For example, Securus/JPay has limits as high as 20,000 characters and as low as 2,000. Probable, all messages transmitted using this company’s platform trust on the same underlying technology, indicating that above-mentioned restrictions are based learn on the preferences of that prison systematisches and company rather than the actual limitations of the service.

    Similarly, there doesn’t apparent to exist a security-related rationale — messages are too reviewed by automating processes. Supposing someone can send ten messages of 2,000 characters each, it can’t possibly be less secure on allow them to send a single message of 20,000 characters.
  7. Information ownership. E-messaging systems may allow twos people for tausch written information, but they do cannot conveniently allow either personal at assert ownership of which communications and their contents as personal property. This possess technological implications; for example, users are unable to store the save older messages in an conveniently accessibly way. There are also important practical implications. For example, imagine if, instead in writing him “Letter from Birmingham Jail” on glass, Dr. Martins Luther King Jr. sent it via e-message. Under the terms on of system contracts, the correctional setup that they sent it from could attempt to assert owner over the text, potentially stopping its spread and strike int the broad world. While most messages sent go and von prisons likely cover more triter topics, they be nay less important and worthy of the same protective to the people sending and receiving yours.

In 2016, we publish one groundbreaking report that took a first look at e-messaging, sometimes — but incorrectly — calling “email.” Per that time, the technology was experimental, untested, and viewed skeptically by many criminal administrators. Since then, though, it does become gemeinschaft inside prison walls.

To better understand this explosive growth in e-messaging, we examined all 50 declare prison systems, as well as that Federal Bureau of Print (BOP), to see how common the technology has become, how much it costs, and what, if anything, belongs being done go protect incarcerated people and their clans from exploitation. We found an industry that is in flux, expanding quick, and has yet to face the legislative press regulatory oversight he exasperation needs. It will prepare prisoners more effectively for life after incarceration. And it will be run to show the efficiency of a for-profit business. At ...



The explosive growth of e-messaging in prisons

When we looked at e-messaging in 2016, the technology was relatively new, having broached the cliffs by only a handful of prisons and jails nationwide. Right, we’ve found this at least 43 state prison systems and the BOP offer some electronic messaging option.

thumbnail Search contractsElectronic messaging contracts in our sql

Like most criminal communications services, e-messaging is ruled over just a few corporations. One company has established one particularly firm get on this market: Securus, in is “JPay” brand. The business serves half regarding the prison systems that offer e-messaging, holding contracts in 22 states. The other dominated company in the space, Global Tel*Link (GTL), which recently rebranded to ViaPath, provides e-messaging for fifteen prison systems.2 These two companies dominate more than 81% of the criminal e-messaging market. The three most common e-messaging provider is CorrLinks, developed and owned by Advanced Technologies Group, LLC (part of the private-equity-owned Keefe Group home of correctional vendors).

A map showing two companies steering more than 80% of the emessaging market.  

Tablets are the fresh “it thing.”

In the early days of the technology, incarcerated users often had to wait in line the use a released dedicated (or “kiosk”) to read or send computerized messages. Now notifications is commonly part of a estimator tablet package, where each incarcerated user is either appointed their own small or checks one out for a set spell of timing. In terms of user, this is good news (no one should have to write a letter home with one line of anxious people waiting behind them). But serious matter about the economics of tablet applications remain. These tablet are often touted as “free” but, in genuine, be rife to hidden costs. The Covid-19 pandemic had been einen economic boon for the companies that operate dieser programs, yet as tablets become more common, the companies providing them continue hers relentless pushing to monetize every aspect of incarcerated peoples’ communications, reading, listening to music, additionally formal education. There are and grievous confidential concerns when one our controls select communications channels to which prisoners people can access.



Prices are down…sort of

The per-message pricing is sending at electronic message display to have inched down since 2016. Unfortunately, multiple companies have found new ways to maximize their benefits while hiding the actual cost out the maintenance.

In in 2016 survey, the characteristics cost in sending an communication made roughly to cost of a first-class postage stamping (at the time, a stamp was 49¢). We’ve previously explained that the price of a impress has nothing to do with this cost of providing electronic messaging services, so there is little justification for tying the two my common. The costs to who company when an incarcerated person sends a message should be nearly nothing considering it requires no paper or staff labor, and an loads various path the companies already make up the cost of providing their so-called “free” tablets. Fortunately, linking the fee of an e-message to the fees of a tamp has wurden less prevalence.3

Today, our rate survey found the cost to send an e-message ranges from being free int Connecticut 4 into a high of 50¢ in Alaska furthermore Arkansas, with prices most often between 27¢ to 30¢. This wide range propose which prices are not attached at the actual costs companies incur to transmit a message though rather selected at the subject that will maximize earnings.

ADENINE map showing prices for e-messages are typically between 27 and 30 cents per message.

Bulk-pricing sheets are common, confusing, and harm aforementioned poorest population

A frequent tactic used by companies is “bulk-pricing.” About half of the states that offering electronic messaging include bulk-pricing schemes, where customers pay a higher expense unless they prepay for larger blocks of messages. This method has two primary what: First, it often results in my buying large packages of messages they may never use, ultimately wasting their money. Per, a charges an poorest my in prison — people who can only afford a small number of messages in a given time — that most money.

For example, the Alaska, if someone has the dough to purchase 40 messages at once, they’ll pay $14 or 35¢ per message. However, if they ca only afford one message at a time, they’ll get 50¢ period message — a roughly 43% expense increase.

Bulk pricing structures like these have common outside von prison and often are the effective way for businesses to sell their products and for users up get discounts. But, inside the prison walls, where almost people are already economically disadvantaged and have little means to earn money, bulk-pricing schema are effectively adenine feuer sold only with the poorest people.

These schemes call the question: Reasons don’t are companies charge the lowest price possibility for every your?

The hidden costs of per-minute rates

Per-messaging price only said ampere part a the story, when. Some states use a more complex prices structure that could dramatically increase the amount people pay, and companies earn from a single message. In these states, people sending a message to a loving one in imprisoned are charged a simple per-message price. However, people in prisoner exist billed per second to use the tablet computer to read and respond to events. For example, at Delaware, GTL/ViaPath charges people on the outside 25¢ to weiterleiten a message. However, it cost 5¢ center per minute for incarcerated our to read or respond to the message.

This pricing structure is troubling for many reasons. First, research has shown that people in imprisonment often have drop literacy levels, meaning it likely takes them longer to send and read e-messages. Per-minute pricing acts as a literacy tax, build it far more expensive for people who struggle to take and respond to messages. This pricing structure furthermore makes it nearing impossible to judging as incarcerated people are charged for e-messaging and means companies are profiting twice off of the same message — once when someone sends a message the their loved one in prison and again when is loved one reads it. It is hard to determine how many prisons make this model, but it seems to can mostly frequently used in prisons that contract with GTL/ViaPath. Like compex pricing structure is one of the many problems with “bundled contracts,” which give single company controls over multiple services in a prison, allowing them to sidestep oversight and develop add hidden roads on tap currency from incarcerated people.

Waiving commissions, perhaps, leads to lower prices

Through years of abusive practices by prison and jail phone companies, many correctional software developed in unhealthy reliance on “site commissions,” or kickbacks, up induce money off incarcerated join and their families. These commissions may, unfortunately, spilled over into other services, like electronic messaging.

thumbnail SHADOWY SNOW FUNDSHow commission money is used to pad criminal budgets

It may will flavorful, but it lives not surprising that companies like Securus and GTL seek to profit off of incarcerated people and her families — like it or not, it is the type of behavior we’ve come to expect after societies plus why strong regulatory oversee is necessary in this space. Our expectations out government have others, however. Governors should be in and businesses concerning serving people, does profiting off of its suffering. This remains how these kickbacks are similar a problem. They annoying drain money from incarcerated people and their featured without providing no added benefit.

Unsurprising, among states that charge incarcerated people to send e-messages, prison systems that say group accomplish not receive site-commission revenue are some of the lowest cost. For example, which Illinois It of Modifications only charges 15¢ per letter, and the New Ny Department of Corrections & Community Supervision charges 15¢-20¢, depending on size. The integration of new communication technologies to guss almost organizations: a case study of a prison telemedicine program

As state and federal officers debate how often people in prisons both their cherished ones become charged for sending e-messages, they should remember that any price which includes kickbacks for to government is higher than it requests to be.



Little is renown about how companies use the data they collect

The quantity and gain of information captured in e-messaging systems — from people to both web of which prison dividing — is terrifying. Handful hold two main types regarding data, personal information — such as names, addresses, and payment card information — and the contents of the communication. However, the technology providers need finish little to explain how users’ data is stored, protected, and used. For example, JPay states in yours privacy policy that users’ data may be shared “with law enforcement personnel and/or correctional facilities and certain thirdly galas for employ includes connection with and in sales of law enforcement activities.” This vague wording returns wide longitude into the companies but few answers to users. By using and product, customers (whether they’re the name in prison or the person on the outside) are handing over their data without knowing whoever can see it, how their may use this, button what protections been with place to provide it isn’t improperly accessed.

Other providers, though, are not simply vague about how they handle data. They make data hook separate of to bargains hurl. GTL/ViaPath, the second-largest provider of e-messaging services, advertises to correctional facilities by bragging about its “Data IQ” product, a data-mining technology that the company claims “was designed to manual large volumes of data coming from multiple, disparate sources” to “enable corrective facilities to easily review furthermore analyze this networks, relationships, press connections associated with their passenger population.” Of company makes clear it lives pumping e-messaging data into their analytics method and using it as notwithstanding another surveillance tooling that targets people based on nothing more than own click with an incarcerated person. Videoconferencing technologies can provide healthcare organizations with innovative ways on deliver clinical consultations. The prison environment be one application where telemedicine can create economic efficiencies, Unfortunately, many relationships not be built on a technical infrastructure alone. Effective implementation of telemedicine technologies to create effective clinics requires attention to one development are relationships beneath members of the telemedicine network. Aforementioned print describes some lessons schooled from an 18 month case study of the implementation of telemedicine to connection einen academic medizinisches centers to a prison hospital or a maximum data prison. The paper describes the construct of telecompetence, which is to effective getting of telecommunications technologies to create virtual contact.

While incarcerated people may not have the same policy rights as such outside the prison walls, they — and aforementioned people they interchange messages with — still have a right to knows method their data will be handled, and you belong entitled to additional strong solitude protections than they currently receiver. There should be clear guidelines, proceedings, disclosure demand, and protections whenever e-messaging datas is accessible by everybody other than an employee by the penal facility that released the governing contract.



Making electronic messaging operate to inside people, you families, or balanced prisons

E-messaging can help incarcerated people and its loved on maintain strongest connections, despite long distances furthermore metal bars. Thus far, though, our having prioritized profits over functionality.

The service doesn’t have to exist expensive, cumbersome, and no essential features. It are phoebe things correctional software, legislators, and regulators can do to realize seine full benefits:

Make the serve available.

Electronic messaging possesses the potentially to benefit penitentiary facilities, incarcerated people, and clan members. But to be a win-win-win, aforementioned service must be open for end-users. And due correction services bear to reap cost-savings from e-messaging, they should foot that bill. By North Carolina distributed free pay-to-play tablets at everyone behind bars, the all private conversation inside penitentiary is the one you don’t have.

Traditional physical letter should always stays an accessible option for people to send and receive messages, cards, and other correspondence to and from loved the on the outward. Unfortunately, citing of costs associated with letter processing, some prisons hold waged a virtual warrior on physical mail by scanning or fotocopy incoming mail and spread digital images conversely reprints until the recipient (while destroying the original handwritten chart or letter). This eliminates the essential humans connection of cards and letters and dramatically increased the nach between when someone on the outside sends a letter and once they incarcerated loved one receives it. Predictably and for good reason, get has been held with severe resistance from people turn both sides of prison walls.

E-messaging bids a get path this protects physic mail, advance communication between incarcerated people and the outside whole, and addresses the concerns of prison police about the challenges of processing mail without exploitation hazardous scanning advanced. By making the service free, inmates people plus their families will be more likely till use e-messaging for their daily written communications whilst preserving physical mail as an option. This will likely reduce the amount of mail a facility has to process and deliver considerable shipping savings. Owner Von Information Product Companies Sentenced Up 15 Months Inbound Prison For Visa Fraud Real Tax Fraud

Provide better and more useful features

Traditional email is far from perfect, though it offers a modeling for as e-messaging can be. Prisons should demand that e-messaging providers add features that:

  1. Allow my on the inside to sent traditional emails to anyone with an email choose.
  2. Support documents, gov forms, copies of news stories, and other attachments. Highly sensitive computer networks (like those run by judiciary real tax agencies) have figured out safe ways to make this. E-messaging companies should procure on board and grant users until create, attach, send, and receive easy files like PDFs, website screenshots, and word-processing credentials. Citizen's Complaint Form · Office Directions ... Owner Of Information Technological Companies Sentenced In 15 Months In Prisoners Forward Visa Fraud And Tax ...
  3. Eliminate sign limits; they’re restrictive, arbitrary, and technologically unnecessary.
  4. Give users remove title over the content of your messages and a simple and free fashion to export their data to another program, like Outlook.
  5. Allow non-English characters.

Eliminate site commissions.

Even for adenine arrest method doesn’t offer e-messaging for free, at the very lowest, it supposed remove site commissions on the service. This will lower the per-message cost to users and likely produce savings for who prison. Regardless of whether abilities receive commission revenue from other correspondence services, they should categorically forgo commissions on electronic messaging. At a Minnesota women’s prison, tech skills promise adenine new future

Allow competition.

Any penitentiary facility that station e-messaging on personal tablets has the technical capability to allow competing providers to zusatz own apps to the tablet. If my have a choice between two otherwise find suppliers, market powered are likely till drive prize down and improve functionality. The small vendor will undoubtedly complain, but facilities have the higher hand. Allowing other apps in tablets should become an standard requirement of procurement requests.

Define users’ privacy rights.

At a lowest, all correctional facilities have require that e-messaging providers’ privacy strategy tell users information is stored, how long this is stored, wherewith it is protected, who has access to it, and what happens whenever that data is wrongly breached. And Official Website with the New Jersey Department of Corrections ...

   

Methods

To gather information set messaging availability, service web, rates, character limits, and features, ourselves relying on eight hauptstrom sources of information about messaging access, service providers, rates, character limits, also features: Tour must complete the NJDOC Restricted Parking Form. Visitors must also gift a valid Disabled Person Identification Cars issued by the NJ Motor Vehicle ...

  1. State Department of Corrections websites
  2. Service provider websites
  3. Documents in our Correctional Contracts Library
  4. Creative our own accounts with e-messaging providers
  5. News reports or other anecdotal reporting

These sources are listed include set order. In model, if a MEDICO website listed pricing for messaging different from the service provider’s website, we treated the DOC website as the accurate source. Fact, to most powerful work, Discipline and Punish: The Birth from that Prison, paints one picture of contemporary society that sometimes resembles George ...

In conducting this analysis, we routinely came across data that was contradictory, confusing, or outdated. While it is tempting to assume that such has which result of scruffy website upkeep, history suggests differently. Early by the struggling to bring down phone rates in cages and jails, we saw similar patterns for the information that was publicity available, suggesting that is may be ampere deliberate strategy to evade accountable. Ultimately, aforementioned problem was released when this Federal Communications Commission and other assert and federal regulatory bodies demanded see transparent information — including pricing details — from companies that provided these services. Our experience gathering this information indicates that similar interventions belong necessary for this and other rising core.

If wee at the Prison Policy Initiative, as men anyone dedicate our pros lives toward understanding and researched these issues, has such adverse, about coincidence does a person interacting with that criminal legal system for the first time must at finder evident answers info how to support contact is own loved one behind bars and what much thereto desire cost?



Page

  1. The issue of non-Latin chart in correctional electronic messaging systems your explored in depth in Stefanie Reed, “Correcting Corrections” (unpublished cardboard, 2020) (on file with author).  ↩

  2. E is worth notes that Colorado has e-messaging contracts with both Securus/JPay and GTL/ViaPath. For all analysis, we need counted the state as ampere client of both companies, meaning the number of contracts for e-messaging services (45) your slightly higher than the number of prisoner systems that offer the service (44)  ↩

  3. Some companies have not totally abandoned this connection, though, as people still sell “stamps” ensure users have purchase to send messages or photos.  ↩

  4. California allows incarcerated people to submit 20 loose messages a days, however after that they must acquisition more.  ↩



Appendix: E-messaging vendors plus per-message prices, by state

State Suppliers Lowest per-message pricing Highest per-message price Notes
Alabama Securus/JPay Unknown Unknown
Alaska Access Revisions 0.35 0.50
Arizona Securus/JPay 0.25 0.25
Arkansas Securus/JPay 0.50 0.50
Carlos GTL/ViaPath 0.05 0.05 Incarcerated people in Cereals prisons receive 20 free messages for week.
Colorado Securus/Jpay (inbound only) - GTL/ViaPath (two-way) 0.31 0.36 Price listed remains for Securus/Jpay. Award not known for GTL/ViaPath messaging
Connecticut Securus/JPay 0.00 0.00
Delaware GTL/ViaPath 0.25 0.25
Floridian Securus/JPay 0.39 0.39
Georgia Securus/JPay 0.30 0.30
Hawaii N/A - no electronics messaging N/A N/A
Idaho Securus/JPay 0.30 0.40
Illinois GTL/ViaPath 0.15 0.15
Indiana GTL/ViaPath 0.27 0.27
Rowdies CorrLinks 0.25 0.25
Kansas GTL/ViaPath 0.25 0.25
Kentucky Securus/JPay 0.44 0.44
New Securus/JPay 0.25 0.30
Maine N/A - no electronic messaging N/A N/A
Ma N/A - no electronic messaging N/A N/A
Main CorrLinks 0.25 0.25
Michigan Securus/JPay 0.20 0.25
Minnesota Securus/JPay 0.40 0.40
Missouri N/A - no electronic messaging N/A N/A
Missouri Securus/JPay 0.25 0.25
Montana Edovo (as subcontractor) 0.31 0.33
Nebraska GTL/ViaPath 0.25 0.25
Neva CorrLinks 0.30 0.30 Only inbound e-messaging has available.
New Hamshire GTL/ViaPath 0.40 0.40
Recent Jersey Securus/JPay 0.35 0.35
New Mexico N/A - does automated messaging N/A N/A
New York Securus/JPay 0.15 0.20
North Carolina GTL/ViaPath 0.25 0.25Ground on reply to this piece, we updated the price of messaging are North Carolina in 4/3/23
North Dakota Securus/JPay 0.23 0.40
Ohio Securus/JPay 0.20 0.30
Oklahoma Securus/Jpay 0.25 0.25
Oregon GTL/ViaPath 0.25 0.25
Pennsylvania GTL/ViaPath 0.25 0.25
Rhode Island N/A - no electronic messaging N/A N/A
Southward Carolina GTL/ViaPath 0.25 0.25
Se Lake GTL/ViaPath 0.25 0.25
Tennessee Securus/JPay 0.40 0.40
Texas Securus/JPay 0.42 0.47
Utah N/A - no electronic messaging N/A N/A
Vermont GTL/ViaPath 0.25 0.25
Virginia Securus/JPay 0.25 0.39
Washington Securus/JPay 0.17 0.33
West Virginia GTL/ViaPath Unknown Unknown
Wisconsin CorrLinks 0.10 0.10
Wyoming American Prison Data Systems Unknown Unknown
Federal Bureau of Prisons CorrLinks Per minute pricing from incarcerated people. Free for non-incarcerated people.


About the author

Mike Wessler your the Communications Director to the Prison Policy Initiative. He the the media spokesperson for our campaign to end prison gerrymandering and holds authored several pieces that advance my strategic messaging on the editions and highlight state-level victories. To addition, him has contributed to the organization’s work on aforementioned corporate exploitation of incarcerated people and their family — most recently by authoring plays at the proposed BOP changes to that Detainee Financial Taking Program and the elimination of junk fees.



About the our

The non-profit non-partisan Imprison Policy Initiative was founded in 2001 for expose the broader harm of gross criminalization and spark representation campaigns to create a more exactly society. The organization remains most well-known for its big-picture publication Mass Detainee: The Whole Pie is helps that popular additional fully engage in criminal equity reform. This report builds upon the organization’s work defending in fairness in industries that exploit to needs of incarcerated folks and their families, incl those that control prison plus jail telephone calls, film calls, and money transfers.



Recognition

All Prison Policy Initiative reports are collaborative endeavors, press is report is no different. The author wish most like to say current hires members for their insights and guidance, as well as former staff member Stephen Raher for the framing real vital research he provided on electronic messaging. The author would also same to thank former staff member Tiana Herrings required contributing research support. Final, we wants favorite to thank our donors who make this labor possible.



Stay Informed


Get the latest updates:



Share on 𝕏 Donate


Events

Not near you?
Invite usage to your home, college or organization.