House Corrections committee probes commissary revenue, tablet-phone data and costs under bill on inmate communications

The House Corrections and Institutions Committee on May 22 reviewed Department of Corrections figures and vendor materials for House Bill 294, a proposal addressing phone and tablet communications and the DOC-operated commissary for people in state custody. Committee members said they received DOC data showing $1,083,001 in commissary commission revenue over the last two fiscal years and asked for a detailed ledger and additional breakdowns before taking further action.

The committee’s chair said the DOC reported roughly $572,000 of the $1,083,001 had been applied to salaries linked to commissary operations; committee members asked DOC to provide itemized journal entries and a list of standard-issue items that should not be purchased via commissary. Members also noted the commissary contract’s commission rate was recently renewed to 32% after previously being 29%.

Why it matters: commissary and communications revenues touch inmate hygiene, recreation and family contact, DOC operating budgets, and potential general-fund pressure if the state changes who pays for communications. Committee members pressed for data needed to estimate the fiscal and operational effects of any policy change.

Key facts and requests

- DOC figures: Committee members reported that DOC provided commission revenue of $1,083,001 for the past two fiscal years and identified six facilities that use commissary proceeds to fund recreation staff. The committee said DOC told them about roughly $572,000 in salary charges against the commissary revenue stream; the committee requested the underlying ledger to confirm how much of those salary costs are being paid from commissary commissions and how costs are allocated by facility.

- Contract terms: Committee members said the commissary vendor contract was recently renewed and that the commission rate was increased to 32% (it had been 29% prior to the pandemic period DOC described). Members also reported that the same corporate vendor structure involves IC Solutions (ICS) as a contractor handling telecommunications and data storage, with a named vendor (referred to in materials as “Keith”) operating commissary services.

- Indigence and access: DOC reported that 341 people in custody had $10 or less in their commissary accounts as of the committee’s latest check; committee members asked DOC for a breakdown of those 341 people by detained versus sentenced status, sex, and facility.

- Data retention and access: Committee members were told tablet and communications data currently are retained by the contractor (ICS) for a contract-defined period (the committee recorded three years as the retention term in the materials). The DOC must make a formal request to the contractor to access stored communications for security or investigative purposes, the committee was told; members asked for the contractor privacy policy and the contract language that governs post-contract data custody.

- Cost scenarios for free calls/video: DOC-provided materials used Massachusetts’ move to state-funded communications as an illustrative comparison. The committee was told Massachusetts experienced an approximately 133% increase in call volume after its change, and budgeted amounts there rose substantially (committee materials cited a large difference between a $10 million appropriation and an asserted $30 million demand over the observed period). Using assumptions provided to the committee, DOC’s materials estimated that if 1,500 Vermont incarcerated people made phone and video calls at rates similar to Massachusetts’ post-change pattern, Vermont could face a minimum annual budgetary pressure of about $1,141,000 to underwrite free unlimited phone and video calls; committee members emphasized that the estimate depends on baseline usage and that Vermont’s baseline may differ.

Operational and policy concerns

Committee members raised three operational issues that they said must be resolved before policy changes are proposed: (1) monitoring capacity — staff said current monitoring resources are limited and that a large increase in simultaneous tablet use would strain the ability to review communications in real time and require additional staffing; (2) scope of commissary-funded expenses — members questioned whether commissary commission revenue should fund recreation supervisor salaries or whether those costs should move to the general fund; and (3) clarity on which personal items are considered basic needs (the committee asked for a list of standard-issue items so that DOC, the committee and vendors can distinguish necessities from optional commissary products).

Next steps and outlook

The committee asked DOC to deliver an itemized ledger of commissary expenditures, the contractor privacy policy and contract language on data custody, a facility-level breakdown of commissary balances and indigence counts, and the DOC’s baseline for inmate communications usage (so the Massachusetts comparison can be validated). Committee members said they will follow up with DOC budget staff (including a staff member the committee identified as responsible for DOC’s budget) and continue work on the bill during the next legislative session if necessary.

The committee did not take any formal votes during the May 22 discussion. Members said further factual material and contractual language are required before drafting or recommending statutory language.