House corrections panel presses DOC on phone, tablet access and call costs

The House Corrections and Institutions Committee on May 7 examined Department of Corrections practices and the provisions of H.294 related to telephone and tablet access for people in custody, focusing on who pays for calls and what communications are monitored.

Committee members said the questions grew out of last week’s review of bill H.294 and a request for DOC to clarify operational details. The committee sought specifics on whether tablets are issued to every person, how approved call lists are cleared, whether attorney calls are charged, and which calls are recorded.

Al Cormier, chief of operations with the Department of Corrections, told the committee, “All the incarcerated population has access to to telecommunications. There are phones mounted both on the walls in the living units, and they have the access to the tablet for video calls as well.” He said tablets are issued to individuals who request them and that “there's no limit on how much or how much time somebody can spend…it's really about what they can afford.”

Cormier described the tablet environment as a closed, vendor-controlled system: “They don't have free access to the Internet. They don't have—they can't go everywhere that we can go on the Internet…it's an all encompassing web based system that the vendor provides.” He said content is whitelisted by the vendor and that nothing resembling an open web browser (for example, Facebook or direct e-commerce) is available on the tablets.

On free-call policy and pricing, committee members and DOC staff gave these operational points and rates: DOC provides two free telephone calls per person per week; free video visits are 20 minutes; regular phone calls were reported as 6¢ per minute; video visitation as 16¢ per minute; and email/text/photo messages at 25¢ each. Cormier said attorney calls are treated as confidential and are not recorded: “Your attorney calls are all confidential.” He added that all other calls “are recorded and then monitored as needed.” Incoming calls are not accepted on tablets or wall phones; communication from family in emergencies is routed through facility staff.

Committee members pressed for usage and revenue data. Cormier said DOC could produce call-volume and revenue breakdowns and noted an internal figure: “you know, you're averaging about 12,500 calls per facility per month.” Committee members asked DOC to separate revenue from calls versus revenue from app, music, or video purchases on tablets and to provide per-inmate averages and comparisons with Massachusetts, which was cited as a jurisdiction that changed its contracting model.

Members also discussed vendor contracting and commissions. Cormier said the department currently receives no commissions on phone calls because of an FCC ruling; commissions historically came from commissary sales rather than telecommunication services. Committee members flagged policy choices in H.294—some said they supported free phone calls but were not inclined to subsidize movie/music/app usage.

The committee requested follow-up materials from DOC, including detailed call and tablet revenue reports, counts of incarcerated people with trust accounts and tablets, the average per-inmate telecom spend, and comparisons with Massachusetts’ model. DOC staff agreed to provide the data and to look into vendor revenue splits and commission figures.

Next steps: committee staff will collect the requested usage and financial data from DOC and the tablet vendor to inform further review of H.294 and any policy changes concerning vendor-provided tablet services and free-call provisions.