Committee reviews bill to shift inmate telecommunications costs to department, raises questions about access and oversight

Committee member (Speaker 1) said Wednesday that the Corrections & Institutions Committee would spend the session going “through the bill” that would change how telecommunications are provided and paid for in state correctional facilities, and asked the Department of Corrections to return with clarifications.

The committee discussed shifting the expense for inmate telephone, tablet messaging and video calls from individuals to the Department of Corrections (DOC). Committee members raised questions about who pays under current contracts, which calls are monitored, whether incoming calls are allowed, how approved-call lists are created, and how the change would affect usage and department costs.

Why it matters: the bill would alter who bears the cost for in-custody communications and could change the volume of calls and video sessions, with budget implications for DOC and access implications for incarcerated people and their families.

Committee members cited figures from DOC documents that in December of the previous year incarcerated people made roughly 80,000 phone calls and about 3,100 video calls in a single month; the bill text cited an estimated current annual cost of roughly $1.3 million to cover calls at prevailing usage, and committee members noted testimony from Massachusetts suggesting usage — and therefore costs — could rise if the state pays for calls.

Committee discussion focused on several technical and policy questions. Speakers described current rates in the DOC document as 6¢ per minute for voice calls and 25¢ per tablet message; committee members debated whether the tablet video per-minute rate shown in the document (rendered there as “0.025¢ per minute” in a place where a notation error was suspected) should be confirmed with DOC before publication. Committee member (Speaker 5) said, “I don't wanna presume that more calls is inherently a bad thing,” and urged the committee to look at research on whether reducing cost barriers increases contact with support systems.

Members asked DOC to clarify operational details the committee said were not clear from the bill text and DOC materials: whether tablets are issued individually or shared, which communications are monitored and which are confidential, how approved-contact lists are created and who signs them off, whether incoming calls are allowed (other than calls from attorneys), whether DOC bears any hidden costs for the system, and what limitations exist on call length and frequency.

Committee members also pressed for clarity about the vendors and the contract terms. The transcript records the current vendor name as “Vipass” and a forthcoming contractor referred to as “IC Solutions” (members used both names); committee members asked DOC to provide the contract, commission percentages and the vendor pricing schedules so the committee could compare costs and competition in the market.

The committee directed staff to invite DOC to the next meeting to answer the outstanding questions. Committee member (Speaker 1) summarized the list of items DOC should address: whether calls are on tablets or wall phones, how the approved-call list is created and approved, what the current free-call allowances are under the new contract, whether incoming calls are allowed and how they are monitored, whether there is any cost to DOC in the current contracts, limitations on call length, and how tablets and contact lists are provisioned during booking.

The committee did not take a vote on the bill during the meeting. Members said they would request DOC return the following week and supply the contract documents and corrected, itemized pricing and usage data to support the proposed statutory change.