Witnesses urge H.294 changes to make prison phone/video calls free and audit commissary pricing

Committee Chair (Speaker 1) convened the House Corrections & Institutions Committee on Feb. 12 to hear testimony on H.294, a bill that would address telecommunications and commissary pricing in Vermont correctional facilities. Sarah Stout, policy and advocacy director at Prison Policy Initiative, told the committee that telephone service is the primary lifeline between incarcerated people and their families and that states that made phone calls free have seen sharp increases in usage.

"When San Francisco jail made phone calls free, there was an overnight 41% increase in the number of phone calls per person, and people spent 81% more time in communication with their families," Stout said. She told the committee that expanded, affordable communication is associated in prior studies with stronger family ties and outcomes that correlate with lower recidivism.

Stout recommended that H.294 ensure that e‑messaging and video calls are free alongside phone calls, arguing those services are increasingly central to family communication and are subject to the same captive‑market pressures as voice calls. She cited research showing families shoulder most telecom costs and noted a 2015 study reporting that many family members, overwhelmingly women, go into debt to pay fees.

Stout also urged the committee to audit commissary pricing. She summarized a 2024 APPEAL survey that found Vermont prices among the highest in the nation for some items — an example given was reading glasses at $15 and ramen at about $0.83 — and that average annual commissary spending in some state studies was around $940 per incarcerated person. "Commissary is often how people feed themselves in prison," Stout said, and she described commodity pricing and vendor contracts (including funds routed back to facilities as 'rec funds') as a concern for families and taxpayers.

April, chief executive officer of Emilio, described a nonprofit vendor model that contracts with state corrections agencies (not users) so that incarcerated people and their families do not pay for video or messaging services. April presented early findings from an Iowa deployment (launched 2021) in which video calls were provided without charge to end users and the department paid for the service. Emilio reported large short‑term increases in video call volume (300–500%) and, in preliminary internal analysis, a roughly 30% reduction in all misconduct and a 55–62% reduction in violent misconduct during the implementation window; the company cautioned that multi‑year recidivism outcomes require longer follow‑up and peer review.

Committee members pressed both witnesses for evidence and specifics. Several members requested state‑level baseline usage data and asked whether making calls free would include video and messaging; Stout said those services should be made free simultaneously. Members also asked whether public utilities commissions regulate these vendors; April said Colorado has an example in which the PUC exercises oversight for a no‑cost service paid by the state.

The committee requested that witnesses provide source studies, data on pre‑ and post‑implementation usage, and contract language used in states where no‑cost calls have been adopted. The Chair asked staff to invite DOC for a follow‑up meeting to review the department’s current telecom contract, the DOC budget implications of moving costs to the state, and updated Wi‑Fi cost estimates for facility deployment. April agreed to share Iowa contract materials and the draft research paper for committee review.

The committee ended the discussion by asking staff to explore procurement, budget‑impact estimates, and the feasibility of including video and e‑messaging in any statutory change.

The committee will continue H.294 work in subsequent hearings and requested witnesses and DOC staff return with the requested contracts, cost estimates and research documentation.