Our last post in particular – regarding “cell” phones in UK facilities – drew a lot of comments (commenter J.S. had it right, by the way: the proposal calls for the installation of land line phones in each living unit, hence the play on words “cell phone”).  Clearly, inmate communication is one of the most important topics in corrections right now.

At JPay, we understand this very well.  We know it’s difficult for the friends and family of incarcerated individuals to go without speaking, writing, or seeing their loved ones for extended periods of time.  In response, we try to offer inmate communications services that help bridge that gap, and make those time periods shorter.  Our inmate email, video visitation, and prepaid phone time services do just that, we think.

But we also understand, as we believe many of our customers do, that unrestrained communication within prisons would create an unmanageable corrections environment.  Though the vast majority of inmates may simply want to pay their debt, do their time, and return to society, there are certainly those who would leverage the channels of communication that we on the outside take for granted to perpetuate their illegal activities.

For that reason, communications in a corrections environment will always be limited.  There will always be rules.  And anything that tries to circumvent those rules, like the smuggled-in mobile phones that are plaguing facilities across the country, will always be contraband.

A news item out of Oregon this week highlights the importance of minimizing this sort of contraband.  An Oregon inmate serving a sentence for kidnapping his wife and daughter was repeatedly trying to ‘friend’ her on Facebook, according to the article on KATU.com.  This was an understandably traumatic experience for the ex-wife, and though the Columbia River Correctional Institution stated that none of the contraband cell phones they confiscated last year were used to access Facebook, it’s not difficult to imagine another contraband device in another situation being used for exactly the same creepy (and illegal) purpose.

In a bit of synchronicity, another news story (from Fox 12 in Oregon) describes one of the efforts the Oregon Department of Corrections is undertaking to prevent the influx of contraband cell phones.  “Sprint” is a cell phone-sniffing dog, and he’s as adorable as he is amazing.  Watch him here:

There is a balance to be struck concerning inmate communication.  The rights and safety of victims must be protected, while inmates must be allowed to maintain beneficial contact with their communities on the outside.  At JPay, we firmly believe that there are ways to accomplish both goals efficiently and effectively.

Prisoners in the UK, like many of their stateside counterparts, already have access to “public” phones in centralized locations.  The calls made from the proposed unit-located phones would be subject to monitoring and recording, just as with phones located in dorms or cell blocks.

At JPay, we know that both of the challenges cited by the Ministry of Justice – the prevalence of contraband mobile devices and the security issues associated with congregating near public phones – are equally daunting here in the US. Our client agencies, including some of the largest Departments of Corrections in the country, turn to our kiosk-based inmate communication solutions specifically to reduce queues, contraband, and to help mitigate the administrative challenges that both problems pose.  In fact, JPay kiosks are installed according to specific inmate-to-kiosk ratios and distribution designs that minimize the amount of traffic and wait times in communal locations.

This strategy helps preempt the need for in-cell phones (though we have yet to learn of a US facility or agency that is considering such an approach).  This is not to say, however, that we don’t recognize the potential benefits of allowing technology into the individual unit: our JP3 players are capable of allowing inmates to view (but not respond) to emails they download and store to the device within their own cell.  Other technology may well find a place within an inmate’s unit.

Ultimately, however, we see this as a well-intentioned but potentially badly-perceived attempt to reduce contraband and prisoner movement.  There are better, cheaper alternatives that can achieve the same ends.

King 5 doesn’t mention JPay directly, but we provide some of these high-tech solutions to WADOC, including inmate email and money transfer.  And that’s definitely a JPay kiosk at the 2:49 mark in the video below.

Take a minute to watch this clip; it provides a good example of the challenges being presented to departments of correction across the country, and how JPay is providing solutions to those challenges.

We especially like the quote from inmate Andrew Raymond, who says (while sitting in front of the JPay kiosk in his unit): “It allows me to start restoring the relationships that I unfortunately damaged.”  It underscores the need for a sustainable, reliable communications system between inmates and their friends and family on the outside.

Let us know what you think!  The link to King 5′s full article is here.

Article on money-saving, community-building prison newscasts echoes JPay

We came across an interesting article this week by Michael Rosenwald in the Washington Post – The News Behind Bars – which describes a closed-circuit newscast at the Maryland Correctional Training Center in Hagerstown, Md.  According to the Post article, the newscast, produced and conducted by inmates, has replaced a printed prison newsletter at a significant cost savings to the facility.

While this news may not touch on JPay services directly, it nonetheless hits on a couple of points that are important to us.

First is the author’s statement that “having an outlet in which to record and share information is, even among wards of the state, a primal need, if not a basic right.”  We couldn’t agree more.  Though the communications services JPay offers are aimed at facilitating the flow of information between inmates and their loved ones on the outside, we see firsthand the positive impact such communication has on both prisoners and their family and friends.  Being able to stay connected creates community, and a sense of community inspires the better angels of everyone’s nature.  The same can be inferred from the newscasts Mr. Rosenwald describes; the quotes from the prison “anchors,” in particular, reflect the positive effect this approach has had.

The second point that resonated with us at JPay is the cost savings incurred by the facility when it made the shift to televised inmate news from a circulated paper newsletter.  In a way, we have been helping corrections facilities make similar shifts for nearly a decade.  Our money transfer services, which allow the friends and family of inmates to electronically deposit money into trust accounts, reduce the amount of labor-intensive money orders a facility must process (once the only way to send funds to an inmate).  Our eMessaging service, which functions much like email for inmates and their loved ones, dramatically cuts down the amount of physical mail a prison must sort.

Like the Maryland prison newscasts, each of these services have both improved the quality of life for inmates and helped save cash-strapped facilities crucial dollars.

Correctional facilities across the country face similar challenges as the Maryland prison profiled in this article.  Those facilities would do well to consider similar solutions, solutions that instill a sense of community and facilitate the flow of information between inmates and their loved ones, as well as help close the budget gaps that have become all too common.

The Muskegon Chronicle columnist Steve Gunn wrote in an op-ed two weeks ago about the “postcard only” policy at the Muskegon County Jail.  The facility had been considering the suspension of sealed letters to inmates, instead allowing only stamped postcards to be delivered.  According to Gunn’s column, a group called “Letters Are Better” conducted several protests against Muskegon County’s decision.

These protests are the columnist’s jumping-off point for a condemnation of the practice of allowing inmates to receive long-form communication while incarcerated.  These offenders should, according to Gunn, spend their time ”thinking about what they did” rather than reading mail from their family.  This is a fundamentally wrong position; contact with support systems and loved ones on the outside, even during shorter incarcerations, is a central component of an inmate’s rehabilitation, and a bulwark against institutionalization (and recidivism as well; see our previous blog post).

Gunn eventually steers his column to some very valid points.  The county facility apparently had drugs and other contraband reaching inmate via sealed mail.  As such, safety and security at the facility was being jeopardized by these mailings, and, as Gunn writes, security must always be the first priority.

He also mentions the labor cost of having county personnel manually sort and screen each envelope.  This is a real concern not just for Muskegon County, but for corrections departments across the United States, all of which are currently facing budget shortfalls and other financial constraints.  The labor costs associated with this necessary security practice can become prohibitive, and can prompt reactions such as Muskegon County’s: just ban the letters.

Technology, however, presents another solution.  Just up the road, at the Muskegon Correctional Facility (which, as a part of the Michigan Department of Corrections, contracts with JPay) inmates can communicate with individuals on their approved visitation list via eMessaging.  Facilities that offer eMessaging, including those in Michigan, experience a sharp decline in physical mail received and can reduce the number of hours their staff spends screening and sorting it.  This reduction in physical mail decreases the potential for contraband entering the facility without depriving inmates’ friends and family of the ability to write long letters, send pictures, and otherwise maintain beneficial contact with their incarcerated loved ones.

Gunn eventually hits the mark in his column, calling for common sense when it comes to prison security.  But common sense doesn’t need to come at the expense of inmates’ rehabilitative prospects; in this case, it can come from smart technology.  JPay technology.

JPay communication services help reduce recidivism

Most incarcerated individuals share a singular goal for their time spent as guests of the State:  to get out and stay out.  Unfortunately, a study published last month by Pew research found that the national offender recidivism rate has held steady, with about four of every ten inmates returning to state prison within three years of their release.  According to the study, this 40% figure has remained largely unchanged for the past decade or so, while overall incarceration rates have risen.

The recidivism rates for individual states, however, vary widely from the national average, with states like Alaska (50.4%) and Massachusetts (42.2%) representing higher occurrences of released inmates returning, and others (Oregon, 22.2%; Michigan, 31%) posting markedly low rates.

While the Pew study focuses on the state and national policies that affect recidivism, it takes care to explain that many factors ultimately determine whether an offender will go back to jail within three years (or, indeed, ever).  One of those factors, not mentioned in the Pew report but nonetheless cited in other academic literature, is the frequency and quality of contact between inmates and their families and communities.  Visitation, a bright spot of the lockup experience for most prisoners, has been shown to reduce recidivism significantly.  Two studies, one from 2008 and one conducted in Canada in 2009, show direct correlation between visitation and a decline in readmission to prison.

Certainly, pre- and post-release counseling and optimizing the use of supervision resources – two solutions proposed by Pew – will have a major impact on reducing recidivism.  But so can an emphasis on increased familial and community contact for inmates.  The development of new and better communication channels, including JPay’s own Video Visitation and eMessaging, can help make this recidivism-reducing strategy a reality for many states.

JPay research has shown that Video Visitation – web-based face-to-face communication between and inmate and his approved friend or family member – is just as effective as traditional visitation.  Likewise, the decrease in delivery time for eMessaging – a secure form of email – over traditional prison mail results in more frequent contact between offenders and the people outside who care about and support them.  Prepaid and debit-style phone service from JPay also supports these positive outcomes.

The impacts of JPay’s communication services have been felt in states that have enjoyed low or declining recidivism rates, including Michigan and Oregon (both states’ departments of correction are served by JPay).  These states have made reducing the incidence of repeat offenses a top priority, and have instituted statewide policies and systems to support that goal.  JPay’s services have been – and continue to be – a part of that strategy.  Other states seeking similar results should follow suit, just as the families and friends of inmates should leverage every opportunity to maintain contact with their loved ones.

So, no matter how you keep up with them, you are doing the right thing for them and their family.  Writing to an inmate can lift their spirits and give them hope of a better life in the future.