The High Costs of Free Prison Tablet Programs

In 2021 the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) announced a new tablet contract with Securus Technologies, a subsidiary of Aventiv Technologies (which also owns JPay). As in most free tablet contracts, Securus agrees to provide tablets for all eligible people incarcerated in Texas jails and prisons at no cost to incarcerated people or the state. In exchange, Securus will charge users a fee to send or receive emails, phone calls, and video calls or download premium content, such as movies, games, and music. The tablets, which use a secure internal network and do not have internet access, will include some free content, such as religious, educational, and law resources, and a limited selection of ebooks.

Texas is the latest in a growing number of states to implement “free” tablet programs in recent years. From the TDCJs’ perspective, the partnership with Securus is a win-win. In addition to providing tablets at no cost to the TDCJ, Securus shoulders the total cost of installation and maintenance as well as any infrastructure upgrades needed to accommodate the widespread use of secure-network tablets. Bryan Collier, executive director of the TDCJ, identifies several potential benefits of the tablet program to incarcerated users, including expanded access to resources and educational materials, more frequent contact with the outside world, and increased technological literacy. Each of these benefits correlates with lower recidivism rates and suggests the program is congruent with nationwide prison reform efforts. TDCJ representatives are also optimistic that increased access to email will relieve pressure on overstrained and understaffed prison mailrooms, reducing the occurrence of contraband items entering prisons and jails through the mail. Users can also file grievances through tablets, and tablets open the possibility of telehealth programs and increased access to online higher education programs in the future.

At first glance, free tablet programs seem like a step forward, finally pushing antiquated incarceration practices into the twenty-first century at the mutual benefit of the incarcerated, departments of corrections, and prison industries—all with the oh-so-appealing tagline: “at no cost to taxpayers.” Advocates of free tablet programs have a point; the introduction of tablets could bring life-changing benefits to incarcerated people. Unfortunately, current free tablet programs rely on predatory contracts between Departments of Corrections (DOCs) and two juggernauts of prison industry, Aventiv (Securus and JPay) and Global Tel Link (GTL). These companies have long histories in prison communications, histories checkered by charges of exploitative practices. Tablets do offer the incarcerated unprecedented access to their loved ones as well as new ways to fill time inside, but these benefits come with steep prices to the incarcerated and their families. The tablets may be free, but using them isn’t. Users are charged exorbitant rates for technologies and services that are usually free for citizens who aren’t locked up, and prices for games, movies, and music are often much higher than fair market value. Seeing as the average wage range for non-industry prison labor is $0.14–0.63 per hour in states that pay incarcerated people for the work they do (Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and Arkansas do not pay wages), free tablet programs divert the costs to the families of the incarcerated.

The Price of Free

Tablet contracts between DOCs and prison communications companies vary by state, making it difficult to assess overall costs to the incarcerated; however, most contracts share a set of common features. The Prison Policy Initiative studied twelve free tablet contracts since 2017 and concluded that most “guarantee the Department of Corrections a portion of tablet revenue,” “allow tablet providers to alter the prices of services—such as email, music and money transfer—without state approval,” “allow providers to terminate tablet services if the tablets aren’t profitable enough,” and “exempt providers from replacing a broken tablet if they think it was ‘willfully’ damaged—a loophole ripe for exploitation, as prison tablets are cheaply made and break easily.” 

Commissions paid to DOCs vary widely by state. For example, Colorado DOC (GTL contract) receives an annual flat payment of $800,000; Connecticut DOC (JPay contract) receives a 10–35 percent commission on replacement technology, accessory sales, email fees, media downloads, and subscriptions; Missouri DOC (JPay contract) earns a 20 percent commission on entertainment media purchases; and West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) and Indiana DOC (GTL contracts) receive a commission on all gross revenue, 5 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Contracts that include revenue sharing funnel money paid by the incarcerated and their families back into the systems that incarcerate them. Such contracts also discourage DOCs from advocating for fair pricing on behalf of incarcerated people. The higher the rates for emails, video calls, and movies, the more commission the DOC receives. Revenue-sharing contracts that also allow the contractor to terminate the contract if expected profits aren’t met place DOCs in a bit of a double bind in which low revenues threaten their ability to make any commission.

Prices for email and video chat services also vary by contract. According to JPay’s website, sending and receiving emails cost one “stamp” per page of text. The average cost of a stamp is $0.35. Adding a picture to an email costs one additional stamp. Adding a “videogram” costs an additional three stamps. A thirty-minute video call costs $3.95. GTL contracts include prices for emails ranging from $0.25 to $0.47. Unsurprisingly, media download prices vary as well. Song download prices can range from $0.99 to $9.99 and audiobooks from $0.99–19.99. Some GTL contracts offer media subscription services, such as a music-streaming service for $24.99 per month, but as noted by Prison Legal News: “GTL’s music service costs twice as much as Spotify or iTunes for less than one-tenth the number of available songs. And with video games usually available outside prison for no more than $8 each, two months’ worth of GTL’s gaming fees could pay for all eight of the most popular games available from the Google app store.” JPay has recently introduced a $5.00 monthly subscription for its SecureView tablet, and the free tablet contract between Securus and Dallas County lists a $5.00/month rental fee for tablet use. 

Most contracts mention the availability of e-books, and both Securus/JPay and GTL reference generous e-book offerings on their websites. Both companies have also expanded access to a limited number of free e-books in the face of public pressure to curb the steep cost of book downloads and price-per-minute reading charges on prison tablets. However, neither company is forthcoming about what books are available and how many. While some GTL press releases boast availability of thousands of free e-books, stories have emerged, such as a story from Allegheny County (Pennsylvania) Jail, of jails banning physical books completely and limiting incarcerated people’s access to reading materials to the 241 free e-books and 49 free religious texts available on GTL tablets.

Excerpted from Books Through Bars: Stories from the Prison Books Movement © 2024, published by the University of Georgia Press. Reprinted here with permission.

ICYMI—From The Appeal

Two Michigan counties banned in person jail visits in order to profit from videochat-fee kickbacks, lawsuits alleged. “A lot of people are going to swipe that Mastercard and visit their grandkids,” one local official said.

A Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy allegedly slammed a cell door shut on a man’s fingertip, causing it to be amputated. Larry Jones said in a lawsuit that LASD Deputy Ira Ynigo simply locked the door and “watched me scream.”