Advocates See Free Md. Prison Calls as Important Investment

“This movement is now moving,” with no-cost calling bills approved in five states and advocates pursuing similar efforts in a dozen others, said Worth Rises Executive Director Bianca Tylek in an interview Thursday. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Minnesota previously made calls free.

“A state correctional facility is responsible for the payment of any cost charged by a telephone service provider for the use of telephone equipment and a telephone service by an incarcerated individual who is confined in the facility,” both bills say. However, facilities wouldn’t be required to pay a cost it disputes is owed to a phone company, says the proposal. State prisons and phone companies “may not charge an incarcerated individual or a third party, including the recipient of a telephone call” for using the phone at the correctional facility. Using the phone “may not supplant time that the incarcerated individual” gets for in-person visits, the bills say. The proposed law wouldn’t cover video calling equipment but would include landline, wireless and VoIP services. Calls would become free July 1, 2025.

The bills would increase Maryland spending by at least $7.4 million annually from FY 2026, cautioned a fiscal note on HB-1366. Prison phone “costs have increased over the last three years,” it said. “In addition, because incarcerated individuals will no longer be responsible for payment for telephone services under the bill, the demand for telephone services may increase.”

Worth Rises estimates that Maryland families spend $12 million yearly on speaking with incarcerated loved ones, and many of those families are low-income, said Tylek. Worth Rises supports the bills as part of a coalition that also includes the Center for Criminal Justice at the University of Baltimore School of Law, Life After Release, Maryland Alliance for Justice Reform and the Fines and Fees Justice Center.

Fiscal notes "are always a challenge," but making prison calls free would be a “really important investment,” Tylek said. The note might have overestimated the price tag by more than 100%, said the executive director, estimating the actual cost for Maryland could be closer to $3 million annually. The fiscal note took a three-year average of what Maryland users pay now, but other states that implemented free calls were able to negotiate lower rates, she said.

With the first set of hearings this week, it’s “early in the process” for the Maryland bills, said Tylek. Bill advocates have spoken with the state corrections department and the office of Gov. Wes Moore (D), she said. They seemed receptive to the policy but had cost questions, she said. Tylek noted that GTL, which provides prison calling for the state, lobbies in the state capital. The company didn’t testify at this week’s hearings.

ViaPath "supports Maryland’s transition to this model," said a spokesperson for the prison phone provider formerly known as GTL. "Free communications help maintain meaningful connections between families separated by incarceration and provide a level of communication that is always available, no matter a person’s financial situation."

Maryland isn’t helping incarcerated people “rehabilitate if we're making it cost prohibitive for them to stay connected,” said HB-1366 sponsor Del. Kent Roberson (D) at the House hearing Thursday. Del. William Valentine (R) asked if having free calls would increase usage, raising costs. Worth Rises Campaign Associate Alyssa Ackbar replied that it hasn’t been a big problem in other states that implemented this policy.

At the Senate hearing Tuesday, SB-948 sponsor Sen. Jeff Waldstreicher (D) said it’s “not acceptable” to make prisoners pay for calls. Maintaining connections with loved ones reduces recidivism, he added.

The fiscal note is “substantial,” though advocates say it might be “overstated,” said Waldstreicher. “If there’s no support to move the pure bill forward because of the costs,” supporters might “want to try and keep the momentum going” by instead setting up a task force. Another possibility would be to delay the bill’s effective date to give the state corrections department time to adjust to the costs, the state senator said.

The estimated cost is “pretty high,” agreed Sen. Chris West (R). “Isn’t it possible that the prisoners could use a portion of the money they earn in jail to pay for these telephone calls?” But Michele Kouadio, a Montgomery County resident and parent of an incarcerated individual, testified that her son earns just $20 a month preparing food and sewing garments. He works 30 to 40 hours, Kouadio said. West seemed surprised, gasping audibly. “I understand why that’s not enough to pay for the calls.”

Massachusetts made prison calls free Dec. 1 (see 2308090063). In an inmate calling service (ICS) proceeding last week, the commonwealth’s Department of Telecommunications and Cable (DTC) sought comments on whether that 2023 law “resolves concerns about ICS rates, ancillary service costs, and billing details such that the DTC should close that portion of its investigation.” Also, the DTC asked if it should continue probing ICS service quality and if removing public payphones at correctional facilities “unduly burdens newly released individuals” or visitors. Comments are due March 28 and replies April 29 in docket 11-16.