The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is implementing significant changes to its inmate phone call policy, effective January 1, 2025. This marks a shift from the free call policy enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which allowed inmates up to 500 free minutes per month. The BOP cites budgetary constraints and the need to incentivize participation in rehabilitative programming as the driving forces behind this change. The new policy ties free call minutes to participation in Evidence-Based Recidivism Reduction (EBRR) programs, a cornerstone of the First Step Act (FSA). While the BOP frames this as an incentive, critics argue that it falls short of the FSA’s original intent and creates an inequitable system that disadvantages inmates unable to participate in these programs.
Under the new policy, inmates actively engaged in FSA-approved EBRR programs will receive 300 free minutes monthly, capped at 30 minutes per day. This incentive applies regardless of an inmate’s eligibility for earned time credits under the FSA. While seemingly beneficial, this policy raises concerns about accessibility and fairness. Many inmates, particularly those serving longer sentences in higher security facilities, are often ineligible for FSA programs, thus precluding them from accessing these free minutes. This effectively creates a two-tiered system, where those with shorter sentences and less serious offenses benefit more readily from the FSA’s provisions, while those serving longer sentences for more serious crimes are left to bear the financial burden of communication with their families and support networks.
The BOP is exploring the possibility of expanding the incentive to 510 minutes per month for program participants. This would include the 300 free minutes, supplemented by an additional 210 minutes that inmates would pay for. This proposed expansion, while potentially positive, remains contingent on budgetary and logistical feasibility. The question remains whether this expansion, if implemented, truly aligns with the spirit of the FSA, which intended to provide increased communication opportunities as a rehabilitative tool. Critics argue that tying the additional minutes to inmate expense undermines the incentive and perpetuates financial barriers to communication.
A central point of contention surrounding the new policy is its divergence from the FSA’s original intent. The FSA stipulated 510 additional minutes as an incentive for program participation, above and beyond existing call allowances. Advocates like Rabbi Moshe Margaretten of the Tzedek Association argue that the BOP’s current policy, which essentially offers only 210 additional minutes at the inmate’s expense, falls short of this statutory requirement. They maintain that the 510 minutes should be in addition to any existing free minutes, effectively providing a total of 810 minutes for program participants. This discrepancy highlights a critical debate regarding the interpretation and implementation of the FSA, and underscores the need for further clarification and alignment between the BOP’s policy and the law’s original intent.
For inmates not participating in EBRR programs, the burden of communication costs falls squarely on their shoulders. These individuals will be responsible for the full cost of their calls, based on rates set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). While the FCC has recently mandated reductions in per-minute rates, bringing the cost down to $0.06 per minute for audio calls and $0.16 per minute for video calls, this offers limited solace to those facing financial hardship. The financial strain of maintaining communication with loved ones can be significant, particularly for those from marginalized communities, and can create additional barriers to successful reintegration into society.
The BOP’s rationale for the policy change revolves around budgetary constraints and the need to incentivize program participation. They argue that reallocating resources from free phone calls allows them to invest in other critical areas, such as programming, staffing, and contraband interdiction. While these are undoubtedly important aspects of prison management, the decision raises concerns about prioritizing cost-saving measures over the recognized rehabilitative benefits of inmate communication. Maintaining family ties and support networks is widely acknowledged as crucial for successful reentry, and restricting access to communication can have detrimental effects on inmates’ mental health, emotional well-being, and ultimately, their prospects for successful reintegration. The timing of this policy change, coinciding with the holiday season, further exacerbates the emotional impact on inmates and their families, who face the prospect of diminished communication during a time typically associated with connection and togetherness. This policy shift underscores the ongoing tension between budgetary constraints and the imperative to provide humane and effective rehabilitative services within the prison system.
