County to join trend of subsidizing inmate phone calls

SAN JOSE >> Santa Clara County will begin subsidizing phone calls made by jail inmates, the Board of Supervisors decided on Tuesday, eliminating a significant barrier for what advocates say is a vital lifeline for people in jail custody, many of whom are awaiting trial.

The board unanimously approved an 18-month pilot program that would offer inmates seven free 15-minute phone calls a week. In voting to subsidize the jail calls, the county joins cities like New York, which officially made jail phone calls free earlier this year, and San Francisco, which is in the process of eliminating call charges for its jail inmates.

During the last fiscal year, Santa Clara County jail inmates racked up $1.9 million in phone charges that went to the county’s Inmate Welfare Fund and Global Tel Link, the current in-custody phone vendor. Inmate rights groups have long complained that the fees and charges associated with jail phone calls disproportionately affects people of color and poor people, especially those who are in jail primarily because they cannot afford bail.

“For too many decades, private companies have made a fortune on the backs

of people who are incarcerated and their loved ones by charging excessively for phone calls from jails and prisons,” said Don Specter, executive director of the Berkeley-based Prison Law Office. “It is extremely important for the public’s safety that people behind bars be able to maintain relationships with their family and friends on the outside.”

Jose Valle II, an organizer with Silicon Valley De-Bug who works primarily on inmate advocacy, said removing economic barriers for phone calls could be the difference between life and death for some inmates.

“Isolation is not good for anybody, especially if it’s pretrial, and especially if it’s due to economic reasons,” Valle said. “It can really impact someone’s mental health. Money shouldn’t be a deterrent for someone to have that contact.”

The overall cost of the phone pilot program is estimated to be about $2.5 million. According to the county, the program will be financed by the welfare fund with revenue generated from jail phone calls and in-house commissary sales of food, cigarettes, and other items.

However, if the program continues, or a fuller subsidy like those in New York and San Francisco is later adopted, county officials said they will to have to find other funding streams to support the estimated $1.4 million annual

cost.

In a related matter, the board also postponed deciding whether to approve a contract with a new phone call vendor, Legacy, based in Cypress, which would roll out electronic tablets to the county inmate population. The Sheriff’s Office, which operates the jails, characterized the tablets as a way for inmates to participate in education programs, file grievances electronically, and send emails and messages to select recipients.

The delay was a result of unanswered questions about surveillance of the tablets and of jail phone calls, a recurring concern of inmate rights groups and the Public Defender’s Office. In May, those groups objected to a contract extension of the current vendor, Global Tel Link, that included language giving the District Attorney’s Office unfettered access to jail call recordings, and what they considered flimsy safeguards against the accidental recording of privileged calls between defense attorneys and inmates.

Part of that concern was derived from a scandal last year involving Global Tel Link in Orange County, in which it was revealed that more than 1,000 calls between inmates and their attorneys were improperly recorded and dozens of those were accessed by prosecutors and police.

Over the summer, the sheriff’s office revised the process through which law enforcement could request those recordings, retaining its traditional role as gatekeeper of the data.

But in a letter to the supervisors this week, Public Defender Molly O’Neal said several remaining privacy questions could threaten due process for county jail inmates, most of whom have not yet been convicted of a crime. She added that she wants to see more precise language prohibiting the recording of calls between an inmate and a doctor, therapist, or clergy member.

O’Neal said it is not clear whether law enforcement’s access to the recordings, via web link from the vendor, ensures that police and prosecutors will have access only to audio outlined in their requests or also to other calls involving an inmate.

“The vague information in this use policy and provided to me personally has left lingering questions and concerns,” O’Neal wrote, adding that she also wants to see more documented privacy safeguards for inmates’ use of the electronic tablets.

Citing O’Neal’s concerns, Board President Joseph Simitian called for postponing the contract vote and referred the item to the board’s Public Safety and Justice committee for further review.

The board approved the phone-call subsidy pilot program, however, which is contingent on a new vendor being in place by next March, something the supervisors believe will be sorted out by then.