Categories

by Bernadette Rabuy and Peter Wagner
Last updated February 4, 2020

Video calling technology can be a helpful supplement to in-person jail visits, but it is critical to ensure that the vendor does not rake in excessive profits at the expense of consumers, most of whom are families in poverty. Negotiating a video calling contract that protects consumers can be tricky. Proper planning and goal-setting are absolutely necessary to guarantee a positive outcome.

Below, we list best practices for a correctional agency writing an RFP for video calling services. Our suggestions assume that the agency is expecting people behind bars and their loved ones to shoulder the cost of remote video calls. However, these recommendations come with a caveat: The fairest approach for a prison or jail is to simply make all video calls free (otherwise, personal wealth determines which families can stay in touch and which ones cannot).

Agencies that want to make jail video calls free should probably model their RFPs off of the phone services RFP issued by San Francisco in 2019. For agencies that don’t wish to go that far, but do wish to hold their vendors accountable and ensure the fair treatment of customers, we’ve prepared this list of best practices.

• Be clear that you seek to use video as a supplement to, and never a replacement for, traditional in-person visitation. The Department of Justice, the American Correctional Association, and the states of Massachusetts, California, Texas, and Illinois agree that preserving in-person visits is a correctional best practice. Some vendors may want you to replace traditional in-person visits with a combination of free facility-based video calls (where families travel to the jail to sit at a video terminal) and paid remote video calls, with the aim of pushing families to the paid video calls from home. A better solution is to use paid remote video calls as a supplement to in-person visits — one which will be particularly attractive to loved ones who live far away or wish to communicate beyond normal visiting hours.
• Require a good refund policy for failed or unsuccessful visits. Far too often, video calls are unsuccessful because the computers never connect, the audio doesn’t work, or the video is inexplicably blurry. It is critical that the vendor have an economic incentive to minimize these problems. The vendor should be required to describe their process for giving refunds and give some comparative data about their consumer reputation at the Better Business Bureau or elsewhere on quality and refund issues. The vendor should also describe whether correctional staff who witness technology failures will be allowed to process (or otherwise have a say in) refunds.
• Try to avoid a bundled contract that reduces your current and future choice. Bundling together a lot of unrelated services — such as phone calls, video calling, electronic law libraries, and “inmate banking” — into one contract sounds convenient, but it makes it possible for the provider to shift profits from one service to another, thereby hiding the real costs of each service from you. The best way to meet your multiple needs is with multiple RFPs that each solicit the best solution. If you issue a large bundled RFP, you will be ignoring companies with innovative products that meet part of your need and you will make it more difficult for the facility to change vendors in the future, because the facility must now change their phone, email, commissary, and banking systems all at the same time.
• Require a realistic analysis and contingency plan for system failures. No technology is foolproof, and experience has shown that correctional video calling technology is uncommonly susceptible to failure. Expecting and planning for failures should be a part of any contract. Bidders should be required to describe their experience with system failures, including the specifics of their longest outage in terms of length and lessons learned.
• Require reasonable restrictions on how long recordings of video calls may be retained; restrict the vendor’s use of any data collected from video calls; and ensure that the provider complies with the Children’s Online Privacy Act. In particular, some vendors appear to be building extensive facial recognition databases of incarcerated people and their loved ones, which could be sold to third parties. One strategy for the RFP would be to decide on some specific guidelines and make them requirements for the contract. (Ideally, the county would restrict this practice entirely.) Alternatively, the county could require bidders to put a dollar value on this data and explicitly pay for a license to use and retain it. Another, albeit weaker, option is to require bidders to disclose their intentions by asking whether they have any security products for sale that will use data from the county’s video calling system and whether the vendor would commit to destroying all data derived from video calls at or before the end of the contract.

  Separately, counties should require providers to commit to not using video data from the contracting facility in any way that violates the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, and to specifically indemnify the county against any claims under the Act. (The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act prohibits collecting and sharing photographs, video or audio recordings of children without the verifiable consent of parents.)

• Require support for all common consumer platforms. Technology solutions will not feel like solutions unless they are easy for the typical consumer to use. For example, some vendors have, in the past, made their products incompatible with mobile phones. (This creates barriers for consumers who have mobile phones but not computers.) The county should ask about the minimum software requirements for consumers, including whether the services work on Android and Apple smartphones.
• Encourage systems that allow per-minute billing. Some providers require video calls to be scheduled and billed in blocks of 20 or 30 minutes. The providers like this because it maximizes revenue, but it also drives up the cost for families by requiring them to purchase more time than they may want or need for a given conversation. For example, it should be possible for a daughter to say goodnight to her incarcerated father or for a husband to ask his wife if she received her commissary money via video call, without the call being financially burdensome.
• Encourage systems that allow video calls without an appointment and/or that allow incoming calling. Offering reservations to guarantee machine availability can be helpful, but requiring that all calls be scheduled in advance is unrealistic to most modern families. The most innovative systems allow family members to signal their availability for a call or to call into the system.
• Seek systems that acknowledge the importance of eye contact to human communication. Eye contact is crucial to establishing and maintaining connections, building trusting and supportive relationships, and allowing clear communication. The vendors should explain how they incorporate the importance of eye contact into the design of their products and how often they update their technology and equipment.

We also have best practices guides for writing phones and electronic tablet RFPs.

Updated: Jan. 27, 2021 at 9:44 PM CST

View the full article here.

ALBANY, Ga. (WALB) – The Dougherty County Jail is seeing a few glitches with its new video visitation.

Chief Jailer John Ostrander said that if you’re planning a visit, you must upload a current photograph of a state ID, as well as a picture of yourself.

”We’ve had a lot of visitors misunderstand that they could just upload a couple of different pictures. We’ve had to go in and deny them until they go upload an ID card for us. It’s caused some delays with some visitors but by in large, the inmates are loving it,“ said Ostrander.

Chief Ostrander said the system can be misused.

He said there could be a convicted felon, gang member, or victim trying to visit with an inmate. That’s why it’s important the proper photos are uploaded to verify who that person is.

Copyright 2021 WALB. All rights reserved.

[Original post: https://www.walb.com/2021/01/28/how-avoid-delays-when-scheduling-virtual-visit-dougherty-co-jail/?fbclid=IwAR1Fudku9TrYPpgj7rRmjun5110h7PsQwUQ3EdRUNJdFlTW7nNVAL0QRuyc]

BY SOLANGE FORTENBACH AND HONOKA OZEKIMar 2, 2021Updated Mar 11, 2021

The COVID-19 pandemic has been an isolating time for everyone in Orange County (OC), but especially for our community members who are incarcerated in Orange County jails. In-person, non-legal jail visitation stopped in March 2020. People incarcerated in OC jails haven’t seen their loved ones’ faces for close to a year, even though the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) has the funding and technology to provide video visitation.

Calls from the jail phone service, Global Tel Link (GTL), are extremely costly for families already struggling with the pandemic, and the jail only provides two free, five-minute calls per week.

Recently, people have been denied all programs such as dayroom and yard time. For much of the pandemic, people have been quarantined in their cells for 23.5 hours a day, meeting the definition of prolonged solitary confinement.

People incarcerated in OC jails have been advocating for improved conditions since the start of the pandemic, and incarcerated advocates have organized multiple hunger strikes over the past year, hoping it will convince OCSD to allow them to see their loved ones.

The [Incarcerated Peoples’] Welfare Fund Could Provide Any Needed Funding for Video Visitation Programs.

Under state law, OCSD must have an [Incarcerated Peoples’] Welfare Fund (Cal. Pen. Code § 4025), which they are legally required to spend “primarily for the benefit, education, and welfare of the [incarcerated people] confined within the jail.” This fund is fed by the profits the jail makes on things sold to incarcerated people through the commissary store, which sells much-needed, overpriced items such as snacks and personal hygiene products.

A 2011 internal audit found that OCSD spends around 96% of their IWF on staff support and staff salaries, and this pattern has continued. Although OCSD claims that these salaries support staff who run enrichment and rehabilitation programs (Correctional Programs Unit), incarcerated people report little to no access to rehabilitative programming, especially during COVID when these programs are restricted or completely stopped. Less than 4% was spent on recreation and library. Less than 1% was spent on services and supplies. The fund’s total revenue was about $5 million.

Video visitation is crucial to the welfare of individuals confined within Orange County jails, especially when all other visitation has been halted. OCSD should be using IWF to ensure video visitation for people inside.

Orange County has CARE funds that could also support video visitation.

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act, is a stimulus package passed by Congress to help municipalities pay for expenses which arise out of the COVID-19 pandemic. In allocating CARES Act funds, OC leaders have spent more on the sheriff than on public health workers. Orange County received $554 million in CARES Act funds; $93 million went to payroll at the Sheriff’s Department, while $58 million was spent on Health Care Agency employees. Yet people inside OC jails say none of the sheriff’s funding has done anything to improve the dire situation in the jails.

Orange County has not been transparent about CARES Act spending. It was recently discovered Orange County officials secretly signed contracts dispensing hundreds of thousands of tax-paying dollars from the CARES budget to hire a PR firm. At least $93 million of the pandemic relief funds were spent on Sheriff’s Department costs by the end of October. The county claimed that the funding was given to the sheriff to cover costs ranging from public safety payroll, to adding shields and barriers for social distancing at facilities, to buying cold meals for incarcerated people to allow social distancing. Yet people inside have no opportunity to social distance according to an ongoing lawsuit brought by the ACLU alleging dangerous and inhumane conditions during COVID-19.

In addition to the CARES funding available, President Biden recently announced his American Rescue Plan which will disseminate funds to jails in light of the COVID pandemic. These funds are an additional source of funding which can cover the cost of video visitation.

Video visitation is necessary to the welfare of incarcerated people.

COVID has brought danger, death, and draconian jail policies to incarcerated people. Over the course of the pandemic, people have been exposed to COVID and denied medical attention. New policies that fail to keep people safe impose additional restrictions on the already cruel conditions of jail. For much of the pandemic, many folks on the inside were confined for 23.5 hours of the day, meeting the definition for prolonged solitary confinement. Data shows that recidivism rates increase with time spent in solitary confinement, with studies attributing a 15%-25% increase for people who had experienced solitary confinement compared to those in the general population. Other studies have demonstrated that visitation has a significant impact on recidivism, and that a lack of social interaction can negatively impact reentry.

Jose Armendariz, an individual living inside one of Orange County’s jails, wrote a poem, “Humans in Name Only,” depicting his experience inside.

Humans in Name Only

As I speak, I am only allowed twenty minutes a day out of my cell

A cell that is the size of a tiny parking space

In this time I must shower and use the phone

The last time I saw my family was a year ago

We are only fed sandwiches that oftentimes contain spoiled meat

If you think this is bad, I’ll just say this

You’re only hearing what I feel comfortable sharing

We are subjected to cruel and unusual punishment

If we are caught speaking to the media or people from advocacy groups

The retaliation is swift and heavy handed

If you care about our mental health, Sheriff Barnes

Why do you subject us to such cruelties?

How is putting me in a tiny cell for 24 hours a day supposed to help my mental health?

There are people who have never in their life considered suicide

Openly considering it now

For the first time

Is a testament to the harm you are bringing on already fragile minds

Jose Armendariz, an individual living inside one of Orange County’s jails

Dr. Craig Haney, professor of psychology and an expert on solitary confinement, urges that medical isolation to prevent the spread of COVID-19 should never resemble punitive solitary confinement, due to the significant risk of grave harm. Properly conducted, medical isolation should be temporary and mitigate risks of the harmful effects of isolation by allowing access to devices for video and audio calls, enhanced medical and mental health services, and adequate out of cell time. He recommends that incarcerated people who are medically isolated should be given daily access to phones or tablets to maintain social connection, preferably with video and audio capabilities and at no or low cost. See Campbell v. Barnes (30-2020-01141117-CU-WM-CXC).

Video visitation is possible and necessary.

People on the inside have been asking for visitation with their families since the beginning of the pandemic, but have not had a meaningful option available to them for close to a year now. Video visitation is necessary both for the immediate health and well-being of incarcerated folks as well as for their long term welfare. Maintaining family connections provide emotional support in the short term, and can significantly impact reentry prospects in the long term, contributing to public safety.

Orange County’s jails already use video technology to conduct remote court hearings and OCSD has the funding to provide this minimal, necessary service to Orange County community members in their custody.

People like Jose in OC jails have gone almost a year without seeing their families. Five minute phone calls are not enough to maintain meaningful connections with their families, and they are having difficulties coping with the prolonged isolation. OCSD has the funds to implement video visitation from the CARES Act and the IWF fund, as well as the video technology that would allow people to finally see the faces of their loved ones. OCSD must swiftly implement video visitation so that incarcerated people are able to connect with their friends and family.

Solange Fortenbach: Solange is a JD candidate at UCI Law, having previously received her Bachelor’s Degree from New York University. She advocates for the rights of people incarcerated in Orange County jails as a legal extern at the ACLU and leader of the Letter Writing Project at UCI.

Honoka Ozeki: Honoka is a JD candidate at UCI Law. She advocates for the rights of people incarcerated in Orange County jails as a part of the Letter Writing Project at UCI.

Opinions expressed in community opinion pieces belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.

Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please email opinions@voiceofoc.org.

[Original Post: https://voiceofoc.org/2021/03/fortenbach-and-ozeki-video-visitation-in-orange-county-jails-is-possible-and-necessary/]