BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1978
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1978 (Hayden)
As Amended June 27, 2000
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE :37-0
PUBLIC SAFETY 5-3 APPROPRIATIONS 14-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Washington, Cedillo, |Ayes:|Migden, Alquist, Aroner, |
| |Firebaugh, Keeley, Romero | |Cedillo, Corbett, Davis, |
| | | |Kuehl, Papan. Romero, |
| | | |Shelley, Thomson, Wesson, |
| | | |Wiggins, Wright |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Dickerson, Battin, Oller |Nays:|Campbell, Ackerman, |
| | | |Ashburn, Brewer, |
| | | |Maldonado |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Enacts legislative findings and declarations on the
availability and cost of telephone services to prison inmates
and California Youth Authority (CYA) wards, and requires that
state contracts for such services be negotiated and awarded to
provide for the lowest possible costs to wards and inmates.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that any contract to provide telephone services to
CYA wards or to inmates in state prisons shall be negotiated
and awarded in a manner to provide for the lowest reasonable
costs to wards, inmates, and their families and loved ones.
2)Requires that telephone service contracts pay for any expenses
of the California Department of Corrections (CDC) and for the
CYA, as well as for the reasonable costs of the Department of
General Services (DGS) for establishing and administering any
necessary telephone contract.
3)Provides that profits to the above departments shall not be a
basis for awarding a contract.
4)States the following findings and declarations:
SB 1978
Page 2
a) The California prison system is comprised of 33
institutions that are often located in remote locations,
making it difficult for family and friends to visit
inmates;
b) Studies, advocates, and incarceration experts have
concluded that inmates who remain in contact with family
and loved ones are less likely to pose a threat to prison
staff or to re-offend once released;
c) Collect phone calls are often the only means by which
the more than 160,000 inmates confined in the California
prison system can directly communicate with family,
friends, and loved ones;
d) The State of California contracts with vendors through a
prescribed bidding process to provide telephone service to
prisons while maximizing its economic return through
telephone concessions agreements;
e) Billing rates for collect telephone calls from prisons
include a 33% to 43% commission beyond the provider's
costs, which in 1998 generated $16 million for the General
Fund (GF);
f) The excessive rates resulting from the state commission
for collect telephone calls made from prisons makes it
difficult, if not impossible, for inmates to remain in
regular contact with family members and loved ones;
g) Therefore, it is the Legislature's intent to assure that
affordable telephone services are available for inmates
within the custody of the CDC and CYA wards, and their
families and loved ones; and,
h) In assuring affordable telephone services as specified,
it also is the intent of the Legislature to assure that any
awarded contract allows for full recovery of the vendor's
costs in performing the terms and conditions of the
contract and a reasonable margin of profit.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee analysis, major GF revenue loss to the extent the
commission the state receives as part of the prison payphone
contract is reduced or eliminated. According to DGS and the
SB 1978
Page 3
Department of Finance, this revenue loss would likely exceed $30
million in fiscal year 2001-2002.
COMMENTS : According to the author, "The problem SB 1978
attempts to address is this: A person making a 15-minute
collect phone call from a phone booth outside San Quentin state
prison to Oakland across the San Francisco Bay would cost about
$2.55. An inmate making the same call from inside the prison
would pay about $5 (Deborah Solomon, San Francisco Chronicle ,
August 17, 1999). The cost charged to the inmate goes well
beyond what is necessary to provide a profit for the service
provider and for the security measures associated with the phone
call. So why are inmates, or more accurately the inmate's
family and loved ones who are billed for the collect call,
paying such a steep price?
"Why are these calls so expensive? Unlike pay phones for public
use where the caller can choose what long-distance provider to
use and has access to varying rate-reducing options, calls from
the state prison are handled exclusively by companies
contracting with the state. In California, these companies are
MCI and GTE.
"Currently, the long-distance calling rate for collect calls is
about $0.50 per minute with a $3 surcharge. Local calls can
range from $0.15 to $0.30 per minute with a $2.65 surcharge.
Rates are the same regardless of the day or time the call is
placed. The rates are inflated, in large part, because of a
commission the state collects from the phone service providers
MCI and GTE. For each dollar MCI collects from prison calls, it
pays the state $0.40. GTE pays $0.30 (Deborah Soloman, San
Francisco Chronicle , August 17, 1999).
"There are more than 160,00 inmates in California's prison
system with institutions from the Mexican to Oregon Borders.
For many prisoners so far removed from their families, the phone
is often their only direct means of personal communication.
With the state raking in commissions up to 43% for each call, it
doesn't take a CPA to figure out this is a real moneymaker.
According to the Family Council (Family Members and Friends of
State Prisoners), the state made $16 million last year from
prison calls. The money went into the General Fund. Prison
calls are expected to generate even more this year.
SB 1978
Page 4
"Studies have repeatedly shown that inmates who remain in
contact with their families and loved ones are less likely to
re-offend. The State of California has an interest in
encouraging communications between its prisoners and their
families as a matter of public safety. SB 1978 is an attempt to
remove an economic barrier to communication."
Please see the policy committee analysis for a more
comprehensive discussion of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by : Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
FN: 0006340