To the editor:

Massachusetts taxpayers are unknowingly paying millions of dollars more a year than was expected.

In 2023, the state legislature passed a law to have the state pay for inmate calls home. I support inmates maintaining contact with their families, and I agree with the legislature’s recognition of this need. Maintaining family connections can reduce the risk of recidivism and support successful reentry into society. It is essential for inmates to stay connected to receive family support as they reintegrate. A need for reasonableness, balance, and compromise is crucial when it comes to unlimited inmates calls.

The legislature was right to fund inmate calls to their families. However, there have been numerous other issues yet to be addressed.

Firstly, the cost. In my jail alone, inmate calls are projected to cost taxpayers $5 million annually. If every inmate were to use the phone for the maximum allowable time each day, the cost could skyrocket to $20 million a year, just for my jail.

Secondly, there are security concerns. Unlimited calls increase the opportunity for inmates to continue managing criminal activities both inside and outside the jail. This includes problems such as drug dealing, victim harassment, and violations of restraining orders. We know these issues occur because we screen all inmate calls and messages. In fact, we had to hire two additional staff to handle the increased volume of calls.

There is no justification for the law to permit unlimited calls.

One possible solution is that the legislature cap the number of calls rather than allowing unlimited access. For instance, setting a limit of 20 minutes a day, or 35 minutes every other day might be more practical. Something other than unlimited.

Another idea is for jails and the DOC to negotiate contracts that have lower cost per calls. Putting a limit on calls is still necessary for the security reasons mentioned above.

Advocates for inmate calls need to be willing to compromise. If they insist on unlimited calls at taxpayers’ expense, there will be increasing pressure on the state legislature to reconsider the law. Calls to families are important, but they do not need to be unlimited. A balanced compromise would be to continue the program with reasonable limits. 

Sincerely,

Sheriff Paul Heroux