BARS BEHIND BARS: DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
IN THE PRISON SYSTEM
Paolo Arguelles* 1

Isabelle Ortiz-Luis

Abstract

With little opportunity to engage with technology while behind bars, returning
citizens are finding themselves on the far side of the digital divide and increasingly
vulnerable to recidivism. Investing in a well-run digital literacy program for our
prison system is an innovative solution to a persistent problem and a rare win-win
situation for inmates, prison officials, and American taxpayers. We begin by
discussing how inmate tablet distribution programs mutually benefit both inmates
and prison officials. We then explore prison profiteering by technology companies
as a potential obstacle to the successful administration of technology programs,
discussing the emergence of virtual monopolies in the prison technology space,
their history of controversial pricing practices, and how these practices are
perpetuated through prison tablet programs. We then present novel insights into
how competitive bidding can be used as a public policy instrument to regulate
competition, specifically in the context of prison technology. We argue that a
traditional bidding framework is insufficient to act as a policy instrument and
propose an alternative incentive-based framework toward this end. We conclude by
outlining several practical recommendations that prison officials should consider
when administering digital literacy programs in their facilities.
Keywords — digital divide, technology, recidivism, corrections, criminal justice
system, competition policy, prison profiteering

* Corresponding author: pa394@cornell.edu. P.A. is the primary author of this paper,
writing the main text and conducting a majority of the research. I.O.L. conceived the original
idea, contributed valuable research related to prison profiteering and its effects on lowincome families, offered insight on the need for inmates to stay connected with their families,
and edited the text. The authors are co-founders of Bridges for Digital Literacy, a non-profit
organization dedicated to bridging the digital divide (www.bridges4.org).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

2

DIGITAL LITERACY IN THE PRISON SYSTEM

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION

3

I.

DIGITALIZATION AND THE RETURNING CITIZEN

4

II.

PRISON TABLET PROGRAMS

5

III. PRISON PROFITEERING AND PREDATORY CONTRACTS
IV. PREVENTING PRISON PROFITEERING

V.

7
10

A. On No-Bid Contracts

11

B. On Commissions

11

C. Competitive Bidding as a Public Policy Instrument

12

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

14

A. Technology Isn’t Everything

14

B. Bridge the Teacher Gap

14

C. Collaborate with Researchers

15

CONCLUSION

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

16

BRIDGES FOR DIGITAL LITERACY

3

Introduction
When inmates become returning citizens, they emerge anachronisms in an
almost unrecognizable world. For Jesse Pender, a former inmate who was released in
2011 after serving a thirteen-year sentence, reentering society “was like going from
the old ages to Star Wars.”1 For another, while learning how to work smartphones
and apply for jobs on the Internet came with their own set of challenges, it was the
self-checkout counter at the grocery store that proved the most daunting.2 And when
it comes to finding employment, returning citizens face an uphill battle due to
digitalization, the diffusion of digital technology into nearly every aspect of business.3
A 2017 report found that jobs relying heavily on digital skills increased by more than
four times from 2002 to 2016.4 Meanwhile, jobs that reported little to no need for
digital skills, often the kinds of positions sought out by inmates upon release,5 were
cut in half over the same time period.6 Surrounded by a “digital moat,”7 incarcerated
populations are kept at a disadvantage due to a lack of access to training opportunities
in digital skills otherwise available to the general public. And without the ambient
exposure to digital technology free citizens encounter everyday, inmates have little
opportunity to learn by osmosis. The result is a returning prison population on the
far side of the digital divide — ill-prepared for the challenges of reentering free
society and vulnerable to recidivism.
Jesse Pender, interview with Manoush Zomorodi, WNYC Studios, Note to Self, podcast
audio, March 23, 2013, https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/notetoself/episodes/278113former-inmates-struggle-to-learn-new-technologies.
1

See Stephen LaConte, Ex-Prisoners Are Sharing the Things They Were Most Shocked to
Discover About the World When They Got Out, BUZZFEED (Aug. 13, 2020), https://
www.buzzfeed.com/stephenlaconte/prisoners-biggest-shocks-of-outside-world-reddit.
2

MURO ET AL., BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, DIGITALIZATION AND THE AMERICAN
WORKFORCE 3 (2017), https://www.brookings.edu/research/digitalization-and-theamerican-workforce.
3

4

From 5 percent in 2002 to 23 percent in 2016. See id. at 15.

5

See generally ADAM LOONEY & NICHOLAS TURNER, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, WORK

AND OPPORTUNITY BEFORE AND AFTER INCARCERATION (2018), https://www.brookings.edu/

wp-content/uploads/2018/03/es_20180314_looneyincarceration_final.pdf.
6

See supra note 4.

Dan Tynan, Online Behind Bars: If Internet Access is a Human Right, Should Prisoners Have
It?, THE GUARDIAN (Oct. 3, 2016, 6:00 AM), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/
oct/03/prison-internet-access-tablets-edovo-jpay.
7

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

4

DIGITAL LITERACY IN THE PRISON SYSTEM

The high likelihood of any given inmate to return to prison after release
represents a stubborn inefficiency in the criminal justice system, what researchers call
the “revolving door of America’s prisons,”8 that costs taxpayers billions every year.9 A
longitudinal study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics following 400,000 state prisoners
found that since release, more than half were rearrested within two years, and 83
percent within nine years.10 Fortunately, studies have shown that the solution is
fairly straightforward: focus on education and employment for inmates. In a metaanalysis compiling hundreds of studies conducted over thirty years, the RAND
Corporation found that inmates who participate in educational programs while in
prison are forty-three percent less likely to be re-incarcerated.11 This translates to
massive savings for taxpayers, with every dollar invested in prison education
estimated to return at least four dollars over the course of three years.12
But with the barrier to stable employment becoming increasingly
insurmountable for returning citizens who lack computer skills, it is necessary for
prison officials to rethink how, if at all, inmates encounter digital technology while
they are still incarcerated. Installing computer labs, for example, can afford inmates
who are interested in pursuing or continuing a technical career upon release a chance
to foster digital skills. Coursework in math and literature can be supplemented with
free digital content from resources like MIT OpenCourseWare and Khan Academy.
Apart from clear educational and career development opportunities for
inmates, an increased digital presence in prisons may also improve facility
PEW CENTER ON THE STATES, STATE OF RECIDIVISM: THE REVOLVING DOOR OF
AMERICA’S PRISONS (2011), https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/
pcs_assets/2011/pewstateofrecidivismpdf.pdf.
8

Taxpayer burden is amplified in states like California and New York that spend more
than twice the national average on inmates. See CHRIS MAI & RAM SUBRAMANIAN, VERA
INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, THE PRICE OF PRISONS: EXAMINING STATE SPENDING TRENDS, 2010 2015 8 (2015).
9

See ALPER ET AL., BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, 2018 UPDATE ON PRISONER
RECIDIVISM: A 9-YEAR FOLLOW-UP PERIOD (2005-2014) 2 (2018), https://www.bjs.gov/
content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514_sum.pdf.
10

See LOIS M. DAVIS ET AL., RAND CORPORATION, EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION: A META-ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE EDUCATION TO
INCARCERATED ADULTS 57 (2013), https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/
RR266.html.
11

Every dollar invested in prison education is estimated to return four to five dollars over
three years from an associated decrease in recidivism. See id. at 40.
12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

BRIDGES FOR DIGITAL LITERACY

5

management and logistics. For example, electronically distributed reading material
not only saves on the cost of materials, but also eliminates security concerns that
physical textbooks can stash contraband. For prison officials, controlling recreational
computer use introduces alternative behavior management techniques that can
reduce violent inmate interactions. A well-run prison technology program is a winwin situation that helps facilitate returning citizens’ transitions back to civilian life
amid rapid digitalization, while offering new inmate management solutions for
prison administrators.
Part I of this paper begins by discussing increasingly popular prison tablet
programs. Part II offers a comprehensive exploration of prison profiteering practices
by technology companies, discussing the emergence of virtual monopolies in the
prison technology space, their history of controversial pricing practices, and how
these practices are perpetuated in the inmate tablet programs they administer. Part III
presents novel insights into how competitive bidding can be used as a public policy
instrument to regulate competition. This paper concludes by outlining several
practical recommendations that prison officials should consider when administering
digital literacy programs in their facilities.
I. Prison Tablet Programs
The most popular manifestations of a prison technology program have come
in the form of prison tablets due to their low per-unit cost, low overhead, and ease of
distribution. Correctional facilities partner with prison technology companies like
JPay and Global Tel-Link (GTL) to provide inmates corrections-grade tablets
preloaded with a selection of games and music, educational content, mental health
and legal resources, and secure messaging services. In most cases, tablets come with a
restrictive operating system configured so that inmates are only able to access the
facility’s secure local area network (LAN). Inmates are unable to access the open
internet. The device itself is custom built with a shatter-resistant, transparent plastic
housing to ensure that it cannot be used to stash dangerous items and pieces of a
broken case cannot be made into a shiv.
While there have been no significant security breaches associated with
inmate tablets, there have been a few notable incidents. In 2015, prison officials in
Napa County, California, temporarily suspended a tablet pilot program amid reports
that some prisoners were trying to reset the devices in order to gain unrestricted

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

6

DIGITAL LITERACY IN THE PRISON SYSTEM

Internet access.13 Although officials note that these efforts would not have worked,
the tablets were temporarily confiscated from inmates as a precautionary measure
and have since been returned. In 2018, Idaho inmates exploited a vulnerability in
JPay’s software that allowed them to download $225,000 worth of music, books, and
movies for free.14 According to JPay, the vulnerability has since been resolved.15
Apart from these few isolated incidents, the vast majority of prison tablet
programs have proven to be secure and reliable staples in correctional facilities.
Prison education startup American Prison Data Systems (APDS) reported that their
tablets, deployed across eighty-eight facilities in seventeen states, have accumulated
over nine million hours of usage without any security problems.16
Tablet programs were also shown to enhance other aspects of prison
security. For instance, the emphasis on email and secure messaging reduces the risk
of paraphernalia being received through the postal system. Digital textbooks reduce
both the cost of materials and the potential risk for textbooks to be used to hide
contraband. But arguably the most significant effect of tablets on prison safety is their
ability to keep inmates busy, resulting in fewer altercations with officials and other
inmates. Captain Sean Stewart, who oversaw a six-month pilot program at his facility
in Pima County, Arizona, noted that since implementing their tablet program,
“suicide attempts and ideations are down 60 percent and ... successful suicides are
down 100 percent. Staff assaults are down 60 percent, and ... inmate-on-inmate
assaults are down 40 percent as well.”17 Some prison officials are experimenting with
using tablets as an alternative behavior management tool, taking away device
privileges if inmates misbehave or assigning mandatory anger management courses
Howard Yune, Napa Jail Hits Pause on Inmate Tablets, Awaits Security Updates, NAPA
VALLEY REGISTER (Jun. 1, 2015), https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/napa-jail-hitspause-on-inmate-tablets-awaits-security-updates/article_40427cd5-b835-5ffb-b8a7b3d9fb6777ec.html.
13

Rebecca Boone, Idaho Prison O icials: Inmates Hacked System to Get Credits, ASSOCIATED
PRESS (Jul. 26, 2018), https://apnews.com/article/dfd5dccdf75c4b5dbc97ff5ecf3f3d5b.
14

Taylor Hatmaker, Idaho Inmates Hacked Prison-Issued Tablets for $225,000 in Credits,
TECHCRUNCH (Jul. 27, 2018, 12:44 PM), https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/27/inmates-idahojpay-hack/.
15

American Prison Data Systems, APDS in Numbers, https://
apdscorporate.wpengine.com/our-impact/#apds-in-numbers.
16

Sean Stewart, How Tablets Are Helping Us Clean Up Our Prison, WASHINGTON EXAMINER
(Sep. 5, 2017, 12:01 AM), https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-tablets-are-helpingus-clean-up-our-prison.
17

f

f

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

BRIDGES FOR DIGITAL LITERACY

7

accessible through their device.18 The program was revolutionary for Captain
Stewart, who wrote: “[i]nmate tablets are the most effective inmate management tool
I have seen in my 25 years as a corrections professional.”19 Inmate tablets have gained
an avid following among many prison officials like Captain Stewart, especially those
who have seen the program at work in their own facilities. A 2021 survey found that
officials who work in digitally advanced prisons, despite some initial skepticism,
ultimately believe that such programs have a positive impact in their facilities.20
II. Prison Pro teering and Predatory Contracts
As more correctional facilities partner with technology companies like JPay
and GTL to adopt tablet programs, new problems emerge surrounding prison
profiteering practices. Through a series of acquisitions and mergers over three
decades, JPay and GTL have dominated the prison telecommunications space,
effectively becoming virtual monopolies. These anticompetitive practices have
allowed corporations to gouge families with high prices and fees for prison phone
calls,21 a practice which reportedly left one in three inmate families in debt22 and led
to proposed legislation and regulatory actions by the FCC. In 2015, the agency placed
caps on out-of-state prison phone call rates. Three years later, New York City became
the first major city to make phone calls free for inmates and their families,23 with
other cities and counties following suit. In an effort to bypass these regulatory
measures, some companies have resorted to indirect profiteering practices, such as
partnering with money transfer services like Western Union to charge families extra
See MICHELE COPPOLA, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, INMATE USE OF COMPUTER
TABLETS IN PIMA COUNTY 1-2 (2017), https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/
inmate-use-computer-tablets-pima-county.
18

19

Sean Stewart, supra note 17.

20Andrea

Mufarreh et al., Prison O icial Perceptions of Technology in Prison, PUNISHMENT &

SOC’Y (2021).
See generally PETER WAGNER & ALEXI JONES, PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE, STATE OF
PHONE JUSTICE (2019), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/state_of_phone_justice.html.
21

ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, WHO PAYS? THE TRUE COST OF
INCARCERATION ON FAMILIES 30 (2015), http://whopaysreport.org/wp-content/uploads/
2015/09/Who-Pays-FINAL.pdf.
22

Katie Honan, New York City Jail Inmates Can Now Make Free Phone Calls, WALL STREET
JOURNAL (May 1, 2019, 4:52 PM), https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-york-city-jail-inmatescan-now-make-free-phone-calls-11556743962.
23

f

f

fi

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

8

DIGITAL LITERACY IN THE PRISON SYSTEM

fees to add prison phone credits. For example, adding $50 of phone credits, enough
for just over two hours of conversation,24 incurs a $12 charge from Western Union.25
Profits can then be passed back to the telephone service providers in the form of
“revenue shares.”26
In recent years, these exploitative tactics have shifted to tablet programs.
Correctional facilities across the country often receive tablets from companies like
GTL and JPay free of charge to prisons and American taxpayers. While seemingly a
charitable gesture, this is actually a predatory pricing tactic used to gain market share.
Once companies have distributed tablets, often in exchange for an exclusive
contracting deal with the facility, they charge exorbitant prices for inmates to use the
devices, pricing ebooks, games, videos, music, and messaging services well above
their normal fair market price.27
For Jacob Carlson, an inmate at Virginia Beach Jail whose tablet was
provided for free by GTL, playing his favorite skateboarding video game on his
prison-issued tablet is a guilty pleasure that cost his family $200. Listening to an
audiobook can cost up to $20, and up to $46 to download a music album.28 At one
point, JPay collected profits on thousands of ebooks available to the general public for
free, although the company has since stopped this particular practice.29

24

Using 2018 state jail rates calling rates, $5 for 15 minutes. See supra note 21.

25

Id.

Id.; see also Prison Policy Initiative, Exhibit 2, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/
2019_exhibits/exhibit_2.pdf (an internal email exchange between Western Union and AmTel,
a prison telecommunications company, discussing “revenue sharing” practices).
26

See Tonya Riley, “Free” Tablets Are Costing Prison Inmates a Fortune, MOTHER JONES (Oct.
5, 2018), https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/tablets-prisons-inmates-jpaysecurus-global-tel-link/.
27

See Mack Finkel & Wanda Bertram, More States Are Signing Harmful “Free Prison Tablet”
Contracts, PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE (Mar. 7, 2019), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/
2019/03/07/free-tablets/; see also Edward Lyon, “Free” E-Tablets Are Anything But, 31 PRISON
LEGAL NEWS 44 (2020), https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2020/mar/4/free-e-tabletsare-anything/.
28

See Michael Waters, Free Tablets for the Incarcerated Come With a Price, THE OUTLINE
(Dec. 3, 2019, 9:59 AM), https://theoutline.com/post/8329/jpay-free-tablet-program-ripoff.
29

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

BRIDGES FOR DIGITAL LITERACY

9

These companies also increase their profit margin by cutting corners on the
quality of their products and services.30 Brian Hill, CEO of Edovo, an emerging
prison education startup aiming to compete against JPay, said of the latter’s education
programs: “Really, it’s a PDF and video dump of whatever content they can find. . . .
At the end of the day, they don’t care. . . . They’re big and they’re clunky and they
don’t try very hard.”
With email and video chat replacing collect calls and providing companies
with more opportunities to profit off its incarcerated user base, tablet programs can
be seen as a continuation of JPay and GTL’s historically controversial practices in
prison telecommunications. Every email requires paid “postage,” as does every
attached image and additional page, with the price of a digital stamp raised around
special days like Christmas and Mother’s Day.31 If families wish to spend time with an
incarcerated loved one over video chat, JPay charges $10 for thirty minutes and $1
for one thirty-second “videogram.”32 By charging inmates and their families excessive
fees to stay connected, companies exacerbate the issues their tablet program claims to
help solve, disproportionately affecting lower-income families who may not be able
to afford the costs of keeping touch with their loved one.33
A former inmate from New Orleans stated that prison “instantly destroyed
my family because of the distance and the cost associated with visiting and phone
calls. I suddenly became a dead person to them.”34 Another former inmate from
Oakland lost contact with his family, which “kept [him] from being able to plan for
[his] future after prison.”35 Having a future outside of prison that is supported by
loved ones is critical to reducing recidivism rates. Profiteering practices can force
lower-income families to choose between staying connected with an incarcerated
loved one and keeping the lights on at home.
Michael Waters, The Outrageous Scam of “Free” Tablets for the Incarcerated, THE OUTLINE
(Aug. 10, 2018, 9:49 AM), https://theoutline.com/post/5760/free-tablets-in-prisonnightmare.
30

31

See DAVID DAYEN, MONOPOLIZED: LIFE IN THE AGE OF CORPORATE POWER 272 (2020).

32

See id.

Families in regular contact are less likely to report experiencing separation or divorce
from partners or spouses, damaged child-parent relationships, and sibling separation. Families
who were able to stay in regular contact were also more likely to report that family
relationships became stronger. See ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, supra note 22.
33

34

Id. at 32.

35

Id. at 31.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

10

DIGITAL LITERACY IN THE PRISON SYSTEM

These practices evoke mixed feelings for John J. Lennon, a writer for the
Marshall Project, inmate at Sullivan Correctional Facility, and JPay tablet user. While
Lennon does not “pretend to ignore that [JPay] has some pretty indefensible pricing
practices,” their tablet program gives him and his fellow inmates “a crucial tether to
our loved ones on the outside.”36 In a New York Times op-ed, Lennon wrote:
Mom will probably die before I get out of prison. Her Parkinson’s has
advanced over the years, so she can’t visit. Until recently, I’d accepted that
I’d never see her again. But lately, she’s been sending me 30-second
videos.…It costs her about a dollar to send each message; to me, they are
priceless.37

These pricing practices appear morally questionable at best, and predatory at worst.
While there is no denying the positive impact of prison tablets on inmates and prison
officials,38 if programs are administered in a way that enables further prison
profiteering by private corporations, perhaps they will prove to bring more harm to
the criminal justice system than good.
III. Preventing Prison Pro teering
Profiteering practices by technology companies like JPay and GTL highlight
the need for regulations that foster market competition. Competitive bidding is a
traditional procurement process among public agencies to solicit multiple bids from
vendors for a variety of large-scale government projects such as the construction of
highways and stealth aircraft. Adopting competitive bidding allows public agencies to
partner with private entities while maintaining transparency and reducing spending.
And when combined with a well-designed system of regulations that align market
forces with governmental objectives, this auctionary approach can also be a valuable
instrument for public policy.

John J. Lennon, The Cost of Calling My Mom From Prison, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 12, 2021),
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/opinion/prison-internet-technology-jpay.html.
36

37

Id.

See id. (Lennon writes, “[The] tablet program offers a window to the world, a tool to
teach us, to inspire us, to build a network and career and to even earn income while in
prison.”)
38

fi

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

BRIDGES FOR DIGITAL LITERACY

11

A. On No-Bid Contracts
Historically, however, competitive bidding processes have had a tendency to
devolve into no-bid contracts where agencies only consider a single bidder, likely one
that has an already established relationship with the contracting agency, as a way to
fast-track the bidding process. This practice is especially prevalent in legal or
security-related contexts where limiting negotiations to a single company is
preferable. States have taken the initiative to improve their oversight of no-bid
contracts, after several reports of bribery, corruption, and improper procurement.
Christopher Epps, a former Mississippi corrections commissioner, is serving nearly
20 years in prison for accepting more than $1.4 million from GTL in exchange for
no-bid contracts; GTL agreed to pay a $2.5 million settlement.39 Inmate advocates
are calling for a ban on no-bid contracts in prisons to promote transparency and
prevent officials from engaging in corruption. Given the existing virtual monopolies
already operating in the prison technology space as well as the obvious securityrelated nature of this field, it is fair to expect no-bid contracts will emerge when the
opportunity arises. Specific measures should be implemented to eliminate such solesource procurements that subvert market competition and can further monopolistic
practices.
B. On Commissions
While competitive bidding is a simple way to foster competition, this system
does not ensure that the competitive aspects of proposals are necessarily aligned with
public policy goals. For example, in an effort to win over prison administrators, many
companies offer correctional facilities a portion of their profits through commissions.
Facilities are then inclined to not only pick the proposal offering the highest
commission, but also support efforts by companies to increase their profit margins,
even if it means compromising the quality of their services. In an exclusive contract
with GTL, South Dakota’s Department of Corrections (DOC) retained half of the
profits from secure messaging and a quarter from phone calls.40 Connecticut’s DOC
earns ten to thirty-five percent from profits made on audiobook and music

Ryan Martin, Tablets for Indiana Inmates May Be Free, But There’s A Catch, INDYSTAR
(Nov 20, 2017, 6:00 AM), https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2017/11/20/
indiana-prisons-tablets-offenders-inmates-department-correction/858322001/.
39

40

See supra note 28.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

12

DIGITAL LITERACY IN THE PRISON SYSTEM

purchases.41 Florida’s DOC states outright that they will award contracts to the
“bidder submitting the highest percentage commission.”42 This system incentivizes
administrators to award contracts solely based on the amount of commission a
company offers, regardless of the merits of their proposal, and aligns the interests of
correctional facilities and private corporations against those of inmates and their
families.
One natural solution some have proposed is to place a cap on the
commission correctional departments are allowed to receive. In theory, this would
ensure that bidders cannot rely solely on favorable commissions to secure contracts.
However, companies have found ways to get around this restriction. JPay and GTL,
for instance, changed their contracts’ operating language from commissions to signing
bonuses.43 After banning commissions, California accepted an $800,000 yearly
“administration fee” from GTL.44 Even if the definition of a “commission cap” were
expanded to include other forms of commission fees, companies remain free to
sweeten the pot in other ways unrelated to their proposal, such as with conditional
contributions to political campaigns and sheriff-led organizations.45 Imposing
commission caps is a necessary but insufficient provision that does little to change the
underlying incentive structures that enable prison profiteering.
C. Competitive Bidding as a Public Policy Instrument
Companies’ proclivity to entice prison administrators by shifting costs results
in what some refer to as the “basic problem” of consumers in corrections:

41

Id.

Mary Fainsod Katzenstein & Maureen Waller, Phone Calls Won’t Cost up to $14 a Minute
Anymore but Here’s How Prisoners’ Families Are Still Being Fleeced, WASHINGTON POST (Oct 26,
2015, 5:35 AM), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/10/26/
phone-calls-wont-cost-up-to-14-a-minute-anymore-but-heres-how-prisoners-families-arestill-being-fleeced/.
42

Peter Wagner & Alexi Jones, On Kickbacks and Commissions in the Prison and Jail Phone
Market, PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE (Feb. 11, 2019), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/
2019/02/11/kickbacks-and-commissions/.
43

Prison Policy Initiative, Comment Letter to FCC Addressing the Commission System 2
(Aug. 1, 2013), https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520935168.pdf.
44

45

Peter Wagner & Alexi Jones, see supra note 43.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

BRIDGES FOR DIGITAL LITERACY

13

[G]rowing prison populations have led to unsustainable correctional
budgets, which has led agencies to seek out so-called “no cost” contracts (in
reality, this simply means shifting costs from the public sector to
incarcerated people).46

Because its underlying incentive structure is bilateral, with mechanisms acting in the
mutual interests of bidders and buyers, a traditional competitive bidding process only
serves to worsen this “basic problem” and is insufficient to act as an effective policy
instrument. Reforming this system to advance public policy goals requires additional
mechanisms that protect inmate consumers from price-gouging tendencies. At
minimum, this would entail reviewing the language of any legal code governing the
sale of goods or services in corrections and ensuring that it contains clear provisions
that specifically protect inmates and their families. New York State, for instance, uses
concise, specific language to regulate profiteering practices for inmate telephone
services; correctional facilities in the state are mandated to consider “the lowest
possible cost to the telephone user” when procuring service.47 However, with no
concrete enforcement mechanisms, these provisions may prove to be largely
toothless.
Robust mechanisms should be (1) proportionate, contributing significant
regulatory forces that “pull” those governing bidders and buyers into an equilibrium,
and (2) adaptable, able to adapt and respond to any changes in the dynamics of the
other parties. One proposed solution that meets these criteria is the establishment of
a consumer review board, functionally similar to the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau,48 that would continually represent the interests of inmates and their families
and align market incentives with long-term policy goals.49
It is important for government agencies to partner with the private sector
when providing prison populations with technology. However, the emergence of
virtual monopolies in this space not only impedes productive, responsible
partnerships but also undermines the integrity of the criminal justice system. An
effective and sustainable set of regulatory mechanisms will foster competition and
Stephen Raher, The Company Store and the Literally Captive Market: Consumer Law in
Prisons and Jails, 17 HASTINGS RACE & POVERTY L.J. 3, 77 (2020).
46

47

N.Y. COR. LAW § 623

Similar, but not the same; there are nuances that would make entering into the
purview of the CFPB an unideal solution. See Catherine E. Akenhead, Note, How States Can
Take a Stand Against Prison Banking Pro iteers, 85 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1224, 1250 (2017).
48

Id. at 1256.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046
f

49

14

DIGITAL LITERACY IN THE PRISON SYSTEM

preserve consumer choice, disincentivize correctional departments from entering
into harmful contracts, and ensure that market forces align with the long-term
programmatic interests of the prison system. While this will certainly require a
coordinated response from all levels of government, most of the responsibility falls
on state governments to ensure that their correctional facilities are entering into
partnerships with responsible providers.50
IV. Program Recommendations
As more correctional facilities adopt inmate tablet programs, or generally
seek to increase inmate access to digital technology, program administrators should
keep in mind the following points.
A. Technology Isn’t Everything
Technology is essential; but technology isn’t everything. “Digitally advanced”
does not necessarily mean “better.” There is nothing inherently good or bad about an
increased digital presence in correctional facilities. If technology is used, for instance,
to enrich private companies, or as a brute-force cost-cutting measure that is
advertised as a superior replacement for an essential service, it can be a very bad
system. The Prison Policy Initiative conducted a comparative case study between two
states’ correctional departments that used two very different approaches to their
digitized law libraries.51 One, Oregon, adopted their digital library as a way to
provide inmates with legal materials not available in their facility’s limited collection.
The other, South Dakota, replaced essential in-person legal assistance with a law
research app accessible on inmates’ GTL tablets. The responsible digitization of
essential inmate services stems from the critical distinction of technology as a means
to an end rather than an end in itself. Regulations are needed to ensure that facilities
who choose to become digitally advanced are maximizing the utility of technology.
States can also adopt a set of well-defined milestones to continually incentivize
facilities’ productive use of technology.

50

See generally id.

See Stephen Raher & Andrea Fenster, A Tale of Two Technologies: Why “Digital” Doesn’t
Always Mean “Better” for Prison Law Libraries, PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE (Oct. 28, 2020),
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/10/28/digital-law-libraries/.
51

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

BRIDGES FOR DIGITAL LITERACY

15

B. Bridge the Teacher Gap
Digitally delivered coursework does not preclude the need for passionate,
qualified teachers. Brian Hill, the CEO of Edovo, emphasized that his company’s
inmate tablet program is “not a replacement for education programing, but it fills a
massive void in prisons today.”52 RAND’s meta-analysis found that inmate education
is significantly linked to decreasing recidivism rates; but the analysis also explored the
role of teachers in prison education and found that return on investment is
maximized when instructors act as effective conduits between inmates and the
outside world.53 Successful programs also continue offering support during the
critical three years after release, during which returning citizens are most likely to
recidivate.54
Correctional administrators should recognize the role of facilitators in
inmate tablet programs, specifically looking to the education and nonprofit sectors to
forge partnerships that can help bridge the teacher gap. The continuing success of
such programs ultimately lie in the strength of their community partnerships, which
are especially valuable in the not uncommon event that correctional budgets are cut
or diluted.
C. Collaborate with Researchers
Incarcerated populations are categorized by researchers as “hard-to-reach,”55
which can make it very difficult to produce meaningful studies that can inform public
policy decisions. The influential RAND meta-analysis, a work heavily cited in this
paper, used a dataset of fifty studies on correctional education conducted over several
decades, ranging from 1980 to 2011, to describe a correlation between education and
recidivism. But when it comes to finer points, the relationships are less clear cut and
often inconclusive. For instance, RAND’s meta-analysis found no statistically
significant improvement in academic performance for inmates who underwent
Ben Schiller, A Tablet-Based Distance Learning Program Reaches Its Way Into Jail, FAST
COMPANY (Sep. 06, 2016), https://www.fastcompany.com/3063279/a-tablet-based-distancelearning-program-reaches-its-way-into-jail.
52

53

See supra note 11 at 36.

54

See id.

Laura S. Abrams, Sampling ‘Hard to Reach’ Populations in Qualitative Research: The Case of
Incarcerated Youth, 9 QUALITATIVE SOCIAL WORK 536 (2010).
55

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

16

DIGITAL LITERACY IN THE PRISON SYSTEM

computer-assisted lessons relative to traditional instruction. Some may take this as an
indication that computer-based education programs are ineffective. However, with
the meta-analysis based on four studies conducted between 1980 and 2000, the data
set is sparse and far too outdated to apply to modern computing. RAND is careful to
note that these findings should not be used to draw any definitive conclusions and
emphasized the dire need for higher quality and more recent academic research in
corrections, a recurring theme throughout the report.
The increasing number of pilot programs in facilities presents many more
opportunities to enhance existing literature as well as contribute new knowledge
relating to the increasing use of digital technology in the prison system. Prison
officials should work with researchers and others in the academic community to
facilitate research that can better inform modern public policy decisions.
Conclusion
As the digital skills gap between returning citizens and society increases, so
too do the risks for recidivism. Amid rapid digitalization in the workforce, an
increased exposure to technology in corrections can help returning citizens upon
release by fostering much sought-after digital skills, significantly reducing their reincarceration risks. Inmate tablet programs can enhance lesson delivery for more
traditional education programs, access to legal resources, and personal development
programming such as parenting-while-incarcerated classes. For prison officials, these
programs introduce an alternative behavior management tool that has contributed to
a safer prison environment with fewer altercations.
However, the rollout of prison tablets has largely been controlled by JPay and
GTL, two technology companies that have held virtual monopolies in prison
telecommunications. The economic model behind such tablet programs appears
predatory and exploitative, a continuation of historically controversial pricing
practices in prison telephone services brought about by a lack of competition.
While emerging technology companies like Edovo and APDS offer some
much-needed competition, the market structure remains susceptible to
anticompetitive tendencies such as kickbacks and no-bid contracts. Fostering real
competition in the pursuit of public policy goals requires an understanding of the
underlying incentive structures that enable prison profiteering and strategically
designed regulations that ensure these structures are organized productively. One
promising solution may take the form of a consumer review board that advocates on
behalf of inmates and their families.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046

BRIDGES FOR DIGITAL LITERACY

17

The framework outlined in this paper has broader impacts that extend far
beyond the prison walls. Anticompetitive regulations exacerbate the poverty to
prison pipeline by continuing to drain incomes from families and communities
outside of the system. Women, who represent the overwhelming majority of family
members that shoulder the costs of incarceration, bear the brunt of prison
profiteering practices.56 Digital literacy programs give returning citizens the tools to
break vicious, intergenerational cycles that disproportionately affect low-income
families and communities of color.57 Returning citizens can become positive change
agents for their own communities, promoting upward mobility through technology.
The issue of prison reform has often been framed as a primarily social one,
with social and economic objectives ostensibly at odds with one another. The
promotion of digital literacy in prison populations, particularly through inmate tablet
programs, represents a significant divergence from this commonly held idea.
Investing in a well-run digital literacy program for our prison system is an innovative
solution to a persistent problem, and a rare win-win situation for inmates, prison
officials, and American taxpayers.

83% of the family members primarily responsible for conviction-related costs are
women. ELLA BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, supra note 22 at 9.
56

57

See id.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3812046