Before The
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
In re:

)
)
)

#Solutions 2020 Call to Action Plan

Public Notice #342689

COMMENTS ON
DRAFT #SOLUTIONS2020 ACTION PLAN
The Wright Petitioners, 1 Prison Policy Initiative, New Jersey Advocates for

Immigrant Detainees, and United Church of Christ, OC Inc. (collectively, the "ICS

Advocates"), hereby respond to the above-referenced Public Notice and submit these
Comments on the Draft #Solutions2020 Action Plan released on December 19, 2016 (the

"Action Plan"). While the Public Notice sought comment on a number of issues discussed in
the Action Plan, these comments are limited to those raised therein regarding the
Comprehensive Reform of Inmate Calling Services ("ICS").

In particular, the ICS Advocates have long-supported the Action Plan's call for the

development of "real competition" and "reasonable rates in ICS and video visitation
services," as well as the abolishment of "kickbacks to correctional facilities."2 Moreover,
the ICS Advocates applaud the Action Plan's recognition that any rule changes adopted with

regard to contraband cell phones should be mindful of the imposition of additional costs on
inmates and their families.

The Wright Petitioners are: Dorothy Wade, Annette Wade, Ethel Peoples, Laurie Nelson,
Winston Bliss, Sheila Taylor, Katharine Goray, Ulandis Forte, Charles Wade, Earl Peoples, Darrell
Nelson, Melvin Taylor, Jackie Lucas, Peter Bliss, David Hernandez, Lisa Hernandez, Vendella F. Oura,
along with The D.C. Prisoners’ Legal Services Project, and Citizens United for Rehabilitation of
Errants. Martha Wright, the grandmother of Ulandis Forte, passed away on January 18, 2015.
1

2

See Action Plan, pg. 2.

87383168.1

1

As set forth below, the ICS Advocates are supplying information regarding the

current state of the ICS industry with respect to the rates charged by ICS providers. This
information was gathered by undersigned counsel and Prison Policy Initiative staff in late
2016 from publically-available rate information supplied by the ICS providers.

The ICS Advocates are also providing additional information regarding efforts to

confront the serious issue of contraband cellphones.

Specifically, included in these

comments are studies discussing the connection between the recent efforts to reduce ICS

phone rates and the reduction in confiscations of contraband cellphones, as well as case

studies of past implementations of costly Managed Access Systems ("MAS") which raise

serious doubts whether the cost of such systems (which is passed on to inmates and their

families and/or taxpayers in general) are sufficiently outweighed by the benefits these
systems provide.

I.

BACKGROUND

The Wright Petitioners have been actively seeking ICS reform before the Federal

Communications Commission since 2002. While their interest originated in a desire to

terminate exclusive contracts between private correctional authorities and ICS providers, 3

when the Commission expressed its reluctance to intercede, the Wright Petitioners sought
comprehensive reform for ICS rates in 2007. 4 Since the submission of the Alternative
Proposal, the ICS industry has undergone tremendous changes.

See Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Petition of Martha Wright et al. for Rulemaking or, in the
Alternative, Petition to Address Referral Issues in Pending Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-128 (filed
Nov. 3, 2003) ("Wright Petition").
3

See Implementation of the Pay Telephone Reclassification and Compensation Provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Petitioners’ Alternative Rulemaking Proposal, CC Docket No. 96128 (filed Mar. 1, 2007) ("Alternative Petition").
4

2

Gone are the dominant incumbent local exchange carriers. With the exception of

CenturyLink, no incumbent LEC provides ICS to the public. Now, the marketplace is
dominated by a small number of companies, each vying to becoming a "one-stop shop" for

correctional authorities. These companies route all communications (i.e., phone, video,

email) to their centralized call centers, whereby the security measures requested by
correctional authorities are imposed, and then are passed onto the recipients.

As a result, even if a communication is local in nature, the ICS provider routes the

communication to its centralized location (in most cases, out of state) before delivering it
across the street. As the ICS Advocates conclusively demonstrated in WC Docket 12-375,

this consolidation among the ICS providers, along with rapid technological changes, have
led to a steep decline in the cost to provide ICS to the public.

The Action Plan highlights two issues that have yet to be resolved with finality –

establishing reasonable rates and charges for ICS communications (phone and video

visitation) and introducing competition into the ICS marketplace. Also addressed are the
"kickbacks" that ICS providers voluntarily agree to pay to correctional authorities in order

to secure monopoly control over all inmate communications at a particular correctional

facility, including visitations involving the families of inmates.

As discussed below, because certain ICS providers have obtained a court-ordered

stay of the rules that would have capped intrastate ICS rates, several ICS providers are

charging substantially higher intrastate ICS rates than what they charge for interstate ICS
rates. 5 These rates were adjusted by ICS providers after the FCC's October 2015 Second
Report and Order in WC Docket 12-375 so to ensure that the ICS provider and correctional
5

See Securus Technologies Inc. v. FCC, No. 16-1321 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 2, 2016).
3

facility "remain whole." 6 The result is that some ICS providers charge $10 - $15 more to

make an ICS call across the street than they charge for a call between Alaska and Florida.

Finally, with respect to the serious security issues arising from the use of

contraband cell phones in correctional facilities, the Wright Petitioners have previously

expressed a concern regarding the possibility that the cost of high-priced surveillance
systems may be passed onto inmates and their families through higher ICS rates and fees.

The Wright Petitioners have also urged the Commission to adopt policies to protect nonoffending inmates and their families from such costs, especially in light of several less-

costly options that would reduce the possibility of introducing contraband cell phones into
the correctional facilities.
II.

DISCUSSION

A. Ensuring Reasonable Rates and Fees For All ICS Products.
Not surprisingly, the ICS Advocates strongly support the Action Plan's goal of

encouraging reasonable rates in ICS phone and video visitation services. The Alternative
Proposal submitted in 2007 provided extensive evidence that the cost of providing ICS

phone service was no more than 15 cents per minute, even for the smallest of facilities. To

ensure that ICS providers would receive just and reasonable compensation, the Alternative

Proposal urged the Commission to establish benchmark rates at 21 cents for prepaid and
debit interstate ICS phone calls, and 25 cents for interstate collect ICS phone calls. The
2008 Wood Study confirmed that determination.

6
See Opposition to GTL’s Petition for Waiver, dated June 17, 2016, at Appendix B, Appendix C.
See also Wright Petitioners Ex Parte Presentation, dated July 29, 2016, at Exhibit B.

4

Subsequent evidence, including ICS contracts that promised site commissions above

50% and ICS rates less than 10 cents conclusively demonstrated that the cost of actually

providing ICS to consumers was substantially below those set forth in the Alternative
Proposal. As such, the Wright Petitioners urged the Commission in 2013 to establish ICS

rates at 7 cents per minute, with no ancillary fees. The 2013 Order established safe-harbor
and benchmark ICS rates, 7 and the 2015 Order eliminated the safe-harbor rate, and
established a tiered rate plan depending on the size of the correctional facility. 8

Subsequently, the 2016 Order on Reconsideration raised the ICS rate caps adopted in 2015

Order to account for the argument made by ICS providers and correctional authorities that
it was more costly to serve smaller correctional facilities. 9

Despite the adoption of ICS rate caps that were well above the demonstrated cost of

providing ICS service, both the ICS providers and several correctional authorities appealed
the 2015 Order and the 2016 Order on Reconsideration, and they remain pending at this
time. Moreover, even though the Commission upwardly adjusted the ICS rate caps in the

2016 Order on Reconsideration, the ICS providers and correctional authorities appealed
that decision, and obtained a stay. The most obvious result of the pending appeals of the

Commission's efforts to implement comprehensive ICS rate cap reform is that there is now

a substantial disparity between the rates that ICS providers are charging for intrastate calls
as compared to interstate calls.

See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 14,107 (2013)("2013 ICS Order").
7

See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Second Report and Order and Third Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 12,763 (2015) ("2015 ICS Order").

8

9
See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 9,300
(2016) ("2016 Order on Reconsideration").

5

Attached as Exhibit A is a table consisting of intrastate rates that were being charged

by the major ICS providers in late 2016. As reflected therein, it is clear that some ICS
providers are taking advantage of the absence of rate caps for intrastate ICS phone calls by

substantially raising the per-minute rate. Moreover, it would appear that some providers
are charging a substantially higher first-minute rate than for all subsequent minutes.

At first glance, this appears to be permissible because the intrastate ICS rate cap has

been stayed. However, Section 64.6080 of the Commission's rules went into effect in March
2016. That rule prohibits the imposition of "per-connection" charges. 10 That rule was
adopted to eliminate the prior practice of ICS providers whereby their customers would be
charged a "connection fee" of $3.00 to $5.00, then a per-minute charge on top of that fee.

As reflected in Exhibit B, it would appear that, for many correctional facilities,

Securus charges substantially higher first-minute rates than what it charges for all
subsequent minutes. Global Tel*Link also follows this practice, as shown in Exhibit C.

Finally, as reflected in Exhibit D, Legacy Inmate Communications continues to charge a
connection fee for intrastate calls, in apparent violation of Section 64.6080 of the

Commission's rules. It also bears mentioning that, despite providing service to more than

200 correctional authorities, Legacy Inmate Communications conceded to undersigned

counsel that it failed to participate in the 2014 Mandatory Data Collection. 11

This rate information demonstrates that the Commission has a long way to go to

ensure that ICS consumers are protected from unjust, unreasonable and unfair intrastate
ICS rates. This information also demonstrates that several ICS providers have taken
10
11

See 47 C.F.R. §64.6080 (2016).
See Exhibit E.

6

advantage of the uncertainty surrounding ICS rates to gouge intrastate ICS consumers in
county or local correctional facilities by charging widely-divergent per-minute rates that

bear a remarkable similarity to prior rate structures that have since been prohibited under

Section 64.6080 of the Commission's rules. While there have been some reductions at the

county level, 12 a majority of ICS providers continue to charge unjust, unreasonable, and
unfair intrastate ICS rates.

Therefore, the ICS Advocates urge the Commission to incorporate specific language

into the Action Plan which outlines the efforts to be taken to bring parity among intrastate

and interstate ICS rates. As noted in a prior submission, it would appear that state public
utility commissions have largely abandoned their regulatory authority to address this
matter at the state level, 13 so it is incumbent upon the Commission to continue to press for

comprehensive reform which will protect ICS consumers from unjust, unreasonable and
unfair ICS rates and fees for all ICS communication services.

B. Introducing Competition Into ICS Marketplace.

The ICS Advocates strongly support the Commission's efforts to introduce

competition into the ICS marketplace. In fact, the original Wright Petition sought to end
exclusive contracts between privately-owned prisons and ICS providers. 14 The Wright

Petitioners conclusively demonstrated that, even in 2003, it was possible to introduce

multiple ICS providers at a correctional facility while still maintaining the requisite security
protocols.

As the Wright Petitioners noted seventeen years ago, the introduction of

12

See New Jersey P.L.2016, c.37 (2016).

14

See Wright Petition, pg. 3.

See Opposition to Petition for Stay Pending Judicial Review by State and Local Government
Petitioners, WC Dkt. 12-375, pgs.6-7 (filed Sept. 9, 2016).
13

7

competition would "quickly bring the rates charged by [ICS providers] down to their actual
efficient costs." 15

In light of the Commission's reluctance to adopt the proposal to introduce

competition into the ICS marketplace, the Wright Petitioners' submitted the Alternative
Petition in an effort to minimize the impact of such reluctance on ICS consumers. The

Alternative Proposal preserved the monopolistic practices of correctional authorities and
ICS providers, but sought the adoption of benchmark ICS rates at levels well above the

demonstrated cost of providing service. 16 Because the Commission's past reliance on
competition to reduce rates was shown to be misguided due to the existence of exclusive
contracts, the Wright Petitioners argued that the adoption of benchmark rates would
preserve the monopolistic practices, but deliver urgently-needed relief to ICS consumers. 17

The first two orders released in WC Docket 12-375 did not substantively address

the issue of introducing competition into the ICS marketplace. The Third Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking sought comment on "whether there are ways to promote
competition within the ICS market to enable the Commission to sunset or eliminate our

regulations adopted herein in the future." 18 The Commission also sought comments on
whether there were "ways to mitigate concerns raised in the record that multiple providers
could increase burdens and make it 'more difficult…to maintain security.'" 19
15
16

Id., pg. 12.

See Alternative Petition, pg. 4.

Billed Party Preference for InterLATA 0+ Calls, Second Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd 6122 (1998), mod., 16 FCC Rcd 22,314 (2001).
17

See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Third Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 12,900 (2015) ("3rd FNPRM").
18
19

Id., 30 FCC Rcd at 12,902 (quoting County of Butler Prison Board).
8

In response, the Wright Petitioners updated its 2003 competition proposal, and

supplied a detailed outline demonstrating how competition in the ICS marketplace could be
introduced. In light of the fact that the Commission has yet to act on the 3rd FNPRM, the

ICS Advocates have attached the proposal that was previously presented, and hereby
incorporate that proposal herewith. 20 All parties to WC Docket 12-375 have been aware of

this proposal, and several parties provided their response to the proposal in their reply
comments.

Since at least 2003, the Commission could have adopted rules to introduce

competition into the ICS marketplace, and since 2003 it has also been true that the ICS

providers and correctional authorities have rejected those efforts. It is clear that the
Commission's reliance on market forces over the intervening 17 years has utterly failed to

deliver the statutorily-mandated just, reasonable and fair rates.

Therefore, the ICS

Advocates encourage the incorporation of their 2016 proposal into the final draft of the
Action Plan.

C. Eliminating Site Commissions (Kickbacks) To Correctional Facilities.

In 2003, the Wright Petitioners urged the Commission to prohibit the practice of ICS

providers paying correctional authorities a site commission in exchange for monopoly
control of a correctional facility. As noted then, the payment of site commissions reinforced

the absence of competition to service ICS consumers, and led to the perverse incentive for
ICS providers to raise ICS rates and fees.

See Exhibit F (Wright Petitioners' 3rd FNPRM Comments); See Exhibit G (Wright
Petitioners' 3rd FNPRM Reply Comments).
20

9

In the more recent proceeding that commenced in 2013, the ICS Advocates have

expressed the opinion that the Commission can reign in excessive site commission

payments by introducing competition into the ICS marketplace and/or establishing caps on
ICS rates or fees that effectively limited the ability of ICS providers to pay site commissions.

The Commission agreed with this approach, which led to the adoption of caps on all ICS
rates and fees.

After years of playing coy regarding the payment of site commissions, 21 ICS

providers ultimately renounced their interest in participating in this practice, but also
mandated that the Commission establish a "per-minute" facility fee that would be tacked
onto the ICS rates and would go directly to the correctional authority. 22 The Wright

Petitioners objected to this proposal, noting that ICS providers funnel additional forms of

consideration to correctional authorities through many different avenues, and that the
correctional authorities had failed to establish that their costs in making ICS available were

sufficient to justify reimbursement. Not surprisingly, the correctional authorities also
rejected this approach. 23

Thus, as in the case of introducing competition into the ICS marketplace, the

Commission's approach in regulating the ICS rates and fees will protect ICS consumers, and
give ICS providers and correctional authorities the ability to divvy up the profits how they

See Overnight Tech: Inmate Phone Industry Says It's Not The 'Bad Guy', The Hill (Oct. 19,
2015) (stating that GTL did not advocate for the elimination of site commissions previously
“because it would have been business suicide."). See also 2016 Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC
Rcd at 9313, nt. 98, and 31 FCC Rcd at 9316, nt. 116 (noting Lipman's lack of disclosure as to the
identity of his client in the proceeding.).
21

See Letter from Brian D. Oliver, Chief Executive Officer, GTL, et al., to Chairman Tom Wheeler,
Chairman, FCC, WC Docket No. 12-375, at 5 (filed Oct. 16, 2016).
22
23

Opposition of the National Sheriffs’ Association, WC Docket No. 12-375 (filed Mar. 23, 2016).
10

see fit. The ICS Advocates would prefer that (i) no site commissions are paid, (ii) there is

competition in the ICS marketplace, and (iii) rates are capped at $0.07 or below for all

forms of ICS communications. However, to the extent that correctional authorities demand
site commissions and ICS providers reject competition, the Action Plan's promotion of just,

reasonable, and fair rates and fees for all ICS communications (i.e., phone, video visitation,
email) is the best approach to protect ICS consumers.

D. Protecting Inmates and Families From Shifting Costs Relating to
Contraband Cell Phone Detection and Control Technology.

Lastly, the Action Plan correctly recognizes that the costs associated with the

development and installation of technology to thwart the use of contraband cell phones
should not be shifted onto ICS consumers. This is a very real concern, especially as ICS
providers begin to include costly Managed Access Systems into their ICS contracts.

For example, in June 2016, Securus announced that successfully delivered MAS

systems in a third state department of correction facility. 24 In the Press Statement, Securus
noted that it had invested $40 million in developing the technology. Richard A. Smith, the
Chief Executive Officer of Securus, also stated:

MAS systems do not usually stand on their own economically – but when we
combine them with inmate audio communications, video, inmate funding, jail
management systems, electronic medical records, grievance reporting, data
analytics, parolee GPS tracking, location based services, inmate tablets,
electronic books, and inmate education/job searches – that is a bundle of
products that helps everyone. 25

This statement is particularly alarming for two reasons. First, Mr. Smith confirms that the
systems are not economic as stand-alone acquisitions. Second, Mr. Smith confirms that the

See Securus Announces Third DOC Facility to Approve/Accept Its Managed Access Systems
(MAS) Technology, Press Statement, June 20, 2016.
24
25

Id.

11

"one-stop shop" approach that has taken hold in the ICS marketplace will lead to the
recovery of the $40 million investment from inmates and their families through higher ICS
rates and fees.

Making matters worse for the pocketbooks of inmates and their loved ones is that

several studies have demonstrated that the MAS technologies do not offer a comprehensive

solution to the presence of contraband cellphones in correctional facilities. Previously, the

Wright Petitioners submitted a report by the Inspector General of the Department of
Justice which highlighted the prominent role of correctional officers in smuggling cell
phones into their own facilities. 26

Two studies that separately reviewed the installation of MAS technology in the

Mississippi State Penitentiary and the Baltimore City Jail Complex raise similar questions
regarding those systems. For example, with respect to the Baltimore City Jail Complex, the
report concluded that:

A significant conclusion that can be made is that while managed access had a
significant impact within the facilities where it was deployed, other factors
unrelated to the technology such as policy changes also contributed to the
overall decline of illegal cellphone use throughout the prison system (to
include faculties with deployed managed access systems). When queried
about this overall trend system-wide, DPSCS suggested that increased
vigilance implemented through policy changes, as well as increased
mandatory penalties for those caught with an illegal device contributed to
this reduction. For example, it was suggested that rotating correctional staff
between regional prison entrance check points likely impacted the ability for
staff members to smuggle in illegal devices. The consequences of possession
of an illegal cellular device in a Maryland correctional facility have changed
to now include criminal penalties, via misdemeanor charges which can result

See Ex Parte Submission, GN Docket 13-111, July 11, 2016. That submission also cited thenrecent RFI response by CenturyLink to the Virginia Department of Corrections, wherein
CenturyLink asserted that the cost of MAS installations "must be 'priced in' to the [provider's]
financial offer" and that this type of system will not 'pay for itself" by an increase in ICS call volume.
In light of the bulky nature of the July 11, 2016 submission, the ICS Advocates hereby incorporate
that filing by reference (https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10712066601324).

26

12

in up to a 3 year jail sentence. It was also noted that administrative sanctions
that can now be levied against prisoners, to include disciplinary segregation
and loss of privileges. 27

A similar finding was made in the report analyzing the implementation of MAS in
Mississippi. That report sounded a strong cautionary warning with respect to the costly
MAS technology:

The corrections community must understand that managed access is
not – and should not – be considered a silver bullet solution for the
contraband cell phone problem. Cellular devices that cannot transmit a call
or text pose potential harm in the correctional environment. Managed access
should be utilized in conjunction with physical search and seizures of
contraband cell phones. As noted above, multifunction device capabilities
that fall outside of the scope of cellular communications simply cannot be
managed with managed access technology and have to be mitigated via other
means. Managed access technology serves as a tool to mitigate use of these
devices by denying cellular service, diminishing the overall utility of
smuggling these devices into a correctional facility. Clearly inmate use of
multifunction device capabilities which fall outside of cellular
communications requires mitigation using non-managed access system
methods, to include physical intervention. Put simply, managed access
technology should be viewed as supplemental to existing contraband
policies and practices.28

Similarly, some correctional authorities have shifted away from the costly MAS technology.

For example, despite entering into an 2012 agreement with GTL to implement MAS

technology at all state correctional facilities, the State of California recently announced that
it was acquiring significantly cheaper cell phone detection systems from Metrasens. 29

In a related news article, the decision was made to move "from call blocking to trying to

keep the phones out in the first place." 30 Finally, the State of Missouri recently amended a

See Analysis of Managed Access Technology In An Urban Deployment: Baltimore City Jail
Complex, Fred Frantz, Phil Harris, September 2016, pgs. 36-37 (attached as Exhibit H).
27

28
A Case Study of Mississippi State Penitentiary's Managed Access Technology, Eric Grommon,
Ph.D., et al, August 2015, pg. 87 (attached as Exhibit I) (emphasis added).

29
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Chooses Cellsense from Metrasens,
Press Statement, Digital Media Online, Sept. 1, 2016.

13

pending Request for Proposal to eliminate the MAS requirement, shifting instead to
significantly less expensive contraband detection systems. 31

As noted above, the ICS Advocates' sole concern with respect to the contraband

cellphone subject matter is to ensure that the costs associated with the acquisition and
implementation of these systems are not passed onto non-offending inmates and their
families. It is well established that a cognizable share of contraband cellphone usage
relates to an effort on the part of inmates to avoid the unjust, unreasonable and unfair ICS
rates and fees that are currently being charged by ICS providers. 32

In fact, the Acting Commissioner of the New York Department of Corrections and

Community Supervision previously submitted a letter, wherein he stated:

The Department believes that a lower calling rate has also contributed to a
lower rate of illicit cell phone use by inmates in New York. In 2012, the
Department confiscated less than 100 cell phones, compared to over ten
thousand annual seizures in comparably-sized correctional systems…Phone
rates are a contributing factor [to the reduction], but so too are good security
measures for both visitation and perimeter security, adequate training and

Cellphones Keep Cropping Up Inside California Prisons, Andria Borba, et al, Nov. 15, 2016
(www.sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/11/15/cellphones-keep-cropping-up-inside-californiaprisons/).
30

Addendum #2 to Solicitation No. RFP T30034901700137, State of Missouri
(http://missouribuys.mo.gov/bidboard.html).

31

32
See, e.g., Disconnected–The Safe Prisons Communications Act Fails To Address Prison
Communications, Jane C. Christie, 51 Jurimetrics Journal 17, 50-53 (2010) ("Lack of affordable and
regular telephone communication between inmates and their families has pushed many desperate
families to turn to contraband cell phones….Even proponents of jamming technology have
recognized that increased legal access to telephones could decrease the amount of contraband cell
phones.") (citing Deadly Weapon, Vince Beiser, Wired, June 2009, pg. 132, 137 ("But investigations
have established that most calls placed on contraband mobiles are harmless—just saying hi to
family and friends.") and Cheap Calls For Inmates Cut Cell Phone Smuggling, Paul Hammel, Omaha
World-Herald, May 17, 2010, at B1 ("Houston said several states and even private prison
corporations have contacted Nebraska about its relatively few problems with cell phone smuggling.
He has recommended that they lower their phone call rates.")).

14

compensation for line staff, and a zero tolerance policy that does not allow
anyone to possess a cell phone inside a New York State prison. 33

As such, to the extent that the Commission can establish lasting reforms with respect to ICS

rates and fees, correctional authorities will see that the demand for contraband cellphone
will be reduced. Furthermore, to the extent that there are less expensive options, including

cutting off the flow of contraband cellphones through the enforcement of staff inspections
and acquiring the substantially cheaper passive detection systems, it is likely that the
supply of contraband cellphones will be significantly cut-off.

Only after the correctional authorities have taken these straight-forward

approaches to addressing contraband cellphones, and have seen these efforts not be
effective, should a determination be made as to whether inmates and their families should

be left holding the bill for these million-dollar technological solutions. However, in no
respect should the Commission permit ICS providers or correctional authorities to shift the
cost of these systems onto the backs of inmates and their families through unregulated ICS

rates and fees, and the ICS Advocates appreciate the acknowledgement of that risk in the
Action Plan, and strongly support efforts to reduce the impact on ICS consumers..
III.

CONCLUSION

As always, the ICS Advocates would like to express their gratitude to Commissioner

Clyburn for her relentless efforts to ensure that inmates and their families are protected

from unjust, unreasonable and unfair ICS rates, fees and practices imposed upon them by
the ICS providers and correctional authorities.

33
Letter of Anthony J. Annucci, Acting Commissioner, dated July 8, 2013, pg. 2, nt. iii, WC
Docket 12-275.

15

The #Solutions2020 Action Plan demonstrates Commissioner Clyburn's dedication

to protecting consumers, and we stand ready to assist in any way to reach that goal.
Respectfully submitted,

THE WRIGHT PETITIONERS,
PRISON POLICY INITIATIVE,
NEW JERSEY ADVOCATES FOR
IMMIGRANT DETAINEES, and
UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, OC INC.

By:

January 11, 2017

Lee G. Petro
DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
1500 K Street N.W.
Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005-1209
(202) 230-5857

Counsel to the Wright Petitioners

16

EXHIBIT A

Intra-State Rates for ICS Providers
(collected November 28 – December 12, 2016)
State

Facility

ICS Provider

AL
AZ
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
ID
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
LA
MO
MO
MO
NC
NV
NV
NV
TX
UT
UT
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WV
AL
AL
AR

Department of Corrections – All Locations
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Escambia County
Hernando County
Hillsborough County
Leon County
Okeechobee County
Pasco County
Putnam County
Sumter County
Walton County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Johnson County
Kansas Juvenile
Larned Hospital
Larned Juvenile
East Baton Rouge Parish
Cole County Sheriff
Jackson County
Platte County
Lenoir County Jail
Clark County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Las Vegas City
Department of Criminal Justice–All Locations
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Salt Lake County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Milwaukee HOC
Milwaukee Jail
Resource Center
Sand Ridge
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Fayette County Jail
Jefferson County – All Locations
Jefferson County Adult Jail

CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
CenturyLink
GTL
GTL
GTL

*
#

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.11
0.17
0.21
0.40
0.15
0.40
0.16
0.25
0.10
0.25
0.25
0.21
0.11
0.25
0.26
0.19
0.19
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.03
0.21
0.21
4.64

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.11
0.17
0.21
0.40
0.15
0.40
0.16
0.25
0.10
0.25
0.25
0.21
0.11
0.25
0.26
0.19
0.19
0.12
0.14
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.03
0.21
0.21
0.69

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.75
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.00
3.15
3.75
3.15
3.75
3.75
3.75
1.65
2.55
3.15
6.00
2.25
6.00
2.40
3.75
1.50
3.75
3.75
3.15
1.65
3.75
3.90
2.85
2.85
1.80
2.10
2.10
1.80
1.50
0.47
3.15
3.15
14.30

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
AR
AR
AR
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
*
#

Facility
Sebastian County Jail
Washington County AR Jail
White County Jail
APACHE Junction AZ- City Detention Unit
Avondale City Detention Facility
CCA Saguaro Correctional Center
Chandler City Detention Facility
Gila County – All Locations
Glendale City Jail
Maricopa County – All Locations
Mesa City Holding Facility
Mohave County Juvenile Detention Center
Pima County - All Locations
Alameda County – All Locations
CADOC – Department of Corrections – All
Locations
CADOC – Custody to Community
Transitional Reentry Program
CADOC – Division of Juvenile Justice
Contra Costa County – All Locations
El Dorado County – All Locations
Glenn County Sheriff Department
Humboldt County – All Locations
Kern County – All Locations
Lake County Jail – All Locations
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles Police Department
Marin County Jail
Marin County Probation
Mendota FCI
Merced County – All Locations
Orange County, CA
San Benito County
San Bernardino County Juvenile
San Diego MCC
San Francisco County Jail
San Joaquin County Juvenile Detention
San Luis Obispo County
Santa Clara County
Shafter Community Correctional (CCF)
Shasta County

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.75
5.00
4.09
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.46
0.22
0.20
3.70
0.21
0.20
3.65

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.25
0.00
0.29
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.46
0.22
0.20
0.30
0.21
0.20
0.65

15 Min.
Rate ($)
7.25
5.00
8.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
6.90
3.30
3.00
7.90
3.15
3.00
12.75

GTL

0.14

0.13

2.02

GTL

0.21

0.21

3.15

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

0.03
0.25
0.40
0.40
0.42
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.40
3.65
0.29
0.48
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.21
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29

0.03
0.25
0.40
0.40
0.42
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.40
0.65
0.29
0.48
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.21
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29

0.45
3.75
6.00
6.00
6.30
4.65
4.35
4.35
4.35
6.00
12.75
4.35
7.20
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
3.15
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35

ICS Provider

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
DE
*
#

Facility
Solano County
Solano Probation Juvenile Hall
Sonoma County
Sonoma County - Juvenile Justice Center
Stanislaus County – All Locations
Tehama County Jail
Terminal Island FCI
Tulare County
USMC Camp Pendleton Brig
USN_CA-USMC Miramar NAVONBRIG
Ventura County - Juvenile Probation
Ventura County Jail
Victorville USP
Yolo County Jail
Yuba County Jail
Arkansas Valley (AVCF)
Bent County Correctional (BCCF)
Buena Vista Correctional (BVCC)
Canon Minimum Centers (CMC)
Centennial Correctional (CCF)
Cheyenne Mountare-Entry (CMRC)
Colorado Correctional Center
Colorado DOC – Youthful Offender System
Colorado State Penitentiary
Colorado State Penitentiary II
Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility
Colorado Youth Corrections – All Locations
Crowley County Correctional Facility - CCA
Delta Correctional Center
Denver R and D Center (DRDC)
Denver Women's Correctional (DWCF)
El Paso County – All Locations
Fremont Correctional (FCF)
La Vista Correctional Facility
Limon Correctional Facility
Rifle Correctional Center
San Carlos Correctional Facility
Sterling Correctional Facility
Trinidad Correctional Facility
Department of Corrections – All Locations

ICS Provider
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.16
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.23
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.31
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.44
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.05

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.16
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.23
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.31
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.44
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.05

15 Min.
Rate ($)
2.40
2.40
3.75
3.75
3.45
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.65
4.65
4.35
4.35
4.35
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.65
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
6.60
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
0.75

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
HI
IA
IA
IA
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
*
#

Facility

ICS Provider

Blackwater River Facility (GEO)
Brevard County
Charlotte County
Collier County
Duval County – All Locations
GEO Bay Correctional Facility
GEO Graceville Correctional Facility
GEO Moore Haven Correctional Facility
Highlands County FL-Jail
Indian River County
Lee County – All Locations
Manatee County Detention
Martin County
Miami-Dade County – All Locations
Orange County Jail
Pinellas County
Polk County – All Locations
Santa Rosa County FL-Work Release
St. Lucie County
Clarke County GA- Jail
Cobb County, GA
Department of Corrections – All Locations
East Point Law Enforcement Center Georgia
Gwinnett County, GA- Correctional Complex
Pelham County
South Fulton
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Black Hawk County Jail
Iowa State Training School
Scott County Jail
DuPage County Corrections
Peoria County IL-Jail
Allen County IN-Work Release
Clay County-IN
Delaware County, IN
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Heritage Trails Correctional Facility - GEO
Howard County, IN
Lake County – Community Corrections
Madison County – Justice Center

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.11
0.25
0.16
0.16
0.28
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.16
0.22
0.22
0.30
0.26
0.14
0.14
0.24
0.36
0.21
0.25
0.11
0.12
0.17
0.21
0.13
2.19
2.70
0.13
0.22
0.11
0.16
0.21
0.21
0.24
0.67
2.55
0.24
0.21
0.24
0.24
0.32

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.11
0.25
0.16
0.16
0.28
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.16
0.22
0.22
0.30
0.26
0.14
0.14
0.24
0.36
0.21
0.25
0.11
0.12
0.17
0.21
0.13
0.19
0.00
0.13
0.22
0.11
0.16
0.21
0.21
0.24
0.67
0.30
0.24
0.21
0.24
0.24
0.32

15 Min.
Rate ($)
1.65
3.75
2.40
2.40
4.20
1.65
1.65
1.65
2.40
3.30
3.30
4.50
3.90
2.10
2.10
3.60
5.40
3.15
3.75
1.65
1.80
2.55
3.15
1.95
4.85
2.70
1.95
3.30
1.65
2.40
3.15
3.15
3.60
10.05
6.75
3.60
3.15
3.60
3.60
4.80

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State

Facility

ICS Provider

IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
KS
KS
KS
KS
LA
LA
LA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MO
MO
MS
MS

Madison County – Men's and Women's WR
Marion County – Main Jail
Marion County Superior Court Juvenile
Monroe County Jail
St. Joseph County Jail
Tippecanoe County Jail
JRFC Ft. Leavenworth
Leavenworth County Jail
Riley County
USDB Ft. Leavenworth
Concordia Parish
Jackson Correctional Center
Ouachita Parish Correctional
Department of Corrections - All Locations
Hampden County - Alcohol Center
Hampden County - Pre-release Center
Hampden County - Regional Women's Center
Norfolk County Jail
Plymouth County
Caroline County Department of Corrections
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Juvenile Services Department – All Locations
Montgomery County
Berrien County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Detroit City Jail
Hillsdale County
Lake County Jail, MI
Lenaewee County
Monroe County, MI
Northlake Detention VT DOC – GEO
Northlake Detention WA DOC - GEO
Oak Park MI - City Jail
Oakland County
Oceana County Jail
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Buchanan County
Greene County
Alcorn County - Regional Jail
Bolivar County

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

*
#

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.32
0.26
4.45
1.75
0.24
0.24
0.21
0.19
0.55
0.21
2.30
2.24
0.18
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.16
0.21
0.25
0.03
0.03
0.65
1.10
0.20
3.65
0.99
0.75
1.09
4.60
0.11
0.11
0.50
4.00
0.67
0.05
0.36
1.82
0.36
0.68

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.32
0.26
0.00
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.21
0.19
0.55
0.21
0.15
0.09
0.18
0.10
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.16
0.21
0.25
0.04
0.04
0.00
1.10
0.20
0.65
0.99
0.75
1.09
0.65
0.11
0.11
0.50
0.50
0.67
0.05
0.36
0.32
0.36
0.68

15 Min.
Rate ($)
4.80
3.90
4.45
5.25
3.60
3.60
3.15
2.85
8.25
3.15
4.40
3.50
2.70
1.50
1.80
1.80
1.80
2.40
3.15
3.75
0.52
0.52
0.65
16.50
3.00
12.75
14.85
11.25
16.35
13.70
1.65
1.65
7.50
11.00
10.05
0.75
5.40
6.30
5.34
10.14

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NE
NE
NE
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
*
#

Facility
Caroll-Montgomery County
Chickasaw County
Coahoma County
Covington County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
George-Greene County Jail
Hinds County – All Locations
Holmes-Humphrey County
Issaquena County
Jefferson-Franklin County
Kemper-Neshoba County
Lawrence County
Leake County
Marion-Walthall County
Natchez City Jail
Natchez City Jail - Adams Juvenile
Pearl River County
Pike County
Pontotc County DC
Rankin County - Adult
Rankin County - Juvenile
Washington County
Wilkinson County Correctional CCI
Winston-Choctaw County
Cumberland County
Department of Adult Corrections – All
Locations
Department of Public Safety – All Locations
Durham County
GEO Rivers Correctional
Mecklenberg County Jail Central
Mecklenberg County Jail North
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Douglas County DOC
Douglas County Youth Center
Strafford County Department of Corrections
Atlantic County Justice Facility
Bergen County Jail
Bo Robinson – CEC, Inc.
Burlington County
Camden County

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.57
0.11
3.25
3.25
0.11
0.56
0.45
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
0.58
2.71
3.25
0.49
0.49
0.19
3.25
0.73
0.26
0.26
3.25
0.69
3.25
0.16

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.57
0.11
0.25
0.25
0.11
0.56
0.45
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.58
0.21
0.25
0.49
0.49
0.19
0.25
0.73
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.69
0.25
0.16

15 Min.
Rate ($)
8.50
1.65
6.75
6.75
1.65
8.43
6.72
6.75
6.75
6.75
6.75
8.70
5.65
6.75
7.35
7.35
2.85
6.75
10.95
3.94
3.94
6.75
10.35
6.75
2.40

GTL

0.10

0.10

1.50

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

0.10
0.16
0.21
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.13
0.13
0.29
0.04
0.04
0.10
0.05
0.05

0.10
0.16
0.21
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.13
0.13
0.29
0.04
0.04
0.10
0.05
0.05

1.50
2.40
3.15
1.74
1.74
1.50
1.95
1.95
4.35
0.66
0.66
1.53
0.76
0.76

ICS Provider

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NM
NM
NV
NV
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
*
#

Facility
Cumberland County
Delaney Hall – CEC, Inc.
Delaney Hall – ICE (CEC, Inc.)
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Essex County Jail
Essex County Juvenile Detention
Hudson County Jail
Hudson County Jail Annex
Hudson County Juvenile Detention
Hunterdon County
Juvenile Justice Commission – All Locations
Mercer County
Middlesex County Adult Correctional
Middlesex County Juvenile Detention
Monmouth County
Morris County
Ocean County
Salem County Correctional Facility
Somerset County
Sussex County
Talbot Hall – CEC, Inc.
Toller Hall / Logan Hall – CEC, Inc.
Tulley House – CEC, Inc.
Union County Jail
Union County Juvenile
Warren County
Cibola County Detention Center
Luna County
Washoe County Jail Main Jail
Washoe County Jan Evans JDF
Albany County
Allegany County
Bayview Correctional Facility
Beacon Correctional Facility
Broome County
Butler ASACSC Correctional
Cattaraugus County
Cayuga County
Chateaugay Correctional Facility
Chautauqua County

ICS Provider
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.21
2.90
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.19
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.14
0.07
0.25
0.25
0.05
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.14
1.85
4.35
0.05
0.05
4.35
0.05
4.35
4.35
0.05
4.35

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.21
0.40
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.19
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.13
0.07
0.25
0.25
0.05
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.10
0.40
0.05
0.05
0.40
0.05
0.40
0.40
0.05
0.40

15 Min.
Rate ($)
0.76
1.44
2.25
0.66
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
3.15
8.50
0.66
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
2.85
0.76
0.76
1.24
2.02
1.04
3.75
3.75
0.76
2.25
2.25
2.10
2.10
3.25
9.95
0.72
0.72
9.95
0.72
9.95
9.95
0.72
9.95

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
*
#

Facility
Chemung County Sheriff's Office
Chenango County
Clinton County
Columbia County
Cortland County
Cortland County
Delaware County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Dutchess County
Essex County
Franklin County
Fulton County
Genesee County
Green Haven Correctional Facility
Greene County
Herkimer County
Jefferson County
Lewis County
Livingston County
Madison County
Monroe County
Monterey Correctional Facility
Montgomery County
Mt McGregor Correctional Facility
Nassau County
Niagra County
Oneida County
Onondaga County
Orange County
Orleans County
Oswego County
Otsego County
Putnam County
Queens Detention Facility – GEO
Renssalaer County
Rikers Island
Rockland County
Saratoga County
Schenectady County
Schuyler County

ICS Provider
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
2.90
4.35
1.76
1.95
4.35
4.35
4.35
0.05
4.35
1.95
1.95
1.95
4.35
0.05
1.76
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
0.05
1.95
0.05
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
0.21
4.35
0.25
4.35
1.85
1.85
4.35

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.40
0.40
0.18
0.20
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.05
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.40
0.05
0.18
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.05
0.20
0.05
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.21
0.40
0.25
0.40
0.10
0.10
0.40

15 Min.
Rate ($)
8.50
9.95
4.28
4.75
9.95
9.95
9.95
0.72
9.95
4.75
4.75
4.75
9.95
0.72
4.28
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
0.72
4.75
0.72
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
3.15
9.95
3.75
9.95
3.25
3.25
9.95

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
*
#

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
0.05
4.35
4.35
4.35
1.95
1.95
1.95
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
0.36
0.22
0.18
0.24

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.05
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.36
0.22
0.19
0.24

15 Min.
Rate ($)
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
0.72
9.95
9.95
9.95
4.75
4.75
4.75
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
5.40
3.30
2.78
3.60

GTL

0.05

0.05

0.75

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

0.05
0.36
0.04
0.05
3.11
0.34
0.36
0.13
0.20
0.23
0.24
0.36
0.36
0.30
0.36
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.36
0.36

0.05
0.36
0.04
0.05
0.36
0.34
0.36
0.13
0.20
0.23
0.24
0.36
0.36
0.30
0.36
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.36
0.36

0.75
5.40
0.60
0.75
8.15
5.10
5.40
1.95
3.00
3.45
3.60
5.40
5.40
4.50
5.40
3.45
3.30
3.30
5.40
5.40

Facility

ICS Provider

Seneca County
St. Lawrence County
St. Lawrence County
Sullivan County
Taconic County
Tioga County
Tompkins County
Tompkins County
Warren County
Warren County
Washington County
Wayne County
Westchester County
Wyoming County
Yates County
Brook Park
Cleveland – House of Corrections
Cuyahoga County
Delaware County
Department of Rehab. And Corrections – All
Locations
Department of Youth Services – All Locations
East Cleveland
Franklin County
Hamilton County
Jefferson County
Lake County Adult Detention Facility
Lakewood Jail
Lucas County
Mahoning County – All Locations
Montgomery County – MonDay Correctional
Muskingum County Jail
Parma Heights Jail
Richmond Heights Jail
SEPTA Correctional Facility
Solon Jail
Stark County Regional Corrections
Trumbull County
Trumbull County – Juvenile
Westlake Jail
Zanesville Jail

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
*
#

Facility
Cimarron Correctional-Cushing
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Great Plains Correctional Facility - GEO
Lawton Correctional – GEO
Muskogee County
Ponca City Jail
Columbus County
Douglas County
Linn County
Multnomah County
Warm Springs
Yamhill County
Adams County
Allegheny County
Armstrong County
Bradford County
Bucks County
Cambria County
Chester County
Clearfield County
Cumberland County
Dauphin County
Delaware County
Franklin County
Jefferson County
Lackawanna County
Lehigh County
Luzerne County
Lycoming County
Mercer County
Montgomery County
Northampton County
Pennsylvania County
Philadelphia County
Schuykill County
Somerset County
Washington County
Wayne County
Westmoreland County
York County

ICS Provider
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.20
0.11
3.20
0.25
5.31
5.24
1.96
0.20
0.16
0.24
0.21
0.34
0.24
0.33
0.25
0.16
0.27
0.14
0.22
0.25
0.22
3.55
0.21
0.24
0.16
0.37
0.22
0.17
0.16
0.14
0.17
0.25
0.22
0.25
3.59
0.30
0.25

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.20
0.20
0.21
0.20
0.11
0.25
0.25
0.89
0.69
0.11
0.20
0.16
0.24
0.21
0.34
0.24
0.33
0.25
0.16
0.27
0.14
0.22
0.25
0.22
0.55
0.21
0.24
0.16
0.37
0.22
0.17
0.16
0.14
0.17
0.25
0.22
0.25
0.59
0.30
0.25

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.00
3.00
3.15
3.00
1.65
6.70
3.75
17.77
14.90
3.50
3.00
2.40
3.60
3.15
5.10
3.60
4.89
3.75
2.40
4.05
2.10
3.30
3.75
3.30
11.25
3.15
3.60
2.40
5.55
3.30
2.55
2.40
2.10
2.58
3.75
3.30
3.75
11.85
4.50
3.75

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
PA
RI
RI
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SD
SD
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
*
#

Facility
York County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Providence County
Charleston County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Greenville County
Richland County
Spartanburg County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Pennington County
Davidson County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Fayette County
Madison County
Montgomery County
Obion County
Robertson County
Sevier County
Shelby County
Williamson County
Wilson County
Arlington
Big Spring – GEO
Bowie County
Burnet County
Cass County Detention Center
Central Texas Detention – GEO
Colorado County
Corpus Christi
Duncanville
El Paso County
Gaines County
Galveston County
Gonzales County
Gonzales County - Inter Sanction ISF
Gregg County
Guadalupe County
Hidalgo County
Hill County
Hood County

ICS Provider
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.25
0.05
1.65
0.14
0.08
2.83
0.25
0.16
0.08
0.18
0.05
0.16
0.19
0.28
0.25
0.22
0.12
0.20
0.14
1.50
0.10
0.47
0.21
4.17
4.10
4.65
0.21
0.49
0.50
0.49
0.09
0.27
0.39
0.40
0.49
3.40
0.49
0.45
0.45
0.39

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.25
0.05
0.30
0.14
0.08
0.33
0.25
0.16
0.08
0.17
0.05
0.16
0.19
0.28
0.25
0.22
0.12
0.20
0.14
0.00
0.10
0.47
0.21
0.40
0.34
0.20
0.21
0.49
0.50
0.49
0.09
0.27
0.39
0.40
0.49
0.39
0.49
0.45
0.45
0.39

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.75
0.70
5.85
2.10
1.20
7.45
3.75
2.40
1.20
2.62
0.75
2.40
2.85
4.20
3.75
3.30
1.80
3.00
2.10
1.50
1.50
7.05
3.15
9.80
8.86
7.45
3.15
7.35
7.50
7.35
1.35
4.05
5.85
6.00
7.35
8.86
7.35
6.75
6.75
5.85

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
UT
UT
UT
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
*
#

Facility
Houston County – All Locations
Jefferson County – All Corrections
Joe Corley Detention – GEO
Johnson County
Jones County
Karnes Correctional Center – GEO
Karnes County Panna Maria Ave Jail
Karnes County Wall St Jail
Lee County
Lubbock County Community Corr
Lubbock County Detention Ctr
Maverick County
McLennan County – All Locations
Montgomery County
Pasadena City Jail
Pecos County
Potter County
Randall County
Red River County
Reeves County
Reeves County Detention – GEO
Rio Grande Detention – GEO
Rusk County
Smith County
Tom Green County
Val Verde Correctional – GEO
Waller County
Washington County
Wichita County
Wilbarger County
Box Elder County
Duchesne County
Sanpete County
Weber County
Chesterfield County
Culpeper County
Department of Corrections - All Locations
Gloucester County
Hanover County
Henrico County Regional Jails

ICS Provider
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.22
0.49
1.75
0.52
0.53
0.21
0.50
0.50
0.47
0.46
0.23
0.41
0.35
0.53
0.53
0.50
0.49
0.49
4.15
0.49
0.11
0.21
0.49
0.44
0.41
0.21
4.05
0.47
0.55
0.49
1.00
0.22
2.92
0.19
0.11
4.64
0.04
0.17
0.23
0.13

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.22
0.49
0.25
0.52
0.53
0.21
0.50
0.50
0.47
0.46
0.23
0.41
0.35
0.53
0.53
0.50
0.49
0.49
0.39
0.49
0.11
0.21
0.49
0.44
0.41
0.21
0.33
0.47
0.55
0.49
0.04
0.22
0.12
0.19
0.11
0.69
0.04
0.17
0.23
0.13

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.30
7.35
5.25
7.80
8.00
3.15
7.50
7.50
7.05
6.90
3.45
6.15
5.25
7.95
7.95
7.50
7.35
7.35
9.54
7.35
1.65
3.15
7.35
6.60
6.10
3.15
8.67
7.05
8.25
7.35
1.56
3.30
4.60
2.82
1.65
14.30
0.61
2.55
3.45
1.94

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VT
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
AZ
*
#

Facility
Mecklenburg Jail
Meherin River County Regional Jail
Middle River County Regional Jail
New River Valley
Norfolk City
Northwestern County
Peumansend Creek Regional Jail
Piedmont Regional Jail
Portsmouth Jail
Prince William County
Rappahannock Regional Jail
Richmond Jail
Riverside District Regional Jail
Southside Regional Jail
Southwestern Regional Jail
Western Tidewater Regional Jail
Department of Corrections - All Locations
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Grant County - County Jail
Issaquah City Jail
Snohomish County - Denney Juvenile
Snohomish County - Main Jail
Spokane County - Geiger Correctional
Spokane County Jail
Thurston County - Nisqually Tribal Jail
Clark County Jail
Kenosha County Detention Center
Menominee County - Tribal Jail
Outagamie County Jail
Sauk County Jail
Central Regional Jail
Eastern Regional Jail
North Central Regional Jail
Northern Regional Jail
Potomac Highlands Jail
South Central Regional Jail
South West Regional Jail
Tygart Valley Jail
Western Regional Jail
Graham County Sheriff

ICS Provider
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
ICSolutions

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.28
0.28
0.13
0.23
0.16
0.19
0.22
0.25
0.15
0.25
0.24
0.07
0.11
0.18
0.18
0.25
0.12
0.11
0.19
0.26
0.20
0.20
0.26
0.26
0.28
4.64
0.50
0.55
0.16
0.22
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.21

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.28
0.28
0.13
0.23
0.15
0.19
0.22
0.25
0.15
0.25
0.24
0.07
0.11
0.18
0.18
0.25
0.12
0.11
0.19
0.26
0.20
0.20
0.26
0.26
0.28
0.69
0.50
0.55
0.16
0.22
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.21

15 Min.
Rate ($)
4.20
4.20
1.94
3.45
2.32
2.85
3.30
3.75
2.25
3.75
3.60
1.05
1.65
2.70
2.70
3.75
1.76
1.65
2.85
3.90
3.00
3.00
3.90
3.90
4.20
14.30
7.50
8.25
2.40
3.30
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
3.15

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
*
#

Facility
Mohave County Sheriff
Navajo County Jail
GEO WRDF San Diego
Kings County
MTC Taft Correctional Institution
Placer County Sheriff
Sacramento County Sheriff
Santa Ana City Jail
Santa Barbara County
Santa Cruz County Sheriff
Adams County
Boulder County
Larimer County
Escambia County
GEO South Bay Correctional Facility
Hamilton County
Hernando County
Hillsborough County
Kissimmee County
Lafayette County
Leon County
Monroe County Sheriff
Ocala Re-Entry Center Jail
Okeechobee County
Osceola County Corrections
Pasco County Sheriff
Putnam County Detention
Sumter County Sheriff
Walton County Department of Corrections
Atlanta
Bartow County Sheriff
Bulloch County
Carroll County Prison
Coweta County
Dawson County Detention Center
Floyd County
Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice
Hall County Correctional Institute
Jackson County Correctional Institution
Mitchell County

ICS Provider
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.08
0.37
0.21
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.11
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.18
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.11
0.18
0.18

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.08
0.37
0.21
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.11
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.18
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.11
0.18
0.18

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.15
3.15
3.00
3.15
1.20
5.55
3.15
3.15
2.40
2.40
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
1.65
3.15
3.15
3.00
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.75
3.15
3.15
3.75
3.75
3.75
2.70
2.40
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
3.15
1.65
2.70
2.70

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
IA
IA
IA
ID
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
LA
MA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
*
#

Facility
Screven County Correctional Institute
Spalding County Correctional Institution
Stephens County Sheriff
Terrell County Correctional Institute
Thomas County Board of Commissioners
Troup County Correctional Institute
Dubuque County
Jasper County Sheriff
Muscatine County Jail
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Champaign County
Fayette County Sheriff
Jo Daviess County Jail
Kane County Sheriff
Marion County Sheriff
McHenry County Sheriff
Sangamon County Sheriff
Blackford County
Boone County Sheriff
Fayette County Sheriff
Huntington County
Jackson County Sheriff
Cowley County Sheriff
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Douglas County
Finney County Sheriff
Johnson County
Kansas Juvenile Justice Authority
Learned State Hospital
East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff
Hampshire County
Anne Arundel County Sheriff
Baltimore County Corrections
Carroll County
Cecil County Detention Center
Charles County Detention Center
Frederick County
Harford County Detention
Howard County Department of Corrections
Kent County Sheriff

ICS Provider
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.18
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.11
0.21
0.22
0.20
0.11
0.17
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.21
0.26
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.18
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.45
0.15
0.16
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.18
0.16
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.11
0.21
0.22
0.20
0.11
0.17
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.21
0.26
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.18
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.45
0.15
0.16
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16

15 Min.
Rate ($)
2.70
2.40
2.70
2.70
2.70
1.65
3.15
3.30
3.00
1.65
2.55
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.30
3.15
3.90
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
2.70
3.15
3.15
3.15
6.75
2.25
2.40
3.15
2.40
2.40
2.55
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN
MN
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
*
#

Facility
Montgomery County
Somerset County Detention Center
St. Marys County Detention Center
Washington County
Wicomico Co. Department of Corrections
Calhoun County Sheriff
Cass County Sheriff
Kalkaska County Sheriff
Lake County Sheriff
Livingston County
Macomb County
Mason County Sheriff
Mecosta County
Monroe County
Oakland County Sheriff
Osceola County Sheriff
Tuscola County Jail
Anoka County Detention Facility
Olmsted County Sheriff
Ramsey Workhouse
Stearns County Jail
Butler County Sheriff
Camden County
Cass County
Christian County
Cole County Sheriff
Dent County Sheriff
Jackson County
Laclede County Sheriff
Marion County Detention Center
Miller County Sheriff
Pemiscot County Sheriff
Platte County Sheriff
St. Louis County
Clay County Sheriff
Department of Corrections – MTC Facilities
Holmes-Humphreys County
Lamar County
Simpson County Sheriff
Sunflower County

ICS Provider
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.08
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.10
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.11
0.11
0.21
0.21
0.21

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.08
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.18
0.21
0.21
0.22
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.10
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.11
0.11
0.21
0.21
0.21

15 Min.
Rate ($)
1.22
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.70
3.15
3.15
3.30
3.75
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.75
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.75
3.15
1.50
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.75
3.15
3.15
1.65
1.65
3.15
3.15
3.15

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
MS
MT
MT
NC
NC
NC
NE
NE
NH
NH
NH
NM
NV
NV
NV
NV
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OR
SC
SD
*
#

Facility
Winston County
Missoula County Sheriff
Two Rivers Regional Detention Center
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Gaston County Sheriff
Lenoir County
Lancaster County
Scotts Bluff County Sheriff
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Grafton County
Hillsborough County
Otero County Prison Facility – MTC
Carson City Sheriff
Clark County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Las Vegas Detention Center
Erie County Sheriff
Onondaga Department Of Correction
Orleans County Correctional Services
Ulster County Law Enforcement Center
Coshocton County Sheriff
Franklin County Community Based
Correctional Facility
Gallia County Sheriff
Greene County Sheriff
Highland County Sheriff
Huron County Sheriff
Lorain/Medina Community Based
Correctional Facility
Ohio River Valley Corrections Center
Stark County Sheriff
Summit County Jail
Tuscarawas County Sheriff
Warren County
Washington County
West Central Community Correctional
Facility
Rogers County Sheriff
Douglas County Sheriff
Beaufort County Detention Center
Minnehaha County

ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.11
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.05
0.21
0.21
0.15
0.21
0.21
0.11
0.25
0.21
0.15
0.21
0.22
0.21

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.11
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.05
0.21
0.21
0.15
0.21
0.21
0.11
0.25
0.21
0.15
0.21
0.22
0.21

15 Min.
Rate ($)
1.65
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.75
3.15
3.15
0.68
3.15
3.15
2.25
3.15
3.15
1.65
3.75
3.15
2.25
3.15
3.30
3.15

ICSolutions

0.21

0.21

3.15

ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions

0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21

0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21

3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15

ICSolutions

0.21

0.21

3.15

ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions

0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21

0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21

3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15

ICSolutions

0.21

0.21

3.15

ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions

0.21
0.21
0.12
0.21

0.21
0.21
0.12
0.21

3.15
3.15
1.80
3.15

ICS Provider

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
TN
TN
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
UT
UT
UT
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WA
WI
*
#

ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.11
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.08
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.14
0.21
0.21
0.14
0.21
0.16
0.19
0.21
0.19

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.11
0.25
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.08
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.21
0.14
0.21
0.21
0.14
0.21
0.16
0.19
0.21
0.19

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.25
3.25
3.25
1.65
3.75
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
1.13
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.00
3.15
2.03
3.15
3.15
2.03
3.15
2.40
2.85
3.15
2.85

ICSolutions

0.16

0.16

2.40

ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions

0.21
0.21
0.21
0.14
0.09
0.21
0.15
0.18
0.21
0.15
0.15
0.24
0.21

0.21
0.21
0.21
0.14
0.09
0.21
0.15
0.18
0.21
0.15
0.15
0.24
0.21

3.15
3.15
3.15
2.10
1.35
3.15
2.25
2.70
3.15
2.25
2.25
3.60
3.15

Facility

ICS Provider

Anderson County Sheriff
McNairy Sheriff
Rutherford County Work Release
Trousdale Turner Correctional Center
Bexar County Jail
Calhoun County
Cameron County
CARE Montgomery County – GEO
Correct Care Texas Civil Commitment Center
Giles W. Dalby Correctional Facility
Hunt County
Jackson County Detention Center
Laredo Processing Center
Milam County Sheriff
Nacogdoches County Sheriff
Nueces County Sheriff
Palo Pinto County Jail
TDCJ Facilities – MTC
Van Zandt County Sheriff
Webb County
Willacy Regional Detention Facility – MTC
Williamson County Sheriff
Davis County Sheriff
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Kane County Sheriff
Salt Lake County
Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail
Authority
Arlington County
Chesapeake Sheriff
Danville Police Department
Fairfax County Sheriff
Farmville Regional Jail - ICE
Middle Peninsula Regional
Roanoke County
Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authority
Sussex County Jail
Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail
Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority
Yakima City Jail
Ashland County Jail

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WV
WV
WY
WY
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AR
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
*
#

Facility
Calumet County Sheriff
Clark County Jail
Dane County Sheriff
Dodge County
Door County
Fond Du Lac County
Iowa County
Kewaunee County
Langlade County
Marinette County
Milwaukee County
Ozaukee County
Walworth County Sheriff
Washington County
Waukesha County
Waushara County Jail
Winnebago County Sheriff
Department of Corrections – All Locations
McDowell County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Laramie County Sheriff
Adamsville Police Department
Albertville City Police Department
Arab City Police Department
Daphne City Police Department
Dothan Police Department
Geneva County Jail
Guntersville City Police Department
Houston County Jail
Montgomery County Detention Center
Orange Beach Police Department
Izard County Jail
Hualapai Adult Detention Center
White Mountain Apache Corrections Center
Yuma County Detention Center
Alhambra Police Department
Bell Gardens Police Department
Beverly Hills Police Department
Buena Park Police Department
Burbank Police Department

ICS Provider
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
ICSolutions
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.14
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.37
0.21
0.21
0.03
0.03
0.11
0.21
0.28
0.28
0.30
0.28
0.28
0.30
0.30
0.28
0.30
0.28
1.25
0.65
0.75
0.40
1.15
0.75
1.15
1.25
1.15

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.14
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.37
0.21
0.21
0.03
0.03
0.11
0.21
0.28
0.28
0.30
0.28
0.28
0.30
0.30
0.28
0.30
0.28
1.25
0.65
0.75
0.40
1.15
0.75
1.15
1.25
1.15

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
2.10
3.15
3.15
3.15
5.55
3.15
3.15
0.48
0.48
1.65
3.15
4.20
4.20
4.50
4.20
4.20
4.50
4.50
4.20
4.50
4.20
18.75
9.75
11.25
6.00
17.25
11.25
17.25
18.75
17.25

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
GA
GA
GA
GA
ID
ID
ID
IL
IL
IN
*
#

Facility
Chula Vista City Jail
Colusa County Jail
Corona Police Department
Costa Mesa Police Department
El Segundo Police Department
Fremont Police Department
Fresno County Jail
Gardena Police Department
Glendale Police Department
Hawthorne Police Department
Hayward Police Department
Hermosa Beach Police Department
Huntington Beach Police Department
Inglewood Police Department
Lodi Police Department
Long Beach Police Department
Manhattan Beach Police Department
Mendocino County – All Locations
Montebello Police Department
Monterey Park Police Department
Newport Beach Police Department
Pasadena Police Department
Redondo Beach Police Department
Signal Hill Police Department
Tuolumne County Jail
Ventura County Sheriff
Westminster Police Department
Whittier Police Department
Yolo County Sheriff
Grand County Jail
Acworth
Coffee County Jail
Decatur County Correctional Prison
Decatur County Jail
Adams County Sheriff
Clearwater County Sheriff
Lewis County Sheriff
Winnebago County Jail
Winnebago County Juvenile DC
Hammond Police Department

ICS Provider
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy

1st Min.
Charge ($)
1.15
0.73
1.25
1.25
1.10
1.15
0.20
1.10
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.35
1.25
0.90
0.65
1.25
0.45
0.75
1.15
1.25
1.15
0.95
1.25
0.22
3.99
1.25
0.85
9.50
0.50
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.47
1.15
1.15
0.55
0.55
0.45

Add. Min
Charge ($)
1.15
0.73
1.25
1.25
1.10
1.15
0.20
1.10
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.35
1.25
0.90
0.65
1.25
0.45
0.75
1.15
1.25
1.15
0.95
1.25
0.22
0.99
1.25
0.85
1.49
0.50
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.47
1.15
1.15
0.55
0.55
0.45

15 Min.
Rate ($)
17.25
10.95
18.75
18.75
16.50
17.25
3.00
16.50
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
5.25
18.75
13.50
9.75
18.75
6.75
11.25
17.25
18.75
17.25
14.25
18.75
3.30
18.84
18.75
12.75
31.85
7.50
2.70
2.85
2.85
2.85
7.05
17.25
17.25
8.25
8.25
6.75

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
KS
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
MA
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
*
#

Facility
Rooks County Jail
Acadia Parish Detention Center
Acadia Parish Jail
Baker City Police Department
Beauregard Parish Jail
Christian Acres Juvenile Youth Center
Eunice City Jail
Leesville City Jail
Morgan City Jail
Opelousas City Jail
Sulphur Police Department
Vermilion Parish Sheriff
Ville Platte Police Department
West Feliciana Parish Jail
Boston – All Districts
Allen Park Police Department
Berkley Police Department
Berkley Police Department
Beverly Hills Police Department MI
Birmingham Police Department
Brownstown Police Department
Canton Township Police Department
Charlevoix County
Clinton Township Police Department
Crawford County Jail
Dearborn Police Department
East Lansing Police Department
Eastpointe Police Department
Ecorse Police Department
Farmington Hills Police Department
Farmington Police Department
Fenton Police Department
Ferndale Police Department
Garden City Police Department
Grosse Pointe Woods
Harper Woods Police Department
Hazel Park Police Department
Huron County Jail
Inkster Police Department
Kalkaska County Jail

ICS Provider
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy

1st Min.
Charge ($)
1.55
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.20
1.05
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.35
1.25
0.35
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.35
1.25
0.35

Add. Min
Charge ($)
1.55
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.20
1.05
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.50
1.25
0.50
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.50
1.25
0.50

15 Min.
Rate ($)
23.25
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.00
15.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
7.85
18.75
7.85
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
3.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
7.85
18.75
7.85

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MO
MO
MO
MO
MS
MS
MS
MS
NC
ND
NE
NE
*
#

Facility
Leelanau County Jail
Lincoln Park Police Department
Livonia Police Department
Madison Heights Police Department
Manistee County Jail
Milford Police Department
Northville Police Department
Novi Police Department
Plymouth Township Police Department
Redford Police Department
Rochester Police Department
Romulus Police Department
Royal Oak Police Department
Southfield Police Department
Southgate Police Department
St. Clair Shores Police Department
Sterling Heights Police Department
Taylor Police Department
Trenton Police Department
Troy Police Department
Utica Police Department
Van Buren Township Police Department
Warren Police Department
West Bloomfield Police Department
Westland Police Department
White Lake Police Department
Wixom Police Department
Wyandotte Police Department
Douglas County Sheriff
Louisiana Police Department
Montgomery County Jail
Scott City Police Department
Itawamba County Jail
Marshall County Sheriff Department
Natchez Police Department
Tishomingo County Sheriff Department
Moore County Detention Center
Gerald Fox Adult Detention Center
Lancaster Youth Services Center
Pierce County Sheriff

ICS Provider
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.35
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.35
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.85
0.60
0.75
0.55
0.19
0.19
0.55
0.19
0.55
0.75
0.50
0.95

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.50
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.50
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.85
0.60
0.75
0.55
0.19
0.19
0.55
0.19
0.55
0.75
0.50
0.95

15 Min.
Rate ($)
7.85
18.75
18.75
18.75
7.85
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
12.75
9.00
11.25
8.25
2.85
2.85
8.25
2.85
8.25
11.25
7.50
14.25

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
NJ
NM
NM
NM
NM
NY
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OK
OR
OR
OR
OR
SC
SC
SC
SD
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
VA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WI
WI
AL
AL
AL
AZ
CA
*
#

Facility
Paterson Police Department
Dona Ana County Detention Center
Pueblo of Laguna Detention Facility
Ramah Navajo Police Department
Zuni Department of Corrections
Central New York Psychiatric Center
Cuyahoga Falls Police Department
Middletown Police Department
Shelby Police Department
Edmond Police Department
Lawton City Police Department
Okmulgee County Jail
Yukon Police Department
Benton County Jail
Jackson County Main Jail
Jackson County Transition Center
Josephine County Jail
Darlington County Prison Farm
McCormick County Sheriff
Newberry County Detention Center
Rosebud Sioux Tribe Adult Corrections
Bedford Police Department
Blue Mound Police Department
Lewisville
The Colony Police Department
Walker County Jail
West Columbia Police Department
Accomack County Sheriff
Adams County Sheriff
Hoquiam Police Department
Lynnwood Jail
Whatcom County Jail/ Interim Work Center
Whatcom County Juvenile Hall
Dunn County Jail
Jackson County Jail
Bullock County Sheriff Office
Covington County Jail
Foley Police Department
Colorado River Indian Tribes Detention
Atascadero State Hospital

ICS Provider
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.50
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.69
0.95
0.95
0.65
0.95
0.85
0.60
0.60
1.05
0.35
0.35
1.05
0.25
0.55
0.55
0.65
1.25
0.90
1.15
0.75
0.75
1.25
0.35
0.95
0.45
0.45
0.42
0.42
1.05
1.05
3.99
2.25
3.25
0.50
15.09

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.50
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.69
0.95
0.95
0.65
0.95
0.85
0.60
0.60
1.05
0.35
0.35
1.05
0.25
0.55
0.55
0.65
1.25
0.90
1.15
0.75
0.75
1.25
0.35
0.95
0.45
0.45
0.42
0.42
1.05
1.05
0.99
0.30
0.49
0.75
1.15

15 Min.
Rate ($)
7.50
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
10.35
14.25
14.25
9.75
14.25
12.75
9.00
9.00
15.75
5.25
5.25
15.75
3.75
8.25
8.25
9.75
18.75
13.50
17.25
11.25
11.25
18.75
5.25
14.25
6.75
6.75
6.30
6.30
15.75
15.75
18.84
6.75
10.60
11.75
32.34

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
FL
ID
IL
LA
LA
LA
MA
MD
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
NE
NE
NJ
NJ
NM
NM
NM
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OK
OK
OK
OK
*
#

Facility
Bell Police Department
Clovis Police Department
Metropolitan State Hospital
Napa State Hospital
Patton State Hospital
West Care Foundation
Department of Corrections – Pay Telephones
Clark County Sheriff
McHenry County Jail
Springhill Jail
Vivian Police Department
Welsh Police Department
Everett Police Department-TIPS
Carroll County Detention Center Blue Springs Police Department
Chaffee Police Department
De Soto PD
Dixon Police Department
Independence City Jail
Kinloch Police Department
Webb City
Scotts Bluff County Detention Center
Thurston County Jail
Lindenwold Police Department-TIPS
Ocean County Juvenile Detention Center
Eunice Police Department
Jal Law Enforcement
Socorro County Detention Center
Greece Town Police Department
Lackawanna Jail
Lancaster Police Department
Niagara Falls Police Department
Town of Evans Police Department
Troy Police Department
West Seneca Police Department
Fostoria Police Department
Anadarko City Jail
Bethany City Jail
Bixby Police Department
Broken Arrow City Jail

ICS Provider
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*

1st Min.
Charge ($)
12.66
9.50
2.70
2.70
2.70
20.00
1.20
3.00
3.01
10.43
10.43
10.43
11.99
3.99
0.81
3.00
3.00
3.00
1.70
3.00
3.00
2.25
3.95
11.99
9.78
3.99
3.99
0.50
2.75
9.66
9.66
3.99
9.66
3.99
9.66
2.79
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.89
1.49
0.38
0.38
0.38
1.15
0.06
0.69
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.29
0.99
0.50
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
0.30
0.69
1.29
1.15
0.99
0.99
0.10
0.30
0.89
0.89
0.99
0.89
0.99
0.89
0.49
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95

15 Min.
Rate ($)
26.01
31.85
8.40
8.40
8.40
37.25
2.10
13.35
6.76
14.18
14.18
14.18
31.34
18.84
12.15
26.25
26.25
26.25
25.50
26.25
26.25
6.75
14.30
31.34
27.03
18.84
18.84
2.00
7.25
23.01
23.01
18.84
23.01
18.84
23.01
10.14
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
PA
PA
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
*
#

Facility
Clinton City Jail
El Reno City Jail
Elk City Police Department
Henryetta City Jail
Locust Grove Police Department
Manford Police Department
Mustang City Jail
Owasso Police Department
Roland City Jail
Seminole City Jail
Tonawa Police Department
Yukon City Jail
Nesbitt Hospital
Wernersville State Hospital
7 Points Police Department
Addison City Jail
Allen City Jail
Angleton City Jail
Aransas Pass City Jail
Armstrong County
Atascosa County
Azle City Jail
Balch Spring Police Department
Bonham City Jail
Brazoria Police Department
Brazos Rehab Place
Cameron County
Cameron County Boot Camp
Cedar Park City Jail
Center Police Department
Childress Police Department
Cleveland City Jail
Cochran County
Cockrell Hill City Jail
Commerce Police Department
Converse Police Department
Crowley Police Department
Dallas Marshall's
Dalworthington Gardens Police Department
Davy Crockett Regional Juvenile Facility

ICS Provider
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*

1st Min.
Charge ($)
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
11.75
13.09
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.00
1.50
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
1.50
1.50
1.50
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.00
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
1.50

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.35
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.79
0.99
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.75
0.75
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.75
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.75

15 Min.
Rate ($)
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
7.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
23.60
27.94
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
15.25
12.75
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
12.75
12.75
12.75
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
15.25
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
12.75

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
*
#

Facility
Denton City Jail
Donely County
Duval County
Electra City Jail
Elsa Police Department
Ennis City Jail
Everman City Jail
Farmers Branch City Jail
Fisher County
Flower Mound Police Department
Forest Hills City Jail
Friendswood Police Department
Frisco
Garland Police Department
Gladewater City Jail
Glenn Heights City Jail
Granbury
GRAPEVINE CITY JAIL
Greenville Police Department
GUN BARREL CITY JAIL
Harlingen Police Department
Hidalgo City Jail
Highland Park City Jail
Highland Village City Jail
Hillsboro City Jail
Hurst Police Department
Hutchins Police Department
INGLESIDE CITY JAIL
JACINTO CITY JAIL
Jacksonville
JCW Default
Jones County
Justice Center PD
Keene City Jail
Kennedale Police Department
Kilgore City Jail
Lake Dallas City Jail
Lake Worth Police Department
Little Elm Police Department
Los Fresnos City Jail

ICS Provider
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*

1st Min.
Charge ($)
4.75
4.00
1.50
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.00
13.56
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
1.50
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.15
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.00
13.56
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75

Add. Min
Charge ($)
1.25
0.75
0.75
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.75
1.15
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.75
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.10
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.75
1.15
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25

15 Min.
Rate ($)
23.50
15.25
12.75
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
15.25
30.81
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
12.75
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
5.65
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
15.25
30.81
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
AL
CA
CA
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
*
#

Facility
Midland County JRTC
Mineola City Jail
New Boston City Jail
Oliver Office
Olney City Jail
Palmview Police Department
Pantego City Jail
Pecos Justice Center
RICHARDSON CITY JAIL
River Oaks Police Department
Rockdale Juvenile
Rockdale Police Department
Rowlett Police Department
Saginaw Police Department
Santa Fe City Jail
Seagoville
Shackelford County
Sommerville County Jail
Spring Valley City Jail
Springtown City Jail
Taylor City Jail
Terrell County Jail
Terrell Police Department
Tom Green County
University Park Police Department
Westworth Village Police Department
Whitesboro City Jail
Wilmer Police Department
Wylie City Jail
Barbour County Jail
Charlie Byrd Youth Corrections Center
Siskiyou County Jail
Citrus County Jail
Desoto County Jail
Flagler County Jail
Franklin County Jail
Gadsden Co. Correctional Center
Holmes County Jail
Jefferson County Jail
Levy County Jail

ICS Provider
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel

1st Min.
Charge ($)
4.75
4.75
4.75
3.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
13.56
4.75
4.75
1.50
4.75
13.56
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.00
13.56
4.75
4.75
4.75
13.56
4.75
1.50
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
0.21
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.40

Add. Min
Charge ($)
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.40
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.15
1.25
1.25
0.75
1.25
1.15
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.75
1.15
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.15
1.25
0.75
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.21
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.20
0.40

15 Min.
Rate ($)
23.50
23.50
23.50
9.75
23.50
23.50
23.50
30.81
23.50
23.50
12.75
23.50
30.81
23.50
23.50
23.50
15.25
30.81
23.50
23.50
23.50
30.81
23.50
12.75
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
3.15
7.50
7.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
3.00
6.00

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
*
#

Facility
St Johns County Jail
Wakulla County Detention Facility
Washington County Jail
Berrien County Jail
Bleckley County Jail
Burke County
Butts County Jail
Chatham County
Colquitt County Jail
Colquitt County Prison
Columbia County Jail
Coweta County Jail
Crisp County Jail
Dodge County Jail
Dooly County Jail
Dougherty County Jail
Elbert County Detention Center
Emanuel County Jail
Forsyth County Jail
Franklin County Jail
Gilmer County Jail
Glynn County Detention Center
Gordon County Jail
Greene County Jail
Haralson County Jail
Heard County Jail
Houston County Jail
Jasper County Jail
Jones County Jail
Lamar County Jail
Laurens County Jail
Lumpkin County Jail
Madison County Jail
McIntosh County Jail
Meriwether County Jail
Mitchell County Jail
Monroe County Jail
Morgan County Detention Center
Murray County Jail
Newton County Jail

ICS Provider
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.40
0.20
0.40
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.40
0.20
0.40
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19

15 Min.
Rate ($)
6.00
3.00
6.00
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
KS
MD
MD
MD
MO
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
*
#

Facility
Oconee County Jail
Peach County Jail
Pickens County Jail
Pierce County Jail
Pulaski County Jail
Putnam County Jail
Randolph County Jail
Schley County Jail
Taylor County Jail
Telfair County Jail
Thomas County Detention Center
Toombs County Jail
Treutlen County Jail
Twiggs County Jail
Upson County Jail
Walton County Jail
Washington County Jail
Wayne County Jail
White County Jail
Whitfield County
Worth County
Wyandotte County Detention Center
Allegany County Detention Center
Calvert County Detention Center
Garrett County
St Charles Department Corrections
Alexander County Jail
Allegany County Jail
Ashe County Detention Center
Beaufort County Detention Center
Bertie-Martin Regional Jail
Burke Catawba District Jail
Burke County Jail
Carteret County Jail
Caswell County Jail
Catawba County Jail
Chatham County Jail
Craven County Jail
Currituck County Jail
Davidson County Detention

ICS Provider
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.34
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.34
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.45
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40

15 Min.
Rate ($)
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
5.10
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.75
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
*
#

Facility
Davie County Jail
Duplin County Annex
Duplin County Jail
Edgecombe County Courthouse
Edgecombe County Jail
Forsyth County Jail
Granville County Jail
Greene County Jail
Guilford County Greensboro & High Point
Guilford County Juvenile Detention
Halifax County Jail
Harnett County Courthouse
Harnett County Jail
Hertford County Jail
Jones County Jail
Lee County Jail
Lincoln County Jail
McDowell County Detention Center
Nash County Jail
Northampton County Jail
Onslow County Jail
Orange County Jail
Pamlico County Detention Center
Pitt County Jail
Polk County Jail
Randolph County Jail
Robeson County Jail
Sampson County Jail
Stanly County Jail
Stokes County Jail
Surry County Jail
Vance County Jail
Wake County Jail
Wake County Jail - Hammond
Warren County Jail
Washington County Jail
Wayne County Annex
Wayne County Jail
Wilkes County Jail
Wilson County Jail

ICS Provider
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40

15 Min.
Rate ($)
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.23
0.24
0.25
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40

15 Min.
Rate ($)
6.00
6.00
6.00
3.45
3.60
3.75
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00

PayTel

0.40

0.40

6.00

PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel

0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40

0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40

6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00

PayTel

0.25

0.25

3.75

PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
PayTel
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

0.40
0.21
0.45
0.25
0.21
5.35
5.35
4.85
0.20

0.40
0.21
0.45
0.25
0.21
1.40
1.40
0.90
0.20

6.00
3.15
6.75
3.75
3.15
24.95
24.95
17.45
3.00

State

Facility

ICS Provider

NC
NM
NM
OH
OH
PA
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC

Yadkin County Jail
McKinley County Jail
McKinley County Juvenile Detention Center
Montgomery County – All Locations
Seneca County Jail
Perry County Prison
Anderson City Jail
Anderson County Jail
Barnwell County Jail
Colleton County Jail
Dorchester County Jail
Florence County Law Enforcement Complex
Marion County Jail
Marlboro County Detention Center
Orangeburg/Calhoun Regional Detention
Center
Saluda County Jail
Williamsburg County Jail
York County Prison
Meigs County Jail
Alleghany/Covington Regional Jail
Botetourt County Jail
Charlotte County Jail
Eastern Regional Jail
Fauquier County Jail
Franklin County Jail
Henry County Jail
Martinsville City Jail
Page County Jail
Pittsylvania County Jail
Rappahannock Shenandoah Warren Regional
Jail
Rockbridge Regional Jail
Rockingham Harrisonburg Regional
Okanogan County Corrections Center
South Correctional Entity
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Arkansas County Jail
Baxter County Sheriff
Clay County Jail
Community Transitional Services - Pine Bluff

SC
SC
SC
TN
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WA
WA
AK
AR
AR
AR
AR
*
#

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AR
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
*
#

Facility

ICS Provider

Conway County Detention Center
Cross County Jail
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Garland County Detention Center
Greene County Detention Facility
Johnson County Detention Center
Lake Village City Jail
Marion County Jail
Mississippi County Detention Center
Nevada County Jail
Osceola Criminal Justice Center
Saline County Detention Center
Sheridan City Detention Center
White River Regional Juvenile
Ak-Chin Police Department
Apache County Jail
CCA Central Arizona Detention Center
CCA Eloy Detention Center
CCA Florence Correctional Center
CCA Florence Correctional Center (VTDOC)
Cochise County - All Locations
Greenlee County Sheriff
Pinal County
Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community
San Luis Regional Detention Center
Yuma County Juvenile Justice Center
Amador County Jail
Butte County Jail
Butte County Juvenile Hall
Calaveras County Sheriff
Del Norte County Sheriff
Fresno County Juvenile Justice Center
Hemet City Police Department
Inyo County Jail
Lassen County Jail – All Locations
Lompoc City Jail
Madera County Doc
Mariposa County Sheriff
Modoc County Jail
Mono County Mammoth Lakes Courthouse

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.50
4.85
3.12
4.93
3.65
3.50
3.90
4.64
5.35
5.10
4.64
3.99
5.14
4.85
0.47
0.40
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.16
0.15
0.21
0.47
3.30
2.67
2.67
2.91
2.88
2.55
2.18
3.22
4.08
3.61
3.32
3.79
2.80
3.79

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.50
0.90
0.12
0.98
0.65
0.50
0.40
0.69
1.40
0.90
0.69
0.34
1.19
0.90
0.40
0.40
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.10
0.47
0.47
0.16
0.15
0.21
0.47
0.80
0.42
0.42
0.41
0.38
0.30
0.95
0.72
0.98
0.51
0.57
0.69
0.30
0.69

15 Min.
Rate ($)
10.50
17.45
4.80
18.65
12.75
10.50
9.50
14.30
24.95
17.70
14.30
8.75
21.80
17.45
6.07
6.00
3.15
3.15
3.15
1.87
7.05
7.05
2.40
2.25
3.15
7.05
14.50
8.55
8.55
8.65
8.20
6.75
15.48
13.30
17.80
10.75
11.30
13.45
7.00
13.45

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
*
#

Facility
Mono County Sheriff
Monterey County Jail
Monterey County Probation Office
Monterey County Youth Center
Napa County DOC
Napa County Juvenile Probation
Riverside County – All Locations
San Benito County Juvenile Department
San Bernardino County – All Locations
San Diego County – All Locations
San Joaquin County Jail
San Mateo County - Maguire Correctional
San Mateo County Youth Services Center
Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall
Seal Beach Police Department
Sutter County Sheriff
Trinity County Probation
Trinity County Sheriff
Volunteers Of America - Los Angeles
Yuba Sutter Juvenile Hall
Alamosa County Detention Center
Arapahoe County Sheriff
Aurora Municipal Court Administration
Bent County Jail
Boulder County Jail
Broomfield City Jail
Chaffee County Jail
Chief Ignacio Justice Center
Clear Creek County Jail
Delta County Jail
Delta County Work Release
Denver County Jail
Downtown Detention Center
Elbert County Jail
Fremont County Detention Center
Gunnison County Jail
Huerfano County Jail
Jefferson County Sheriff's Booking
Jefferson County Sheriff's Detention Facility
Lake County Sheriff

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.79
2.50
3.79
3.79
3.88
3.88
0.14
4.85
0.20
0.32
0.24
3.84
2.50
2.75
3.50
3.31
3.79
3.05
3.79
3.50
2.66
2.60
2.92
2.60
2.75
3.02
3.32
4.31
2.71
2.79
2.79
2.55
2.55
2.90
3.08
2.80
3.07
2.53
2.53
3.01

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.69
0.17
0.69
0.69
0.78
0.78
0.14
0.90
0.20
0.32
0.24
0.69
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.30
0.69
0.30
0.69
0.50
0.27
0.10
0.62
0.35
0.00
0.52
0.43
0.56
0.17
0.30
0.30
0.01
0.01
0.26
0.29
0.15
0.43
0.33
0.33
0.26

15 Min.
Rate ($)
13.45
4.88
13.45
13.45
14.80
14.80
2.10
17.45
3.00
4.80
3.60
13.50
6.00
6.25
10.50
7.51
13.45
7.25
13.45
10.50
6.44
4.00
11.60
7.50
2.75
10.30
9.34
12.15
5.09
6.99
6.99
2.69
2.69
6.54
7.14
4.90
9.09
7.15
7.15
6.65

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CT
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
*
#

Facility
Laplata County Jail
Las Animas County Jail
Lincoln County Sheriff
Logan County Jail
Mesa County Jail
Mesa County Jail Work Release
Moffat County Jail
Montezuma County Jail
Montrose County Jail
Morgan County Jail
Otero County Jail
Park County Detention Center
Prowers County Jail
Pueblo County Detention Center
Pueblo County Judicial Building
Rio Grande County Jail
Routt County Jail
Saguache County Jail
Southern Ute Indian Tribe
Summit County Jail
Teller County Jail
Washington County Jail
Weld County – All Locations
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Alachua County Jail
Baker County Detention Center
Bradford County Jail
Broward County – All Locations
Clay County Jail
Columbia County Detention Facility
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Escambia County Road Prison
Florida Civil Commitment Center
Gadsden Correctional Facility - MTC
Hardee County Jail
Jackson County Jail
Lake City Correctional Facility - CCA
Lake County Detention Center
Lake County Jail/Sheriff
Madison County Jail

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.00
2.49
3.04
3.02
2.48
2.48
3.53
2.97
2.83
2.87
2.80
2.96
2.99
2.74
2.74
2.55
2.79
3.40
2.74
3.19
2.85
3.28
3.38
0.25
2.36
2.13
2.05
2.05
1.98
0.21
0.14
2.53
1.57
0.06
0.35
2.43
0.12
2.15
2.15
2.58

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.50
0.10
0.25
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.39
0.43
0.44
0.23
0.40
0.32
0.20
0.24
0.24
0.15
0.25
0.51
0.20
0.44
0.31
0.39
0.13
0.25
0.40
0.38
0.30
0.30
0.03
0.21
0.14
0.42
0.22
0.06
0.35
0.43
0.12
0.40
0.40
0.22

15 Min.
Rate ($)
10.00
3.89
6.54
6.24
5.70
5.70
8.99
8.99
8.99
6.09
8.40
7.44
5.79
6.10
6.10
4.65
6.29
10.54
5.54
9.35
7.19
8.74
5.20
3.75
7.96
7.45
6.25
6.25
2.40
3.15
2.10
8.41
4.65
0.90
5.25
8.45
1.80
7.75
7.75
5.66

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
*
#

Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
2.14

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.39

15 Min.
Rate ($)
7.60

Securus

2.30

0.41

8.04

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

2.10
0.21
2.99
2.11
2.27
2.08
2.08
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.16
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.19

0.35
0.21
0.24
0.36
0.41
0.33
0.33
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.16
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.19

7.00
3.15
6.35
7.15
8.01
6.70
6.70
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.70
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.40
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.70
2.70
2.85
2.85
2.70
2.70
2.85
2.70
2.70
2.85
2.70
2.70
2.85
2.85
2.85

Facility

ICS Provider

Marion County Jail
Okaloosa County Department Of Correctional
Services
Palm Beach County Main Detention
Sarasota County Jail
Seminole County Jail
Suwannee County Jail
Taylor County Jail
Volusia County Branch Jail
Volusia County Correctional Facility
Athens Clarke County Jail
Athens Clarke Diversion Center
Atkinson County Jail
Baldwin County Jail
Barrow County Sheriff
Bibb County Annex - G Wing
Bibb County Main Jail
Bibb County New Jail
Brantley County Jail
Brooks County Jail
Bryan County Sheriff
Bulloch County Sheriff
Carroll County Jail
Catoosa County Jail
Chattooga County Jail
Clarke County Correctional Institution
Clayton County Detention Center
Dekalb County Jail
Dougherty County Jail
Fannin County Jail
Fayette County Jail
Fulton County – All Facilities
Grady County Jail
Gwinnett County Sheriff
Hall County Jail
Harris County Prison
Henry County - Annex
Henry County Jail
Jackson County Jail
Jefferson Correctional Institution
Jefferson County

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
ID
ID
*
#

Facility
Lincoln County Sheriff
Macon County Jail
Marion County Sheriff
McDuffie County Sheriff
McRae Correctional Facility – CCA
Oglethorpe County Jail
Pike County Sheriff
Richmond County Correctional Institution
Rockdale County Sheriff
Smyrna City Jail
Stephens County Jail
Stewart Detention Center – CCA
Tattnall County Sheriff
Tift County Law Enforcement Center
Troup County Jail
Walker County Sheriff
Wilkes County Sheriff
Wilkinson County Sheriff
Allamakee County Jail
Appanoose County Jail
Audubon County Jail
Bremer County Sheriff
Cass County Jail
Cedar County Sheriff
Clarke County Jail
Crawford County Jail
Mahaska County Jail
Marion County Jail
Mitchell County Jail
Monona County Sheriff
Pocahontas County Jail
Polk County
Pottawattamie County Jail
Story County Jail
Wapello County Jail
Webster County Jail
Woodbury County Jail
Woodbury County Work Release
Benewah County Jail
Custer County Jail

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
4.25
4.00
4.00
3.74
0.22
3.45
3.75
4.00
3.92
3.75
3.75
4.00
4.00
2.60
3.20
0.25
3.88
3.92
3.95
3.95
0.31
3.25

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.74
0.22
0.45
0.25
0.50
0.32
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.01
0.40
0.25
0.28
0.32
0.01
0.01
0.31
0.50

15 Min.
Rate ($)
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.70
2.85
2.70
2.70
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
11.25
7.50
11.00
14.10
3.30
9.75
7.25
11.00
8.40
7.25
7.25
11.00
11.00
2.74
8.80
3.75
7.80
8.40
4.09
4.09
4.65
10.25

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
ID
ID
ID
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
*
#

Facility
Idaho County Jail
Nez Perce County Jail
Valley County Jail
Adams County Jail
Alton City Police Department
Bond County Sheriff
Boone County Jail
Clark County Jail
Clay County Jail
Clinton County Jail
Collinsville City Police Department
Cook County Facilities
Crawford County Jail
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Dewitt County Sheriff
Douglas County Jail
Ford County Jail
Fulton County Jail
Granite City Jail
Greene County Sheriff
Grundy County Sheriff
Henderson County Sheriff
Henry County Jail
Iroquois County Jail
Jackson County Jail
Jersey County Jail
Kankakee County Jail
Kankakee County Jerome Combs Detention
Kendall County Jail
Knox County Jail
Lake County Adult Correctional Facility
Lawrence County Jail
Lee County Sheriff Department
Logan County Jail
Macon County Jail
Macoupin County Jail
Madison County Jail
Marshall County Sheriff
Mason County Sheriff
Massac County Sheriff

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.25
1.75
3.46
3.93
3.82
3.91
3.65
3.66
3.81
3.19
3.21
0.13
3.65
3.35
3.65
3.20
3.86
3.16
3.77
3.18
3.82
3.21
3.62
3.66
3.22
3.66
0.48
0.16
3.74
0.22
0.18
3.69
3.26
3.25
3.16
3.90
3.85
4.01
3.80
3.24

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.50
0.25
0.41
0.38
0.27
0.29
0.30
0.29
0.31
0.29
0.29
0.13
0.30
0.02
0.30
0.30
0.49
0.26
0.27
0.26
0.47
0.29
0.27
0.29
0.32
0.29
0.16
0.16
0.39
0.22
0.18
0.32
0.36
0.35
0.26
0.30
0.35
0.51
0.30
0.32

15 Min.
Rate ($)
10.25
5.25
9.20
9.25
7.60
7.97
7.85
7.72
8.15
7.25
7.27
1.95
7.85
3.63
7.85
7.40
10.72
6.80
7.55
6.82
10.40
7.27
7.40
7.72
7.70
7.72
2.72
2.40
9.20
3.30
2.70
8.17
8.30
8.15
6.80
8.10
8.75
11.15
8.00
7.72

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
*
#

Facility
McDonough County Jail
Mclean County Jail
Menard County Jail
Mercer County Sheriff
Monroe County Jail
Morgan County Jail
Ogle County Jail
Perry County Jail
Piatt County Sheriff
Pike County Jail
Randolph County Jail
Richland County Jail
Rock Island Sheriff
Saline County Jail
Shelby County Jail
St Clair County Jail
Stark County Jail
Stephenson County Jail
Tazewell County Justice Center
Union County Jail
Vermilion County Jail
Warren County Jail
Washington County Jail
White County Jail
Whiteside County Jail
Will County – All Locations
Williamson County Jail
Woodford County Jail
Allen County Juvenile Justice Center
Bartholomew County Jail
Benton County Jail
Cass-Pulaski Community Corrections
Daviess County Jail
Decatur County Jail
Dekalb County Jail
Dubois County Security Center
Elkhart County – All Locations
Floyd County Jail
Franklin County Jail
Gibson County Jail

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.67
3.95
3.80
3.66
3.81
3.65
3.90
3.19
3.84
4.31
4.15
3.66
3.86
3.80
3.16
4.23
4.01
3.82
4.00
3.22
3.96
3.65
3.21
4.02
3.69
3.26
3.22
3.86
0.24
0.24
3.40
3.40
3.45
2.41
0.60
3.30
0.24
0.24
3.74
3.51

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.32
0.60
0.30
0.29
0.31
0.30
0.40
0.29
0.49
0.81
0.80
0.29
0.51
0.30
0.26
0.68
0.51
0.32
0.38
0.32
0.61
0.30
0.29
0.52
0.32
0.29
0.32
0.36
0.24
0.24
0.40
0.40
0.45
0.24
0.60
0.80
0.24
0.24
0.74
0.51

15 Min.
Rate ($)
8.15
12.35
8.00
7.72
8.15
7.85
9.50
7.25
10.70
15.65
15.35
7.72
11.00
8.00
6.80
13.75
11.15
8.30
9.32
7.70
12.50
7.85
7.27
11.30
8.17
7.32
7.70
8.90
3.60
3.60
9.00
9.00
9.75
5.77
9.00
14.50
3.60
3.60
14.10
10.65

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
*
#

Facility

ICS Provider

Grant County – All Locations
Greene County Sheriff
Hammond City Jail
Hendricks County Work Release
Jackson County Sheriff
Jefferson County Jail
Johnson County Community Corrections
Johnson County Sheriff
Kosciusko County Jail
Kosciusko County Work Release
Lagrange County Sheriff
Laporte County Community Corrections
Laporte County Jail
Lawrence County Sheriff
Madison County Sheriff
Marion County Juvenile Detention Center
Montgomery County Sheriff
Morgan County Jail
Newton County Jail
Porter County Sheriff
Pulaski County Jail
Putnam County Jail
Rush County Jail
Shelby County Sheriff
Steuben County Jail
Sullivan County Jail
Switzerland County Jail
Tippecanoe County Community Corrections
Tipton County Jail
Vigo County Community Correctional Center
Vigo County Jail
Wabash County Jail
Warren County Jail
Warrick County Sheriff
White County Jail
Barton County Jail
Butler County Corrections
Dickinson County Jail
Edwards County Jail
Elk County Jail

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.22
3.59
3.74
0.24
3.40
3.61
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
3.81
0.24
0.24
3.65
0.22
0.24
3.53
3.81
0.68
0.24
0.85
3.40
3.58
3.75
3.57
3.57
3.40
0.24
3.40
0.24
0.24
3.48
3.40
3.40
0.79
2.69
4.01
3.85
4.01
4.01

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.22
0.59
0.74
0.24
0.40
0.61
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.81
0.24
0.24
0.65
0.22
0.24
0.53
0.81
0.68
0.24
0.35
0.40
0.58
0.75
0.57
0.57
0.40
0.24
0.40
0.24
0.24
0.48
0.40
0.40
0.29
0.69
0.51
0.85
0.95
0.51

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.30
11.85
14.10
3.60
9.00
12.15
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
15.15
3.60
3.60
12.75
3.30
3.60
10.95
15.15
10.20
3.60
5.75
9.00
11.70
14.25
11.55
11.55
9.00
3.60
9.00
3.60
3.60
10.20
9.00
9.00
4.85
12.35
11.15
15.75
17.31
11.15

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
*
#

Facility
Ellsworth County Jail
Ford County Jail
Graham County Jail
Labette County Jail
Leavenworth Detention Center – CCA
Lincoln County Jail
MacPherson County Jail
Meade County Jail
Osborne County Jail
Ottawa County Jail
Phillips County Jail
Rice County Law Enforcement Center
Saline County Jail
Sedgwick County – All Locations
Seward County
Shawnee County Adult Detention Center
Shawnee County Juvenile Detention Center
Smith County Jail
Stevens County Jail
Sumner County Jail
Barren County Detention Center
Big Sandy Regional Detention Center
Boyd County Detention Center
Caldwell County Jail
Carroll County Detention Center
Clay County Detention Center
Clinton County Jail
Community Transitional Services
Crittenden County Detention Center
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Estill County Jail
Floyd County Detention Center
Franklin County Fiscal Court
Hardin County Annex
Hardin County Detention Center
Hardin County Restricted Custody Building
Henderson County Community Services
Henderson County Detention Center
Kentucky River Regional Jail
Leslie County Detention Center

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.82
5.50
4.01
4.61
0.21
3.45
5.27
4.11
2.13
3.77
3.36
3.00
3.93
1.60
5.30
4.00
4.00
3.35
4.16
2.41
1.80
3.16
2.07
1.78
3.18
1.85
3.21
1.68
1.87
0.21
1.78
1.90
0.22
1.79
1.79
1.79
3.32
3.32
3.01
3.10

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.36
0.83
0.51
1.01
0.21
0.35
0.85
0.51
0.75
0.77
0.36
0.50
0.43
0.10
0.88
0.01
0.01
0.35
0.66
0.41
0.30
0.41
0.32
0.28
0.43
0.35
0.21
0.18
0.37
0.21
0.28
0.40
0.22
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.57
0.57
0.41
0.35

15 Min.
Rate ($)
8.86
17.12
11.15
18.75
3.15
8.35
17.17
11.25
12.63
14.55
8.40
10.00
9.95
3.00
17.62
4.14
4.14
8.25
13.40
8.15
6.00
8.90
6.55
5.70
9.20
6.75
6.15
4.20
7.05
3.15
5.70
7.50
3.30
5.85
5.85
5.85
11.30
11.30
8.75
8.00

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
*
#

Facility
Letcher County Jail
Lewis County Detention Center
Lexington Fayette Urban Detention
Logan County Detention Center
Louisville / Jefferson County Metro Govt –
All Locations
Meade County Jail
Nelson County Detention Center
Otter Creek Correctional Center – CCA
Pulaski County Detention Center
Rowan County Detention Center
Scott County Detention Center
Three Forks Regional Jail
Warren County Regional Jail
Woodford County Fiscal Ct
Berwick City Police Department
Cedarwood Manor
Cedarwood Manor Women's
Department of Corrections – All Locations
East Carroll Parish Female
East Carroll Parish Male
East Carroll Riverbend Detention Phase I
Jefferson Parish (Gretna)
Kenner Police Department
Lafourche Parish – All Locations
Morehouse Parish – All Locations
Natchitoches Parish Work Center
Orleans Parish – All Locations
Slidell Police Department
Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex
Terrebonne Parish Trustee
Ash Street Jail & Regional Lock Up
Barnstable County Corrections Facility
Berkshire County House Of Corrections
Berkshire County Jail
Bristol County Faunce Corner
Dukes County Jail
Essex County – All Locations
Franklin County Jail
Middlesex Billerica Hoc
Suffolk County House Of Corrections

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
1.89
3.08
0.14
1.92

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.39
0.33
0.14
0.42

15 Min.
Rate ($)
7.35
7.70
2.10
7.80

Securus

1.73

0.23

4.95

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

2.95
1.82
1.70
1.78
3.06
1.87
3.10
1.97
1.80
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
3.16
3.10
3.17
3.17
3.16
3.10
2.65
3.21
0.21
2.95

0.45
0.32
0.20
0.28
0.31
0.37
0.35
0.47
0.30
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.16
0.10
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.10
0.15
0.21
0.21
0.10

9.25
6.30
4.50
5.70
7.40
7.05
8.00
8.55
6.00
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.15
2.40
2.40
2.40
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
5.40
4.50
5.55
5.55
5.40
4.50
4.75
6.15
3.15
4.35

ICS Provider

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
MA
MA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
*
#

Facility
Suffolk County Jail
Worcester County Jail
Dorchester County Detention Center
Garrett County Sheriff
Queen Anne\'S County Detention Center
Talbot County Detention Center
Worcester County Detention Center
Androscoggin County Jail
Cumberland County Jail
Franklin County Jail
Hancock County Jail
Kennebec County Jail
Knox County Jail
Oxford County Jail
Penobscot County Jail
Piscataquis County Jail
Waldo County Jail
Washington County Jail
York County Jail
Alcona County Sheriff
Alger County Sheriff
Alpena County Jail
Antrim County Sheriff
Arenac County Jail
Baraga County Jail
Bay County Law Enforcement Center
Benzie County Sheriff
Branch County Jail
Cheboygan County Jail
Chippewa County Jail
Clare County Jail
Clinton County Jail
Delta County Jail
Detroit Madison Center
Dickinson County Jail
Eaton County Sheriff
Emmet County Sheriff
Flint Police Department
Genesee County Jail
Gladwin County Jail

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
2.95
3.10
0.22
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.70
1.48
1.75
1.48
1.48
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.48
1.75
5.11
5.65
5.26
5.33
5.40
5.36
5.40
5.90
5.79
5.23
5.52
5.61
5.29
5.40
5.11
4.16
4.93
5.25
4.64
4.88
5.40

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.10
0.10
0.22
0.25
0.14
0.25
0.25
0.27
0.14
0.32
0.14
0.14
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.14
0.32
0.69
0.69
0.84
0.91
0.69
0.69
0.69
1.19
1.08
0.81
0.88
1.19
1.05
0.69
0.69
0.37
0.69
0.83
0.69
0.93
0.69

15 Min.
Rate ($)
4.35
4.50
3.30
3.75
2.21
3.75
3.75
5.48
3.44
6.23
3.44
3.44
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23
3.44
6.23
14.77
15.31
17.02
18.07
15.06
15.02
15.06
22.56
20.91
16.57
17.84
22.27
19.99
15.06
14.77
9.34
14.59
16.87
14.30
17.90
15.06

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
*
#

Facility
Gogebic County Sheriff
Grand Traverse County
Gratiot County Jail
Grosse Pointe Park City
Holland Police Department
Houghton County Sheriff
Houghton County Work Release
Ingham County Correctional Facility
Ionia County Jail
Iosco County Sheriff
Iron County Sheriff
Isabella County Jail
Jackson County Chanter Road Facility
Jackson County Jail
Kent County Correctional Facility
Kent County Courthouse Holding
Lansing Police Department
Lapeer County Courthouse
Lapeer County Jail
Mackinac County Jail
Marquette County Community Corrections
Detention Center
Marquette Sheriff
Mason County Jail
Menominee County Jail
Midland County Jail
Missaukee County Sheriff
Montcalm Sheriff
Montmorency Sheriff
Muskegon County Jail
Newaygo County Jail
Niles Law Enforcement Complex
Ogemaw County Jail
Ontonagon County Jail
Otsego County Jail
Ottawa County Jail
Ottawa County Juvenile Detention Center
Presque Isle County Jail
Roscommon County Jail
Saginaw County Sheriff
Sanilac County Jail

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
5.40
3.62
5.05
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
4.32
4.83
4.45
5.40
5.39
4.93
4.93
4.64
4.64
4.79
5.31
5.31
5.40

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.69
0.62
0.82
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.53
0.88
0.45
0.69
0.97
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.25
1.07
1.07
0.69

15 Min.
Rate ($)
15.06
12.30
16.53
15.06
15.06
15.06
15.06
11.74
17.15
10.75
15.06
18.97
14.59
14.59
14.30
14.30
8.29
20.29
20.29
15.06

Securus

5.87

1.16

22.11

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

5.87
5.40
5.40
3.64
5.41
5.70
5.36
5.64
5.14
5.40
5.47
5.65
5.11
5.39
5.14
5.65
5.90
5.73
8.20

1.16
0.69
0.69
0.64
0.99
0.99
0.69
0.97
1.19
0.69
1.05
0.69
0.69
1.19
1.19
0.69
1.19
1.02
0.01

22.11
15.06
15.06
12.60
19.27
19.56
15.02
19.22
21.80
15.06
20.17
15.31
14.77
22.05
21.80
15.31
22.56
20.01
8.34

ICS Provider

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State

Facility

ICS Provider

MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO

Schoolcraft County Jail
Shiawassee County Jail
St Clair County Jail
St Joseph County Jail
Van Buren County Jail
Washtenaw County Sheriff
Wayne County - Baird Detention Facility
Wayne County - Dickerson Detention Facility
Wayne County - Old Wayne County Jail
Wayne County - Road Patrol Lockup Facility
Wexford County Jail
Brooklyn Park Police Department
Carlton County Jail
Carver County Jail
Goodhue Sheriff
Hennepin County – All Locations
Many Rivers Juvenile Detention Center
McLeod County Jail
Meeker County Jail
Northwest Regional Corrections Center
Olmsted County Adult Detention Center
Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center
Rice County Jail
Rice County Jail Annex
Scott County Jail
Sherburne County Jail
Sibley County Jail
Wadena County Sheriff
Waseca County Jail
Washington County Jail
Arnold City Jail
Aurora City Police Department
Berkeley City Police Department
Boone County Commission
Cape Girardeau County Jail
Cape Girardeau Police Department
Crawford County Jail
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Doniphan City Jail
Ferguson City Police Department

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

*
#

1st Min.
Charge ($)
5.40
5.09
5.52
1.20
5.90
5.40
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.48
5.87
3.00
2.10
2.10
4.17
0.14
3.29
4.10
0.25
0.21
3.29
2.15
2.10
2.10
2.26
2.24
3.00
2.15
3.25
2.07
3.51
3.51
3.26
2.65
0.61
3.76
3.91
0.05
3.51
2.90

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.69
0.85
1.10
0.70
1.19
0.69
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.48
1.16
0.25
0.35
0.35
0.57
0.14
0.39
0.50
0.25
0.21
0.39
0.01
0.35
0.35
0.41
0.39
0.50
0.30
0.50
0.32
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.40
0.61
0.66
0.66
0.05
0.66
0.40

15 Min.
Rate ($)
15.06
16.99
20.92
11.00
22.56
15.06
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.20
22.11
6.50
7.00
7.00
12.15
2.10
8.75
11.10
3.75
3.15
8.75
2.29
7.00
7.00
8.00
7.70
10.00
6.35
10.25
6.55
12.75
12.75
12.50
8.25
9.15
13.00
13.15
0.75
12.75
8.50

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
*
#

Facility
Festus City Police Department
Grundy County Detention Center
Jefferson County Jail
Jennings Adult Correctional Facility
Kansas City Police Dept. – All Locations
Lee's Summit City Police Department
Mississippi County Detention Center
Moline Acres City Police Department
Monett City Police Department
Northwoods City Police Department
Overland City Police Department
Phelps County Sheriff
Pike County Detention Center
Scott County Jail
Sikeston Department Of Public Safety
St Francois County Jail
St Genevieve County Jail
St Peters Police Department
Threads Training 2
Threads Training 3
Wright County Jail
Adams County Correctional Center - CCA
Adams County Jail
Amite County Jail
Chickasaw County Jail
Clarke County Jail
Copiah County Detention Center
Desoto County Adult Detention Center
Desoto County Expansion Facility
Forrest County Juvenile Detention Center
Forrest County Regional Jail
Greene County Jail
Grenada County Jail
Hancock County Adult Detention Center
Harrison County Detention Center
Humphreys County Jail
Jackson County Adult Detention Center
Jasper County Jail
Jones County Jail
Jones County Juvenile Detention Center

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.26
3.76
0.73
4.01
2.65
3.26
3.82
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
2.89
2.67
3.00
3.51
2.90
3.15
3.21
0.26
0.26
3.24
0.21
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.66
1.16
0.73
1.16
0.40
0.66
0.57
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.64
0.42
1.00
0.66
0.65
0.90
0.45
0.26
0.26
0.74
0.21
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

15 Min.
Rate ($)
12.50
20.00
10.95
20.25
8.25
12.50
11.80
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
11.85
8.55
17.00
12.75
12.00
15.75
9.51
3.90
3.90
13.60
3.15
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
*
#

Facility
Lafayette County Detention Center
Lauderdale County Detention Facility
Leake County Correctional Facility - County
Leake County Correctional Facility - State
Leflore County Jail
Lincoln County Jail
Lowndes County Adult Detention Center
Lowndes County Courthouse Holding Cell
Madison County Detention Center
Neshoba County Detention Center
Newton County Jail
Oktibbeha County Jail
Oktibbeha County Jail-Trustee Facility
Panola County Detention Center
Perry County Jail
Picayune City Jail
Pike County Detention Center
Prentiss County Jail
Scott County Jail
Tallahatchie County Correctional – CCA
Tate County Jail- JSI
Tippah County Jail - JSI
Tunica County Sheriff - JSI
Union County Jail
Walthall County Jail - JSI
Warren County Jail
Warren County Juvenile Facility
Wayne County Jail
Webster County Jail
Yalobusha County Jail
Anaconda Police Department
Beaverhead County Jail
Broadwater County
Butte Silverbow County Jail
Cascade County
Cascade County Adult Detention Center
CCCS – Nexus
CCCS – Start
CCCS – Watch East Treatment Center
Chippewa Cree Tribal Justice Center

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
4.59
4.59
3.02
4.70
4.59
4.59
1.30
1.28
1.34
1.34

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.10
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.12
0.61
0.64
0.64
0.30
0.28
0.20
0.20

15 Min.
Rate ($)
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
1.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
11.59
11.59
4.70
13.24
13.55
13.55
5.50
5.20
4.14
4.14

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
*
#

Facility
Chouteau County Detention Center
Custer County Jail
Fallon County Sheriff
Fergus County Sheriff
Flathead County Jail
Hill County Detention Facility
Jefferson County Detention Facility
Lake County Detention Facility
Lewis & Clark County Detention Center
Lincoln County Jail
Musselshell County Jail
Park County Detention Center
Pondera County Sheriff
Powell County Sheriff
Ravalli County Sheriff
Richland County Sheriff
Sanders County Jail
Toole County Jail
Alamance County Detention Center
Alamance County Detention Center Annex
Albemarle District Jail
Anson County Sheriff
Avery County Sheriff
Bladen County Sheriff
Brunswick County Jail
Cabarrus County Sheriff
Caldwell County Detention Center
Cherokee County Detention Facility
Chowan County Detention Facility
Cleveland County Detention Facility
Cleveland County Jail Annex
Columbus County Detention Center
Dare County Detention Center
Franklin County Detention Center
Henderson County Detention Center
Hoke County Detention Center
Iredell County Annex
Iredell County Detention Center
Jackson County Jail
Johnston County Jail

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
4.55
4.78
4.64
4.45
4.62
5.03
2.99
4.59
2.95
4.78
4.88
4.74
5.30
1.50
4.59
4.78
3.10
4.55
3.09
3.09
2.82
2.82
0.22
2.62
2.82
2.86
2.83
2.86
2.99
2.84
2.84
2.91
2.49
1.38
2.94
2.91
2.90
2.90
2.98
1.11

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.50
0.69
0.69
0.50
0.67
0.67
0.01
0.50
0.05
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.67
0.67
0.50
0.69
0.50
0.50
0.26
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.22
0.29
0.24
0.36
0.33
0.28
0.31
0.26
0.26
0.33
0.24
0.01
0.36
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.40
0.06

15 Min.
Rate ($)
11.55
14.44
14.30
11.45
14.00
14.41
3.13
11.59
3.65
14.44
14.54
14.40
14.68
10.88
11.59
14.44
10.10
11.55
6.73
6.73
6.18
6.18
3.30
6.68
6.18
7.90
7.45
6.78
7.33
6.48
6.48
7.53
5.85
1.52
7.98
7.53
7.38
7.38
8.58
1.95

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NM
NM
*
#

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
2.87
0.25
2.82
2.80
2.60
2.66
2.94
2.94
2.94
2.85
2.87
2.55
1.17
3.60

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.29
0.25
0.24
0.30
0.27
0.41
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.27
0.29
0.31
0.17
0.60

15 Min.
Rate ($)
6.93
3.75
6.18
7.00
6.38
8.40
7.98
7.98
7.98
6.63
6.93
6.89
3.55
12.00

Securus

2.20

0.27

5.98

Securus

0.08

0.08

1.20

Securus

2.76

0.40

8.36

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

2.65
2.88
2.88
4.74
4.16
4.64
4.16
2.53
2.75
2.27
1.71
1.50
2.27
1.62

0.40
0.63
0.63
0.79
0.66
0.69
0.66
0.38
0.50
0.30
0.21
0.19
0.30
0.07

8.25
11.70
11.70
15.80
13.40
14.30
13.40
7.85
9.75
6.47
4.65
4.16
6.47
2.60

Securus

2.39

0.42

8.27

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1.44
0.21
2.55
2.55
0.08
0.08

0.19
0.21
0.25
0.25
0.08
0.08

4.10
3.15
6.05
6.05
1.20
1.20

Facility

ICS Provider

Macon County Detention Center
Madison County Detention Center
Montgomery County Sheriff
New Hanover County Detention Center
Pender County Jail
Richmond County Jail
Rockingham County Jail
Rowan County Detention Center
Rowan County Detention Center Annex
Rutherford County Detention Center
Scotland County Sheriff
Union County Jail
Bismarck Transition Center
Cass County Sheriff
Dakota Women's Correctional And
Rehabilitation Center
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Heart Of America Correctional & Treatment
Center
Adams County Jail
Dakota County Jail
Dakota County Jail
Hall County Doc
Kimball County Sheriff
Phelps County Correctional
Richardson County Jail
Saunders County Jail
Washington County Jail
Belknap County House of Corrections
Carroll County Department of Corrections
Cheshire County Department of Corrections
Coos County House Of Corrections
Merrimack County Department of Corrections
Rockingham County Department of
Corrections
Sullivan County Department of Corrections
Cape May County Correctional Center
Passaic Co Jail - Work Release/Motor Pool
Passaic County Jail
Bernalillo County Metro Detention Center
Bernalillo County Youth Services Center

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State

Facility

ICS Provider

NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV
NV

Chaves County Adult Detention Center
Cibola County Correctional Center – CCA
Curry County Detention Center
De Baca County Detention Center
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Eddy County Adult Detention
Eddy County Adult Women Detention Center
Grant County Jail
Guadalupe Correctional Facility - GEO
Hidalgo County Detention Center
Hobbs Police Department City Jail
Lea County Detention Center – GEO
Lea Hobbs County - GEO
Lincoln County Detention Center
Los Alamos Police Department
NM Women's Correctional Facility – CCA
Northeastern NM Detention Facility – GEO
Otero County Jail
Quay County Detention Center
Rio Arriba County Detention Facility - JSI
Roosevelt County Adult Detention Center
San Juan County Adult Detention Center
San Miguel County Detention Center
Sandoval County Detention Center - JSI
Santa Fe County Adult Detention Facility
Sierra County Detention
Taos County Adult Detention Center
Torrance County Detention Facility – CCA
Valencia County Detention Center
Vigil Maldonado Detention Center
Churchill County Sheriff
Douglas County - Lake Tahoe Jail
Douglas County - Minden Jail
Eureka County Jail
Henderson Detention Center
Humboldt County Sheriff
Lander County Sheriff's
Lincoln County Jail
Lyon County Jail
Mesquite City Police Department

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

*
#

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.08
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.08
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.08
0.08
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.12
0.08
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.15
1.49
1.91
1.91
1.95
1.87
1.94
1.75
2.04
1.83
1.81

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.08
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.08
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.08
0.08
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.12
0.08
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.10
0.15
0.25
0.41
0.41
0.31
0.37
0.30
0.25
0.54
0.33
0.31

15 Min.
Rate ($)
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
1.20
2.25
2.25
2.25
1.20
2.25
2.25
2.25
1.20
2.10
2.25
1.20
1.20
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
1.80
1.20
2.25
2.25
2.25
1.50
2.25
4.99
7.65
7.65
6.29
7.05
6.14
5.25
9.60
6.45
6.15

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
NV
NV
NV
NV
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
*
#

Facility
Mineral County Sheriff
Pershing County Sheriff
Storey County Sheriff
White Pine County Jail
Livingston County Jail
New York City Department of Corrections
Niagara County Correctional Facility
North Tonawanda Police Department
Ontario County Jail
Suffolk County Jail
Suffolk County Jail / Yaphank
Allen County Sheriff
Ashland County Jail
Ashtabula City Police Department
Ashtabula County Jail
Auglaize County Jail
Bedford Heights Police Department
Bedford Police Department
Belmont County Jail
Broadview Heights Police Department
Brown County Adult Detention Center
Carroll County Sheriff
Central Ohio Youth Center
Clark County Jail
Clark County Juvenile Detention Center
Clinton County Adult Detention
Columbiana County Jail
Columbiana Minimum Security NAC
Corrections Commission Of NW Ohio
Crawford County Jail
Cuyahoga County Juvenile Detention Center
Darke County Jail
East Ohio Correctional Center
Erie County Jail
Fairborn City Police Department
Fairfield County – All Locations
Fayette County Sheriff
Findlay
Guernsey County Jail
Hancock County Sheriff

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
1.89
1.25
1.81
1.81
4.82
0.50
4.35
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
3.11
3.02
3.11
2.55
3.11
0.35
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.00
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.25
0.25
0.31
0.31
0.40
0.50
0.40
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.36
0.27
0.36
0.30
0.36
0.24
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.25
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36

15 Min.
Rate ($)
5.39
4.75
6.15
6.15
10.42
1.20
9.95
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
8.15
6.80
8.15
6.75
8.15
3.71
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
6.50
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
*
#

Facility
Harrison County Jail
Holmes County Jail
Jackson County Correctional
Knox County Jail
Lawrence County Jail
Licking County Justice Center
Logan County Juvenile Detention Center
Logan County Sheriff
Lorain County Correctional Facility
Lorain Police Department
Maple Heights Police Department
Medina County Jail
Medina County Juvenile Detention Center
Meigs County Jail
Mercer County Sheriff
Miami County Incarceration Facility
Miami County Jail
Middleport City Jail
Morrow County Sheriff
Multi-County Correctional Center
Multi-County Juvenile Detention Center
Noble County Sheriff
North Central Ohio Rehabilitation
North Royalton City Police Department
Northeast Ohio Correctional Center - CCA
Northwest Community Correctional Center
Northwest Ohio Juvenile Detention Center
Ottawa County Detention Facility
Ottawa County Minimum Security
Parma Police Department
Pickaway County Jail
Portage County Jail
Portage/Geauga Juvenile Detention Center
Preble County Jail
Putnam County Sheriff
Richland County Community Alternative
Center
Richland County Jail
Ross County Jail
Scioto County
Scioto County Correctional Center

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
0.22
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
0.21
3.11
3.11
2.90
2.90
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.22
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.21
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36

15 Min.
Rate ($)
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
3.30
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
3.15
8.15
8.15
7.94
7.94
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15

Securus

2.95

0.20

5.75

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11

0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36

8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15

ICS Provider

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
*
#

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
2.88
3.11
2.65
3.11
3.11

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.36
0.36
0.15
0.36
0.36

15 Min.
Rate ($)
7.92
8.15
4.75
8.15
8.15

Securus

3.11

0.36

8.15

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.60
3.60
3.85
0.50
3.60
3.23
3.60
3.60
2.43
1.00
2.67
0.17
0.17
0.17
2.87
2.68
2.27
1.95
1.85
2.05
0.06
2.20
1.88
1.88
2.15
0.21
0.21
1.95
3.78
2.49

0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
1.10
0.11
0.01
0.50
0.33
0.22
1.10
0.80
0.25
0.57
0.49
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.09
0.25
0.27
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.06
0.20
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.35
0.49

8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
19.00
5.14
3.99
4.00
8.22
6.31
19.00
14.80
5.93
8.98
9.53
2.55
2.55
2.55
4.13
6.18
6.05
4.75
4.65
6.25
0.90
5.00
3.70
3.70
4.25
3.15
3.15
4.75
8.68
9.35

Facility

ICS Provider

Shelby County Sheriff
Southeast Ohio Regional Jail
Strongsville Police Department
Tri County Regional Jail
Van Wert County Correctional Facility
Wayne County Discipline & Rehabilitation
Center
Wayne County Jail
Western Ohio Regional Treatment
Wood County Jail
Wyandot County Sheriff
Cherokee County Jail
Davis CCA
Del City Police Department
Diamondback Correctional Facility – CCA
Ottawa County Jail
Sand Springs City Police Department
Texas County Jail
Washington County Jail
Clatsop County Sheriff
Jefferson County Sheriff
Klamath County Sheriff
Multnomah County Detention Center
Multnomah County Inverness Jail
Multnomah County Juvenile Department
Polk County Sheriff
Union County Sheriff
Butler County Prison
Clinton County Correctional Facility
Columbia County Prison
Crawford County Correctional Facility
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Elk County Jail
Erie County Community Correctional Facility
Erie County Prison
Greene County Prison
Lancaster County Prison
Lancaster County Youth Intervention Center
Monroe County Correctional Facility
Potter County Jail
Tioga County Prison

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
PA
PA
PA
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
TN
TN
TN
*
#

Facility
Union County Prison
Warren County Prison
Wyoming County Correctional Facility
Abbeville County Detention Center
Aiken County Detention Center
Bamberg County Jail
Cherokee County Jail
Chesterfield County Detention Center
Chesterfield County Work Camp
Clarendon County Jail
Darlington County Detention Center
Dillon County Detention Center
Edgefield County Jail
Fairfield County Detention Center
Georgetown County Detention Center
Greenville County Detention Center
Greenwood County Jail
Hampton County Jail
Hill Finklea Detention Center
Horry County Detention Center
Jasper County Detention Center
Lancaster County Jail
Laurens County Jail
Lexington County Jail
Oconee County Law Enforcement
Pickens County Detention Facility
Pickens County Prison
Rock Hill City Jail
Sumter County Detention Center
Union County Jail
Union County Prison Camp
York County Jail
Brown County Jail
Codington County Jail
Davison County Jail
Fall River County Jail
Pennington County Juvenile
Bradley County Jail
Campbell County Jail
Carroll County Jail

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.95
2.26
2.68
2.50
2.50
0.95
2.50
2.50
2.50
1.25
2.50
2.50
2.50
1.15
0.12
2.50
2.50
1.58
1.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
1.75
2.50
2.50
2.00
2.50
1.25
2.50
2.50
2.50
3.28
3.61
2.14
3.00
0.28
1.53
1.89
3.37

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.45
0.26
0.68
0.40
0.40
0.28
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.15
0.12
0.33
0.40
0.33
0.38
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.10
0.40
0.40
0.22
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.64
0.47
0.50
0.36
0.28
0.13
0.20
0.78

15 Min.
Rate ($)
10.25
5.90
12.20
8.10
8.10
4.87
8.10
8.10
8.10
6.85
8.10
8.10
8.10
3.25
1.80
7.12
8.10
6.20
6.82
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
3.15
8.10
8.10
5.08
8.10
6.85
8.10
8.10
8.10
12.24
10.19
9.14
8.04
4.20
3.35
4.69
14.29

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
*
#

Facility

ICS Provider

Carter County Jail
Cheatham County Jail
Chester County Jail
Cumberland County Justice Center
Decatur County Justice Complex
Dekalb County Jail
Fentress County Justice Center
Fentress County Sheriff
Greene County Detention Center
Greene County Jail Workhouse
Hamblen County Jail
Hamilton County Jail
Hancock County Jail
Hardeman County Correctional Center – CCA
Hardin County Sheriff
Henderson County Detention Center
Jefferson County Detention Center
Jefferson County Workhouse
Johnson City Jail
Knox County Detention Facility
Knox County Jail
Knox County Work Release Center
Marion County Jail
McMinn County Justice Center
Morgan County Jail
Scott County Jail Building 2
Sequatchie County Sheriff
Silverdale Detention Facilities – CCA
Smith County Jail
Sullivan Correctional Facility Building 2
Sullivan County Sheriff
Sumner County Sheriff And Jail
Tipton County Jail
Weakley County Jail
West Tennessee Detention Facility – CCA
White County Jail
Whiteville Correction Facility – CCA
Andrews County Jail
Atascosa County Jail
Bastrop County Jail

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.62
2.24
4.25
1.91
0.31
2.37
3.03
3.03
1.90
1.90
4.28
1.60
1.91
0.16
2.20
2.09
1.76
1.76
4.34
2.80
2.80
2.80
0.32
1.76
2.29
1.82
1.81
0.31
1.87
4.17
4.22
2.06
1.89
1.84
0.21
0.90
0.16
2.45
4.19
4.62

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.58
0.05
0.57
0.22
0.21
0.27
0.43
0.43
0.21
0.21
0.60
0.10
0.22
0.16
0.10
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.66
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.22
0.16
0.10
0.13
0.22
0.21
0.18
0.58
0.58
0.02
0.20
0.15
0.21
0.30
0.16
0.01
0.57
0.12

15 Min.
Rate ($)
11.74
2.94
12.23
4.99
3.25
6.15
9.05
9.05
4.84
4.84
12.68
3.00
4.99
2.40
3.60
4.19
4.00
4.00
13.58
2.94
2.94
2.94
3.40
4.00
3.69
3.64
4.89
3.25
4.39
12.29
12.34
2.34
4.69
3.94
3.15
5.10
2.40
2.59
12.17
6.30

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
*
#

Facility
Bell County Central Jail
Bell County Loop Jail
Bensmihen
Brazoria County Sheriff Jail
Brownsville Police Department
Burleson County Jail
Central Texas Treatment
Coastal Bend
Collin County – All Locations
Collingsworth County Jail
Comal County Jail
Cooke County Jail
Coryell County Sheriff
Crystal City Correctional Center
Cypress Creek
Dallas County – All Locations
Denton County – All Locations
Desoto City Jail
Dover
Duval County Jail
Ector County Detention Center
Ector County Jail – CEC/CiviGenics
Eden Detention Center – CCA
Fannin County Jail
Fannin County Jail
Farrar
Fort Bend County Correctional Facility
Fort Bend County Juvenile Probation
Grand Prairie Police Department
Gray County Jail
Grayson County
Hale County Sheriff
Hall County Jail
Hamilton County Law Enforcement Center
Harris County – All Locations
Hays County Juvenile Facility
Hays County Law Enforcement Center
Hopkins County Jail
Hudspeth County Sheriff - JSI
Irving Police Department

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.21
0.21
0.27
4.16
3.92
3.99
5.63
5.57
3.45
3.92
4.09
3.66
4.32
4.90
1.65
0.24
0.26
3.91
0.27
3.91
5.38
5.38
0.21
4.86
4.86
0.27
0.32
0.32
5.38
5.22
4.35
5.44
0.22
5.12
4.03
0.22
5.55
4.03
4.31
3.86

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.21
0.21
0.27
0.65
0.41
0.47
0.68
0.62
0.01
0.41
0.49
0.64
0.70
0.25
0.00
0.24
0.26
0.39
0.27
0.39
0.43
0.43
0.21
0.61
0.61
0.27
0.32
0.32
0.53
0.27
0.58
0.49
0.22
0.35
0.45
0.22
0.60
0.53
0.70
0.36

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.15
3.15
4.05
13.26
9.66
10.57
15.15
14.25
3.59
9.66
10.95
12.62
14.12
8.40
1.65
3.60
3.90
9.37
4.05
9.37
11.40
11.40
3.15
13.40
13.40
4.05
4.80
4.80
12.80
9.00
12.47
12.30
3.30
10.02
10.33
3.30
13.95
11.45
14.11
8.90

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
*
#

Facility
Jack County Jail
Jasper County Law Enforcement Center
Jim Hogg County
Kaufman Co. Jail
Kaufman County Law Enforcement Center
Kleberg County
La Salle County Jail
Lamar County Jail
Lamb County Jail
Lasalle Regional Detention Center
Leboeuf
Liberty County Jail
Limestone County Detention Center
Limestone Old County Jail
Madison County Sheriff
Menard County Sheriff
Mesquite Police Department
Midlothian City Jail
Montague County Sheriff – JSI
Nicholson
Nolan County Sheriff
Nueces County Residential Services
Oldham County Jail
Plano Police Department
Princeton Board Room
Ray D Anderson Community Corrections
Rockwall County Jail
Rohr
Rolling Plains Regional Jail & Detention
Center
San Jacinto County Sheriff
San Patricio County Jail
Sandy Creek
Starr County Jail
T. Don Hutto Residential Center - CCA
Tarrant County – All Locations
Taylor County Substance Abuse Treatment
Center
Texas Department Of Criminal Justice
Titus County Jail
Travis County – All Locations

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
5.22
3.93
3.66
3.91
4.01
4.69
3.68
3.64
5.50
4.24
0.27
3.91
0.21
0.21
4.37
3.91
3.86
4.01
5.43
0.27
5.61
2.11
5.76
5.05
1.78
4.42
0.50
0.27

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.27
0.66
0.39
0.39
0.49
0.49
0.18
0.62
0.55
0.72
0.27
0.64
0.21
0.21
0.85
0.39
0.36
0.39
0.48
0.27
0.66
0.24
0.41
0.55
0.28
0.91
0.50
0.27

15 Min.
Rate ($)
9.00
13.17
9.12
9.37
10.87
11.55
6.20
12.32
13.20
14.32
4.05
12.87
3.15
3.15
16.27
9.37
8.90
9.47
12.15
4.05
14.85
5.47
11.50
12.75
5.70
17.16
7.50
4.05

Securus

0.21

0.21

3.15

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

4.20
4.03
1.65
4.15
0.09
3.06

0.68
0.51
0.00
0.63
0.09
0.01

13.72
11.17
1.65
12.97
1.35
3.20

Securus

4.02

0.50

11.02

Securus
Securus
Securus

0.26
4.17
0.14

0.26
0.65
0.14

3.90
13.27
2.10

ICS Provider

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
*
#

Facility
Trinity County Sheriff
Upshur County Jail
Uvalde County
West Texas Detention Facility
Wichita County Jail Annex
Willacy County Jail
Wilson County Jail
Wise County Sheriff
Wood County Sheriff Department
Zavala County Jail
Beaver County Jail
Cache County Jail
Carbon County Jail
Daggett County Jail
Davis County Jail
Emery County Jail
Garfield County Jail
Grand County Jail
Iron County Jail
Juab County Jail
Millard County Jail
San Juan County Jail
Summit County Jail
Tooele County Jail
Utah County Jail
Wasatch County Jail
Alexandria Detention Center
Blue Ridge Regional Jail Authority
Bristol Virginia City Jail
Central Virginia Regional Jail
Hampton City Jail
Hampton Roads Regional Jail
Lancaster County Jail
Lebanon Community Correctional Center
Newport News City – All Locations
Newport News City – Juvenile Detention
Northern Neck Regional Jail
Patrick County Jail
Roanoke City Jail
Southampton County Jail

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.91
4.12
4.41
0.21
3.87
4.08
4.25
4.16
4.33
4.11
3.46
0.22
3.30
5.04
3.91
3.30
3.68
3.51
3.40
3.30
4.00
3.46
0.25
3.31
0.29
3.40
3.50
0.23
3.40
3.54
3.55
0.17
2.75
4.99
4.66
4.66
2.70
2.42
3.52
0.22

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.39
0.60
0.31
0.21
0.39
0.56
0.73
0.64
0.56
0.49
0.20
0.22
0.30
0.58
0.01
0.30
0.47
0.30
0.18
0.30
0.79
0.51
0.25
0.31
0.29
0.40
0.50
0.23
0.40
0.54
0.55
0.17
0.50
0.69
0.71
0.71
0.20
0.35
0.52
0.22

15 Min.
Rate ($)
9.37
12.52
8.75
3.15
9.33
11.92
14.47
13.12
12.17
10.97
6.26
3.30
7.50
13.16
4.05
7.50
10.26
7.71
5.92
7.50
15.06
10.60
3.75
7.65
4.35
9.00
10.50
3.45
9.00
11.10
11.25
2.55
9.75
14.65
14.60
14.60
5.50
7.32
10.80
3.30

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
VA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
*
#

Facility
Southampton County Jail Farm
Aberdeen Police Department
Asotin County
Benton Franklin Juvenile Facility
Clallam County Correctional Facility
Clallam County Juvenile
Cowlitz County Jail
Cowlitz County Juvenile Facility
Forks City Police Department
Grandview Police Department
Island County Jail
Island County Juvenile Detention Facility
Kent Corrections Facility
King County – All Locations
Kittitas County Sheriff
Marysville City Jail
Mason County Jail
Pierce County Detention Corrections Center
Pierce County Juvenile Detention Center
Sunnyside City Police Department
Toppenish City Jail
Walla Walla County Jail
Walla Walla County Juvenile
Wapato City Jail
Yakima County Correctional Center
Yakima County Jail
Adams County Jail
Barron County Sheriff Department
Bayfield County Sheriff
Brown County Jail / Juvenile Detention
Center
Brown County Work Release Center
Buffalo County Sheriff
Chippewa County Sheriff Department
Columbia County Jail
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Eau Claire County Jail
Eau Claire County Jail - Main
Florence County Sheriff
Forest County Jail
Grant County Sheriff

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.22
2.74
2.69
4.54
2.44
2.05
4.73
2.60
3.30
2.19
3.47
3.11
1.76
0.13
4.79
2.37
2.37
0.15
0.15
2.68
2.74
2.89
2.60
3.35
1.50
1.50
5.29
5.37
1.00

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.22
0.35
0.30
0.59
0.55
0.30
0.64
0.35
0.50
0.30
0.67
0.50
0.26
0.13
0.70
0.48
0.48
0.15
0.15
0.54
0.35
0.25
0.35
0.35
0.12
0.12
1.17
0.78
0.50

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.30
7.64
6.89
12.80
10.14
6.25
13.69
7.50
10.30
6.39
12.85
10.11
5.40
1.95
14.59
9.09
9.09
2.25
2.25
10.24
7.64
6.39
7.50
8.25
3.18
3.18
21.67
16.29
8.00

Securus

4.67

0.72

14.75

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

4.67
4.64
5.33
5.31
0.12
3.88
3.88
5.11
5.36
4.74

0.72
0.69
0.74
1.19
0.12
0.71
0.71
0.69
0.77
0.79

14.75
14.30
15.69
21.97
1.80
13.82
13.82
14.77
16.14
15.80

ICS Provider

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State

Facility

ICS Provider

WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WV
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY

Green County Sheriff
Green Lake County Jail
Iron County Sheriff
Jefferson County Sheriff
Juneau County Justice Center
La Crosse County Jail
Lincoln County Sheriff
Manitowoc County Jail
Marathon County Jail
Marathon County Juvenile Facility
Monroe County Sheriff
Oconto County Jail
Oneida County Jail
Pierce County Jail
Polk County Jail
Portage County Jail
Price County Jail
Racine County Jail
Racine County Juvenile Detention Center
Rusk County Jail
Sawyer County Sheriff
Shawano County Jail
Shawano County Work Release
Sheboygan County Detention Center
Sheboygan County Jail
Vernon County Sheriff
Vilas County Sheriff Jail
Waupaca County Jail
Division of Juvenile Services – All Locations
Big Horn County Detention Center
Converse County Detention Center
Crook County Detention Facility
Goshen County Detention Center
Hot Springs County Detention Center
Natrona County Detention Center
Natrona County Juvenile Detention Center
Park County Detention Center
Platte County Detention Center
Sublette County Detention Facility
Teton County Detention Center

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

*
#

1st Min.
Charge ($)
4.81
5.36
5.80
5.36
0.12
4.81
5.19
5.35
5.37
5.37
4.64
4.70
0.12
5.11
5.53
5.11
5.61
3.60
3.60
1.00
5.11
5.65
5.65
3.15
3.15
4.70
5.28
5.20
1.70
3.81
3.55
0.22
4.20
3.71
3.03
1.91
3.57
3.49
3.35
3.20

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.69
0.77
0.95
0.77
0.12
0.69
0.77
0.76
0.87
0.87
0.69
0.70
0.12
0.69
1.11
0.69
1.11
0.10
0.10
0.50
0.69
1.06
1.06
0.48
0.48
0.75
0.69
0.20
0.37
0.61
0.35
0.22
0.50
0.76
0.46
0.41
0.37
0.49
0.35
0.50

15 Min.
Rate ($)
14.47
16.14
19.10
16.14
1.80
14.47
15.97
15.99
17.55
17.55
14.30
14.50
1.80
14.77
21.07
14.77
21.15
5.00
5.00
8.00
14.77
20.49
20.49
9.87
9.87
15.20
14.94
8.00
6.88
12.35
8.45
3.30
11.20
14.35
9.47
7.65
8.75
10.35
8.25
10.20

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
WY
WY
WY
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
*
#

Facility
Uinta County Detention Center
Washakie County Jail
Weston County Detention Center
Albertville: Police Department
Arab Police Department
Boaz City Jail
Calhoun County Jail
Cherokee County Detention Center
Colbert County Jail
Coosa County Jail
Covington County
Cullman County Detention Center
Dallas County Jail
Decatur City Jail
Dekalb County Detention Center
Etowah County Jail
Franklin County Jail
Hale County Jail
Jackson County Jail
Lauderdale County Jail
Lee County Detention Facility
Marshall County Jail
Marshall County Work Release Center
Morgan County Jail
Randolph County Jail
St Clair County Jail
Talladega County Jail
Walker County Jail
Winston County Jail
Coconino County Detention Facility
Florence Service Processing Center
Santa Cruz County Jail
Adelanto Detention Center
Imperial County Jail
Imperial Regional Detention Facility
Los Angeles Staging Facility
Mesa Verde Detention Facility
Nevada County
Nevada County - Carl F Bryan Juvenile Hall
Otay Mesa Detention Center

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.08
2.90
3.71
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.53
0.35
0.76
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

15 Min.
Rate ($)
10.50
7.80
14.35
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
IA
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
*
#

Facility
Placer County
San Mateo County
Aurora ICE Processing Center
Douglas County
Mesa (Trinity)
Broward Transitional Center
Flagler FL (Trinity)
Glades County
Hendry County Jail
Krome Service Processing Center
Walton County
Douglas County
Effingham County
Folkston ICE Processing Center
ICE Tertiary Holding Cells Atlanta
Miller County Jail
Paulding County
Seminole County
Polk County (Trinity)
3B Juvenile Detention Center
Ada County Jail
Ada County Juvenile Detention Center
Bannock County
Bingham County
Blaine County
Bonner County Detention Center
Bonneville County
Canyon County
Caribou County
District 1 Juvenile Detention
Elmore County
Fort Hall
Fremont County
Gooding County
Jefferson County
Jerome County
Kootenai County Jail
Latah County
Madison County
Mini-Cassia Justice Center

ICS Provider
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#

1st Min.
Charge ($)
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

Add. Min
Charge ($)
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

15 Min.
Rate ($)
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
LA
LA
LA
LA
MI
MI
MI
MO
MO
MO
*
#

Facility
Owyhee County
Payette County
Power County
Shoshone County Jail
Southwest Idaho Juvenile Detention Center
Twin Falls
Washington County
Delaware County
Hamilton County Jail
Hamilton County Work Release
Knox County Jail
Lake County Jail
Lake County Magistrate
Marshall County
Miami County
Monroe County Jail
Porter County Jail
Vanderburgh County
Washington County
Whitley County Jail
Boyle County Detention Center
Carter County Detention Center
Christian County Jail
Community Transitional Services
Harlan County Detention Center
Jessamine County Detention Center
Laurel County Correctional Center
Marion County
McCracken County
Pulaski County Detention Center
Caddo Parish (Trinity)
Lafayette Parish Corrections
Lasalle Detention Facility
Pine Prairie
Allegan County Corrections Center
Kalamazoo County Jail
St Clair (Trinity)
Greene County Jail
Kirkwood Police Department
Wentzville Police Dept

ICS Provider
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#

1st Min.
Charge ($)
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

Add. Min
Charge ($)
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

15 Min.
Rate ($)
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
NC
NE
NE
NJ
NM
NM
NV
NY
NY
NY
OK
OK
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
OR
SC
TN
TN
TX
TX
*
#

Facility
Dawson Correctional Facility (County)
Dawson Correctional Facility (State)
Gallatin County
Montana State Prison
Montana Women's Prison
Pine Hills Correctional Facility
Riverside Correctional Facility
Yellowstone County Detention Center
Wayne County Jail
Buffalo County
Sarpy County Jail
Elizabeth Detention Center
Otero County Processing Center - ICE
San Juan (Trinity)
Nye County
Albany County Jail
Buffalo Federal Detention Center
St Lawrence County (Trinity)
Beckham County
Oklahoma County
Baker County
Clackamas County
Coos County Jail
Curry County Jail
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Deschutes County Adult Jail
Lane County
Linn County Jail
Malheur County
Marion County
NORCOR Adult Facility
Ontario Red Apple Kiosk
Tillamook County
Umatilla
Washington County
Chester County Detention Center
Bradley (Trinity)
Rutherford County
Aransas County
Austin County

ICS Provider
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#

1st Min.
Charge ($)
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

Add. Min
Charge ($)
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

15 Min.
Rate ($)
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WI
WY
WY
WY
WY

*
#

Facility
Bandera County
Dimmit Co Jail
El Paso Processing Center
Fayette County
Gillespie County Jail
Houston Processing Center
Karnes County Residential Center
Medina County Jail
Parker County Jail
Port Isabel Detention Center
Prairieland Detention Center
San Antonio Detention Center
South Texas Detention Complex
South Texas Family Residential
Sutton County Jail
Victoria County
Victoria Juvenile
Webb County Jail
Sanpete County
Sevier County Jail
Uintah County
Washington County - Purgatory Correctional
Weber UT (Trinity)
Benton County Jail
Chelan County
Clark County
Kitsap County
Lewis County Jail
Nisqually Public Safety Complex
Skagit County
South Correctional Entity
Tacoma Contract Detention Facility
Thurston County ARC
Rock County
Albany County
Campbell County
Sheridan County
Sweetwater Detention Center

ICS Provider
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#
Telmate#

1st Min.
Charge ($)
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

Add. Min
Charge ($)
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

15 Min.
Rate ($)
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA
DNMA

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

EXHIBIT B

Intra-State Rates for ICS Providers
(collected November 28 – December 12, 2016)
State
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
WI
MI
TX
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
WI
WI
MI
TX
MI
TX
WI
TX
TX
WI
MI
MI
KS
TX
MI
TX
TX
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI

Facility
Sanilac County Jail
Benzie County Sheriff
Roscommon County Jail
Van Buren County Jail
Marquette County Community Corrections
Detention Center
Marquette Sheriff
Wexford County Jail
Iron County Sheriff
Branch County Jail
Oldham County Jail
Saginaw County Sheriff
Montcalm Sheriff
Alger County Sheriff
Ontonagon County Jail
Presque Isle County Jail
Shawano County Jail
Shawano County Work Release
Muskegon County Jail
Central Texas Treatment
Clare County Jail
Nolan County Sheriff
Price County Jail
Coastal Bend
Hays County Law Enforcement Center
Polk County Jail
Chippewa County Jail
St Clair County Jail
Ford County Jail
Lamb County Jail
Ogemaw County Jail
Hale County Sheriff
Montague County Sheriff – JSI
Missaukee County Sheriff
Arenac County Jail
Bay County Law Enforcement Center
Delta County Jail
Gladwin County Jail

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
8.20
5.90
5.90
5.90

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.01
1.19
1.19
1.19

15 Min.
Rate ($)
8.34
22.56
22.56
22.56

Securus

5.87

1.16

22.11

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

5.87
5.87
5.80
5.79
5.76
5.73
5.70
5.65
5.65
5.65
5.65
5.65
5.64
5.63
5.61
5.61
5.61
5.57
5.55
5.53
5.52
5.52
5.50
5.50
5.47
5.44
5.43
5.41
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40

1.16
1.16
0.95
1.08
0.41
1.02
0.99
0.69
0.69
0.69
1.06
1.06
0.97
0.68
1.19
0.66
1.11
0.62
0.60
1.11
0.88
1.10
0.83
0.55
1.05
0.49
0.48
0.99
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69

22.11
22.11
19.10
20.91
11.50
20.01
19.56
15.31
15.31
15.31
20.49
20.49
19.22
15.15
22.27
14.85
21.15
14.25
13.95
21.07
17.84
20.92
17.12
13.20
20.17
12.30
12.15
19.27
15.06
15.06
15.06
15.06

ICS Provider

State
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
TX
TX
TX
WI
WI
WI
MI
MI
WI
WI
WI
AR
AR
AR
WI
MI
WI
MI
MI
WI
KS
MT
MI
WI
WI
KS
MI
MI

Facility
Gogebic County Sheriff
Grosse Pointe Park City
Holland Police Department
Houghton County Sheriff
Houghton County Work Release
Iron County Sheriff
Mackinac County Jail
Mason County Jail
Menominee County Jail
Niles Law Enforcement Complex
Schoolcraft County Jail
Washtenaw County Sheriff
Isabella County Jail
Ottawa County Jail
Ector County Detention Center
Ector County Jail – CEC/CiviGenics
Grand Prairie Police Department
Barron County Sheriff Department
Marathon County Jail
Marathon County Juvenile Facility
Baraga County Jail
Montmorency Sheriff
Forest County Jail
Green Lake County Jail
Jefferson County Sheriff
Arkansas County Jail
Baxter County Sheriff
Mississippi County Detention Center
Manitowoc County Jail
Antrim County Sheriff
Chippewa County Sheriff Department
Lapeer County Courthouse
Lapeer County Jail
Columbia County Jail
Seward County
Pondera County Sheriff
Clinton County Jail
Adams County Jail
Vilas County Sheriff Jail
MacPherson County Jail
Alpena County Jail
Emmet County Sheriff

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.39
5.39
5.38
5.38
5.38
5.37
5.37
5.37
5.36
5.36
5.36
5.36
5.36
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.33
5.33
5.31
5.31
5.31
5.30
5.30
5.29
5.29
5.28
5.27
5.26
5.25

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.97
1.19
0.43
0.43
0.53
0.78
0.87
0.87
0.69
0.69
0.77
0.77
0.77
1.40
1.40
1.40
0.76
0.91
0.74
1.07
1.07
1.19
0.88
0.67
1.05
1.17
0.69
0.85
0.84
0.83

15 Min.
Rate ($)
15.06
15.06
15.06
15.06
15.06
15.06
15.06
15.06
15.06
15.06
15.06
15.06
18.97
22.05
11.40
11.40
12.80
16.29
17.55
17.55
15.02
15.02
16.14
16.14
16.14
24.95
24.95
24.95
15.99
18.07
15.69
20.29
20.29
21.97
17.62
14.68
19.99
21.67
14.94
17.17
17.02
16.87

State
MI
TX
TX
WI
WI
AR
MI
MI
TX
MI
MI
MI
WI
WI
WI
WI
AR
MI
MI
TX
UT
MT
VA
AR
MI
MI
MI
TX
MI
MT
TX
TX
AR
AR
AR
CA
MI
NY
WI
WI
MI
WA

Facility
Cheboygan County Jail
Gray County Jail
Jack County Jail
Waupaca County Jail
Lincoln County Sheriff
Sheridan City Detention Center
Newaygo County Jail
Ottawa County Juvenile Detention Center
Hamilton County Law Enforcement Center
Alcona County Sheriff
Detroit Madison Center
Otsego County Jail
Florence County Sheriff
Pierce County Jail
Portage County Jail
Sawyer County Sheriff
Nevada County Jail
Shiawassee County Jail
Gratiot County Jail
Plano Police Department
Daggett County Jail
Hill County Detention Facility
Lebanon Community Correctional Center
Garland County Detention Center
Eaton County Sheriff
Jackson County Chanter Road Facility
Jackson County Jail
Crystal City Correctional Center
Genesee County Jail
Musselshell County Jail
Fannin County Jail
Fannin County Jail
Clay County Jail
Cross County Jail
White River Regional Juvenile
San Benito County Juvenile Department
Ionia County Jail
Livingston County Jail
Green County Sheriff
La Crosse County Jail
Lansing Police Department
Kittitas County Sheriff

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
5.23
5.22
5.22
5.20
5.19
5.14
5.14
5.14
5.12
5.11
5.11
5.11
5.11
5.11
5.11
5.11
5.10
5.09
5.05
5.05
5.04
5.03
4.99
4.93
4.93
4.93
4.93
4.90
4.88
4.88
4.86
4.86
4.85
4.85
4.85
4.85
4.83
4.82
4.81
4.81
4.79
4.79

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.81
0.27
0.27
0.20
0.77
1.19
1.19
1.19
0.35
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.90
0.85
0.82
0.55
0.58
0.67
0.69
0.98
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.25
0.93
0.69
0.61
0.61
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.88
0.40
0.69
0.69
0.25
0.70

15 Min.
Rate ($)
16.57
9.00
9.00
8.00
15.97
21.80
21.80
21.80
10.02
14.77
14.77
14.77
14.77
14.77
14.77
14.77
17.70
16.99
16.53
12.75
13.16
14.41
14.65
18.65
14.59
14.59
14.59
8.40
17.90
14.54
13.40
13.40
17.45
17.45
17.45
17.45
17.15
10.42
14.47
14.47
8.29
14.59

State
MT
MT
MT
MT
NE
WI
WA
MT
WI
WI
TX
WI
WI
VA
VA
AR
AR
MI
MI
MI
MT
NE
WI
WI
MT
TX
KS
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
MT
WA
MI
MT
TX
TX
TX
NY

Facility
Custer County Jail
Lincoln County Jail
Richland County Sheriff
Park County Detention Center
Hall County Doc
Grant County Sheriff
Cowlitz County Jail
Butte Silverbow County Jail
Oconto County Jail
Vernon County Sheriff
Kleberg County
Brown County Jail / Juvenile Detention
Center
Brown County Work Release Center
Newport News City – All Locations
Newport News City – Juvenile Detention
Marion County Jail
Osceola Criminal Justice Center
Flint Police Department
Kent County Correctional Facility
Kent County Courthouse Holding
Fallon County Sheriff
Phelps County Correctional
Buffalo County Sheriff
Monroe County Sheriff
Flathead County Jail
Bastrop County Jail
Labette County Jail
Anaconda Police Department
Beaverhead County Jail
Lake County Detention Facility
Ravalli County Sheriff
Cascade County
Cascade County Adult Detention Center
Chouteau County Detention Center
Toole County Jail
Benton Franklin Juvenile Facility
Iosco County Sheriff
Fergus County Sheriff
Ray D Anderson Community Corrections
Uvalde County
Madison County Sheriff
Niagara County Correctional Facility

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
4.78
4.78
4.78
4.74
4.74
4.74
4.73
4.70
4.70
4.70
4.69

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.79
0.79
0.64
0.61
0.70
0.75
0.49

15 Min.
Rate ($)
14.44
14.44
14.44
14.40
15.80
15.80
13.69
13.24
14.50
15.20
11.55

Securus

4.67

0.72

14.75

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

4.67
4.66
4.66
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.62
4.62
4.61
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.59
4.55
4.55
4.54
4.45
4.45
4.42
4.41
4.37
4.35

0.72
0.71
0.71
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.67
0.12
1.01
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.64
0.64
0.50
0.50
0.59
0.45
0.50
0.91
0.31
0.85
0.40

14.75
14.60
14.60
14.30
14.30
14.30
14.30
14.30
14.30
14.30
14.30
14.30
14.00
6.30
18.75
11.59
11.59
11.59
11.59
13.55
13.55
11.55
11.55
12.80
10.75
11.45
17.16
8.75
16.27
9.95

ICS Provider

State
TX
TN
TX
MI
TX
CO
IL
TX
TN
IA
TN
TX
TX
IL
TN
TX
WY
TX
MN
TN
TX
KS
MI
NE
NE
TX
TX
IL
TX
TX
KS
TX
MN
TX
CA
TX
TX
TX
TX
IL
TX
IL

Facility
Grayson County
Johnson City Jail
Wood County Sheriff Department
Ingham County Correctional Facility
Coryell County Sheriff
Chief Ignacio Justice Center
Pike County Jail
Hudspeth County Sheriff - JSI
Hamblen County Jail
Allamakee County Jail
Chester County Jail
Wilson County Jail
Lasalle Regional Detention Center
St Clair County Jail
Sullivan County Sheriff
San Jacinto County Sheriff
Goshen County Detention Center
Atascosa County Jail
Goodhue Sheriff
Sullivan Correctional Facility Building 2
Titus County Jail
Stevens County Jail
Dickinson County Jail
Kimball County Sheriff
Richardson County Jail
Wise County Sheriff
Brazoria County Sheriff Jail
Randolph County Jail
Starr County Jail
Upshur County Jail
Meade County Jail
Zavala County Jail
McLeod County Jail
Comal County Jail
Lassen County Jail – All Locations
Willacy County Jail
Harris County – All Locations
San Patricio County Jail
Hopkins County Jail
White County Jail
Taylor County Substance Abuse Treatment
Center
Marshall County Sheriff

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
4.35
4.34
4.33
4.32
4.32
4.31
4.31
4.31
4.28
4.25
4.25
4.25
4.24
4.23
4.22
4.20
4.20
4.19
4.17
4.17
4.17
4.16
4.16
4.16
4.16
4.16
4.16
4.15
4.15
4.12
4.11
4.11
4.10
4.09
4.08
4.08
4.03
4.03
4.03
4.02

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.58
0.66
0.56
0.53
0.70
0.56
0.81
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.57
0.73
0.72
0.68
0.58
0.68
0.50
0.57
0.57
0.58
0.65
0.66
0.37
0.66
0.66
0.64
0.65
0.80
0.63
0.60
0.51
0.49
0.50
0.49
0.98
0.56
0.45
0.51
0.53
0.52

15 Min.
Rate ($)
12.47
13.58
12.17
11.74
14.12
12.15
15.65
14.11
12.68
11.25
12.23
14.47
14.32
13.75
12.34
13.72
11.20
12.17
12.15
12.29
13.27
13.40
9.34
13.40
13.40
13.12
13.26
15.35
12.97
12.52
11.25
10.97
11.10
10.95
17.80
11.92
10.33
11.17
11.45
11.30

Securus

4.02

0.50

11.02

Securus

4.01

0.51

11.15

ICS Provider

State
IL
KS
KS
KS
KS
MO
TX
TX
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IL
KS
KS
UT
AR
TX
IL
IA
IA
IL
PA
IL
KS
TX
IA
IA
TX
TX
IL
MO
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
AR
IL

Facility
Stark County Jail
Butler County Corrections
Elk County Jail
Graham County Jail
Edwards County Jail
Jennings Adult Correctional Facility
Midlothian City Jail
Kaufman County Law Enforcement Center
Appanoose County Jail
Audubon County Jail
Crawford County Jail
Monona County Sheriff
Pocahontas County Jail
Tazewell County Justice Center
Shawnee County Adult Detention Center
Shawnee County Juvenile Detention Center
Millard County Jail
Saline County Detention Center
Burleson County Jail
Vermilion County Jail
Woodbury County Jail
Woodbury County Work Release
Mclean County Jail
Union County Prison
Adams County Jail
Saline County Jail
Jasper County Law Enforcement Center
Mahaska County Jail
Webster County Jail
Brownsville Police Department
Collingsworth County Jail
Bond County Sheriff
Crawford County Jail
Desoto City Jail
Duval County Jail
Kaufman Co. Jail
Menard County Sheriff
Trinity County Sheriff
Liberty County Jail
Davis County Jail
Lake Village City Jail
Macoupin County Jail

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
4.01
4.01
4.01
4.01
4.01
4.01
4.01
4.01
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.99
3.99
3.96
3.95
3.95
3.95
3.95
3.93
3.93
3.93
3.92
3.92
3.92
3.92
3.91
3.91
3.91
3.91
3.91
3.91
3.91
3.91
3.91
3.90
3.90

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.95
1.16
0.39
0.49
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.38
0.01
0.01
0.79
0.34
0.47
0.61
0.01
0.01
0.60
0.45
0.38
0.43
0.66
0.32
0.32
0.41
0.41
0.29
0.66
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.64
0.01
0.40
0.30

15 Min.
Rate ($)
11.15
11.15
11.15
11.15
17.31
20.25
9.47
10.87
7.50
11.00
11.00
11.00
11.00
9.32
4.14
4.14
15.06
8.75
10.57
12.50
4.09
4.09
12.35
10.25
9.25
9.95
13.17
8.40
8.40
9.66
9.66
7.97
13.15
9.37
9.37
9.37
9.37
9.37
12.87
4.05
9.50
8.10

State
IL
CA
CA
IA
WI
WI
TX
IL
IL
IL
TX
TX
IL
KS
OK
CA
IL
IL
IL
IL
KS
MO
IL
IL
IN
IN
WY
IL
IL
IL
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
PA
IL
KS
MO
MO

Facility
Ogle County Jail
Napa County DOC
Napa County Juvenile Probation
Wapello County Jail
Eau Claire County Jail
Eau Claire County Jail - Main
Wichita County Jail Annex
Woodford County Jail
Ford County Jail
Rock Island Sheriff
Irving Police Department
Mesquite Police Department
Madison County Jail
Dickinson County Jail
Del City Police Department
San Mateo County - Maguire Correctional
Piatt County Sheriff
Alton City Police Department
Stephenson County Jail
Grundy County Sheriff
Ellsworth County Jail
Mississippi County Detention Center
Clay County Jail
Monroe County Jail
Lagrange County Sheriff
Morgan County Jail
Big Horn County Detention Center
Mason County Sheriff
Menard County Jail
Saline County Jail
Mariposa County Sheriff
Mono County Mammoth Lakes Courthouse
Mono County Sheriff
Monterey County Probation Office
Monterey County Youth Center
Trinity County Probation
Volunteers Of America - Los Angeles
Potter County Jail
Granite City Jail
Ottawa County Jail
Cape Girardeau Police Department
Grundy County Detention Center

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.90
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.88
3.87
3.86
3.86
3.86
3.86
3.86
3.85
3.85
3.85
3.84
3.84
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.81
3.80
3.80
3.80
3.79
3.79
3.79
3.79
3.79
3.79
3.79
3.78
3.77
3.77
3.76
3.76

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.40
0.78
0.78
0.28
0.71
0.71
0.39
0.36
0.49
0.51
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.85
0.01
0.69
0.49
0.27
0.32
0.47
0.36
0.57
0.31
0.31
0.81
0.81
0.61
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.35
0.27
0.77
0.66
1.16

15 Min.
Rate ($)
9.50
14.80
14.80
7.80
13.82
13.82
9.33
8.90
10.72
11.00
8.90
8.90
8.75
15.75
3.99
13.50
10.70
7.60
8.30
10.40
8.86
11.80
8.15
8.15
15.15
15.15
12.35
8.00
8.00
8.00
13.45
13.45
13.45
13.45
13.45
13.45
13.45
8.68
7.55
14.55
13.00
20.00

State
IA
IA
IA
IN
IA
IL
IN
IN
WY
WY
IL
IL
TX
UT
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
TX
TX
AR
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
MI
TX
IL
MI
TN
CA
IN
SD
ND
OK
OK
OK
OK

Facility
Clarke County Jail
Marion County Jail
Mitchell County Jail
Shelby County Sheriff
Bremer County Sheriff
Kendall County Jail
Franklin County Jail
Hammond City Jail
Hot Springs County Detention Center
Weston County Detention Center
Lawrence County Jail
Whiteside County Jail
La Salle County Jail
Garfield County Jail
McDonough County Jail
Clark County Jail
Iroquois County Jail
Jersey County Jail
Mercer County Sheriff
Richland County Jail
Jim Hogg County
Cooke County Jail
Greene County Detention Facility
Boone County Jail
Crawford County Jail
Dewitt County Sheriff
Morgan County Jail
Warren County Jail
Lawrence County Sheriff
Midland County Jail
Lamar County Jail
Henry County Jail
Grand Traverse County
Carter County Jail
Lompoc City Jail
Jefferson County Jail
Codington County Jail
Cass County Sheriff
Davis CCA
Ottawa County Jail
Washington County Jail
Cherokee County Jail

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.74
3.74
3.74
3.74
3.71
3.71
3.69
3.69
3.68
3.68
3.67
3.66
3.66
3.66
3.66
3.66
3.66
3.66
3.65
3.65
3.65
3.65
3.65
3.65
3.65
3.64
3.64
3.62
3.62
3.62
3.61
3.61
3.61
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.75
0.74
0.39
0.74
0.74
0.76
0.76
0.32
0.32
0.18
0.47
0.32
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.39
0.64
0.65
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.65
0.64
0.62
0.27
0.62
0.58
0.51
0.61
0.47
0.60
0.11
0.33
0.80
1.10

15 Min.
Rate ($)
7.25
7.25
7.25
14.25
14.10
9.20
14.10
14.10
14.35
14.35
8.17
8.17
6.20
10.26
8.15
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
7.72
9.12
12.62
12.75
7.85
7.85
7.85
7.85
7.85
12.75
12.60
12.32
7.40
12.30
11.74
10.75
12.15
10.19
12.00
5.14
8.22
14.80
19.00

State
OK
WI
WI
IN
IN
IN
IN
WY
VA
WY
VA
CO
IN
VA
IN
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
UT
AR
AR
CA
CA
VA
WY
IN
WA
ID
UT
UT
IA
IN
KS
TX
CO
IN
IN

Facility
Texas County Jail
Racine County Jail
Racine County Juvenile Detention Center
Greene County Sheriff
Rush County Jail
Steuben County Jail
Sullivan County Jail
Park County Detention Center
Hampton City Jail
Converse County Detention Center
Central Virginia Regional Jail
Moffat County Jail
Montgomery County Sheriff
Roanoke City Jail
Gibson County Jail
Arnold City Jail
Aurora City Police Department
Doniphan City Jail
Moline Acres City Police Department
Monett City Police Department
Northwoods City Police Department
Overland City Police Department
Sikeston Department Of Public Safety
Grand County Jail
Conway County Detention Center
Johnson County Detention Center
Seal Beach Police Department
Yuba Sutter Juvenile Hall
Alexandria Detention Center
Platte County Detention Center
Wabash County Jail
Island County Jail
Valley County Jail
Beaver County Jail
San Juan County Jail
Cedar County Sheriff
Daviess County Jail
Lincoln County Jail
Collin County – All Locations
Saguache County Jail
Benton County Jail
Cass-Pulaski Community Corrections

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.59
3.58
3.57
3.57
3.57
3.55
3.55
3.54
3.53
3.53
3.52
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.49
3.48
3.47
3.46
3.46
3.46
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.40
3.40
3.40

Add. Min
Charge ($)
1.10
0.10
0.10
0.59
0.58
0.57
0.57
0.37
0.55
0.35
0.54
0.39
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.30
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.49
0.48
0.67
0.41
0.20
0.51
0.45
0.45
0.35
0.01
0.51
0.40
0.40

15 Min.
Rate ($)
19.00
5.00
5.00
11.85
11.70
11.55
11.55
8.75
11.25
8.45
11.10
8.99
10.95
10.80
10.65
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
7.71
10.50
10.50
10.50
10.50
10.50
10.35
10.20
12.85
9.20
6.26
10.60
9.75
9.75
8.35
3.59
10.54
9.00
9.00

State
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
UT
UT
VA
CO
TN
KS
IL
KS
WA
WY
CA
CO
KY
KY
CA
UT
CA
IN
UT
UT
UT
WA
MN
MN
CO
SD
IL
IL
MO
MO
MO
ID
ID
IL
MN
IL

Facility
Jackson County Sheriff
Putnam County Jail
Switzerland County Jail
Tipton County Jail
Warren County Jail
Warrick County Sheriff
Iron County Jail
Wasatch County Jail
Bristol Virginia City Jail
Weld County – All Locations
Carroll County Jail
Phillips County Jail
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Smith County Jail
Wapato City Jail
Sublette County Detention Facility
Madera County Doc
Chaffee County Jail
Henderson County Community Services
Henderson County Detention Center
Sutter County Sheriff
Tooele County Jail
Amador County Jail
Dubois County Security Center
Carbon County Jail
Emery County Jail
Juab County Jail
Forks City Police Department
Many Rivers Juvenile Detention Center
Olmsted County Adult Detention Center
Washington County Jail
Brown County Jail
Will County – All Locations
Lee County Sheriff Department
Berkeley City Police Department
Festus City Police Department
Lee's Summit City Police Department
Custer County Jail
Idaho County Jail
Logan County Jail
Waseca County Jail
Massac County Sheriff

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.40
3.38
3.37
3.36
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.35
3.32
3.32
3.32
3.32
3.31
3.31
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.29
3.29
3.28
3.28
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.24

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.18
0.40
0.40
0.13
0.78
0.36
0.02
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.57
0.43
0.57
0.57
0.30
0.31
0.80
0.80
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.50
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.64
0.29
0.36
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.50
0.50
0.35
0.50
0.32

15 Min.
Rate ($)
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
5.92
9.00
9.00
5.20
14.29
8.40
3.63
8.25
8.25
8.25
11.30
9.34
11.30
11.30
7.51
7.65
14.50
14.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
10.30
8.75
8.75
8.74
12.24
7.32
8.30
12.50
12.50
12.50
10.25
10.25
8.15
10.25
7.72

State
MO
OK
CA
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
KY
MA
MO
IA
IL
WY
CO
IL
IL
IL
KY
MA
MA
IL
IL
IL
KY
MA
MA
MO
WI
WI
AR
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH

Facility
Wright County Jail
Sand Springs City Police Department
Inyo County Jail
Jackson County Jail
Union County Jail
Williamson County Jail
Collinsville City Police Department
Henderson County Sheriff
Washington County Jail
Clinton County Jail
Franklin County Jail
St Peters Police Department
Pottawattamie County Jail
Douglas County Jail
Teton County Detention Center
Summit County Jail
Clinton County Jail
Perry County Jail
Greene County Sheriff
Carroll County Detention Center
Berkshire County House Of Corrections
Berkshire County Jail
Fulton County Jail
Macon County Jail
Shelby County Jail
Big Sandy Regional Detention Center
Ash Street Jail & Regional Lock Up
Bristol County Faunce Corner
St Genevieve County Jail
Sheboygan County Detention Center
Sheboygan County Jail
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Allen County Sheriff
Ashtabula City Police Department
Auglaize County Jail
Bedford Police Department
Belmont County Jail
Broadview Heights Police Department
Brown County Adult Detention Center
Central Ohio Youth Center
Clark County Jail
Clark County Juvenile Detention Center

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.24
3.23
3.22
3.22
3.22
3.22
3.21
3.21
3.21
3.21
3.21
3.21
3.20
3.20
3.20
3.19
3.19
3.19
3.18
3.18
3.17
3.17
3.16
3.16
3.16
3.16
3.16
3.16
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.12
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.74
0.22
0.72
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.21
0.21
0.45
0.40
0.30
0.50
0.44
0.29
0.29
0.26
0.43
0.17
0.17
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.41
0.16
0.16
0.90
0.48
0.48
0.12
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36

15 Min.
Rate ($)
13.60
6.31
13.30
7.70
7.70
7.70
7.27
7.27
7.27
6.15
6.15
9.51
8.80
7.40
10.20
9.35
7.25
7.25
6.82
9.20
5.55
5.55
6.80
6.80
6.80
8.90
5.40
5.40
15.75
9.87
9.87
4.80
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15

State
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH

Facility
Clinton County Adult Detention
Columbiana County Jail
Columbiana Minimum Security NAC
Corrections Commission Of NW Ohio
Crawford County Jail
Cuyahoga County Juvenile Detention Center
Darke County Jail
East Ohio Correctional Center
Erie County Jail
Fairborn City Police Department
Fairfield County – All Locations
Fayette County Sheriff
Findlay
Guernsey County Jail
Hancock County Sheriff
Harrison County Jail
Holmes County Jail
Jackson County Correctional
Knox County Jail
Lawrence County Jail
Licking County Justice Center
Logan County Juvenile Detention Center
Logan County Sheriff
Lorain County Correctional Facility
Lorain Police Department
Maple Heights Police Department
Medina County Jail
Medina County Juvenile Detention Center
Meigs County Jail
Miami County Incarceration Facility
Miami County Jail
Middleport City Jail
Morrow County Sheriff
Multi-County Correctional Center
Multi-County Juvenile Detention Center
Noble County Sheriff
North Central Ohio Rehabilitation
North Royalton City Police Department
Northwest Community Correctional Center
Northwest Ohio Juvenile Detention Center
Parma Police Department
Pickaway County Jail

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36

15 Min.
Rate ($)
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15

State
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
WA
KY
KY
MA
MA
MA
MT
NC
NC
CO
KY
WY
CO
KY
TX
CA
CO
TN
TN
WY
CO
CO
MT
OH
CO
KY

Facility
Portage County Jail
Portage/Geauga Juvenile Detention Center
Preble County Jail
Putnam County Sheriff
Richland County Jail
Ross County Jail
Scioto County
Scioto County Correctional Center
Southeast Ohio Regional Jail
Tri County Regional Jail
Van Wert County Correctional Facility
Wayne County Discipline & Rehabilitation
Center
Wayne County Jail
Western Ohio Regional Treatment
Wood County Jail
Wyandot County Sheriff
Island County Juvenile Detention Facility
Leslie County Detention Center
Three Forks Regional Jail
Barnstable County Corrections Facility
Dukes County Jail
Worcester County Jail
Sanders County Jail
Alamance County Detention Center
Alamance County Detention Center Annex
Fremont County Detention Center
Lewis County Detention Center
Uinta County Detention Center
Huerfano County Jail
Rowan County Detention Center
Tarrant County – All Locations
Trinity County Sheriff
Lincoln County Sheriff
Fentress County Justice Center
Fentress County Sheriff
Natrona County Detention Center
Logan County Jail
Broomfield City Jail
Broadwater County
Ashland County Jail
Lake County Sheriff
Kentucky River Regional Jail

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36

15 Min.
Rate ($)
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15

Securus

3.11

0.36

8.15

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.11
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.10
3.09
3.09
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.07
3.06
3.06
3.05
3.04
3.03
3.03
3.03
3.02
3.02
3.02
3.02
3.01
3.01

0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.50
0.35
0.35
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.50
0.26
0.26
0.29
0.33
0.53
0.43
0.31
0.01
0.30
0.25
0.43
0.43
0.46
0.23
0.52
0.12
0.27
0.26
0.41

8.15
8.15
8.15
8.15
10.11
8.00
8.00
4.50
4.50
4.50
10.10
6.73
6.73
7.14
7.70
10.50
9.09
7.40
3.20
7.25
6.54
9.05
9.05
9.47
6.24
10.30
4.70
6.80
6.65
8.75

ICS Provider

State
CO
KS
MN
MN
MO
OH
SD
CO
FL
MT
NC
NC
CO
CO
KY
MA
MA
MT
OH
NC
NC
NC
NC
CO
CA
NC
NC
CO
MO
MO
NC
NC
OH
OH
WY
MO
WA
CA
NE
NE
OH
CO

Facility
Laplata County Jail
Rice County Law Enforcement Center
Brooklyn Park Police Department
Sibley County Jail
Scott County Jail
Carroll County Sheriff
Fall River County Jail
Prowers County Jail
Seminole County Jail
Jefferson County Detention Facility
Chowan County Detention Facility
Jackson County Jail
Montezuma County Jail
Park County Detention Center
Meade County Jail
Suffolk County House Of Corrections
Suffolk County Jail
Lewis & Clark County Detention Center
Richland County Community Alternative
Center
Henderson County Detention Center
Rockingham County Jail
Rowan County Detention Center
Rowan County Detention Center Annex
Aurora Municipal Court Administration
Calaveras County Sheriff
Columbus County Detention Center
Hoke County Detention Center
Elbert County Jail
Ferguson City Police Department
St Francois County Jail
Iredell County Annex
Iredell County Detention Center
Ottawa County Detention Facility
Ottawa County Minimum Security
Washakie County Jail
Phelps County Sheriff
Walla Walla County Jail
Del Norte County Sheriff
Dakota County Jail
Dakota County Jail
Shelby County Sheriff
Morgan County Jail

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.99
2.98
2.97
2.96
2.95
2.95
2.95
2.95

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.50
1.00
0.25
0.36
0.20
0.24
0.01
0.31
0.40
0.43
0.32
0.45
0.10
0.10
0.05

15 Min.
Rate ($)
10.00
10.00
6.50
10.00
17.00
6.50
8.04
5.79
6.35
3.13
7.33
8.58
8.99
7.44
9.25
4.35
4.35
3.65

Securus

2.95

0.20

5.75

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

2.94
2.94
2.94
2.94
2.92
2.91
2.91
2.91
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.89
2.89
2.88
2.88
2.88
2.88
2.87

0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.62
0.41
0.33
0.33
0.26
0.40
0.65
0.32
0.32
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.64
0.25
0.38
0.63
0.63
0.36
0.23

7.98
7.98
7.98
7.98
11.60
8.65
7.53
7.53
6.54
8.50
12.00
7.38
7.38
7.94
7.94
7.80
11.85
6.39
8.20
11.70
11.70
7.92
6.09

ICS Provider

State
NC
NC
OR
NC
NC
CO
NC
NC
NC
CO
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
CA
CO
CO
NC
TN
TN
TN
CO
CO
CO
ND
CA
CO
NE
VA
CO
CO
CO
WA
WA
CO
VA
KS
WA
OR
PA
WA

Facility
Macon County Detention Center
Scotland County Sheriff
Polk County Sheriff
Cherokee County Detention Facility
Cabarrus County Sheriff
Teller County Jail
Rutherford County Detention Center
Cleveland County Detention Facility
Cleveland County Jail Annex
Montrose County Jail
Caldwell County Detention Center
Albemarle District Jail
Anson County Sheriff
Brunswick County Jail
Montgomery County Sheriff
Modoc County Jail
Gunnison County Jail
Otero County Jail
New Hanover County Detention Center
Knox County Detention Facility
Knox County Jail
Knox County Work Release Center
Routt County Jail
Delta County Jail
Delta County Work Release
Heart Of America Correctional & Treatment
Center
Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall
Boulder County Jail
Washington County Jail
Lancaster County Jail
Southern Ute Indian Tribe
Pueblo County Detention Center
Pueblo County Judicial Building
Aberdeen Police Department
Toppenish City Jail
Clear Creek County Jail
Northern Neck Regional Jail
Barton County Jail
Asotin County
Union County Sheriff
Wyoming County Correctional Facility
Sunnyside City Police Department

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
2.87
2.87
2.87
2.86
2.86
2.85
2.85
2.84
2.84
2.83
2.83
2.82
2.82
2.82
2.82
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.80
2.79
2.79
2.79

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.29
0.29
0.09
0.28
0.36
0.31
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.44
0.33
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.30
0.15
0.40
0.30
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.25
0.30
0.30

15 Min.
Rate ($)
6.93
6.93
4.13
6.78
7.90
7.19
6.63
6.48
6.48
8.99
7.45
6.18
6.18
6.18
6.18
7.00
4.90
8.40
7.00
2.94
2.94
2.94
6.29
6.99
6.99

Securus

2.76

0.40

8.36

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

2.75
2.75
2.75
2.75
2.74
2.74
2.74
2.74
2.74
2.71
2.70
2.69
2.69
2.68
2.68
2.68

0.25
0.00
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.24
0.24
0.35
0.35
0.17
0.20
0.69
0.30
0.25
0.68
0.54

6.25
2.75
9.75
9.75
5.54
6.10
6.10
7.64
7.64
5.09
5.50
12.35
6.89
6.18
12.20
10.24

ICS Provider

State
CA
CA
MO
OR
CO
NC
MA
MO
MO
NE
OH
NC
CO
CO
IA
NC
WA
WA
FL
CA
CO
CO
CO
NC
NJ
NJ
OH
CO
CO
FL
NE
CA
CA
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC

Facility
Butte County Jail
Butte County Juvenile Hall
Pike County Detention Center
Klamath County Sheriff
Alamosa County Detention Center
Richmond County Jail
Essex County – All Locations
Boone County Commission
Kansas City Police Dept. – All Locations
Adams County Jail
Strongsville Police Department
Bladen County Sheriff
Arapahoe County Sheriff
Bent County Jail
Polk County
Pender County Jail
Cowlitz County Juvenile Facility
Walla Walla County Juvenile
Madison County Jail
Fresno County Juvenile Justice Center
Denver County Jail
Downtown Detention Center
Rio Grande County Jail
Union County Jail
Passaic Co Jail - Work Release/Motor Pool
Passaic County Jail
Ashtabula County Jail
Jefferson County Sheriff's Booking
Jefferson County Sheriff's Detention Facility
Escambia County Road Prison
Saunders County Jail
Monterey County Jail
San Mateo County Youth Services Center
Greenville County Detention Center
Abbeville County Detention Center
Aiken County Detention Center
Cherokee County Jail
Chesterfield County Detention Center
Chesterfield County Work Camp
Darlington County Detention Center
Dillon County Detention Center
Edgefield County Jail

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.67
2.66
2.66
2.65
2.65
2.65
2.65
2.65
2.62
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.60
2.58
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.53
2.53
2.53
2.53
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.49
0.27
0.41
0.15
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.15
0.29
0.10
0.35
0.01
0.27
0.35
0.35
0.22
0.30
0.01
0.01
0.15
0.31
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.33
0.33
0.42
0.38
0.17
0.25
0.33
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40

15 Min.
Rate ($)
8.55
8.55
8.55
9.53
6.44
8.40
4.75
8.25
8.25
8.25
4.75
6.68
4.00
7.50
2.74
6.38
7.50
7.50
5.66
6.75
2.69
2.69
4.65
6.89
6.05
6.05
6.75
7.15
7.15
8.41
7.85
4.88
6.00
7.12
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.49
2.49
2.49
2.48
2.48
2.45
2.44
2.43
2.43
2.42
2.41
2.41

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.10
0.24
0.49
0.23
0.23
0.01
0.55
0.43
0.25
0.35
0.24
0.41

15 Min.
Rate ($)
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
8.10
3.89
5.85
9.35
5.70
5.70
2.59
10.14
8.45
5.93
7.32
5.77
8.15

Securus

2.39

0.42

8.27

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

2.37
2.37
2.37
2.36

0.27
0.48
0.48
0.40

6.15
9.09
9.09
7.96

Securus

2.30

0.41

8.04

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

2.29
2.27
2.27
2.27
2.27
2.26
2.26
2.24
2.24

0.10
0.41
0.30
0.30
0.27
0.41
0.26
0.39
0.05

3.69
8.01
6.47
6.47
6.05
8.00
5.90
7.70
2.94

Securus

2.20

0.27

5.98

Securus

2.20

0.20

5.00

State

Facility

ICS Provider

SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
CO
NC
PA
CO
CO
TX
WA
FL
OR
VA
IN
KS
NH

Greenwood County Jail
Horry County Detention Center
Jasper County Detention Center
Lancaster County Jail
Laurens County Jail
Oconee County Law Enforcement
Pickens County Detention Facility
Rock Hill City Jail
Union County Jail
Union County Prison Camp
York County Jail
Las Animas County Jail
Dare County Detention Center
Tioga County Prison
Mesa County Jail
Mesa County Jail Work Release
Andrews County Jail
Clallam County Correctional Facility
Jackson County Jail
Clatsop County Sheriff
Patrick County Jail
Decatur County Jail
Sumner County Jail
Rockingham County Department of
Corrections
Dekalb County Jail
Marysville City Jail
Mason County Jail
Alachua County Jail
Okaloosa County Department Of Correctional
Services
Morgan County Jail
Taylor County Jail
Belknap County House of Corrections
Coos County House Of Corrections
Butler County Prison
Scott County Jail
Warren County Prison
Sherburne County Jail
Cheatham County Jail
Dakota Women's Correctional And
Rehabilitation Center
Elk County Jail

TN
WA
WA
FL
FL
TN
FL
NH
NH
PA
MN
PA
MN
TN
ND
PA

State
TN
WA
CA
FL
FL
MN
MN
PA
FL
SD
FL
KS
FL
TX
FL
MN
MN
MN
MN
TN
FL
FL
KY
MN
TN
FL
FL
PA
WA
NV
SC
FL
KY
NV
PA
PA
NV
KY
NV
NV
TN
TN

Facility
Hardin County Sheriff
Grandview Police Department
Hemet City Police Department
Lake County Detention Center
Lake County Jail/Sheriff
Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center
Wadena County Sheriff
Greene County Prison
Marion County Jail
Davison County Jail
Baker County Detention Center
Osborne County Jail
Suwannee County Jail
Nueces County Residential Services
Palm Beach County Main Detention
Carlton County Jail
Carver County Jail
Rice County Jail
Rice County Jail Annex
Henderson County Detention Center
Volusia County Branch Jail
Volusia County Correctional Facility
Boyd County Detention Center
Washington County Jail
Sumner County Sheriff And Jail
Bradford County Jail
Broward County – All Locations
Crawford County Correctional Facility
Clallam County Juvenile
Lincoln County Jail
Pickens County Prison
Clay County Jail
Warren County Regional Jail
Eureka County Jail
Clinton County Correctional Facility
Monroe County Correctional Facility
Humboldt County Sheriff
Logan County Detention Center
Douglas County - Lake Tahoe Jail
Douglas County - Minden Jail
Cumberland County Justice Center
Hancock County Jail

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
2.20
2.19
2.18
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.15
2.14
2.14
2.13
2.13
2.11
2.11
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.09
2.08
2.08
2.07
2.07
2.06
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.04
2.00
1.98
1.97
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.94
1.92
1.91
1.91
1.91
1.91

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.10
0.30
0.95
0.40
0.40
0.01
0.30
0.15
0.39
0.50
0.38
0.75
0.36
0.24
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.15
0.33
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.02
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.54
0.22
0.03
0.47
0.31
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.42
0.41
0.41
0.22
0.22

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.60
6.39
15.48
7.75
7.75
2.29
6.35
4.25
7.60
9.14
7.45
12.63
7.15
5.47
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
4.19
6.70
6.70
6.55
6.55
2.34
6.25
6.25
6.25
6.25
9.60
5.08
2.40
8.55
6.29
4.75
4.75
6.14
7.80
7.65
7.65
4.99
4.99

State

Facility

ICS Provider

WY
KY
TN
TN
KY
NV
TN
TN
PA
PA
KY
KY
NV
TN
KY
PA
TN
NV
KY
TN
NV
NV
NV
TN
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
TX
TN
TN
TN
WA
ID
ME
ME
ME
ME

Natrona County Juvenile Detention Center
Floyd County Detention Center
Greene County Detention Center
Greene County Jail Workhouse
Letcher County Jail
Mineral County Sheriff
Campbell County Jail
Tipton County Jail
Erie County Community Correctional Facility
Erie County Prison
Crittenden County Detention Center
Scott County Detention Center
Henderson Detention Center
Smith County Jail
Clay County Detention Center
Columbia County Prison
Weakley County Jail
Lyon County Jail
Nelson County Detention Center
Scott County Jail Building 2
Mesquite City Police Department
Storey County Sheriff
White Pine County Jail
Sequatchie County Sheriff
Barren County Detention Center
Woodford County Fiscal Ct
Hardin County Annex
Hardin County Detention Center
Hardin County Restricted Custody Building
Caldwell County Jail
Estill County Jail
Pulaski County Detention Center
Princeton Board Room
Jefferson County Detention Center
Jefferson County Workhouse
McMinn County Justice Center
Kent Corrections Facility
Nez Perce County Jail
Franklin County Jail
Knox County Jail
Oxford County Jail
Penobscot County Jail

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
1.91
1.90
1.90
1.90
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.89
1.88
1.88
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.87
1.85
1.85
1.84
1.83
1.82
1.82
1.81
1.81
1.81
1.81
1.80
1.80
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.78
1.78
1.78
1.78
1.76
1.76
1.76
1.76
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.41
0.40
0.21
0.21
0.39
0.25
0.20
0.20
0.13
0.13
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.18
0.35
0.20
0.15
0.33
0.32
0.13
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.22
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.26
0.25
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32

15 Min.
Rate ($)
7.65
7.50
4.84
4.84
7.35
5.39
4.69
4.69
3.70
3.70
7.05
7.05
7.05
4.39
6.75
4.65
3.94
6.45
6.30
3.64
6.15
6.15
6.15
4.89
6.00
6.00
5.85
5.85
5.85
5.70
5.70
5.70
5.70
4.00
4.00
4.00
5.40
5.25
6.23
6.23
6.23
6.23

State
ME
ME
ME
NV
SC
KY
NH
KY
ME
WV
KY
TX
TX
NH
KS
TN
SC
FL
TN
MT
NH
SC
WA
WA
NV
ME
ME
ME
ME
NH
NC
MT
MT
MT
MT
NV
SC
SC
MI
ND
SC
NC

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75
1.75

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.25
0.10

15 Min.
Rate ($)
6.23
6.23
6.23
5.25
3.15

Securus

1.73

0.23

4.95

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1.71
1.70
1.70
1.70
1.68
1.65
1.65
1.62
1.60
1.60
1.58
1.57
1.53
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.49
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.44
1.38
1.34
1.34
1.30
1.28
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.20
1.17
1.15
1.11

0.21
0.20
0.27
0.37
0.18
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.10
0.10
0.33
0.22
0.13
0.67
0.19
0.38
0.12
0.12
0.25
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.19
0.01
0.20
0.20
0.30
0.28
0.25
0.40
0.40
0.70
0.17
0.15
0.06

4.65
4.50
5.48
6.88
4.20
1.65
1.65
2.60
3.00
3.00
6.20
4.65
3.35
10.88
4.16
6.82
3.18
3.18
4.99
3.44
3.44
3.44
3.44
4.10
1.52
4.14
4.14
5.50
5.20
4.75
6.85
6.85
11.00
3.55
3.25
1.95

Facility

ICS Provider

Piscataquis County Jail
Waldo County Jail
York County Jail
Lander County Sheriff's
Lexington County Jail
Louisville / Jefferson County Metro Govt –
All Locations
Carroll County Department of Corrections
Otter Creek Correctional Center – CCA
Androscoggin County Jail
Division of Juvenile Services – All Locations
Community Transitional Services
Cypress Creek
Sandy Creek
Merrimack County Department of Corrections
Sedgwick County – All Locations
Hamilton County Jail
Hampton County Jail
Florida Civil Commitment Center
Bradley County Jail
Powell County Sheriff
Cheshire County Department of Corrections
Hill Finklea Detention Center
Yakima County Correctional Center
Yakima County Jail
Churchill County Sheriff
Cumberland County Jail
Hancock County Jail
Kennebec County Jail
Washington County Jail
Sullivan County Department of Corrections
Franklin County Detention Center
CCCS – Watch East Treatment Center
Chippewa Cree Tribal Justice Center
CCCS – Nexus
CCCS – Start
Pershing County Sheriff
Clarendon County Jail
Sumter County Detention Center
St Joseph County Jail
Bismarck Transition Center
Fairfield County Detention Center
Johnston County Jail

State

Facility

ICS Provider

OR
WI
WI
SC
TN
IN
IN
MO
IN
MO
IN
MI
MI
MI
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS

Jefferson County Sheriff
Bayfield County Sheriff
Rusk County Jail
Bamberg County Jail
White County Jail
Pulaski County Jail
White County Jail
Jefferson County Jail
Newton County Jail
Cape Girardeau County Jail
Dekalb County Jail
Wayne County - Baird Detention Facility
Wayne County - Dickerson Detention Facility
Wayne County - Old Wayne County Jail
Adams County Jail
Amite County Jail
Chickasaw County Jail
Clarke County Jail
Copiah County Detention Center
Desoto County Adult Detention Center
Desoto County Expansion Facility
Forrest County Juvenile Detention Center
Forrest County Regional Jail
Greene County Jail
Grenada County Jail
Hancock County Adult Detention Center
Harrison County Detention Center
Humphreys County Jail
Jackson County Adult Detention Center
Jasper County Jail
Jones County Jail
Jones County Juvenile Detention Center
Lafayette County Detention Center
Lauderdale County Detention Facility
Leake County Correctional Facility - County
Leake County Correctional Facility - State
Leflore County Jail
Lincoln County Jail
Lowndes County Adult Detention Center
Lowndes County Courthouse Holding Cell
Madison County Detention Center
Neshoba County Detention Center

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.79
0.73
0.68
0.61
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.57
0.50
0.50
0.28
0.30
0.35
0.29
0.73
0.68
0.61
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50

15 Min.
Rate ($)
8.98
8.00
8.00
4.87
5.10
5.75
4.85
10.95
10.20
9.15
9.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50

State
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
OK
TX
IL
MI
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
FL
OH
CA
TN
TX
TX
ID
TN

Facility

ICS Provider

Newton County Jail
Oktibbeha County Jail
Oktibbeha County Jail-Trustee Facility
Panola County Detention Center
Perry County Jail
Picayune City Jail
Pike County Detention Center
Prentiss County Jail
Scott County Jail
Tate County Jail- JSI
Tippah County Jail - JSI
Tunica County Sheriff - JSI
Union County Jail
Walthall County Jail - JSI
Warren County Jail
Warren County Juvenile Facility
Wayne County Jail
Webster County Jail
Yalobusha County Jail
New York City Department of Corrections
North Tonawanda Police Department
Ontario County Jail
Suffolk County Jail
Suffolk County Jail / Yaphank
Diamondback Correctional Facility – CCA
Rockwall County Jail
Kankakee County Jail
Wayne County - Road Patrol Lockup Facility
CCA Florence Correctional Center (VTDOC)
Ak-Chin Police Department
Cochise County - All Locations
Greenlee County Sheriff
Yuma County Juvenile Justice Center
Apache County Jail
Hardee County Jail
Bedford Heights Police Department
San Diego County – All Locations
Marion County Jail
Fort Bend County Correctional Facility
Fort Bend County Juvenile Probation
Benewah County Jail
Decatur County Justice Complex

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.48
0.48
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.31

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.16
0.48
0.10
0.40
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.40
0.35
0.24
0.32
0.22
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.21

15 Min.
Rate ($)
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
1.20
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
4.00
7.50
2.72
7.20
1.87
6.07
7.05
7.05
7.05
6.00
5.25
3.71
4.80
3.40
4.80
4.80
4.65
3.25

State
TN
UT
SD
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
MO
MO
TX
TX
CT
IA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MN
NC
UT
CA
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN

Facility
Silverdale Detention Facilities – CCA
Utah County Jail
Pennington County Juvenile
Bensmihen
Dover
Farrar
Leboeuf
Nicholson
Rohr
Threads Training 2
Threads Training 3
Denton County – All Locations
Texas Department Of Criminal Justice
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Story County Jail
Berwick City Police Department
Cedarwood Manor
Cedarwood Manor Women's
Jefferson Parish (Gretna)
Kenner Police Department
Lafourche Parish – All Locations
Morehouse Parish – All Locations
Natchitoches Parish Work Center
Orleans Parish – All Locations
Slidell Police Department
Terrebonne Parish Criminal Justice Complex
Terrebonne Parish Trustee
Queen Anne\'S County Detention Center
Garrett County Sheriff
Talbot County Detention Center
Worcester County Detention Center
Meeker County Jail
Madison County Detention Center
Summit County Jail
San Joaquin County Jail
Allen County Juvenile Justice Center
Bartholomew County Jail
Elkhart County – All Locations
Floyd County Jail
Hendricks County Work Release
Johnson County Community Corrections
Johnson County Sheriff

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.31
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.21
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.14
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.25
4.35
4.20
4.05
4.05
4.05
4.05
4.05
4.05
3.90
3.90
3.90
3.90
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
2.21
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60

State

Facility

ICS Provider

IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
TX
VA
IA
IL
IN
IN
KY
MD
NC
OH
TX
TX
UT
VA
VA
WY
AK
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
FL
FL
KS
KY
LA
MA
MN
MS
NJ
OH
PA
PA

Kosciusko County Jail
Kosciusko County Work Release
Laporte County Community Corrections
Laporte County Jail
Marion County Juvenile Detention Center
Porter County Sheriff
Tippecanoe County Community Corrections
Vigo County Community Correctional Center
Vigo County Jail
Dallas County – All Locations
Blue Ridge Regional Jail Authority
Cass County Jail
Knox County Jail
Grant County – All Locations
Madison County Sheriff
Franklin County Fiscal Court
Dorchester County Detention Center
Avery County Sheriff
Mercer County Sheriff
Hall County Jail
Hays County Juvenile Facility
Cache County Jail
Southampton County Jail
Southampton County Jail Farm
Crook County Detention Facility
Department of Corrections – All Locations
CCA Central Arizona Detention Center
CCA Eloy Detention Center
CCA Florence Correctional Center
San Luis Regional Detention Center
Columbia County Detention Facility
Sarasota County Jail
Leavenworth Detention Center – CCA
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Middlesex Billerica Hoc
Northwest Regional Corrections Center
Adams County Correctional Center - CCA
Cape May County Correctional Center
Northeast Ohio Correctional Center - CCA
Lancaster County Prison
Lancaster County Youth Intervention Center

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.45
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15

State
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
AR
CA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15

Securus

0.21

0.21

3.15

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

0.21
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19

0.21
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19

3.15
3.00
3.00
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85

Facility

ICS Provider

West Tennessee Detention Facility – CCA
Bell County Central Jail
Bell County Loop Jail
Eden Detention Center – CCA
Limestone County Detention Center
Limestone Old County Jail
Rolling Plains Regional Jail & Detention
Center
West Texas Detention Facility
Community Transitional Services - Pine Bluff
San Bernardino County – All Locations
Athens Clarke County Jail
Athens Clarke Diversion Center
Atkinson County Jail
Baldwin County Jail
Bibb County Annex - G Wing
Bibb County Main Jail
Bibb County New Jail
Brantley County Jail
Brooks County Jail
Bryan County Sheriff
Bulloch County Sheriff
Catoosa County Jail
Chattooga County Jail
Clarke County Correctional Institution
Dougherty County Jail
Fannin County Jail
Grady County Jail
Harris County Prison
Jackson County Jail
Jefferson Correctional Institution
Jefferson County
Lincoln County Sheriff
Macon County Jail
Marion County Sheriff
McDuffie County Sheriff
McRae Correctional Facility – CCA
Oglethorpe County Jail
Richmond County Correctional Institution
Stephens County Jail
Stewart Detention Center – CCA
Tattnall County Sheriff
Tift County Law Enforcement Center

State
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
IL
OR
OR
OR
VA
AZ
GA
IL
LA
LA
LA
TN
TN
AZ
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18

15 Min.
Rate ($)
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70

Securus

0.18

0.18

2.70

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.16

0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.16

2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.55
2.40
2.40

Securus

0.16

0.16

2.40

Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15

0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15

2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25

Facility

ICS Provider

Troup County Jail
Walker County Sheriff
Wilkes County Sheriff
Wilkinson County Sheriff
Barrow County Sheriff
Clayton County Detention Center
Dekalb County Jail
Fayette County Jail
Fulton County - Alpharetta Annex
Fulton County - South Fulton Municipal
Regional Jail
Fulton County Jail
Fulton County Jail - Marietta Annex
Gwinnett County Sheriff
Hall County Jail
Henry County - Annex
Henry County Jail
Pike County Sheriff
Rockdale County Sheriff
Smyrna City Jail
Lake County Adult Correctional Facility
Multnomah County Detention Center
Multnomah County Inverness Jail
Multnomah County Juvenile Department
Hampton Roads Regional Jail
Pinal County
Carroll County Jail
Kankakee County Jerome Combs Detention
Center
East Carroll Parish Female
East Carroll Parish Male
East Carroll Riverbend Detention Phase I
Hardeman County Correctional Center – CCA
Whiteville Correction Facility – CCA
Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community
Chaves County Adult Detention Center
Cibola County Correctional Center – CCA
Curry County Detention Center
De Baca County Detention Center
Eddy County Adult Detention
Eddy County Adult Women Detention Center
Grant County Jail
Hidalgo County Detention Center

State
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
WA
WA
CA
FL
KY
MN
NM
TX
IL
WA
FL
NM
SC
WI
WI
WI
MS
NM
TX
ND
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
FL

Facility
Hobbs Police Department City Jail
Lea County Detention Center – GEO
Los Alamos Police Department
Otero County Jail
Quay County Detention Center
Rio Arriba County Detention Facility - JSI
Roosevelt County Adult Detention Center
San Juan County Adult Detention Center
San Miguel County Detention Center
Sierra County Detention
Taos County Adult Detention Center
Torrance County Detention Facility – CCA
Vigil Maldonado Detention Center
Pierce County Detention Corrections Center
Pierce County Juvenile Detention Center
Riverside County – All Locations
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Lexington Fayette Urban Detention
Hennepin County – All Locations
Lincoln County Detention Center
Travis County – All Locations
Cook County Facilities
King County – All Locations
Lake City Correctional Facility - CCA
Sandoval County Detention Center - JSI
Georgetown County Detention Center
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Juneau County Justice Center
Oneida County Jail
Tallahatchie County Correctional – CCA
Valencia County Detention Center
T. Don Hutto Residential Center - CCA
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Bernalillo County Metro Detention Center
Bernalillo County Youth Services Center
Guadalupe Correctional Facility - GEO
Lea Hobbs County - GEO
Department of Corrections – All Locations
NM Women's Correctional Facility – CCA
Northeastern NM Detention Facility – GEO
Santa Fe County Adult Detention Facility
Gadsden Correctional Facility - MTC

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.06

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.06

15 Min.
Rate ($)
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
1.95
1.95
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.50
1.50
1.35
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
0.90

State
PA
MO

Facility
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Department of Corrections – All Locations

ICS Provider
Securus
Securus

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.06
0.05

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.06
0.05

15 Min.
Rate ($)
0.90
0.75

EXHIBIT C

Intra-State Rates for ICS Providers
(collected November 28 – December 12, 2016)
State
OR
OR
AR
TX
AR
VA
WI
MI
IN
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY

Facility
Douglas County
Linn County
Washington County AR Jail
Cass County Detention Center
Jefferson County Adult Jail
Culpeper County
Clark County Jail
Monroe County, MI
Marion County Superior Court Juvenile
Allegany County
Broome County
Cattaraugus County
Cayuga County
Chautauqua County
Chenango County
Cortland County
Cortland County
Delaware County
Dutchess County
Genesee County
Herkimer County
Jefferson County
Lewis County
Livingston County
Madison County
Monroe County
Nassau County
Niagra County
Oneida County
Onondaga County
Orange County
Orleans County
Oswego County
Otsego County
Putnam County
Renssalaer County
Rockland County
Schuyler County

ICS Provider
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
5.31
5.24
5.00
4.65
4.64
4.64
4.64
4.60
4.45
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.89
0.69
0.00
0.20
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.65
0.00
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40

15 Min.
Rate ($)
17.77
14.90
5.00
7.45
14.30
14.30
14.30
13.70
4.45
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95

State
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
TX
TX
TX
AR
TX
MI
AR
AZ
CA
CA
MI
PA
PA
TX
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
OK
OH
UT
NJ
NY
SC

Facility
Seneca County
St. Lawrence County
St. Lawrence County
Sullivan County
Tioga County
Tompkins County
Tompkins County
Wayne County
Westchester County
Wyoming County
Yates County
Bowie County
Red River County
Burnet County
White County Jail
Waller County
Oakland County
Sebastian County Jail
Mesa City Holding Facility
Alameda County – All Locations
Marin County Probation
Detroit City Jail
Wayne County
Jefferson County
Gregg County
Coahoma County
Covington County
Holmes-Humphrey County
Issaquena County
Jefferson-Franklin County
Kemper-Neshoba County
Marion-Walthall County
Pike County
Washington County
Winston-Choctaw County
Ponca City Jail
Jefferson County
Sanpete County
Hunterdon County
Chemung County Sheriff's Office
Greenville County

ICS Provider
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.17
4.15
4.10
4.09
4.05
4.00
3.75
3.70
3.65
3.65
3.65
3.59
3.55
3.40
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.25
3.20
3.11
2.92
2.90
2.90
2.83

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.39
0.34
0.29
0.33
0.50
0.25
0.30
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.59
0.55
0.39
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.36
0.12
0.40
0.40
0.33

15 Min.
Rate ($)
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.95
9.80
9.54
8.86
8.15
8.67
11.00
7.25
7.90
12.75
12.75
12.75
11.85
11.25
8.86
6.75
6.75
6.75
6.75
6.75
6.75
6.75
6.75
6.75
6.75
6.70
8.15
4.60
8.50
8.50
7.45

State
MS
GA
IN
LA
LA
GA
OR
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
MO
NY
NY
IN
TX
RI
TN
MI
MI
UT
MI
MI
MS
MS
MS
IN
MI
MD
MS
MS
MS
KS
TX

Facility
Leake County
South Fulton
Delaware County, IN
Concordia Parish
Jackson Correctional Center
Pelham County
Multnomah County
Columbia County
Essex County
Franklin County
Fulton County
Montgomery County
Warren County
Warren County
Washington County
Albany County
Saratoga County
Schenectady County
Greene County
Clinton County
Greene County
Monroe County Jail
Joe Corley Detention – GEO
Providence County
Williamson County
Berrien County
Lenaewee County
Box Elder County
Hillsdale County
Lake County Jail, MI
Pontotc County DC
Wilkinson County Correctional CCI
Bolivar County
Clay County-IN
Oceana County Jail
Montgomery County
Lawrence County
Caroll-Montgomery County
George-Greene County Jail
Riley County
Wichita County

ICS Provider
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
2.71
2.70
2.55
2.30
2.24
2.19
1.96
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.85
1.85
1.85
1.82
1.76
1.76
1.75
1.75
1.65
1.50
1.10
1.09
1.00
0.99
0.75
0.73
0.69
0.68
0.67
0.67
0.65
0.58
0.57
0.56
0.55
0.55

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.21
0.00
0.30
0.15
0.09
0.19
0.11
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.32
0.18
0.18
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.00
1.10
1.09
0.04
0.99
0.75
0.73
0.69
0.68
0.67
0.67
0.00
0.58
0.57
0.56
0.55
0.55

15 Min.
Rate ($)
5.65
2.70
6.75
4.40
3.50
4.85
3.50
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
3.25
3.25
3.25
6.30
4.28
4.28
5.25
5.25
5.85
1.50
16.50
16.35
1.56
14.85
11.25
10.95
10.35
10.14
10.05
10.05
0.65
8.70
8.50
8.43
8.25
8.25

State
WI
TX
TX
TX
TX
MI
TX
TX
TX
TX
WI
MS
MS
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
CA
TX
TX
TX
AZ
TX
MS
TX
TX
CO
TX
CA
TX
TX
CA
CA
CA
TX

Facility
Menominee County - Tribal Jail
Jones County
Montgomery County
Pasadena City Jail
Johnson County
Oak Park MI - City Jail
Corpus Christi
Karnes County Panna Maria Ave Jail
Karnes County Wall St Jail
Pecos County
Kenosha County Detention Center
Natchez City Jail
Natchez City Jail - Adams Juvenile
Colorado County
Duncanville
Gonzales County - Inter Sanction ISF
Guadalupe County
Jefferson County – All Corrections
Potter County
Randall County
Reeves County
Rusk County
Wilbarger County
Merced County – All Locations
Arlington
Lee County
Washington County
Gila County – All Locations
Lubbock County Community Corr
Hinds County – All Locations
Hidalgo County
Hill County
El Paso County – All Locations
Smith County
Humboldt County – All Locations
Maverick County
Tom Green County
El Dorado County – All Locations
Glenn County Sheriff Department
Marin County Jail
Gonzales County

ICS Provider
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.55
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.52
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.48
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.44
0.44
0.42
0.41
0.41
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.55
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.52
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.49
0.48
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.46
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.44
0.44
0.42
0.41
0.41
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40

15 Min.
Rate ($)
8.25
8.00
7.95
7.95
7.80
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.35
7.35
7.35
7.35
7.35
7.35
7.35
7.35
7.35
7.35
7.35
7.35
7.20
7.05
7.05
7.05
6.90
6.90
6.72
6.75
6.75
6.60
6.60
6.30
6.15
6.10
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00

State
TX
TX
PA
FL
MO
MS
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
TX
OH
PA
PA
IN
IN
CA
CA
CA
FL
OH
PA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA

Facility
Galveston County
Hood County
Lycoming County
Polk County – All Locations
Buchanan County
Alcorn County - Regional Jail
Brook Park
East Cleveland
Lakewood Jail
Parma Heights Jail
Richmond Heights Jail
Solon Jail
Westlake Jail
Zanesville Jail
McLennan County – All Locations
Lake County Adult Detention Facility
Armstrong County
Bucks County
Madison County – Justice Center
Madison County – Men's and Women's WR
Kern County – All Locations
Ventura County - Juvenile Probation
Ventura County Jail
Manatee County Detention
SEPTA Correctional Facility
Westmoreland County
Lake County Jail – All Locations
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles Police Department
Mendota FCI
Orange County, CA
San Benito County
San Bernardino County Juvenile
San Diego MCC
San Francisco County Jail
San Luis Obispo County
Santa Clara County
Shafter Community Correctional (CCF)
Shasta County
Tehama County Jail
Terminal Island FCI

ICS Provider
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.39
0.39
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.39
0.39
0.37
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.35
0.34
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29

15 Min.
Rate ($)
5.85
5.85
5.55
5.40
5.40
5.34
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.25
5.10
5.10
4.89
4.80
4.80
4.65
4.65
4.65
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35

State
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
NH
FL
TN
VA
VA
WA
PA
TX
FL
IN
MS
MS
WA
WA
WA
CA
CA
CA
FL
FL
MD
NJ
NJ
NY
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SC
TN
VA
VA

Facility
Tulare County
USMC Camp Pendleton Brig
USN_CA-USMC Miramar NAVONBRIG
Victorville USP
Yolo County Jail
Yuba County Jail
Strafford County Department of Corrections
Duval County – All Locations
Madison County
Mecklenburg Jail
Meherin River County Regional Jail
Thurston County - Nisqually Tribal Jail
Clearfield County
Gaines County
Martin County
Marion County – Main Jail
Rankin County - Adult
Rankin County - Juvenile
Issaquah City Jail
Spokane County - Geiger Correctional
Spokane County Jail
Contra Costa County – All Locations
Sonoma County
Sonoma County - Juvenile Justice Center
Brevard County
St. Lucie County
Caroline County Department of Corrections
Union County Jail
Union County Juvenile
Rikers Island
Columbus County
Cambria County
Delaware County
Schuykill County
Washington County
York County
York County
Richland County
Montgomery County
Piedmont Regional Jail
Prince William County

ICS Provider
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25

15 Min.
Rate ($)
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.35
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.05
4.05
3.90
3.90
3.94
3.94
3.90
3.90
3.90
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75

State
VA
FL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
OH
OH
PA
PA
PA
VA
CA
OH
OH
TX
VA
VA
AZ
FL
FL
IA
OH
OH
OH
PA
PA
PA
PA
TN
TX
UT
VA
WI
AL
AL
AZ
AZ
AZ

Facility

ICS Provider

Western Tidewater Regional Jail
Pinellas County
Allen County IN-Work Release
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Howard County, IN
Lake County – Community Corrections
St. Joseph County Jail
Tippecanoe County Jail
Delaware County
Muskingum County Jail
Adams County
Bradford County
Lehigh County
Rappahannock Regional Jail
Stanislaus County – All Locations
Montgomery County – MonDay Correctional
Stark County Regional Corrections
Lubbock County Detention Ctr
Hanover County
New River Valley
Glendale City Jail
Indian River County
Lee County – All Locations
Black Hawk County Jail
Cleveland – House of Corrections
Trumbull County
Trumbull County – Juvenile
Dauphin County
Franklin County
Mercer County
Somerset County
Obion County
Houston County – All Locations
Duchesne County
Peumansend Creek Regional Jail
Sauk County Jail
Fayette County Jail
Jefferson County – All Locations
APACHE Junction AZ- City Detention Unit
Avondale City Detention Facility
CCA Saguaro Correctional Center

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.25
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.75
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.60
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.45
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.30
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15

State
AZ
AZ
CA
CA
FL
GA
IL
IL
IN
KS
KS
MA
NC
NJ
NY
OK
PA
PA
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
AZ
AZ
MI
OH
OK
OK
OK
OR
TN
WA
WA
KS
MS
NJ
TN
UT
VA

Facility
Chandler City Detention Facility
Mohave County Juvenile Detention Center
CADOC – Custody to Community
Transitional Reentry Program
San Joaquin County Juvenile Detention
Santa Rosa County FL-Work Release
East Point Law Enforcement Center Georgia
DuPage County Corrections
Peoria County IL-Jail
Heritage Trails Correctional Facility - GEO
JRFC Ft. Leavenworth
USDB Ft. Leavenworth
Plymouth County
GEO Rivers Correctional
Hudson County Juvenile Detention
Queens Detention Facility – GEO
Great Plains Correctional Facility - GEO
Allegheny County
Lackawanna County
Big Spring – GEO
Central Texas Detention – GEO
Karnes Correctional Center – GEO
Rio Grande Detention – GEO
Val Verde Correctional – GEO
Maricopa County – All Locations
Pima County - All Locations
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Mahoning County – All Locations
Cimarron Correctional-Cushing
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Lawton Correctional – GEO
Warm Springs
Sevier County
Snohomish County - Denney Juvenile
Snohomish County - Main Jail
Leavenworth County Jail
Pearl River County
Salem County Correctional Facility
Fayette County
Weber County
Northwestern County

GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.21
0.21

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.21
0.21

15 Min.
Rate ($)
3.15
3.15

GTL

0.21

0.21

3.15

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19

0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19

3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.15
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.82
2.85

ICS Provider

State
WA
SD
LA
VA
VA
OH
GA
PA
PA
VA
VA
CA
CA
FL
FL
FL
IA
MA
NC
NC
OR
PA
PA
PA
SC
TN
WI
NJ
NM
NM
VA
CA
NJ
FL
FL
NV
NV
PA
PA
SC

Facility
Grant County - County Jail
Pennington County
Ouachita Parish Correctional
Southside Regional Jail
Southwestern Regional Jail
Cuyahoga County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Montgomery County
Philadelphia County
Gloucester County
Norfolk City
Solano County
Solano Probation Juvenile Hall
Charlotte County
Collier County
Highlands County FL-Jail
Scott County Jail
Norfolk County Jail
Cumberland County
Durham County
Yamhill County
Chester County
Luzerne County
Northampton County
Spartanburg County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Outagamie County Jail
Delaney Hall – ICE (CEC, Inc.)
Cibola County Detention Center
Luna County
Portsmouth Jail
CADOC – CA Department of Corrections –
All Locations
Toller Hall / Logan Hall – CEC, Inc.
Miami-Dade County – All Locations
Orange County Jail
Washoe County Jail Main Jail
Washoe County Jan Evans JDF
Cumberland County
Pennsylvania County
Charleston County

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.19
0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.19
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.15
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15

15 Min.
Rate ($)
2.85
2.62
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.78
2.55
2.55
2.58
2.55
2.32
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.40
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25

GTL

0.14

0.13

2.02

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14

0.13
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14

2.02
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.10

ICS Provider

State

Facility

ICS Provider

TN
GA
HI
NE
NE
OH
VA
VA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
GA
MA
MA
MA
NC
NC
TN
VT
WV
WV
WV

Shelby County
Gwinnett County, GA- Correctional Complex
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Douglas County DOC
Douglas County Youth Center
Lucas County
Henrico County Regional Jails
Middle River County Regional Jail
Arkansas Valley (AVCF)
Bent County Correctional (BCCF)
Buena Vista Correctional (BVCC)
Canon Minimum Centers (CMC)
Centennial Correctional (CCF)
Cheyenne Mountare-Entry (CMRC)
Colorado Correctional Center
Colorado DOC – Youthful Offender System
Colorado State Penitentiary
Colorado State Penitentiary II
Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility
Crowley County Correctional Facility - CCA
Delta Correctional Center
Denver R and D Center (DRDC)
Denver Women's Correctional (DWCF)
Fremont Correctional (FCF)
La Vista Correctional Facility
Limon Correctional Facility
Rifle Correctional Center
San Carlos Correctional Facility
Sterling Correctional Facility
Trinidad Correctional Facility
Cobb County, GA
Hampden County - Alcohol Center
Hampden County - Pre-release Center
Hampden County - Regional Women's Center
Mecklenberg County Jail Central
Mecklenberg County Jail North
Robertson County
Department of Corrections - All Locations
Central Regional Jail
Eastern Regional Jail
North Central Regional Jail

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.14
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12

15 Min.
Rate ($)
2.10
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.95
1.94
1.94
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.74
1.74
1.80
1.76
1.80
1.80
1.80

State
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
CO
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
IA
MI
MI
MS
MS
OK
TX
VA
VA
WA
MA
NC
NC
NE
NJ
NJ
TN
TX
NJ
SC
SD
NJ
VA
DE
MN
NJ
NJ
NJ

Facility
Northern Regional Jail
Potomac Highlands Jail
South Central Regional Jail
South West Regional Jail
Tygart Valley Jail
Western Regional Jail
Colorado Youth Corrections – All Locations
Blackwater River Facility (GEO)
GEO Bay Correctional Facility
GEO Graceville Correctional Facility
GEO Moore Haven Correctional Facility
Clarke County GA- Jail
Iowa State Training School
Northlake Detention VT DOC – GEO
Northlake Detention WA DOC - GEO
Chickasaw County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Muskogee County
Reeves County Detention – GEO
Chesterfield County
Riverside District Regional Jail
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Department of Corrections - All Locations
Department of Adult Corrections – All
Locations
Department of Public Safety – All Locations
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Bo Robinson – CEC, Inc.
Delaney Hall – CEC, Inc.
Wilson County
El Paso County
Talbot Hall – CEC, Inc.
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Tulley House – CEC, Inc.
Richmond Jail
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Burlington County
Camden County
Cumberland County

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.10

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.10

15 Min.
Rate ($)
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.65
1.50

GTL

0.10

0.10

1.50

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05

0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05

1.50
1.50
1.53
1.44
1.50
1.35
1.24
1.20
1.20
1.04
1.05
0.75
0.75
0.76
0.76
0.76

ICS Provider

State
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
RI
TN
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
OH
VA
CA
MD
MD

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05

15 Min.
Rate ($)
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72

GTL

0.05

0.05

0.75

GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL
GTL

0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03

0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.04

0.75
0.75
0.70
0.75
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.60
0.61
0.45
0.52
0.52

Facility

ICS Provider

Essex County Jail
Essex County Juvenile Detention
Hudson County Jail
Hudson County Jail Annex
Mercer County
Middlesex County Adult Correctional
Middlesex County Juvenile Detention
Monmouth County
Morris County
Ocean County
Somerset County
Sussex County
Warren County
Bayview Correctional Facility
Beacon Correctional Facility
Butler ASACSC Correctional
Chateaugay Correctional Facility
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Green Haven Correctional Facility
Monterey Correctional Facility
Mt McGregor Correctional Facility
Taconic County
Department of Rehab. And Corrections – All
Locations
Department of Youth Services – All Locations
Hamilton County
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Davidson County
Atlantic County Justice Facility
Bergen County Jail
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Juvenile Justice Commission – All Locations
Franklin County
Department of Corrections - All Locations
CADOC – Division of Juvenile Justice
Department of Corrections – All Locations
Juvenile Services Department – All Locations

EXHIBIT D

Intra-State Rates for ICS Providers
(collected November 28 – December 12, 2016)
State
CA
CA
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
PA
CA
MA
NJ
PA
LA
LA
LA
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
CA
CA
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
*
#

Facility
West Care Foundation
Atascadero State Hospital
Flower Mound Police Department
Justice Center PD
Pecos Justice Center
Rowlett Police Department
Sommerville County Jail
Terrell County Jail
Wernersville State Hospital
Bell Police Department
Everett Police Department-TIPS
Lindenwold Police Department-TIPS
Nesbitt Hospital
Springhill Jail
Vivian Police Department
Welsh Police Department
Ocean County Juvenile Detention Center
Lackawanna Jail
Lancaster Police Department
Town of Evans Police Department
West Seneca Police Department
Yolo County Sheriff
Clovis Police Department
7 Points Police Department
Addison City Jail
Allen City Jail
Angleton City Jail
Aransas Pass City Jail
Azle City Jail
Balch Spring Police Department
Bonham City Jail
Brazoria Police Department
Cedar Park City Jail
Center Police Department
Childress Police Department
Cleveland City Jail
Cockrell Hill City Jail

ICS Provider
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*

1st Min.
Charge ($)
20.00
15.09
13.56
13.56
13.56
13.56
13.56
13.56
13.09
12.66
11.99
11.99
11.75
10.43
10.43
10.43
9.78
9.66
9.66
9.66
9.66
9.50
9.50
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75

Add. Min
Charge ($)
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
0.99
0.89
1.29
1.29
0.79
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.15
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
1.49
1.49
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25

15 Min.
Rate ($)
37.25
32.34
30.81
30.81
30.81
30.81
30.81
30.81
27.94
26.01
31.34
31.34
23.60
14.18
14.18
14.18
27.03
23.01
23.01
23.01
23.01
31.85
31.85
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
*
#

Facility
Commerce Police Department
Converse Police Department
Crowley Police Department
Dallas Marshall's
Dalworthington Gardens Police Department
Denton City Jail
Electra City Jail
Elsa Police Department
Ennis City Jail
Everman City Jail
Farmers Branch City Jail
Forest Hills City Jail
Friendswood Police Department
Frisco
Garland Police Department
Gladewater City Jail
Glenn Heights City Jail
GRAPEVINE CITY JAIL
Greenville Police Department
GUN BARREL CITY JAIL
Harlingen Police Department
Hidalgo City Jail
Highland Park City Jail
Highland Village City Jail
Hillsboro City Jail
Hutchins Police Department
INGLESIDE CITY JAIL
JACINTO CITY JAIL
Jacksonville
JCW Default
Keene City Jail
Kennedale Police Department
Kilgore City Jail
Lake Dallas City Jail
Lake Worth Police Department
Little Elm Police Department
Los Fresnos City Jail
Midland County JRTC
Mineola City Jail
New Boston City Jail

ICS Provider
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*

1st Min.
Charge ($)
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75

Add. Min
Charge ($)
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25

15 Min.
Rate ($)
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
AL
CA
MD
NM
NM
NY
NY
NE
TX
AL
IL
ID
MO
MO
MO
*
#

Facility
Olney City Jail
Palmview Police Department
Pantego City Jail
RICHARDSON CITY JAIL
River Oaks Police Department
Rockdale Police Department
Saginaw Police Department
Santa Fe City Jail
Seagoville
Spring Valley City Jail
Springtown City Jail
Taylor City Jail
Terrell Police Department
University Park Police Department
Westworth Village Police Department
Whitesboro City Jail
Wilmer Police Department
Wylie City Jail
Hurst Police Department
Armstrong County
Cochran County
Donely County
Fisher County
Jones County
Shackelford County
Bullock County Sheriff Office
Ventura County Sheriff
Carroll County Detention Center Eunice Police Department
Jal Law Enforcement
Niagara Falls Police Department
Troy Police Department
Thurston County Jail
Oliver Office
Foley Police Department
McHenry County Jail
Clark County Sheriff
Chaffee Police Department
De Soto PD
Dixon Police Department

ICS Provider
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*

1st Min.
Charge ($)
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.75
4.15
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.99
3.99
3.99
3.99
3.99
3.99
3.99
3.95
3.75
3.25
3.01
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00

Add. Min
Charge ($)
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.10
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.69
0.40
0.49
0.25
0.69
1.55
1.55
1.55

15 Min.
Rate ($)
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
5.65
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.25
18.84
18.84
18.84
18.84
18.84
18.84
18.84
14.30
9.75
10.60
6.76
13.35
26.25
26.25
26.25

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
MO
MO
OH
NY
CA
CA
CA
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
AL
NE
MO
KS
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
AR
CA
CA
CA
*
#

Facility
Kinloch Police Department
Webb City
Fostoria Police Department
Greece Town Police Department
Metropolitan State Hospital
Napa State Hospital
Patton State Hospital
Mustang City Jail
Anadarko City Jail
Bethany City Jail
Bixby Police Department
Broken Arrow City Jail
Clinton City Jail
El Reno City Jail
Elk City Police Department
Henryetta City Jail
Locust Grove Police Department
Manford Police Department
Owasso Police Department
Roland City Jail
Seminole City Jail
Tonawa Police Department
Yukon City Jail
Covington County Jail
Scotts Bluff County Detention Center
Independence City Jail
Rooks County Jail
Atascosa County
Brazos Rehab Place
Cameron County
Cameron County Boot Camp
Davy Crockett Regional Juvenile Facility
Duval County
Granbury
Rockdale Juvenile
Tom Green County
Izard County Jail
Buena Park Police Department
Corona Police Department
Costa Mesa Police Department

ICS Provider
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy*
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy

1st Min.
Charge ($)
3.00
3.00
2.79
2.75
2.70
2.70
2.70
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.35
2.25
2.25
1.70
1.55
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25

Add. Min
Charge ($)
1.55
1.55
0.49
0.30
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.35
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.30
0.30
1.55
1.55
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25

15 Min.
Rate ($)
26.25
26.25
10.14
7.25
8.40
8.40
8.40
7.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
16.60
6.75
6.75
25.50
23.25
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
*
#

Facility
Glendale Police Department
Hawthorne Police Department
Hayward Police Department
Hermosa Beach Police Department
Inglewood Police Department
Manhattan Beach Police Department
Newport Beach Police Department
Signal Hill Police Department
Westminster Police Department
Berkley Police Department
Berkley Police Department
Beverly Hills Police Department MI
Birmingham Police Department
Brownstown Police Department
Canton Township Police Department
Clinton Township Police Department
Dearborn Police Department
East Lansing Police Department
Eastpointe Police Department
Ecorse Police Department
Farmington Hills Police Department
Fenton Police Department
Ferndale Police Department
Garden City Police Department
Grosse Pointe Woods
Harper Woods Police Department
Hazel Park Police Department
Inkster Police Department
Lincoln Park Police Department
Livonia Police Department
Madison Heights Police Department
Milford Police Department
Northville Police Department
Novi Police Department
Plymouth Township Police Department
Redford Police Department
Rochester Police Department
Romulus Police Department
Royal Oak Police Department
Southfield Police Department

ICS Provider
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy

1st Min.
Charge ($)
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25

Add. Min
Charge ($)
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25

15 Min.
Rate ($)
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
TX
TX
FL
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
ID
ID
TX
CA
CA
MI
OR
OR
WI
WI
CA
NE
OH
OH
OK
WA
*
#

Facility
Southgate Police Department
St. Clair Shores Police Department
Sterling Heights Police Department
Taylor Police Department
Trenton Police Department
Troy Police Department
Utica Police Department
Van Buren Township Police Department
Warren Police Department
West Bloomfield Police Department
Westland Police Department
White Lake Police Department
Wixom Police Department
Wyandotte Police Department
Bedford Police Department
West Columbia Police Department
Department of Corrections – Pay Telephones
Alhambra Police Department
Beverly Hills Police Department
Burbank Police Department
Chula Vista City Jail
Fremont Police Department
Monterey Park Police Department
Pasadena Police Department
Clearwater County Sheriff
Lewis County Sheriff
Lewisville
El Segundo Police Department
Gardena Police Department
Allen Park Police Department
Benton County Jail
Josephine County Jail
Dunn County Jail
Jackson County Jail
Redondo Beach Police Department
Pierce County Sheriff
Cuyahoga Falls Police Department
Middletown Police Department
Edmond Police Department
Adams County Sheriff

ICS Provider
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy*
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy

1st Min.
Charge ($)
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.20
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.10
1.10
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95

Add. Min
Charge ($)
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
1.25
0.06
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.10
1.10
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95

15 Min.
Rate ($)
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
18.75
2.10
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
17.25
16.50
16.50
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
15.75
14.25
14.25
14.25
14.25
14.25
14.25

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
CA
TX
CA
MO
OK
MO
AZ
CA
CA
MO
ND
TX
TX
CA
NY
AZ
CA
OH
SD
MO
OK
OK
IL
IL
MO
MS
NC
SC
SC
NM
CO
NE
NJ
AZ
ID
CA
IN
WA
WA
WA
*
#

Facility
Lodi Police Department
Blue Mound Police Department
Whittier Police Department
Douglas County Sheriff
Lawton City Police Department
Blue Springs Police Department
White Mountain Apache Corrections Center
Bell Gardens Police Department
Montebello Police Department
Montgomery County Jail
Gerald Fox Adult Detention Center
The Colony Police Department
Walker County Jail
Colusa County Jail
Central New York Psychiatric Center
Hualapai Adult Detention Center
Long Beach Police Department
Shelby Police Department
Rosebud Sioux Tribe Adult Corrections
Louisiana Police Department
Okmulgee County Jail
Yukon Police Department
Winnebago County Jail
Winnebago County Juvenile DC
Scott City Police Department
Natchez Police Department
Moore County Detention Center
McCormick County Sheriff
Newberry County Detention Center
Socorro County Detention Center
Grand County Jail
Lancaster Youth Services Center
Paterson Police Department
Colorado River Indian Tribes Detention
Adams County Sheriff
Mendocino County – All Locations
Hammond Police Department
Hoquiam Police Department
Lynnwood Jail
Whatcom County Jail/ Interim Work Center

ICS Provider
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy*
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy*
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy*
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.90
0.90
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.81
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.73
0.69
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.47
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.42

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.90
0.90
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.50
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.73
0.69
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.10
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.75
0.47
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.42

15 Min.
Rate ($)
13.50
13.50
12.75
12.75
12.75
12.15
11.25
11.25
11.25
11.25
11.25
11.25
11.25
10.95
10.35
9.75
9.75
9.75
9.75
9.00
9.00
9.00
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
8.25
2.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
11.75
7.05
6.75
6.75
6.75
6.75
6.30

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
WA
AZ
CA
OR
OR
VA
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
MI
SC
CA
CA
MA
*
#

Facility
Whatcom County Juvenile Hall
Yuma County Detention Center
Huntington Beach Police Department
Jackson County Main Jail
Jackson County Transition Center
Accomack County Sheriff
Charlevoix County
Crawford County Jail
Huron County Jail
Kalkaska County Jail
Leelanau County Jail
Manistee County Jail
Arab City Police Department
Geneva County Jail
Guntersville City Police Department
Montgomery County Detention Center
Adamsville Police Department
Albertville City Police Department
Daphne City Police Department
Dothan Police Department
Houston County Jail
Orange Beach Police Department
Acadia Parish Detention Center
Acadia Parish Jail
Baker City Police Department
Beauregard Parish Jail
Christian Acres Juvenile Youth Center
Eunice City Jail
Leesville City Jail
Morgan City Jail
Opelousas City Jail
Sulphur Police Department
Vermilion Parish Sheriff
Ville Platte Police Department
West Feliciana Parish Jail
Farmington Police Department
Darlington County Prison Farm
Tuolumne County Jail
Fresno County Jail
Boston – All Districts

ICS Provider
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.42
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.22
0.20
0.20

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.42
0.40
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.22
0.20
0.20

15 Min.
Rate ($)
6.30
6.00
5.25
5.25
5.25
5.25
7.85
7.85
7.85
7.85
7.85
7.85
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
4.20
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.30
3.00
3.00

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

State
GA
GA
GA
MS
MS
MS
GA
NM
NM
NM
NM

*
#

Facility
Coffee County Jail
Decatur County Correctional Prison
Decatur County Jail
Itawamba County Jail
Marshall County Sheriff Department
Tishomingo County Sheriff Department
Acworth
Dona Ana County Detention Center
Pueblo of Laguna Detention Facility
Ramah Navajo Police Department
Zuni Department of Corrections

ICS Provider
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy
Legacy

1st Min.
Charge ($)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15

Add. Min
Charge ($)
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15

15 Min.
Rate ($)
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.85
2.70
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.25

Rate Calculator lists "Connection Charge" in addition to per minute rate. 15 Min. Rate = Connection Rate + (15 * Add. Min. Rate).
Telmate does not make its rates available to the public without having to call for each facility – "DNMA."

EXHIBIT E

Petro, Lee G.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Rafael Quinto <rquinto@legacyinmate.com>
Friday, July 29, 2016 3:18 PM
Petro, Lee G.
RE: Legacy Long Distance International, Inc.

Mr. Petro, 
                We do not have a stamped copy to provide, due to the fact that we honestly did not file the data.  The data was 
compiled, but was never submitted on or before the August 18, 2014 deadline as instructed. At the time we were 
working with three different tariff attorneys and unfortunately the filing was overlooked by all parties.  The data that I 
provided you is the data that would have been submitted for filing. 
 
Thank you, 
 

Rafael Quinto 
Operations 
Legacy Long Distance Int’l, Inc. 
Legacy Inmate Communications 
10833 Valley View Street 
Suite 150 
Cypress, CA  90630 
800‐577‐5534 ext. 208 
rquinto@legacyinmate.com 
 
 
 
From: Petro, Lee G. [mailto:Lee.Petro@dbr.com]
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 10:59 AM
To: Rafael Quinto
Subject: RE: Legacy Long Distance International, Inc.

 
Thank you.  Do you have an FCC‐stamped copy of this submission?   
 
There is no record of it being filed at the FCC nor has there been any mention of Legacy in any FCC decision, suggesting 
that they did not receive this submission by August 18, 2014. 
 
Absent a stamped copy of this submission, please provide some evidence that it was submitted on or before August 18, 
2014. 
 
Thank you. 
Lee G. Petro
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
1500 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-1209
(202) 230-5857 office
(202) 842-8465 fax
(703) 798-2001 mobile
Lee.Petro@dbr.com
www.drinkerbiddle.com
 
1

EXHIBIT F

comprehensive rules to reform practices and charges by ICS providers, which have led to almost
two decades of unjust, unreasonable and unfair ICS rates and ancillary fees.
As discussed herein, the FCC must review the responses to the issues raised in the 3rd
FNPRM, and adopt rules that will close the loop on the egregious practices of ICS providers and
their vendors. In particular, the Petitioners urge the FCC to (i) take steps to encourage a
competitive ICS marketplace; (ii) adopt rules and rate caps relating to video visitation and other
bundled services; (iii) require annual mandatory data collection submissions, including both
cost and revenue information; (iv) establish a docket that will receive all ICS contracts; (v)
extend the adopted rate and ancillary fee caps to International calling; and (vi) prohibit the
pass-through of all financial transaction fees – both by affiliates of ICS providers and thirdparties.
DISCUSSION
I.

COMPETITION IN THE ICS INDUSTRY.
In the 3rd FNPRM, the FCC renews its call for comments on different approaches to

introduce competition into the ICS market. Noting the overwhelming evidence in the record
that the ICS industry is a marketplace failure, the FCC seeks proposals “to promote competition
within the ICS market to enable the FCC to sunset or eliminate our regulations adopted herein
in the future.” 3

The FCC correctly notes that the Petitioners have been calling for the

introduction of competition in the ICS market for more than 15 years, and in fact, this goal
served as the basis for Martha Wright and the Petitioners to file the original lawsuit. 4
As noted in the 3rd FNPRM, both the ICS providers and the correctional authorities
have rejected any effort to introduce competitive ICS service at a particular facility. While there

3rd FNPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 12,900.
Id. (citing Petition for Rulemaking Or, In the Alternative, Petition To Address Referral
issues In Pending Rulemaking, pg. 2, filed Oct. 31, 2003).
3

4

2

may be different vendors providing different services, 5 the Petitioners are not aware of any
instance in the US where there is more than one ICS provider that is authorized to provide
competing ICS services at a particular correctional facility.
Instead, the pace of consolidation within the prison-industrial complex has accelerated
in recent years, resulting in attempts by ICS providers to serve all aspects of the correctional
authorities’ needs at the facility. For example, in 2015, Securus Technologies acquired JPay
Inc., of the largest commissary companies serving prisons and jails. 6

Another large

conglomerate – Keefe Group – owns an ICS provider – ICSolutions – which provides telephone
and video visitation services, and also owns the largest commissary service company – Keefe
Commissary Network – along with Access Corrections – which provides payment, email, photo
and other entertainment services. 7
In addition, GTL provides a menu of services, including ICS telephone, investigative
services, facility management solutions, in-person and video visitation management, payment
and deposit solutions and educational content solutions. 8 Telmate also offers a laundry list of
services – dubbed, the Telmate Ecosystem – which includes telephone, video visitation,

3rd FNPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 12,901, nt. 1016 (citing GTL’s Second FNPRM Comments).
Petitioners note that GTL’s comments do not state there is more than one ICS provider at a
particular facility, but rather, that multiple companies provide distinct services at that facility.
5

See Securus Technologies, Inc. Completes Transaction to Acquire JPay Inc., Press
Release (July 31, 2015) (http://tinyurl.com/h3cf8s2) (merger will “provide the ultimate
platform for digitized payments, communications, entertainment and education in the
correctional space.”).
7
See Keefe Group – Companies, www.keefegroup.com/companies-101 (“Today, Keefe is
comprised of six operating companies, each focused on distinct aspects of commissary
operations: Keefe Supply Company, Keefe Commissary Network, Access Securepak, Access
Corrections, ICSolutions and Advanced Technologies Group.”)
8
See GTL – Services, http://www.gtl.net/correctional-facility-services/ (“We are
committed to pushing the envelope on how technology can help improve virtually every aspect
of your operations, including the day-to-day experiences of everyone in the corrections
ecosystem: staff, inmates, family and friends. From the hardened exteriors of our kiosks, phones
and other in-pod devices to the reliability and security of the software that powers our solutions,
everything we provide is designed from the ground up with the rigors of the corrections
environment in mind.”). See also GTL Second FNPRM Comments, filed Jan. 12, 2015, pgs. 4044 (discussing GTL Genesis service).
6

3

voicemail, email, messaging, photo sharing and education services. 9 Even ICS providers that
primarily focus on jails, such as Pay Tel Communications 10 and NCIC, 11 offer correctional
authorities a suite of services beyond just ICS telephone calls.
Thus, the trend in the prison-industrial complex is for each company to promote itself as
a one-stop shop for a correctional facility. As discussed below, recent bid proposals submitted
to correctional facilities offer a bundle of services, and the companies compete to make the best
offer to win the contract with the correctional facility. Importantly, these bundled contracts
include the sharing of revenue earned on both ICS and non-communication services, which is
one of the main reasons that the Petitioners advocated for the FCC to avoid involving itself with
regulating site commissions. As we noted, the FCC would not be able to get a firm handle on the
many ways that these companies could share their revenue with the correctional facilities as
these services expanded to cover additional services, and the FCC’s determination to not ban site
commissions was appropriate.
In light of these trends, and in order for the FCC to meet its goal in promoting
competition in the ICS market, the FCC must focus on developing rules to re-structure the ICS
market so that it delivers just, reasonable and fair rates and ancillary fees for consumers.
Previously, the Petitioners filed comments urging the FCC to adopt ICS access rules
similar to the Inside Wiring and Exclusive Contract rules for multi-dwelling units. 12 In those
proceedings, the FCC prohibited anti-competitive practices that prevented new entrants “from

See Telmate Ecosystem – http://www.telmate.com/the-telmate-ecosystem/.
See Pay Tel Communications – Products and Services, https://www.paytel.com/
interested-facilities/products-and-services/ (offering jail management, visitation, kiosk,
messaging and ICS telephone services).
11
See NCIC - https://www.ncic.com/ice.htm (offering voicemail, commissary, jail
management services).
12
Petitioners FNPRM Comments, filed Dec. 10, 2013, pg. 17. See also Exclusive Service
Contracts For Provision of Video Services in Multiple Dwelling Units and Other Real Estate
Developments, 22 FCC Rcd 20,235 (2007), aff'd sub nom. Nat'l Cable & Television Ass'n v. FCC,
567 F.3d 659 (2009). See also Telecommunications Services Inside Wiring: Customer Premises
Equipment, 22 FCC Rcd 10,640, 10,641 (2007).
9

10

4

competing for consumers in multi-unit buildings based on regulatory technicalities or costly and
inefficient industry practices.” 13 The Petitioners noted that correctional authorities differentiate
ICS providers almost exclusively on which company will promise to pay the highest site
commission, so it must be correct that the service offerings by the ICS providers are largely
uniform.
As such, the Petitioners suggested that the FCC adopt rules to prohibit exclusive
contracts and other practices that prevent competition at a correctional facility. Correctional
authorities could create a list of required security measures that all ICS providers seeking to
provide service must agree to provide, and then permit ICS customers to select a provider of
their choice. While there would be additional steps in setting up this structure, the competition
among ICS providers for customers would lead to lower ICS rates and fees.
In response, correctional authorities and ICS providers uniformly rejected the idea of
multiple ICS providers at a particular facility, with the ICS providers indicating that they would
likely not bid to serve under a competitive regime, and correctional authorities stating that they
“would likely eliminate ICS rather than allowing multiple ICS vendors.” 14 On the other hand,
HRDC correctly notes that, until there is competition among ICS providers at a particular
correctional facility, “the discussion will continue to revolve around ways to gouge consumers
and extract money from them – not on how to deliver the best, most cost-efficient ICS services
to prisoners and their families.” 15
One way to reach this goal is to establish rules under which a correctional authority’s
service provider does not offer service directly to ICS customers. Instead, the FCC would create
two separate classes of ICS — wholesale and retail. Wholesale providers would respond to a
correctional authority’s request for proposal, and the successful wholesale provider would be

13
14
15

22 FCC Rcd at 10,641 (2007).
3rd FNPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 12,901.
Id., nt. 1015 (citing HRDC July 29, 2015 Ex Parte Letter, at pg. 8).
5

responsible for installing equipment at the facility, but it would not be authorized to provide
retail service at the facility, either directly or through subsidiaries. The wholesale ICS provider
would provide a standardized level of service satisfying the facility’s requested security
biometrics and call monitoring capability.

As a result, the correctional authorities would

maintain their existing level of security for ICS.
Furthermore, the wholesale provider (or correctional facility) would be responsible for
installing and maintaining payment kiosks, video visitation/video phone equipment
(collectively, “video visitation”), and inmate ICS end user services/equipment, but retail ICS
providers would be guaranteed equal access to all such equipment without barriers to provide
retail ICS to their customers. The wholesale ICS provider would establish a demarcation point
or permit colocation at the facility.
Under this structure, correctional authorities would contract with one wholesale ICS
provider, and ICS customers would be permitted to choose among retail ICS providers for the
lowest rates and fees. After establishing a rate structure for the wholesale ICS providers to
charge retail ICS companies, the FCC would then avoid involving itself in the state and local
bidding processes. Moreover, the FCC would have created the direct relationship between ICS
providers and their customers, and would permit consumers to choose an ICS retail provider
that best meets their needs.
This proposal tracks the steps taken by the FCC to promote facilities-based retail
competition in the wireline local telephone market. The FCC could create competition in the
ICS industry by mandating equal access to ICS site-based services at wholesale rates, with ICS
customers finally getting the opportunity to choose their service provider and reap the
associated economic advantages arising from competition in the marketplace.
The Petitioners acknowledge that this proposal suggests a significant overhaul to the ICS
rules and the prison-industrial complex, and we urge the FCC to fully implement the rate and

6

ancillary fee caps adopted in the Second R&O while it studies this proposal in more detail. 16
However, the FCC was directed by Congress to “promote competition and the widespread
deployment of payphone services,” 17 and correctional authorities steadfastly argue that dealing
with separate ICS providers is too costly.

Maintaining a structure whereby correctional

authorities deal only with one entity would eliminate this concern, and creating a competitive
marketplace for ICS customers would serve the public interest.
The alternative, of course, is that ICS providers and correctional authorities acknowledge
(i) that the current ICS structure does not promote competition, (ii) that their practices have led
to unjust, unreasonable and unfair rates being charged to ICS customers, and (iii) that the
appropriate and legally sustainable solution is to accept the FCC’s authority to cap ICS rates and
ancillary fees as set forth in the Second R&O.
Stated another way, if the prison-industrial complex seeks to maintain its current
structure – with each company offering to provide a complete suite of services on the condition
that it is the sole provider at particular correctional facility – it must, at the very least,
acknowledge that their practices do not ensure just, reasonable and fair ICS rates and fees, and
accept the FCC’s steps taken in the Second R&O to protect ICS consumers.
II.

THE FCC MUST ENSURE THAT ICS PROVIDERS DO NOT GOUGE VIDEO
VISITATION CONSUMERS.
As noted above, companies providing ICS telephone service are increasingly bundling

additional services to provide to correctional facilities and inmates. GTL, Securus, ICSolutions,
Telmate, Pay Tel Communications and NCIC all offer a suite of services, including video
visitation. The 3rd FNPRM seeks additional information regarding video visitation, including
whether the FCC should adopt caps on rates and ancillary fees charged for video visitation

Id., at 12,902 (“should the Commission, as suggested, first adopt rate and ancillary
service charge reform and then determine if additional steps are necessary and perhaps revisit
the idea of intra-facility competition then.”).
16

17

Id. at 12,901 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 276).
7

EXHIBIT G

As discussed below, the Wright Petitioners urge the FCC to: (i) adopt rules that will
introduce competition into the ICS marketplace; (ii) establish rate and fee caps for
international ICS, ICS video visitation, and other advanced ICS communication services, (iii)
require the submission of ICS providers’ cost and revenue information for at least five
years, starting with 2015 data, (iv) mandate the submission of ICS contracts within 30 days
of execution; and (v) close remaining loopholes regarding third-party fees which serve only
to inflate fees paid by ICS consumers.
DISCUSSION
I.

COMPETITION IN THE ICS INDUSTRY.
In our Comments to the 3rd FNPRM, the Wright Petitioners urged the FCC to adopt

rules to introduce competition into the ICS marketplace.

We noted that the prison-

industrial complex has become consolidated, with a limited number of companies offering
a “suite” of inmate-related services, including commissary services, email, video visitation,
video phone, and telephone services. 3

Other commenters also discussed this

consolidation. 4
In light of the accelerating movement among ICS providers to become a
“one-stop” shopping alternatives for correctional facilities, we suggested that the FCC
create two classes of ICS, wholesale and retail. We noted that this structure would insulate
ICS consumers from the ICS provider that has contracted with the correctional authority
(and perhaps has chosen to share its revenue through a site commission), and permit retail

3

Wright Petitioners Comments, pg. 4 (Jan. 19, 2016) (“3rd FNPRM Comments”).

4
See Prison Policy Initiative Comments, Loophole On The Horizon: The Regulatory Harms Of
Phone Companies Bundling Telecommunications Services With Prison Financial Services In One
Contract, pg. 2 (Jan. 19, 2016). See Human Rights Defense Center Comments, pg. 4 (Jan. 19, 2016).

2

ICS providers to purchase access to that facility from the wholesale ICS provider. The
consumer would then choose among the various retail ICS providers to determine the
lowest rate. 5 Competition among the retail ICS providers would satisfy the goal expressed
in Section 276(b) of the Communications Act, as amended, to “promote competition among
[inmate telephone service] providers and promote the widespread deployment of
payphone services to the benefit of the general public.” 6
We concluded that if the correctional authorities and ICS providers are opposed to
introducing competition into the ICS marketplace, then they must “acknowledge (i) that the
current ICS structure does not promote competition, (ii) that their practices have led to
unjust, unreasonable and unfair rates being charged to ICS customers, and (iii) that the
appropriate and legally sustainable solution is to accept the FCC’s authority to cap ICS rates
and ancillary fees as set forth in the Second R&O.” 7
Only one correctional organization filed comments in response to the 3rd FNPRM.
The California State Sheriffs’ Association urged the FCC “to refrain” from banning exclusive
ICS contracts, citing “security concerns, impose logistical burdens, increase costs of
providing ICS…, and perhaps diminish the quality of ICS that are provided.” 8
The ICS providers were equally unsupportive. CenturyLink claimed that banning
exclusive contracts would lead to higher costs and that the FCC lacks the statutory
authority to do so. 9 GTL made similar arguments, stating that there are “unique security

5

3rd FNPRM Comments, pg. 6.

6

47 U.S.C. § 276(b)(1) (2016) (emphasis added).

7

3rd FNPRM Comments, pg. 7.

8

California State Sheriffs’ Association Comments, pg. 1 (Jan. 19, 2016).

9

CenturyLink Comments, pgs. 3-4 (Jan. 19, 2016).
3

needs” and that providing the ability of ICS consumers to choose among competing ICS
providers would lead to higher ICS rates, or the elimination of ICS altogether. 10 Securus
argued that competition already exists in the ICS marketplace, and extensively cited the
previously-provided December 8, 2014 Declarations from Geoff Boyd and Dave Kunde to
argue against introducing multiple providers. 11

Finally, Pay Tel Communications

expressed its opinion that banning site commissions and introducing a cost-recovery fee
would have introduced competition, but “having multiple providers provide ICS in the
same facility is unworkable.” 12
Thus, it is clear that ICS providers and correctional authorities are strongly against
the introduction of competition into the ICS marketplace. Similar opinions were expressed
by these parties in earlier phases of this proceeding, and it would appear that nothing has
changed. 13 While Securus argued that “robust competition” already exists, 14 it is clear from
the record that ICS providers only compete to earn the right to be the monopoly provider at
a particular correctional facility, and that ICS consumers do not benefit from this
competition. 15 Instead, ICS consumers never get to choose among ICS providers, and no
ICS provider or correctional authority supports a change in this approach.

10

GTL Comments, pgs. 9-11 (Jan. 19, 2016).

11

Securus Comments, pgs. 1-6 (Jan. 19, 2016).

Pay Tel Communications, Inc., Comments, pgs. 4-5 (Jan. 19, 2016). Telmate, LLC, did not
address this points in its comments.
12

13

Third FNPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 12,900-12,901

14

Securus Comments, pg. 1.

Second R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 12,765 (“[t]here is little dispute that the ICS market is a prime
example of a market failure.”)(citing First R&O, 28 FCC Rcd 14,107, 14,129-30, para. 41). See also
Dissenting Statement of Michael O’Reilly, Second R&O, 30 FCC Rcd at 12,972 (“there is no dispute
that the prison payphone market as a whole does not seem to be functioning properly.”)(“O’Reilly
Dissent”).
15

4

Therefore, in light of this marketplace failure, and the unwillingness of ICS providers
and correctional authorities to support multiple ICS providers serving a correctional
facility, the FCC had only one other choice to protect ICS consumers – adopt caps on ICS
rates and ancillary fees charged to ICS consumers.

While the Second R&O took this

approach, Securus, GTL, CenturyLink and Telmate have filed petitions for review and
motions for stay in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging the FCC’s
exercise of its statutory authority to set caps on ICS rates and ancillary fees. 16
It would seem that no approach taken by the FCC to regulate ICS interstate and
intrastate rates and ancillary fees would be acceptable to the ICS providers unless the FCC
also relieves ICS providers from their existing, voluntary obligation to pay site
commissions. Apparently, Securus, GTL and Telmate would have accepted caps on the ICS
rates and ancillary fees if the FCC shifted the burden of site commissions onto ICS
consumers through a cost-recovery fee. 17 GTL, Securus and Telmate even advocated, on
See Global Tel*Link, et al., No. 15-1461 and consolidated cases. Pay Tel has taken a different
tack by setting up a website – www.mandatorycostrecovery.com – which urges correctional
authorities to contact their congressional representatives to “ensure that phone access is preserved
for inmates by mandating a specific per minute cost recovery rate additive for facilities.” It also
contains an analysis from Don J. Wood which incorrectly asserts that “If rate caps are properly set
at the level of efficiently-incurred costs (and site commissions are explicitly excluded from this
definition of costs), there will be no money available for ICS providers to pay commissions.” See An
Analysis of the Treatment of Site Commissions in the FCC’s Second Report and Order in the Inmate
Calling Services Proceeding, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Mr. Wood presents similar reasoning to
that which was presented in a document submitted by the Wright Petitioners on February 3, 2016.
See http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001422245. While the Wright Petitioners do
not assert that Pay Tel is the author of the previously-submitted document, the justification
presented in that document is nearly identical to that contained in Mr. Wood’s analysis (compare
Wood’s statement with Section II of the submitted document - “In setting the rate caps, the FCC
excluded the cost of site commissions and set rates below provider's costs to force them to stop paying
site commissions.”).
16

Ex Parte Submission of GTL, Securus and Telmate (Sept. 14, 2014). See also Ex Parte
Submission of GTL, Pay Tel, Securus and Telmate (Oct. 15, 2015) (urging summit to address proposal
by Securus counsel, Andrew D. Lipman). See also Ex Parte Submission of GTL, Securus and Telmate
(Oct. 15, 2015) (the FCC has authority to regulate interstate and intrastate ICS site commissions).
17

5

the eve of the adoption of the Second R&O, that “[p]romoting competition in the market for
payphone services requires attention to the rates charged for every call, not just interstate
ones” and that Section 276 granted to “the FCC the authority to regulate intrastate
matters.” 18
It is, therefore, astounding that the very same parties who advocated that the FCC
has authority to regulate both interstate and intrastate ICS rates when they were trying to
have the FCC step in and relieve them of their onerous but entirely voluntary business
decision to pay site commissions, have since filed petitions for stay with the FCC, 19 and
petition for review and motions for stay with the US Court of Appeals, challenging the FCC’s
authority under Section 276 to cap intrastate ICS rates. 20
In the end, only one conclusion can be reached from reviewing their flip-flops in
advocacy and their refusal to compete against each other for ICS consumers – namely, that
the ICS providers would prefer to simply maintain the status quo. However, the FCC does
not have that luxury, as it is obligated to correct market failures to ensure that ICS rates
and fees are just, reasonable and fair. 21

See Ex Parte Submission of GTL, Securus and Telmate, pg. 6 (citing New England Public
Communications Council, 334 F.3d 69, 76-77 (recognizing that, “in passing the 1996 Act’s payphone
competition provision and the local competition provisions, Congress had exactly the same
objective: to authorize the Commission to eliminate barriers to competition,” and noting that it
would be similarly impossible to implement the Section 276 competition provisions “while limiting
the Commission’s authority to interstate services”)).
18

See Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, Order, DA 16-83 (Jan. 22, 2016)(dismissing
petitions for stay filed by GTL, Securus and Telmate). See also CenturyLink’s Petition for Stay
Pending Judicial Review, WC Dkt. 12-375 (Jan. 29, 2016).
19

See, e.g., Motion for Global Tel*Link for Partial Stay Pending Judicial Review, No. 15-1461, pg.
3 (Jan. 27, 2016) (“Even more fundamentally, the Order is unlawful because the FCC lacks authority
to set rate caps for intrastate ICS calls.”).
20

47 U.S.C. § 201(b) (“any such charge, practice, classification, or regulation that is unjust or
unreasonable is declared to be unlawful.”) (emphasis added); See 47 U.S.C. § 205(a) (“the
Commission is authorized and empowered to determine and prescribe what will be the just and
21

6

II.

THE FCC MUST ENSURE VIDEO VISITATION AND ADVANCED ICS
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ARE NOT USED TO AVOID FCC REGULATION OF
ICS INDUSTRY.
As noted in our 3rd FNRPM comments, the FCC has requested a substantial amount

of information that can only come from ICS providers and correctional facilities. We even
provided a helpful chart – Exhibit A – which detailed the information requested by the FCC
so that ICS providers and correctional authorities could respond to the FCC’s request. 22
The Wright Petitioners did make an attempt to obtain the video visitation rate information
requested by the FCC, and provided what could be found as Exhibit B. The information
provided therein showed a great range of rates charged by ICS providers. 23
The Wright Petitioners also provided a discussion of the FCC’s authority to regulate
video visitation and other new services offered by ICS providers, concluding that the FCC
has ample authority to prescribe just, reasonable and fair rates for ICS video visitation and
advanced ICS communications services. 24

Other parties, such as the Prison Policy

Initiative, HRDC, Verizon, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, also support the FCC

reasonable charge or the maximum or minimum, or maximum and minimum, charge or charges to
be thereafter observed, and what classification, regulation, or practice is or will be just, fair, and
reasonable.”) (emphasis added); See 47 U.S.C. §276(b)(1) (“In order to promote competition among
[ICS] providers and promote the widespread deployment of payphone services to the benefit of the
general public…the Commission shall take all actions necessary…to establish a per call
compensation plan to ensure that all [ICS] providers are fairly compensated.”) (emphasis added).
Rather than just being an optional “a la-carte” order (See O’Rielly Dissent, pg. 1), these obligations
were imposed upon the FCC by Congress in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
22

3rd FNPRM Comments, pg. 9, Exhibit A.

23

Id., pg. 10.

24

Id., pgs. 13-14.
7

EXHIBIT H

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.
Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title:

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an
Urban Deployment: Baltimore City Jail Complex

Author(s):

Fred Frantz, Phil Harris

Document No.:

250263

Date Received:

September 2016

Award Number:

2010-IJ-CX-K023

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.
To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this federally
funded grant report available electronically.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment:
Baltimore City Jail Complex

Fred Frantz
Engility Corporation
Phil Harris
Engility Corporation

Engility Corporation, Rome NY
Award Number: 2010-IJ-CX-K023

September 2015

The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report are those
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, National Institute of Justice, or Engility Corporation. Research in support of this report
has been conducted in accordance with NIJ’s requirements for research independence and
integrity, and the authors have no vested interests in commercial communication technology
products, processes, or services.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

ii

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 2
The Baltimore City Jail Complex ....................................................................................................... 4
The Metropolitan Transition Center (MTC) .................................................................................... 5
The Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC) ................................................................................ 6
Nearby Jail Complex Facilities ....................................................................................................... 7
Technology and Illegal Cell Phone Management ................................................................................ 8
Network Coverage and Managed Access .......................................................................................... 10
MAS Architecture: Macro versus Small Cells versus DAS ............................................................ 14
Rural (Macro) versus (Urban) DAS: A Real World Example ........................................................ 23
System Interconnections: 911 and Other Authorized Calls ............................................................ 27
Managed Access Technology at the Baltimore City Jail Complex .................................................... 28
MAS Deployment in Baltimore ..................................................................................................... 30
MTC Managed Access .................................................................................................................. 30
BCDC Managed Access ................................................................................................................ 31
System Testing and Operation....................................................................................................... 32
BCBIC and MRDCC .................................................................................................................... 33
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix A: Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Activity .............................................................. 41
Appendix B: Managed Access Technology ...................................................................................... 43
Cellular Telephony ....................................................................................................................... 43
Managed Access ........................................................................................................................... 47
Managed Access Network Coverage ............................................................................................. 49
Network Coverage Related Maintenance....................................................................................... 56

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

iii

List of Tables
Table 1. DPSCS System-Wide Reported Contraband Cell Phones Found ......................................... 38
Table 2. Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Criminal Activity ....................................................... 41

List of Figures
Figure 1. The Baltimore City Jail Complex ......................................................................................... 5
Figure 2. Conceptual View a Managed Access System RAN Signal Coverage ................................. 12
Figure 3. Conceptual View Managed Access RAN Signal Coverage Underlay ................................. 13
Figure 4. Traditional Macro Cellular Site ......................................................................................... 15
Figure 5. Small Cells Augmenting Macro Network RAN Coverage .................................................. 16
Figure 6. Distributed Antenna System Technology ........................................................................... 18
Figure 7. DAS for In-building & Outdoor RAN Coverage ................................................................ 20
Figure 8. MAS RAN coverage via Distributed Antenna technology .................................................. 22
Figure 9. MAS RAN coverage via macro site technology ................................................................. 23
Figure 10. Urban/DAS in contrast to Rural/Macro based MAS ......................................................... 25
Figure 11. MSP Parchman Complex and Surrounding Area .............................................................. 26
Figure 12. Baltimore MTC and BCDC Managed Access Systems .................................................... 27
Figure 13. Managed Access System and Cellular System Interconnections ....................................... 28
Figure 14. MTC Cell Phone Confiscations July 2011 – February 2013 ............................................. 29
Figure 15. BCBIC and MRDCC Cell Phone Seizures ....................................................................... 34
Figure 16. MTC Cell Phone Confiscations July 2011 – Feb 2013 ..................................................... 35
Figure 17. MTC & BCDC Cell Phone Searches 2011 – 2015 ........................................................... 35
Figure 18. MTC & BCDC Cell Phone Confiscations 2011 – 2015 .................................................... 36
Figure 19. MTC & BCDC Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) 2011 – 2015 ............................ 36
Figure 20. Cellular Radio Access Network ....................................................................................... 48
Figure 21. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Nearby Environment .............................. 50
Figure 22. Conceptual Top-Down View of RAN Coverage from Cellular Carrier “A” ...................... 51
Figure 23. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Carriers “B” and “C” ............................. 52
Figure 24. Top-Down View of RAN Coverage from Cellular Carriers “B” and “C” ......................... 53
Figure 25. Hypothetical Correctional Facility with Carriers “A”, “B” and “C” ................................. 54
Figure 26. Top-Down View: Signal Coverage: Cellular Carriers “A”, “B” and “C” .......................... 55
Figure 27. Managed Access System Coverage Hole ......................................................................... 57

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Nancy Merritt, Joseph Heaps, Jay Miller, Secretary Steven T.
Moyer and Casey Joseph for their support of this project, as well as their insights throughout its
completion.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

Executive Summary
Managed access, as a category of technology, has become an increasingly significant tool for
denying illegal inmate use of cellular telephone services. This report is the second of a set of
reports examining the impact of managed access technology on contraband cell phone use in
prisons. The focus of this report is the use of Distributed Antenna System (DAS) Technology,
deployed in support of cellular Managed Access System (MAS) use in an urban correctional
facility—the

Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DSPCS)

Baltimore City Complex. This report builds upon technical information in a previous assessment
of MAS which described operation of managed access technology deployed in a rural
correctional facility. The technical background material is presented in a conceptual format
rather than providing detailed implementation specifics.
This study concludes the following:
1. While managed access had a significant impact within the facilities where it was
deployed, other factors unrelated to the technology such as policy changes also
contributed to the overall decline of illegal cellphone use throughout the prison system
(to include faculties with deployed managed access systems).
2. Good working relationships with nearby cellular carriers are critical.
3.

MAS can effectively be implemented in an urban setting. Technology such as
Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) allows operators to refine and control system
coverage within tightly constrained environments.

4. DAS deployment is heavily reliant upon physical installation of cable, conduits and other
supporting infrastructure. Retrofitting an existing correctional structure is particularly
challenging with unique logistical challenges involved with deploying it in areas where
inmates reside and securing the system infrastructure from sabotage.
5. Cellular managed access technology only addresses cellular communications capabilities
and cannot, for instance, prevent use of non-cellular wireless capabilities, such as Wi-Fi,
stand-alone computing or photographic capabilities which have become standard features
in modern cellular devices. Managed access mitigates the connection of cellular radio
transmissions between a handset and an external (e.g., commercial) network. Elimination
of cellular communications capabilities makes other features present in these devices less
useful to the inmates that possess them.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

1

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

Introduction
This report is the second of a set of reports examining the impact of managed access
technology on contraband cell phone use in prisons. The focus of this report is the use of
Distributed Antenna System (DAS) Technology, deployed in support of cellular Managed
Access System (MAS) use in an urban correctional facility—the Maryland Department of
Public Safety and Correctional Services (DSPCS) Baltimore City Complex. This report builds
upon technical information in a previous assessment of MAS which described operation of
managed access technology deployed in a rural correctional facility (the Mississippi State
Penitentiary in Parchman, MS)1, referenced as the “Parchman Report” in the remainder of this
report. As with the Parchman Report, much of the technical background material presented
herein is presented in a conceptual format rather than providing detailed implementation
specifics.
Managed access technology has become an increasingly significant tool for denying inmate
use of cellular telephone services. Managed access, in contrast to radio frequency jamming, or
passive signal sensing, selectively denies service to unauthorized users.2 Passive radio sensing is
another category of technology described in the Parchman Report. Passive sensing provides an
alternative approach to interdiction of illegal cell phone use, one which recognizes cellular radio
signals and alerts a system operator of an active wireless device. Stated in another way, passive
sensing technology works in a “listen only” mode which informs physical intervention by prison

1

Grommon, E., Carter, J., Frantz, F., Harris, P., A Case Study of Mississippi State Penitentiary’s Managed Access
Technology, report to the National Institute of Justice, August 2015, currently under publication review.
2
Jamming technology is currently illegal for non-Federal users. The Communications Act of 1934, Section 333 prohibits willful or malicious interference with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under
the Act or operated by the U.S. Government (47 U.S.C. § 333). It is a violation of federal law to use a cell jammer or
similar devices that intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications such as cell phones,
police radar, GPS, and Wi-Fi, see http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jamming-cell-phones-and-gps-equipmentagainst-law

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

2

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

staff. Unlike managed access or jamming technologies, passive technology cannot directly
intervene or mitigate access to cellular services.
In contrast to passive technologies, managed access technology is an active (licensed)
technology. Managed access technology is designed to actively manage service requests from
cellular devices providing the ability to selectively allow or deny cellular communications
to/from cellular devices. Service in this context is limited to voice and/or data calls from cellular
devices on cellular network frequencies. Unlike jamming technology, managed access
technology mitigates communications to/from approved cellular devices so that legitimate calls
be processed and completed, while cellular network service requests to/from non-approved,
presumably contraband cell phones are legally disrupted. Managed access use is guided by
operational policy and guidelines of the deploying agency3.
Managed access technology “manages” cellular network services available to specific
cellular users and/or cellular devices. Like cellular jamming technology, managed access
systems actively transmit radio signals on cellular network radio frequency bands so they are
subject to FCC licensing, or NTIA authorization4,5. From an operational perspective managed
access capabilities and operational effectiveness are relatively new topics and subject to agency
choices related to system architecture, system deployment details, and ongoing operation. Total
cost of ownership, system functionality, and actual impact on cell phone use, both within and

3

This report uses the terms “call” and “connection” in this document interchangeably to describe a request for
service (voice, messaging via text/email/multimedia and/or Internet access) placed from a cell phone via a
commercial cellular network.
4
This includes bands associated with the commercial cellular service, broadband personal communications and
certain advanced wireless services.
5
In this paper the terms “active” and “passive” used in context of regulatory and licensing describe technology that
actively transmits radio energy using frequencies within commercial mobile service bands (active) or only receive
signals in these bands (passive). This is in contrast to usage that describes operational capability, i.e., technology
that “passively” disables the use of cellular services from a distance, in contrast to those that simply provide the
ability to locate an illegal device; requiring “active” intervention on behalf of prison personnel to seize and disable
the illegal devices. Both uses appear in this paper.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

3

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

outside of the designated managed access coverage area, are topics that can benefit from
increased knowledge. Each managed access system deployment will have unique design and
implementation challenges associated with both the physical implementation and the local
commercial cellular environment within which it resides. This report seeks to further inform the
decision process, complementing the Parchman Report by describing an active system operating
in an urban environment; specifically managed access systems deployed in the Baltimore MD
City Jail Complex.
This report is not a product evaluation; the purpose of this report is to document the managed
access use in Baltimore MD, specifically:


To examine MAS technology operating at correctional facility in an urban setting;



To describe the use of Distributed Antenna System technology (DAS); and



To describe how managed access technology using DAS contrasts with managed access
using macro-cellular technology6.

The Baltimore City Jail Complex
The Baltimore City Jail Complex is operated by the DPSCS and consists of the Baltimore
City Correctional Center (BCCC), the Metropolitan Transition Center (MTC), The Baltimore
City Detection Center (BCDC), the Chesapeake Detention Facility (CDF) and the Baltimore
Central Booking and Intake Center (BCBIC). Only the MTC and BCDC have managed access
systems.

6

Use of the term “macro cell site” in this report describes use of a small number of relatively high-power base
stations located in cell sites designed to cover a large area (for example in a correctional facility located in a rural
setting.) This is in contract to small cell and DAS technologies described n this report.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

4

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

Source: Google Earth.
Annotations: Phil Harris Engility Corporation

Figure 1. The Baltimore City Jail Complex
The Metropolitan Transition Center (MTC)
The Metropolitan Transition Center in Baltimore was built in 1811 and it is the nation’s
oldest correctional facility. It houses 698 offenders in a minimum security setting. The MTC is
operated by the DPSCS and inmates at this facility serve time as the result of a court imposed

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

5

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

sentence. The FY2015 DPSCS appropriation for MTC was $41,402,746 with 393.6 authorized
positions. 7
The Division of Corrections Annual Report Fiscal Year 2013 states that the MTC offers high
school equivalency diplomas (GED) in reading, writing and arithmetic and provides intensive
substance abuse treatment through Therapeutic Communities, a program that treats about 200
offenders a year.8 Training programs offered by the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing
and Regulation, through the Occupational Skill Training Center include state certification
programs in automotive repair and maintenance, roofing, HVAC, information technology,
warehousing, carpentry, printing and graphics and plumbing. MTC inmates do not participate in
outside details.

The Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC)
The Baltimore City Detention Center was originally constructed as a jail in 1806. It has been
renovated 11 times between 1859 and 1999 9. In 1991, Baltimore City Jail consisted of seven
buildings: five of these were maximum- and medium-security structures. Minimum-security
inmates were housed in two satellite facilities. In July 1991, the State took over administration of
the jail from the city, and renamed it the Baltimore City Detention Center under the Division of
Pretrial Detention and Services (Chapter 59, Acts of 1991) 10. The BCDC now primarily consists
of four buildings: the Women’s Detention Center (WDC), the Men’s Detention Center (MDC),
the Jail Industries Building, and the Wyatt Building. The current WDC was opened in 1967 to
house female detainees. The FY2015 DPSCS appropriation for BCDC was $85,338,930 with

7

http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/22dpscs/html/dpscs.html#baltimore
http://www.dpscs.state.md.us/publicinfo/publications/pdfs/DOC2013AnnualRpt.pdf
9
http://www.mgaleg.maryland.gov/Pubs/Committee/2013-legislative-policy-committee-june.pdf
10
http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/22dpscs/html/22agen.html
8

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

6

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

748 authorized positions 11 . Following corruption issues publicized in April 2013,

7

$22.7

million has been provided to improve security and staffing within BCDC. Approximately
$15.6 million has been provided to upgrade security cameras, implement a cellular managed
access system, install x-ray machines, metal detectors and purchase intelligence software 12.
The BCDC is one of the largest municipal jails in the nation; over 40,000 inmates are
committed to the center annually. The daily number of inmates averages over 2,000 of which
about 100 are post-sentencing; the remainder are very transient (though there are also a
significant number of people who have been released and are returned). Even though the BCDC
is a city facility it is operated by the state. It is a jail; inmates typically are serving sentences of
less than 18 months. The BCDC is also a pretrial detention facility for any person committed or
transferred to the custody of the Commissioner of Pretrial Detention and Services. The Center
may house any person held in custody by any agency of the Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services. In January 2015, a bill was introduced into the state legislature to transfer
ownership of BCDC from the state back to the City of Baltimore. 13

Nearby Jail Complex Facilities
There are additional facilities operated by the

Division of Corrections located nearby,

including: 14


The Baltimore Pre-Release Unit (BPRU) and Occupational Skills Training Center
(OSTC).

11

http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/22dpscs/html/dpscs.html#baltimore
See http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2015RS/fnotes/bil_0000/hb0210.pdf
13
Maryland House Bill 210 has been introduced in 2015. It will abolish the Division of Pretrial Detention and
Services within the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; providing for the transfer of property,
assets, licenses, credits, and rights of the Baltimore City Detention Center to the Mayor of Baltimore City; requiring
the State to pay all the operating and capital costs of the Baltimore City Detention Center in fiscal years 2016
through 2018 and one-half the costs in 2019; providing that Baltimore City pay all the operating and capital costs in
fiscal year 2020. See
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?id=hb0210&stab=01&pid=billpage&tab=subject3&ys=2015rs
14
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-youth-jail-20150513-story.html
12

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment



The Chesapeake Detention Facility (CDF).



The Maryland Reception Diagnostic and Classification Center (MRDCC) .



The Baltimore City Correctional Center (BCCC) .



The Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center (BCBIC) .

Technology and Illegal Cell Phone Management
The illegal use of contraband cell phones by inmates to access commercial cellular services
continues to present operational challenges to correctional agencies and jail operators. The term
“cell-phone use” in this report, specifically in the context of managed access, is the use of an
illegal cellular device in a prison or jail to obtain commercial cellular voice or data services. The
term “managed access” describes a category of technology or process, rather than a specific
commercial product. Managed access systems from multiple vendors are currently in service, or
authorized for deployment, in California, South Carolina, Texas, Maryland and Mississippi (see
FCC NPRM 13-58 page 6, 2013). In early 2015 the Alabama Department of Corrections
requested funds to install managed access technology at four correctional institutions 15 .
Fundamentally, all managed access products are deployed to accomplish the same task: to
disrupt illegal cellular communications. Managed access technology is being deployed or
considered for deployment because, unlike jamming technology, FCC regulations facilitate a
legal path for its adoption and use. The use of jamming technologies has been publicly
demonstrated and the effectiveness of jamming technology in some venues has also been
documented.16 This report acknowledges jamming technology as a potential alternative for which
legality is currently under debate. This report neither advocates for jamming, nor suggests that
15

See http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/04/alabama_prisons_planning_syste.html#incart_river
For more information about jamming see http://www.wjbf.com/story/21716332/sc-prison-cell-phone-jammingdemonstration-conducted
and http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/contrabandcellphonereport_december2010.pdf
and http://wisconsinlawreview.org/wp-content/files/3-Fitzgerald.pdf
16

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

8

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

jamming is unsuitable for mitigation of illegal cell phone use. As of the writing of this report,
radio frequency jammer use by non-Federal agencies remains illegal in the United States and
evaluating it as a technology is beyond the scope of this report.
As this report was written many regulatory aspects specific to MAS deployment and
implementation continue to be under FCC regulatory review. FCC proceedings are underway to
examine deployment regulations to include cellular network spectrum lease issues and carrier
notification obligations to MAS operators following changes in nearby commercial cellular
networks. The impact of these proceedings on future managed access deployment and operation
will remain unknown until the proceedings are complete.
Generic managed access functionality was documented in the Parchman Report, and is republished as Appendix B: Managed Access Technology, of this report to provide complete
context for the following discussion. Readers unfamiliar with the concepts of managed access
technology should read the Appendix before proceeding through the remainder of this report.
This report emphasizes managed access using distributed antenna systems (DAS) based radio
access network technology. The Parchman Report described a different approach, the use of
more traditional macro site technology, as deployed at a rural correctional facility. Technologies
like DAS (and small cells) were not addressed in the Parchman Report because they were not
part of that system.
Details of cellular provider networks near these correctional facilities and/or related cellular
technology protocols are not provided. Since this report is not a product evaluation, specific
managed access system network interfaces and vendor-specific product features are not
described. Terminology used is intended to be generic with exception to references specific to

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

9

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

the system provider for the agencies noted in this report17. Each deployment of managed access
capability will have the similar goals, but to achieve those goals each system needs to be
designed to address location-specific unique physical and environmental characteristics
regardless of the chosen managed access technology, or product. Each system design is
dependent upon facility-specific physical constraints and characteristics of the local commercial
wireless environment. Because of these unique requirements, concepts associated with the topic
of managed access coverage are presented in a generic manner, independent of venue-specific
implementation choices.

Network Coverage and Managed Access
Wireless coverage associated with a managed access system radio access network (RAN),
and how the RAN interacts with nearby commercial cellular networks, is a baseline
consideration for any managed access deployment, regardless of the underlying technology used
to establish this coverage. Managed access technology is used to establish a RAN that is in
essence a multi-carrier multi-band cellular network, of limited scope and coverage. Managed
access system RAN coverage is designed to present the dominant network signal within its
designed coverage area; an area legally defined by geographical boundaries established in FCC
approved cellular carrier spectrum leases. RAN coverage may be designed to span an entire
correctional facility or at a minimum, coverage within specific areas within that lease area
deemed by correctional officials to present the greatest risk. The managed access RAN presents
itself as an extension of nearby commercial cellular networks, allowing it to capture
transmissions from cellular user devices (e.g., cell phones, cellular equipped computers/tablets).
17

Being generic also avoids the pitfalls of using endless variation of technical jargon associated with multiple
generations, and versions, of cellular networking technology currently in use; each of which must be addressed by
cellular mitigation technologies.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

10

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

Managed access processes control all cellular communications capabilities associated with
devices connected to the RAN.
The topic of RAN coverage is presented, in a simplified way, in Figure 2 and Error!
Reference source not found.18. Areas with grey shading are intended to depict managed access
RAN coverage as an underlay to commercial network RAN coverage. Note that a managed
access system operator has a legal obligation to ensure that system coverage is contained within
areas/parameters defined by their spectrum lease. This is in contrast to an operational need to
establish and verify managed access operational effectiveness inside of its defined coverage area.
A managed access RAN is activated and calibrated so that meets obligations associated with
carrier spectrum leases and FCC rules first followed by optimizations related to effectiveness.
Ongoing compliance testing requirements and methodology related to spectrum lease.
Compliance testing can occur on a regular schedule or in an ad-hoc fashion; exact requirements
and testing procedures need to be defined via spectrum lease details.
After all spectrum-lease lease obligations are achieved and confirmed through testing, the
system can be further optimized to minimize coverage holes and maximize operational
effectiveness inside operational boundaries. Testing obligations and methodology associated
with ongoing managed access performance goals, related to operational effectiveness within
coverage boundaries, are completely agency-defined because agency operational goals are not
constrained by mandatory spectrum lease or Federal regulatory constraints. Operational
requirements within the coverage area should be documented in a concise technical manner by
the deploying agency, and clearly defined as a performance requirement in procurement
documents if the deploying agency intends to make ongoing performance verification part of a

18

RAN coverage depicted in this way is acknowledged to be overly simplistic from a technical perspective, but
adequate to convey concepts.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

11

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

12

contractual requirement. Costs associated with operational performance testing obligations must
be understood by system operators, system suppliers, and end users. If an agency intends to use
internal agency resources for recurring performance testing, then the associated operational costs
and testing methodology should be well defined.

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 2. Conceptual View a Managed Access System RAN Signal Coverage
Figure 2 and Error! Reference source not found. show managed access network RAN
signal coverage. It is designed to overwhelm signals from nearby commercial network towers
(i.e., nearby carrier RANs). A simplified way to envision this is to think about managed access
RAN signal coverage as a cloud of radio energy that sits between illegal cellular devices and
nearby commercial cellular networks. Commercial network RAN signals are overwhelmed by
signals from the managed access system RAN. Cellular devices operating within the managed
access RAN connect to the managed access cellular network; this is analogous to, but not quite

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

13

technically the same as, roaming processes that routinely occur between commercial cellular
networks.

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 3. Conceptual View Managed Access RAN Signal Coverage Underlay
With managed access, a cellular device connects to the managed access RAN as if it were
part of a commercial carrier’s network. Once a cellular device is captured by a managed access
system, unique identifying information retrieved from the device is compared against a list of
known authorized devices. An authorized list is commonly referred to as a “white list”. If a
device is documented on a white list (indicating system operator authorization) the MAS will re-

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

direct that device to the commercial network for call completion. If a device is not authorized
and included on the list, then service requests to or from a captured device are denied.
In managed access all connected devices are, by definition, assumed to be contraband and
blocked by default. Authorized handsets appear on an exception list called a “white-list.”
Conversely, commercial carriers employ “black-lists” by to deny service to specific handsets,
assuming all other connected cellular devices are authorized by default (assuming a valid cellular
service agreement is in place.)
Managed access system technology-related choices are important. Regardless of the
underlying wireless technology used to provide managed access RAN signal coverage, once a
device is captured managed access network processes mitigate access to cellular services.
Disposition of wireless service requests associated with devices falling under the control of any
managed access network is dependent on MAS functions riding atop the RAN. Correctional
facility policies, regulations, and guidelines ultimately define how a MAS operates.

MAS Architecture: Macro versus Small Cells versus DAS
Effective managed access RAN coverage, regardless of the underlying cellular technology, is
critical to facilitate consistent capture of cellular devices. Managed access via DAS technology is
presented to illustrate how DAS-based managed access contrasts with and complements
traditional cellular macro-site and small cell technologies.
MAS RAN coverage throughout large open spaces can often be established using cellular
topology based on a small number of relatively high-power base stations located in cell sites
designed to provide coverage throughout a relatively large area (e.g., in a correctional facility
located in a rural setting.) In a commercial network macro sites would be spaced to provide
overlapping and continuous regional RAN coverage. This type of cell site technology is

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

14

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

15

categorized as “macro” cellular technology within this report. In this type of network, macro
cellular sites may be supplemented by low-power, location-specific, repeaters and/or small cells
which augment RAN coverage within specific buildings or outdoor areas.

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 4. Traditional Macro Cellular Site
Figure 4 shows an example traditional macro cellular site that utilizes a sectorized antenna
system (directional antennas each fed by a radio operating on a discrete frequency). Commercial
cellular RANs are comprised of many (hundreds/thousands) of similar sites optimized for
specific coverage and frequency re-use requirements. Commercial cellular networks use macro
cell sites that support mobility so that cellular handsets can be “handed-off” between cellular
base stations while maintaining service while users move throughout the network coverage area.
Use of a macro cellular architecture for a managed access RAN is suitable for some
applications, but it presents coverage challenges for managed access deployments in correctional
institutions located in a densely populated urban environment or for institutions that have a
relatively small (or otherwise constrained) footprint. An alternative approach, for this type of
constrained environment, is to establish managed RAN coverage via distributed antenna and/or

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

16

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 5. Small Cells Augmenting Macro Network RAN Coverage
small cell technology. Unlike macro sites, RANs established with distributed antenna and small
cell technologies (shown in Figure 5) rely on small antenna systems and relatively low power
transmitters.19
Use of DAS technology within a MAS architecture provides the ability to finely tailor (or
augment) RAN network coverage in support of constrained functional environments. Distributed
antenna system technology is not unique to managed access; DAS technology is deployed by
many commercial operators to augment RAN commercial networks, primarily as a tool to
increase capacity or to improve network coverage within specific venues such as office
buildings, shopping centers or sports complexes where macro network coverage is inadequate.
Low-power DAS and small cell technologies are also becoming increasingly relevant for
19

Small cell technology is described here to be analogous to DAS in terms of signal coverage, and certainly
analogous to distributed antenna technology from the perspective of physical plant requirements. Small cells are not
part of the Baltimore deployment, and at the time of this report the authors were not aware of MAS products based
on small cell technology. Small cell technology is acknowledged in this report because the technology is becoming
an increasingly prevalent within commercial cellular network operations. Understanding the difference between the
two technologies clarifies how DAS technology is unique.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

commercial operations in densely populated urban areas where frequency re-use in the RAN has
become important tool to increase network density and improve network capacity. Network
RAN designs based on distributed antenna and small cell technologies, for both managed access
and commercial networks, are highly dependent upon the specific venue where they are
deployed.
DAS technology and small cell technology are often interchangeable because, from a user’s
perspective, network services provided through them are indistinguishable. Setting coverage
similarities aside, there are significant architectural differences between small cell and DAS
technologies. The primary difference between small cell and distributed antenna technologies is
how and where network signals and service data are processed within the cellular network. Radio
antennas are used within the RAN to establish the wireless interface through the atmosphere by
converting electrical signals (at radio frequencies) into electromagnetic waves which are
transmitted into the atmosphere (and vice versa in the receive direction.) An important point, in
context of DAS technology, is that all wireless signals including digital cellular network wireless
signals are analog as they pass through an antenna system.
System and customer data in a small cell network is conveyed through the network, in digital
format, all the way to the edge of the network where it is processed by a transceiver into an
analog radio signal operating at the desired radio frequency for interaction with the an antenna
system. In contrast to small cell technology, network signals in a (optical) DAS system are
processed into analog electrical signals, at the RAN operating frequency, at a central location
(often referred to as a DAS “head-end”) where they are immediately converted from electrical to
optical format for transport through fiber optic cable to/from a remote RF head location were the
analog radio signal is converted back to an electrical signal at the desired RAN operating

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

17

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

18

frequency20. Figure 6 depicts an optical DAS system in context of managed access. A centrally
located DAS “head-end” can feed multiple remote “RF heads” via optical fiber interconnections.

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 6. Distributed Antenna System Technology
Cellular communications are obviously bi-directional. In the network transmit (downlink)
direction once converted back in to electrical format by the remote RF head, the analog radio
signal can be further filtered and processed though an analog amplifier system before the signal
is applied to an antenna. The receive (uplink) direction can also be filtered and amplified in a
similar way at the remote RF head before conversion from electrical into optical format for
transport to the central head end. Depending on system complexity and features, the final
transmit power at each antenna can often be fine-tuned remotely to adjust RAN coverage. A
prime benefit of DAS technology is that it facilitates centralization of many network functions at
a single central location. Because all radio signal processing occurs at a central location, system
components at the remote RF head are less complex, and technology upgrades can occur at the
head-end location instead of upgrading multiple small cell radio components at remote antenna
locations. With DAS the over-all system architecture is less complex. Remote upgrades (within

20

Some DAS technology uses coaxial cable instead of fiber optic technology, eliminating the electro-optical
conversion process. The use of coax includes cost and performance trade-offs that are beyond the scope of this
report.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

hardware limitations) may be implemented without being observed by inmates, resulting in a
more secure and safer process.
In a correctional facility managed access functionality, deployed atop DAS RAN technology,
requires deployment of fiber optic cables to interconnect the DAS “head-end” with remote
optical RF heads. AC Power must be provided at the DAS RF head location to support system
telemetry, optical conversion and analog signal amplifiers. Antenna installation usually also
requires relatively short coaxial cable runs from the remote RF head(s) to nearby antennas that
are optimized for specific frequencies and RAN coverage goals (in some cases it may be useful
to think of a single remote head supporting a cluster of nearby antennas.)
DAS deployment usually requires significant infrastructure costs. Logistical support required
for the installation of conduit and associated hardware to support of any kind of cable-based
signal distribution system is not insignificant, because it is usually “retrofitted” into an existing
structure, or series of structures, not originally designed to accommodate it. Installation can
involve deployment of extensive hardened cable raceways and/or electrical conduit designed to
meet fire and electrical codes while protecting fragile optical and coaxial cables against
vandalism. Antenna installations must also be hardened, and installed in a secure fashion.
Installation of a DAS usually involves construction within spaces normally occupied by
inmates21.
Officials in Baltimore noted that inmates were able to sabotage the managed access system
by damaging antennas in some locations even though they were installed on walls 15 to 20 feet
above the floor. DAS components located in areas only accessible to staff members were also
able to be sabotaged. DAS head end equipment, and remote optical radio heads must also be

21

Note that this is equally true for any cable-based technology, to include DAS, distributed sensing, or distributed
jamming technologies.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

19

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

20

secured and protected. Remote management of all active MAS components is critical for
diagnosis and understanding of system status prior to entering prisoner occupied areas.

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 7. DAS for In-building & Outdoor RAN Coverage
Radio signals rapidly degrade in the atmosphere and the ability of a RAN network to present
a dominant signal and maintain effectiveness decreases with increasing distance from a base
station antenna. Simply increasing base station transmit power, or optimizing antenna orientation
to increase coverage reaches a point of diminishing returns because maintaining desired coverage
and effectiveness is a balancing process constrained by the legal obligation to constrain managed
access system signals within authorized coverage boundaries. RAN coverage is optimized by
carefully optimizing transmit signal power levels at the lease boundary perimeter against those
received from nearby commercial networks. The result of this balancing act may be coverage

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

holes within the facility or within specific buildings where, for a number of reasons, commercial
network signals remain dominant. Establishing ubiquitous coverage using macro technology can
be complicated because prisons are made from materials that attenuate (block) and reflect RF
signals in ways that are often impossible, or impractical to predict. For example, signals from a
macro base station located on one side of a jailhouse may be attenuated enough by the building
structure to allow an illegal cell phone to connect to a commercial network when used near the
opposite side of the same building.
DAS based managed access technology utilizes a network of low-power antenna sites to
establish an effective RAN signal throughout a correctional facility. DAS technology allows
system operators to establish RAN coverage in a much more granular fashion.
For example, Figure 8 shows a hypothetical correctional facility using DAS technology with
directional (e.g., flat panel) antennas around the perimeter of the facility. Antennas deployed in
this way around the facility perimeter would focus RAN signal energy inward toward the
controlled area, rather than outward in a transmission pattern typical for a centrally located
macro antenna system (Figure 9.) The DAS example shown Figure 8 also includes antennas
interior to compound buildings. This can be particularly helpful when dealing with irregularshaped urban coverage areas because RAN coverage can be constrained to specific buildings, or
within specific areas accessible to inmates; minimizing the need for the managed access RAN to
blanket the entire facility.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

21

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

22

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 8. MAS RAN coverage via Distributed Antenna technology

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

23

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 9. MAS RAN coverage via macro site technology
Rural (Macro) versus (Urban) DAS: A Real World Example
Figure 10 compares the relative coverage area and equipment density of a DAS-based
network equipment in an urban setting (Baltimore, MD) to a macro type of installation in a rural
location (Parchman, MS). The two areas shown in Figure 10 are scaled to emphasize the
difference in size: the two DAS systems in Baltimore City Jail complex use nearly 500 antennas
to achieve managed access coverage within a significantly smaller footprint when compared to

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

the system installed at MSP in Parchman. The Parchman RAN is designed to provide coverage
for a significantly larger area, using a single macro cell site with a water tower mounted antenna
system (Figure 11.) The Parchman MAS RAN coverage extends throughout an area of
approximately four square miles, via a single macro site augmented with in-building repeaters
for coverage inside specific buildings.22 In contrast, the combined coverage of the two urban
DAS-based systems in Baltimore cover approximately one million square feet of building space
located within a single (~1200 x 1200 square foot) city block.

22

Source: Tecore

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

24

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

25

Image Source: Google Earth
Data Source: Tecore
Annotations: Phil Harris Engility Corporation

Figure 10. Urban/DAS in contrast to Rural/Macro based MAS

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

Image Source: Google Earth
Data Source: MSP
Annotations: Phil Harris Engility Corporation

Figure 11. MSP Parchman Complex and Surrounding Area

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

26

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

27

The DAS-based systems in Baltimore use a total of 46 transceivers feeding 496 antennas
(475 interior + 21 exterior) to provide RAN coverage spanning 14 buildings (see Figure 12.)

Image Source: Google Earth
Annotations: Phil Harris, Engility Corp
Tecore provided system data

Figure 12. Baltimore MTC and BCDC Managed Access Systems
System Interconnections: 911 and Other Authorized Calls
Procedures for handling of legitimate emergency service (911) call requests placed via the
MAS will be dependent upon local agency MAS policy, state and local regulations, and FCC
rules which legally define what a legitimate service request is. Depending on local policy, 911
calls may be triaged locally within the facility, routed directly to cellular carriers for further
processing, or routed directly to an appropriate public safety answering points (PSAP). The latter
case is how 911 calls are managed by the Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP) in Parchman. In
contrast to MSP, any 911 call processed by the MAS in Baltimore is routed to a correctional
facility master control center for triage by correctional personnel.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

28

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 13. Managed Access System and Cellular System Interconnections
To directly route legitimate 911 calls to a nearby PSAP, network connectivity is required
between the managed access network and nearby cellular carrier networks and/or directly to the
local/regional PSAP. These interconnections are acknowledged and depicted in Figure 13.
Implementation choices and the cost of these interconnections are subject to local requirements
that define implementation choices and PSAP driven policies.

It is important that MAS

operators consider agency policies, physical implementation issues, and ongoing operation of
any inter-network connections to ensure associated one-time and recurring operating costs are
acknowledged.

Managed Access Technology at the Baltimore City Jail Complex
Officials from the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
(DPSCS) indicated that the incentive for seeking a solution to illegal cell phone use within the
Baltimore complex increased significantly following use of an illegal cell phone to arrange a

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

29

successful “hit” on a witness. This hit was arranged, or ordered, using an illegal cell phone
within Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC). DPSCS indicated that they were not entirely
sure if managed access technology could be successfully deployed in the city. The MTC
complex had a higher number of cell phone confiscations, and deployment of a system at the
MTC was less complicated than it would be at BCDC, so DPSCS decided to deploy managed
access at the MTC first. A managed access system was subsequently installed at BCDC in April
2013, as part of an emergency procurement following the indictment of 13 BCDC correctional
officers for smuggling contraband.
Prior to deploying managed access in the Baltimore complex, traditional security practices
were in place. For example, there are two points of entry to the BCDC facility: the main
entrance/lobby for civilians/staff and a sally port for prisoner processing. The front lobby is the
primary entry point for the facility. Metal detectors are used to screen visitors and employees at
these entry points, in conjunction with physical searches, x-rays of incoming packages, and
vehicle searches. All inmates are searched upon entry or exit to/from the facility. These security
procedures remained in place when the managed access systems were installed.

Data Source: Mr. Jay Miller, MD DPSCS

Figure 14. MTC Cell Phone Confiscations July 2011 – February 2013

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

In general as noted in the number of illegal cellular devices confiscated at the MTC has
declined, and data provided by DPSCS in February 2015 indicate that there had been no cell
phone confiscations at that facility since April 2013.
Note that the annual fiscal year in Maryland runs from July 1– June 30, so FYTD, as of midJanuary 2015, essentially covered a six and a half month period. Figure 17 and Figure 18
summarize the number of non-routine housing searches in the MTC and BCDC facilities for
fiscal year 2010 through mid-January in 2015. These data suggest positive effect of managed
access technology in regard to possession and use of illegal cellular devices.

MAS Deployment in Baltimore
Both the MTC and BCDC managed access systems utilize DAS technology. The system in
the BCDC (yellow in Figure 1) is the newest/most recently installed and it is based on a more
recent generation of DAS technology. Both systems were provided by the same manufacturer,
Tecore. The two systems are separate and RAN coverage does not overlap, however there is a
fiber optic control link between the two systems which provides redundancy in case of control
system failure.

MTC Managed Access
The MTC complex (blue in Figure 1) is comprised of 15 transceivers and 172 antennas
(including 13 outdoor antennas). It provides coverage for 8 buildings. The MTC managed access
system was authorized under contract in April 2012 and activated a year later, in April 2013,
following a 19 month purchase and deployment period23.


September 27, 2011: initial RFP was released.

23

This timeline provided did not include time required to prepare and release an RFP process that initiated the
procurement.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

30

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment



October 12, 2011: a pre-proposal conference was held.



November 9, 2011: proposals were submitted.



February 2012: the Secretary approved the recommendation of award.



April 18, 2012: the Board of Public Works approved the contract.



April 19, 2013: Final acceptance testing completed.

In an April 2012 press release, the DPSCS announced that the state agreed to pay Tecore
approximately $2 million dollars to install the MTC managed access system and following a 60day trial evaluation, enter into a three year service contract. DPSCS budget documents indicate
that approximately $600,000 of the MTC project funding was provided by the Federal
government 24 . A press announcement indicated that if the MTC MAS deployment was
successful other facilities would be considered for deployment. 25 All FCC and spectrum lease
issues were handled by the system supplier and the MTC managed access system was activated
in 2013 at a cost of approximately $2,000,000.26

BCDC Managed Access
In contrast to the MTC deployment, the BCDC managed access system is comprised of 31
transceivers, 325 antennas (including eight exterior) for coverage that encompasses six buildings.
The BCDC deployment was accelerated and deployed via an emergency procurement process
that was initiated on May 7, 2013. The BCDC managed access system was activated in 2014;
system acceptance occurred on January 4th, 2014 following a deployment timeline of just under

24

See http://www.dpscs.maryland.gov/publicinfo/news_stories/in_the_news/20120423c.shtml and
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs/budgetfiscal/2015fy-budget-docs-operating-Q00-DPSCS-Overview.pdf
25
See http://www.dpscs.maryland.gov/publicinfo/news_stories/in_the_news/20120420a.shtml
26
See http://www.dpscs.maryland.gov/publicinfo/news_stories/in_the_news/20120420a.shtml

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

31

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

7 months. The system supplier handled all FCC/spectrum lease issues for this system as well.
Funding for this system was included in a, $4,714,647, FY2014 deficiency allocation. 27
DPSCS noted that the end date of the newer BCDC contract was aligned with the end date of
the MTC contract so support for both systems can be renewed via a single competitively
awarded service contract. DPSCS indicated that the initial period of performance for the MTC
service contract will end in October, 2015. At the time of this report, the MD DPSCS was
initiating the RFP process to procure ongoing maintenance of these two systems following the
current end date.

System Testing and Operation
MAS RAN coverage related to spectrum lease compliance should be followed by
performance related acceptance testing. This was accomplished by the system vendor and prison
staff to check/validate RAN coverage using commercial cellular handsets. System performance
acceptance criteria specified for the Baltimore facilities requires network coverage throughout
98% of defined points within the prison; a point is defined by a physical location, a commercial
carrier, and a cellular technology. DPSCS indicated that staff members also conduct ongoing
coverage testing on a monthly basis, using a defined grid pattern check and confirm coverage
inside each facility.

Staff members also make spot checks outside of buildings, but they

generally do not conduct a comprehensive outdoor test. Tecore conducts tests outside each
facility on a regular basis, and the commercial carriers can also test to verify that there is no
RAN coverage outside the authorized managed access system footprint.

27

This total also included funding to deploy video cameras at the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Facility. No
further breakdown of this total is noted. See http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs/budgetfiscal/2015fy-budget-docsoperating-Q00-DPSCS-Overview.pdf

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

32

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

DPSCS noted that system complaints received were general in nature, and not related to
specific calls being blocked. Since the BCDC was accepted, a DPSCS representative noted that
he was only aware of one call incorrectly captured originating from a nearby legitimate user.28
DPSCS indicated that interaction with commercial carriers had been, in general, fairly
smooth, stating that the major carriers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) have corporate managed
access support units to interface with managed access vendor and correctional facility
deployment teams. It was also noted that, for the most part, these support units are technical in
nature and do not address policy or spectrum leasing issues. DPSCS also indicated that carriers
do not provide much advance information about changes to their networks; therefore managed
access system operators must continue to operate and manage their systems in a reactive rather
than proactive posture. Both Baltimore MAS maintenance contracts require the system provider
to upgrade the system in response to technology and/or coverage changes in the nearby
commercial cellular environment.

BCBIC and MRDCC
Approximately $7.2 million in funding was allocated in the FY2015 DPSCS budget to
deploy managed access technology at the BCBIC and MRDCC. This award, if placed, would
extend managed access coverage to nearly all buildings within the Baltimore complex. As shown
in Table 1 and Figure 15, the rate of illegal cell phone seizures in these facilities has fallen
significantly without managed access technology in place.

28

Two separate incidents were reported in the media shortly after the system was activated. See
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-02-09/news/bs-md-ci-jail-cellphone-blocking-issues-20140208_1_cell-phonecity-jail-tavon-white

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

33

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

34

BCBIC Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Center
MRDCC Maryland Reception Diagnostic Classification Center
150
115

100
58
14

50
0

FY2010

2
FY2011

129

1
FY2012

30
6
FY2013

17
3
FY2014

3
1
FYTD2015*

*Through January, 2015
Data Source: https://data.maryland.gov/Public-Safety/DPSCS-Data-Templates-Directory/rvm2-6rkn

Figure 15. BCBIC and MRDCC Cell Phone Seizures
The (January 2015) DPSCS Fiscal 2016 budget overview indicates that funding for these
systems has been eliminated:
“The department’s fiscal 2015 appropriation includes nearly $7.2 million in general
funds to implement cell phone managed access systems at the Baltimore Central Booking and
Intake Center (BCBIC) and the Maryland Reception, Diagnostic, and Classification Center
(MRDCC). Although the department had plans to expand implementation of managed
cell phone access systems, which are already in place at the Metropolitan Transition Center
and the BCDC, the fiscal 2016 allowance does not include funding for new systems. The
department has not yet awarded a contract for the managed access systems at BCBIC or
MRDCC.29”

Conclusions
In general, as noted in Figure 16 the number of illegal cellular devices confiscated at the
MTC has declined, and data provided by DPSCS in February 2015 indicate that there have been
no cell phone confiscations at that facility since April 2013.
29

See http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs/budgetfiscal/2016fy-budget-docs-operating-Q00-DPSCS-Overview.pdf

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

35

Data Source: Mr. Jay Miller, MD DPSCS

Figure 16. MTC Cell Phone Confiscations July 2011 – Feb 2013
Figure 17 and Figure 18 summarize the number of non-routine housing searches in the MTC
and BCDC facilities for fiscal year 2010 through mid-January in 2015. These data suggest a
positive effect of managed access technology in regard to possession and use of illegal cellular
devices.

Figure 19

suggests that the availability of controlled dangerous substances also

declined following the deployment on managed access technology.

*As of mid-January, 2015
Data Source: Mr. Jay Miller, MD DPSCS

Figure 17. MTC & BCDC Cell Phone Searches 2011 – 2015

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

MTC Cell Phones Found
600
400

BCDC Cell Phones Found

456
348

328

306

266

200
0

36

161

74

79

FY2010

4

80

0

15

FY2011

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FYTD2015*

*Through January, 2015
Data Source: https://data.maryland.gov/Public-Safety/DPSCS-Data-Templates-Directory/rvm2-6rkn

Figure 18. MTC & BCDC Cell Phone Confiscations 2011 – 2015
Figure 19 suggests that the availability of controlled dangerous substances may have also
declined following the deployment of managed access technology.

*As of mid-January, 2015
Data Source: Mr. Jay Miller, MD DPSCS

Figure 19. MTC & BCDC Controlled Dangerous Substances (CDS) 2011 – 2015
Data retrieved from publicly available Maryland Open Data Portal describes illegal cell
phone seizure rates system-wide30. This data are summarized in Table 1 and they indicate that,
system-wide, the rate of contraband Inmate cell phones found within Maryland correctional
facilities has fallen in recent years. This trend is apparent both for facilities equipped with
Managed Access technology as well as within facilities not equipped with the technology. A
significant conclusion that can be made is that while managed access had a significant impact
within the facilities where it was deployed, other factors unrelated to the technology such as
policy changes also contributed to the overall decline of illegal cellphone use throughout the
30

Data for each facility obtained via the Maryland Open Data Portal at https://data.maryland.gov/PublicSafety/DPSCS-Data-Templates-Directory/rvm2-6rkn. This data shown above was retrieved on July 1st, 2015.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

prison system (to include faculties with deployed managed access systems). When queried about
this overall trend system-wide, DPSCS suggested that increased vigilance implemented through
policy changes, as well as increased mandatory penalties for those caught with an illegal device
contributed to this reduction. For example, it was suggested that rotating correctional staff
between regional prison entrance check points likely impacted the ability for staff members to
smuggle in illegal devices. The consequences of possession of an illegal cellular device in a
Maryland correctional facility have changed to now include criminal penalties, via misdemeanor
charges which can result in up to a 3 year jail sentence. It was also noted that administrative
sanctions that can now be levied against prisoners, to include disciplinary segregation and loss of
privileges.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

37

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

Table 1. DPSCS System-Wide Reported Contraband Cell Phones Found

A paragraph in the 2016 DPSCS budget document suggests the deployment of managed
access technology deployment is complementary to other methods such as the recovery of
contraband via canine unit searches:
“The department reports the rate of items found per 100 scans conducted by the Canine
Unit. Between fiscal 2011 and 2013, the overall rate of contraband finds decreased
from 1.34 to 0.42 items per 100 scans. However, the rate of contraband finds increased

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

38

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

significantly in fiscal 2014, to 0.93 items per 100 scans overall.

39

The majority of items

found in fiscal 2014 were weapons and drugs. The department attributes the increased
finds to enhanced search techniques and increased use of intelligence and phone
monitoring capabilities, which have allowed the Canine Unit to conduct fewer scans
leading to an increased number of recoveries. The rate of cell phone finds remained
stable in fiscal 2014 at 0.07 per 100 scans. As was to be expected, the rate of cell
phone finds declined in the Central Region from 0.33 in fiscal 2013 to 0.13 in fiscal
2014 as a result of implementation of managed access systems at Baltimore facilities31
In addition to the observations noted above, the following conclusions can also be made:


As noted in the report about the rural system deployed in Parchman MS, good
working relationships with nearby cellular carriers is critical. In Baltimore, the system
vendor is responsible to maintain this responsibility, and this relationship is enforced
in the service contract.



MAS can effectively be implemented in an urban setting. Technology such as
Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) allows operators to refine and control system
coverage within tightly constrained environments.



DAS deployment is heavily reliant upon physical installation of cable, conduits and
other supporting infrastructure. While this can be a challenging and costly task for
any pre-existing facility, retrofitting an existing correctional structure is particularly
challenging. Deployment of technology in a correctional environment creates unique
logistical challenges involved with deploying it in areas where inmates reside and
securing the system infrastructure from sabotage.

31

See Page 11: http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs/budgetfiscal/2016fy-budget-docs-operating-Q00Q-DPSCSOperations.pdf

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

Finally, note that cellular devices are becoming more complex and multi-function in nature
and, as a result they present an increasing number of threats based on capabilities other than
communication via cellular telephony. Cellular managed access technology only addresses
cellular communications capabilities and cannot, for instance, prevent use of non-cellular
wireless capabilities, such as Wi-Fi, stand-alone computing or photographic capabilities which
have become standard features in modern cellular devices. Managed access simply mitigates the
connection of cellular radio transmissions between a handset and an external (e.g., commercial)
network. Elimination of cellular communications capabilities makes other features present in
these devices less useful to the inmates that possess them.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

40

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

41

Appendix A: Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Activity
Contraband cell phones have been used for a variety of criminal activities inside and outside
correctional facilities. While specific estimates of such activity have not been routinely collected
or published, there is significant body of anecdotal evidence that the problem is widespread and
continues to pose a public safety problem. Table 2 illustrates some recent examples of alleged or
noted criminal activities that have been associated with inmate use of contraband cell phones.
Table 2. Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Criminal Activity
State/
Country
Year

Report

Criminal
Act(s)
Noted

Inside or
outside
prison

Reference URL

South
Carolina

2010

Murder
(attempted)

Outside

http://newsone.com/753345/prisoner-ordered-hitoutside-of-prison-with-smuggled-cell-phone/

Georgia

2011

Organized
Inmate
Uprisings

Inside

http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/local/x13313611
64/Cell-phones-spark-Georgia-prison-unrest

North
Carolina

2012

Kidnapping
& Harassment

Outside

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/11/3776630/
kelvin-melton-imprisoned-for-life.html and/or
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/12/nort
h-carolina-inmate-kidnapping-mobile-phone

Ohio (other
locations
mentioned)

2012

Multiple

Inside/
Outside

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/cellp
hones-weapons-and-drugs-flood-ohio-prisons1/nMySK/

South
Carolina

2012

Smuggling,
blackmail,
harassment

Inside/
Outside

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120430/PC
16/120439959 and
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120430/PC
16/120439971

Georgia

2013

Planning
Violent
Robberies

Outside

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/inmateaccused-planning-violent-crimes-prison/nXbw8/

Georgia

2013

Homicide

Inside

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/2013-0324/gangs-cell-phones-blamed-rise-homicidesgeorgia-prisons

Indiana

2013

Harassment

Outside

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/call-6investigators/families-victims-targeted-by-indianastate-prisoners-with-illegal-phones

Tennessee

2013

“violent
crimes”

Outside

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/23631961/priso
ners-confiscated-cell-phones-help-non-profit

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

State/
Country
Year

Report

Criminal
Act(s)
Noted

Inside or
outside
prison

42

Reference URL

Georgia

2013

Prison
Brawl
Video

Inside

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C77wyuzh3oM

California

2014

Drug
Trafficking
& Violent
Crime

Outside

http://abc30.com/archive/9531064/

Maryland
(Baltimore
is mentioned)

2014

Smuggling
etc.

Inside/
Outside

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_2_baltimorecorrectional-services-corruption.html

Florida
(other
locations
mentioned)

2014

Multiple

Inside/
Outside

http://tbo.com/news/crime/prisoners-use-ofsmuggled-cellphones-on-rise-20140216/

Florida,
Georgia
(and other
locations)

2014

Multiple

Inside/
Outside

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cellphones-n327311

Georgia

2015

Extortion

Inside/
Outside

http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest-news/2015-0331/augusta-man-shown-beaten-leashed-prisoncellphone-photo

Brazil
(Baltimore is
mentioned)

2014

Murder

Honduras

2014

Extortion

International
Outside

Outside

http://www.firstthings.com/webexclusives/2014/04/prisoners-are-calling-whosanswering
http://dialogoamericas.com/en_GB/articles/rmisa/features/regional
_news/2014/05/30/honduras-seguridad

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

Appendix B: Managed Access Technology
Cellular Telephony
The material in this section consists of background information originally included in the
unpublished Parchman report. This information is included here as a supplementary technical
overview of managed access technology operations.
Cellular telephony, as a wireless radio service, functions much like other radio technologies.
Radio technology, when boiled down to bare essentials, involves a process of inserting
(modulating) information of various forms onto a radio signal which utilizes radio frequency
energy to convey the information through the environment wirelessly. As this wireless energy
transits through the atmosphere and surrounding environment some level of radio signal
degradation occurs prior to reaching a receiver. This degradation is expected and attributed to a
number of predictable and/or unpredictable factors. When the signal arrives at an antenna intact,
a receiver converts the information back into a format useful for its intended purpose: this
process is called demodulation.

Protocols and procedures are used to process

(modulate/demodulate) information during wireless transmission, using specific radio
frequencies to support the transmission. Some receive processes are based on open standards
and others use proprietary technologies. Specific engineering and business needs drive how
radio access network (RAN) systems are developed and deployed. For example, commercial
carriers Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T each use RAN technologies based on 3GPP LTE standards,
but their RAN interfaces are different in many ways, and therefore non-interoperable because of
specific implementation choices.
Cellular network operators are authorized via Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
licenses to use specific radio spectrum frequencies throughout defined geographical areas.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

43

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

Licenses are often granted following successful bids levied in a spectrum auction, often at costs
to a carrier measured in billions of dollars. In exchange for the proceeds received from winning
auction bids, the FCC grants the winning carrier exclusive use of frequencies in defined areas so
they can invest in RAN infrastructure in a predicable way to provide customer services in the
most optimal way suitable to their business plans. They can do what they want and need to, as
long as they do not exceed the technical and regulatory limitations associated with their FCC
authorizations. Exclusivity means that commercial carriers retain sole legal access to authorized
spectrum; a right that operators defend vigorously. 32 Any unauthorized signals emitted in carrier
controlled spectrum space are considered to be interference by the carrier and the FCC.
Managed access, considered as a category of technology (rather than a specific vendor product)
operates as a tenant using carrier RAN frequencies. This spectrum lease process requires close
coordination between MAS operators and carriers to ensure systems operate in a legal manner.
For readers who are unfamiliar with wireless cellular technology, it is important to
understand that there are constraints related to how wireless systems are designed and how they
operate. Subtle details are significant when considered in context of how RAN coverage is
established and maintained. Many radio technologies, such as land mobile radios, are designed
to operate in relatively quiet and interference/noise-free wireless environments. These radio
services are typically designed to function with relatively few high-powered transmitters using
antennas mounted atop tall towers to create networks engineered to operate in a relatively
uncluttered radio environment.

This type of network provides efficient signal coverage

32

There are a number of Federal proceedings underway that are investigating ways to “share” spectrum, with a goal
to more efficiently utilize limited spectrum resources. For example, FCC Docket GN 13-185, Regard to
Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands, is examining
approaches to sharing spectrum between commercial and federal users; Docket GN 12-354 is considering
commercial operations in the range of 3550-3650 MHz, currently used by federal users.. If these efforts are
successful, and commercial carriers are allowed access to new spectrum resources, or other spectrum users are
allowed shared access to cellular frequencies, the technical implications facing managed access technology may
become very complicated.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

44

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

throughout an area using the fewest number of network sites and the minimal amount of
supporting infrastructure (i.e., additional base stations/repeaters). This type of technology is
often referred to as “noise-limited”.
Commercial cellular radio infrastructure can be characterized by a few key distinguishing
characteristics:
1. Cellular networks, similar to trunked land mobile radio technology, are bifurcated,
composed of a wireless customer air interface between the customer and the carrier
network, often referred to as the “radio access network, or RAN”. A second, carrier
backbone network, is also established for interconnect cellular towers and to connect
customers to off-network services.
2. A typical commercial cellular network is comprised of a relatively large number of base
stations designed with relatively low profile towers, densely spaced in a way to
efficiently support the greatest number of connections (i.e., users) via the RAN and/or to
convey the largest amount of data through the access network. Cellular operators route
customer traffic through their network backbone using back-haul connections (e.g.,
microwave radio, fiber optic cable, copper cable);
3. Cellular technology, similar to land mobile radio, must support customer mobility.
Cellular networks are designed to support the movement of large numbers of relatively
low-powered user devices between cell towers that make up the RAN, while maintaining
network and data connections, and;

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

45

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

4. Cellular RAN’s are constructed using a defined set of radio frequencies with a high level
of frequency re-use and efficiency (i.e., using the same frequency resources over and over
again).
Because of the high level of frequency re-use, cellular technologies are designed to operate
amid a relatively high level of radio interference created by adjacent cell sites. This is referred to
as an “interference-limited” RF environment, whereby a baseline level of signal interference is
expected in exchange for increased levels of spectrum re-use and spectrum efficiency, resulting
in the greatest rate of return on a carrier’s investment. Cellular base station density varies by
business needs and typically mirrors the number of potential cellular customers; thus the number
of base stations in an urban setting is typically greater and more densely deployed than the
number of base stations in a rural setting where potential rate of return on investment is
significantly less.
In a cellular environment, as with land mobile radio, wireless transmission occurs in two
directions. Cellular transmissions from a base station radio transmitter directed to receiver
components within portable cellular device are typically described as “downlink” transmissions.
A transmission in the reverse direction, originating from a relatively low-powered end user
device (e.g., cell phone) towards a base station receiver, is often referred to as an “uplink”
connection. In a cellular network, the constraining wireless link is usually the uplink from a lowpowered end-user device.

If either the downlink or uplink connection fails, or becomes

interrupted, then communications services requested by the cellular device user will not work.
To combat illegal cell phone use, both managed access and jamming technologies rely on
highly engineered systems to provide radio frequency signal coverage using cellular network
access frequencies. However, there is a significant difference in how this coverage is used is

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

46

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

used. For example, jamming technology disrupts the communications path between the user and
the network. Managed access does not, it depends on establishing successful communications
between the network and cellular device to capture a wireless device and then use of network
control to selectively grant or deny requested network services.

Managed Access
A managed access system is, fundamentally, a cellular network with limited scope and reach.
A managed access network is designed to present the “dominant” network signal within its
limited authorized RAN coverage area. Managed access networks are designed to operate using
the same frequencies and protocols as those used in the RAN of nearby commercial cellular
carriers. Cellular devices work by listening for a RAN downlink control signal, interacting with
the strongest cell tower, and then attaching to the cellular RAN. A managed access system
“intercepts” contraband cell phones by presenting a stronger RAN presence to a cellular device,
overwhelming signals from nearby commercial RAN’s. Device to tower communications
occurring via the RAN air interface uplink/downlink connections and network core should be
further envisioned as providing/having two distinct components: network signaling and customer
traffic.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

47

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

48

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corporation

Figure 20. Cellular Radio Access Network
Managed access technology leverages the distinct split between network control and user
connection aspects of cellular technology by “managing” network services granted to a specific
end user or device. When a cell phone is turned on it initializes its operating system software,
searches for and finds a compatible RAN and then connects to the strongest cell tower.
Overhead signaling communications processes are used to first “capture” and then direct how the
cellular device interacts with the network. This overhead process is used to identify the device,
manage how the device interacts with core network resources (i.e., cellular base stations, cell
towers, radio frequencies cellular services.)
Signaling transactions between the device and network that pass through the RAN are
essentially part of a process used by the network to capture, identify and then verify service
levels available to the calling device. Once a device is captured the network can control service
provided to the device. Wireless network backbone capacity is typically limited; therefore it is
allocated to customers for services on an as-needed basis. The network establishes and then
releases network resources as calls, data connection requests, or when inbound received calls are

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

directed from the network towards/from a specific cellular device. These control
communications are often referred to, collectively, as “overhead” communications. Overhead
communications associated with network and service management constantly occur and from a
resource perspective are typically minimal in comparison to bandwidth required to support user
voice or data communications. 33
Phrased differently, a contraband cellular device essentially “roams” onto a managed access
system when it is operated in a managed access RAN coverage area. Once connected to the
managed access system RAN, it becomes subject to MAS control34. Managed access technology
is used to enforce agency policy defining which calls can be completed and which calls are
terminated.

A managed access system also provides the ability to selectively complete

authorized call requests made to/from specific cellular devices, to include emergency calls. MAS
operation is guided by facility policies and legal guidelines. In addition to managing the use of
contraband cellular devices, managed access systems can be used to capture data about the
illegal devices that attach to the system and/or data related to call attempts made from attached
devices for investigative purposes.

Managed Access Network Coverage
Wireless network signal coverage, envisioned from a simplified conceptual perspective, can
be thought of as an invisible cloud of RAN energy that operates at specific radio frequencies.
RAN energy within the coverage cloud associated with a network is additive, comprised of

The term Over The Top, or OTT communications described 3rd party services that occur entirely outside of carrier
core network resources. OTT communications and OTT overhead are not directly mitigated by managed access, but
OTT services are indirectly denied/ blocked when data services are denied by managed access technology.
34
The term “roaming” is used loosely here; managed access systems actually appear to be part of the commercial
network by presenting a valid commercial cellular Mobile Network Code to cellular devices. Outbound service
requests are explicitly “denied” or “blocked”. Inbound requests are also defeated because the managed access
system does not make unauthorized phones visible to the commercial networks; therefore inbound calls to
unauthorized phones connected to the managed access network cannot be completed.
33

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

49

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

50

overlapping signals emitted from antennas located on adjacent cell towers that operate using the
same frequencies.

Areas in commercial networks with inadequate signal levels are often

described as “coverage holes”35. Transmitter components in a portable/mobile cellular device
also emit a similar cloud of radio frequency energy, centered on the current location of the
device.

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 21. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Nearby Environment
How radio energy propagates through the atmosphere is predictable, with some practical
limitations, particularly in highly engineered cellular environments.
Figure 21 depicts a hypothetical correctional facility located adjacent to a town and
residential area. At the risk of oversimplification, for the purposes of illustration, RAN signals
from competing commercial cellular carriers are depicted using different colors. In this example

35

Note that the term “coverage hole” in context of commercial network coverage describes an area from which calls
cannot be completed. A “coverage hole”, in context of a managed access (or jamming) system describes exactly the
opposite, an area within the managed access footprint from which connection to a commercial network can be
completed. Both describe locations with inadequate signal levels.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

“Carrier A” RAN (blue) provides wireless services throughout the town and surrounding areas
using two frequencies that including wireless coverage extending throughout the correctional
facility.

This cellular RAN operates on two different frequency bands (band A and band C,

providing differing areas of coverage.) Figure 22 provides a top-down view of the carrier A RAN
coverage.

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 22. Conceptual Top-Down View of RAN Coverage from Cellular Carrier “A”
To reflect a typical real-world environment two additional, competing RAN networks from
carrier B (orange) and carrier C (green) are similarly depicted in Figure 23 and Figure 24.
Coverage for each of these three cellular RAN’s partially encompasses the hypothetical
correctional facility. Each of these RAN’s designed and deployed to provide signal coverage
tailored to the operator’s business model and customer base. Coverage is usually established

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

51

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

52

using uplink design criteria associated with a typical portable device performance profile. 36
Some level of inter-carrier resource sharing may occur when common network resources are
used, or when a tower is leased to two or more competing carriers. Although each network is
unique, there is likely to be significant overlap in overall network coverage.

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 23. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Carriers “B” and “C”

36

Service performance and wireless range in many environments is typically dependent upon relatively weaker
uplink transmissions from a cellular device towards the network, particularly from within buildings and in rural
settings where cellular network density results in longer wireless links.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

53

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 24. Top-Down View of RAN Coverage from Cellular Carriers “B” and “C”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

54

Figure 25 and Figure 26 combine individual carrier views to provide a single view of all
three carrier RAN’s. They are included to depict the complexity of the entire cellular wireless
environment, and how combined cellular carrier RAN coverage overlaps throughout the
correctional facility.

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 25. Hypothetical Correctional Facility with Carriers “A”, “B” and “C”
It is important to acknowledge, and understand this complexity as a combined threat, because
any technology deployed to counteract illegal operation of cellular telephones in a correctional
environment must, simultaneously, address the entire combined scope to prevent illegal devices
from connecting to each carrier network.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 26. Top-Down View: Signal Coverage: Cellular Carriers “A”, “B” and “C”
It is also important to note that the commercial carrier network environment is not static.
Carriers have the freedom to change the topology and makeup of their network to optimize how
RAN interface frequencies and other network resources support their business model.
Towers/network base stations, and carrier-specific network protocols are all subject to change as
the commercial networks evolve. Commercial RAN’s are not fully interoperable and each must
be addressed separately because of differences in radio frequencies and protocols. For instance,
Carrier A and Carrier B may both operate within the same frequency band, yet customer devices
may not be interoperable with both networks because they have licensed and use different suballocations within the band. Carrier network changes lead to changes in how cellular customer
devices operate, and which uplink/downlink frequencies and/or protocols are used in the RAN to
support services. RAN coverage will change over time as well because cellular operators
continually optimize their networks. Because of this, technology used to counteract the illegal

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

55

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

56

use of cellular devices must also be adapted to ensure ongoing effectiveness. A correctional
entity operating a MAS or consuming services provided via a leased MAS must ensure that
adaptations to counter carrier network changes are handled in a pro-active manner in response to
changes or the system will not retain its effectiveness as the surrounding cellular environment
evolves and new end-user devices are introduced. Design, deployment, and operation of a
managed access system is not a one-time event, it requires ongoing optimization and capability
assessment in response to the surrounding environment.

Network Coverage Related Maintenance
Managed access operational conditions are defined within cellular spectrum leases: coverage
must not extend beyond a well-defined service perimeter. System coverage changes can have
significant impact on effectiveness if RAN coverage holes are created within a correctional
facility. RAN coverage holes can allow users to bypass the managed access system and access
commercial networks. Conversely, RAN signal leakage that extends beyond the agreed upon
managed access coverage area will lead to disruption of legitimate cellular users in areas where
the managed access signal strength overwhelms RAN coverage from a commercial cellular
system operator. From a legal perspective compliance with coverage limits defined by a
spectrum lease must be addressed first, followed by operational effectiveness within that
coverage area. Effectiveness is an internal performance issue, unrelated to spectrum lease
conditions.
RAN coverage outside the authorized footprint (a.k.a. leakage/bleed) can lead to FCC
enforcement action and/or complaints and public relation issues.

Coverage issues must be

addressed as part of ongoing system maintenance. As previously noted, RAN coverage changes
may occur as a by-product of change within nearby cellular networks, or new capabilities

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Analysis of Managed Access Technology in an Urban Deployment

57

introduced in commercial networks operated in areas adjacent to the correctional facility. For
instance, a new commercial tower installation or a change in commercial network parameters
(such as addition of a new band or protocol) can directly affect managed access system
coverage37.

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 27. Managed Access System Coverage Hole
Coverage issues may also result from RAN infrastructure damage to either the commercial
network or to the managed access system. Coverage issues may result from damage due to
inclement weather or from component failure. Any change that affects the relative balance
between the strength of managed access and nearby commercial network signal strengths must
be resolved.

37

A managed access system design, to include carrier-specific MAS antenna placement, needs to address and
optimize coverage for each carrier's frequencies; especially if the towers are not co-located or there are different
deployment scenarios and each carrier transmits at different power levels.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

EXHIBIT I

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.
Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title:

A Case Study of Mississippi State Penitentiary’s
Managed Access Technology

Author(s):

Eric Grommon, Ph.D., Jeremy G. Carter, Ph.D.,
Fred Frantz, Phil Harris

Document No.:

250262

Date Received:

September 2016

Award Number:

2010-IJ-CX-K023

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.
To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this federally
funded grant report available electronically.

Opinions or points of view expressed are those
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

A Case Study of Mississippi State Penitentiary’s Managed Access Technology

Eric Grommon, Ph.D.
Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis
Jeremy G. Carter, Ph.D.
Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis
Fred Frantz
Engility Corporation
Phil Harris
Engility Corporation

Engility Corporation, Rome NY
Award Number: 2010-IJ-CX-K023

August 2015

The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this report are those of
the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, National Institute of Justice, Engility Corporation, Indiana University - Purdue
University Indianapolis, or Indiana University Public Policy Institute. This research has been
conducted in accordance with NIJ’s requirements for research independence and integrity, and
the authors have no vested interests in commercial communication technology products,
processes, or services.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

ii

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................5
Background and Context .........................................................................................................5
Purpose of the Technology Assessment ...................................................................................8
Evolution of the Contraband Cell Phone Problem ........................................................................8
Cellular Telephony and Services ..............................................................................................8
Technology to Actively Manage Illegal Cell Phone Use ............................................................ 10
Passive Sensing Technology .................................................................................................. 12
Jamming Technology ............................................................................................................ 13
Network-based Technology: The Kill Switch......................................................................... 14
Network-based Technology: Managed Access ....................................................................... 15
Technical Introduction to Managed Access Technology Concepts and Operations .................... 18
Cellular Technology ...................................................................................................................... 18
Managed Access Network Coverage .............................................................................................. 24
Capture and Roaming .................................................................................................................... 31
Coverage Related Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 35

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 38
Context: Mississippi State Penitentiary, Parchman Mississippi .................................................. 41
Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP) ..................................................................................... 41
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 43
Contraband Cell Phones in Mississippi State Penitentiary ...................................................... 44
Managed Access Operational Challenges ............................................................................... 47
Practices and Lessons Learned. .............................................................................................. 60
Contraband Cell Phone Activity ............................................................................................ 67
Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................................................................79
Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 82
Future research ...................................................................................................................... 85
Caution for the Corrections Community ................................................................................ 87
References ................................................................................................................................ 87
Appendix A: Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Activity ....................................................... 91

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

iii

Appendix B: Semi-Structured Focus Group Protocol and Teleconference Protocols .................. 93
Appendix C: Mississippi State Penitentiary Inmate Security Classifications .............................. 95
Appendix D: MSP Managed Access System Infrastructure........................................................ 96

List of Tables
Table 1. MSP and MDOC Offender Populations ....................................................................... 43
Table 2. Summary of Operational Challenges and Associated Issues .........................................48
Table 3. Summary of Operational Lessons Learned and Context for their Application............... 60
Table 4. Overview of Call Attempts by Type, Channel Access, and Mobile Network Code ....... 70
Table 5. Frequency of Call Attempt by Time of Day ................................................................. 70
Table 6. Channel Access by Call Attempt Type ......................................................................... 71
Table 7. Mobile Network Code by Call Attempt Type ............................................................... 71
Table 8. Frequency of Occurrence Call Attempts by Unique Device .........................................71
Table 9. Cell Phone Lifespan by Unique Device ....................................................................... 73
Table 10. Frequency of Occurrence of Call Attempts by Destination Number ........................... 74
Table 11.Top 10 Destination Numbers Called ........................................................................... 75
Table 12.Top 10 Destination Numbers Texted........................................................................... 76
Table 13.Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Criminal Activity ............................................... 91
List of Figures
Figure 1. Cellular Network Concepts......................................................................................... 23
Figure 2. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Nearby Environment ........................ 25
Figure 3. Conceptual Top-Down View of Signal Coverage from Cellular Carrier “A”............... 26
Figure 4. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Carriers “B” and “C” ........................ 27
Figure 5. Conceptual Top-Down View of Signal Coverage from Cellular Carriers “B” and “C” 28
Figure 6. Hypothetical Correctional Facility with Carriers “A”, “B” and “C” ............................ 29
Figure 7. Conceptual Top-Down View: Signal Coverage: Cellular Carriers “A”, “B” and “C” .. 30
Figure 8. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility with a Managed Access System .............. 32
Figure 9. A Conceptual Managed Access System Network and Underlay .................................. 33
Figure 10. Managed Access System and Cellular System Interconnections................................ 35
Figure 11. Managed Access System Coverage Hole .................................................................. 36
Figure 12. Mississippi State Penitentiary Grounds ..................................................................... 42
Figure 14. Monthly Total Call Attempts Detected by MAS ....................................................... 68
Figure 15. Daily Total Call Attempts Detected by MAS: Five Month Extract ............................ 69
Figure 15. Case Flow Trends: January to April 2012 ................................................................. 78
Figure 16. The MDOC Water Tower Equipment shelter ............................................................ 96
Figure 17. Equipment located in the MDOC Water Tower Equipment shelter .......................... 97

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

iv

Figure 18. Antenna Equipment on the MDOC Water Tower ..................................................... 97
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Nancy Merritt, Joseph Heaps, Mississippi Department of
Corrections, David Scott, Jack Harne, John Shaffer, Casey Joseph, Rick Pruitt, Peter Small,
Charles Scheer, Eric Piza, and Anthony Salvemini for their support of this project as well as their
insights throughout its completion.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

1

Executive Summary
Contraband cell phone use in a corrections facility is an ongoing challenge for corrections
agencies.

There are numerous anecdotes of contraband cell phones being used to conduct

criminal activities from inside a prison. Physical searches of inmates and correctional staff are
limited in their scope; contraband policies and legal punishments possess deterrent value, but the
effect of such approaches are not well known; and technologies to jam cell phone signals are in
violation of U.S. law1 and Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulations. Recently,
managed access technology has emerged as another approach to affect contraband cell phone
use.

This technology allows completion of authorized calls placed from approved phone

numbers (numbers which have been vetted and entered into a database) while, conversely
blocking calls to/from devices or numbers which have not been pre-approved; a process often
referred to as “white-listing”. The promise of this technology as an effective means to combat
contraband cell phones has influenced correctional procurement decisions across the country.
Yet, many unknowns exist with respect to its capability, functionality, and actual impact on
contraband cell phone use.
The present research seeks to inform these gaps and provide corrections administrators and
policy-makers with information describing managed access technology, its deployment, and
relevant data on cell phone transmissions captured by a managed access system. A case study
approach was used to learn about the Mississippi Department of Corrections’ (MDOC)
procurement and deployment processes used when they implemented managed access
technology at the Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP).

A series of interviews and

1

47 U.S. Code § 333: No person shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio
communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this chapter or operated by the United States
Government.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

2

teleconferences, in addition to the secondary analysis of managed access system data, were
employed to generate a fundamental understanding of managed access technology operations,
identify challenges and lessons learned, and develop a baseline of contraband cell phone activity.
This assessment is not an evaluation of the operational efficacy of managed access technology.
More specifically, the present study does not seek to quantify potential vulnerabilities or
manipulations of managed access systems.

Such an evaluation would be insightful, but is

beyond the scope of the present study.
The present study identified the following challenges associated with deployment and
operations of managed access technology:
1. Managed access has to be routinely “managed”. This task requires a significant labor
commitment from the host agency, in addition to ensuring that personnel have
appropriate technical skills.
2. Managed access requires an effective self-monitoring capability.
3. The system must be designed to prevent illegal access to cellular signals originating
outside the corrections facility, and procedures must be developed to address legitimate
calls that are blocked by the system.
4. The signal strength of managed access system must be strong enough to cover areas in
the facility while ensuring emissions do not exceed authorized levels or exceed
authorized coverage areas.
5. Coordination is required with carriers and local public safety answering points to ensure
proper handling of 9-1-1 calls.
6. Technology upgrades by cellular carriers can significantly reduce system effectiveness;
close coordination with the carriers is critical for effective system operations.
7. The managed access system and associated physical infrastructure may be vulnerable to
weather conditions.
8. Inmates may attempt to sabotage system infrastructure.
To address these challenges, and based on our observations, we note the following practices
employed by MDOC:
1. Work with and educate representatives from the legislative community, the Executive
Branch, and advocacy groups to advocate changes to existing laws and policies
governing contraband cell phones.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

3

2. Establish cooperative partnerships with cellular carriers.
3. Cross-reference captured phone call information with existing pre-approved list of inmate
land-line numbers.
4. Treat managed access as part of a layered approach for counter-measures beyond
traditional search capabilities.
5. Use managed access to eliminate inmate use of cellphone technology as a way to
circumvent mandatory monitoring of inmate conversations, a condition of use associated
with landline based authorized Inmate Calling Systems (ICS).
6. Use managed access to create a general deterrent to impact contraband cell phone market
value.
7. Create a housing unit for contraband cell phone violators within MSP at Parchman.
8. Correctional facilities must harden managed access system hardware and associated
infrastructure to prevent damage, system failure, and system inefficiencies from both
inclement weather and premediated attacks by prisoners.
Despite these challenges, managed access technology does appear to detect and terminate a
large number of cell phone transmissions.

Our analysis of contraband cell phone activity data

captured by MSP’s managed access system and provided by MDOC for a five month period in
2012 yielded several useful insights related to the detection and termination of cell phone
transmissions.
1. Not all blocked calls can be assumed to originate from contraband cell phones; any cell
or wireless phone not on an approved caller list will be blocked by the managed access
system operating at MSP.
2. A number of dial strings were identified during our analysis that did not correspond to
telephone numbers associated with voice calls but instead represented system commands
(e.g., #777, #768 etc.) associated with data services or phone configuration. These likely
originated from contraband devices with CDMA 2 data capabilities that automatically
query the network when turned on. An agency implementing a managed access system
may derive additional information by analyzing captured managed access data resources,
2

CDMA stands for Code-Division Multiple Access, a digital cellular technology. Tier one carriers Verizon and
Sprint use CDMA technology in their 2G & 3G networks. Alternatively, AT&T and T-mobile use technology based
on GSM (or Global System for Mobile) standards for their 2G/3G networks. These technologies, and their
derivatives, are not interoperable. In addition to the tier-one carriers mentioned, there are approximately 50 regional
CDMA and 70 GSM based regional carriers in the United States. An anecdotal but representative list of carriers can
be found at http://www.ebay.com/gds/GSM-and-CDMA-Guide-/10000000009189079/g.html or
http://www.unlockedshop.com/a-full-list-of-gsm-carriers-in-the-usa/ for a more comprehensive list of carriers. Note
that these listings are subject to ongoing changes in the marketplace, in addition to interpretation by website authors,
so they should be considered representative, but not authoritative sources.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

4

a process that will require analysis of database content to determine context associated
with a specific dial string (which may require additional information from carriers or
other vendors). This finding also has implications for agencies in determining policies
for managing the approved list.
3. While many unique device identification numbers were detected only once, some device
identification numbers were detected over 1,000 times by the system over a period of
months. This could indicate that even after a device has been captured by the managed
access system, repeated call attempts originating from the same device and number are
persistent, a condition which may indicate that inmates are probing to determine if the
managed access system is not operating, or down for maintenance.
4. Patterns in call attempt data suggest that a significant amount of call activity was for the
purpose of social contact. Increased transmissions were detected by the managed access
system on specific days such as Mother’s Day and federal or state holidays. Data on the
patterns of call activity could not be used to identify or determine the frequency of
transmissions to coordinate illegal activities.
5. The vast majority of documented/registered/captured contraband cell phone call attempts
were voice calls (91%); the remaining 9% were texts.
6. The top-ten most commonly called numbers from inmates included cellular provider
customer service lines, voicemail accounts, pay-as-you-go debit card companies, and a
municipal library storyline for children. Most text messages were sent to private
individuals.
7. Lastly, despite MSP personnel seizing slightly more contraband cell phones found in
inmates’ possession at Parchman compared to other MDOC facilities, fewer cases of
contraband cell phone possession were forwarded to the District Attorney for prosecution
that led to pending grand juries.
Limitations and assumptions for this report are provided in the concluding sections.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

5

Introduction
Background and Context
Cell phone accessibility in the United States has been increasing significantly, due to a
combination of lower cost technology and pre-paid plans. A recent report by the Pew Research
Center (2014) estimates 90 percent of American adults currently own a cell phone. This trend is
mirrored in correctional facilities nationwide as cell phones have emerged as one of the most
prevalent forms of contraband within prisons (Burke and Owen, 2010; Worley and Cheeseman,
2006). As with any contraband in correctional facilities, true estimates of the problem are
elusive. Recent spikes in the number of cell phones confiscated within correctional facilities
have shed some light on the scope of the problem. For example, California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation reported an increase of confiscated phones, from 900 in 2007 to
10,700 in 2010 (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011). Increasingly, cell phones are
being confiscated in more secure facilities (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011)
The urgency to address contraband cell phones is driven in part by stories of violence and
crime that are connected to inmate use of contraband cell phones in prison (see Appendix A).
One such example is the attempted murder of Robert Johnson, the former captain in charge of
finding contraband at the Lee Correctional Facility in Bishopville, South Carolina, where an
inmate used a contraband cell phone to coordinate the attempted murder (CorrectionsOne, 2015).
Gary Maynard, Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Service,
summarized the complexity of the problem at a conference panel sponsored by NIJ (2010):
When I first came here in January of 2007, the U.S. Attorney was investigating a
homicide that occurred on the streets of Baltimore from a witness who was testifying in a
criminal trial, and it was believed that that hit was called for by a Black Guerilla Family
gang leader in a prison in Hagerstown, Maryland. That investigation did, in fact,
conclude that that hit was called for. During that investigation, we found a lot of
testimony that indicated that cell phones were being used for intimidation, drug

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

6

distribution and many other criminal activities within the prison. We really have to target
cell phones. The more we target cell phones, the more we learn about gang affiliations;
the more we target the gangs, the more we find about cell phones. So they are intimately
entwined in each other.
There are also ongoing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) activities and public
debate on the cost of landline phones in prisons3. Contraband cell phones have emerged, in part,
as a lower cost alternative to available landline phone plans. While recognizing that the factors
that motivate contraband cell phone use are an open question and a relevant topic for future
research, the focus of this study is the deployment of managed access technology to reduce
contraband cell phone use.
Current methods to combat contraband cell phone use in correctional facilities rely on a
combination of searches, sanctions, and technologies.

Physical searches of inmates and

correctional staff to find and confiscate contraband phones are limited in scope and often
generate mixed results.

The physical size of modern cell phones make them easier to conceal

and they can be transported into the facility not only by people entering the facility but also as
simply as being projected over a facility fence or wall.

Contraband policies and legal

punishments are implemented as a deterrent, but understanding their effectiveness is anecdotal
and subject to interpretation. The number of technology based methods currently available to
combat contraband cell phone use in correctional facilities is currently limited by regulatory and
technology issues, as well as fiscal constraints, that create uncertainly in the decision-making
process when choosing to deploy these systems. All forms of communications signal jamming,
including the jamming of cellular communications within non-Federal jails and prisons, remains

3

As this report was written FCC review of ICS (Inmate Calling Services) was underway. The FCC conducted a
workshop in July 2014 regarding reform of inmate calling services. In September 2013 the Commission issued a
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Docket WC 12-375 regarding rates of inmate
calling services, and released a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in that proceeding on October 22,
2014. For more information, see http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-continues-push-rein-high-cost-inmate-calling-0
and http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6017468678.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

7

illegal by way of Federal law as outlined in the Communications Act of 1934 and other FCC
rules (see FCC Jamming, n.d., and FCC 2005)4. Alternative methods currently used to address
illegal cell phone use, such as phone-sniffing dogs and random cell searches, even when
supplemented by detection technology are labor-intensive and typically yield less-than optimal
results (U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2011).
Recently, a technology has emerged known as managed access. Managed access technology
leverages core aspects of cellular technology by “managing” network services granted to a
specific cellular user or cellular device. As with jamming technology, managed access
technology actively transmits radio signals in many bands commonly used by commercial
wireless providers 5 . Use of these bands is closely regulated by the FCC or NTIA 6 . In
comparison, jamming technology simply disrupts all network communications denying service
to all users7. Radio sensing technology is a passive alternative (i.e., receive-only technology
does not require FCC authorization) in that it simply recognizes the presence of an active
wireless uplink or downlink connection and then alerts the operator of its presence. As will be
discussed in more detail to follow, managed access technology permits connections to/from
approved phone numbers while intercepting and blocking call and other connection activity

4

Federal agency authorization to use radio spectrum is not regulated by the FCC. Federal entities fall under the
authorization of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). It is possible for federal
agencies to request authorization to deploy and use cellular jamming technology via NTIA processes. The extent to
which jamming technology has been authorized and deployed in Federal correctional facilities is unclear.
5
Including bands associated with the Cellular Service, Broadband Personal Communications Service and certain
Advanced Wireless Services.
6
Note that the terms “active” and “passive”, in context of regulatory and licensing discussion in this paper, describe
technologies that actively transmit radio energy in commercial mobile service bands (active) or function as receiveonly in these bands (passive). This is in contrast to use that describes operational use that “passively” disables the
use of cellphones from a distance versus those that simply locate and then require “active” intervention on behalf of
prison personnel to physically seize illegal devices. Both uses appear in this paper.
7
The Communications Act of 1934, Section 333 - prohibits willful or malicious interference with the radio
communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. Government (47 U.S.C.
§ 333). It is a violation of federal law to use a cell jammer or similar devices that intentionally block, jam, or
interfere with authorized radio communications such as cell phones, police radar, GPS, and Wi-Fi, see
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jamming-cell-phones-and-gps-equipment-against-law

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

associated with non-approved, and presumably contraband, cell phones. 8

8

Managed access

technology is one option to combat contraband cell phones, yet many unknowns exist with
respect to its function, capabilities, and potential impact.

Purpose of the Technology Assessment
Given that managed access has been identified as a method to help control contraband cell
phone use in correctional facilities, and corrections agencies have started to procure such
systems, the purpose of this research is to provide objective, data-based information to inform
procurement decisions.

With this in mind, this study seeks to fulfill the following nine

objectives:
1. Explain what managed access is and how it works;
2. Document the experience of the Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP) with
contraband cell phones and attempts to combat the problem;
3. Explain how managed access was installed and operates within the MSP;
4. Provide an empirical illustration of contraband cell phone use at the MSP;
5. Provide an empirical illustration of the effect managed access has on contraband cell
phone use at the MSP;
6. Identify operational challenges of the managed access system in the MSP;
7. Identify lessons learned from MSP that facilitate managed access effectiveness;
8. Draw conclusions for policymakers based on available data and information gleaned
from interviews; and
9. Provide guidance for future research on contraband cell phones and managed access.

Evolution of the Contraband Cell Phone Problem
Cellular Telephony and Services
There are currently four major nationwide carriers in the United States (AT&T Inc., Sprint
Corp., T-Mobile USA, and Verizon Wireless), with some areas also served by unaffiliated
8

We use the terms “call” and “connection” in this document interchangeably to describe a request for service placed
from a cell phone. This service may be voice service, messaging services (text/email/multimedia) and/or Internet
services that can be obtained from a contraband wireless device.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

9

regional carriers.9 Network operators use a small number of standard, but typically customized,
wireless air interfaces, supported by a rapidly evolving technology base that drives a continuous
cycle of system technology upgrades. Cellular services, in addition to basic telephony, include
access to the Internet, and capabilities for users to communicate using text messages, video,
images, sound files, and email.
Cellular telephony services and wireless data connectivity are provided by the wireless
industry to end users through various types of contract mechanisms. For the purposes of this
report, these mechanisms are grouped into two broad categories: post-paid and pre-paid
contracts. Post-paid mechanisms typically consist of long-term contracts, of various types. In a
typical consumer post-paid arrangement, cellular device cost is subsidized by the carrier.
Monthly fees typically include a specific line item associated with the purchase cost of a specific
cellular device, plus fees associated with basic wireless service and service options across
monthly or multi-year contractual service agreements.

Post-paid contractual information

includes data associated with a well-known user, a specific wireless device, and a specific
telephone number.
In contrast to services obtained via post-paid service agreements, pre-paid cellular
encompasses a category of cellular services that are independent of constraints associated with
typical long term contracts. Pre-paid service is often competitive with, or available at a lower
cost than post-paid services, resulting in a rapid increase in utilization of such accounts. 10 Prepaid service is available bundled with pre-packaged, off-the-shelf devices using the latest

9

An anecdotal but representative list of carriers can be found at: http://www.ebay.com/gds/GSM-and-CDMAGuide-/10000000009189079/g.html or http://www.unlockedshop.com/a-full-list-of-gsm-carriers-in-the-usa/ for a
more comprehensive list of carriers. Note that these listings are subject to ongoing changes in the marketplace, in
addition to interpretation by website authors, so they should be considered representative, but not authoritative
sources.
10
For more information see http://phys.org/news/2013-02-cellphone-users-prepaid.html

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

10

technology that can be user-activated without direct carrier interaction or a long-term service
contract. Most importantly, for the context of this report, many inexpensive pre-paid devices can
be activated over the Internet, anonymously, or with the use of false credentials. In a U.S.
General Accounting Office (2011) report describing the use of illegal cell phones in Federal
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facilities, correctional officials noted the availability of less expensive
cell phones as being a major challenge to the detection and confiscation of contraband cell
phones.

Technology to Actively Manage Illegal Cell Phone Use
The National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices (2009) published a
background paper outlining a number of approaches that are being taken by states to address the
challenge of contraband cell phones, including detection, signal blocking, and punishment. The
Department of Commerce (2010) published a study summarizing the results of a Notice of
Inquiry into technologies to combat contraband cell phone use. Solutions proposed by industry
to defeat the illegal use of cellular telephones included: technology to detect and locate
contraband cell phones; radio frequency jamming technology and network-based capabilities that
facilitate targeting and disabling of specific cellular devices; a subset which includes ”kill
switches” and managed access technology. In this section, we summarize these technologies in
more detail, with emphasis on managed access technology.
As this report was written, nationwide institutional corrections community efforts underway
to address the issue of illegal cell phone use were focused on changes to regulations that
authorize (or prohibit) the use of technologies that actively disrupt operation of illegal cell
phones in correctional facilities.

These regulations are the subject of an ongoing FCC

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

11

proceeding (see FCC 13-58, 2013). FCC considerations include the potential establishment of
guidelines, processes and timelines associated with spectrum lease agreements typically between
wireless carriers and managed access system owner/operator.

A common theme with each of

the technologies under review by the FCC is the capability to remotely render cellular service
ineffective through service denial, minimizing the utility of possessing an illegal device for
prisoners 11. This may simultaneously decrease the number of risks associated with personnel
enforcing the rules through physical search while simultaneously increasing the risk taken by the
smugglers who bring these illegal devices into a correctional facility. Detailed descriptions of
ongoing regulatory activities are beyond the scope of this report because they have not concluded
and the outcome of these proceedings remained uncertain at the time this report was authored.
Another significant FCC proceeding (FCC, 2012) established regulations associated with
calling rate structures and regulations that define the rates correctional facility operators are
allowed to charge for use of inmate landline calling services.

As part of an FCC-sponsored

workshop on the topic (FCC, 2010), correctional representatives testified that landline service
revenues provide funding resources for programs used to counter illegal cell phone to include
deployment of technology, in addition to revenues associated with inmate program support.
Mississippi’s Department of Corrections Commissioner noted: “…by them not using the
landlines that we have done the best math we can and we feel like it is a couple million dollars.
And those funds in my state, if I don't capture those, then I have to use taxpayer dollars to
provide the teachers, the counselors, et cetera.”

11

With the advent of smartphone technology many devices can be used as standalone computing devices, cameras,
or used with non-cellular radio technology (i.e., Wi-Fi or Bluetooth) for other limited wireless use. The FCC
regulates aspects of these devices that relate to radio emissions and equipment authorization. FCC responsibility
does not extend to how these devices are used for other purposes. Use of alternate wireless modes (Wi-Fi/Bluetooth)
is not specifically addressed in this report.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

12

Passive Sensing Technology
Unlike technology that actively emits, or transmits, a signal in the cellular radio bands,
sensing-only technology represents a category of passive technologies (passive in context of not
transmitting on “carrier-licensed” cellular frequencies.)

Passive technology includes FCC

authorized, and legally operated, unlicensed technology that supports physical detection of
illegal devices. There is more than one type of sensing technology; metal detectors,
magnetometers, x-ray technology, ferromagnetic detection, and nonlinear junction detection
devices transmit on non-cellular frequencies to discover and locate electronic components in cell
phones. RF signal detection is a listen-only sensing technology that employs radio receivers
designed to listen to cellular frequencies and sense the presence of cell phone transmissions
and/or determine the location of an active cellular device.

These products are collectively

“passive” with respect to licensed cellular frequency bands because in comparison alternative
active technologies such as jamming and managed access are designed to actively transmit RF
energy in carrier-licensed cellular bands, therefore they have significant regulatory and spectrum
leasing implications. Unlike the technologies that actively disrupt cellular communications, users
employing unlicensed passive sensing technology do not require specific prior FCC licensing, or
cellular carrier spectrum leases.

12

Manufacturers of unlicensed equipment obtain FCC

authorization for all products prior to sale.
Sensing technologies provide tools to assist with enforcement. Unlike technologies that
effectively disable the ability to place voice calls or obtain other cellular data services from
illegal cellular devices from a distance, sensing technology requires direct intervention by
correctional staff to physically locate, confiscate, deny use of, or and analyze illegal devices.
12

To clarify, active sensing or detection-only technology also exists. These devices actively ping contraband devices
to obtain identifying information. These pings are active emissions and therefore these systems are subject to FCC
licensing and, like managed access technology, require carrier spectrum lease agreements.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

13

Institutions that use managed access technology typically use it alongside a combination of
passive technology based tools to minimize the number of devices successfully smuggled into a
correctional facility by screening visitors and employees as they enter a facility. The deployment
and use of managed access technology in a real-world correctional setting is the focus of this
report.

Jamming Technology
Jamming technology employs active transmitters that emit radio energy on cellular network
frequencies; energy designed to disrupt all communication processes between network
infrastructure and cellular devices. Jamming system signals used for this purpose need to be
sufficiently strong enough to essentially “mask”, or overwhelm, key components of wireless
signals associated with nearby cellular networks. Jamming signals are indiscriminant, meaning
that they disrupt all communications, including 911 calls, not just calls associated with specific
devices or telephone numbers.

As with managed access, poorly implemented jamming

technologies are often strong enough to disrupt signals from nearby legitimate commercial
network customers including public safety radios operating on nearby frequencies.
Deployment of this technology to combat illegal cellular phones involves detailed
engineering design of a system tailored to each correctional facility as part of an implementation
process. Inevitably, as with any wireless technology, there are variations in how jamming
systems are implemented, and deployment specifics are highly dependent on the environment
and specific jamming target. The end result is a blunt-force tool used to disable all cellular radio
signals used for network connections. As noted above, current FCC policy is to consider all
forms of radio frequency jamming to be illegal, including the use of jamming to counteract
illegal cell phone use in correctional settings.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

14

Network-based Technology: The Kill Switch
Network-based technology can facilitate targeting, and disabling, of specific cellular devices
(i.e., activate a “kill switch”). A kill switch capability requires a two part solution; installation
of intelligence into carrier network infrastructure alongside use of a “kill switch” function
installed in all cellular devices sold in the United States. As with managed access this process
relies on the success of processes to identify, capture and then ultimately deny the ability of a
device to complete calls through a carrier’s network. In current FCC proceedings (FCC, 2013),
the cellular industry suggests that a kill-switch capability, developed primarily to protect
consumers and combat the growing problem of stolen phones, should be a voluntary or opt-in
technology13,14. This opt-in approach would obviously not work to combat illegal cell phone use
in correctional facilities. Technical changes associated with kill switch capabilities need to be
accompanied by closely coordinated policy and procedures that outline how correctional
personnel can legally request, process, and then disable specific cellular devices; a complex
process with unknown costs for all entities involved.
Ongoing debate in regard to policy and business issues associated with the use of both
jamming and “kill switch” alternatives appear to be more challenging than underlying technical
issues. The kill switch alternative would not require the installation of any active infrastructure at

13

This kind of blocking technology is employed today by cellular carriers as an optional service to disable
lost/stolen phones: For example, see http://newsroom.sprint.com/blogs/sprint-perspectives/sprint--at-the-front-linesagainst-phone-traffickers.htm
14
In August 2014, California passed a law to require a kill switch in new smartphones. The law was created to
address the increasing problem of stolen smartphones; it is not designed to address correctional issues. Kill-switch
processes would need to be further revised to address correctional enforcement needs. Considered in context of
correctional issues, if the kill switch function defined in the CA legislation is activated by default in all new
handsets, is likely that it would simply be turned off/disabled before a phone is smuggled into a prison. The CA law
does not apply to feature phones, and the law verbiage specifies that it only applies to smartphones based on LTE
and/or successor technologies, meaning that 3G smartphones using non-LTE technology are likely exempt. It also
does not apply to second-hand phones. There are several aspects of the California law that limit its utility to
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0951addressing the correctional
problem.
See:
1000/sb_962_bill_20140812_enrolled.pdf

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

15

a correctional facility, instead requiring use of passive monitoring technology to assist in
obtaining key information for identification and targeting of specific illegal cell phones.

Network-based Technology: Managed Access
Managed access, a term used here to describe a category of technology rather than a specific
product, is an active technology. The FCC indicates that managed access products are in service,
or authorized, in California, South Carolina, Texas, Maryland and Mississippi (see FCC NPRM
13-58 page 6, 2013). This technology is being deployed because, unlike jamming alternatives, it
can be used within the bounds of current regulatory structure.

Many aspects related to its

implementation are currently under regulatory review to determine legal definitions, funding,
specifications for deployment, adherence to cellular network spectrum lease issues, and carrier
obligations related to ongoing changes in their networks. All of these decisions will affect
managed access deployment and maintenance procedures.
To gauge the complexities of managed access from the perspective of network carriers, the
Department of Commerce (2010) engaged cellular providers to assess their perceptions of
managed access technology. A sample of the informative viewpoints is provided below:
“Prohibiting access to the commercial cellular networks would solve 90-95 percent of all
illegal communications within a prison…Verizon Wireless mentions that a managed
access system can prevent phones from switching to other bands and would not need to
intercept as many spectrum bands within prisons” (p. 20).
“T-Mobile USA reinforces the effectiveness of a managed access solution in protecting
public safety spectrum…a managed access system will provide more precise control over
the bands selected for disruption, thus preventing interference with public safety wireless
communication .…unexpected interference to other services is reduced” (p. 21).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

16

“The wireless providers – AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile USA –
all respond in favor of a managed access solution. This is due in large part to the
system‘s ability to allow public safety, 9-1-1, and authorized calls to reach the cellular
networks” (p. 21).
“Verizon Wireless states that managed access can allow the system operator to maintain a
list of approved callers – a list that can be amended constantly as subscribers that live,
work, or frequently visit areas near the prison and are captured by the system are
identified – whose calls will be allowed to [be] completed rather than blocked. Managed
access systems allow prison officials, working with the system operator and nearby
licensees, to set the parameters of how captured calls are handled. For example, prison
officials can decide to allow the first call from a device not on the approved list to be
completed, but block subsequent calls in order to prevent blocking calls from random
subscribers near the prison, can decide to limit the duration of calls from non-approved
callers, or can deliver a message to non-approved callers letting them know their call is
being blocked by the prison system and advising them to move away from the prison to
try again” (p. 22).
Anecdotal support, such as that noted above, is the only readily available currency upon
which managed access can be evaluated by correctional officials who serve as potential
consumers.

This lack of reliable information is a result of the technology’s recent emergence.

Perhaps the most informed and well-articulated assessment of managed access to date is
California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) (2012) report. This research was driven
by California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s interest in a managed access
system to combat cell phone problems in their facilities. Importantly, this study did not evaluate

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

an operational managed access system.

17

Rather, investigators conducted focus groups with

subject matter experts on the technology, reviewed vendor literature, system performance, and
engineering information, and consulted experts in the field of corrections.
While the CCST report noted a number of interesting findings pertaining to contraband cell
phones and prison security generally, the key findings related to managed access technology are
highlighted here. Worth noting is that the report found glaring inconsistencies across physical
screening at state prisons.

This security shortcoming translates directly into the need for

enhanced countermeasures within prisons such as managed access technology. Complexities of
cellular signal capture were noted as a significant technological inhibitor of managed access to
be implemented and maintained. A highly dynamic mobile industry that is driven by innovation
and consumer demand makes it increasingly difficult to update mechanisms to capture signals
and thus block calls.
The CCST report also noted concerns regarding the efficacy of managed access and its
ability to be effective within the correctional environment. Specifically, “…managed access
system technology today is not mature enough for immediate large-scale deployments…[and]
specific protocols for success have yet to be defined” (p. 6). These concerns with managed
access were noted as resulting from a lack of available evidence and baseline performance
benchmarks of the technology. As such, the report closes with a call for the need to conduct
independent research of an operational managed access system within a correctional
environment.
The present report seeks to answer this call by providing evidence from the first operational
managed access system in a prison in the United States. Next is a conceptual overview and
technical description of how managed access technology operates. Following this discussion, the

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

18

case study approach is elaborated and the findings are presented. The report concludes with
insights and recommendations for future research on managed access technology.

Technical Introduction to Managed Access Technology Concepts
and Operations
In this report certain wireless concepts related to managed access of cellular technology are
emphasized and described below. Concepts related to wireless interfaces and system coverage
are independent of vendor-specific managed access implementation choices. For example, the
architectural merits of distributed antenna technology and how they compare to alternative small
cell technologies, and vice versa, are not addressed here. Nor are details of specific cellular
provider networks and/or related cellular technology protocols.

Each managed access

technology product and deployment will be unique in many ways, dependent upon the local
environment, regardless of the underlying managed access architecture. An examination of
“features” associated with competing commercial managed access products are also outside the
scope of this report. An overview of cellular system coverage follows, presented in the context
of cellular and managed access technology. Managed access wireless system coverage, and how
this type of system interacts with nearby commercial cellular networks is fundamental to all
managed access deployments, regardless of which commercial managed access product is
selected and deployed.
Cellular Technology
Cellular telephony, as a wireless radio service, functions much like other radio technologies.
The use of radio technology, when boiled down to bare essentials, involves a process of inserting
information of various forms into a radio transmitter which utilizes radio frequency energy to

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

19

convey the information through the environment wirelessly. As the wireless energy transits
through the atmosphere and surrounding environment some level of radio signal degradation
occurs due to a number of predictable and/or unpredictable factors prior to reaching a receiver.
If the received signal is intact, a compatible receiver converts the information back into a format
useful for its intended purpose. Protocols and procedures used to process the information during
wireless transmission, and specific radio frequencies upon which the transmission occurs, vary.
Some processes are based on open standards and others on proprietary technologies. Processes
are also subject to specific engineering and business needs as radio network systems are
developed and deployed. For example, commercial carriers Verizon, Sprint and AT&T each use
wireless technologies based on 3GPP LTE standards, but their network wireless interfaces are
different in many ways, and non-interoperable, because of specific implementation choices.
Cellular network operators are licensed and authorized by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to employ specific radio spectrum frequencies throughout specific
geographical areas. Licenses are often granted following successful bids levied in a spectrum
auction, often at a cost to a carrier measured in billions of dollars. In exchange for the proceeds
from winning auction bids, the FCC grants the winning carrier exclusive use of frequencies so
they can build network infrastructure and customer interface in the most optimal way to suit their
business plans, as long as they do not exceed the technical and regulatory limitations associated
with their licenses. Exclusivity means that they retain sole legal access to authorized spectrum,
and this is a right that operators defend vigorously. 15 Any unauthorized signals emitted in carrier

15

There are a number of Federal proceedings underway that are investigating ways to “share” spectrum, with a goal
to more efficiently utilize limited spectrum resources. For example, FCC Docket GN 13-185, Regard to
Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands, is examining
approaches to sharing spectrum between commercial and federal users; Docket GN 12-354 is considering
commercial operations in the range of 3550-3650 MHz, currently used by federal users. If these efforts are
successful, and commercial carriers are allowed access to new spectrum resources, or other spectrum users are

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

20

controlled spectrum space are considered to be interference by the carrier and the FCC.
Managed access, considered as a category of technology, operates on these cellular carrierexclusive network access frequencies to selectively disrupt cellular communications. This
process requires close coordination with carriers to ensure systems operate in a legal manner.
For readers who are unfamiliar with wireless cellular technology, it is important to
understand that there are constraints related to how wireless systems are designed and how they
operate. Subtle differences are significant when considered in context of how managed network
coverage is established and maintained. Many radio technologies, such as land mobile radios,
are designed to operate in relatively quiet and interference/noise-free wireless environments.
These radio services are typically designed to function with relatively few high-powered
transmitters using antennas mounted atop tall towers to create networks engineered to operate in
a relatively uncluttered radio environment, using technology relatively intolerant of radio
interference. This type of network provides efficient signal coverage throughout an area using
the fewest number of network sites, via the minimal amount of supporting infrastructure (i.e.,
additional base stations/repeaters). This is often referred to as technology operating in a “noiselimited” radio environment.
Commercial cellular radio infrastructure can be characterized by a few key distinguishing
characteristics:
1. Cellular networks, similar to trunked land mobile radio technology, are bifurcated,
composed of a network to customer air interface, often referred to as the “radio access
network, or RAN” (i.e., wireless access to cellular towers/base stations) and a network
backbone interconnecting the cellular towers;
2. Cellular networks are comprised of a relatively large number of lower powered base
stations at cell sites designed with relatively low profile towers densely spaced in a way
to efficiently support the greatest number of connections (i.e., users) via the customer
allowed shared access to cellular frequencies, the technical implications facing managed access technology may
become very complicated.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

21

wireless interface (i.e., the RAN) and/or to convey the largest amount of data through the
access network by immediately offloading customer traffic from the RAN onto non-RAN
network backbone connections (e.g., microwave radio, fiber optic cable, copper cable);
3. Cellular technology, similar to land mobile radio, must support mobility. Cellular
networks are designed to support the movement of large numbers of relatively lowpowered devices between cell towers that make up the RAN, while maintaining network
and data connections, and;
4. Cellular access networks are constructed using a defined set of radio frequencies and a
high level of frequency re-use and efficiency in the RAN (i.e., using the same frequency
over and over again).
Because of the high level of frequency re-use, cellular technologies are designed to operate
amid a relatively high level of radio interference created by adjacent cell sites. This is referred
to as an “interference-limited” RF environment, whereby a baseline level of signal interference is
expected, in exchange for increased levels of spectrum re-use and spectrum efficiency, driven by
creating the greatest rate of return on a carrier’s spectrum investment. Cellular base station
density varies by business needs and typically mirrors the number of potential cellular
customers; thus the number of base stations in an urban setting is typically greater and more
densely deployed than the number of base stations in a rural setting where potential rate of return
on investment is significantly less.
In a cellular environment, as with land mobile radio, wireless transmission occurs in two
directions. Cellular transmissions from a base station radio transmitter, directed to receiver
components within portable cell phone devices are often described as “downlink” transmissions.
A transmission in the reverse direction, originating from a relatively low-powered portable
transmitter (e.g., cell phone) directed to a base station receiver, is often referred to as an “uplink”
connection. In a cellular network, the constraining wireless link is almost always the uplink
between a low-powered end-user device and a network base station. If either the downlink or
uplink connection components between a device and network fail, or become interrupted, then

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

22

communications to or from the cellular device will not work. Both managed access and jamming
technologies rely on highly engineered systems to provide radio frequency signal coverage on
cellular network access frequencies, but this coverage is required for quite different reasons.
Jamming technology disrupts the communications path between the user and the network.
Managed access does not; it depends on successful communications to first capture a wireless
device and then grants or denies network services available to that device.
A managed access system is, fundamentally, a cellular network with limited scope and reach.
A managed access network is designed to present the “dominant” network signal within its
limited coverage area.

Managed access networks are designed to operate using the same

frequencies and protocols as those used by nearby commercial cellular carriers. Cellular devices,
such as mobile phones, work by listening for a downlink signal, interacting with the strongest
cell tower, and then automatically attaching to the network.

A managed access system

“intercepts” contraband cell phones by presenting a stronger network presence to a cellular
device than nearby commercial towers do. Device to tower communications occurring via the
RAN air interface uplink/downlink connections and network core should be further envisioned as
having two distinct components: network signaling and customer traffic.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

23

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corporation

Figure 1. Cellular Network Concepts
Signaling transactions between the device and network that pass through the RAN are
essentially part of a network management process used to identify and capture the calling device
and then control service connections by requesting, establishing, reserving, and then releasing
network resources as calls, data connection requests, or when inbound received calls are directed
from the network towards a specific device. These communications are often referred to,
collectively, as “overhead” communications. It is important to understand that wireless network
backbone capacity is limited; therefore it is allocated to customers on an as-needed basis.
Overhead communications associated with network and service management are constant and
typically minimal in comparison to bandwidth required to support user voice or data
communications.

Managed access technology leverages the distinct split between network

control and user connection aspects of cellular technology by “managing” network services
granted to a specific end user or device. When a cell phone is turned on it initializes its operating
system software, searches for and finds a compatible network and then connects to the strongest
cell tower. Overhead signaling communications processes are used to “capture” and then direct

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

24

how the end-user cellular device interact with the network. This overhead process is used to
identify the device, manage how the device interacts with the network (i.e., which tower, which
frequency, device identification, user identification and service level) and to facilitate how
services are delivered.
To phrase this differently, a cellular device “roams” onto the managed access system when it
is operated within the managed access coverage area and becomes subject to local control,
implemented via the managed access network which then manages service requests associated
with devices16. Managed access system operations center around policy that defines which calls
can be completed and which can be terminated. A managed access system provides the ability
to selectively complete call requests made from select authorized phones or emergency calls
from all phones, per facility policies and legal guidelines. In addition to blocking illegal calls,
managed access systems also provide the ability to capture statistical data in regard to devices
that attach to the system and/or data related to call attempts made from attached devices.
Managed Access Network Coverage
Wireless access network signal coverage envisioned from a simplified conceptual perspective
can be depicted as an invisible cloud of radio energy at specific radio frequencies. The energy
within a cloud associated with an entire network is additive, comprised of overlapping signals
emitted from all antennas located on adjacent cell towers that use the same frequencies. Areas
with inadequate signal levels are often described as “coverage holes”17. Transmitter components

16

The term “roaming” is used loosely here; managed access systems actually appear to be part of the commercial
network by presenting a valid commercial cellular Mobile Network Code to cellular devices. Outbound service
requests are explicitly “denied” or “blocked”. Inbound requests are also defeated because the managed access
system does not make unauthorized phones visible to the commercial networks; therefore inbound calls to
unauthorized phones connected to the managed access network cannot be completed.
17
Note that the term “coverage hole” in context of commercial network coverage describes an area from which calls
cannot be completed. A “coverage hole”, in context of a managed access (or jamming) system describes exactly the

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

25

in a portable/mobile cellular device also emit a similar cloud of radio frequency energy that is
centered on the current location of the device.

How radio energy propagates through the

atmosphere is predictable, to some extent, particularly in highly engineered cellular
environments. For the purposes of illustration, carrier signals are depicted as different shades of
color in the illustrations that follow.

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 2. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Nearby Environment

Figure 2 depicts a hypothetical correctional facility sitting adjacent to a town and residential
area.

In this example “Carrier A” provides wireless services throughout the town and

surrounding areas, including wireless coverage that extends throughout the correctional facility.
This cellular network operates on two different frequency bands (band A and band C, with
opposite, an area within the managed access footprint from which connection to a commercial network can be
completed. Both describe locations with inadequate signal levels.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

26

differing areas of coverage.) Figure 3 provides a top-down view of cellular network radio
frequency (RF) coverage for carrier A in this setting.

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 3. Conceptual Top-Down View of Signal Coverage from Cellular Carrier “A”
Two additional, competing, networks (B and C) are similarly depicted in Figure 4 and Figure
5. Coverage for each of these three cellular networks partially encompasses our hypothetical
correctional facility. Each network is designed to provide a level of coverage suitable to the

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

27

operator’s business model and customer base, using uplink design criteria associated with a
typical portable device performance profile. Some level of inter-carrier resource sharing may
occur when common network resources are used or when a tower is leased to two or more
competing carriers. Although each network is unique, there is likely to be significant overlap in
network coverage.

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 4. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility and Carriers “B” and “C”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

28

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 5. Conceptual Top-Down View of Signal Coverage from Cellular Carriers “B” and
“C”

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

29

Figure 6 and Figure 7 combine individual carrier views to provide a single view of all three
carrier networks. They are included to depict the complexity of the entire cellular wireless
environment, and how combined cellular carrier coverage overlaps throughout the hypothetical
correctional facility.

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 6. Hypothetical Correctional Facility with Carriers “A”, “B” and “C”
It is important to acknowledge and understand this complexity as a combined threat, because
any technology deployed to counteract illegal operation of cellular telephones in a correctional
environment must, simultaneously, address the entire combined scope of devices connecting to
all carrier networks.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

30

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 7. Conceptual Top-Down View: Signal Coverage: Cellular Carriers “A”, “B” and
“C”
It is important to note that the commercial carrier network environment is not static.
Carriers have the freedom to change the topology and makeup of their network to optimize how
their RAN interface frequencies and other network resources are used. Towers/network base
stations, and carrier-specific network protocols are all subject to change as the commercial
networks evolve. Commercial networks are not interoperable and must be addressed separately
because different radio frequencies and protocols are used. For instance, Carrier A and Carrier B
may both operate using the same frequency band, yet network devices may not be interoperable

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

31

because they have licensed and use different parts of the band. Network changes lead to
corresponding changes in how cellular customer devices operate, and which uplink/downlink
frequencies and/or protocols are used to support the services that they provide, and therefore
network coverage changes as well. As noted above; as cellular operators make changes to their
networks, the technology used to counteract the illegal use of cellular telephones must be
adapted to ensure ongoing effectiveness. A correctional entity operating a managed access
system or consuming services provided via a leased system must ensure that adaptations to
counter carrier network changes are handled in a pro-active manner or the system will not retain
its effectiveness as the surrounding cellular environment changes and new end user devices
become available. Design, deployment, and operation of a managed access system is not a onetime event, it requires ongoing optimization and capability assessment in response to the
surrounding environment.
Capture and Roaming
A managed access system is a multi-band, multi-carrier, cellular network of limited scope
and coverage that presents itself as, and operates using frequencies leased from, each of the
licensed commercial carriers.

A managed access system emulates the protocols of each

commercial carrier, simultaneously, so it can capture and control calls made using devices
designed to work on all of the commercial carrier networks. Network coverage of a managed
access system is designed to create and present a dominant signal on all commercial frequencies
within a pre-defined area; typically defined by geographical boundaries established in spectrum
leases established with each carrier and associated with an entire correctional facility, or at a
minimum in specific areas where prisoners are present. This concept is illustrated in areas with
grey shading, intended to depict managed access coverage in Figure 8 and Figure 9.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 8. Conceptual View of a Correctional Facility with a Managed Access System

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

32

Case study of Managed Access Technology

33

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 9. A Conceptual Managed Access System Network and Underlay

Managed access signal coverage is designed to overwhelm those emitted by the nearby
commercial network towers. Another, perhaps more familiar, way to describe this process is to
envision the managed access network as a cloud of radio energy that sits between illegal devices
and the commercial networks. Cellular devices operating within the managed access “cloud”
(coverage area) “roam” onto, and connect to the “managed access cellular network” instead of
towers that are part of neaby commercial networks. This is analogous to, (but not quite the same
as) roaming processes that occur between compatible commercial networks, because the
managed access system is presented to the cellphone as part of the commercial network.
Once a connected device is captured, the “managed” aspects of the technology come into
play. Disposition of calls originating from devices falling under control of the managed access

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

34

network is determined by state law, FCC regulations, correctional facility policies/regulations
associated with operation of the network, and terms in the agreements established between the
correctional facility and each of the comercial cellular carriers. Legitimate calls, such as those
from authorized employees, or 911 emergency calls placed to Public Safety Answering Points
(PSAP) can be handed off to cellular carriers for further processing, or routed directly to a PSAP.
Implementation specifics associated with managed access are both deployment and system
feature dependent.
Similar to network backhaul connections noted above, to support legitimate calls, some form
of network connectivity is required between the managed access network and nearby cellular
carrier networks, and/or directly to local emergency 911 centers. Implementation choices are
subject to local implementation decisions and policies, Connectivity is acknowledged as simple
network back haul interconnections in Figure 10. It is important to acknowledge that MAS
design must consider both local policies and physical implementation of interconnections, and
the recurring cost for these connections must be acknowledged as an ongoing operating expense.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

35

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 10. Managed Access System and Cellular System Interconnections
Coverage Related Maintenance
To comply with operational conditions defined within cellular spectrum leases, coverage
must not extend beyond a well-defined service perimeter. System coverage changes can have
significant impact on effectiveness if it creates coverage holes within the correctional facility.
Correctional facility coverage holes can allow users to bypass the managed access system and
access commercial networks. Conversely, signal leakage that extends coverage beyond the
agreed upon managed access coverage area will lead to disruption of legitimate cellular users in
areas where the managed access signal strength overwhelms coverage from a commercial
cellular system operator.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

36

Source: Phil Harris, Engility Corp.

Figure 11. Managed Access System Coverage Hole
Note that a managed access system operator has a legal obligation to ensure bleed-over does
not occur beyond the defined coverage boundaries of a facility, in contrast to an operational need
to establish ubiquitous managed access coverage within that facility.

Once constructed a

managed access system is carefully activated and calibrated so that meets obligations associated
with carrier spectrum leases and FCC rules to ensure it does not interfere with nearby
commercial operations. After spectrum-lease lease obligations are achieved, the system can then
be tested and further optimized to minimize any coverage holes to ensure expected operational
effectiveness is realized within connectional facility. Ongoing compliance testing requirements

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

37

and methodology related to spectrum lease compliance may occur on a regular schedule, or in an
ad-hoc fashion, depending upon spectrum lease details. Testing obligations and methodology
used to confirm ongoing performance goals linked to operational effectiveness are subject to
interpretation because these goals are not mandatory; therefore they must be documented in a
concise technical manner by the deploying agency, and clearly defined as a requirement in
procurement documents to ensure that ongoing operational testing requirements, costs, and
associated obligations are well understood by both system suppliers and operators.
Coverage leakage can lead to FCC enforcement action and/or complaints and public relation
issues.

Coverage issues must be addressed as part of ongoing system maintenance.

As

previously noted, coverage changes may occur as a by-product of change within nearby cellular
networks, or new capabilities introduced in commercial networks operated in areas adjacent to
the correctional facility. For instance, a new commercial tower installation or a change in
commercial network parameters (such as addition of a new band or protocol) can directly affect
managed access system coverage 18. Coverage issues may also result from infrastructure damage
to either the commercial network or the managed access system as a result of weather damage or
component failure.

Any change that affects the relative balance between the strength of

managed access and nearby commercial network signal strengths must be resolved.
This overview of managed access concepts and operations has described the conceptual
functions of the technology and has identified some of the various factors that can influence
system performance, establishing a foundation for subsequent research on user experiences with

18

A managed access system design, to include carrier-specific managed access antenna placement, needs to address
and optimize coverage for each carrier's frequencies; especially if the towers are not co-located or there are different
deployment scenarios and each carrier transmits at different power levels.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

managed access technology.

38

The following section of the report will discuss the research

approach used to generate knowledge about a managed access system deployment.

Methodology
The objectives of this research are to systematically document and provide insight into the
implementation, operations, and potential impacts of managed access communication
technology. Given the contemporary emergence of managed access system technology as a
method to control contraband cell phone use in correctional facilities, the current research is
exploratory in nature. A case study approach is most appropriate for this study since very little is
known about the technology and the environment in which the technology operates is highly
complex (Fitzpatrick and Sanders, 2003; Yin, 1994). A series of interviews and teleconferences,
in addition to the secondary analysis of managed access system data, are employed to generate a
fundamental understanding of managed access experiences, identify challenges and lessons
learned, and provide insights on contraband cell phone activity.
In partnership with the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC), a site visit to the
Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP) was conducted May 2012 in support of this research.
Members of the research team included two criminologists, two communications engineers, and
a senior policy advisor from the National Institute of Justice. Additional site visit attendees
included individuals that were directly responsible for the implementation, management, and
oversight of the managed access system. This included a law enforcement officer (MDOC), a
managed access systems administrator (MDOC), a managed access system senior manager
(MDOC), a technician from the MSP inmate calling system vendor (Global Tel Link), and a
technology executive from the managed access system vendor (Tecore Networks).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

During the site visit researchers administered a semi-structured focus group.

39

Interview

questions were targeted towards perceptions of managed access system usefulness in combating
contraband cell phones, obstacles to implementation, successes, and areas in need of
improvement (see Appendix B). King (1994) notes that semi-structured approaches are most
appropriate for exploratory research as this method relies on open-ended questions that result
from probing by the researcher and often times a free-flowing dialogue is created that guides the
interview process. Detailed notes were taken individually by four members of the research team
(two criminologists and two communications engineers) and then reviewed and transcribed into a
single source document. To enhance the validity of interpretations from the site visit, additional
teleconferences and continual communication exchanges with the Commissioner of MDOC and
MDOC personnel occurred to solicit feedback, clarify and reaffirm the information gathered (see
King, 1994).
Official de-identified aggregate data was provided by MDOC for secondary data analysis.
These data were extracted from MDOC management information systems used to monitor
captured transmissions from the managed access system and cell phone confiscations. Two sets
of managed access system data are used. The first consists of the monthly count of all call
attempts captured by the managed access system implementation in August 2010 to July 2012.
The second data set includes daily counts of call attempts captured by the system across a five
month period of March 2012 to July 2012. These data are a disaggregated sub-sample of the
monthly count data and demonstrates the type of raw information captured by the system. In
addition to the frequency of daily call attempts detected, these data include a variety of useful
information. The type of call attempts detected by the system can be separated by signals using
call or SMS text cellular functions. The managed access system captures International Mobile

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

40

Station Equipment Identity (IMEI) numbers, which identifies a unique cell phone device. IMEI
serves as a measure of the number of unique devices that are responsible for generating signals.
Finally, the system also captures the destination number or combination of numbers or keys
dialed to place outgoing calls and SMS texts. The results are presented as descriptives.
It is important to note for the secondary analysis portion of this research that any call attempt
captured by the system is assumed to emanate from an unauthorized, illegal, contraband cell
phone. This assumption is informed by how the managed access technology system operates.
Transmissions made from unauthorized cell phones are terminated and captured by the system,
while transmission requests made from approved cell phones can be completed.
A third and final set of secondary analysis examines the case flow processing of contraband
cell phone devices. Managed access system data were merged with internal MDOC cell phone
confiscation reports from January to April 2012. This enables a brief “snapshot” comparison of
case flow trends in confiscation and subsequent sanction and prosecution at MSP relative to all
of MDOC’s facilities. Confiscation reports include data on the number of confiscated cell
phones found on inmates (on person) or in common areas of MSP as well as the number of rule
violation reports filed, cases forwarded to the district attorney, and cases with grand jury
pending. Data on the number of unique devices identified by the managed access system is only
available for two out of the four month period. Descriptive results are presented.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

41

Context: Mississippi State Penitentiary, Parchman Mississippi
Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP)19
Mississippi State Penitentiary (MSP) is a maximum security facility located at the town of
Parchman in Sunflower County, Mississippi. MSP is the state’s oldest correctional facility,
opening in 1901.

Parchman is a rural area of northwestern Mississippi, and the facility

encompasses approximately 18,000 acres.

MDOC operates their Agricultural Enterprises

division at MSP, which farms 6,300 acres of vegetables, rice, soybeans and corn. Figure 12
provides an overview of the location of MSP, reflecting both the geographic dimensions of the
MSP property and setting. The red line shows the approximate boundary of the penitentiary.
The circle in the interior indicates the MSP water tower that serves as the primary managed
access system antenna system support structure. Subsystems are installed within all of MSP’s
inmate housing units. All of the units are identified by their unit number, except for the Hospital
(Unit 42).

19

Information presented in this section describing MSP was gleaned from annual Mississippi Department of
Corrections reports (see Mississippi Department of Corrections, n.d.).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

42

Source: Google Earth, with annotation by Fred Frantz and Pete Small, Engility Corp.

Figure 12. Mississippi State Penitentiary Grounds
MSP has a capacity of approximately 4,648 beds and its infrastructure includes fifty-eight
support buildings. MSP has seven different housing units, ranging in size from fifty-six beds in
the hospital to 1,521 beds at a primary farming support unit (Unit 29). Only male offenders are
housed at MSP. Custody levels managed at MSP include offenders assigned to minimum,
medium, and close restricted security classifications.

All offenders classified as protective

custody, administrative segregation, and death row are housed at MSP. Definitions for these
classifications are provided in Appendix C.

Mississippi State Penitentiary operations are

administered by management staff consisting of a superintendent, three area-based wardens, and
five deputy or associate wardens.

There are approximately 850 security and non-security

employees at MSP.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

43

The facility’s capacity was reported to be 4,648. To provide context of the inmate population
managed by MSP, Table 1 illustrates total annual inmates populations (as of June 30 each year)
for the MDOC and the U.S. as a whole. The overall incarcerated population trend for the MDOC
is consistent with state-level incarceration trends across the nation. Incremental increases are
observed since 2000 that have been stabilizing in recent years. The population of offenders
housed at MSP has been declining since 2000.

Fifteen percent of the total incarcerated

population managed by MDOC is housed at MSP.
Table 1. MSP and MDOC Offender Populations
Year

MSP

Total MDOC

2000
2005
2010
2011
2012

5,229
4,340
3,261
3,055
3,354

18,005
20,085
20,774
21,021
21,860

Percent of MDOC
Population at MSP
29%
22%
16%
15%
15%

US State Average of
Total Incarcerated
38,770
43,900
45,402
44,812
44,568

Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections (2014a) and Bureau of Justice Statistics (2013).
Note: US State Average of Total Incarcerated inmates was calculated as the total national population of incarcerated
inmates divided by 50.

Findings
Findings are presented in the following three sections. The first section, “Contraband Cell
Phones in Mississippi State Penitentiary,” provides insight on MDOC’s experiences managing
the contraband cell phone issues at MSP. The next section, “Managed Access Operational
Challenges and Lessons Learned.” will identify and discuss both operational challenges and
lessons learned from the managed access installation at MSP. These first two set of findings
were noted during the site visit and from numerous teleconferences and email exchanges with
key informants and stakeholders involved with the managed access system deployment at MSP.
The final section, “Contraband Cell Phone Activity,” presents descriptive results of MSP’s
managed access system data. These findings pertain to captured cell phone transmissions from

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

44

within MSP and also provide profiles for select mobile devices operating within MSP to
illustrate device usage. This section also begins to explore preliminary outcomes on the effect of
managed access system on cell phone confiscations. Important limitations and assumptions of
these findings are noted in the concluding sections of this report.

Contraband Cell Phones in Mississippi State Penitentiary
Extent of Problem. It is difficult to quantify the extent of contraband cell phones available.
MDOC representatives estimated that approximately 25% of the total incarcerated population at
MSP was believed to have been in possession of a contraband cell phone. Using the most recent
data available on MSP’s total inmate population (see Table 1), this equates to 838 inmates in
2012.

MDOC, like most states, did not begin keeping record of contraband cell phones

confiscated until 2007. For the year 2008, 2,214 contraband cell phones were recovered at MSP.
This number grew to over 3,400 in 2013 (Mississippi Department of Corrections, 2014b).
There are a variety of factors that are influenced by the presence and use of contraband cell
phones. MDOC representatives noted that cellular devices were being used to gain unapproved
phone and Internet access privileges. Importantly, these cellular communications cannot be
monitored or recorded. There are documented instances across the nation that these devices are
also used to participate in criminal activities including drug dealing, planning and assisting
escapes, extorting, threatening or ordering violence against a public or private citizen, and
harassing crime victims. The potential for continued criminal behavior is one of the main
concerns among focus group participants. Additionally, contraband cell phone use also affects
state budgets and Mississippi taxpayer burdens. The use of contraband cell phones reduces the
need for designated inmate phone system use, which decreases the amount of revenue available
to MSP to support treatment and welfare programming.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

45

Means of Obtaining Contraband Cell Phones. MDOC representatives indicated that MSP’s
contraband cell phone challenge is associated, at least in part, with visitors and correctional staff
members that are paid by inmates to covertly smuggle contraband cell phones for inmate use.
MDOC personnel estimate the market value for a contraband cell phone at MSP to range from
$300 to $1,000 per phone; which makes these devices valuable commodities.
A critical issue for MSP administrators has been the recruitment of MSP correctional
officers. MSP is the largest employer in Sunflower County; a county with a 15% unemployment
rate which is twice as high as the unemployment rate for the state of Mississippi as a whole (U.S.
Department of Labor Statistics, 2015). It was stated that the location of the MSP facility limits
the correctional officer employee applicant pool, making it difficult to select highly qualified
personnel to fill necessary vacancies and maintain the security of the facility. Similarly, the
entry level salary offered to correctional officers has the potential to incentivize contraband cell
phone smuggling. That is, the sale of one cell phone has the potential to provide multiple days’
worth of wages as correctional offices across Mississippi earn an average wage of $13.88/hour
(U.S. Department of Labor and Statistics, 2013).
As noted, MSP is located in an expansive rural area. MDOC representatives discussed
instances in which citizens have thrown or catapulted cell phones over outer MSP perimeter
barriers.

MSP inmates also spend a significant amount of time working for Agricultural

Enterprises and/or performing community services to local municipalities, counties, and state
agencies. All of these factors provide opportunities for a contraband cell phone to be accessed
by an inmate.
Toward a Managed Access Solution to Combat MSP’s Contraband Cell Phones. MDOC
examined a number of potential alternative technologies as tools to assist in the battle to control

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

46

illegal cell phone use that would supplement their procedures for contraband searches of persons
entering the facility. MDOC deployed and continues to use canine teams to detect and confiscate
cell phones.

MDOC and also explored several products/systems designed to identify the

presence of phones, including passive cell phone detection technologies. There were a number of
concerns with these technologies when they were piloted including:


Products interfered with officers’ radios.



Products disrupted cell phone communications of MSP employees who reside on the
grounds of the facility.



Products generated false detections, particularly around coax cables.



Products did not perform well due to materials used in prison construction.



Products provided detection, but not location information.



Portable products were bulky, and their use could not be concealed, reducing their
effectiveness.



Manual searches were still required upon detection, which were labor intensive,
disruptive, and exposed officers to potential safety issues.

MDOC considered additional approaches to physically blocking the introduction of cell
phones into the facility such as body scanners and large nets around the perimeter and concluded
that additional measures were required. While MDOC was assessing various passive detection
technologies, it was noted that the Commissioner received an advertisement for a managed
access technology product. This information was passed to Global Tel Link, who held a contract
to be MDOC’s designated landline phone service provider.

After reviewing information

pertaining to a similar system deployment in a Puerto Rico prison in December 2009, MDOC
administrators determined that managed access provided the capabilities needed to affect

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

47

contraband cell phone use in their facilities. MDOC indicated that the managed access system at
MSP was subsequently procured from Tecore on an expedited basis by Global Tel Link, and then
installed, and made fully operational by Tecore in August 2010. MDOC supported the Global
Tel Link deployment process by providing physical infrastructure required to support the system,
to include AC power, fiber optic cable, concrete slabs and other items. MDOC representatives
noted that that the brick and mortar aspects of the system deployment were completed quickly
and the system provider (Tecore) noted that that the foundation for legal framework associated
with spectrum leases had been well underway prior to this deployment. Significant details in
regard to what happened in the first six or seven months in 2010, or in what order things
happened were not provided. The fact that the MSP design is a single site system, which uses an
existing water tower as the primary antenna support, certainly facilitated an accelerated
deployment.
Tecore Networks is the MSP managed access network technology provider.

Tecore's

technology foundation is a product referred to as the iCore®, a software defined all-IP core
network component with a scalable software architecture that provides functionality compatible
with large commercial systems. The iCore® product provides support for current 2G, 3G, and
4G cellular technologies with claims to be upgradeable in support of future 5G technologies.

Managed Access Operational Challenges
A number of operational challenges experienced by MDOC personnel while deploying and
operating a managed access system at MSP were identified. These challenges are presented to
inform practitioners and vendors alike. The former should be conscious of these issues leading
up to, or perhaps in the wake of, a procurement decision. The latter should take these challenges

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

48

into consideration when evaluating their product delivery and maintenance services. Table 2
provides a summary of the operational challenges of managed access found in MSP.
Table 2. Summary of Operational Challenges and Associated Issues
Operational Challenge
1. Managed access has to be routinely
“managed”
2. Managed access must include an
effective self-monitoring capability

3. Signal strength of managed access
systems - signal bleed over

4. Signal strength of managed access
systems – coverage holes

Issues Associated with the Challenge
 Creation and updating of approved
“white list” phone numbers
 Without telemetry and self-monitoring
features a system will not alert the
operator about equipment or
component failure leading to
fluctuations in signal strength.
 The MSP system does not
automatically self-adjust signal
strength.20
 System signal coverage must be
routinely checked to ensure the signal
remains within the designed coverage
parameters and spectrum lease
conditions outside the facility.
 Phones outside prison facility can be
captured by system, resulting in
blocked calls from legitimate
commercial users.
 Coverage must be routinely checked to
ensure the signal strength is dominant
within the facility to remain effective.
 If competing signal strength from a
nearby commercial network is stronger,
illegal cellular call attempts may bypass
the managed access system and create
system coverage holes.

20

This may be true of other managed access products as well. Implementing a system capable of self-monitoring
and adjustment of signal strength for lease compliance would require a network of permanent sensors throughout the
periphery of the correctional facility operational area (e.g., lease area) constantly assessing signal levels to ensure
bleed-over does not occur. Similarly to optimize effectiveness inside the periphery, a network of sensors would be
required within the correctional facility to assess coverage. Both of these “sensor networks” would feed an
automated system to monitor and adjust signal levels; not impossible, but a capability that would significantly
increase system costs. For this reason, ongoing MAS maintenance procedures, to include signal level maintenance,
must be defined as part of the ongoing cost of ownership.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

Operational Challenge
5. E-911 call management

6. Technology upgrades by cellular
carriers can significantly reduce effect
system effectiveness.

7. Managed access systems should be
hardened to resist damaging weather
conditions.

8. Managed access systems should be
hardened against sabotage: Inmates
may attempt to sabotage system
infrastructure.

49

Issues Associated with the Challenge
 Requires cooperation with both cellular
carriers and local Public Safety
Answering Points.
Implementation varies by vendor and
local requirements; Tecore directs 911
calls to public safety answering.
 Managed access technology must be in
sync with the technology deployed in
nearby commercial networks.
 Failure to do so will result in system
coverage holes, create coverage bleed
over, or simply allow callers to bypass
the system.
 Antennas need to be adjusted after
strong winds to restore proper
coverage.
 Commercial electrical power brown
outs effect signal system performance.
 Inmates at MSP had attempted to cut
exposed cables as well as drive a field
tractor
into
managed
access
infrastructure.

Managed access must be routinely managed. MDOC stated that they anticipated the system
would be a “plug-and-play”, based on vendor information; however unexpected real-world
elements came into play that changed initial expectations in regard to how the system should
perform. MDOC stated that occasional system maintenance-related performance issues are
addressed as they occur. MDOC stressed that confirmation of the coverage area was an ongoing
maintenance task. MDOC personnel indicated that they did not anticipate the resources required
to maintain and manage the authorized caller database. It was unclear what specific personnel
were permitted for inclusion on the approved call list at MSP. No policies with respect to
organizational rank or position for inclusion on the approved list were observed. Once this
approved phone list was created and integrated into the managed access system, this approved
list was constantly in need of updates to add or remove authorized devices as personnel were

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

50

hired, given access, or were no longer employed at MSP. No estimate was provided with regard
to the frequency of occurrence of this task at MSP, just that it was “a regular occurrence.”
MDOC emphasized that “managed access is ‘managed.” These sentiments were reiterated
throughout the course of discussions. An over-arching, and generic concept that is critical to the
operation of managed access systems is the fundamental capability to distinguish between
telephone calls that will be blocked by the system from those that will be permitted (i.e., what
other types of communications, such as instant messages or emails, will be passed through the
system). As noted above, the goal is for all compatible cellular devices within system coverage
to connect to the system so that call completion procedures and data service requests can be
processed through the managed access system: therefore only authorized calls or data connection
requests are successfully processed through the managed access system. To be successful,
information about authorized users must be known in advance and pre-configured into the
managed access system database. Once a cell phone connects to the managed access system it is
captured by the system, and those not configured in the database are denied service. For voice
calls, the system intercepts and blocks the call service requests. A voice notification advises
callers that it is a felony to use an unauthorized cell phone device within the facility. Unlike
intercepted voice calls, no feedback is provided to a user if a text message is blocked by the
system; unauthorized data/text service requests are simply terminated and not completed by the
managed access system.
Global Tel Link telephone analysts work with MDOC to implement and maintain a database
to identify devices from which authorized communications can be made once the device
connected to the managed access system. Global Tel Link also records and maintains data
generated by the systems that can be used to identify unauthorized call attempts from illegal

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

51

cellular devices that have connected to the managed access system. They also generate various
managed access reports using data captured by the system. MDOC noted that data stored in
confiscated phones include activity logs which can be compared against event logs created and
stored in the managed access system. This data can be correlated to assist in identification of
system maintenance-related issues. Correlation of these data sets can be used as a tool to
identify times when an increase in completed calls occurred, which may provide an indication
that the managed access equipment appeared to be malfunctioning or inoperable, confirming a
need for system maintenance.
Managed access must include some self-monitoring capability. Global Tel Link employees
are responsible for overall general system maintenance. MDOC indicated that Global Tel Link
initially monitored system operational status remotely and that information in regard to
operational status to include notifications about system impairments, or equipment outages, were
not always passed to MDOC from Global Tel Link. As a result system monitoring procedures
were modified to add requirements for on-site technical support personnel, and adjustments were
made to system fault information reporting procedures to ensure that information is passed to the
MDOC Electronic Surveillance Center which monitors the facility’s security and operations via
closed circuit television.
Further complicating challenges associated with operating the MSP managed access system
was the absence of an effective telemetry, or self-monitoring capability to detect equipment
failures within the system. At the time of the site visit, system performance was measured by
technicians as part of a routine scheduled maintenance program. This implementation lacked
mechanisms to self-diagnose equipment failures that may lead to fluctuations in signal strength
or inoperable equipment. This diagnostic shortcoming was compounded by the issue of adverse

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

52

weather. Weather issues at MSP were significant enough to warrant inclusion in this report to
raise the issue for both practitioners and vendors of managed access 21. System requirements
should be specified in the procurement process mandating that components be hardened
sufficiently to withstand harsh weather conditions experienced at the correctional facility. Note
that, for example, that an antenna which is misaligned as a result of a weather event may remain
fully operational, but MAS transmission (and reception) would be pointed in an incorrect
direction. This would result in unexpected changes in system coverage area resulting in signal
bleed-over or unexpected coverage holes.
Signal strength of managed access system and signal bleed over. Coverage within facility
bounds is directly, and solely, related to system effectiveness and how it meets the needs of its
operator; in other words operators with nearby facilities may have little interest in how a
managed system performs as long as it does not impact their network. System coverage beyond
the boundaries of the correctional facility will effect nearby commercial network users, and
coverage bleed-over is also related to lease and regulatory issues.
Core MSP managed access system components are housed in a telecommunications shelter
that sits adjacent to the MSP water tower which is centrally located in the correctional facility.
The water tower serves as the primary managed access system antenna support structure. The
system also includes subsystems that extend, or improve, coverage within all seven of MSP’s
inmate housing units on the grounds of the facility. It was noted that subsystem installations
required engineering and construction of conduits routed through areas within the buildings to

21

At the time of this report, there were two news reports of weather-related system outages at Parchman, one in
August-2010, and a second one in March 2014 that resulted in inmates sending images via illegal cell phones. This
is documented as a news item at http://raycomnbc.worldnow.com/story/24945407/exclusive-contraband-phonesinside-parchman

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

53

ensure that cabling would be isolated to minimize vulnerability to inmate tampering. Appendix
D provides additional information concerning MSP infrastructure.
When the MSP system was initially installed, calls originating nearby, but outside of the
penitentiary grounds, were captured resulting in a number of improperly blocked calls. To
resolve this issue, coverage was adjusted, leading to a decreasing number of intercepted calls.
As the success of managed access is reliant on its coverage area, the signal strength of the
managed access system cell tower requires routine observation and adjustment to ensure it
provides adequate signal strength throughout, but not outside the designated coverage area.
Since a cellular phone automatically connects to the strongest available signal from the
subscriber providers’ network, it is critical that a managed access system always presents the
strongest signal to cell phones within the managed access system designated coverage area.
Failure to actively monitor signal strength can result in a contraband cell phone connecting to a
commercial tower outside the facility, bypassing the managed access system. Achieving optimal
signal strength at MSP was not as simple as increasing or decreasing the managed access system
signal power. Negotiations with at least one nearby cellular carrier was determined to be an
important factor in maintaining proper coverage;

MSP noted that they had to request that at

least one carrier reduce downlink signal strength from a nearby cell tower.
To remain effective, coverage within the managed area must also be confirmed as the
equipment ages and as the wireless environment around the facility changes over time. System
effectiveness requires balance between wireless signal strength of the managed access system
and nearby cellular carrier base station signals; the managed access signal must be configured so
that that the managed access system signal is only strong enough to “capture” cell phones
operating within its pre-defined operational area, and weak enough to ensure commercial

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

54

networks capture all phones operating legitimately in adjacent areas. It was noted that Global
Tel Link conducts a drive test at least once per week around the perimeter of the facility (and the
leased fields) to ensure that the managed access system does not exceed pre-designated coverage
areas. It was noted that the MSP system drive test route covers approximately 36 linear miles.
The MDOC estimated that after about six months of effort the number of nearby calls intercepted
reached a steady state of roughly one call per month. Tecore noted that they developed a
wireless coverage design for the MSP system, and then worked with each carrier to
define/quantify signal coverage.

It was noted that carriers were helpful during the design

process; for example they suggested technical parameters such as required angles for managed
access system antenna down-tilt. Spectrum access and conditions associated with managed
access system design will vary significantly, and coverage parameters will be unique to each
facility and, as previously noted, will require site-specific managed access network designs.
One example was provided by MSP personnel where a local farmer was tending his field
near the facility and attempted to make a call while on his tractor. The farmer contacted MSP
officials after receiving the automated recording generated by the system alerting the user of
their illegal call attempt. This situation was remedied as MSP personnel reviewed his situation
and included his number on the approved list.

At the time of the site visit, MSP was in

discussions with Tecore about the possibility of installing additional sub-sites (small cells) within
the facility to improve system coverage within some buildings.

These sub-systems would

provide local signals strong enough to capture a cell phone in or near the building and then
interact with the core switch. This would reduce the likelihood of bleed over by increasing the
signal strength only within specific buildings.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

55

Signal bleed over constitutes a serious consideration for potential managed access users,
especially those located in more urban environments.

Signal bleed over, as well as cellular

carrier cooperation have implications for a widely acknowledged concern of managed access;
interference with emergency 911 calls. The Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of
1999 prohibits the use of any technology that can interfere with emergency 911 calls. The senior
system administrator at MSP recalled that MSP and Tecore conducted tests of the call set up time
for 911 calls through the managed access system.

It was determined that a 911 call bypassing

the managed access system took about 4.5 seconds to connect, compared to 7.0 seconds through
the managed access system. Despite this slower time, this measurement is well-within the 10-20
second benchmark noted within the National Emergency Number Association (2006) call
standards.
9-1-1 call management.

A critical aspect of managed access system operation is the

relationship between the managed access system, nearby commercial cellular system operators,
and Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP). Authorized calls placed through managed access
system are essentially placed once the user connects, or roams onto, the managed access system
which processes the call for completion.

Connection processes for service requests from

authorized phones require network connections between the managed access system switch and
cellular carrier mobile telephone networks and similarly, PSAP connections are required to
successfully connect emergency 911 calls (see Figure 10.)
System deployment tasks include the establishment of support mechanisms to facilitate
routing of emergency 911 calls. Typically, this involves a direct routing of calls between the
managed access system core and a local 911 or PSAP call center to handle emergency calls
passed to them from the managed access system. System interconnection and call completion

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

56

processes are influenced by local PSAP technical requirements and local landline telephone
services associated with how the local the 911 network operates.
Tecore discussed how 911 calls are handled by the MSP system. It was noted that the MSP
system routes 911 calls placed directly to the nearest PSAP. This is in contrast to other managed
access implementations designed to simply pass emergency through cellular carriers for further
processing and eventual call routing to a PSAP. It was noted that potential response issues will
occur if the carrier is not provided information indicating that an emergency call originated
within, or in the immediate vicinity of, the managed access system. As a result, cellular carriers
may require emergency call routing directly to a 911 center/PSAP as a condition of a spectrum
lease.
Technology upgrades by cellular carriers can significantly reduce system effectiveness.
Managed access system coverage, and how it coexists with the surrounding cellular carrier
environment, affects the ability of the system to terminate/block unauthorized calls and capture
calls placed by legitimate device users operating devices in locations directly adjacent to the
space controlled by the managed access system. The wireless environment is the primary
interface between a user device and either a commercial network, or the managed access system
network.

Blocking calls associated with nearby legitimate cellular system users is considered to

be interference by cellular carriers
Legal operation of a managed access system, using frequencies licensed to a network
operator, must be carefully coordinated and authorized by both the carriers and the FCC to
ensure legal access to carrier spectrum. MDOC indicated that there were several operational
cellular carrier networks providing coverage in the Parchman area: AT&T, Verizon, C Spire, and
either T-Mobile or Sprint. MDOC noted that commercial carriers had been cooperative, but the

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

57

processes associated with establishing managed access technology presented a new issue for
commercial cellular network operators as well. When obtaining FCC authorization, spectrum
lease arrangements are required for each carrier prior to operation of the system in their
frequencies. As previously noted, the managed access system owner/operator needs to ensure
that all wireless provider frequency bands in the area are covered by the managed access system.
Tecore noted that the MSP project resulted in the first managed access spectrum lease agreement
for Verizon. It was also noted that the MSP spectrum lease agreements do not involve recurring
payments to the carriers although, in some cases, the cost of specific items such as carrier legal
expenses required to prepare spectrum lease agreements were incurred.
A Tecore representative indicated that the company spent 18 months lobbying, negotiating
with the FCC, and with interfacing with cellular system operator legal teams to define a
regulatory solution/process suitable for managed access system deployment. Tecore indicated
that these activities were well underway prior to the MSP system deployment. MDOC and
Tecore emphasized the importance of carrier cooperation when establishing spectrum lease
agreements. Global Tel Link is responsible for the ongoing operation of both the non-cellular
inmate phone service, and the MSP managed access system.

If a commercial service provider

deploys a new cellular technology (e.g., 3G/4G LTE), Global Tel Link works with the managed
access vendor to acquire necessary hardware and software upgrades required to ensure the
managed access system continues to restrict network access via devices using the new
technology.
This challenge requires collaboration and open communication with cellular carriers to
manage network changes and carrier rollouts of new cellular device technology. Managed
access system technology must be in sync with the commercial network to ensure that it can

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

58

capture devices made available to consumers. Advancements in cellular network technology
occur over time, and then are activated in a very short timeframe. Even if managed access users
are informed in advance of planned carrier updates, there are a number of potential negative
consequences for managed access systems as a result of commercial network changes as a carrier
makes an upgraded service or capability available within the market surrounding the managed
access system.
This was the case for MSP when AT&T activated 3G technology in the Parchman area. The
managed access system at MSP was not yet capable of capturing 3G cell phones. As a result,
any call attempts from a contraband cell phone using 3G went directly to the commercial carrier.
Anecdotal information also suggests this AT&T 3G rollout coincided with a significant reduction
in calls captured by the system. As the managed access system hardware and software were
updated to be compatible with 3G technology, the number of denied calls appeared to elevate
and return to pre-3G levels. It should be reinforced that this relationship is speculative and
assumes that contraband cell phones were 3G capable.

Data to test this relationship were

unavailable.
Network operators grow their networks and update technology over time, and these changes
will impact the effectiveness of a managed access system. Timely notification to managed
access operators about change in nearby commercial networks is paramount. MDOC noted that
subsequent to MSP system deployment AT&T activated 3G services in the Parchman area,
without advance notification to MDOC. It was several months before MDOC realized that the
managed access system needed to be upgraded to intercept 3G calls. It was also noted that
carriers were supportive in regard to notifications, but the notification process was not routine for
them; therefore notifications were inconsistent. A managed access system operator needs to

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

59

receive notifications well in advance of carrier changes so that the impact to the managed access
system can be assessed, allowing time for corresponding managed access system
hardware/software upgrades, and/or coverage changes in response to the changing wireless
environment. Global Tel Link and Tecore indicated that carrier sublease agreements include
notification clauses but they do not include required enforcement mechanisms.
Managed access infrastructure needs to be hardened. The MSP system experienced
occasional power issues such as brown-outs and outages that were beyond the control of MDOC
or managed access system vendors. A variety of additional uncontrollable factors affected
system performance.

For example inclement weather causing high winds can change the

orientation of the antenna system. MDOC does some level of troubleshooting to identify when
and where problems occur, and the attitude of the MDOC and their commercial partners is that
all technical issues were solvable. Tecore indicated that the system was continually being
improved, and that the issues described were occasional problems.
Inmates may attempt to sabotage the system infrastructure. A final challenge that was
observed at MSP was the ever-present need to harden system infrastructure against vandalism.
There were two specific incidents in which inmates at MSP attempted to sabotage the managed
access infrastructure.

One attempt involved inmates cutting exposed cables running from

underneath an equipment enclosure while the other involved an inmate on agricultural
assignment running a field tractor into an equipment enclosure. Follow-up investigations into
these incidents revealed a directed attempt to sabotage the system. To protect against such
incidents, MSP personnel buried all cable and erected fencing around exposed system
infrastructure. These hardening efforts constituted unplanned financial costs incurred by MSP.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

60

Practices and Lessons Learned.
For organizations seeking to implement a managed access system, a number of lessons were
learned from MSP’s experience. These lessons learned are provided to inform both practitioners
and vendors of mechanisms to enhance the effectiveness of managed access. A summary of
these lessons learned and the context within which they can be applied are provided in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of Operational Lessons Learned and Context for their Application
Lesson Learned
1. Advocate for amendments to existing
legislation governing contraband cell
phones



2. Establish cooperative partnerships with
cellular carriers



3. Cross-reference captured phone call
information with existing pre-approved
list of inmate landline numbers



4. Managed access provides a layered
approach for counter-measures beyond
traditional search capabilities



Context of Application
Legislation was amended to close
loopholes in the law
Rather than an inmate having
possession of a complete cell phone,
legislation prohibits possession of any
part of a cell phone (i.e. battery, SIM
card, etc.)
Effective reach of managed access is
greatly enhanced with additional carrier
support
Ability to prove a cell phone is
operating within correctional facility to
allow a carrier to permanently disable
the device
Managed access captures the
destination phone number of illegal
cellular call attempts and makes it
possible to cross reference these
destination numbers with existing preapproved inmates contact numbers for
landline use
This cross reference allows correctional
personnel to identify the inmate likely
possessing a contraband cell phone
Deterrence resulting from legal
sanction and inconsistencies with
physical searches yield limited impact
on combating contraband phones from
reaching the hands of inmates
Managed access provides a significant
counter-measure that specifically
targets cell phones that have been
successfully smuggled into the facility

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

61

5. Increase in the number of monitored
inmate conversations via landlines



6. General deterrent of managed access to
impact contraband cell phone market
value



7. Creation of a contraband cell phone
unit within MSP



Decreases in the success rate of
contraband cell phones leads to an
increase of landline use by inmates
This increase allows for more
conversations to be monitored for
investigative and evidentiary purposes
Anecdotal evidence suggests managed
access impacts the value of contraband
cell phones within the facility
If a phone is perceived to work only
once or not at all, inmates will likely
not invest in the device
By formally sanctioning and physically
housing these habitual cell phone
inmates, they can be more closely
monitored as well as removed from the
general population of inmates that may
rely on them for access to a cell phone

Amendments to existing legislation governing contraband cell phones. At the time managed
access was installed in MSP, the state’s criminal code guiding inmate possession of contraband
was limited to traditional items such as weapons and drugs.

In order to establish a legal

precedent for inmates not to be in possession of a cell phone, as well as serve as a sanction-based
deterrent, the Mississippi legislature amended the criminal code to include “cell phone” in the
language. However, the legislation could be circumvented by parting out cell phone devices to
ensure that one could not be found in possession of a fully-assembled cellular device. To
remedy this issue, MSP officials solicited further assistance from the state legislature to amend
the criminal code again to control for this technicality.

In early 2012 the state legislation

amended the criminal code to include the language “unauthorized electronic device” as well
explicitly identifying “cell phone.” This criminal code also now specifies that possession of a
cell phone within a correctional facility is a felony with a three to fifteen year sentence. The

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

62

revised and now current criminal code guiding contraband within MSP is as follows (last revised
in early 2012):
Ҥ 47-5-193: Prohibitions generally: It is unlawful for any officer or employee of the
department, of any county sheriff’s department, of any private correctional facility in
this state in which offenders are confined or for any other person or offender to
possess, furnish, attempt to furnish, or assist in furnishing to any offender confined in
this state any weapon, deadly weapon, unauthorized electronic device, cell phone or
contraband item. It is unlawful for any person or offender to take, attempt to take, or
assist in taking any weapon, deadly weapon, unauthorized electronic device, cell
phone or contraband item on property belonging to the department which is occupied
or used by offenders, except as authorized by law” (State of Mississippi, 2012).
This lesson learned may seem to be a daunting task. However, based on communications
with MSP personnel, this logistical and political process was streamlined with Global Tel Link,
Tecore, legislators, and the various MDOC supervisors working together with minimal
obstruction in order to implement the entire operation smoothly.

MDOC noted that the state

legislature had “consistently shaped laws and policy to meet our needs.” The linear nature of the
chain of command from the state-level through to the managed access supervisors appeared to
greatly assist this effort. Perhaps even more important was the perception of MDOC personnel
that the state administration was “wide open to legitimate change, they want to be hands-on and
proactive in solving this problem.” The Commissioner of MDOC in particular was credited for
taking a proactive leadership role in streamlining the technology’s implementation.
Establish cooperative partnerships with cellular carriers. In the same vein, it was also found
that cooperative partnerships between cellular commercial carriers, MSP, and MDOC officials
have the potential to enhance the impact of managed access. Retrieving cell phone hardware or
the entire device is the ultimate goal of contraband cell phone interdiction efforts but is not
always possible. Through the detection of cell phone transmissions emanating from specific
devices it is possible to permanently disable a cell phone on a commercial network. Personnel

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

63

at MSP and MDOC worked in collaboration with carriers to establish a process and set of
evidentiary criteria to prove the use of a particular cell phone device from within MSP. With this
evidence, MDOC and commercial carriers can request a court order to permanently disable the
voice, text, and data transmission capability of a phone and/or de-authorize Subscriber
Information Module (SIM) cards This process described is very analogous to the “kill switch”
approach under consideration in ongoing FCC proceedings. .
Data on the frequency with which cell phone devices were permanently disabled are not
available. Discussions with key informants and affiliated stakeholders suggested that while a cell
phone could be disabled, the frequency in which this process is executed is rare. Additionally, it
must be noted that contraband cell phones can still produce harms without a transmission
capability. Managed access or similar technologies should not be relied upon as a substitute for
physical device confiscations.
Cross-reference captured phone call information with existing pre-approved list of inmate
landline numbers. In order for inmates to use the designated landline telephone system within
MSP, they must first provide for approval, a list of up to ten telephone phone numbers they wish
to call at any given time. MDOC personnel vet and if approved they are added to the inmates’
list of contacts contained in the landline phone system. Each inmate has a unique code they must
enter when making a landline call. Once this unique code is entered, the inmate can only call
contact numbers processed into the system. To ascertain if a particular cell phone was being
operating from within MSP, transmissions intercepted by the managed access system are
compared to inmates’ pre-approved landline call lists
If a call attempt is captured by the managed access system is placed to a number that is also
in an inmate’s pre-approved contact list, it is assumed that the inmate has the contraband phone

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

64

in their possession or has information pertaining to the phone. Through this method, MDOC
estimates approximately 90% of captured transmissions can be linked to MSP inmates. Given the
quantity of data produced from the managed access system, it was noted that personnel resources
limit use of this investigative method for day-to-day operations.
Managed access provides a layered approach for counter-measures beyond traditional
search capabilities. The impact of managed access at MSP is perhaps best viewed through a
layered approach. In this conceptual model, managed access provides two additional layers of
safeguarding against cell phone use beyond traditional search protocols used in correctional
facilities. Search activities involve sanction-based legal deterrents; physical pat-downs, metal
detectors, dogs, and random search teams of inmate housing. With the exception of random cell
searches, these attempts to combat contraband target offenders prior to a cell phone reaching the
interior housing unit of a facility. A managed access system adds: 1) the capability to block cell
phone transmissions originating or terminating within the facility, and 2) the potential to disable
the transmission capability of a contraband device through collaboration with network carriers.
It must be emphasized that sanctions and physical security are the foundation of countercontraband efforts. Managed access technology should not be interpreted as an appropriate
substitute for these efforts. Managed access is a supplemental technology to contraband and
specific only to cell phones. This layered approach is illustrated in Figure 13.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

65

Figure 13. Layered Approach to Combat Contraband Cell Phones

Increase in the number of monitored inmate conversations via landlines.

MDOC

representatives believed the number of cell phones confiscated decreased as a result of the
managed access system installation and associated revenue incurred from the inmate phone
system. This suggests that installation of a managed access system increased inmate use of
landline telephones to make calls. Aside from generating additional revenue for both the state
department of corrections as well as the vendor, this increase in call activity via landline phones
also leads to an increase in the number of conversations that are recorded and reviewed. Though
MDOC officials could not determine the proportion of landline calls were later tied to criminal
behavior, it seems apparent that by virtue of the increased land-line call volume there would be a

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

66

proportional increase in the number of inmate communications with evidentiary or investigatory
value.
General deterrent of managed access to impact contraband cell phone market value. In
addition to the anecdotal increases in landline calls, MSP personnel indicated that inmates have
begun to recognize the effect of the system on the contraband marketplace within the facility. It
is believed that as cell phone transmissions are blocked, inmates are less willing to spend
hundreds of dollars to obtain a cell phone that cannot complete call or text transmissions.
Creation of a contraband cell phone unit within MSP. Lastly, one of the more interesting
lessons learned at MSP was their creation of a special “contraband cell phone unit.” This unit
was a stand-alone physical housing area for habitual cell phone users. As with general crime, it
is believed the majority of cell phone use within prison results from a minority of the inmates
engaged in the use of contraband cell phones. By formally sanctioning and physically housing
these habitual cell phone inmates, they can be more closely monitored as well as removed from
the general population of inmates that may rely on them for access to a cell phone.
Inmates placed in this special unit lose privileges. Officials from MSP emphasized that
correctional staff overseeing this unit were “hand-picked to avoid personnel who might have
provided them with phones.” The MSP officials also explained that this approach is good in
theory, but in practice it is difficult as the number of offenders that have repeat cell phone
offenses is simply too large to assigning prisoners to the special cell phone unit. It appears this
special unit is more of a temporary housing unit than a long-term solution to help remedy the
problem. At the time of the research team site visit, MSP officials were discussing the need to
identify what appropriate benchmarks would be for assigning someone to this special unit, such

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

as three or four violations before being admitted.

67

At the time of this report writing, no

determinations had been made with respect to such benchmarks.

Contraband Cell Phone Activity
Total Monthly Call Attempts from August 2010 Implementation through July 2012. On
average, 116,754 call attempts (SD = 36,848.07) were made each month, with a median of
120,800 call attempts. The maximum number of call attempts detected occurred immediately
after implementation in August 2010. Gradual decreases in detected call attempts were observed
after implementation, with the managed access system detecting 45,897 call attempts in June
2011.

The number of monthly detected call attempts decreased by 79% from August 2010 to

June 2011.
Though it cannot be determined for certain, this dramatic decrease in call attempts captured
by the managed access system is believed to have resulted from the rollout of 3G service from
AT&T.

Beginning in July 2011, the number of detected call attempts began to increase

dramatically but did not return to the levels of detection observed in the first few months after
implementation. The number of detected call attempts nearly doubled from June 2011 to July
2012. Acknowledging with the curvilinear U-shaped distribution of these data, there are linear
and exponential decreases in the number of detected call attempts from August 2010 through
July 2012. Figure 14 illustrates the distribution of these monthly call attempts.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

68

250000

AUG10: 216,260
200000

150000

100000

50000

JUN11: 45,897
Jul-12

Jun-12

May-12

Apr-12

Mar-12

Feb-12

Jan-12

Dec-11

Nov-11

Oct-11

Sep-11

Aug-11

Jul-11

Jun-11

May-11

Apr-11

Mar-11

Feb-11

Jan-11

Dec-10

Nov-10

Oct-10

Sep-10

Aug-10

0

Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data (Gleaned from Mississippi
Department of Corrections, 2013)

Figure 13. Monthly Total Call Attempts Detected by MAS

Daily Call Attempt Volume March – July 2012. A total of 706,387 call attempts were
detected from March 2012 through July 2012. It is important to note that this time frame is a
period of gradual decline in monthly total call attempts after a peak in March 2012 (see Figure
14). The average number of calls per day is 4,678 (SD = 1,126.33), with a median value of
4,584 call attempts. The number of call attempts detected varied widely; ranging in value from
983 attempts on July 24th to 8,832 on April 9th (see Figure 15). Once again, there are linear and
exponential decreases in the number of detected call attempts over time.
Examining some of the milestone or anchor dates within the available timeframe, the
frequency of occurrence for connection attempts detected was substantially higher than average
for Mother’s Day (totaling to 6,110). This can be compared relative to the below average
frequency of connection attempts detected for Easter Sunday (4,541), Father’s Day (3,758), and
Memorial Day (3,191).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

10000

4/9/12: 8,832

69

5/18/12: 8,486

9000

6/29/12: 7,500

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000

4/7/12: 2,702
7/24/12: 983
03/02/12
03/08/12
03/13/12
03/18/12
03/23/12
03/28/12
04/02/12
04/07/12
04/12/12
04/17/12
04/22/12
04/27/12
05/02/12
05/07/12
05/12/12
05/17/12
05/22/12
05/27/12
06/01/12
06/06/12
06/11/12
06/16/12
06/21/12
06/26/12
07/01/12
07/06/12
07/11/12
07/16/12
07/21/12
07/26/12
07/31/12

0

Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data

Figure 14. Daily Total Call Attempts Detected by MAS: Five Month Extract
Overview of Cellular Connection Measures Captured by Managed Access. The average cell
phone device transmission detected by the system was a call (rather than a SMS text) using a
Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) radio system. Detected call attempts tended to occur
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and midnight, with noon to 3:59 p.m. representing the time frame
of most frequent detected call attempts. Comparing the cellular frequency band, mobile network
provider code by call attempt type reveals some baseline characteristics of detected call attempts.
Detected call attempts show that voice calls are more likely to occur on CDMA radio systems,
while SMS texts are more evenly distributed between GSM and CDMA technologies.

Mobile

network provider codes were also relatively similar. Unknown/unlisted call attempts detected by
the system appeared to come from calls. A higher proportion of AT&T services were being used
for SMS texts rather than calls. Tables 4-7 present counts for captured cellular call and text call
attempts across different technology, cellular radio frequency, network carrier, and time of day.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

70

It is important to contextualize the 40% of unknown/unlisted Mobile Network Codes
observed in the data. The daily call attempt data provided by MDOC included International
Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) information captured by the managed access system, in
standard format, from which the Mobile Network Code associated with the cellular service
provider network could be derived. Unidentifiable or obsolete Mobile Network Codes were
observed in the data (e.g., 006, 232, and 726) that could not be linked to a cellular service
provider. The status of these MNCs remains unresolved. It is unclear if these codes are the result
of device misconfiguration or some other use.

Table 4. Overview of Call Attempts by Type, Channel Access, and Mobile Network Code
Frequency of Occurrence

Percent

Attempt Type
Call
SMS

645,722
60,665

91%
9%

Channel Access
CDMA
GSM

508,400
197,987

72%
28%

Mobile Network Code
Verizon Wireless
AT&T
T-Mobile
Mid-Tex Cellular
Airadigm
Cincinnati Bell
Unknown/Unlisted

220,633
171,034
27,292
3,287
115
1
284,025

31%
24%
4%
1%
<1%
<1%
40%

Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data

Table 5. Frequency of Call Attempt by Time of Day
Time of Day
12:00-3:59 AM
4:00-7:59 AM
8:00-11:59 AM

Frequency
26,616
80,704
140,146

Percent
4%
11%
20%

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

12:00-3:59 PM
4:00-7:59 PM
8:00-12:00 PM

71

179,098
155,212
124,611

25%
22%
18%

Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data

Table 6. Channel Access by Call Attempt Type
Call Attempt Type
Channel Access
CDMA
GSM

Call
74%
26%

SMS
47%
53%

Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data

Table 7. Mobile Network Code by Call Attempt Type
Call Attempt Type
Mobile Network Code
Verizon Wireless
AT&T
T-Mobile
Mid-Tex Cellular
Airadigm
Cincinnati Bell
Unknown/Unlisted

Call
31%
22%
4%
<1%
<1%
<1%
43%

SMS
37%
50%
3%
<1%
<1%
--10%

Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data

Connection Attempt Volume by Unique Cell Phones. All of the detected connection attempts
were generated from 3,654 unique cell phone devices. These attempts equate to an average of
193.32 attempts per cell phone device (SD = 855.23). A median value of 11 connection attempts
and mode of one call attempt was observed. Distribution of call attempts by cell phone device
was not constant. Table 8 presents the frequency of occurrence of call attempts by unique
device.

Table 8. Frequency of Occurrence Call Attempts by Unique Device

Phone Used One Time
Phone Used One to Two Times

Frequency Occurrence (%) of
Total Call Attempts
539 (<1%)
1,151 (<1%)

Frequency Occurrence
(%) of Cell Phones
539 (15%)
845 (23%)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

Phone Used One to Three Times
Phone Used One to Four Times
Phone Used One to Five Times
Phone Used One to 10 Times
Phone Used 100+ Times
Phone Used 1,000+ Times
Phone Used 10,000+ Times

72

1,775 (<1%)
2,571 (<1%)
3,326 (<1%)
6,489 (1%)
661,213 (94%)
464,510 (66%)
92,884 (13%)

1,053 (29%)
1,252 (34%)
1,403 (38%)
1,811 (50%)
771 (21%)
153 (4%)
7 (<1%)

Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data

Of the 3,654 cell phone devices used, 15 percent (n=539) were used for one call attempt with
no subsequent transmissions detected by the managed access system. The remaining 85 percent
(n=3,200) of cell phone devices detected by the system were used more than one time. Most of
the call attempts detected came from a small proportion of devices that were used frequently.
Twenty-one percent of the cell phone devices used to make call attempts were responsible for 94
percent of the overall call attempts. Sixty-six percent of the total call attempts detected came
from 153 cell phones devices, which were used more than 1,000 times. Seven devices were
responsible for generating 10,000 or more call attempts. Preliminary analysis of one of the most
used phones indicated series of stops and starts, with "blasts" of calls/texts within short
timeframes to customer service lines and functional dial strings. However, note that this analysis
was performed on a limited set of data that may or may not be representative, and we cannot
derive any conclusion about the behavior of the phone or its user.
Average Cell Phone Lifespan. The data allowed for a determination of a device’s lifespan.
The difference in days between the date in which a device transmission was first captured by the
system and the date in which the device transmission was last captured can be interpreted as how
long a device had been used and detected by the managed access system. This analysis begins to
dissect the aggregate trends and explore transmission patterns.
The average lifespan for the top seven devices used 10,000 or more times were estimated
(see Table 9). As a reminder, the period of observation is March 2012 through July 2012 which

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

73

totals to 151 days. Average lifespan of these top seven phone devices in the observation period
is 96 days (SD = 43.25), with median and mode values of 86 days.
Table 9. Cell Phone Lifespan by Unique Device
Device
A*
B*
C*
D
E
F*
G*

Total Number of Transmissions
20,037
15,074
13,153
12,029
11,124
11,053
10,414

Lifespan (in Days)
86
129
150
65
26
130
86

Mean (SD)

13,269 (3373.37)

96 (43.25)

The lifespan analyses allow for calculation of how long these devices were in use within the
observation period. Asterisked devices in Table 9 identify devices with captured transmissions at
the start or the end of the observation period. One of these five devices (Device C) was active at
the start of this observation period, which means that this device was likely in use before March
2012. The remaining four devices (Devices A, B, F, and G) were active at the end of the
observation period, suggesting these devices were likely in use after July 2012. In combination,
these lifespans should be interpreted as very conservative estimates.
These analyses provide preliminary evidence that devices were both used at a relatively
constant rate across the 151 day observation period to become one of the top devices used 10,000
or more times (see Devices B, C, and F) as well as a highly variable or non-constant rate (see
Devices D and E) to amass a large number of transmissions. Unfortunately, no data was
available to determine if device lifespans with clear first and last transmission dates (i.e., Devices
D and E) is a function of devices being confiscated, destroyed, or simply lacking a battery
charge. It is also possible that while these devices may no longer be detected by the managed
access system, they still may be used for other purposes (e.g., audio and video recording).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

74

Call Attempt Volume by Destination Number. A total of 30,835 unique destination numbers
were dialed within the five month data sample. These numbers contain a mixture of functional
strings (e.g., XXX-XXX-XXXX, 1-XXX-XXX-XXXX, or XXX-XXXX formats), SMS text
shortcuts, and unusable numbers (.e.g. *#72).

The average number of times a destination

number was dialed was 23 times (SD = 1,656.92), but this estimate is extremely skewed with a
few numbers being dialed thousands of times.

The median number of times a number was

dialed is twice, with a mode of one. As indicated by Table 10, most of the destination numbers
used were repeatedly dialed less than 10 times.
Table 10. Frequency of Occurrence of Call Attempts by Destination Number
Number Dialed One Time
Number Dialed One to Two Times
Number Dialed One to Three Times
Number Dialed One to Four Times
Number Dialed One to Five Times
Number Dialed One to 10 Times
Number Dialed 100+ Times
Number Dialed 1,000+ Times
Number Dialed 10,000+ Times

Frequency of Occurrence (%) of Numbers Dialed
13,058 (42%)
18,193 (59%)
20,833 (67%)
22,607 (73%)
23,820 (77%)
26,827 (87%)
360 (1%)
27 (<1%)
7 (<1%)

Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data

Call Attempt Volume by Top Destination Numbers. Table 11 presents the attempt frequency
of occurrence of each number and a brief description of the number dialed for top 10 call
attempts via cellular call. The most commonly attempted numbers called include a mix of
services. These include a shortcut connection to wireless Internet access, a shortcut or 1-800
number to cellular provider customer service line, a variety of free, anonymous voicemail
accounts, a chat line, pre-paid credit cards, and a 24/7 free service line where adults read
children’s books and the recording of stories is available on a constant loop.
A #777 dial string was used to provide a “tethered” data connection using 3G services. The
#777 is used for Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM; affiliated with Verizon,

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

75

Alltel, and Sprint) and an analogous dial string for CDMA is #99xxxxx (affiliated with AT&T,
Cingular, and T-Mobile). The #777 number was often (but not always) used in conjunction with
a password that typically was the ten-digit cellular number associated with the phone service. It
is interesting that the CDMA #99xxx number does not appear on this list as well. All of the
Seattle, WA numbers are for voicemail services. This service provides users with free unique
personal number that callers leave messages on and can listen to using the same number.
Table 12 presents the attempt frequency of occurrence of each number and a brief description
of the number dialed for top 10 SMS text attempts.

Texted phone numbers are far less

concentrated than phone numbers called. For the most part, texts are being delivered to private
numbers. During an open source Internet search of these numbers, many were openly listed on
social networking profiles of individuals or electronic wanted ads of individuals or businesses.
The most commonly texted number (1111340002) is associated with automated “robot” dialing.
Based on open-source research, this specific number appears to be associated with a debt
collection service. Why this number would be the recipient of inmate text messages is unknown.

Table 11.Top 10 Destination Numbers Called

#777

Frequency
Occurrence (%) of
Total Call Attempts
280,911 (44%)

Description

Connect to wireless Internet

611

63,995 (10%)

Access customer service

(206) 208-XXXX

24,449 (4%)

(509) 676-XXXX

21,123 (3%)

1-800-331-XXXX

11,995 (2%)

Inactive voicemail account,
Seattle (WA), International Telcom, Ltd.
1 to 1 chat line,
Walla Walla (WA), Telewise
AT&T customer service

(206) 208-XXXX

11,702 (2%)

Inactive voicemail account,
Seattle (WA), International Telcom, Ltd.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

76

1-800-473-XXXX

10,926 (2%)

Green Dot MoneyPak customer service

1-800-473-XXXXX

9,445 (1%)

Misdial of Green Dot MoneyPak line (+1 digit)

(206) 208-XXXX

6,356 (1%)

Inactive laser voicemail account,
Seattle (WA), International Telcom, Ltd.

(601) 482-XXXX

3,875 (1%)

Public Library Story Line,
Meridian (MS), Bellsouth Telecomm Inc.

Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data

Table 12.Top 10 Destination Numbers Texted

1111340002

Frequency of Occurrence (%)
of Total SMS Attempts
1,401 (2%)

(662) 267-XXXX

781 (1%)

(314) 225-XXXX

642 (1%)

(562) 618-XXXX

550 (1%)

(601) 613-XXXX

348 (1%)

1-601-502-XXXX

328 (<1%)

(601) 529-XXXX

273 (<1%)

(901) 483-XXXX

270 (<1%)

(407) 403-XXXX

269 (<1%)

(318) 837-XXXX

265 (<1%)

Description
Access Integrated Services Digital
Network
Private number,
Batesville (MS), Sprint
Private number,
Ladue (MO), New Cingular Wireless
Private number,
Compton (CA), New Cingular Wireless
Private number,
Jackson (MS), New Cingular Wireless
Private number,
Jackson (MS), Bellsouth Telecomm
Private number,
Vicksburg (MS), New Cingular Wireless
Private number,
Memphis (TN), Cellco
Partnership/Verizon Wireless
Private number,
Orlando (FL), New Cingular Wireless
Private number,
Wisner (LA), New Cingular Wireless

Source: Mississippi Department of Corrections, Managed Access System Data
Note: These numbers represent the exact format in which numbers were dialed and captured.

Case Flow of Call Attempts: January to April 2012. Figure 15 provides an illustration of
case flow processing of cell phone confiscations at MSP and among the remainder of MDOC’s
facilities. The overall trends identify two salient concerns for correctional administrators. First

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

77

is the confiscation-sanction gap. The number of cell phones confiscated exceeds the number of
violation reports and prosecutions. Second is the gap between the number of cell phone devices
available for use and the proportion that are confiscated. Noting that the data on the number of
unique devices is only available for the months of March and April and likely underestimates the
actual number of unique devices, it appears that only a small proportion of available devices are
confiscated.
A few points of comparison can be made between MSP and all of the remainder of MDOC’s
facilities. MSP appears to have a slightly higher percentage of cell phones devices discovered on
person relative to all other MDOC facilities. Contrary to this higher percentage of inmate
possession of contraband cell phone devices, MSP has a lower proportion of cases moving
forward with prosecution as compared to other MDOC facilities. It is also worthy to note that
MSP appears to generate more rule violation reports and forward more cases to the local District
Attorney net of the total number of cell phones confiscated. Since these de-identified data do not
allow for determinations of individual case decisions at these phases, case flow trends for rule
violation reports and forwarded cases must be interpreted with caution.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

Unique Devices
(Mar-Apr)
2,260

78

Total Call Attempts
544,141
On Person

On Person
110 (43%)

Total Confiscated
Cell Phones

Total Confiscated
Cell Phones

336 (30%)

In Common
Areas

257

1,108

In Common Areas

147 (57%)

Rule Violation
Report Filed

Rule Violation
Report Filed

149

332

Cases Forwarded to
District Attorney

Cases Forwarded to
District Attorney

110

147

Cases with Grand
Jury Pending

Cases with Grand
Jury Pending

10 (9%)

31 (21%)

772 (70%)

MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTARY (MSP)

MISSISSIPPI STATE, REGIONAL, AND
PRIVATE FACILITES
(EXCLUDING MSP)

Figure 15. Case Flow Trends: January to April 2012

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

79

Discussion and Conclusions
The present research provides four unique insights. First, the contraband cell phone problem
is perhaps more significant than imagined. One of the themes discussed throughout the site visit
was the increase of inmate access to contraband cell phones from within correctional facilities.
Based on the managed access system data, the median number of daily call attempts within MSP
was 4,584. This can be extrapolated to estimate that 1,673,160 illegal cellular call attempts will
occur in MSP alone in a single year.
Generally, the contraband cell phone problem has been illustrated to date by using the
number of devices seized. The measurement of call attempts generated by the managed access
system provides a useful alternative to understand the extent of contraband cell phone use.
Moreover, call attempt data provides insight on the gap between estimated call attempts from
unique cell phone devices and seized devices. While MSP is a relatively unique facility given its
size, location, and history, the observed call attempt estimates may be similar across facilities
with comparable rates of contraband cell phone confiscation within Mississippi and across other
states.
Second, the managed access system at MSP does appear to work. That is, the system is able
to detect and inhibit transmissions from cell phone devices within MSP. The system handles a
large volume of call and text attempts and captures a variety of information that can be crossreferenced to facilitate subsequent administrative or investigative decision points. At the same
time the extent to which managed access works is contingent on a number of system, personnel,
and interagency cooperation and communication factors discussed throughout this report. If these
elements are not actively managed, the ability to detect and inhibit cell phone transmissions can
be dramatically reduced or lost altogether.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

80

Relatedly, there is evidence to question the operational theory of managed access and what
the system can provide correctional administrators. Perhaps the weakest proposition affiliated
with managed access is the notion that such systems render cell phones as obsolete or useless.
Managed access does not directly disable a cell phone by terminating voice, text, and data
transmission capabilities and/or de-authorizing a SIM card. Instead, data generated from the
managed access system is shared with commercial carriers to facilitate a court order to disable a
cell phone. While feasible, this process is rarely pursued. Managed access does not ensure that
once a cell phone is detected by the system the device is no longer used. The overwhelming
majority (85%) of cell phones detected by the system were used more than one time and a small
proportion of cell phones detected by the system attempted to transmit hundreds of call and/or
text attempts. Managed access also does not appear to produce higher rates of cell phone
confiscation relative to all other MDOC facilities. While call or text transmissions may be
blocked by managed access, these devices do not seem to be discarded and subsequently
confiscated by correctional personnel.
Third, managed access technology has operational shortcomings.

As discussed, the

technology requires active management on behalf of the adopting organization (see Tables 2 and
3 for a summary). Relatedly, the effect of the technology on the repeated use of cellular devices
is not entirely clear. As noted, there were a small proportion of cell phone devices that were
continuously used across a number of months to attempt calls and/or texts. These devices were
responsible for a large portion of the total transmissions detected by the managed access system.
These findings call into question how data generated from the system are automated and
analyzed to produce actionable intelligence. The sheer volume of data produced as well as the
mix of functional, misdialed, or erroneous dial strings may make it difficult to cross-reference

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

81

the destination number of contraband call attempts and inmates’ pre-approved landline contact
lists. The possibility does exist that this process could be automated to reduce the labor-intensive
nature of cross-referencing numbers. However, such a process is likely to include specialized
analytical skills, tools, and programming capabilities for translational comparison that may not
be available to some corrections agencies.
Lastly, and perhaps most intriguing, the present research has shed light on unauthorized
contraband cell phone activity. As specifically illustrated in Tables 11 and 12, a wide-range of
communications are being attempted with contraband phones. Though the present research falls
dramatically short of determining social support versus criminal coordination with these
transmission attempts, it lends some empirical support for the use of contraband cell phones to
fulfill an array of user needs which may not differ from cell phone users in the community (see
Aoki & Downes, 2003). This is certainly not to say criminal activity does not occur through
these contraband phones; it is almost certain that it does as well. However, these attempted calls
or texts are not prospectively identifiable in the managed access system data.
The question is whether or not managed access is worth the financial investment. The
answer to this question involves a myriad of complex issues and decisions. Managed access
does capture a large quantity of cellular transmissions, but it is impossible to determine the rate
with which attempted calls or texts successfully elude detection by the system.

Even if a

hypothetical rate of successful transmission detection was only 40 percent, that 40 percent would
provide a substantial value-added effect to combating contraband cell phones problem relative to
existing countermeasures. Thus, the decision comes down to this benefit versus the cost of
installing and maintaining a managed access system.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

82

Cost estimates are difficult to obtain for proprietary reasons. However, based on open-source
information a significant monetary investment is required. Baltimore City Detention Center
(BCDC) in Baltimore, Maryland implemented a managed access system. The technology will be
deployed over 700,000 square feet of targeted area within the facility and utilize a full scope of
commercial wireless spectrum (Tecore Networks, 2014). System costs are estimated at $5.4
million (Washington Post, 2014).

Limitations
This research has a number of limitations and rests upon a variety of assumptions. To begin
with, this study is exploratory in nature and sought to establish a foundation upon which future
research on managed access can be conducted and practitioner decisions regarding the
procurement and implementation of managed access technology could be based. Given the
infancy of managed access technology and the sparsely available operational systems that can be
evaluated, relatively limited information was available to guide the present research. Despite the
limitations to be addressed here, the research has yielded a number of insightful and intriguing
findings that will impact future practice and research.
Data limitations significantly hindered the study. Due to a number of unforeseen personnel
changes within MSP and proprietary system concerns from the vendor which also owned the
landline inmate calling system, an assortment of data was simply not available to the research
team. Data was only available post-managed access system installation. Ideally the research
team would have been able to collaborate with MDOC personnel to identify appropriate preinstallation measures related to contraband cell phone use at MSP. These metrics could have
included inmate contraband and discipline reports, correctional staff discipline reports for
smuggling cell phones, the type of cell phones confiscated, and survey and interview data from

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

83

inmates and staff at MSP regarding the prevalence of contraband cell phones, the catalysts
behind inmates’ use of these phones, and inmates awareness of MSP efforts to combat the use of
cell phones. Without pre-implementation measures, it is difficult to determine the effect of
managed access technology on correctional operations.
Data utilized by the present research is also limited in scope with regard to the temporal
period examined. The managed access system became operational at MSP in August 2010, yet
the available data utilized for secondary analysis only captured a five-month snapshot of a postdeployment period. The justification for utilizing this March – July 2012 time frame was 1) this
time period is believed to be the most operationally-efficient of the system and 2) the tedious
time-intensive process to clean and organize the data for analysis was significant. In addition,
when the data from this time period is compared across previous post-deployment months (i.e.,
August 2010 to February 2012) there were no statistically significant differences in mean
transmissions detected by the system. As such, the five-month snapshot data does not appear to
be unrepresentative of broader monthly trends.
This research is unable to identify and distinguish whether attempted calls or texts captured
by the managed access system are coming directly from inmates who are actively using
contraband cell phones. The fundamental operational assumption of this technology – nonapproved phone numbers that are intercepted and blocked are illegally made by inmates with
contraband cell phones – could not be empirically examined.

MDOC provided anecdotal

estimates that 90 percent of attempted transmissions can be cross-referenced to pre-approved
landline call lists and linked to MSP inmates, which increases the validity of managed access
system data. At the same time, this estimate acknowledges measurement error that may be
associated with the management of authorization lists and coverage leakage issues. There is also

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

84

some evidence to suggest that unauthorized call or text attempts may be made by a passive,
automated process affiliated with cellular device hardware or software than user dialing. For
example, earlier it was noted that #777 is a number dialed by a device to obtain data service from
a wireless network. It is unclear if this number is manually dialed by a user seeking service or if
the call attempts are from a cellular device programmed to continuously dial this number in
search of service. It is possible that these call attempts are part of automated managed access
coverage testing. Additionally, it is not clear if detected transmissions originate from users that
have multiple cellular devices or from a user who possesses one Subscriber Identity Module
(SIM) card that is shared among others with compatible cellular devices. The findings should be
interpreted with these limitations in mind.
This assessment does not include information pertaining to costs.

Any attempt to

quantify costs related to system build out, maintenance, or ancillary expenses (i.e., personnel and
training) was deemed to be invalid and unreliable. Cost and affiliated financial estimates were
requested. However, the system deployed at MSP was not owned by the state. It is part of a
service provided by the service vendor of the facility’s inmate calling system. Therefore detailed
cost information was not provided by this privately owned company. Moreover, managed access
system cost factors will vary greatly by facility and the underlying cellular technology upon
which a system operates. This case study provided a rural example whereby a single high-power
cellular site provided coverage for the majority of the facility. The logistics associated with this
type of installation are significantly different than a system using Distributed Antenna System
technology (DAS), because DAS is based entirely on a network of low-power antennas
distributed throughout the coverage area. The physical infrastructure required to support a DAS
infrastructure is significantly more complex, and the associated costs to deploy will vary

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

85

significantly. DAS system manufacturers were/are hesitant to provide “budgetary” cost figures
because of the significance of these differences. For this reason, cost estimates are not provided
in this report. Given this high fidelity, any costs presented would likely not be generalizable.
Lastly, on-site engineering assessments were not a component of this project. The research
team discussed such methodologies and determined that a number of system and facility-specific
factors made any vulnerability assessment non-feasible. As an alternative, the research team
employed social science process and outcome evaluation methods to describe how the managed
access system operates, present information on implementation challenges, and explore and
generate potential outcome metrics with the use of available administrative data.

Future research
It is beyond the scope of this study to take into account social factors contributing to the
problem of contraband cell phones. The “why this is a problem” and “what are the root causes”
questions cannot, unfortunately, be answered. As mentioned, the lack of privacy afforded to
inmates via landline calls and the financial cost associated with these calls are plausible
motivations for contraband cell phone use. However, further research is needed to explore the
intention of calls conducted with contraband cell phones.
Relatedly, an exploration into the economics behind the contraband cell phone market could
help quantify the problem and inform policy decisions. For example, if correctional officers
and/or staff are smuggling phones for profit, it seems reasonable to assume that this cost is worth
the risk of losing their legitimate job and facing likely criminal charges. Rational choice theory
posits there should be an economic offset point where the proposed risk of smuggling is nolonger intriguing to an employee and they could be deterred from engaging in such behavior.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

86

Furthermore, the current research does not explore possible technical vulnerabilities a
managed access system may have.

The question begs; do inmates learn how to “beat the

system?” Conversations with Global Tel Link and Tecore representatives revealed rumors of
inmates circumventing managed access through a variety of different dialing mechanisms and
cell phone setting specifications. Exploring these possible vulnerabilities will require a unique
methodology and, likely, wide-ranging sample of inmates across different facilities.
Consideration should be given to the examination of confiscated cell phones to identify what
features have, and have not, been disabled by the managed access system.
From an engineering and technical perspective, signal coverage to include coverage holes
and coverage bleed over, should be examined in varying contexts. The deployment at MSP
poses limited risk of cellular interference to nearby legitimate cell phone users. The rural setting
includes a modest buffer between MSP grounds and public areas. In addition, the density of
commercial cell sites in a rural setting is lower than in a typical urban setting. Installation of a
managed access system in an urban environment will face a more daunting task to control and
isolate signal bleed over because of the higher density of commercial cell sites combined with a
small or non-existent buffer between the correctional facility and nearby public areas.
Lastly, future research on contraband cell phones should attempt to quantify victimization.
This is not a straightforward task. Media stories often retrospectively highlight the most serious
of offenses when they occur, but conversations with corrections practitioners indicate a more
pervasive victimization enabled through cell phones. An informed estimate of contraband cell
phone victimization could help to justify investment costs in contraband cell phone technologies,
including managed access.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

87

Caution for the Corrections Community
The corrections community must understand that managed access is not – and should not –
be considered a silver bullet solution for the contraband cell phone problem. Cellular devices
that cannot transmit a call or text pose potential harm in the correctional environment. Managed
access should be utilized in conjunction with physical search and seizures of contraband cell
phones. As noted above, multifunction device capabilities that fall outside of the scope of
cellular communications simply cannot be managed with managed access technology and have
to be mitigated via other means. Managed access technology serves as a tool to mitigate use of
these devices by denying cellular service, diminishing the overall utility of smuggling these
devices into a correctional facility. Clearly inmate use of multifunction device capabilities which
fall outside of cellular communications requires mitigation using non-managed access system
methods, to include physical intervention. Put simply, managed access technology should be
viewed as supplemental to existing contraband policies and practices.

References
Aoki, K., & Downes, E. J. (2003). An Analysis of Young People’s Use of and Attitudes Toward
Cell Phones. Telematics and Informatics, 20(4), 349-364.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2013). Correctional Populations in the United States, 2012. NCJ
243936. U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC.
Burke, T. W. and Owen, S. S. (2010). Cell phones as prison contraband. FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin. July. Federal Bureau of Investigation.
California Council on Science and Technology. (2012). Efficacy of Managed Access Systems to
Intercept Calls from Contraband Cell Phones in California Prisons. FEMA Grant
Programs Directorate. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
CorrectionsOne. (2015). S.C. towers will slow contraband, but cell phone jamming more
effective. Retrieved from http://www.correctionsone.com/cell-phone-

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

88

jammers/articles/8348147-S-C-towers-will-slow-contraband-but-cell-phone-jammingmore-effective/
Entner, R. (2012). The Wireless Industry: The Essential Engine of US Economic Growth. Recon
Analytics.
Epps, C. (2008). Commissioner’s corner: Let this serve as a warning. Mississippi Department of
Corrections. The Resource, 10(4), 1-16.
Federal Communications Commission. (2010). Contraband Cell Phone Use In Prisons
Workshop/Webinar. Heritage Reporting Corporation. Retrieved from
http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/summits/contraband-cell-use-transcript.pdf.
Federal Communications Commission (2005), Sale or Use of Transmitters Designed to Prevent,
Jam or Interfere with Cell Phone Communications is Prohibited in the United States.
Retrieved from: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-1776A1.pdf
Federal Communications Commission. (2012). Implementation of the pay telephone
reclassification and compensation provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 et
al. Hearings. Proceeding 12-375 retrieved from
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0711/DA-14-993A1.pdf
Federal Communications Commission. (2013). FCC Reduces High Long-Distance Calling Rates
Paid by Inmates. Media Release. Retrieved from
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-322749A1.pdf
Federal Communications Commission (NPRM 13-58, 2013). Promoting Technological Solutions
to Combat Contraband Wireless Devices Use in Correctional Facilities. Retrieved from:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-13-58A1.pdf
Federal Communications Commission Jamming (n.d.) Jamming Tip Line. Retrieved from:
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/jammer-enforcement
Fitzpatrick, J. L. and Sanders, J. R. (2003). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and
Practical Guidelines. Allyn and Bacon. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S. and Fortin, D. (1993). Case Study Methods. Newbury Park, CA. Sage.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (2014). Evolution of Cell Phone Technology.
Global History Network. Retrieved from
http://www.ieeeghn.org/wiki/index.php/Evolution_of_Cell_Phone_Technology
International Telecommunication Union. (2014). Mobile subscriptions near the 7‑billion mark:
Does almost everyone have a phone? ITU News. Special Edition World
Telecommunication Development Conference.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

89

Johnson, W. J., Leach, M. P. and Liu, A. H. (1999). Theory testing using case studies in
business-to-business research. Industrial Marketing Management, 28(3), 201-213.
Kennedy, M. M. (1979). Generalizing from single case studies. Evaluation Review, 3(4), 661678.
King, N. (1994). The Qualitative Research Interview. In C. Cassell and G. Symon (Eds.),
Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, pp. 14-36. Sage. London.
Mississippi Department of Corrections. (n.d.). Mississippi Department of Corrections 2013
Annual Report. Jackson, MS: Mississippi Department of Corrections. Available at:
http://www.mdoc.state.ms.us/Annual_report.htm.
Mississippi Department of Corrections. (2013). Operational Cellblock: Locking Down Illegal
Cell Phone Traffic. Presentation. American Correctional Association. Houston, TX.
Mississippi Department of Corrections. (2014a). Mississippi Department of Corrections Inmate
Custody Population For Year's End 1990 – 2012. Research and Statistics. Jackson, MS.
Mississippi Department of Corrections. (2014b). The Resource. A Publication of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections. MDOC Making Strides. Retrieved from
http://www.mdoc.state.ms.us/News%20Letters/2014NewsLetters/January2014.pdf
National Emergency Number Association. (2006). Call Answering Standard/Model
Recommendation. National Emergency Number Association, Standard Operating
Procedures Committing, Call-Taking Working Group. Document 56-005. Arlington, VA.
National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices. (2009). State Strategies for
Preventing Introduction and Use of Contraband Cell Phones in Prisons, January,2009.
Retrieved from
http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/864/NGA_Background_Paper__State_Strategies_for_Preventing_Introduction_and_Use_of_Contraband_Cell_Phones_1
-27-2009.pdf?1280164386.
National Institute of Justice. (2010). Plenary Panel: Cell Phones in Prisons. NIJ Conference.
Retrieved from http://nij.ncjrs.gov/multimedia/transcripts/audio-nijconf2010-plenarycell-phones-transcript.htm
Nielsen. (2013). Pay-As-You Phone: How Global Consumers Pay for Mobile. NewsWire.
Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2013/how-global-consumerspay-for-mobile.html
Pew Research Center. (2014). Mobile Technology Fact Sheet. Pew Research Internet Project.
Retrieved from http://www.pewInternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

90

Schofield, J. W. (2002). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In, M. Huberman
and M. B. Miles (Eds.), The Qualitative Researcher's Companion: Classic and
Contemporary Readings, pp. 171-203. Sage. Thousand Oaks, CA.
State of Mississippi. (2012). Miss. Code § 47-5-193. Title 47. Prisons and Prisoners; Probation
and Parole. Chapter 5. Correctional System Alcoholic Beverages, Controlled Substance,
Narcotic Drugs, Weapons, and other Contraband. Retrieved from
http://www.mdoc.state.ms.us/PDF%20Files/MissCode1972.pdf
Tecore Networks. (2014 Feb 20). Operating in a downtown Baltimore facility, Tecore releases
unique details regarding its iNAC managed access capabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.tecore.com/newsevents/release.cfm?newsID=205.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2010). Contraband Cell Phones in Prisons: Possible Wireless
Technology Solutions. Retrieved from
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/contrabandcellphonereport_december201
0.pdf
U.S. Department of Labor and Statistics. (2013). Occupational Employment and Wages, May
2013. http://www.bls.gov/regions/southeast/newsrelease/occupationalemploymentandwages.htm
U.S. Department of Labor and Statistics. (2015). Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Retrieved
from
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet;jsessionid=85C515BA0B883F3F938F9A0D
1B9F7C42.tc_instance5
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2011). Bureau of Prisons: Improved Evaluations and
Increased Coordination Could Improve Cell Phone Detection. Report to Congressional
Committees. Report Number GAO-11-893. Washington, DC.
Washington Post. (2014 Feb 11). Governor: Phone security decreases jail violence. Washington
Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/omalley-to-announce-jailphone-security -system/20140207/cac734e6-8fdd-11e3-878e-d76656564a01_print.html.
Worley, R. and Cheeseman, K. A. (2006). Guards as embezzlers: The consequences of
“nonshareable problems” in prison settings. Deviant Behavior, 27(2), 203-222.
Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Second Edition. Sage. Beverly Hills,
CA.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

91

Appendix A: Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Activity
Contraband cell phones have been used for a variety of criminal activities inside and
outside correctional facilities. While specific estimates of such activity have not been routinely
collected or published, there is significant body of anecdotal evidence that the problem is
widespread and poses a public safety problem. Table 13. illustrates some recent examples of
alleged or noted criminal activities that have been associated with inmate use of contraband cell
phones.
Table 13.Examples of Contraband Cell Phone Criminal Activity
State/
Country

Report
Year

Criminal
Act(s)
Noted

Inside or
outside
prison

Reference URL

South
Carolina

2010

Murder
(attempted)

Outside

http://newsone.com/753345/prisoner-ordered-hit-outside-ofprison-with-smuggled-cell-phone/

Georgia

2011

Organized
Inmate
Uprisings

Inside

http://www.valdostadailytimes.com/local/x1331361164/Cellphones-spark-Georgia-prison-unrest

North
Carolina

2012

Kidnapping
& Harassment

Outside

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/11/3776630/kelvinmelton-imprisoned-for-life.html and/or
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/12/north-carolinainmate-kidnapping-mobile-phone

Ohio (other
locations
mentioned)

2012

Multiple

Inside/
Outside

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/news/cellphonesweapons-and-drugs-flood-ohio-prisons-1/nMySK/

South
Carolina

2012

Smuggling,
blackmail,
harassment

Inside/
Outside

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120430/PC16/1204399
59 and
http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120430/PC16/1204399
71

Georgia

2013

Planning
Violent
Robberies

Outside

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/inmate-accusedplanning-violent-crimes-prison/nXbw8/

Georgia

2013

Homicide

Inside

http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/2013-03-24/gangs-cellphones-blamed-rise-homicides-georgia-prisons

Indiana

2013

Harassment

Outside

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/call-6investigators/families-victims-targeted-by-indiana-stateprisoners-with-illegal-phones

Tennessee

2013

“violent
crimes”

Outside

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/23631961/prisonersconfiscated-cell-phones-help-non-profit

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

State/
Country

Report
Year

Criminal
Act(s)
Noted

Inside or
outside
prison

92

Reference URL

Georgia

2013

Prison
Brawl Video

Inside

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C77wyuzh3oM

California

2014

Drug
trafficking
& Violent
Crime

Outside

http://abc30.com/archive/9531064/

Maryland
(Baltimore
is mentioned)

2014

Smuggling
etc.

Inside/
Outside

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/24_2_baltimore-correctionalservices-corruption.html

Florida
(other
locations
mentioned)

2014

Multiple

Inside/
Outside

http://tbo.com/news/crime/prisoners-use-of-smuggledcellphones-on-rise-20140216/

Brazil
(Baltimore
is mentioned)

2014

Murder

Outside

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/04/prisonersare-calling-whos-answering

Honduras

2014

Extortion

Outside

http://dialogoamericas.com/en_GB/articles/rmisa/features/regional_news/2014
/05/30/honduras-seguridad

International

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

93

Appendix B: Semi-Structured Focus Group Protocol and
Teleconference Protocols
Initial Focus Group Protocol – Mississippi Department of Corrections
Kick-Off: Introductions
a. Who we are (introductions, roles, background)
b. Overall charter and focus of NIJ
c. Work in corrections and communications
d. Assessment experience
1. Background of the project
a. What motivated you to install the managed access system? Were there specific issues, a
specific event, or general concern? Did you conduct a needs assessment or develop
metrics to quantify the extent of the problem?
b. What alternative approaches were implemented?
c. What alternative approaches were considered?
2. System procurement
a. How was the current system procured?
b. What was the installation cost? Ongoing maintenance costs? Training costs? How are
those costs funded?
c. What was the timeline of procurement, installation, training, operation, etc.?
3. Technical operation of the system
a. Physically view the system.
4. Operation of the managed access system
a. Who installed the system? Who operates the system? How is the system maintained
(hardware, software, data)?
b. How are users trained?
c. What are the relevant policies regarding cell phone use (employees, visitors)? How are
these policies enforced?
d. What is the criteria and procedure for classifying cell phones?
5. Operational impact
a. What was your expectation for mitigating the issue that they were trying to address?
b. What is your overall perception of system performance and impact?
c. What would you change if you could (technical, policy, and legislative)?
d. What data have you collected to date on system performance and system impact?

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

94

e. Overall what data is collected? Is that data available for analysis? How can that data be
accessed? Is there any data sets for which we can view representative samples at this
time?
f. How can we collect additional data if needed?
Debrief: Action steps for the future

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

95

Appendix C: Mississippi State Penitentiary Inmate Security
Classifications
Security Level
Classification
Minimum

Minimum:
Community
Minimum Status
Minimum: NonCommunity
Minimum Status

Medium

Close
Death Row

Definition
Affords the offender a more relaxed atmosphere and extension of
privileges and requires the ability to work satisfactorily with minimum
supervision or security control.
Least security and supervision required of an offender. Usually this type
offender works in the community.
Least security and supervision required of an institutionalized offender and
usually housed under minimum security circumstances. The offender may
participate in activities on facility grounds without direct supervision, but
must be supervised by trained correctional staff when off grounds.
Offender has displayed a desire to be considered responsible presents a
moderate risk. Offenders are housed in a medium security facility and
permitted to move about the housing unit or security work area, but are
within direct observation of correctional staff. Offenders are under
direct/constant armed correctional supervision when engaged in activities
outside the perimeter of the correctional facility.
Highest risk general population inmate and requires close supervision
where the offender must be under positive security control at all times.
The offender must be under armed supervision outside the perimeter.
All male offenders sentenced to death in Mississippi are held in MSP's
Unit 29.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

96

Appendix D: MSP Managed Access System Infrastructure
The pictures included in this section were taken during a site visit made by the Engility team
to the Mississippi State Penitentiary on May 31, 2012. These pictures are included to document
specific aspects of the managed access installation.
As noted in the description of the installation, the system antennas were mounted on a water
tower structure centrally located on the grounds of the MSP. Figure 16 shows the equipment
shelter located at the base of the water tower structure. The equipment inside the shelter is
shown in Figure 17, and the antennas, mounted on the structure, are shown in Figure 18

Figure 16. The MDOC Water Tower Equipment shelter

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Case study of Managed Access Technology

Figure 17. Equipment located in the MDOC Water Tower Equipment shelter

Figure 18. Antenna Equipment on the MDOC Water Tower

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

97