Bill Overview
Title: Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022
Description: This act requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to ensure that rates and charges for payphone services or other calling devices, including advanced (e.g., audio or video) communications services in correctional institutions, are just and reasonable. When promulgating regulations or otherwise implementing this act, the FCC (1) may use industry-wide average costs related to providing telephone and advanced communications services, and (2) must consider costs for safety and security measures related to providing communications services in correctional facilities.
Sponsors: Sen. Duckworth, Tammy [D-IL]
Target Audience
Population: People incarcerated globally
Estimated Size: 1900000
- The bill targets payphone or advanced communication services in correctional institutions, which implies it primarily impacts inmates.
- There are approximately 10.74 million people incarcerated globally at any given time.
- A significant number of incarcerated individuals utilize communication services to maintain contact with their families and legal representatives.
- The cost and accessibility of these services have been a long-standing issue, indicating a widespread and direct impact on the incarcerated population.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts the prison population directly by making communication more affordable and accessible, thereby potentially improving wellbeing.
- The policy is budget-constrained, so the effect may not cover all facilities equally or immediately, meaning some individuals may not see improvements right away.
- The policy indirectly impacts families of incarcerated individuals by potentially lowering their financial burdens.
- Some individuals may not use payphone services frequently and thus may see little impact on their wellbeing.
- Consideration of various types of inmates, including those serving short-term and long-term sentences, to capture a broad spectrum of experiences.
- The policy focus is on cost reduction rather than service expansion or quality improvement, so the magnitude of impact may vary.
Simulated Interviews
None (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will make it easier to call my kids more often, which is important for maintaining our bond.
- Not having to worry as much about the cost will relieve some stress.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
None (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Payphones are really expensive and I can't always call my partner when I want to.
- A lower price would help me stay connected with my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
None (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sounds good but for me, it won't matter much as I rarely call anyone.
- Maybe it will encourage me to reach out more if it becomes affordable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
None (New York, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lower communication rates could allow me to talk to my family abroad more frequently.
- I've saved up to use these services, and cheaper calls would help a lot.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 2 |
None (Miami, FL)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My family is quite supportive, but the high costs of calls strain them a bit.
- Cheaper calls would definitely brighten my days.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
None (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regular calls with my children help me cope with prison life.
- The policy could improve my ability to stay in touch, positively impacting my mental health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
None (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 2
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see much change for my situation, as I rarely use these services.
- Hopefully, it improves things for others who rely on it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Year 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 2 |
None (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope to rebuild contact with my family as I near release; affordability will be crucial.
- Any reduction in call costs could help set a positive path for reintegration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
None (Boston, MA)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any reduction in service costs could help relieve some of the financial pressures on my limited resources.
- It's one less thing to be stressed about.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
None (Denver, CO)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- High costs have been a barrier to maintaining contact with friends and community services.
- More accessible rates could drastically improve my opportunities to stay connected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $48000000 (Low: $28000000, High: $77000000)
Year 3: $46000000 (Low: $27000000, High: $75000000)
Year 5: $43000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $40000000 (Low: $22000000, High: $65000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $50000000)
Key Considerations
- The adjustments in telecommunications prices could lead to legal challenges depending on contractual obligations with service providers.
- Monitoring the compliance and enforcement of this legislation may require significant administrative resources.
- Long-term social benefits from potentially improved recidivism rates could offset some economic drawbacks in the broader economy.