Bill Overview
Title: Prison Camera Reform Act of 2021
Description: This act establishes various requirements to ensure that the security camera, radio, and public address systems used by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) have the capabilities necessary to (1) ensure the health and safety of staff and inmates; and (2) ensure the documentation and accessibility of video evidence pertaining to misconduct, maltreatment, or criminal activity within correctional facilities. Among the requirements, the BOP must evaluate the systems currently in use at its facilities and implement a plan that addresses deficiencies in and makes upgrades to the systems.
Sponsors: Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in the federal prison system including staff and inmates globally
Estimated Size: 180000
- The act addresses the Bureau of Prisons, which means it affects federal prisons across the United States.
- Federal prison staff will be impacted as they must follow new procedures and potentially operate new technology introduced under this act.
- Federal prison inmates will be directly affected because their activities may be more closely monitored under upgraded systems.
- Improvements in security systems may impact the occurrence and documentation of misconduct and maltreatment, affecting both inmate well-being and legal proceedings.
- The Bureau of Prisons overall organization will be impacted by system changes in terms of budget allocations and operational adjustments.
Reasoning
- The population most directly affected by this policy includes federal prison staff and inmates. Their Cantril wellbeing scores may reflect how security improvements impact their psychological and physical safety, as well as daily life inside the prisons.
- The policy is unlikely to have a direct effect on people outside the prison system, but could have indirect effects on their perceptions of the prison system's effectiveness.
- A diverse set of perspectives within this affected population includes seasoned correctional officers, recently convicted inmates, long-term inmates, administrative staff, alongside different genders and ages.
Simulated Interviews
Correctional Officer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could make my job a lot safer if implemented correctly. I've seen situations escalate simply because we didn't have the evidence or communication setup to handle things efficiently.
- However, I'm concerned about how these changes might be rolled out -- whether there will be enough training and whether the systems will actually work as promised.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Administrative Prison Staff (Miami, Florida)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm mostly worried about the added workload without extra pay. These systems will require accurate documentation, and we might have to do more than we're doing right now.
- I do see the potential benefits for legal processes – having clear evidence can make a big difference.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Inmate (Leavenworth, Kansas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If cameras can prevent beatings or unnecessary punishments, then it's a good change. But if they're just installed and ignored, nothing will improve.
- I'm hopeful, but also skeptical they'll actually follow through without cutting corners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Inmate (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen the same promises over decades, yet little changes for us in here. I doubt improved cameras will stop malpractices entirely.
- There's hopefulness, sure, but we also see this as another 'shifting of resources' rather than real change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
IT Specialist, Bureau of Prisons (Bismarck, North Dakota)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative will keep us busy. It's a technical challenge we're excited to tackle, but we need consistent funding to ensure long-term success.
- I believe it will improve conditions if executed well, but the transition phase will be critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Newly Convicted Inmate (San Francisco, California)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about constant monitoring, but it's really about how they use the footage. If it makes the place safer, then it's fair.
- My well-being depends on how others use these systems – for good or to control.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired Correctional Officer (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These changes might have made a difference in my time. The fact that my peers now will perhaps face less risk is a personal positive.
- The technology must be reliable, training effective, or it’s just another piece of unfulfilled policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Lawyer working with inmates (Houston, Texas)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Documented evidence can be revolutionary for the justice system. This policy could empower us, and the inmates, if rolled out properly.
- The challenge will be securing access to footage, but it could transform cases if accessible and transparent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Prison Healthcare Staff (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased security could improve response times to medical emergencies, which would be a great step forward in inmate healthcare.
- While I see positives, it’s crucial the implementation doesn't add new obstacles or delays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Federal Bureau Implementation Consultant (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing technology upgrades that contribute to real solutions is satisfying. We aim to improve quality without significant disruptions.
- Success lies in adapting quickly to procedural changes and ensuring ongoing support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $70000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $90000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The immediate cost impact is significant due to the capital-intensive nature of upgrades.
- Training and adapting to new systems could require time and adjustment by prison staff and will incur additional costs beyond just equipment.
- Long-term savings are possible due to improved efficiency, safety, and reduced legal exposure.
- This project may have a limited but positive impact on the economy through job creation and increased industrial demand.