Bill Overview
Title: Cellphone Jamming Reform Act of 2022
Description: This bill allows a state or federal correctional facility to operate a jamming system to interfere with cellphone signals within inmate housing facilities.
Sponsors: Sen. Cotton, Tom [R-AR]
Target Audience
Population: People incarcerated in prisons worldwide and associated stakeholders
Estimated Size: 1900000
- The use of cell phone jammers in prisons will primarily impact inmates, as they will no longer be able to use contraband cell phones.
- Correctional facility staff will also be affected as their in-facility communication dynamics might change.
- Family and friends of inmates might experience changes in communication patterns if inmates previously relied on illicit cellphone communication.
- Suppliers and manufacturers of jamming technology could see increased business opportunities.
- Local communities near these facilities might experience changes if the jamming signals expand beyond the intended area.
Reasoning
- The sample size includes a mix of individuals directly and indirectly affected by the policy, such as inmates, correctional staff, family members, and local community residents.
- The budget constraint limits the number of facilities that can afford to implement the technology, affecting a fraction of the total incarcerated population.
- The policy may have a limited geographic impact due to budget constraints; hence, individuals from areas with denser correctional facility populations are more likely to be affected.
- The technology use could vary by facility type and security level, affecting federal prisons more than state or county facilities.
- It's vital to consider varying levels of previous contraband cell phone usage among inmates, which influences their direct impact.
Simulated Interviews
Inmate (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The cellphone is my only lifeline to my mom. This is going to make it a lot harder for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 1 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 1 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 3 |
Correctional Officer (Memphis, TN)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might make my job a bit easier, but I'm worried about inmates finding other ways to communicate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Mother of Inmate (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't have any other way to stay in touch with my son. This will be very hard on us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Inmate (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried because it might cut off my connections, but really it was always a risk.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 1 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 1 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 4 |
Jamming Technology Supplier (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could boost our business significantly if we secure a few contracts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Community Resident (Houston, TX)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I just hope it doesn't mess with our cell service at home.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Inmate (New York, NY)
Age: 49 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It will complicate my legal matters, but it's expected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 1 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 1 | 3 |
Prison Warden (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While it might help reduce crime inside, I'm worried about the resentment it could cause.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Inmate's Sister (Miami, FL)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear losing touch with him. It helps me feel like I'm supporting him.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Retired Veteran (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope it won't cause health issues, with all this new tech they're trying.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $55000000)
Year 3: $45000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $55000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $55000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $65000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The need for strict regulation and monitoring to prevent jamming signals from affecting areas outside prisons.
- Ensuring compliance with FCC regulations on jamming technology.
- Costs may be reduced if implementing technologies already integrated into existing security infrastructures.
- Engagement with local communities on potential signal spillover effects.
- Monitoring the impact on prisoner-staff dynamics and adjusting communication protocols accordingly.