AN IN-DEPTH LOOK AT THE PRISON MONEY TRANSFER SYSTEM: CASH COW FOR PRIVATE VENDOR JPAY, BURDEN ON FAMILIES
The Center for Public Integrity’s Daniel Wagner has an excellent two-part series examining how private financial institutions are making huge profits by charging inmates’ families outrageous fees to transfer money to their loved ones behind bars.
According to Wagner, in some states, the private company JPay—which provides money transfers to nearly 70% of inmates in US prisons—charges families nearly 45% of what they are sending.
While the fees are nowhere near that high in California, it costs $6.95 to send $50 (over 10%) and $9.95 to send $120 to an inmate through JPay.
These fees overburden families, often forcing them to visit their loved ones less often in order to be able to send money for necessities like toothbrushes and toilet paper.
Here are some clips from Wagner’s story:
JPay and other prison bankers collect tens of millions of dollars every year from inmates’ families in fees for basic financial services. To make payments, some forego medical care, skip utility bills and limit contact with their imprisoned relatives, the Center for Public Integrity found in a six-month investigation.
Inmates earn as little as 12 cents per hour in many places, wages that have not increased for decades. The prices they pay for goods to meet their basic needs continue to increase.
By erecting a virtual tollbooth at the prison gate, JPay has become a critical financial conduit for an opaque constellation of vendors that profit from millions of poor families with incarcerated loved ones.
JPay streamlines the flow of cash into prisons, making it easier for corrections agencies to take a cut. Prisons do so directly, by deducting fees and charges before the money hits an inmate’s account. They also allow phone and commissary vendors to charge marked-up prices, then collect a share of the profits generated by these contractors.
Taken together, the costs imposed by JPay, phone companies, prison store operators and corrections agencies make it far more difficult for poor families to escape poverty so long as they have a loved one in the system.
[SNIP]
Funding prisons out of the pockets of families and inmates has non-financial costs too, says Brian Nelson, who spent 28 years in an Illinois state prison for murder. Nelson says he has “become an asset to society” since he was released four years ago because he stayed in touch with family and priests even when he was in solitary confinement. When inmates can’t afford to maintain contact with the outside world, he says, they are less equipped to transition smoothly to civilian life.
The effect on poor families is especially harsh, Nelson says: “It’s a wife that has three children at home, and her husband is in jail, so now she has a choice: Do I send money to him so he can afford to stay in touch with the kids, or do I feed the kids?”
Part two of Wagner’s series explores the lucrative no-bid contracts that .. have with the US Treasury to provide debit cards for just-released prisoners that charge unusually high fees for use. It’s a complex story—read the whole thing here.
And the Center for Public Integrity’s Amirah Al Idrus has a companion story about how JPay also gouges inmates upon their release. Many prisons give released inmates the money they’ve made working jobs on the inside, as well as any balance of money sent to them by relatives on a JPay debit card. The card incurs fees for each transaction, fees for checking the balance, making withdrawals, and even for not using the card within 60 days. Here’s how it opens:
When Clarence Justin Aldred was released from Macomb Correctional Facility in New Haven, Michigan, in July 2013, he left with the balance of his inmate account, which consisted of his prison wages and any leftover money sent by family.
Aldred received no cash. The money was accessible via a debit card issued by JPay Inc., a Miami-based company that provides financial services to inmates. After 29 years inside, the card was Aldred’s only way to make most purchases. After using it a few times, Aldred, 57, noticed that $15 was missing.
“They kept charging me every time I used it. Nobody told me that,” he said.
Michigan is one of at least 15 states where prisoners are given their inmate account balance on a prepaid card when they are released. The cards usually carry a variety of fees that eat away at the small amount of money most former inmates are left with to restart their lives. Inmate release cards have drawn criticism from consumer lawyers and faced litigation in at least two states.
One county in Arkansas agreed to pay $71,609.58 to settle charges that the fees illegally deprived people of access to their own money. A federal judge refused to approve the proposed settlement and invited the parties to submit a modified agreement.
JPay provides the cards in at least 11 states. In most cases, the fees exceed what consumers would pay for similar services.
In Michigan, for example, JPay charges users 50 cents to check the card’s balance at an ATM, $2 to withdraw cash, 70 cents to make a purchase and 50 cents a month for a maintenance fee. Even not using the card costs money. Doing nothing draws a $2.99 fee after 60 days. To cancel the card, it costs $9.95.
WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE MILLIONS IN TAXPAYER $$ SPENT ON EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE LAWSUITS
When people wronged by police officers win settlements and lawsuits against police departments, cities, and thus taxpayers, get the bill.
Big cities have big bills, too—Los Angeles paid $54 million last year, Chicago $85 million, and so on. Having taxpayers foot the bill is supposed to create better accountability and police work.
The Washington Post’s Radley Balko says this may not be the case, in part, because cops are personally protected by “qualified immunity,” people alleging police brutality don’t often win, and either way, the officers themselves are not financially responsible. Balko says that one way around this may be making officers pay a portion of the damages over time. Here are some clips:
The Chicago Sun-Times reported earlier this year that the city has payed out nearly half a billion dollars in settlements over the past decade, and spent $84.6 million in fees, settlements, and awards last year. The Chicago Police Department is about three times the size of the Baltimore PD. Chicago the city has about four times as many people as Baltimore. Crunch those numbers as you wish. Bloomberg News reported that in 2011, Los Angeles paid out $54 million, while New York paid out a whopping $735 million, although those figures include negligence and other claims unrelated to police abuse. Oakland Police Beat reported in April that the city had paid out $74 million to settle 417 lawsuits since 1990. That’s a little more than $3 million per year. The Denver Post reported in August that the Mile High City paid $13 million over 10 years. The Dallas Morning News reported in May that the city has forked over $6 million since 2011. And last month, Minneapolis Public Radio put that city’s payout at $21 million since 2003.
[SNIP]
Cops themselves are protected by the doctrine qualified immunity, which makes it difficult for a plaintiff to even get into court. But even if you do, and you win (also far from a given), in the vast majority of cases, the cop himself won’t have to pay any damages. (It happens, but it’s rare.) Some critics have called for police to be required to pay these damages themselves, as a deterrent. That might well work. The problem is that an officer did significant damage to someone, they’re unlikely have the money to make that person whole. Perhaps the best option is to take money from the cops at fault over a long period of time, then supplement that with public money. I’ve also seen suggestions that settlements be paid from police pension funds. I can see the appeal there, but it doesn’t seem wise to penalize all cops for the bad ones.
HOW TO CHANGE PROBLEMATIC EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY PRACTICES THAT LEAD TO WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
Experts say that eyewitness’ mistaken identifications account for the majority of wrongful convictions (the Innocence Project says a whopping 72%).
A welcome new report from the National Research Council lays out recommendations for how to overhaul the flawed use of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases.
Recommendations for police forces include creating double blind line-ups, videotaping the process of identification, and special training for law enforcement officers.
The Crime Report has more on the report’s recommendations. Here’s a clip:
Research during the last few decades has made it increasingly clear that eyewitness testimony in criminal cases can be prone to inaccuracy or error, according to the report, which dozens of academics and law enforcement experts contributed to.
The report notes that human visual perception and memory is limited and law enforcement often gives unintentional cues that can compromise eyewitness identifications.
Conditions such as dim lighting, stress, or the presence of a “visually distracting element such as a gun or knife,” can compromise perception, according to the report.
HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES NEEDS HELP FUNDING TATTOO REMOVAL PROGRAM
Homeboy Industries has launched an Indiegogo campaign to bolster their tattoo removal program for former gang members. Homeboy’s current ability to remove gang-related tattoos relies on one bad-tempered machine to serve more than 3,000 men and women a year hoping to better their lives.
Here’s a clip from the campaign page:
Many of the thousands of former gang members and previously incarcerated men and women who come to Homeboy Industries each year come through the tattoo removal program. Gang-related tattoos on their faces, neck, hands and wrists are some of their first of many hurdles to employment and how the world views them.
Homeboy’s tattoo removal program is a gateway to a better life. We know that those who come here for ink removal generally end up staying and taking advantage of our other services such as life skills, anger management and parenting classes; legal referral program; job training and placement; support groups and education.
“Our clients are done with the hate and bad decisions,” said Homeboy’s Medical Director, Dr. Paula Pearlman. “These brave people endure a long wait for an appointment and the terrible pain of the removal process over and over again.”
Here’s what donations are providing:
Two new lasers – current technology improves efficiency of the machines, we can remove more ink with fewer treatments
Two skin cooling machines – decreases the pain of the removal process; with the new lasers leads us into the 21st c. with a state-of-the-art program
New desktop computers for treatment rooms to increase efficiency of the documentation process
Machine maintenance, supplies, skin numbing cream, sunblock and staff support.
Additional funds raised will support greater growth of the tattoo removal program, helping even more people reclaim the truth of who they are and become contributing members of the community.