State Correctional Facilities - Incarcerated Individuals - Costs of Telephone Communications
SB56 would require Maryland state correctional facilities, rather than incarcerated individuals or call recipients, to pay the costs charged by telephone service providers for authorized phone equipment and voice communication services used in the facility. It also prohibits facilities and providers from charging incarcerated individuals or third parties for those calls, while preserving the ability of facilities to disable phone service for disciplinary reasons. The bill defines covered telephone equipment and services broadly to include landline, wireless, cellular, VoIP, and similar voice communication technologies, but excludes video communication.
The bill also creates a temporary Costs of Telephone Communications Advisory Committee to study prison and jail no-charge phone programs, review Maryland usage and contract data, compare other states’ programs, and recommend ways to lower costs and implement a no-charge prison phone call system. The committee is required to report its findings by December 31, 2025, and is set to sunset in mid-2026.
In terms of state law, SB56 amends Correctional Services § 10-503 to remove telephone-related profits from the listed sources for certain correctional funds and adds a new subtitle establishing the no-charge telephone communications framework. It would shift the financial responsibility for inmate phone access to the correctional facility system and likely require changes to existing contracts, budgeting, and telecommunications arrangements within state prisons.
The available context shows no recorded votes or committee transcripts, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears aimed at expanding family contact and reentry support while also controlling costs through a study committee, suggesting a policy approach that is reform-oriented but fiscally cautious.
The main point of contention likely concerns who should bear the cost of prison phone calls and whether the state can afford a no-charge system. Other possible issues include the impact on correctional facility budgets, the role of telecommunications vendors, whether eliminating user charges affects existing revenue streams, and how the bill balances communication access with institutional discipline and security.
SB56 would materially change Maryland correctional law by shifting the cost of authorized inmate telephone communications from incarcerated individuals and call recipients to state correctional facilities, while barring charges to users or third parties. It would also establish a new statutory subtitle governing no-charge prison phone communications, require a 10-to-1 inmate-to-phone ratio, and create a temporary advisory committee to study implementation and cost reduction. The bill affects the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, correctional facilities, telephone service providers, incarcerated individuals, and families or other recipients of calls.
No committee transcripts or vote history were provided, so there is no direct record of debate or formal support/opposition in the materials. The bill’s design suggests a generally reform-minded and access-oriented policy goal, paired with a practical effort to study costs before full implementation. The inclusion of a temporary advisory committee and delayed effective date indicates an attempt to build consensus and address fiscal concerns.
The central controversy is likely the financial burden of making prison phone calls free: whether state correctional facilities should absorb provider charges, how those costs would be funded, and whether existing telecom contracts and revenue arrangements would need to change. Additional points of contention may include the removal of telephone-related profits from correctional funds, the adequacy of the required phone-to-inmate ratio, and whether the bill’s access provisions could create operational or security challenges. Stakeholders likely to differ include correctional administrators, budget officials, incarcerated individuals and their families, criminal justice reform advocates, correctional officers, and telephone service providers.