Duties modification of certain facilities that confine people relating to phone calls and other communication services
Summary
SF 666 would require state correctional facilities and certain human services facilities, settings, and programs to provide free voice communication services to incarcerated or confined people, and it allows facilities to supplement those services with video calls, email, and electronic messaging. The bill also requires that communication services not be limited beyond ordinary program participation and routine facility policies, and it prohibits charging either the person initiating or receiving the communication for the service. It preserves existing restrictions tied to protection orders, harassment restraining orders, and other no-contact directives.
The bill further requires facilities to maintain in-person visitation programs and bars video calls or other communication services from replacing in-person visits or counting toward visitation limits, except during declared emergencies or natural disasters. It also prohibits state agencies operating facilities from receiving revenue from these communication services, while allowing commissions only under contracts entered into before January 1, 2023. In addition, the bill expands reporting requirements for the Department of Corrections and other covered agencies, including contract status, renegotiation efforts, spending of appropriated funds, and usage data for calls and messages.
Impact
The bill amends Minnesota Statutes section 241.252 and creates a new section in chapter 246 to extend free communication-service requirements beyond correctional facilities to certain human services and Direct Care and Treatment settings. It changes how facilities may structure, pay for, and report on phone and other communication services, and it prevents those costs from being folded into the cost of care for patients or clients. The measure would affect the Department of Corrections, the Department of Human Services, the Direct Care and Treatment executive board, and people confined in state-run adult or juvenile facilities or certain civil commitment settings.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to reflect a policy goal of expanding access to communication for confined people and reducing financial burdens associated with calls and messaging. There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal opposition or support is documented here. The bill’s structure suggests a generally reform-oriented approach focused on access, transparency, and limiting agency revenue from communication contracts.
Contention
The main likely points of contention are the cost to state agencies, the loss of commission revenue from communication contracts, and the operational impact of requiring free communication services and detailed reporting. Another possible area of debate is the bill’s restriction that video or other communication services cannot substitute for in-person visitation, which could be viewed as protecting visitation rights but also as limiting facility flexibility. The bill also preserves exceptions for no-contact orders and certain civil commitment restrictions, indicating concern about safety and legal limits on communication access.
In miscellaneous provisions relating to inmate confinement, providing for communications services for inmates in State or county correctional institutions.