Can Correctional Facilities Charge for Contact?
How phone, video, and messaging fees shape family contact behind bars.
Communication is one of the few lifelines people retain during incarceration, but it often comes at a steep price. Prisons and jails have long charged for calls, video visits, and electronic messages, making routine contact with family members and lawyers expensive for many households.
The legal and policy debate is not about whether communication matters. It is about how much correctional systems may charge for it, who pays those costs, and whether high fees unfairly block access to basic human connection.
Why communication fees matter
For incarcerated people, access to phones and other communication tools is tied to personal relationships, reentry planning, and contact with the outside world. Families also rely on those channels to stay informed about safety, court dates, health concerns, and day-to-day needs.
When fees rise, contact often falls. That is not just a financial issue; it can affect emotional support, legal preparation, and the ability to maintain family bonds during confinement.
- High call prices can reduce the number of conversations families can afford.
- Extra account or transaction fees can add costs beyond the per-minute rate.
- Video visitation and messaging systems may be the only practical way to maintain regular contact in some facilities.
What kinds of charges are common?
Correctional communication systems can include several layers of fees. The most familiar is the per-minute charge for telephone calls, but that is only part of the picture.
Facilities and service providers may also impose fees for setting up accounts, depositing money, adding funds, or using related services. In some systems, the cost of a call is just one of several charges a family sees over time.
| Type of charge | What it covers | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Call rate | Per-minute or per-call phone charges | Directly determines how expensive conversations are |
| Video visit rate | Charges for virtual visitation sessions | Important when in-person visits are limited or unavailable |
| Messaging fees | Charges for electronic messages or photos | Affects everyday contact and quick updates |
| Ancillary fees | Account setup, deposits, payment processing, and similar extras | Raises the total cost even if the base rate seems low |
How federal policy has changed
Federal regulation has played a major role in limiting the cost of incarcerated communication. In 2024, the Federal Communications Commission adopted rate caps for prison and jail calling services and also addressed video visitation pricing.
According to the FCC, the new caps range from $0.06 per minute for all prisons and large jails to $0.12 per minute for audio calls at very small jails. The agency also capped video visitation rates, with lower ceilings depending on the size and type of facility.
The FCC’s action was significant for another reason: it also restricted certain ancillary charges and sought to curb the financial arrangements that can reward correctional systems for high user costs.
What the Martha Wright-Reed law changed
The Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communication Act expanded the FCC’s authority over communication services in correctional settings. The law gave the agency power to regulate in-state calling and video-call rates from correctional facilities so that those prices must be “just and reasonable.”
That change mattered because earlier federal rules focused more narrowly on interstate communications. By broadening oversight, Congress opened the door to more complete rate regulation across prison and jail systems.
- It strengthened federal oversight of prison and jail communications.
- It addressed both phone and video services.
- It signaled that communication access is not a luxury service.
How expensive can these services still be?
Even with reform, rates can vary widely by state, facility, and provider. Earlier data showed that 15-minute jail calls could cost anywhere from a little over one dollar to several dollars, and some facilities charged far more before federal caps took hold.
Industry and advocacy reports also show that some locations still charge far more than the lowest-cost systems. Prison Policy Initiative has reported that while some jails offer calls for one or two cents per minute, many charge roughly ten times that amount or more.
Cost variation is especially important because incarcerated families often have limited budgets. A small difference in per-minute pricing can determine whether weekly contact is possible or not.
Why video and messaging services are not a complete fix
Some facilities have reduced in-person visits or rely more heavily on remote systems. That shift can make video visitation and messaging indispensable, but it does not necessarily make communication affordable.
Vera has reported that video calling fees have been capped, but these services can still be costly relative to household income, especially when families must pay for repeated short sessions. Messaging systems can also create a steady stream of small charges that add up over time.
In other words, moving from voice to video or text does not automatically solve the affordability problem. It may simply change the form the cost takes.
Who usually pays?
In practice, the cost burden often falls on the incarcerated person’s loved ones outside the facility. Families may pay to open accounts, add money, or receive messages, even when the communication is initiated from inside prison or jail.
That design can have real consequences. The people paying are often those least able to absorb recurring charges, particularly when multiple family members rely on the same account for contact.
- Families may pay for call deposits and refill fees.
- Recipients may be charged for messages or photos in some systems.
- Some states are considering rules that shift more of the cost burden away from users.
State reform efforts and local responses
Federal rules do not end the story. States can still adopt their own limits on communication costs inside correctional facilities, and some have begun to do so.
For example, Maryland testimony on proposed legislation described efforts to stop state correctional facilities and telephone providers from charging incarcerated people or call recipients for use of telephone equipment or services in state prisons. That kind of legislation reflects a broader policy trend: lawmakers are increasingly treating communication access as an essential part of incarceration management rather than a revenue source.
State action is especially important where local facilities continue to rely on older pricing models or where contract structures make federal rules difficult to translate into meaningful savings for families.
Legal and policy questions that remain
The main legal question today is not whether correctional facilities can charge anything at all, but whether the charges are reasonable and consistent with federal and state rules. That standard leaves room for regulation, oversight, and litigation when prices appear excessive or unsupported by the actual cost of service.
Another unresolved issue is how to balance institutional administration with communication access. Facilities argue that they must cover operating costs and manage security. Advocates respond that the system should not depend on extracting large sums from prisoners and their families simply to preserve contact.
Practical effects on incarcerated people and families
When communication is expensive, the harm spreads beyond the person behind bars. Children may hear from a parent less often. Partners may lose regular contact. Attorneys and family members may spend more time coordinating around cost rather than substance.
That reduction in contact can also make reentry harder. Staying connected during incarceration helps people keep support networks intact, and those networks often matter after release for housing, employment, and stability.
- Reduced contact can weaken family relationships.
- High costs can discourage legal and emotional support.
- Affordable communication can help people prepare for release more effectively.
What to watch next
The next phase of reform will likely focus on implementation. The important questions are whether the FCC caps are enforced effectively, whether providers try to replace direct charges with new fees, and whether states build on federal rules with stronger local protections.
For families, the practical measure of success is simple: can they maintain regular, meaningful contact without paying unreasonable amounts? If the answer is yes, the system has moved closer to the idea that communication is a basic part of humane incarceration.
FAQs
Can prisons and jails charge for phone calls? Yes. Correctional facilities may charge for communication services, but federal and state rules can limit how much they charge and how those services are priced.
Are video visits also regulated? Yes. The FCC has capped video visitation rates in correctional settings, with limits that vary by facility type and size.
Do these rules apply only to interstate calls? No. The Martha Wright-Reed law expanded FCC authority to cover in-state calling and video-call costs from correctional facilities as well.
Why do families still report high costs? Because rates vary across facilities, and some systems still involve deposits, account charges, messaging fees, or other ancillary costs.
Can states create stronger protections? Yes. States can pass their own regulations governing communication services inside correctional facilities.
References
- The Cost of Communication: How Jails and Prisons Charge Incarcerated Persons for Phone Use — Georgetown Law, Poverty Journal Blog. 2024. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/poverty-journal/blog/the-cost-of-communication-how-jails-and-prisons-charge-incarcerated-persons-for-phone-use/
- The FCC Is Capping Outrageous Prison Phone Rates, but Companies Are Still Price Gouging — Vera Institute of Justice. 2024. https://www.vera.org/news/the-fcc-is-capping-outrageous-prison-phone-rates-but-companies-are-still-price-gouging
- Costly Prison Phone Call Fees Block Families From Staying Connected — Maryland General Assembly. 2025. https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/cmte_testimony/2025/jud/1T7GuaSjYkdZANxXTC-tWFVtPGrYE8DIM.pdf
- Prison Phone Justice: Rates and Kickbacks — Prison Phone Justice. 2024. https://www.prisonphonejustice.org
- Regulating the prison phone industry — Prison Policy Initiative. 2024. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/phones/
Similar Articles
Read full bio of medha deb
