IDOC ADMINISTRATORS DETERMINE PRISONER COMMUNICATIONS ARE LOWEST PRIORITIES DESPITE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM PRISONERS AND THEIR FAMILIES DESIGNATED FOR PRIORITIZATION

On January 23, 2024 I sent a JPay email containing the Prison Gerrymandering article (posted to this site) and a short email to hosts of a local radio [news/talk] station. Weeks later, the email still hadn't arrived to the intended recipient. I had not been notified by staff that it was being held, nor was there any reason - legitimate or otherwise - provided to me for staff refusing to release it.

Following protocol and policy, I sent a Concern Form to the proper personnel as directed in Idaho Department of Correction Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). Not having received a response to that Concern Form within 7 days (as directed by SOP) I filed a grievance on February 12, 2024.

On February 20, 2024 the email was finally released to the intended recipient. There was nothing contained within it that presented any security or other concern.

On March 27, 2024 the Level 1 responder answered in my grievance (No. ISCC-24-REG-00203) that the reason my email had not been released as required by SOP was that the IDOC does not have staff designated solely to review JPay messages. He went on to explain that the task [of reviewing emails] are "additional duty" for staff, and that "facility driven incidents will take priority over additional duties."

These delays - and the excuses therefore - seem to be getting more common, and more ridiculous as time goes by.

On October 24, 2023 I sent an outgoing JPay email. Having discovered that email had not been released I sent a Concern Form per SOP, only to be told - in writing - that it was MY fault the email was stopped (and held for longer than SOP allows without proper due process) because I used a [key] word that is 'flagged' by administrators --- a common word that is used virtually every day, and had no negative or security ramifications. Further, the list of keywords that are 'flagged', causing the system to automatically prevent the emails from being processed, are redacted from the JPay/IDOC contract, and are not provided to prisoners.

On occasion, I can understand why some emails are automatically flagged by the system to be reviewed by staff (for context). For example, an email was recently sent to me by a friend describing some long-standing mechanical issue he'd been having with one of his cars. In the telling of how the matter resolved itself in his favor, he happened to mention the model of the car, a Ford Esc*#e, so yea, I can see the point - but it shouldn't have taken more than a week for someone to review the email and release it to me.

The Level 1 responder to the most recent grievance was correct though - the responsibility in reviewing JPay messages is not one that is prioritized by IDOC or facility administrators, though one of the oft stated [reasons] JPay charges Idaho prisoners, family and friends more than twice the price of many other states and prison contractors to send emails, attachments and videos is to offset the cost of staff time and positions to do just that.

Rather than performing their assigned duties of reviewing flagged emails in the system however, some staff prioritize sitting and playing games on their personal telephones, sending emails, watching videos and doing things other than the additional duties assigned. These [additional] duties can be assigned to staff as a typical function of a specific post, as discipline for infractions, light duty assignments or other reasons.

In any event, as the Level 1 responder stated, reviewing these flagged communications are staff DUTIES, and duties are actions that take priority over personal telephones during work hours, especially where taxpayer dollars and monies derived from the families and friends of prisoners - as well as prisoners themselves - are being used to pay these staff.

The Level 2 responder in the grievance, a deputy warden, agreed [with me] that the time between the time I sent the January 23 email, and the time it was passed on [released to the recipient] was excessive, and stated he would discuss the matter with the proper staff to come up with a solution to approve messages in a more timely manner. Hopefully this will work - this time.

Oh, and as I write this piece, I'm waiting on an email sent to me by a friend 5 days ago. I'm told it contains a short article on Elon Musk --- a security issue if ever I've heard one.

_________

News and opinions about the inside, from the inside. Subscribe now - it's FREE! If you'd like to be emailed a link to new postings on this site, send an email to daleshackelford1@gmail.com with the Subject: Keep Me in the Loop!

We don't sell or share our subscriber data with anyone, and all articles may be reprinted and shared without further permission (just tell 'em where you saw it!)