The legislation was just passed which paves the way for a fee for an application fee for the "background check" on anyone who applies to be on an ADOC inmates visitation! And it looks like it is going to be "retro active" as well. Which means even people on visitation lists BEFORE the law was enacted will have to pay the fee, which is likely to be $25. The bill also will likely result in a percentage of money sent to an inmate to deducted as a "processing fee" (I've heard 1%, but nothing concrete yet). Here's some of the text from MG's website and the link.
BREAKING NEWS: On April 1, 2011, the Legislature passed SB 1621 to the Governor. This bill includes a one-time fee for background checks for visitors to be charged by the DOC for everyone over the age of 18 who wants to visit a prisoner. Some exemptions will apply (probably for lawyers or their agents and for police officers, etc.), but children will not have to pay the fee. As we understand the intent of the bill, even those who are currently approved as adult visitors will have to pay the one-time fee. The fee was not listed in the bill; it will be up to the DOC to set the fee. We expect it to be around $25/person, but we are not sure of this amount at this time.
Middle Ground Prison Reform, Inc. :: Welcome
This is so unfortunate.
Last post
The Arizona legislature is placing the state prisons in the news yet again. The legislature has put a charge on visiting prisoners. The $25 fee is termed a "background check fee" but isn't really used for background checks. The brand new $25 jail visit fee in Arizona will be going to the basic fund, unless an advocacy group suit progresses.$25 prison visit fee in Arizona leads to lawsuit. I think they have an interesting idea regarding this issue because the fund that will be collected will be forwarded to the Department of Corrections for maintenance and repair to the prisons.
This action of the legislature just made the visiting so hard. This would be another burden for the prisons and their families but this also gives us another reason to stay out of trouble to avoid such additional consequence of being in prison. $25 prison visit fee in Arizona leads to lawsuit. Jail visits are the new type of an ATM, according to the legislature. The jail visitor charge will go towards the maintenance fund for the prisons. This is in spite of the belief that the fee is being referred to as a "background check fee".
I would also question how the $25 fee is to be collected from overseas applicants, and how the Arizona DoC intends to run the same type of background check on overseas applicants that it does for internal applicants - Arizona DoC has no juristiction over anywhere else outside the USA and cannot legally have access to a large portion of data held in any other national database of individual details.
In the UK alone we have the Data Protection act which covers this kind of thing. Where are the specifics to show that any data retrieved on an individual will be securely held and protected from misuse? Where is the audit trail? Who will have access to this sensitive information? What is the procedure if someone's personal information is stolen by a DoC employee as a result of this implementation?
If I had someone in Arizona DoC, I'd be asking those kinds of questions too.
The information below is self-explanatory. No need to respond to this email; it is sent to you for information purposes only. Our preliminary legal research indicates that the new fee for visitor background checks (which DOC has now dubbed as a "visitor application fee" for what we believe are very specious reasons) is an unconstitutional "special tax." We are in the early stages of preparing a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Charles Ryan, DOC Director. We hope to have the lawsuit prepared, written and filed prior to the effective date of the new fees, July 20, 2011. However, there is no way that the lawsuit will be resolved by that time. The "relief" we will be seeking is (1) to have the court declare that the statute is unconstitutional and imposes a "special tax" on prison visitors; and, (2) that all fees thus far collected are to be refunded. The court will NOT grant us a preliminary injunction (prior to implementation of the policy/fee) because the imposition of the fee does not represent "irreparable harm," which is the standard of law that must be met.
Please carefully read the information below. As you can see, we have demanded that the DOC re-write DO 911, effective 7/20/11 because they aren't even following the law that is stated in the new statute. By naming the fee a "visitation application fee" instead of what the law calls it -- a BACKGROUND CHECK FEE -- we believe that the DOC is trying to avoid having to perform actual background checks on all visitors because it will overwhelm their resources. Keep in mind that NONE of the fee monies collected are allowed to be used by the DOC to off-set the actual costs (whatever they are) for background checks. Instead, 100% of the monies collected MUST go to the Building Renewal Fund (to repair roofs, fire safety systems, locks, etc.) Note: ALL taxpayers benefit from the alleged safety that is created for the state by locking up prisoners; prisoner families should not have to pay the costs of building maintenance of prison facilities on their own. That's what this law attempts to do.
Right now, we don't need Plaintiffs for the lawsuit, but if we do need volunteers, we will put out the word and obtain names.
Thanks for understanding that this email is being distributed to more than 2,000 people and we can't possibly respond to individual questions from each one of you. Feel free to pass this information along to at least ten (10) people. If they want to be included on our Middle Ground E-mail alert list, ask them to send us an email with the subject line marked: ADD To Email Alert List.
Donna Leone (Hamm)
Criminal Justice Consultant
Executive Director - Middle Ground Prison Reform
See: Middle Ground Prison Reform, Inc. :: Welcome
MIDDLE GROUND HAS BEEN ARIZONA'S PREMIER CHAMPION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INCARCERATED SINCE 1983
From: middlegroundprisonreform
Subject: RE-WRITE needed: DO 911/Relevant portions of of SB 1621
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 15:54:39 -0700
Mr. R.,
As we discussed, I am writing to provide you with concerns and objections to the implementation of SB 1621, specifically that part which provides for a fee for background checks for visitors, but which will actually be used (100%) to fund an Building Renewal Fund wholly operated by the DOC. I noted on the DOC website that you have already issued revised DO 911, effective 7/20/11, but for various reasons -- particularly because it is illegally written from the start -- it will have to be revised.
ARS 41-1604.3 states, ESTABLISH BY RULE A ONE-TIME FEE FOR CONDUCTING BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ANY PERSON WHO ENTERS A DEPARTMENT FACILITY TO VISIT A PRISONER. A FEE SHALL NOT BE CHARGED FOR A PERSON WHO IS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE. THE DIRECTOR MAY ADOPT RULES THAT WAIVE ALL OR PART OF THE FEE. THE DIRECTOR SHALL DEPOSIT, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 35-146 and 35-147, ANY MONIES COLLECTED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS BUILDING REVEWAL FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-797.
Please note the underlined portions of the above paragraph. The recently revised Visitation policy, effective July 20, 2011, and known as DO 911, states at 1.2, Visitation Application Fee, A one'time, non-refundable, $25.00 application fee must be paid at the time the application is submitted for all adult visitors. . . . All fees collected shall be applied to the Building Renewal Fund.
Mr. Ryan, there is no such thing in Arizona law which authorizes a "Visitation Application Fee." As noted above, the fee is imposed for "conducting background checks." This is an important distinction and must be rectified.
Although I, myself, am a potential visitor to the prison facilities throughout the state, I decied to poll our Middle Ground email "alert" list (which consists of about 2,000 valid addresses) to see what thoughts and concerns others have about this background check fee. In no order of importance and in no order of frequency of an item being mentioned, those concerns -- along with those specifically identified by Middle Ground -- are listed below.
As I previously mentioned to you, this list of concerns -- even if taken into account by the Department in re-writing the policy which will govern this fee -- in no way constitutes an endorsement or support of the fee. We are adamantly opposed to any fee imposed on potential visitors and believe it to be an unconstitutional special tax.
1. The amount of the fee is of grave concern. DPS charges only $5 for a background check for any person who properly identifies him/herself. The $25 fee as identified in DO 911 is exhorbitant.
2. Visitors have indicated they will expect to be provided a written or digital receipt for paying the fee or fees. There is no indication of providing this reasonable information to anyone who pays money to the Department contained within DO 911. This is critical since any subsequent re-incarceration of a released inmate is not supposed to result in another fee for his previously-paid visitors. The Department may lose a computer record which confirms receipt of the previous payment. A written receipt to the person who pays the fee is expected and required.
4. Since visitors are required to pay for a background check (and not, as the Department has disingenuously renamed it, a "Visitor application fee") , they will expect to receive a copy of the results of the background check. The background checks are confidential, but not to the party on whom the check is being performed (see DPS rules and statutory authorities). This document will have to be mailed by the Department to an address provided by the applicant. Persons who pay for a product or "service" provided by the State are entitled to receive the product they paid for. The statute authorizes a fee for a background check only. There is no statutory fee authorized for a "visitor application."
5. On the date the fee provision goes into effect, will all persons currently approved as visitors be denied visitation until they pay the fee and have a new background check performed? There are already extraordinary delays in clearing visitors through background checks (although the process itself only takes a few minutes, according to DPS). Will all visitors to the Arizona DOC have to have their visitation suspended until a new check is finalized?
6. Will additional staff be hired to timely process all the new and/or updated background checks that will need to be performed?
7. If a person visits more than one inmate (multiple family members incarcerated), is there still a one-time background check fee?
8. How was the $25 fee arrived at by DOC? DPS charges only $5 for a background check fee.
9. Why are there no exemptions (except for lawyers and their agents) for the background check fee? What about truly indigent persons?
10. Once a previous visitor turns age 18, will they have to pay the background check fee upon turning 18 even if they are already visiting as a child?
11. What reports does the Department intend to prepare and distribute which reflects how the collected monies are being spent (on building renewal)?
12. If someone lives in an out-of-state location and has no intention (or means) of visiting, will they still have to pay the fee to become a telephone contact for the prisoner? (The statute says only visitors over the age of 18 will pay the background check fee).
13. How long must a potential visitor wait to be advised whether the application has been approved or not? Will approvals be significantly delayed as a result of all the new background checks that must be performed to comply with this statute?
14. The DOC receipt sent to the applicant must include assurances that the privacy of the applicant is strictly protected and that the information is not sold to any other agency, company or used for any other purpose that a background check for visitation approval.
Please advise what you intend to do to address the above reasonable concerns, as well as to revise DO 911 to correctly identify the reason for the fee (background check).
Donna Leone (Hamm)
Criminal Justice Consultant
Executive Director - Middle Ground Prison Reform
See: Middle Ground Prison Reform, Inc. :: Welcome
MIDDLE GROUND HAS BEEN ARIZONA'S PREMIER CHAMPION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INCARCERATED SINCE 1983
Yeh, at the airports too, highway robbery...
well maybe they should get the vending machine owners to cough up some of the money they make raping the visitors on visiting days
I in my personal expereince as a child or raising mine did the school provide the supplies of basic's (crayons, pencils, pens, paper, glue etc.)
Now before school starts they hold off on charging tax when purchase school supplys, clothes, etc.
Charities help the poor.
These are all individual personal expenses. For the low income they also provide free lunches.
I know this will not be a popular response here, but some family is very disfunctional and may have criminal records too. It takes time and expense to check out each person it is a business. Security is costly.
Well thats sad they don't listen my husband being in fed they wouldn't listen either but its high time families were not treated as criminals
They have a very active friends and family liason department. That's funded by the ADOC, so they are active...always active in telling friends and family why they can't do anything. It's very sad!
...and not just because of buying school supplies, LOL!!!! (sitting here eating their bodyweight in food 3x a day...grumble grumble...)
Paying for one is enough. Im glad I dont have two.
Tell me about it! I spend a small fortune on 2 every year!
In a way they do gooddog, they make the parents buy the crayons and stuff like that BEFORE school starts now. You are given a list of what your child NEEDS, and that they REQUIRE you to buy. They say they dont have enough funding, blah blah... but when I was a kid, the schools PROVIDED all of that.
This was someone's bright idea on how to help fund the prison system which they are always screaming about in this country is broke and needs cuts to get by.
Now If only they could fund the schools...maybe they should charge the kids a dollar to use the crayons.
there needs to be some kind of liaison to advocate for families rights in individual prisons
It's uncertain how the "fee" will roll out, but I would imagine it would be paid by the visitor. The fee is likely to be implemented by the beginning of their new fiscal year, 7/1/2011.
The potential 1% "processing" fee I am not sure when that might go into effect. But that will definitely be paid for by the inmates, via a reduction of what is put on their books. For example, if you send $100, $99 would be posted to their account, and the ADOC would keep the $1 as a "processing fee".
Ya, the ADOC is definitely one of the worst ADOC's! I'm not aware of any other DOC CHARGING to be on an inmates visitation list! And yes, since you have to be on their visitation list to get your phone number registered, the $25 would relate to you as well. It's not a cost associated with actual visitation, but the "background" check, which anyone is subject to!
Oh man.
That AZ prisonsystem really IS crazy isn't it?
If I understand well, even for me who only wants to be on the list so my pp can call me, it will cost 25$?
And do I or HE have to pay for it? (Didn't understand that 1% part).
Man.:dunno: