Contraband Cell Phone Usage Patterns

• Author: Jeremy G. Carter,Eric Grommon,Charles Scheer
• DOI: 10.1177/1525107117725013
• Published date: 01 December 2016
• Date: 01 December 2016
• Subject Matter: Research Articles

Research Article

Contraband Cell Phone

Usage Patterns: An

Exploratory Examination of

Captured Transmission Data

Eric Grommon

1

, Jeremy G. Carter

1

and Charles Scheer

2

Abstract

Contraband cell phones pose significant challenges for correctional administrators

and policy makers. Data to examine the nature of the contraband cell phone problem

remains elusive, rendering much of the debate about how these issues have arisen and

what can be done to resolve challenges informed by anecdotes. Using a data collection

of 425,443 contraband cell phone-attempted transmissions, the present study pro-

vides important empirical evidence of contraband cell phone user behavior. Findings

indicate that the calling patterns of contraband cell phone users mirror those of the

general public. Phones are most likely used to maintain in-state contact with an inti-

mate network of up to six partners, to entertain oneself, to manage personal finances,

or a combination of these motivations.

Keywords

contraband, cell phones, institutional corrections, managed access

Introduction

Contraband cell phones have emerged as one of the most pressing challenges facing

correctional administrators. Recent estimates suggest the number of cell phones con-

fiscated from state correctional systems has increased by 137%between 2008 and

1

School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis,

IN, USA

2

School of Criminal Justice, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MI, USA

Corresponding Author:

Eric Grommon, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University-Purdue University Indiana-

polis, 801 W. Michigan Street, BS 4067, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.

Email: egrommon@iupui.edu

Justice Research and Policy

2016, Vol. 17(2) 100-122

ªThe Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1525107117725013

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrx

2010, while the number of confiscations from federal prisons and camps has increased

by 108%across the same time period (Government Accountability Office, 2011).

Despite growing concern, scholarly inquiry into contraband cell phone use among

inmates has been largely ignored in the literature. Similar to the underground use of

digital devices within prisons (Reisdorf & Jewkes, 2016), there has yet to be a single

empirical study to examine why there is such demand for contraband cell phones. The

purpose of the present research is to explore this contemporary issue.

Access to legal communication technologies within prisons is a highly controver-

sial topic. Policy debates are framed in one of two ways. First, access needs to be

completely restricted or extremely limited in order to maintain security and preserve

order (Reisdorf & Jewkes, 2016). Implicitly, these arguments tap into practitioner

concerns and public fears about the propensity of incarcerated individuals to engage in

criminogenic activities. The possession of a cell phone within prisons in the United

States is illegal, and the presence of cell phones in facilities undeniably signals

motivations for continued crimi nal behavior. Maintaining commun ication beyond

prison walls within this framework is a risky proposition; the potential for inmates

to threaten victims and witnesses and communicate with criminal associates cannot be

completely ruled out. Policy solutions to combat contraband cell phones within this

perspective aim to minimize the demand for access by increasing criminal sanctions

for individuals found in possession of a contraband cell phone, deploying K-9 units

trained to detect cell phones or phone components, and making significant invest-

ments in innovative industry technologies designed to curtail the use of cell phones by

unauthorized users in facilities. The focus of these solutions is to increase the risk of

detection and the severity of sanction or decrease the functionality of a phone in an

effort to deter contraband cell phone demand and use.

On the other hand, some argue that access to communication technologies needs to

be expanded, within reason, in order to facilitate behavioral change and enable incar-

cerated individuals to establish reformed prosocial identities (Jewkes, 2008; Jewkes &

Johnston, 2009; Johnson, 2005; Reisdorf & Jewkes, 2016). This perspective focuses

on maintaining and improving extant social bonds, developing digital skills in a fast-

paced information age and minimizing the social isolation and marginalization of

incarcerated individuals. Although the possession of a cell phone is a known violation

of criminal law, this approach acknowledges that improved access to communication

technologies can fulfill social needs and support rehabilitation efforts. Policy solutions

within this framework seek to address barriers that limit access, such as regulating the

costs of inmate phone systems (Johnson & Hail-Jares, 2016) and providing opportu-

nities to use monitored communication technologies such as tablets (Bonazzo, 2016)

and mobile phones (Coppola, 2014). These solut ions fundamentally presume that

more access to approved communication technologies may offset the demand for

contraband cell phones.

In addition to the dynamics emanating from the broader criminological literature,

research examining cell phone use patterns among the general population offers

foundational insights to contextualize contraband cell phone demand. Drawn primar-

ily from engineering fields, scholars have leveraged cell phone call data records to

Grommon et al. 101