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 provides 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 intimate network of up to six partners, to entertain oneself, to manage personal finances, or a combination of these motivations.
BergM.HuebnerB. (2011). Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination of social ties, employment, and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28, 382–410.
2.
BlakeyD. (2008). Disrupting the supply of illicit drugs into prisons: A report for the Director General of National Offender Management Service. London, England: National Offender Management Service.
3.
BoaseJ.LingR. (2013). Measuring mobile phone use: Self-report versus log data. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 508–519.
4.
BogomolovA.LepriB.StaianoJ.OliverN.PianesiF.PentlandA. (2014). Once upon a crime: Towards crime prediction from demographics and mobile data. In SalahA. A.CohnJ.SchullerB. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (pp. 427–434). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
BrysonH. (2016). Statement to the Federal Communications Commission. Field Hearing on Contraband Cellphones, April 6, 2016. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission.
7.
BurkeT. W.OwenS. S. (2010). Cell phones as prison contraband. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 79, 10–15.
8.
CandiaJ.GonzalezM. C.WangP.SchoenharlT.MadeyG.BarabasiA. (2008). Uncovering individual and collective human dynamics from mobile phone records. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 41, 224015.
9.
California Council on Science and Technology. (2012). The efficacy of managed access systems to intercept calls from contraband cell phones in California prisons [Fact sheet]. Sacramento, CA: California Council on Science and Technology.
10.
CochranJ.MearsD. P. (2013). Social isolation and inmate behavior: A conceptual framework for theorizing prison visitation and guiding and assessing research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 252–261.
11.
CoppolaM. (2014, 7/8). Corrections department allowing use of cordless phones for inmates. TechBeat, 11–13.
12.
EagleN.PentlandA.LazerD. (2009). Inferring friendship network structure by using mobile phone data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 15274–15278.
13.
FarrellG.TseloniA.MailleyJ.TilleyN. (2011). The crime drop and the security hypothesis. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 48, 147–175.
14.
FayyadU. M.Piatetsky-ShapiroG.SmythP. (1996). From data mining to knowledge discovery: An overview. In FayyadU. M.Piatetsky-ShapiroG.SmythP.UthurusamyR. (Eds.), Advances in knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 1–30). Menlo Park, CA: MIT Press.
15.
FerraraE.De MeoP.CataneseS.FiumaraG. (2014). Detecting criminal organizations in mobile phone networks. Expert Systems with Applications, 41, 5733–5750.
16.
GrantE.JewkesY. (2015). Finally fit for purpose: The evolution of Australian prison architecture. The Prison Journal, 95, 223–243.
17.
Government Accountability Office. (2011). Bureau of Prisons: Improved evaluations and increased coordination could improve cell phone detection. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.
18.
HawkinsD. M.QuiP.KangC. W. (2003). The change-point model for statistical process control. Journal of Quality Technology, 35(4), 355–366.
19.
IqbalM. D.ChoudhuryC. F.WangP.GonzalezM. C. (2014). Development of origin-destination matrices using mobile phone call data. Transportation Research Part C, 40, 63–74.
20.
JewkesY. (2002). Captive audience: Media, masculinity and power in prisons. Devon, England: Willan.
21.
JewkesY. (2008). The role of the Internet in the twenty-first century prison: Insecure technologies in secure spaces. In AasK. F.Oppen GrundhusH.Mork LombellH. (Eds.), Technologies of insecurity: The surveillance of everyday life (pp. 171–188). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
22.
JewkesY.JohnstonH. (2009). ‘Cavemen in the era of speed-of-light technology’: Historical and contemporary perspectives on communication within prisons. The Howard Journal, 48, 132–143.
23.
JewkesY.ReisdorfB. C. (2016). A brave new world: The problems and opportunities presented by new media technologies in prisons. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 16, 534–551.
24.
JiangZ.XieW.LiM.PodobnikB.ZhouW.StanleyH. E. (2012). Calling patterns in human communication dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(5), 1600–1605.
25.
JoH.MarsaiM.KerteszJ.KaskiK. (2012). Circadian pattern and burstiness in mobile phone communication. New Journal Physics, 14, n.p.
26.
JohnsonR. (2005). Brave new prisons: The growing social isolation of modern penal institutions. In LieblingA.MarunaS. (Eds.), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 255–284). Portland, OR: Willan.
27.
JohnsonR. (2016). Statement to the Federal Communications Commission. Field Hearing on Contraband Cellphones, April 6, 2016. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission.
28.
JohnsonR.Hail-JaresK. (2016). Prisons and technology: General lessons from the American context. In JewkesY.BennettJ.CreweB. (Eds.), Handbook on prisons (2nd ed., pp. 284–305). New York, NY: Routledge.
LucasM. (2016). Statement to the Federal Communications Commission. Field Hearing on Contraband Cellphones, April 6, 2016. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission.
MiritelloG.MoroE.LaraR.Martinez-LopezR.BelchamberJ.RobertsS. G. B.DunbarR. I. M. (2013) Time as a limited resource: Communication strategy in mobile phone networks. Social Networks, 35, 89–95.
34.
MolloyR.SmithC. L.WozniakA. (2011). Internal migration in the United States. Washington, DC: Federal Reserve Board, Division of Research and Statistics and Monetary Affairs.
35.
MoranD.JewkesY.TurnerJ. (2016). Prison design and carceral space. In JewkesY.CreweB.BennettJ. (Eds.), Handbook on prisons (Rev. 2nd ed., pp. 114–130). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
36.
ReisdorfB. C.JewkesY. (2016). (B)locked site: Cases of Internet use in three British prisons. Information, Communication & Society, 19, 771–786.
37.
ReiterK. (2014). Making windows in walls: Strategies for prison research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 417–428.
38.
SchmitzP.CooperA.De JongT.RossmoD. K. (2015). Mapping criminal activity space. Journal of Intelligence & Analysis, 22, 67–94.
39.
SeshadriM.MachirajuS.SridharanA.BolotJ.FaloutsosC.LeskovecJ. (2008). Proceedings of the 2008 Association for Computing Machinery’s Special Interest Group on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Academic Press, New York, NY.
40.
Vaz de MeloP. O. S.AkogluL.FaloutsosC.LoureiroA. A. F. (2010). Surprising patterns for the call duration distribution of mobile phone users. Proceedings of the 2010 European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, European Conference on Machine Learning and Principles and Practices of Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Barcelona, Spain.
41.
WangD.XiangZ.FesenmaierD. R. (2016). Smartphone use in everyday life and travel. Journal of Travel Research, 55, 52–63.
42.
WillkommD.MachirajuS.BolotJ.WoliszA. (2009). Primary user behavior in cellular networks and implications for dynamic spectrum access. IEEE Communications Magazine, 47, 88–95.
