Propaganda hoedown: How the Dane County Sheriff tried to sell the Smart Communications contract

Let’s delve into the Madison media’s coverage of the Dane County Jail’s Smart Communications contract and mail-scanning proposal, Alec style. If you need background, get lost in the sauce with our deep dive from July. In short, the Dane County Sheriff’s Office argued repeatedly that we need to expand its contract with Smart Communication to include scanning mail—inmates would receive digital copies of their physical mail—to save lives from overdoses caused by contraband coming via the mail. The evidence that backs this up? Nonexistent.

First, let’s look at what got published in the media. Then, we’ll dive into the sheriff’s attempts to convince citizens that mail scanning is about safety. (Spoiler: it’s mostly saying “safety” a lot.)

A quick summary of this whole analysis: there is very little proof that mail scanning reduces overdoses or improves safety, and quite a lot of proof that it does not. Mostly, mail scanning is a “Trojan horse” (as Smart Communications has called it themselves) for getting tablets into prisoners’ hands and selling them music and movies and everything else at exorbitant prices. If the sheriff gets more surveillance power along the way, all the better. Plus, the current contract as written doesn’t even restrict usage of the data until after the contract’s term, despite the sheriff’s office claiming the county controls the data.

This contract is bad for all kinds of reasons; pick your poison. Mail scanning with zero proof of safety improvements? Check. Badly written contract that lets maximum extraction happen, so mail and messages could be used to train AI, or sent to other corporations or government entities without Dane County’s approval? Check. Run by a corrupt corporation that has bribed carceral agencies in the past, and has filed for bankruptcy? Check.

And just to pound that point in: this corporation applied for bankruptcy back in December 2024. Shouldn’t that be… something we want to avoid? The county procedures that picked this contract out of the two available are opaque, at best. I don’t understand corporate economics in our current hellscape. But it doesn’t seem exactly great that we are signing up with a sketchy company trying and failing to file for Chapter 11, right?

And the kicker: after trying repeatedly to claim it was necessary for safety, the Dane County Sheriff’s Office (DSCO) removed the mail-scanning portion of the contract hours before the county board took up approving it, perhaps sensing that not enough people were convinced.

Local coverage

Cap Times reporter Sarah Eichstadt wrote a piece in June that was quite clear on the state of things. The community was upset; Smart Communications is a shady company; the sheriff was pushing mail scanning with weak justifications; and the flimsy evidence around all this is directly addressed in the article. Overall, it captures the tone in the room, where both people from the public and on the committee were disturbed by some of the media coverage of Smart Communications’ very public flaws.

One thing Eichstadt’s piece doesn’t mention is how the Public Protection & Judiciary (PPJ) committee members had just received the proposed contract merely a few business days before the June 17 meeting. (Notice that this version of the proposed contract lacks optical character recognition [OCR], so you can’t easily search for words in it. And why can’t our newspapers link into Legistar so folks can easily dig into meeting details?)

Three days after that first Cap Times article was published, PPJ talked about the contract a bit at a joint meeting with the Health and Human Needs Committee on June 30. Then, Scott Gordon and I published one of our patented (and aforementioned) ow-it’s-too-long deep dives on July 14 in Tone Madison. A single point I want to call out from that: the Dane County Sheriff’s Office has been saying conflicting things about contraband in the mail for years. They claim to have a big problem with drugs getting into the jail through the mail, but they don’t have records they can release. 

Asked point-blank whether this is an acknowledgement that DCSO’s records are incomplete or unreliable, Schaffer responds: “I wouldn’t put it that way. We’ve been clear that we have not historically tracked the specific data you are requesting (incidents of drugs entering the jail through the mail).”

Other local coverage has been weak, at best. WKOW’s initial piece talks only to the sheriff, and only mentions “potential concerns” without detailing any. Then they reprinted DCSO’s talking points from a recent press release, but attempted to strengthen the argument, claiming: “In 2024, there were four incidents of drugs entering the jail through mail, contributing to three in-custody drug-related deaths, according to officials.” That little word “contributing” connects the incidents of drugs in the mail with the in-custody deaths in our minds, creating causation where there wasn’t. If you read DCSO’s press release, it very carefully does not say the incidents of drugs in the mail contributed in any way. It says there were four incidents of drugs in the mail, and then “While this may seem like a relatively small number, it’s important to note that there were three in-custody deaths that same year, all involving drugs.” See how there is no causation proven, just that it’s “important to note” the two facts?

WMTV’s coverage doesn’t make that incorrect connection, and at least adds a throwaway “Opponents of the plan cite privacy concerns” then quickly follows that with “but Sheriff Barrett says safety is his top priority.” Of course he says that. He says it a lot. But opponents are citing more than privacy concerns, and we are citing that this will not stop contraband. It will slow mail access, and it will further isolate people in our jail.

The first missive

The sheriff’s first letter hit just before the PPJ meeting on July 22, when the committee voted 4-3 to recommend for denial. (Hooray?) So this timing may have been an attempt to convince supervisors that mail scanning was a no-brainer… except for the fact that some of them were unaware of it at this meeting. Could have been just a PR fail, where it didn’t reach its intended targets. Or, possibly, the letter was an attempt to pander to the wider Dane County community, because the sheriff had guessed PPJ was not going to rubber-stamp it.

So, what’s the meat of this letter?

Barrett opens with the fentanyl overdose crisis, which is, to be clear, a real thing and a huge public health concern. Then he pivots: “Within the jail community…” Now, if I threw people in my basement and locked them up, it would be pretty weird if I called them my “basement community.” Barrett goes on to say contraband comes in through “seemingly innocent letters.” “Seemingly innocent” is a fun phrase, you can put it in front of anything and make it sound spooky. Our “seemingly innocent” sheriff sure is penning a lot of letters to newspapers!

Notice throughout that we have plenty of appeals to emotion (which is fine), and plenty of appeals to reason, but still no numbers, no frequency, no evidence. In the last line of his opener, he lays out the key idea: “Implementing advanced mail scanning in the Dane County Jail is a critical step to saving lives.”

This is going to be his main argument, but the problem is, there’s just no proof. We’ll dive more deeply into that below.

Inexplicably, he writes that “scanning technologies, like X-ray and chemical detection systems” can identify threats. But that’s not what’s on the menu. This contract was not for X-ray or chemical detection systems. We don’t know how it compares to what DCSO is currently doing to check mail. This contract is for paying a corrupt Florida company to hire schlubs who open envelopes and scan mail on normal document scanners or cameras or whatever. The mail itself is shredded later. This whole section is very confusing, and I don’t understand what it’s doing in there. Maybe it snuck in from some other argument for surveillance technology. But it’s not an accident, because (spoiler alert) it pops back up in the second op-ed.

Next, Barrett claims “scanning mail supports rehabilitation by reducing access to substances that derail recovery.” And we are once again grinding in the teeth of the question: is there any evidence that scanned mail provably reduces access to contraband substances? I have been able to find no research which supports this claim, not even biased research paid for by carceral technology companies. There’s just people like our sheriff saying it loudly, hoping that it’s true.

I did find one paper, Utilizing Electronic Mail to Prevent Drug Trafficking in Prisons, from 2020, which argues for mail scanning on flimsy grounds. On page 77, author Jessica Warshaw lays out Pennsylvania’s plan (in 2018) to prevent contraband: moving to scanned mail through a company called Smart Communications. Hmm, sounds familiar. She writes that “[s]ince the implementation of the new system, Pennsylvania has had positive results,” and quotes a punishment bureaucrat saying it has cut down on the quantity of synthetic cannabinoids in their system.

The only problem with this narrative is that, unfortunately, “After a slight decline in the immediate aftermath of the policy change, the number of positive drug tests rebounded quickly and is now higher than it was before.” (Emphasis mine.)

Mail scanning is not a magical panacea that stops contraband, because mail is not the primary way that contraband gets into carceral institutions. Ask yourself: why is the primary way not mentioned by the sheriff, ever? Why is it only hinted at in Eichstadt’s article? Might it be because we all know that contraband enters our jail via its workers, who have dangerous incentives to sell access to contraband?

There’s no evidence that mail scanning stops contraband. There is, however, evidence that increased contact via mail, phone calls, and visits with friends and family has many positives, including reducing recidivism, in-prison misconduct, and depression.

Finally, the sheriff claims that “investing in mail scanning is a proactive, humane solution” and that “lives depend on it.” If we’re talking about proactive, humane solutions that save lives, there is one major reform the sheriff should be fighting for: abolishing cash bail and keeping more people out of jail pre-trial, as Illinois has. Guess what? No crime waves happened there. None of the predicted The Purge-style chaos. There were overall savings for the taxpayers, and fewer lives got wrecked by carceral punishment. (We also need to address Wisconsin’s backwards approach to crimeless revocation, compared to our neighbors, but that’s a whole other ball of wax.)

“[Mail scanning is] [e]nsuring safer facilities and stronger communities,” Barrett once again claims. If he is actually interested in this, he should be working to reduce our jail population, and rethink our reliance on punishment as a path to stronger communities. We’ve tried cruelty. We’ve tried cruelty with a neoliberal smile on top. Why would we try cruelty with maximum capitalism smeared on that smile? Let’s try some smarter options.

The second missive

After the PPJ 4-3 denial, Personnel and Finance voted 5-2 to recommend denial on August 11. After that second failure, we got the second shot from the sheriff, this time in a longer op-ed.

Out of the gate, Barrett fires off with “[t]he evidence is clear: Jail mail scanning saves lives by addressing the growing threat of smuggled drugs, weapons, and other illicit materials that fuel violence, overdoses, and instability within our jails.” But he adds none of this “clear” evidence to the conversation, still. And wait, what is “weapons” doing in that sentence? Is this another slip, or are mail-in weapons a problem we can’t figure out how to solve?

After that, he points to the opioid crisis, with good reason. He names the sad fact that three people died from overdoses in his supervision in 2024. But notice that he does not provide any evidence to link those overdoses to the mail. Plus, he fails to address the fact that people died in Wisconsin prisons in 2024 from overdoses… but state prisons have been scanning mail since late 2021, when the Department of Corrections claimed it was a necessary step to stop K2 overdoses.

Okay. Now. I’m gonna need you to take a deep breath, because I want to delve into two extremely strange sentences in Barrett’s op-ed.

Chemical detection

“Mail scanning technology, which uses advanced imaging and chemical detection, can identify these threats (substances) before they reach jail residents, preventing overdoses and saving lives.”

Remember above? What is this chemical detection stuff? We are talking about mail scanning with scanners like your grandma uses to scrapbook. Smart Communications is not doing any chemical detection, they’re just… scanning. Digitizing. And then sending the results over the internet. Then shredding the original mail, eventually. Nowhere in this plan do we need any “advanced imaging and chemical detection” for substances. You can look at the steps in the contract yourself under “XIII. MAIL SCANNING – OFF PREMISE MAIL SCANNING” on page 34 of the contract (page 38 of the PDF).

This is followed by a bunch of boring surveillance and review things that happen with the (again, digital) images. I do not understand what the “chemical detection” argument is doing in these letters from the sheriff.

Weapons, escape plans, or gang communications

I’m just going to put Barrett’s entire next two paragraphs here:

Beyond drugs, mail can conceal weapons, escape plans or gang communications that jeopardize the safety of everyone in the facility. Traditional hand-inspection methods are labor-intensive and prone to human error, allowing dangerous items to slip through.

Modern scanning systems, however, provide a non-invasive, efficient and highly accurate means of detecting contraband. They can identify hidden compartments, chemical residues or suspicious materials without compromising the privacy of legitimate correspondence. By ensuring that all mail is thoroughly screened, we reduce the risk of violence, gang activity and escapes, creating a safer environment for jail residents and staff alike.

After the first paragraph, I’m thinking, sure, scanning is a way to guarantee no weapons, but at no point has the claim been that weapons in the mail have been a problem. But by “identify hidden compartments, chemical residues or suspicious materials,” I’m once again completely baffled. Does Barrett mean “stop” instead of “identify” here?

Let me lay out a scenario:

In the dark near-future of this contract with Smart Communications, Alice gets arrested. She can’t make bail, and sits in jail. Her husband Bob wants to send her a birthday card, but also sneak in a hidden compartment with a key in it, like in old movies.

It doesn’t matter what Bob tries to do, because his mail ends up with Smart Communications anyway. Whatever clever mechanism he employs takes a route to Florida, gets scanned in, and a random office drone gets to have a bit of a laugh at someone trying to mail a key through their foolproof system.

The original mail never goes to Dane County Jail.

A picture of it goes over the internet, and Alice can look at a crappy version of it on her tablet. Maybe she can pay money to have a crappy printout of it, too. But a small team of office workers with a scanner and a shredder is what this contract is for—not some fancy centralized CSI lab with shiny equipment that can “identify… chemical residues.”

And then, after all that, Barrett adds “without compromising the privacy of legitimate correspondence.” Huh? Jail mail has been read and checked and not-at-all-private since people first sent mail to gaols. With this contract there’s an extra layer of office workers in the loop, as well as the AI that initially scans it. Plus, there’s the usual sheriff’s deputies who manually check, and whoever else from the county, state, or other jurisdiction who has access to the scans. (Legal correspondence in this plan will go through a scanner that’s actually at Dane County Jail, for delivery to a tablet… or to be reprinted.)

Back to the plot

Copaganda sometimes directly intends to confuse us.

Let’s get back to the sheriff’s hard evidence for why mail scanning will save lives: “In facilities where mail scanning has been implemented, such as those in Ohio and Pennsylvania, overdoses have dropped significantly, and staff report feeling safer. These outcomes demonstrate that scanning is not just a theoretical solution but a proven strategy.”

Don’t think we should be looking to Ohio, as the state was recently sued over their mail-scanning program, as an example.

The other problem with this narrative is, remember Pennsylvania? “After a slight decline in the immediate aftermath of the policy change, the number of positive drug tests rebounded quickly and is now higher than it was before.“

Déjà vu, anyone? Prisons and jails all over the country have moved to scanned mail in recent years, and they have not gotten safer. If the evidence for ensuring safety held up, these companies that are trying to push the mail scanning programs would be trumpeting it from the rooftops, instead of making vague claims and bribing departments.

One last bit of phrasing to stare at here: the “staff report feeling safer.” Feeling safer. I feel like most of our problem in the punishment sphere comes down to doing counterproductive and cruel things because people “feel safer.” We arrest non-white people at racist, biased rates because it makes people “feel safer.” We fund prisons and police instead of trying to deal with root causes, because that makes people “feel safer.”

So what?

The problem with the sheriff’s claims about safety is that these mail scanning systems are already in place in jurisdictions (including the Wisconsin Department of Corrections) where they have not shown a proven reduction in drug use and overdoses. It’s obvious why these mail scanning systems are spreading: they give punishment bureaucrats more surveillance powers, allowing them to claim they care about safety, while enriching some jackasses who think making money off of helpless poor people is the American Way.

It shouldn’t surprise us that the sheriff would desire more surveillance power, and attempt to ignore the most common way contraband gets into jails and prisons: through workers.

After those two evidence-free bowls of word salad from Barrett, he writes a letter and an op-ed pushing for increased surveillance based on platitudes, and outdated, incorrect evidence. Why doesn’t our local media report on that?

What next

The sheriff’s office did, at the last possible moment, remove mail scanning from the contract. We shouldn’t be surprised if they continue to try to sneak it in down the line.

Eichstadt’s September 6 coverage in the Cap Times, after the board voted to delay, is a good counter-example to most of the local media just parroting punishment system press releases. It directly quotes people against the contract and lays out why we’re against extractive corporations getting their grubby fingers on our poorest people.

We’re now in a scenario where the county is likely to pick the contract with Smart Communications because their rates for messaging, phone, and video are better than Global Tel Link (GTL). But the only reason that happened is because Smart was assuming the FCC ruling passed last year would go into effect in January 2026. With Trump’s FCC delaying the rule, the sheriff will probably argue that it’s best to lock in low prices. We need to remember: those prices are low, but the county gets no say on how Smart charges for the other things for sale on the tablets: books, TV, movies, and music. Expect those prices to rise, and Smart Communications to gouge where they can.

The coverage and the leaders making these decisions have hinted at another possible option: the county self-hosting communication services, or paying all costs for a service, so that communication in the jail is free. Some places have done this with jails, and there’s a trend around the nation in prisons.

The community doesn’t want to start mail scanning, for good reason. The sheriff really, really wanted it. But we won this one, partly. And we need to start being less naive about what our cops argue for. There’s a difference between reforms that actually make communities safer and changes that only empower our punishment bureaucracy. Body cameras, mail scanning, automated license plate readers, and more technologies and tools only give our broken, biased carceral institutions more power to coerce poor people into unfair plea bargains and possibly worse.

We don’t need all that. Mass incarceration is a failed experiment that continues to prove it is super harmful to our community. We certainly don’t need more comically evil corporations in the mix. Can we find a better way to provide communications? Probably, but we can be pretty sure the ideas aren’t going to come from the sheriff’s office.

We need to stop billionaires and wage theft. We need to build so much more housing and real non-coercive addiction care. We need to do all this while the climate is hurtling off a cliff, and our “trusted” institutions are failing us.

We’ve got a lot of work to do as a society, and it would be great if we could all spend less time fighting punishment bullshit like this, and more time building actual solutions. We have to build better systems in the dying husks of the old hierarchies. They have proven to be failures. How much more evidence are you going to wait for?

If we don’t do that work, we’re just going to end up in full-on white nationalist fascism with a lot of people still thinking, “If we only invest in more technology, surely the authoritarians will stop feeding us all into the Torment Nexus!”

If you want to take action on this by the next meeting on September 18, check out this community guide.