CJPC is pleased to announce the launch of a new section on our website dedicated to our County Corrections Project. The new pages include a description of the project and its goals, project updates, articles and reports on county level-corrections, legislative updates, a “quick facts” section, and comments from sheriffs themselves. We plan to add more pages and update existing pages as the project develops. Readers are encouraged to check back often for the latest information.

Many groups and individuals have assisted CJPC in making these new pages available. We are grateful to the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association and the Hampden and Essex Sheriffs’ Departments for the continued cooperation and assistance in making information available to all regarding this important area of criminal justice policy. We hope that by engaging in meaningful and informed conversation, concerned citizens, policy makers, and administrators together can develop and implement ever more effective, just, and humane corrections policies and practices in Massachusetts.

Articles and Reports

Among the reports now available (in PDF format) are seven County Fact Sheets, which are helpful, two-page overviews of a given county’s demographics, its sheriff’s department, and its corrections population. Fact Sheets are available for Bristol, Essex, Hampden, Middlesex, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Worcester Counties.

In the demographics section of each Fact Sheet, we have gathered information from several sources to provide a context for understanding that county’s sheriff’s department. Features include a map of the county, the county’s population, lists of towns and cities within the county, as well as the county’s racial breakdown and specifics on unemployment, income, and education levels.

Data on each county’s sheriff’s department and corrections population include specifics on budget, average daily population of the county’s correctional facilities, the number of new court-commitments annually, an estimated per-inmate cost, the number of women held in that county, average sentence length, average inmate age and education level, and utilization of Community Corrections by the sheriff’s department. The facts presented have been drawn from the Department of Correction, the U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association, and in some cases, specific sheriffs’ departments.

On the new Articles and Reports page, readers also will find reports on county demographics statewide, county corrections budgets, and a one-page summary of county-level overcrowding rates. More reports will be added as the project moves along, including in-depth analyses of county corrections issues and profiles of key counties.

Legislative Updates

We have also posted a summary of the twenty bills put forward by the sheriffs for the 2005-2006 legislative session. We will follow key legislation throughout the session and share what we learn from legislators and the sheriffs on the “Legislative Updates” page.

Quick Facts

Our “Quick Facts” page provides a brief overview of county corrections, including statewide spending, population, and sentencing. The information is based on DOC reports, data from sheriffs’ departments, and information from the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association.

What Sheriffs Say

Sheriffs have been featured speakers at two CJPC-sponsored events in the last year. At our conference last September, Harm or Help: Responding to the Criminalization of Mental Illness and Addiction, Sheriff Michael J. Ashe, Jr., of Hampden County, delivered the keynote address. In April of this year, Sheriff Frank Cousins of Essex County spoke at CJPC’s annual dinner. At both events, attendees heard directly from sheriffs about the societal and political challenges faced in county corrections and about innovations developed in response. Readers can access summaries of these talks from the “What Sheriffs Say” page.

Coming Soon

We will be adding a page of contact information for sheriffs’ departments and links to their websites, as available, as well as contacts for the Department of Corrections and other relevant state offices. We hope to also include links to other organizations involved in county corrections issues.

Li-Chung Wang and Dorothy Weitzman

A form of sentencing reform that attracted attention in the last legislative session and has gained additional support is “parole eligibility” reform for drug offenders. With new leadership in the House of Representatives, there is more hope that this reform could move forward, independently of comprehensive sentencing guideline reform. Currently, the three parole eligibility bills discussed below are before the Judiciary Committee, which expects to hold a hearing on them in September.

The Bills

In late 2002, Sen. Cynthia Creem (D – 1st Middlesex and Norfolk) first introduced a bill and began advocating for parole eligibility for all serving drug mandatory minimum sentences. In the new 2005-2006 legislative session, Sen. Creem reintroduced her bill, now Senate Bill 929, which has gained the co-sponsorship of Senators McGee, O'Leary, Tisei, and Wilkerson and Representatives Festa, Jehlen, Linsky, and Smizik. On the House side, for the first time, two bills for parole eligibility for drug offenders were introduced. Rep. Michael Festa (D – 32nd Middlesex) introduced HB 1832 and HB 1833 and gained the co-sponsorship of Representatives Jehlen, Fox, Linsky, Paulsen, Rushing, and Smizik for both measures.

Here are some fine points of difference among the bills:

* The Creem bill, SB 929, and one of the Festa bills, HB 1833, include retroactivity; they would grant parole eligibility to those who are serving sentences at the time the bill passes.

* The Creem bill would grant parole after offenders complete two-thirds their sentences, whereas the two Festa bills specify eligibility after offenders in DOC custody complete two-thirds of their sentences and after those in county Houses of Corrections complete one-half of their sentences.

* One Festa bill, HB 1832, unlike the other two bills, specifically states that those made eligible for parole would also be eligible for earned good time, work release, and other pre-release programs.

* The reforms in the Creem bill would apply to thirty-four mandatory minimum drug sentences, whereas the two Festa bills address only the twenty mandatory drug sentences included in last session’s sentencing guidelines compromise.

Advocacy Support

A number of groups have joined forces to lobby for quick passage of parole eligibility reform. Taking the lead in lobbying efforts has been Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM). The Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) has chosen Creem’s bill as one of its two legislative priorities in the criminal justice area. In the fall of 2004, FAMM, CJPC, NASW, the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts (DPFMA), the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts (LWV), Partakers, Mass. Correctional Legal Services, and others began meeting to take stock and plan for this session's lobbying. The groups formed a coalition called “SMART” (“The Smart on Crime Coalition”) and chose the Parole Eligibility bill, SB 929, and a new Diversion to Treatment bill, HB 3558 (which would send drug offenders to treatment, rather than to jail), as its top priorities. To get connected to the SMART and to lobby for SB 929, contact [email protected].

Press Coverage & Arguments for the Reform

Supporters of parole eligibility reform point out that Massachusetts needs to catch up with the national trend. Twenty-five states have reformed their minimum mandatory sentences, especially regarding drug offenses. In an April 1, 2005 Worcester Telegram & Gazette article, Sen. Creem said that allowing parole earlier for drug offenders would save the state $10 million per year. It costs Massachusetts $45,670 to keep one person in jail for a year; parole costs 1/7th as much and can achieve more effective community reintegration, returning persons to paying taxes and helping their families and children. Creem also stated,

The only thing they [mandatory minimum sentences] have done really is clog our prisons and house of corrections and wasted millions of dollars and denied post-release supervision to a class of criminals that need it the very most. Mandatory minimum sentences aren't working. There doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to have them. These offenders are not a threat to society. We shouldn't be paying so much money to incarcerate them.

In the same article, Michael Widmer, President of the Massachusetts Taxpayers’ Foundation, asserted, “This is a baby step but it's a critical first step to begin to get some kind of hold on the escalating thousands we spend on the prison system, dollars that are not necessary to ensure the public safety.”

The Boston Globe also supported Creem’s bill in its April 5, 2004 editorial, “The Role of Parole”:

Creem’s bill would address a glaring racial disparity in sentencing. 81% of those who receive the mandatory drug sentences are minorities, compared with 34 % for other criminal convictions. Most important, parole would also provide a supervised transition between prison and full release into society. It makes no sense to dump these people on the street, as is done now, especially if they have a drug problem, without sufficient monitoring to discourage them from committing more crimes.

The editorial also cited the estimate given by the Sentencing Commission that 650 inmates would become eligible for parole under the bill.

To learn more

Charts comparing seven bills that would change sentencing policy, including the three bills covered in this article, and related analysis can be found here on the New Legislation section of the CJPC website.

Released on June 17, 2005 and available on the state website is the Preliminary Report of the group established by Executive Order the last Department of Corrections Advisory Council. The 39-page report praises changes in the DOC, makes recommendations for removing barriers to change, and reviews progress made on eighteen recommendations set forth in the Governor’s Commission on Corrections Reform (GCCR) report , which was released on June 30, 2004.

In contrast to the GCCR report, which contained many criticisms of the DOC, this report is relatively positive. “During this first year, the DOC has made meaningful progress in implementing most of the eighteen recommendations of the GCCR report that are with in its control,” states the Preliminary Report. However, the Preliminary Report includes detailed recommendations for further action and cites continuing barriers to change, including high recidivism rates, the lack of legislative action on effective re-entry of incarcerated individuals, and uncooperative leaders among corrections officer unions. It is full of information and ideas and seems a “must-read” for those sharing CJPC’s concerns.

The report states that “the DOC, in conjunction with the Advisory Council, established two separate review panels, comprised of external participants to examine inmate health and mental health and female inmates. Two members of the Advisory Council sit on each review panel and the panels are staffed and supported by the DOC. Each panel had its first meeting in March, 2005, and plans to submit final reports to the council by the end of August.”

By Rachel Fischhoff

The Boston Foundation partnering with the Crime and Justice Institute, unveiled a 20-page report entitled CORI: Balancing Individual Rights and Public Access at a May 18 forum attended by more than two hundred people. The publication provides background information on the history of the Criminal Offender Record Information system, an examination of challenges facing the CORI system, and possible solutions.

The stated goal of the report is to discuss the issues surrounding CORI, not to provide a framework for reform. The Boston Foundation presented the report to the Legislature’s Joint Committee on the Judiciary at its June 21st hearing on a number of bills related to CORI reform. Members of the committee and individuals testifying at the hearing, including those from the Massachusetts Alliance to Reform CORI, cited the report as a powerful educational tool that all should use to motivate and direct much-needed legislative action.

While the report acknowledges the necessity of CORI as a public safety tool, it is critical of the broadening of access to it, noting that requests for CORI reports have more than tripled from 1998 to 2005. Specific problems discussed in the publication include the inaccuracy of many reports, the difficulty of interpreting the system’s codes and abbreviations without proper training, and the time necessary to seal a CORI report.

The authors of the publication offer a variety of solutions to each of the major problems discussed. One suggestion made to improve the accuracy of CORI reports is to create a position within the Criminal History Systems Board (CHSB) solely responsible for correcting mistakes and outdated information. Another suggestion is to provide offenders with a copy of their CORI report before release rather than wait for mistakes to be discovered.

Other important suggestions are to alter the form and content of CORI, specifically the reports accessible to the public, and to teach recipients how to understand these reports. These measures could limit the misunderstandings that place obstacles between those who have CORI reports and opportunities for housing and employment.

The publication helps readers see Massachusetts in the context of practices in other states. In Massachusetts, ten years must pass before records of misdemeanors may be sealed; for felonies, fifteen years must pass. These time periods are longer than those required in many other states. For example, Rhode Island allows records of misdemeanors and felonies to be sealed after five years and ten years, respectively.