We are very pleased to announce that Brandyn Keating, 30, of West Bridgewater, joined CJPC as our executive director on September 19. For the past three years, Brandyn has been the lead organizer for the Brockton Area Chapter of the Coalition Against Poverty/Coalition for Social Justice (CAP/ CSJ), a grassroots, membership-based organization that has empowered low-income residents and built state-wide coalitions in order to build legislative support on a range of issues related to social and economic justice. CAP/CSJ is the sister organization of Neighbor to Neighbor Massachusetts. Together Neighbor to Neighbor and CAP/CSJ have built progressive, statewide leadership by organizing a broad cross section of residents and organizations in order to achieve significant and surprising victories in voter registration and turnout, legislative elections and legislation.

Brandyn brings successful experience in grassroots coalition building, public policy advocacy, board development and leadership training. She is also in her final year at Suffolk Law School, so she brings an understanding of the law and the skills of legal scholarship. She earned her bachelor’s degrees in philosophy and political science at Bridgewater State College (2002), where she was awarded the coveted Shea Scholarship that supported her honors thesis titled, “The American Response to Terrorism at Home: When Is War Justified?” She has maintained her interest in peace and conflict resolution through work with the Southeastern Massachusetts Committee for Peace. She also serves as chair on the advisory board of Brockton Neighbors United, a Community Connections Coalition whose mission is to prevent child abuse and neglect.

We hired Brandyn after a lengthy search that identified many well-qualified candidates. There is no shortage of talented and energized people who want to contribute to the effort to create a more just, humane and effective criminal justice system in Massachusetts. We hope you will join us in welcoming Brandyn and working with her to strengthen CJPC and to make meaningful progress toward the goals we all share.

As I write, I have just completed my first week as executive director of the Criminal Justice Policy Coalition. During both the interview process and this first week I have been impressed by the skills, passion and dedication of the board members, volunteers and staff who have provided leadership and direction for the organization over the past nine years. I’ve also come to believe that the skills that I have developed as a grassroots community organizer working to empower marginalized residents of the Commonwealth and build broad-based coalitions to make our government more responsive to social and economic justice issues are a perfect fit for the current needs of CJPC.

Through my experiences as a law student and former intern in the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office, I have become highly attuned to the parts of our criminal justice system that are broken. I am extremely eager to help the CJPC play a key role in changing the system by increasing the power of CJPC to educate citizens and legislators and impact public policy. As those of you reading this newsletter are likely aware, there is much work to be done in order to create a more humane, just and effective criminal justice system in Massachusetts. There will be many legislative opportunities for action by the CJPC and allied organizations in the coming year.

I am excited to bring my existing skills to CJPC and to develop new skills while developing CJPC. Over the coming weeks I plan to continue to meet with board members as well as individual and organizational allies in order to build relationships, gain insights and collaborate on effective strategies for achieving our common goals. Please do not hesitate to call or e-mail me with any questions, thoughts or ideas you may wish to discuss.

Warmest regards,
Brandyn Keating

---

Contact Executive Director Brandyn Keating at 508-982-2247 or at [email protected]

---

James Hannon

Public access to criminal offender record information (CORI) is designed to allow potential employers and other interested parties to make informed decisions about employing and associating with individuals with criminal records. CORI negatively affects anyone with a criminal record, especially those with a felony conviction and prison experience. Open CORIs offer some protection for society but simultaneously limit the options for those ex-prisoners who want to secure honest employment and live a law-abiding life. The important policy decisions are whether and when the crime-producing effects of open CORIs outweigh the public safety benefits of an informed public.

Another way of viewing the trade-off between positive and negative effects of CORI is the question of false positives and false negatives. A false positive is someone treated as a high risk for recidivism although he is actually completely committed to avoiding future criminal behavior and has the psychological resources to meet that commitment. Treating him inaccurately as a high risk may limit his legitimate opportunities and push him into criminal behavior despite his good intentions.

A false negative is someone wrongly considered safe to operate in society in terms of parole considerations or sealing his record. If this individual recidivates, the error of the initial judgment becomes obvious. One of the difficulties in weighing the risks of parole or a sealed record is that false negatives are visible and attract great public attention. False positives are invisible but are also problematic because of the increased costs of incarceration or other intense supervision and because of the unnecessary constraints that restrict opportunities for the individual and his family.

We can make our best judgment about how to minimize false positives and false negatives by studying the determinants of recidivism. For the purpose of CORI legislation, the most important question is the relationship between time of last offense (or release from prison) and likelihood of recidivism. Recidivism can be measured in several ways, but in terms of public safety issues, recidivism is best measured by an additional felony conviction.

It is widely understood that ex-inmates who recidivate are most likely to do so shortly after release from custody. There is a predictable curve that charts recidivism rates over time—rates are high in the first two years post-release, significantly lower in the third year, and approach zero risk by year five.

There is not a lot of research on recidivism rates beyond three years post-release, but the existing studies are clear. In 2001 the Florida Department of Correction conducted a seven-year follow-up study of inmates released since 1993. The recidivism rate approached zero for those who were six years post release.¹ The Illinois Department of Correction conducted a three-year follow-up study of inmates released in 1998. Twenty-eight percent were re-incarcerated for a new conviction within two years; in year 3, only an additional 7% were incarcerated with a new conviction.² These data compare closely with the Florida data for years 1-3. A 2001 national study by the Solicitor General of Canada found a five-year recidivism rate of 17%. For the next five years only an additional 4% of the original sample were convicted and re-incarcerated.

These studies suggest strongly that after 5-7 years post-prison release, ex-offenders who have not recidivated pose an extremely low risk of recidivating in the future. Although the risk of recidivism in the early years after release (false negatives) is greater than the risks associated with false positives, after five to seven years the situation is reversed and barriers to employment and reintegration with society are arguably much more likely to cause crime than to prevent it.

The most cautious analysis of the evidence supports sealing CORI at seven years after release from prison or from the time of felony conviction if there was no prison sentence or one shorter than seven years. Rep. Byron Rushing has proposed legislation that is absolutely consistent with the research. House Bill 973 (“Accelerating the Sealing of Conviction Criminal Offender Record Information”) would provide for the automatic sealing of felony convictions seven years after the end of an ex-offender’s sentence, instead of the current fifteen years (see CJPC newsletters of December, 2004, and April and July, 2005, for information on related and equally appropriate proposed legislation). The passage of this legislation would be another step toward a more effective, just and humane criminal justice policy.

James Hannon is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, Anna Maria College, Paxton, MA and a member of the Board of CJPC.

_{1.www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivism/2001/curves.html (accessed 9/3/05)}

2. http://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/reports/statistical_presentation_2002/part2.shtml (accessed 9/3/05)

Patrice Brymner

Until 2000, Massachusetts was among a small number of states to permit all inmates to vote while incarcerated. In the 2000 election, voters adopted a constitutional amendment to disenfranchise inmates serving sentences for felony convictions (sentences of 2 ½ years or more), and now only Maine and Vermont permit felons to vote while incarcerated.

Felony disenfranchisement in Massachusetts may bar as many as 8,000 of the 20,000-plus inmates in state and county facilities in a given election year. Most disenfranchised inmates are serving felony sentences in state prisons, although some may be in county Houses of Correction.

This article is intended as a brief summary of felony disenfranchisement generally, felony disenfranchisement in Massachusetts, and inmate voting rights. It is based on information from the Sentencing Project, the Prison Policy Initiative, the Massachusetts Department of Correction, the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission.

Practices in Other States

Forty-eight states plus the District of Columbia prohibit voting for those serving felony sentences. Thirty-six states prohibit felons from voting while on parole, and thirty-one of those states prohibit felons from voting while on probation. Some states bar voting during post-release supervision, and a few states even bar voting for a period after supervision ends.

In Massachusetts, as in most states that bar felons from voting only while in prison, voting rights are automatically restored upon release from prison. Nine states restore voting rights to ex-felons only after some specified period following release. For instance, in Nebraska, voting rights are restored to ex-felons after two years following incarceration, and in Maryland rights are automatically restored upon release following a first-time felony conviction, but only after three years following a second felony conviction.

In four states, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia, all felony convictions result in disenfranchisement without an automatic restoration process. Recently, however, Alabama, Kentucky, and Virginia have adopted legislation to streamline the restoration process.

Voting After Leaving Prison in Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, while serving a felony sentence (2½ years or more) at either a House of Correction or a state prison, voting rights are suspended, and the right to vote is automatically restored upon release from prison. Former inmates wishing to resume voting need to contact the clerk of the city or town in which they were registered to re-register, if necessary. If registering for the first time, voters should contact the clerk in the town or city where they now reside.

The Massachusetts Disenfranchisement Constitutional Amendment of 2000

Felony inmate voting in Massachusetts, a centuries-old tradition, ended in 2000 when voters adopted an amendment to the state constitution. Then-Lieutenant Governor Paul Cellucci, who was campaigning for governor at the time, called for the amendment as part of a movement that arose in response to the formation of a political action committee (PAC) at a state prison. Opposition to the amendment came from the NAACP, ACLUM, League of Women Voters, legal scholars, and the media (Boston Globe). CJPC worked actively against the amendment, writing letters to the editor, providing the opposition statement in the official Voters Guide, and organizing a rally in Copley Square. Despite these efforts, however, the Republican-sponsored disenfranchisement measure passed easily in the required two consecutive legislative sessions. Massachusetts voters then adopted the amendment by a two-to-one margin.

In choosing disenfranchisement, arguably a purely punitive measure, voters were apparently unmoved by arguments that it would deny inmates an important connection to society, would not improve public safety, and would disproportionately affect minorities. In fact, research indicates that disenfranchisement in Massachusetts, while affecting relatively few voters, has a racially disparate impact, given that racial minorities disproportionately serve sentences for felony convictions.¹

Voting Rights for Massachusetts Inmates

Prisoners who are not convicted of felonies and detainees awaiting trial or held on bail are eligible to vote by absentee ballot. Any inmate not serving a felony sentence is eligible to vote if he or she is 1) a U. S. citizen, 2) a resident of Massachusetts, and 3) 18 years old on or before Election Day. Inmates vote by requesting an absentee ballot through the clerk of the town or city in which they are registered to vote.

Inmates who have never registered to vote can vote as Specially Qualified Voters. This designation specifically allows military personnel overseas and persons serving prison sentences (non-felony) a means to vote. As Specially Qualified Voters, inmates should be able to request absentee ballots through the clerk of the town or city in which they last resided before incarceration.

More information on registering to vote and voting by absentee ballot is available by calling 800-426-VOTE or visiting www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/eleidx.htm. This site also provides contact information for town and city governments throughout the state.

Determining just how many inmates may be eligible to vote is tricky, but the number is certainly well into the thousands. Based on current conviction and incarceration rates, CJPC estimates that as many as 10, 000 inmates statewide may be eligible to vote in a given election. Most eligible inmates are serving very short sentences (six months or less) in county facilities.

There is no way of knowing how many men and women vote while incarcerated. Because each inmate who votes does so by absentee ballot through the town or city where registered, there is no means of centralized data collection. The number is probably very low, and most eligible inmates probably have no idea they can vote, let alone how. CJPC knows of no effort to inform these voters and potential voters of their rights and the necessary steps. Educating voting-eligible inmates might take a determined effort with cooperation from correctional facilities. Those eligible to vote are not likely incarcerated for long - eligibility rests on misdemeanor convictions which carry relatively short sentences. In addition, the great majority of eligible voters are spread throughout the state in the 13 county facilities (all under different sheriffs) and the state prisons, particularly women serving misdemeanor sentences at MCI-Framingham. Regardless of the hurdles, the numbers of potential voters is large and education could be well worth the effort. Beyond encouraging election participation for the sake of the democratic process, increased inmate voting could also serve as a means to integrate offenders more fully into civic and community life. If any of our readers know of such an effort, we invite you to contact us at [email protected] or call 617-263-1188.

For more information on felony disenfranchisement in other states, visit www.sentencing project.org. For more information on felony disenfranchisement in Massachusetts, visit www.prisonpolicy.org.

_{1. See Peter Wagner, “Jim Crow in Massachusetts? Prisoner Disenfranchisement,” Prison Policy Initiative (October 31, 2004), at http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/mass_disenfranchisement.shtml}