Aaron Steinberg, Communications Director, Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts
One might expect that Massachusetts would be a leader in addressing societal issues like incarceration. In a few ways we are doing well: we have one of the lowest incarceration rates in the country, we are one of the few states to make phone calls free for incarcerated people (although this hasn’t been without issue), and we’re closer than ever to passing a prison construction moratorium and diverting resources towards more effective community-based solutions. However, our progress is overshadowed by the myriad issues endemic to prisons and jails in Massachusetts and beyond.
In 2018, the Department of Correction (DOC) alone held 9,207 people and had a $645 million budget. As of 2024, the DOC holds only 6,148 people but has a budget of $806 million, meaning incarcerating someone costs around $130,000 annually. This spending is partly due to the state maintaining one of the highest correctional officer staffing ratios in the nation, with approximately one officer for every two incarcerated individuals.
Sadly, increased expenditure has not led to better conditions:reports of inadequate medical care, mental health treatment, rehabilitative programming, and preparation for reentry persist. Further, incarcerated individuals continue to face harsh conditions, including the use of restrictive housing units that closely resemble banned solitary confinement. This disconnectbetween declining prison populations, ballooning budget, and persistent issues that we explore below highlights the need for a fundamental reevaluation of Massachusetts’ approach to incarceration.
Although incarceration rates have fallen, a recent report by MassINC shows that racial disparities in incarceration are widening (Criminal Justice Reform in Massachusetts, Forman et al, 2024). These disparities extend to disciplinary actions and security classifications, and parole access, though comprehensive data is lacking, which is an issue in and of itself.Further, Plymouth jail quietly extends it’s contract with ICE at every juncture despite overwhelming evidence that the growing number of people housed there are abused.
Massachusetts is home to one of the county’s oldest incarcerated populations. As of January 2023, 15% of DOC prisoners were over 60 years old, up from 10% in 2018. This trend is expected to continue due to the high rate of long and life sentences in Massachusetts. The DOC struggles to provide appropriate carefor elderly people, particularly those with cognitive impairments like dementia. At least 142 individuals who have died in DOC custody since medical parole began had deaths recorded as “expected” but were never medically paroled, reflecting a broken system.
Efforts to reform the parole system broadly are ongoing. Recent court decisions have expanded parole eligibility for those convicted of first-degree murder as “emerging adults” (ages 18-20). However, concerns persist about the parole board’s ability to accommodate individuals with disabilities and provide fair hearings.
Our prisons and jails are filled with people suffering from inadequate access to medical and mental health care. An estimated 44% of people in Massachusetts jails and 37% in prisons have a mental illness, significantly higher than the general population. Despite this, access to mental health counseling is limited, with most prisoners seeing a clinician only once a month. Lack of access to adequate medical care remainsthe preeminent issue that our organization addresses thanks to a rotating cast of for-profit health providers.
Finally, substance use disorders (SUD) affect a majority of incarcerated individuals, yet access to treatment, particularly medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction, remains inconsistent across facilities. We are the only state to incarcerate men civilly committed for SUD treatment – an antiquated practice that exacerbates the issue.
The path to meaningful reform is continuously obstructed by institutional disregard for both the spirit and letter of the law. Holding the DOC or sheriffs accountable often requires years-long legal battles by advocacy organizations, pro bono practices, and jailhouse lawyers, with the latter enduring a high degree of asymmetry and personal risk. Four recent cases brought by jailhouse lawyers exemplify this ongoing struggle for rights and humane treatment within the very walls designed to silence them.
Tony Gaskins’ (Souza Baranowski Correctional Center) lawsuit against the DOC addresses conditions at the state’s only maximum-security prison. Gaskins alleges that despite the passage of the Criminal Justice Reform Act (CJRA) in 2018, which aimed to limit the use of solitary confinement, SBCC has merely rebranded its restrictive housing practices without implementing substantive changes. In some housing designations, people spend up to 21 hours a day in their cells.Similarly, a new class action lawsuit, Evelyn v. Jenkins, filed by six men held in solitary confinement across multiple Massachusetts prisons, represented by PLS, the Boston College Law School Civil Rights Clinic, and the Holland and Knight law firm, makes similar allegations on a broader scale. This suit claims that people spend “nearly 24 hours per day alone in a small cell, cage, or shackled to a table” in certain units statewide, in violation of the CJRA, other laws and regulations, and the constitutional due process requirements.
Eddie O’Brien’s (NCCI-Gardner) case focuses on visitation rights at MCI-Norfolk, challenging policies that he argues unduly restrict contact with family and support networks. O’Brien’s suit contends that visitation policies fail to balance security concerns with the recognized importance of maintainingfamily connections. He argues that current restrictions not only violate DOC regulations but also infringe on peoples’ constitutional rights and hinder successful reentry efforts.
James Keown’s (MCI-Shirley) suit is fighting systemic issues with the DOC’s canteen system, alleging that the DOC’s contract with its vendor has resulted in inflated prices, limited selection, and frequent shortages of essential items. The case details how these issues disproportionately affect indigent prisoners and those with dietary restrictions or medical needs, highlight howaccess to personal hygiene products or supplementary food items, can have significant impacts on health and dignity.
The struggle for greater transparency and accountability remainsvital in pushing for meaningful change and ensuring compliance with existing laws meant to protect welfare. Continued vigilance, legal action, and public awareness are necessary to create a more just and humane correctional system that truly prioritizes peoples’ wellbeing over punishment and profit.
