Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts, Urban Institute, 2005

• Feb. 18, 2016 • Locations: United States of America -> Massachusetts • Topics: Prisoner Privileges, Rehabilitation/Recidivism

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

R E S E A R C H
R E P O R T
March 2005

Prisoner Reentry in
Massachusetts
Lisa E. Brooks
Amy L. Solomon
Sinead Keegan
Rhiana Kohl
Lori Lahue

research for safer communities

URBAN INSTITUTE

Justice Policy Center

Prisoner Reentry in
Massachusetts
Lisa E. Brooks
Amy L. Solomon
Sinead Keegan
Rhiana Kohl
Lori Lahue

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

URBAN INSTITUTE
Justice Policy Center
2100 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
www.urban.org
(202) 833-7200
The views expressed are
those of the authors and
should not be attributed to
The Urban Institute, its
trustees, or its funders.

The Justice Policy Center
(JPC) carries out nonpartisan
research to inform the
national dialogue on crime,
justice, and community
safety. For more information
on JPC’s reentry research,
visit
http://jpc.urban.org/reentry.
To receive monthly e-mail
updates on JPC research,
send an e-mail to
JPC@ui.urban.org.

About the Authors
Lisa E. Brooks is a research associate at the Urban Institute. Prisoner
reentry is her principal area of focus. She has contributed to Returning
Home, a multi-state study of prisoner reentry and reintegration, primarily by
examining the role of family relationships in the reentry process. She is also
involved in evaluations of demonstration projects in the areas of domestic
violence intervention and juvenile substance abuse treatment. Before joining
the Urban Institute, she conducted consultative research for the Suffolk
County (MA) Sheriff’s Department, examining access to programming
among women incarcerated at the county House of Correction. Ms. Brooks
received a BA in Religious Studies from the University of Virginia and a
master’s in Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University.
Amy L. Solomon is a senior research associate at the Urban Institute,
where she works to link the research activities of the Justice Policy Center to
the policy and practice arenas. Her primary areas of concentration include
prisoner reentry and problem-solving approaches to community safety. She
currently manages research partnerships with the Council of State
Governments’ Reentry Policy Council and the National Governors
Association's Prisoner Reentry Policy Academy. Prior to joining the
Urban Institute, Ms. Solomon served as policy analyst and acting director of
strategic planning at the National Institute of Justice. She has also managed
an alternative sentencing program, developed reentry strategies for
returning prisoners, and worked with juveniles in detention, probation, and
school settings. Ms. Solomon received a BA in English from the University of
Michigan and a master’s in Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School
of Government at Harvard University.
Sinead Keegan spent two years as a research associate at the Urban
Institute and is currently a policy analyst at John Jay College of Criminal
Justice. Her primary research interests include prisoner reentry and the
effects of crime and criminal justice policy on communities. Much of her
recent research has examined the phenomenon of prisoner reentry at the
state level. Ms. Keegan contributed to the final report of the Reentry Policy
Council, convened by the Council of State Governments. She has
conducted research on prisoner reentry in the District of Columbia, with a
particular focus on the availability of housing for ex-offenders. Ms. Keegan
has a master’s in Public Policy from Georgetown University and a BA in
Government with a concentration in Public Service from the University of
Notre Dame.
Rhiana Kohl is the executive director of Strategic Planning and Research
for the Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC). In that and her
former capacity as director of Research, she has been integrally involved in
numerous reentry initiatives and many relevant publications. Included
among those tasks was the design of a post-release survey created to
evaluate the progress of released offenders to supplement recidivism data
with more qualitative information about their transition out of prison. Dr. Kohl
served on the Massachusetts Governor’s Commission of Criminal Justice
Innovation’s Reentry Subcommittee, represents the DOC on the Criminal
Systems History Board, and is actively involved in many other committees

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

and advisory panels within and external to the DOC. Most recently, she has
been developing an agency-wide performance measure and management
accountability system for the DOC. Dr. Kohl received her doctorate and
master’s in Clinical Psychology from Yeshiva University and her bachelor’s
degree in Human Development and Family Studies from Cornell University.
Lori Lahue is currently a senior research analyst with the Massachusetts
Department of Correction. She compiles and analyzes a multitude of data
collected from state correctional facilities throughout Massachusetts. She is
the author of several annual reports published by the Department and
provides statewide statistics for national comparison. She continues to
assist in the development, collection, analysis, and training for the
Massachusetts Reentry Initiative and assisted in the design of the offender
post-release survey. She has a special interest in the impact releasing
inmates has on communities and the importance post-release supervision
plays in a successful reintegration. Ms. Lahue will be receiving a master’s
degree in Criminal Justice from the University of Massachusetts in May
2005 and holds a BS in Criminal Justice with a minor in Mathematics from
Westfield State College.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

iii

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank several individuals from Massachusetts state and county
agencies who made valuable contributions to this report. First, we are grateful for the support
and guidance provided by Jane Wiseman and Christine Cole of the Executive Office of Public
Safety. We would like to thank Michael Bolden and Robert Tansi of the Department of Youth
Services, Stefan LoBuglio of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, Maureen Walsh of the
Massachusetts Parole Board, and James Burke of the Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association for
providing much of the data for this report. Our thanks also go to Nancy La Vigne of the Urban
Institute’s Justice Policy Center, Linda Holt of the Sentencing Commission, Sarah Lawrence
of the Executive Office of Public Safety, Elizabeth Keeley of the Suffolk County Sheriff’s
Department, and Anne Piehl of the John F. Kennedy School of Government for providing
valuable feedback. Finally, we thank our funders and project partners, Helena Huang at the
JEHT Foundation and Thomas MacClellan at the National Governors Association. Without
their support, this report would not have been possible.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Contents
About the Authors......................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................1
Massachusetts State Prison Population..................................................................1
Department of Youth Services Juvenile Population................................................2
Suffolk County House of Correction Population......................................................2
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................3
Chapter 1 Massachusetts State Prison Population....................................................................7
Population Trends ........................................................................................................7
Population Characteristics .........................................................................................11
Admission and Release Trends ................................................................................13
Characteristics of Massachusetts’ Returning Prisoners...........................................17
Demographics.........................................................................................................17
Conviction Offense .................................................................................................19
Time Served............................................................................................................20
Prior Incarceration and Returns to Prison .............................................................23
How Offenders are Released ....................................................................................24
Post-Release Supervision and Violation Trends......................................................26
Chapter 2 Department of Youth Services Juvenile Population................................................29
Population Trends ......................................................................................................30
Commitment and Discharge Trends .........................................................................31
Characteristics of Released Juveniles ......................................................................33
Post-Release Supervision .........................................................................................36
Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................................................37
Suffolk County House of Correction Population ........................................................................37
Demographics ............................................................................................................39
Conviction Offense.....................................................................................................41
Time Served ...............................................................................................................42
Prior Incarceration and Returns to Prison.................................................................45
How Inmates are Released .......................................................................................46
Post-Release Supervision .........................................................................................47
Chapter 4 Geographic Distribution of Released Prisoners ......................................................49
Reentry in Massachusetts .........................................................................................49
Adult Prisoners........................................................................................................49
Released Juveniles.................................................................................................52
A Focus on Suffolk County Reentry..........................................................................54
Adult Prisoners........................................................................................................55
Released Juveniles.................................................................................................57
County Inmates.......................................................................................................58
All Releases ............................................................................................................60
Socioeconomic Indicators ......................................................................................64
Chapter 5 Looking Forward.......................................................................................................67

Table of Figures
Figure 1. U.S. and Massachusetts Adult Prison Populations, 1980–2002................................... 7
Figure 2. Massachusetts Adult Prison Custody Population, 1980–2002 ..................................... 8
Figure 3. Adult Prison Incarceration Rate per 100,000 Residents, United States and
Massachusetts, 1980–1998..................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. Governing Offense of Massachusetts’ Adult Custody Population, 2002....................11
Figure 5. Maximum Sentence Length of Massachusetts’ Adult Custody Population, 1992 and
2002 ........................................................................................................................................12
Figure 6. Massachusetts Adult Prisoners’ New Court Commitments, 1980–2002....................13
Figure 7. New Court Commitments to State Prison by Offense Type, 2002 .............................14
Figure 8. Adult Releases from Massachusetts State Prisons, 1980–2002................................15
Figure 9. Race/Ethnicity of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners, 2002 ...........................17
Figure 10. Age of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners, 2002 ..........................................18
Figure 11. Marital Status of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners, 2002 ..........................18
Figure 12. Most Serious Conviction Offense of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners,
2002 ........................................................................................................................................19
Figure 13. Sentence Length of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners, 2002.....................20
Figure 14. Average Time Served of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners, in Months,
2002 ........................................................................................................................................21
Figure 15. Percent of Sentence Served by Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners,
2002 ........................................................................................................................................22
Figure 16. Prior Incarcerations of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners, 2002.................23
Figure 17. Type of Release and Prevalence of Supervision of Massachusetts’ Released Adult
Prisoners, 2002 ......................................................................................................................24
Figure 18. Type of Release of Massachusetts’ Adult Prisoners Released, 1980–2002 ...........25
Figure 19. Adult Violation Admissions to Massachusetts State Prison, 1997–2002 .................27
Figure 20. Massachusetts DYS Population, 1992–2003 ............................................................30
Figure 21. Admissions to Massachusetts DYS, 1999–2003.......................................................31
Figure 22. Discharges from Massachusetts DYS, 1999–2003...................................................32
Figure 23. Race/Ethnicity of Massachusetts’ Released Juveniles, 2002...................................33
Figure 24. Age of Massachusetts’ Released Juveniles, 2002 ....................................................33
Figure 25. Most Serious Conviction Offense of Released Juveniles, 2002 ...............................34
Figure 26. Time Served by Massachusetts’ Released Juveniles, 2002....................................35
Figure 27. One-Year Recidivism Rates for Massachusetts DYS Discharges, 1993–2000 ......36
Figure 28. Average Daily Sentenced Population at Massachusetts County Houses of
Correction, 2003 .....................................................................................................................38
Figure 29. Race/Ethnicity of Released Suffolk County HOC Inmates, 2002 .............................39

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Figure 30. Age of Released Adult Suffolk County HOC Inmates, 2002 .....................................40
Figure 31. Marital Status of Released County HOC Inmates, 2002 ...........................................40
Figure 32. Most Serious Conviction Offense of Released Suffolk County HOC Inmates,
2002.........................................................................................................................................41
Figure 33. Sentence Length of Released Suffolk County HOC Inmates, 2002 .........................42
Figure 34. Average Time Served of Released Suffolk County HOC Inmates, in Months,
2002.........................................................................................................................................43
Figure 35. Percentage of Sentence Served by Released Suffolk County HOC Inmates,
2002.........................................................................................................................................44
Figure 36. Prior Suffolk HOC Incarcerations of Released Suffolk County Inmates, 2002.........45
Figure 37. Type of Release and Prevalence of Supervision of Released Suffolk County HOC
Inmates, 2002 .........................................................................................................................46
Map 1. Number of Adult Prisoner Releases by County, 2002 ....................................................49
Map 2. Percentage of Adult Prisoner Releases by County, 2002...............................................50
Figure 38. Percentage of Adult Prisoner Releases by County, 2002 .........................................50
Table 1. Concentration of prisoners returning to counties in Massachusetts, 2003 ..................51
Map 3. Number of Released Juveniles by County, 2002 ............................................................52
Map 4. Percentage of Released Juveniles by County, 2002 ......................................................53
Figure 39. Percentage of Released Juveniles by County, 2002 .................................................53
Table 2. Concentration of juveniles returning to counties in Massachusetts..............................54
Map 5. Number of Released Adult Prisoners Returning to Suffolk County by Census Block
Group, 2002 ............................................................................................................................55
Map 6. Percentage of Released Adult Prisoners Returning to Suffolk County by Census Block
Group, 2002 ............................................................................................................................56
Map 7. Number of Released Juveniles Returning to Suffolk County by Census Block Group,
2002.........................................................................................................................................57
Map 8. Percentage of Released Juveniles Returning to Suffolk County by Census Block
Group, 2002 ............................................................................................................................58
Map 9. Number of Released Suffolk County Inmates by Census Block Group, 2002 ..............59
Map 10. Percentage of Released County Inmates by Census Block Group, 2002...................60
Map 11. Number of Total Releases to Suffolk County by Census Block Group, 2002 .............61
Map 12. Number of Releases per 1,000 Residents to Suffolk County Census Block Groups,
2002.........................................................................................................................................62
Map 13. Percentage of Total Releases to Suffolk County by Census Block Group, 2002........63
Map 14. Percentage of Families Living below the Poverty Level in Suffolk County, by Census
Block Group, 1999 ..................................................................................................................64
Map 15. Percentage of Female-Headed Families with Children in Suffolk County, 2000.........65
Map 16. Percentage of Adults Unemployed in Suffolk County, by Census Block Group,
2000.........................................................................................................................................66

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

vii

Executive Summary
This report describes prisoner reentry in Massachusetts by examining the trends in
incarceration and prisoner releases in the state, the characteristics of the state’s returning adult
and juvenile inmates, the geographic distribution of returning inmates, and the social and
economic climates of the communities that are home to the highest concentrations of returning
inmates. This document consolidates existing data on incarceration and release trends and
presents a new analysis of data on Massachusetts inmates released in 2002. The data used for
this report were derived from several sources, including the Massachusetts Department of
Correction, the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, the Massachusetts State Parole
Board, the Suffolk County House of Correction, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Highlights from
the report are presented below.

Massachusetts State Prison Population
Incarceration and Release Trends. Massachusetts’ incarceration and reentry trends are
similar to those observed at the national level. Between 1980 and 2002, the Massachusetts
prison population more than tripled, increasing from 2,754 to 9,150 people. The per capita rate
of imprisonment in Massachusetts rose from 56 to 174 per 100,000 residents in the state
between 1980 and 1998, an increase of nearly 311 percent. Massachusetts’ release patterns
reflect these admission and population trends: 2,526 prisoners were released from
Massachusetts prisons in 2002, more than double the number released in 1980 (1,015).
Characteristics of Prisoners Released in 2002. The majority of released prisoners were male
(72 percent) and white (54 percent). The mean age at release was 34.6 years. Slightly more
than one-third had been serving time for offenses against persons. The average time served
was about five years. Almost all had previously spent time in a state prison, county house of
correction, or county jail.
Release and Supervision Policies and Practices. The number and share of prisoners released
to supervision in Massachusetts has decreased in recent years. In 2002, one-third of all
returning prisoners were released to a period of parole supervision. Of the remainder, more
than 35 percent were subject to probation supervision, mostly due to split or “from and after”
sentences. At least 10 percent were under both parole and probation supervision upon release
to the community.
Geographic Distribution of Released Prisoners. More than one-third of adult prisoners
released in 2002 came from two Massachusetts counties—Suffolk and Worcester. The highest
number of released prisoners returned to Suffolk County, where the unemployment rate,
poverty rate, and proportion of single-parent households are all higher than the state averages.
Within Suffolk County, releases are most heavily concentrated in Boston. In 2002, nearly half
of prisoners returning to Suffolk County were clustered in a few Boston neighborhoods. High
levels of poverty and unemployment characterize most of these neighborhoods.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Department of Youth Services Juvenile Population
Commitment and Discharge Trends. The number of juveniles under Department of Youth
Services (DYS) supervision grew through the 1990s, then decreased in recent years. The
number of commitments decreased from 1,653 in 1999 to 1,473 in 2003. Over the same
period, discharges from DYS supervision decreased slightly from 1,221 to 1,191. There were
2,944 youth under supervision at the start of 2004.
Characteristics of Juveniles Released from Facilities in 2002. Of the 1,842 juveniles
released to the community from DYS facilities in 2002, the majority were male (86 percent)
and white (50 percent). The mean age at release was 16 years, and 93 percent were 17 years
old or younger. More than 40 percent had been serving time for offenses against persons. The
average time served was 1.7 years.
Release and Supervision Policies and Practices. All releases from DYS facilities are
discretionary, and nearly all youth remain in DYS custody and under supervision in the
community after release.
Geographic Distribution of Released Juveniles. Forty percent of juveniles released in 2002
came from two Massachusetts counties—Suffolk and Worcester. Compared with adult
prisoners, released juveniles were more heavily concentrated in a few Boston neighborhoods.

Suffolk County House of Correction Population
Characteristics of Inmates Released in 2002. Of the 2,046 inmates released from the Suffolk
County House of Correction (HOC) in 2002, the vast majority (90 percent) were male and
more than half (54 percent) were black. The mean age at release was 33.2 years. Slightly more
than one quarter had been serving time for offenses against persons. The average time served
was 8.3 months. Just under two-thirds had previously spent time in the Suffolk HOC.
Release and Supervision Policies and Practices. In 2002, one quarter of all returning inmates
were released to a period of parole supervision. In addition, some portion of released inmates
were subject to probation supervision due to split or “from and after” sentences.
Geographic Distribution of Released Inmates. HOC releases made up 68 percent of all
offenders returned to Suffolk County in 2002. Returning inmates were heavily concentrated in
Boston. Compared with released prisoners or juveniles, however, they were more evenly
distributed throughout the county and less concentrated in a small number of Boston
neighborhoods.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Introduction
This report examines the prisoner reentry phenomenon in Massachusetts, focusing primarily
on adults released from state custody, but also touching on the population of Department of
Youth Services (DYS) juveniles and sentenced individuals released from the Suffolk County
House of Correction. Prisoner reentry—the process of leaving prison and returning to
society—has become a pressing issue both in Massachusetts and nationwide, and with good
reason. Rising incarceration rates over the past quarter century have resulted in more and more
prisoners being released from prison each year. Nationwide, an estimated 630,000 prisoners
were released from state and federal prisons in 2001, a fourfold increase over the past two
decades.1 Thus, released prisoners, their families, and the communities to which they return
must cope with the challenges of reentry on a much greater scale than ever before.
The challenges of reentry are many. More prisoners nationwide are returning home having
spent longer terms behind bars, exacerbating the already significant challenges of finding
employment and reconnecting with family.2 Prisoners today are typically less prepared for
reintegration, less connected to community-based social structures, and more likely to have
health or substance abuse problems than in the past. In addition to these personal
circumstances, limited availability of jobs, housing, and social services in a community may
affect the returning prisoner’s ability to successfully reintegrate.3
These challenges affect more than the returning prisoners and their families; they can also have
serious implications for the communities to which prisoners return. Two-thirds of the adult
prisoners released across the country in 1996 returned to major metropolitan areas—up from
50 percent in 1984.4 Within central cities, released prisoners are often concentrated in a few
neighborhoods.5 These high concentrations of returning prisoners generate great costs to those
communities, including potential increases in costs associated with crime and public safety,
greater public health risks, and high rates of unemployment and homelessness. Thus,
developing a thorough understanding of the characteristics of returning prisoners and the
challenges they face is an important first step in shaping public policy toward improving the
safety and welfare of all citizens.
In many ways, the dimensions and challenges of prisoner reentry observed on the national
level are mirrored in Massachusetts. Incarceration increased dramatically in Massachusetts in
recent decades. Between 1980 and 2002, the Massachusetts state adult prison population more
than tripled, increasing from 2,754 to 9,150 individuals. At the same time, the per capita rate of
adult imprisonment in Massachusetts more than tripled from 56 to 174 per 100,000 residents.
Admissions climbed over this period as well. In 1980, 1,234 individuals were admitted to
Massachusetts’ prisons.6 By 1990, annual admissions had grown to almost 3,800. Admissions
1

Harrison, Paige M. , and Jennifer C. Karberg. 2003. “Prison and Jail Prisoners at Midyear 2002.” Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics.
2
Lynch, James P., and William J. Sabol. 2001. “Prisoner Reentry in Perspective.” Crime Policy Report, vol. 3.
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
3
For an in-depth discussion of prisoner reentry nationwide, see Travis, Jeremy, Amy L. Solomon, and Michelle Waul.
2001. From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.
4
Lynch and Sabol. “Prisoner Reentry in Perspective.”
5
Ibid.
6
Admissions are new court commitments only. They do not include civil commitments; persons detained and awaiting
trial; transfers from county, federal, or out-of-state facilities; or those who have committed probation or parole violations.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

then decreased over the 1990s. In 2002, there were 2,548 admissions to Massachusetts state
prisons.
As a consequence of the growth in imprisonment, Massachusetts has also experienced
substantial growth in the number of people being released from prison. In 1980, 1,015
individuals were released from the state’s prisons. In 2002, more than double that number—
2,526 individuals—were released in Massachusetts. This increase in releases does not
correspond to an increase in the number of prisoners that were placed under parole
supervision. Due in part to truth-in-sentencing legislation enacted in 1994, the proportion of
prisoners released to parole decreased from 80 percent in 1980 to 33 percent in 2002.
Trends in the adult custody population in the 1990s were mirrored in the juvenile population.
The number of juveniles under the supervision of the Massachusetts DYS increased
throughout the 1990s and decreased in recent years. In January 2004, there were over 2,900
youth under the supervision of the DYS. In 2002, there were 1,842 juveniles released to the
community from residential facilities in Massachusetts.7
In Massachusetts, offenders sentenced to 2.5 years or less may be committed to one of 13
county facilities known as Houses of Correction (HOC). In 2003, these facilities housed 7,801
sentenced inmates, or 47 percent of adults sentenced to incarceration in the state.8 The county
Houses of Correction are operated under the authority of county sheriffs’ offices. While this
report does not investigate trends for this population in the aggregate, it does examine the
characteristics of inmates released from Suffolk County House of Correction, the largest
Massachusetts HOC.
The vast majority of adults and juveniles released from prisons and facilities in Massachusetts
in 2002 returned to communities in Massachusetts. About one in five, or 840, prisoners and
juveniles returned to communities in Suffolk County. Another 2,046 inmates were released
from the Suffolk County HOC.9 The majority of these individuals returned to Boston, which is
the state’s largest city, comprising the majority of Suffolk County, in both land mass and
population. The flow of released prisoners, juveniles, and county inmates in Suffolk County
was further concentrated in a small number of communities.
Government leaders, corrections officials, local organizations, and service providers are
increasingly aware of the reentry challenges experienced by states and communities across the
country, and they have begun to use both research and programmatic knowledge to address
these challenges. Notably, the National Governors Association (NGA) launched the Prisoner
Reentry State Policy Academy in summer 2003. The goal of the Academy is to help governors
and other state policymakers to develop and implement effective prisoner reentry strategies
that reduce costly recidivism rates. Seven states—Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan,
New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia—were selected to participate in this intensive 18month policy academy. Activities include an in-state policy workshop, two policy academy
meetings, and customized technical assistance.
This report, produced in association with the NGA Prisoner Reentry State Policy Academy,
describes prisoner reentry in Massachusetts by examining trends in the state’s incarceration,
7

Trends and characteristics of this population are discussed in chapter 4.
Based on a Massachusetts Department of Correction 2003 average daily population of 8,862, excluding treatment
facilities housing primarily civil commitments. Data provided by the Massachusetts Department of Correction.
9
For more about this population, see chapter 5.
8

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

admissions, and release trends over time. Similar trends and characteristics of the incarcerated
and released juvenile population are also examined, as are the characteristics of inmates
released from the Suffolk County HOC. This report also examines the geographic distribution
of those released from all three authorities (DOC, HOC and DYS) and describes the social and
economic climates of communities that are home to the highest concentrations of returning
prisoners, juveniles, and county inmates.
Defining Terms
As is true in most states, the criminal justice system in Massachusetts is a complex
system of state and local authorities. Most adults sentenced to less than 2.5 years for a
misdemeanor or felony are the responsibility of one of the 13 county Houses of
Correction (HOC). Adults convicted of more serious felony offenses are incarcerated in
state prisons under the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Correction
(DOC). There is a one-year minimum for DOC sentences only in cases where
sentencing to a House of Correction is an alternative. Juvenile offenders under the age
of 18 are committed to the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services (DYS).
For the purposes of this report, the terms below will be defined as follows:
The adult custody population includes criminally sentenced inmates held in DOC
facilities. It does not include criminally sentenced DOC inmates serving time in houses
of correction, other states’ facilities, or federal facilities. It does include women serving
HOC sentences in state facilities. Members of this population will be referred to as
prisoners or released prisoners.
County inmates are adult men and women sentenced to 2.5 years or less. This
category does not include individuals who are detained in jail pending trial or a
settlement, nor does it include detainees who are held pending a transfer to another
facility. This report includes a discussion of those inmates released from the Suffolk
County HOC, hereby referred to as released inmates or county inmates.
The juvenile population includes all individuals committed to the supervision of DYS.
Juvenile commitments are those juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent by the
court and admitted to the supervision of DYS. Juvenile discharges are those
individuals whose terms of supervision have ended, usually because they have reached
age 18. The incarcerated juvenile population includes all juveniles who are placed in
a residential facility. Juveniles under the supervision of DYS return to the community
prior to the end of their term of supervision and are supervised in the community. The
released juvenile population includes those juveniles who are released from a facility
into the community. Members of this population will be referred to as released
juveniles.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

About the Data
This report incorporates data from several sources on three populations being
released from incarceration and returned to the community.
The Massachusetts DOC analyzed data on the population of prisoners released
from the Department of Correction in 2002. In cases in which the DOC released
an individual more than once in 2002 (in most cases this would occur when the
person was released from prison, returned to prison for a violation of the
conditions of his or her release, and was then released again), all releases are
included, except in calculations of time served. Unless otherwise noted, the
prison population includes all sentence types, not just state sentences.
The Department of Youth Services provided us with data on the population of
juveniles and youthful offenders released from a secure facility to the community
during 2002. The Suffolk County House of Correction provided data on a cohort
of individuals who had been sentenced and who were released from Suffolk HOC
to the community in 2002.
We used data from the U.S. Census Bureau for county and block group-level
demographic information included in chapter 6. Our sources include both Census
2000 and the 2004 Annual Population Estimates for Massachusetts Counties.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

CHAPTER 1

Massachusetts State Prison Population
To understand prisoner reentry in Massachusetts, it is necessary to examine both the governing
institutions and the population of interest. This chapter begins with an overview of recent
incarceration history and changes in the prison population. It then examines the characteristics
of Massachusetts’ returning prisoners. Finally, it describes how prisoners are released and
supervised in the community.

POPULATION TRENDS
The Massachusetts adult custody prison population includes criminally sentenced inmates held
in Massachusetts Department of Correction facilities. This population does not include
criminally sentenced DOC inmates serving time in county houses of correction, other states’
facilities, or federal facilities. Between 1980 and 2002, the Massachusetts prison population
more than tripled, increasing from 2,754 to 9,150 people. Like the national prison population,
the state population was on a steady rise from 1980 to 1994. It declined slightly in the mid1990s and then continued to increase from 1997 to 1999 (figure 1).

Figure 1. U.S. and Massachusetts Adult Prison Populations, 1980–2002

1,600,000

12,000
US

1,400,000

Massachusetts

10,000

8,000

1,000,000
800,000

6,000

600,000

4,000

Massachusetts

United States

1,200,000

400,000
2,000

200,000

19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02

Year

Sources: Urban Institute analysis of Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics data series (NPS-1);
Massachusetts Department of Correction.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Unlike the nation’s prison population, the Massachusetts population declined from 1999 to
2002. This trend can be seen in both the male and female populations (figure 2).

Figure 2. Massachusetts Adult Prison Custody Population, 1980–2002

12,000

10,000

M ales
Fem ales
TO TAL

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02

Y ear

Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

As the prison population in Massachusetts grew, so too did the adult incarceration rate—the
number of people incarcerated per 100,000 residents (figure 3). The per capita rate of
imprisonment in Massachusetts rose from 56 to 174 per 100,000 residents between 1980 and
1998. In comparing the Massachusetts prison incarceration rate to that of the United States, it
is important to note that Massachusetts figures include only the state prison population and
exclude county inmates, many of whom are serving sentences that would qualify for prison
sentences in other states. See the Massachusetts Department of Correction sidebar for more
explanation.

Figure 3. Adult Prison Incarceration Rate per 100,000 Residents, United States and Massachusetts,
1980–1998

Incarceration Rate

500
450

400

Massachusetts

350
300
250
200
150
100
50

8
19
9

19
9

19
8

Year
Sources: Urban Institute analysis of Bureau of Justice Statistics data, National Prisoner Statistics data series
(NPS-1).

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

The Massachusetts Department of Correction
The Massachusetts Department of Correction (DOC), which oversees the operation of
the state’s correctional facilities, comprises 18 correctional facilities and a health service
facility located in a Department of Public Health hospital. DOC facilities range in security
levels and include a state hospital, a treatment center for the sexually dangerous, and
the Massachusetts Alcohol and Substance Abuse Center.
In Massachusetts, inmates serving criminal sentences up to 2.5 years can be sentenced
to one of 13 county Houses of Correction. Thus, the DOC inmate population may seem
disproportionately smaller than other states’, where all felons and offenders with criminal
sentences over one year are sentenced to the state department of correction. Prior to
1994, the minimum term for a Massachusetts state prison sentence was 2.5 years. For
offenses committed after 1994, there is no minimum term for a state prison sentence
unless there is a house of correction alternative. Where there is a HOC alternative, the
minimum state prison term is one year.
DOC employs nearly 5,000 correction officers, correctional program officers, and other
security, support, and training staff. On an average day, at least 10,000 individuals reside
in DOC facilities, including criminally or civilly sentenced offenders, those detained or
awaiting trial, and inmates from other jurisdictions. The mission of DOC is to promote
public safety by incarcerating offenders while providing opportunities for participation in
effective programming designed to reduce recidivism.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Almost half—48 percent—of prisoners were serving time for “crimes against the person,”
which include violent offenses as well as various forms of nonsexual violation such as assault,
robbery, kidnapping, or extortion. Those serving sentences for a governing sex offense10
represented 18 percent of the population in 2002, while those sentenced for a property offense
were 10 percent of the population. Drug offenders made up 21 percent of the population in
2002 (figure 4). The distribution of governing offenses for which inmates serve time has been
relatively constant from 1992 through 2002.
Figure 4. Governing Offense of Massachusetts’ Adult Custody Population, 2002

48.1

Governing Offense

Person

20.5

Drug

18.3

Sex

9.6

Property

3.4

Other
0

Percent
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Correction data.
Note: Numbers do not total 100% due to rounding.

Inmates may be incarcerated for multiple offenses. The governing offense is that associated with the longest
maximum discharge date.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

The average maximum sentence length imposed by judges has actually decreased in recent
years in Massachusetts.11 In 2002 a larger share of inmates were serving shorter sentences than
in 1992 (figure 5). The percentage sentenced to a maximum of one to four years increased
from 8 percent in 1992 to 21 percent in 2002. During the same period those sentenced to a
maximum of 10 to 19 years dropped from 38 percent to 21 percent. The majority of inmates in
1992 (38 percent) were serving maximum sentences of 10 to 19 years compared with the
majority (28 percent) in 2002 serving 5 to 9 years. The percentage of inmates serving life
sentences increased from 10 percent in 1992 to 17 percent in 2002.
It is worth noting that the average time served has not changed dramatically, though the
average maximum sentence has become shorter in recent years. The shift in maximum
sentence lengths is due in part to a change in the structure of sentences after truth-in-sentencing
reforms. Prior to 1994, there was often a large gap between maximum and minimum
sentences, and the maximum sentence did not reflect the expected time to be served. Since
truth-in-sentencing reforms, the gap between minimum and maximum sentences has
narrowed, largely due to the lowering of maximum sentences. As a result, prisoners now serve
a higher percentage of the maximum sentence on average. See the Sentencing Law Overview
sidebar for more information.

Figure 5. Maximum Sentence Length of Massachusetts’ Adult Custody Population, 1992 and 2002

45
38

1992
2002

Percent of Population

35
29

30
25

20
15

15
10

17
13
10

5
0
1 to 4 years

5 to 9 years

10 to 19 years

20+ years

Life

Maximum Sentence Length
Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.

This is the maximum sentence length associated with the inmates’ governing (most serious) offense.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

ADMISSION AND RELEASE TRENDS
Admissions to Massachusetts state prisons may occur as the result of a new court commitment
or a probation or parole violation. In this context, the term “new court commitment” refers to
an individual committed by the courts to the DOC as a result of a criminal offense and to those
who begin serving “from and after” sentences.12 In the case of a “from and after” sentence, a
prisoner serving consecutive sentences may complete the first prison term and be committed
for another term without being released from custody. The number of new court commitments
was on the rise from 1980 to 1990, then briefly decreased from 1991 to 1993, and rose again
from 1994 to 1995 (figure 6). From 1995 to 2001 the number of commitments dropped but
jumped 13 percent in 2002. Similar trends were seen in both the male and female populations.

Figure 6. New Court Commitments to Massachusetts Adult Prisons, 1980–2002

4000
3500

Males

Number of Commitments

Females
3000

TOTAL

2500
2000
1500
1000
500

19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02

Year
Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.

Admissions are new court commitments only. They do not include civil commitments, persons detained and awaiting
trial, transfers from county, federal, or out-of-state facilities, or those who have committed probation or parole violations.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

The 2002 new court commitment cohort were admitted to prison for a variety of offenses
(figure 7). The breakdown by offense type for new commitments differs slightly from that of
the overall DOC population (because more serious offenders—convicted of person and sex
offenses—are likely sentenced to longer stays behind bars). The majority of males (51 percent)
but only 16 percent of females were sentenced for a violent offense (person or sex offense).
Nearly 84 percent of female prisoners were sentenced for nonviolent offenses (drug, property,
or other offenses).
Figure 7. New Court Commitments to State Prison by Offense Type, 2002

Other
15%

Person
31%

Drug
30%
Sex
7%

Property
17%
Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

The trend in the number of prisoners released from DOC between 1980 and 2002 was similar
to that of new court commitments during those years. As can been seen in figure 8, the number
of prisoners released rose steadily from 1980 to 1990, dropped in 1991, and then increased
again from 1992 to 1996.13 Between 1996 and 2002, the number of inmates released from
DOC then dropped from 3,047 to 2,526. (Still, this was more than double the 1,015 released in
1980.)
Figure 8. Adult Releases from Massachusetts State Prisons, 1980–2002
4,500

Number of Releases

4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500

19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02

Year
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Correction data.

Inmates in Massachusetts can be released via good conduct discharge (expiration of sentence) or parole to the
community as well as to other jurisdictions including another state or a federal authority.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Sentencing Law Overview
Motivated by a desire to ensure a closer match between sentences imposed by
the courts and time served by offenders, Chapter 432 of the Acts of 1993, “An
Act to Promote the Effective Management of the Criminal Justice System through
Truth-in-Sentencing,” established the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission
and initiated the state’s truth-in-sentencing reforms. The legislation eliminated
(for DOC, not HOC) reformatory sentences, split sentences, and statutory good
time. In addition, inmates serving state prison sentences were no longer eligible
for parole at one-third or two-thirds of the minimum sentence, and the minimum
state prison sentence was reduced from 2.5 years to 1 year for certain felonies.
The Massachusetts Sentencing Commission conducted a before-and-after
analysis to determine the effects of the legislation. The new law, which went into
effect in July 1994, had some expected as well as unexpected results. The
legislation did result in a more accurate relationship between the sentence
imposed and expected time to serve. There is no evidence that actual maximum
sentence lengths increased, but inmates served a larger proportion of their
maximum sentence. The elimination of reformatory and split sentences led to an
increased number of individuals being sentenced from superior court to houses
of correction rather than state prison. This may account for some of the
decreases in new court commitments to DOC.
Another goal of the 1994 truth-in-sentencing legislation was to eliminate early
parole consideration, thereby equating parole eligibility with the minimum term of
a state prison sentence. In response to this change and in conjunction with the
imposition of mandatory minimum terms for specific (largely drug) offenses,
judges increasingly imposed sentences with a one-day difference between the
minimum and maximum terms (i.e., 5 years to 5 years and one day). As a result,
a greater proportion of offenders are virtually ineligible for parole consideration
and “wrapping up” their sentences. In 2003, more than 43 percent of prison
sentences had a one-day difference between the minimum and maximum
terms.14
The mandatory sentences also place restrictions on participation in pre-release
programs, usually until the mandatory minimum term has been completed, but
sometimes for the entire term. Mandatory minimum sentences can also render
offenders ineligible for sentence deductions for participation in prison
programming.
After the truth-in-sentencing law went into effect in July 1994, the expected time
to serve was indeed closer to the sentence imposed for those offenders
sentenced under the new law. Of the inmates released from DOC facilities in
2002, all of those who had been sentenced after the law went into effect had
served 85 percent or more of their sentences.

Massachusetts Sentencing Commission. 2004. “Survey of Sentencing Practices, FY 2003.” Boston: Massachusetts
Sentencing Commission.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

CHARACTERISTICS OF MASSACHUSETTS’ RETURNING
PRISONERS
Demographics
In 2002, there were 2,630 releases to the community from the Massachusetts Department of
Correction.15 Of these individuals, the vast majority—72 percent—were male. More than half
(54 percent) of the release population was white, 23 percent black, and 22 percent Hispanic
(figure 9).

Figure 9. Race/Ethnicity of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners, 2002

Hispanic
22%

Other
1%

Black
23%

White
54%
Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.

In actuality, 2,567 individuals were released; 63 were released twice in 2002.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

The average age of those released was 34.6 years. Almost three in four releases—72 percent—
were under 40 years old at the time of release, with 31 percent between 30 and 39 years old
(figure 10). Sixty-three percent of those released in 2002 were single, 14 percent were married,
and 13 percent were divorced (figure 11).

Figure 10. Age of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners, 2002

1.3

Under 20

30.4

Age

20 to 29

40.6

30 to 39
21.8

40 to 49
4.5

50 to 59
1.3

60 and Over
0

Percent
Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.
Note: Numbers do not total 100% due to rounding.

Figure 11. Marital Status of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners, 2002

Separated
1%

Not Reported
8%

Widow ed
2%
Divorced
13%

Married
14%

Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.
Note: Numbers do not total 100% due to rounding.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Single
63%

Conviction Offense
More than one-third (35 percent) of prisoners released from DOC in 2002 were serving a
sentence for a person offense (figure 12). One quarter had been sentenced for a drug offense,
19 percent for a property offense, 8 percent for a sex offense, and 13 percent for other offenses.
There was substantial variation by gender in offense type. Half of all males released in 2002
had been serving a sentence for a violent offense (person or sex) while only 18 percent of
females had sentences for these types of offenses. The majority of females released in 2002 (52
percent) served sentences for drug or property offenses.

Figure 12. Most Serious Conviction Offense of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners, 2002

34.8

Person

8.1

Offense

Sex

18.6

Property

25.3

Drug

13.2

Other
0

Percent
Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Time Served
The average maximum sentence of prisoners released by DOC in 2002 was 72.4 months.16
Almost 40 percent had been sentenced to five to ten years, and 16 percent had been sentenced
to ten years or more (figure 13). One-third of releases had been sentenced to three to five years.
Ten percent had been sentenced to two to three years. About 3 percent of inmates released in
2002 had been sentenced to serve less than two years, and less than 1 percent were serving a
sentence of less than one year.
While most individuals sentenced to serve 2.5 years or less are committed to county facilities
and remain in the custody of county authorities, DOC facilities occasionally house individuals
serving shorter sentences. Women are likely to be among those serving short (less than 2.5
years) sentences in DOC custody, as many county houses of correction do not have adequate
facilities for women. Under these circumstances, female county inmates are housed in state
prisons.

Figure 13. Sentence Length of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners, 2002

0.1

Sentence Length

Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years

2.5

2 to 3 years

10.4
32.7

3 to 5 years
5 to 10 years

38.6

10 years or more

15.6
0

20
25
Percent

Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.
Note: Numbers do not total 100% due to rounding.

This figure is based on sentence lengths of inmates serving “state” type sentences. It does not include county
sentences, reformatory sentences, split sentences, or complex sentences. It also excludes life sentences with no
maximum term.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

The average time served by prisoners released from DOC in 2002 was 61.1 months, or just
over five years. This average includes only those inmates with Massachusetts state prison
sentences and does not include inmates who were re-incarcerated as a result of a parole or
probation violation, those with complex sentences, or those with county or out-of-state
sentences. On average, those with a sex offense served the most time, 78.4 months (figure 14).
Inmates released from a sentence for a person offense served an average of 72.9 months,
followed by property offenders serving an average of 51.9 months and drug offenders serving
an average of 43.6 months.
Figure 14. Average Time Served of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners, in Months, 2002

All Offenses

61.1

Offense

Person

72.9

Sex

78.4

Property

51.9
43.6

Drug

45.8

Other
0

Months
Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Due to Massachusetts’ truth-in-sentencing legislation, the majority of prisoners released in
2002 served 80 percent or more of their sentence (figure 15). Thirteen percent of those released
served their entire sentence. More than half (54 percent) served between 80 and 100 percent of
their sentence. About one in five (19 percent) served between 60 and 80 percent of their
sentence, and 13 percent served between 40 and 60 percent of their sentence. About 1 percent
served less than 40 percent of their sentence.

Figure 15. Percent of Sentence Served by Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners, 2002

0.2

Percent of Sentence

Less than 20

0.8

20 to 40

12.5

40 to 60

19.2

60 to 80

54.3

80 to 100
13.1

100
0

30
Percent of Population

Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.
Note: Numbers do not total 100% due to rounding.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Prior Incarceration and Returns to Prison
A study conducted by DOC’s Research and Planning Division tracked the 2,961 prisoners
released from state custody during 1997. The study revealed that within three years of their
release, 48 percent were convicted of, but not necessarily reincarcerated for, a new crime. Of
all those released, 41 percent had been reincarcerated in a state, county, or federal facility.
Most of those reincarcerated—81 percent—received a new sentence for the conviction of a
new crime, and 19 percent were reincarcerated due to a technical violation of their release. The
share reincarcerated in Massachusetts is slightly lower than national estimates. A similar
national study estimated that, of those released from state prisons in 1994, within three years of
their release 52 percent were back in prison for new sentences or for technical violations of
their release.
Of the inmates released to the community from a state facility in 2002, nearly all had a prior
incarceration within a Massachusetts state or county facility (figure 16). Nearly 30 percent had
one prior incarceration, 20 percent had two prior incarcerations, and 50 percent had three or
more incarcerations prior to the one they were released from in 2002.

Figure 16. Prior Incarcerations of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners, 2002

11 to 15 Priors
4%

More than 15
Priors
1%

6 to 10 Priors
15%

No Priors
0%
1 Prior
29%

5 Priors
7%

4 Priors
10%
3 Priors
14%

2 Priors
20%

Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

HOW OFFENDERS ARE RELEASED
In 2002, 2,526 prisoners were released from DOC to the community. The first year after
release is a critical period during which released offenders are susceptible to reoffending,
emphasizing the importance of post-release supervision. Post-release supervision ideally serves
two primary functions to prevent such recidivism: (1) monitoring released offenders for public
safety purposes and (2) promoting the successful reintegration of individuals back into society.
The following sections examine how adult prisoners are released and supervised in
Massachusetts.
Adult prisoners in Massachusetts can be released to the community or to other jurisdictions. In
2002, 81 percent of all released adult prisoners were released to the community. Of the
remaining 19 percent, 6 percent were released to a warrant, 5 percent were released to a DOC
or HOC “from and after” sentence, and 5 percent were released to the U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service (now the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services). Three percent
were released to another state, federal authority, or civil commitment.
Prisoners can be released through either a discretionary or a nondiscretionary (mandatory)
process. With discretionary release, a parole board determines the prisoner’s release, which is
usually followed by a period of supervision. Statute, rather than a panel or board, determines
the date of mandatory releases. Most Massachusetts prisoners released by mandatory means do
not require a subsequent period of parole supervision. The majority of prisoners released from
DOC in 2002 were released to the community via mandatory release. Prisoners who serve out
their sentences, including those whose sentences are reduced due to good conduct, are not
subject to parole supervision.17 One-third of the release cohort was released to the supervision
of parole, leaving the remaining 67 percent either unsupervised or under probation supervision
(figure 17).
Figure 17. Type of Release and Prevalence of Supervision of Massachusetts’ Released Adult Prisoners,
2002

Parole Release/
Parole
Supervision

33%

GCD/Expiration
of Sentence
(Probation or
No Supervision)

67%

Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.
Note: GCD = good conduct discharge.
17

The DOC classifies inmates receiving institutional credit toward a reduced sentence as good conduct discharges, or
GCD. A GCD is effectively the same as an expired sentence in that release upon the adjusted expiration date is
mandatory.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

As previously discussed (see Sentencing Reform sidebar), due to the 1994 truth-in-sentencing
legislation in Massachusetts and judges’ responses to those reforms, a greater proportion of
offenders are ineligible for parole consideration and are therefore released without parole
supervision when their sentence expires. As shown in figure 18, the share of prisoners who
were released to supervision by a parole board decreased between 1980 and 2002, as the
number who were released at the expiration of their sentence increased. The number of
individuals released at the expiration of their sentence first surpassed that of the number
released to parole in 1991. Notably, the share of prisoners who were released to parole
decreased from 80 percent in 1980 to 33 percent in 2002.

Figure 18. Type of Release of Massachusetts’ Adult Prisoners Released, 1980–2002

5,000
Parole to the Street

4,500

Expiration/GCD to Street

Number of Releases

4,000

TOTAL

3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Year

Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.
Note: GCD = good conduct discharge.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AND VIOLATION TRENDS
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Parole Board releases and supervises adult state
prisoners released to supervision by a parole board. In 2002, 10,766 individuals—including
both state prisoners and county inmates—came before the parole board. The board granted
parole to 6,815, or 63 percent of those seen.18 In December 2002, 3,274 individuals were under
supervision by the parole board. The average caseload for a parole officer is 43 parolees.
To remain in the community, parolees must abide by the conditions of their release. These may
include special, individualized conditions set by the parole board. Typically, conditions include
regular reporting to a parole officer and submitting to drug tests. The parolee’s level of
supervision determines the frequency of both contact with the officer and drug testing.
Parolees under intensive supervision must meet with their parole officer a minimum of four
times per month, including at least once at the parolee’s residence, and are subject to frequent
drug tests. Individuals under maximum supervision must meet in person with their parole
officer a minimum of once per month, with one other contact per month. Individuals under
maximum supervision are also subject to drug testing a minimum of once per week. Those in
residential programs under maximum supervision may be drug tested as often as twice a
month. Individuals under moderate supervision must meet in person with their parole officer at
least once per quarter, with one additional contact per quarter, and are subject to one drug test
per month.
Parole officers respond to individuals’ failure to abide by conditions of release by imposing
graduated sanctions, beginning with a written warning. The next step is the holding of a case
conference between the parolee, the parole officer, and a parole supervisor. The most severe
sanction is to return a parolee to prison for a violation. This process begins with the filing of a
Parole Violation Report, which is followed by a hearing, either in the parole office or at the
institution—in many cases, a prison—that is detaining the parolee.
In 2002, the parole board held revocation hearings for 935 state prisoners and county inmates.
Of these, 91 percent, or 852 individuals, had their parole revoked and were returned to state or
county facilities. Most of the remaining 9 percent had their hearings postponed. For a very
small number—nine individuals—the revocation was not affirmed. When an individual’s
parole is revoked, he or she is returned to custody. At this time, either a new parole date is set
or the individual is required to serve out what is remaining of his or her sentence. These
individuals are eligible for a parole hearing in one year. Individuals serving a second-degree
life sentence are eligible for a parole hearing after serving 15 years. If denied, they are eligible
for a new hearing five years thereafter.

This is the number of individuals who received a positive vote from the parole board. Because the discharge
process may take some time, an individual's sentence may expire before he or she is released to parole.
Therefore, the number of prisoners and inmates granted parole may not reflect the number released to parole.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Much like the trend in new court commitments in the late 1990s, there was a decrease in the
number of technical violators—mostly parolees—admitted to the DOC from 1997 to 2001,
and a slight increase in 2002 (figure 19). In 2002, there were almost 500 individuals admitted
to prison because of a parole or probation violation. These violations represented 16 percent of
all admissions to DOC prisons in 2002. In 1997, the share of prison admissions that resulted
from a parole or probation violation was 23 percent.

Figure 19. Adult Violation Admissions to Massachusetts State Prison, 1997–2002

1,000
900

872

Number of Admissions

800

718

700

582

600

544
469

500

498

400
300
200
100
0
1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Year
Source: Massachusetts Department of Correction.

In addition to parole, released prisoners may be supervised by probation. The Massachusetts
Probation Service, a department of the trial court system, provides supervision and other
correctional services to offenders residing in the community. Judges are increasingly using
probation—traditionally used as an alternative to incarceration—as a means of post-release
supervision. Judges use split and “from and after” sentencing. Split sentencing describes the
practice of assigning a period of probation following a period of incarceration for a single
offense. A “from and after” sentence refers to a probation sentence immediately following a
term of incarceration when the two penalties are imposed by the same judge on separate
charges. Since the truth-in-sentencing reforms, judges have not had the ability to use split
sentencing for state prison convictions, though they may assign a “from and after” probation
sentence. A Department of Correction study of the prisoners released to the community from
July through December 2002 found that approximately 26 percent were under probation
supervision alone, with another 10 percent under joint parole and probation supervision.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

CHAPTER 2

Department of Youth Services Juvenile Population
The Massachusetts DOC is responsible only for incarcerating criminally sentenced adults and
those juveniles who are transferred to the adult system. In Massachusetts, juveniles under the
age of 1819 who are adjudicated delinquent for criminal activity may be committed by the
court to the supervision of the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services (DYS).
Most juveniles committed to DYS remain under DYS supervision until their 18th birthday. A
smaller number of individuals are deemed by the court to be “youthful offenders,” who are
under 18 at the time of commitment and a high risk to the community. Youthful offenders
remain under the supervision of DYS until their 21st birthday. A snapshot of the DYS
population in January 2004 shows that of the 2,944 youth in custody, 89 percent were
adjudicated delinquent and placed under custody until age 18 and 11 percent were adjudicated
youthful offenders and subject to supervision until age 21.
Most juveniles and youthful offenders do not reside in a DYS facility for the entire period of
their commitment. Juveniles are assessed for risks and needs shortly after they are adjudicated
delinquent. They are then assigned to an appropriate residential facility for a period determined
by DYS staff. DYS releases juveniles from residential facilities to the community and
supervises them in the community.
This chapter examines basic trends in the committed juvenile population, commitments to
DYS, and discharges from DYS. Following that is a basic description of the characteristics of
the population of juveniles released from residential facilities to Massachusetts communities in
2002.
The juvenile population includes all individuals committed to the supervision of DYS.
Juvenile commitments are those juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent by the court and
admitted to the supervision of the DYS. Juvenile discharges are those individuals whose term
of supervision by DYS has ended, usually because they have reached their 18th (or 21st)
birthday. The incarcerated juvenile population includes all juveniles who are placed in a
residential facility. The released juvenile population, for the purposes of this report, includes
those juveniles who are released from a facility into the community. With few exceptions,
these youth will remain in DYS custody after release. Members of this population will be
referred to as released juveniles.

In many cases, juveniles who are age 17 will be treated as adults.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Massachusetts Department of Youth Services
Offenders under the age of 18 are committed to the responsibility of the state Department of Youth
Services (DYS). The majority of youth adjudicated delinquent or youthful offenders are under
supervision in the community. Typically, one half of all youth in DYS custody are supervised in the
community, while approximately one half reside in a residential facility. DYS operates 64 residential
facilities with varying security levels. The most secure facilities house detainees and committed
residents. For lower-risk youth, and for those in transition from confinement, DYS operates
residential group homes and wilderness programs. All DYS facilities provide education, medical
and drug treatment, counseling, and other services as needed. DYS also places youth in special
education residential schools for long-term care in a group setting. Juveniles charged with or
convicted of murder, or who face adult sentences, are housed in a DYS-operated wing within an
adult correctional facility in Plymouth, Massachusetts.
In addition to these residential facilities, DYS operates 38 programs for youth residing in the
community. Youth residing in the community under DYS supervision are subject to case
management and monitoring until the age of 18 or 21, depending on their status as delinquent or
youthful offender. While under DYS supervision, youth report to one of the state’s 19 day-reporting
centers on a regular basis and have access to a host of services. Depending on the location, these
services may include recreational activities, family counseling, substance abuse counseling, anger
management counseling, and delinquency prevention.

POPULATION TRENDS
Like the adult state prison population, the number of juveniles under the supervision of DYS
grew throughout the 1990s and decreased in recent years (figure 20). Of the 2,944 youth in
custody in January 2004, approximately 38 percent were residing in DYS facilities. Nearly 50
percent had completed a residential placement and were residing in the community. The
remainder had been placed with other agencies.

Figure 20. Massachusetts DYS Population, 1992–2003

4,000
3,500

Population

3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1992

1993

1994

1996

1997
1998
Year

2000

2001

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Youth Services data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

2002

COMMITMENT AND DISCHARGE TRENDS
Data on juvenile commitments to and discharges from DYS custody are available only for
recent years (1999–2003). As shown in figure 21, the number of commitments increased
slightly between 1999 and 2000 and then decreased significantly between 2000 and 2003,
dropping 13 percent from 1,699 to 1,473.

Figure 21. Admissions to Massachusetts DYS, 1999–2003

2,000
1,800

1,653

1,699

1,668

1,618
1,473

1,600
Admissions

1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Year
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Youth Services data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

DYS discharges juveniles when they reach age 18 and youthful offenders when they turn 21.
Therefore, the ages of the individuals under DYS supervision largely drive the trends in
discharges. Between 1999 and 2001, the number of discharges from DYS varied from year to
year, decreasing slightly overall (figure 22).

Figure 22. Discharges from Massachusetts DYS, 1999–2003

1,600
1,400

1,374
1,221

1,234

1,196

1999

2000

2001

Discharges

1,200

1,191

1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2002

Year
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Youth Services data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

2003

CHARACTERISTICS OF RELEASED JUVENILES
In 2002, 1,842 juveniles and youthful offenders were released from residential facilities to the
community. Most of these remained in DYS custody until their discharge at the age of 18 or
21. The majority (86 percent) of released juveniles were male. One half of the juveniles
released were white, 28 percent were African American, 4 percent were Asian Pacific
Islanders, and 18 percent were another race (figure 23). Nearly one-third (29 percent) were of
Hispanic descent. The average age of juveniles released in 2002 was 16. The vast majority (93
percent) of juveniles released in 2002 were 17 years old or younger (figure 24).

Figure 23. Race/Ethnicity of Massachusetts’ Released Juveniles, 2002

Other
18%

Asian/
Pacific
Islander
4%

Hispanic
29%

White
50%

NonHispanic
71%

Black/
AfricanAmerican
28%

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Youth Services data.

Figure 24. Age of Massachusetts’ Released Juveniles, 2002

6.7

Over 17 years old

45.4

Age

17 years old
26.4

16 years old
14.4

15 years old
Under 15 years old

7.1
0

25
30
Percent

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Youth Services data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Forty percent of juveniles released to the community in 2002 had been placed in confinement
for a person offense (figure 25). The majority of these—35 percent of the released
population—were violent offenders. Thirty-three percent had been confined for a property
offense, and 10 percent had committed a drug offense. A small number—6 percent—had
committed a motor vehicle offense. Public order and weapons offenses accounted for less than
5 percent each.

Figure 25. Most Serious Conviction Offense of Released Juveniles, 2002

40.6

Person
32.9

Property
9.6

Offense

Drug
6.0

Motor Vehicle

4.7

Public Order
2.7

Weapon

3.6

Other
0

20
25
Percent

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Youth Services data.
Note: Numbers do not total 100% due to rounding.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

DYS staff determines the time to be served in incarceration by juveniles in Massachusetts.
This determination is based primarily on the findings of risk assessments conducted at the time
of commitment to DYS.20 Committed juveniles released in 2002 served an average of 1.7
years. More than two-thirds of juveniles released in 2002 had been incarcerated for two years
or less (figure 26). This included 10 percent who had served less than six months, 29 percent
who served between six months and one year, and 31 percent who had served between one and
two years. Thirty percent served more than two years in incarceration prior to release.

Figure 26. Time Served by Massachusetts’ Released Juveniles, 2002

Time Served

More than 2 years

29.8

1 to 2 years

31.0

29.2

6 months to 1 year

10.0

Less than 6 months

Percent
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Youth Services data.

The drug use histories of the juveniles released in 2002 are unknown. However, a 2000 survey
of youth in DYS residential facilities found that illegal drug and alcohol use were prevalent
among the incarcerated population. In a representative sample of DYS youth, 74 percent
admitted to having used alcohol at least once in their lives, and 82 percent had used marijuana
at least once.21 Most of those who reported using drugs or alcohol reported first using before
the age of 15. More than half—55 percent of those surveyed—reported committing a crime
while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Slightly less than half—46 percent—reported a
family history of drug or alcohol abuse, and 52 percent admitted to having a problem with
drugs or alcohol. In the same study, it was reported that 58 percent of youth reporting to dayreporting centers tested positive for drug use, almost all for the use of marijuana.

Robert Tansi, research analyst, Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, in discussion with Sinead Keegan,
September 17, 2004.
21
Tansi, Robert. 2000. “Client Substance Use Survey Results.” Boston: Massachusetts Department of Youth Services.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION
While the majority of adults released from prison in Massachusetts are released mandatorily,
all juvenile releases from DYS are discretionary. DYS staff members determine whether
incarcerated juveniles are ready to return to the community. This determination almost always
occurs before the term of supervision by DYS has ended and juveniles are released with a
“grant of conditional liberty.” Nearly all released juveniles are supervised in the community by
DYS staff after release. During this period of supervision, released juveniles are required to
abide by certain conditions. These conditions often include day-reporting center visits, drug
testing, a curfew, and school or work attendance. Like adults on parole, if supervised juveniles
violate the conditions of their release, they can be returned to residential facilities. In 2003,
1,494 juveniles retuned to facilities because of violations of conditions of their release. Some
of these juveniles returned more than once, for a total of 2,607 revocations in 2003.
Because juveniles remain under DYS supervision until they reach adulthood, the agency
defines recidivism as arrest and conviction in the adult system. DYS uses a representative
sample of all discharged youth to estimate the level of recidivism within one year of discharge
(figure 27). Between 1993 and 2000, the rate of adult arraignment among DYS discharges
decreased from 72.1 percent to 58.1 percent. During the same period, the conviction rate
dropped from 50.9 percent to 28.6 percent, and the rate of incarceration decreased from 29.7
percent to 21.4 percent.22

Figure 27. One-Year Recidivism Rates for Massachusetts DYS Discharges, 1993–2000

80
Arraigned

Percent of Discharges

Convicted
Incarcerated

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

Year
Source: Massachusetts Department of Youth Services.

Tansi, Robert. 2004. “2004 Juvenile Recidivism Report.” Boston: Massachusetts Department of Youth Services.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

CHAPTER 3

Suffolk County House of Correction Population
Of all Massachusetts offenders sentenced to incarceration in 2003, 91.4 percent were
sentenced to houses of correction.23 While it is necessary to examine this population to
complete the picture of reentry in Massachusetts, detailed information is unavailable in the
aggregate for all counties. This chapter focuses on the Suffolk County HOC, the largest of the
13 HOCs, which is in the county with the largest number of released prisoners. The Suffolk
County HOC, like other county facilities, houses some pre-trial detainees and jail inmates. This
chapter describes the basic features of inmates serving county sentences who were released
from county custody in 2002.

Suffolk County HOC
As previously stated, the 13 county Houses of Correction, which are administered by the
office of the sheriff in each county, are responsible for the majority of criminal offenders
sentenced to less than 2.5 years in confinement. In 2003, these county facilities housed
7,801 sentenced offenders and 5,371 pre-trial detainees. The sentenced population
included 7,442 men and 359 women. The largest of the county facilities is the Suffolk
County House of Correction, located in Boston (figure 28). The 1,759 sentenced Suffolk
County HOC inmates accounted for 62 percent of its average daily population in 2003.
Sentenced inmates make up approximately 60 percent of the total HOC population
statewide, with the proportion of sentenced inmates in each county facility varying from 49
percent to 79 percent. Suffolk is one of three counties that operate separate facilities for
House of Correction and jail inmates.
The Suffolk County HOC differs from many Massachusetts county facilities in one
important respect. All women sentenced to the Suffolk County HOC are housed at that
facility. Many other county Houses of Correction are not equipped to accommodate the
number of female offenders sentenced to serve a county sentence. As a result, many
convicted females serve county sentences in the custody of the state. Female (and male)
offenders may be transferred from county HOC facilities to DOC facilities for other reasons
as well. Similarly, a small percentage of DOC inmates serve a portion of their time in
county facilities. DOC has been working in collaboration with county sheriffs to
intentionally transfer appropriate offenders to facilities closer to their home communities.
These transfers are intended to facilitate and improve the process of reentry to the
community from prison.

Massachusetts Sentencing Commission. 2004. “Survey of Sentencing Practices FY 2003.” Boston: Massachusetts
Sentencing Commission.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Figure 28. Average Daily Sentenced Population at Massachusetts County Houses of Correction, 2003

Suffolk
Hampden
Essex
Middlesex
Worcester

County

Plymouth
Bristol
Norfolk
Berkshire
Hampshire
Barnstable

Male
Female

Franklin
Dukes
0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Population

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

DEMOGRAPHICS
In 2002, the Suffolk County HOC released 2,046 sentenced inmates. Of these, just over 90
percent were men. The female portion of the Suffolk County release cohort was considerably
lower than that of DOC (28 percent). This smaller proportion is likely a reflection of the
practice of housing county female inmates in state facilities due to limited accommodations for
women in most counties. In contrast to the state prison release cohort, the majority (54 percent)
of inmates released from Suffolk County were black; 26 percent were white (figure 29). The
Hispanic percentage (19 percent) was comparable to that of the state prison population.

Figure 29. Race/Ethnicity of Released Suffolk County HOC Inmates, 2002

Hispanic
19%

Other
1%

Black
54%
White
26%

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

The average age for HOC inmates was 33.2 years. Three quarters of inmates leaving Suffolk
County custody were under the age of 40 at the time of release, and 42 percent were under the
age of 30 (figure 30). At least 70 percent of inmates were single, 10 percent were married, and
6 percent were divorced (figure 31).

Figure 30. Age of Released Adult Suffolk County HOC Inmates, 2002

5.6

Under 20

35.9

20 to 29
33.5

Age

30 to 39
20.5

40 to 49
3.8

50 to 59
0.8

60 and over
0

20
Percent

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department data.
Note: Numbers do not total 100% due to rounding.

Figure 31. Marital Status of Released County HOC Inmates, 2002

Not Reported
14%
Divorced
6%

Married
10%

Single
70%

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

CONVICTION OFFENSE
Approximately one quarter (26 percent) of inmates released from the Suffolk County HOC in
2002 were serving a sentence for a person offense (figure 32). Drug and property offenses
accounted for 21 and 19 percent, respectively. Motor vehicle offenses, the vast majority of
which were misdemeanors, were responsible for 15 percent of Suffolk County HOC inmates’
convictions. Very few inmates were serving sentences for sex offenses (1 percent) or weapons
offenses (3 percent).
Among county inmates, there was not a noticeable variation by gender in offense type. Drug
offenses were the most common type among women and accounted for 23 percent of female
convictions. Among male inmates, 20 percent were serving sentences for drug convictions.
Person offenses were the most common type for men, at 28 percent. While 22 percent of men
were serving sentences for a violent (person or sex) offense, 17 percent of women were
sentenced for violent person offenses. None of the sex offenders released from Suffolk County
custody were women.

Figure 32. Most Serious Conviction Offense of Released Suffolk County HOC
Inmates, 2002

25.9

Person
20.6

Drug
18.6

Offense

Property
14.7

Motor Vehicle
8.4

Morals / Order
2.7

Weapon
1.4

Sex

7.6

Other
0

15
Percent

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department data.
Note: Numbers do not total 100% due to rounding.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

TIME SERVED
There is no minimum sentence length for Massachusetts Houses of Correction. The maximum
sentence length is 2.5 years. As previously stated, only inmates serving county sentences were
included in this analysis. More than 95 percent of Suffolk County HOC inmates released in
2002 had been sentenced to less than two years, nearly 80 percent had been sentenced to less
than one year, and the majority (nearly 55 percent) had been sentenced to six months or less
(figure 33). The average maximum sentence for Suffolk HOC inmates released in 2002 was
8.3 months.24

Figure 33. Sentence Length of Released Suffolk County HOC Inmates, 2002

16.7

Less than 1 month

17.5

Sentence Length

1 to 3 months

20.1

3 to 6 months

24.9

6 to 12 months
9.0

12 to 18 months
7.0

18 to 24 months
4.7

More than 24 months
0

15
Percent

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department data.
Note: Numbers do not total 100% due to rounding.

The minimum and maximum house of correction sentences are the same.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

The average time served by inmates released from the Suffolk County HOC in 2002 was 179
days, or just under six months. Inmates with a weapons offense (9.4 months) or sex offense
(9.2 months) served the highest amount of time on average (figure 34). Inmates with drug and
person offenses both served an average of 7 months. The average time served for property,
morals/order, and motor vehicle offenses were all less than six months.
Figure 34. Average Time Served of Released Suffolk County HOC Inmates, in Months, 2002

All Offenses

5.9

Weapon

9.4

Offense

Sex

9.2

Drug

7.0

Person

7.0

Property

5.4

Morals / Order

4.9

Motor Vehicle

3.6

Other

3.8
0

Months
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Less than 3 percent of inmates released from the Suffolk County HOC served their full
sentences. The majority (61 percent) of released inmates served 80 percent or more of their
sentences (figure 35). Approximately 17 percent of those released served between 60 and 80
percent of their sentences, while 23 percent of inmates served less than 60 percent of their
sentences. About 5 percent of county inmates were released after serving less than 20 percent
of their sentences.

Figure 35. Percentage of Sentence Served by Released Suffolk County HOC Inmates, 2002

4.6

Percent of Sentence

Less than 20

3.7

20 to 40

14.1

40 to 60
60 to 80

16.9
58.2

80 to 100
2.5

100
0

Percent of Population
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

PRIOR INCARCERATION AND RETURNS TO PRISON
In 2002, the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission conducted a study of recidivism among
inmates released from April to June of that year.25 In this study, recidivism was defined as a
new arraignment or a technical violation resulting in incarceration. The sample included
offenders from all DOC facilities and six houses of correction, including 644 offenders
released from the Suffolk County HOC. The Sentencing Commission found that the rate of
recidivism within 11 months was 53.4 percent among inmates released from the Suffolk
County HOC. Of the inmates that were classified as recidivists, 93 percent were arrested for a
new offense and 7 percent committed a technical violation of probation or parole.
Of the inmates released from the Suffolk County HOC in 2002, almost two-thirds had
previously been incarcerated at the Suffolk County facility (figure 36). Nearly one in four
inmates had been committed to the Suffolk County HOC once before, and just under 40
percent had served time at the HOC more than once before.

Figure 36. Prior Suffolk HOC Incarcerations of Released Suffolk County Inmates, 2002

5 Priors
4%

6-10 Priors
5%

4 Priors
6%
No Prior
Incarcerations
37%

3 Priors
9%

2 Priors
15%

1 Prior
Incarceration
24%

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department data.

Massachusetts Sentencing Commission. 2002. “Comprehensive Recidivism Study: A Report to the House
Committee on Ways and Means, Senate Committee on Ways and Means, Joint Committee on Criminal Justice and the
Joint Committee on Public Safety.” Boston: Massachusetts Sentencing Commission.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

HOW INMATES ARE RELEASED
Like state prisoners, HOC inmates may be released to the community or to other jurisdictions.
Release to the community may be discretionary or nondiscretionary (mandatory). As with state
prisoners, discretionary release for the House of Corrections is determined by the
Massachusetts Parole Board. In general, inmates sentenced to houses of correction for 60 days
or more are eligible for parole consideration once they have served one half of their sentence.
Of the inmates released from the Suffolk County HOC in 2002, three quarters were released
by mandatory means. The remaining quarter were released at the discretion of the parole board
and subject to parole supervision. Among inmates serving 60 days or more—and therefore
eligible for parole consideration—approximately 33 percent were released to parole (figure
37).

Figure 37. Type of Release and Prevalence of Supervision of Released Suffolk County HOC Inmates,
2002

Parole
25%

End of
Sentence
75%
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION
As previously discussed, the Massachusetts Parole Board may release and place under its
supervision adult inmates in both state and county facilities, though this practice has become
less common since truth-in-sentencing reforms. While the vast majority of inmates released to
the community from houses of correction are not subject to parole supervision, there is
evidence that a substantial number of mandatory releases to the community involve a period of
probation supervision.
Judges in Massachusetts may sentence offenders to post-release probation supervision in
addition to incarceration. For offenders committed to a HOC, probation may be assigned using
a split sentence or a “from and after” sentence. When an offender is convicted of a single
offense, a judge may impose a period of incarceration, to be followed by a period of probation,
resulting in a split sentence. In the case of multiple offenses, the judge may impose sentences
of incarceration and subsequent probation for separate charges. The period of supervision
following confinement is referred to as a “from and after sentence.” Though data were not
available on the number of Suffolk HOC inmates subject to post-release probation, a recent
survey by the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission found that 42 percent of inmates
committed to houses of correction statewide in 2003 were sentenced to post-release probation
in the form of a split or “from and after” sentence.26

Massachusetts Sentencing Commission. 2004. “Survey of Sentencing Practices FY 2003.” Boston: Massachusetts
Sentencing Commission.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

CHAPTER 4

Geographic Distribution of Released Prisoners
The community context of prisoner reentry can have an important influence on post-release
success or failure. It stands to reason that ex-prisoners returning to communities with high
unemployment rates, active drug markets, and few social services may be more likely to
relapse and recidivate. This chapter presents findings from a geographic analysis of returning
prisoners by county and examines this reentry distribution by the socioeconomic
characteristics of Suffolk County, the home of Boston, Massachusetts’ state capital and largest
city, and the county with the highest percentage of prisoners released in 2002.

REENTRY IN MASSACHUSETTS
Adult Prisoners
The vast majority of those released from state prisons in 2002 returned to communities in the
state. More than one-third (37 percent) of released adult prisoners returned to two of
Massachusetts’ 14 counties. (See maps 1 and 2 and figure 38.) These two counties account for
22 percent of the state’s overall population. Almost one in five released adult prisoners—19
percent, or 464 individuals—returned to Suffolk County, and 18 percent of those released (434
individuals) returned to Worcester County.
Map 1. Number of Adult Prisoner Releases by County, 2002

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Correction data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Map 2. Percentage of Adult Prisoner Releases by County, 2002

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Correction data.

Figure 38. Percentage of Adult Prisoner Releases by County, 2002
25

Percent

13
10

7
5

County
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Correction data.
Note: Numbers do not total 100% due to rounding.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

N
an
tu
ck
et

D
uk
es

ire
H
am
ps
h

Fr
an
kl
in

Be
rk
sh
ire

Ba
rn
st
ab
le

N
or
fo
lk

m
ou
th
Pl
y

Br
is
to
l

n
H
am
pd
e

Es
se
x

M
id
dl
es
ex

or
ce
st
er
W

Su
f

fo
lk

An examination of the concentration (i.e., the rate per 100,000 residents) of released
Massachusetts prisoners presents a similar picture. As shown in table 1, Suffolk County has
the highest concentration of prisoners released from DOC custody, with Worcester having the
second highest. Concentrations in both counties are higher than that of the state overall. The
concentration of released prisoners returning to Suffolk County is 75 percent higher than the
overall rate for Massachusetts.

Table 1. Concentration of prisoners returning to counties in Massachusetts, 2003
County

Prisoners released per 100,000 residents

Suffolk County

67.4

Worcester County

56.4

Hampden County

51.8

Essex County

43.7

Plymouth County

36.5

Berkshire County

36.0

Bristol County

34.9

Franklin County

27.7

Barnstable County

27.2

Middlesex County

25.3

Norfolk County

19.9

Hampshire County

11.1

Dukes County

6.5

All counties in Massachusetts

38.6

Sources: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Correction data; U.S. Census Bureau,
2004.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Released Juveniles
All juveniles released from DYS facilities returned to communities in the state. Forty percent
of released juveniles returned to two counties in Massachusetts—Suffolk and Worcester. (See
maps 3 and 4 and figure 39.) More than one in five released juveniles—22 percent, or 376
juveniles—returned to Suffolk County, and 19 percent of those released (334 juveniles)
returned to Worcester County.

Map 3. Number of Released Juveniles by County, 2002

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Youth Services data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Map 4. Percentage of Released Juveniles by County, 2002

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Youth Services data.

Figure 39. Percentage of Released Juveniles by County, 2002
25
22
19

Percent

7
4

0
t
ke

uc
an
t
N

re
hi

nk
lin

ps
H
am

Fr
a

hi
re

e
bl
ta

Be
rk
s

Ba
rn
s

or
fo

h
N

to
l

ou
t
Pl
ym

Br
is

ex
H
am

Es
s

te
r

se
x
le
M
id
d

es
W
or
c

Su
f

fo
lk

County
Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Youth Services data.
Note: Numbers do not total 100% due to rounding.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

An examination of the concentration (i.e., the rate per 100,000 residents) of released juveniles
presents a similar picture. As shown in table 2, Suffolk County has the highest concentration of
juveniles released from DYS custody, with Worcester having the second highest.
Concentrations in both counties are higher than the state average, with Suffolk County’s rate
more than twice that of the state overall.

Table 2. Concentration of juveniles returning to counties in Massachusetts
County

Juveniles released per 100,000 residents

Suffolk County

54.6

Worcester County

43.4

Hampden County

41.4

Essex County

33.1

Berkshire County

32.2

Plymouth County

25.4

Franklin County

23.6

Bristol County

23.2

Nantucket County

19.1

Barnstable County

16.7

Dukes County

13.0

Norfolk County

11.2

Hampshire County

10.4

Middlesex County

9.2

All counties in Massachusetts

26.8

Sources: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Youth Services data; U.S.
Census Bureau, 2004.

A FOCUS ON SUFFOLK COUNTY REENTRY
Communities to which large numbers of ex-offenders return often exhibit high levels of
poverty, unemployment, and crime, with limited available social services. Within metropolitan
areas, released ex-offenders are often clustered in a few disadvantaged neighborhoods.27 As
discussed below, Suffolk County—the county with the highest numbers and concentrations of
released adult prisoners and juveniles—has a poverty rate more than twice that of the state of
Massachusetts as a whole and is characterized by higher than average unemployment and
numbers of single female–headed households. Within Suffolk County, returning prisoners are
clustered in a few neighborhoods that tend to be more disadvantaged.

Lynch and Sabol. 2001. “Prisoner Reentry in Perspective.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; La Vigne, Nancy G.,
and Vera Kachnowski. 2003. “A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Maryland.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute;
La Vigne, Nancy G., and Cynthia A. Mamalian. 2003. “A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Illinois.” Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Adult Prisoners
The flow of adult prisoners to Suffolk County in 2002 was concentrated in a relatively small
number of communities within the county. In 2002, 464 individuals released from DOC had
Suffolk County addresses. Of these, 377 (81 percent) were matched with known addresses
within the county’s boundaries.28 Within Suffolk County, the 31 block groups with the highest
numbers of returning prisoners make up 5 percent of the county’s block groups and house 28
percent of those returning to Suffolk County. (See maps 5 and 6.) Almost half—45 percent—
of all released adult prisoners returned to just 10 percent of the city’s 630 block groups. As
shown in the maps below, most of the block groups with the largest numbers of returning
prisoners are within Boston.

Map 5. Number of Released Adult Prisoners Returning to Suffolk County by Census Block Group, 2002

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Correction data.

Most of the unmatched individuals had missing addresses or were listed as homeless.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Map 6. Percentage of Released Adult Prisoners Returning to Suffolk County by Census Block Group,
2002

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Correction data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Released Juveniles
As previously stated, 376 released juveniles had Suffolk County addresses. Of these, 359 (95
percent) were matched with known geographic locations within the county’s boundaries. As is
true of the released adult prisoner population, the block groups with the highest numbers of
released juveniles are primarily located in Boston. In fact, juveniles returning to Suffolk
County are even more highly concentrated in a small number of neighborhoods than are adult
prisoners. The seven block groups with the highest numbers of returning juveniles—only 1
percent of the county’s block groups—make up 12 percent of all juveniles returning to Suffolk
County. (See map 7.)

Map 7. Number of Released Juveniles Returning to Suffolk County by Census Block Group, 2002

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Youth Services data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

More than half of all returning juveniles (54 percent) return to only 10 percent of Suffolk
County block groups. All juveniles returning to Suffolk County return to less than one-third
(32 percent) of the county’s block groups. This means that 68 percent of Suffolk County block
groups did not receive any returning juveniles in 2002. (See map 8.)

Map 8. Percentage of Released Juveniles Returning to Suffolk County by Census Block Group, 2002

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Youth Services data

County Inmates
The Suffolk County House of Correction (HOC) houses most offenders returning to Suffolk
County. Of the 2,046 sentenced inmates released from the HOC in 2002, 1,816 had Suffolk
County addresses. This represents more than two-thirds of all offenders returned to Suffolk
County communities in 2002. The addresses for 1,46029 of those released in 2002 were
matched with known geographic locations within the county’s boundaries. As is true of the
returning adult prisoner and committed juvenile populations, the block groups with the highest
numbers of released county inmates are primarily located in Boston. The 5 percent of block
groups with the highest numbers of returning inmates make up 23 percent of all county

Eighty percent of those with Suffolk County addresses.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

inmates returning to Suffolk County. However, HOC inmates are slightly more evenly
distributed across Suffolk County than adult prisoners and released juveniles. (See map 9.)

Map 9. Number of Released Suffolk County Inmates by Census Block Group, 2002

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

More than two-thirds of all returning county inmates (68 percent) return to 25 percent of
Suffolk County block groups. All county inmates returning to Suffolk County return to about
two-thirds (69 percent) of the county’s block groups. Less than one-third (31 percent) of
Suffolk County block groups receive no returning county inmates in 2002. (See map 10.)

Map 10. Percentage of Released County Inmates by Census Block Group, 2002

Source: Urban Institute analysis of Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department data.

All Releases
In total, 2,656 individuals returned to Suffolk County communities from prison, juvenile
facility, or the Suffolk HOC in 2002. As is true of all three returning populations, the block
groups with the highest numbers of releases are primarily located in Boston. Because the
released county inmate population makes up a majority of those released to Suffolk County,
the distribution of all releases most closely mirrors that of county releases.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

The 5 percent of block groups with the highest numbers of releases house 22 percent of all
those returning to Suffolk County. The vast majority of high-rate block groups are located in
Boston. (See map 11.) Five percent of block groups have a concentration of returning prisoners
greater than 8 per 1,000. (See map 12.)

Map 11. Number of Total Releases to Suffolk County by Census Block Group, 2002

Sources: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Correction, Massachusetts Department of
Youth Services, and Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Map 12. Number of Releases per 1,000 Residents to Suffolk County Census Block Groups, 2002

Sources: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Correction, Massachusetts Department of
Youth Services, Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, and U.S. Census Bureau data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

About two-thirds of all releases (67 percent) return to 25 percent of the county’s block groups.
Notably, more than three in every four block groups (76 percent) house at least one returnee. In
other words, only one quarter of Suffolk County block groups (24 percent) received no
returning county inmates in 2002. (See map 13.)

Map 13. Percentage of Total Releases to Suffolk County by Census Block Group, 2002

Sources: Urban Institute analysis of Massachusetts Department of Correction, Massachusetts Department of
Youth Services, and Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department data.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

Socioeconomic Indicators
Maps 14 through 16 present the percentages of families in poverty, unemployed individuals,
and families that are female-headed with children. These maps demonstrate that there is some,
but certainly not complete, overlap between the areas to which ex-offenders are returning and
the areas of highest disadvantage.
Fifteen percent of families in Suffolk County live below the federal poverty level, more than
twice the statewide poverty rate of 6.7 percent.30 Of the 9 block groups with the most (16 or
more) returning ex-offenders in 2002, nearly all had poverty rates above the state average. The
proportion of families in those neighborhoods living below the poverty level ranged from 6 to
52 percent. Seven of these block groups had poverty rates of above 20 percent. At the same
time, of the 12 block groups with family poverty rates of 50 percent or more, most are home to
relatively small numbers of returning ex-offenders. In all but two of these block groups, the
number of returning ex-offenders is below ten. In fact, the majority of low-poverty block
groups are home to very few returning prisoners.

Map 14. Percentage of Families Living below the Poverty Level in Suffolk County, by Census Block
Group, 1999

0 0.5 1

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

In 2000, 9 percent of Suffolk County families were female-headed with children. The state
average was 7 percent.31 In 8 of the 9 block groups with 16 or more returning ex-offenders, the
percentage of families that were female-headed with children ranged from 21 to 52 percent. Of
the 20 block groups in which the majority (more than 50 percent) of households were
female-headed with children, thirteen were home to five or more returning ex-offenders.

Map 15. Percentage of Female-Headed Families with Children in Suffolk County, 2000

0 0.5 1

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

In 2000, 4 percent of the adult population of Suffolk County was unemployed, compared with
3 percent statewide.32 All but one block group with 16 or more returning ex-offenders had
unemployment rates ranging from 5 to 19 percent. Notably, only one of the block groups with
the highest unemployment rates (more than 20 percent) is home to returning ex-offenders.

Map 16. Percentage of Adults Unemployed in Suffolk County, by Census Block Group, 2000

0 0.5 1

Source: Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

CHAPTER 5

LOOKING FORWARD
Over the past two decades, the growth in prison populations nationwide has translated into
more and more people being released from prison and reentering society. Massachusetts has
experienced similar incarceration and release trends and thus faces the reentry challenges that
accompany such growth. Between 1980 and 2002, the Massachusetts prison population more
than tripled, increasing from 2,754 to 9,150 people. Similarly, the per capita rate of
imprisonment tripled in Massachusetts over that period, rising from 56 to 174 per 100,000
residents. The number of people released from Massachusetts prisons reflects these rising
population and imprisonment trends: in 1980, only 1,015 individuals were released from the
state’s prisons; in 2002, 2,526 individuals were released from Massachusetts prisons. The
majority of these released prisoners were single white males with an average age of 35. The
largest percentage of prisoners had been serving time for person offenses. The average time
served was 5.1 years.
Massachusetts has seen a similar increase in the number of juveniles committed to the
Department of Youth Services, with the DYS population growing from just over 1,579 in 1992
to 2,944 in 2004. In 2002, 1,842 juveniles were released from DYS facilities. The majority of
these were white males, and their average age at release was 16. More than 90 percent of those
released were aged 17 or younger. Like the adult population, the largest percentage of
juveniles had been charged with person offenses. The average time served in a DYS facility
was 1.7 years.
The vast majority of adults incarcerated in Massachusetts are sentenced to one of 13 county
Houses of Correction. These facilities housed 7,801 inmates in 2003. The largest of these,
Suffolk HOC, had an average daily population of 2,820 sentenced inmates in 2003. In 2002,
2,046 inmates were released from Suffolk HOC. The majority of inmates released from
Suffolk HOC were black males, and the average age was 33. The largest percentage of county
inmates had been serving time for person offenses, and the average time served was 8.3
months. Nearly two-thirds of those released had previously spent time in the Suffolk HOC.
About one-fifth of released state prisoners and juveniles, as well as the vast majority of Suffolk
HOC inmates, returned to Suffolk County. Census block group analyses of Suffolk County
indicate that returning prisoners are clustered within a relatively few communities, most of
which are in Boston. An examination of demographic data for these areas indicates that there is
some overlap between the economically disadvantaged areas of the city and the neighborhoods
to which large numbers of prisoners return. It is likely that these community characteristics
have an effect on reentry success or failure. Thus, from a reentry planning perspective, it is
important to consider the community context of prisoner reentry. Are jobs available in or near
the communities to which prisoners return? What is the availability of affordable housing in
these areas? What is the prevalence of assets, such as faith-based institutions, versus risks, such
as open-air drug markets? It is also useful to understand whether services for ex-prisoners are
located within or in close proximity to neighborhoods with high numbers of returns, and
whether prisoners returning to these neighborhoods are able to access those resources.
Another important facet of prisoner reentry is the family context of the reintegration
experience. Some families may be a strong source of support to returning prisoners, while
others have histories of substance use and criminal activity that may make them negative
Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts

influences for returning prisoners. Understanding the family context of prisoner reentry is thus
critical in reentry planning efforts.
Returning prisoners in Massachusetts, like those nationwide, have many needs as they begin
the process of reintegration. Health problems and issues of dependency on drugs or alcohol are
likely to pose significant reentry challenges to the state’s returning prisoners—challenges that
could seriously affect the ease of transition to life on the outside. Mental and physical health
conditions of returning prisoners also have important public health implications, specifically
the spread of infectious disease to the general population and the added strain on the health
care system.
We also know that the likelihood of recidivating is substantial. Almost all of the adult prisoners
released from state prisons in Massachusetts had served prior terms in a state or county facility,
and many had violated their parole or probation at some point in their criminal careers.
Criminal histories do not bode well for maintaining crime-free lifestyles. They can create
barriers to employment, housing, and eligibility for food stamps and other forms of public
assistance and can limit opportunities for civic participation. It is thus paramount that state
officials, service providers, and community stakeholders approach reentry comprehensively,
considering the many dimensions of the reentry experience and tapping the available resources
that could provide assistance to returning prisoners and their families.
It is clear that the challenges of reentry in Massachusetts are great, but so are the opportunities.
Successful reentry is critical for ensuring public safety, reducing the costs of incarceration, and
promoting the well-being of individuals, families, and communities.

Prisoner Reentry in Massachusetts