CAPTION FILE
Joint Committee on Judiciary Hearing
December 20, 2022
OPEN CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY:
Tracy Ukura, RPR, CRR, CRC
Mona Leviton, RPR, CRR, CRC
* * * * *
This is being provided in an unedited format.  Open Captioning is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
* * * * *
>> Chair Day: Welcome to this morning's kickoff of the Joint Committee on Judiciary oversight hearings. My name is Michael Day, I am the House Chair of the Joint Committee on Judiciary with me is my co‑chair and good friend, Senator Jamie Eldridge. I'll turn this over to I am for a brief opening remarks. With me from the House are my colleagues Vice Chair Tyler, representative Hendricks, Representative Scanlon, Representative Livingstone and Representative Sullivan. Thank you for being here in person. A number of our colleagues are participating remotely due to unfortunate illness as well as a condensed timing of the calling of this hearing. We had to move the hearing briefly. Also introduce the staff and thank them for all the work they've done in preparation for today and tomorrow, Patrick Prendergast, Staff Director, Diana Williams, general counsel, not with us, Alex O'Connell, Michael Musto, Research Director, Talia Quinn, legislative aide and Adele Giovaniello, intern and Jacqueline Fallon who have done great work helping us prepare. I'll take a brief moment to explain what we're doing here today and tomorrow and why. And ask Director Musto to put up the intro slides so we can start walking through this. As the, we all know we're here in our capacity as members of the Joint Committee on Judiciary. As the Joint Committee on Judiciary, we're charged with the very specific set of duties by our legislative colleagues. So Mike, let's put that charge up. So in part we are tasked with it shall be the duty of the committee on the Judiciary to consider all matters concerning crimes, penalties and sentencing correction issues, previously sent to public safety and such other matters as may be referred. As a legislative committee in an arm of the legislature, we're charged to not only consider matters concerning crimes, penalties, sentencing and corrections, but also to exercise oversight over the operations of other government agencies and officials operating in those areas. The power of the legislature to conduct oversight is one firmly established in our constitution and reaffirmed over centuries by an unbroken chain of precedent from our courts. Next slide. In 1859, the Burnham versus Morrissey is from the SJC explicitly confirmed our pour request "inquire into the official conduct of all officers of the Commonwealth." As one rooted in our institution. In an opinion from the Justices of 1951 in response to pushback from recalcitrant executive branch about the scope of legislative oversight powers, the SJC again confirmed that "securing information from these executive and administrative departments, boards and commissions is a permissible exercise of the legislative power and does not interfere with the executive Department of the government." Next slide. Again, 1964, in response to another pushback from a government agency, the SJC explicitly held that "investigating the practices of the government at state and local levels, and the powers necessary to do so are a proper legislative function." You can take those down, thanks, Mike. Thankfully, since 1964 at least, the executive branch has accepted at least facially what the separation of powers entails with respect to the role of the legislature, reviewing executive actions. Oversight of government agencies and executive action is not just a prerogative of the legislative branch. It is our obligation. We do delegate that power internally to our established committees, which is what brings us here today. Mike, I'd ask you to put up the next slide. In 2018, this legislature enacted and this administration ultimately signed into law the landmark Criminal Justice Reform Act, which modernized just about every aspect of our criminal justice system here in Massachusetts. It has been the standard for our country. With other states and the federal government, incorporating many of its provisions into their own laws. As with all of our laws, none remain static. The legislatures continually examine the consequences both intended and unintended of the laws that we passed. We're continually striving to improve those laws and to do so, we need partners in government who work cooperatively towards those goals. Sometimes we find those willing partners. Sometimes we don't. We should not be in an extraordinary statement for the legislature to say that, when we pass a law, we expect that law to be enforced and implemented to its fullest extent. When we find that this is not the case, or have difficulty discerning whether that is the case, we have an obligation to inquire into specifics. And so that's what brings us here today, foreign hour years after the enactment of the CJRA. After hearing concerns from a wide swathe of individuals, groups, government officials and legislators alike, this committee undertook a substantive review of the implements of the CJRA and operations of our correction system here in Massachusetts as operated by the Baker Administration and the Commonwealth's 14 sheriffs' offices. These hearings are a point in time, but somewhat of a culmination of that review. From research to meetings to formal letters, document requests and ultimately invitations to appear before this Committee, the review has answered some questions and raised others. The hearings come at an important time when we're transitioning from one administration to another. We have called these hearings for two main reasons. First, so that we can attempt to achieve some insight into clarity into what has been an unnecessarily opaque operation of our state corrections system, to highlight successful initiatives and steps taken by the Baker Administration and its Executive Office of Public Safety and Security and Department of Corrections and other sheriffs and to be clear about failures or continuing challenges in this area. Second, recognizing the fast‑approaching end of one administration and the beginning of another, we hope that these hearings will proactively identify the work remaining in our efforts to modernize our corrections system for the incoming Governor and her team. In that spirit, we ask the Baker Administration and our sheriffs to send us documents we hoped would elucidate some of these points and we requested that they appear here today and tomorrow to address outstanding questions this legislature has in four general areas ‑‑ data reporting, inmate welfare, corrections officer welfare, and the operation of Bridgewater State Hospital. We're pleased that our sheriffs took the request seriously by producing voluminous documents in a short period of time and they will appear before us tomorrow morning. Unfortunately, this administration took a different approach. While their 14‑page written response did indeed provide us with links to different sources that answered some of our inquiries and showed full implementation of the CJRA or road to compliance, the written response in many instances simply ignored certain inquiries all together. In the Administration flatly refused to appear at any time over the next two days. It is incredible to me and a disservice to our government that this administration chose this approach but nonetheless, I believe the hearings will perhaps demonstrate why they refuse to answer certain questions and refused accountability together on all others. With that said, we have a full slate of witnesses and groups who are willing to discuss these issues, so let me run quickly through some of the logistics of the next two days and I'll turn it over to my co‑chair for opening remarks. Mike, move to the next slide, if you would. So the format we will be here in person in the Gardner Auditorium in the State House, open to the public. Also we'll be livestreaming this on the Mass. Legislature website. Closed captioning will appear on the screen and cranes crypts will be provided online after the hearings conclude. Next slide. Just an overview of what we expect for the hearing schedule itself, today, Tuesday 12/20, we will begin with data reporting, we will then turn to inmate welfare. Tomorrow, we will begin with correctional officer welfare and conclude the hearings from Bridgewater State Hospital operations. With that said, let me turn it over gratefully to my colleague and friend, Co‑chair Senator Jamie Eldridge.
>> Chair Eldridge: Thank you so much, Chair Day and I thank everyone for attending today and looking forward to the testimony from many advocates and I first just want to thank all the Judiciary Committee members, here in person or those watching and participating remotely, and if there's anything I can lift up from what Chair Day said beyond my own remarks is highlighting the integral involvement in legislature in our criminal justice system and our prisons and I think in many ways perhaps one of the best examples is that so many legislators are going in to our correctional facilities, whether our houses of correction or state prisons and seeing up close and directly what is going on in what is very much a unique institution across Massachusetts. I'm deeply grateful to Chair Michael Day for his partnership over the past session, and particularly him and his staff's preparation for today's oversight hearing. It's been a privilege to lead this committee. This hearing is about a serious topic, incarcerating a person even for a short period of time, is one of the most drastic actions a government can take. Incarceration should only be used for violations of the compact that are of the most egregious variety. Although we've made substantial progress in reforming our criminal laws, they remain Draconian. Our failure to reduce equality and end the school to pipeline are problems. There are documented racial disparities in our criminal justice system as well as economic disparities. Today we're investigating the Department of correction correctional facilities, tomorrow we'll be focusing on county correctional facilities. We want to know if correctional authorities are adhering to the intended spirit of the laws the legislatures that passed over the past few years, including the 2018 Criminal Justice Reform Law to safeguard the rights of incarcerated people. Regrettably, the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security and Department of Corrections declined our invitations. We look forward to advocates testifying about the gaps, perhaps some of the progress but the major structural challenges in our correctional facilities and criminal justice system and I want to lie highlight these issues are not about a particular Governor but the system of government. The core question again is to ponder whether duly enacted laws are being faithfully executed and this hearing is about the rule of law. I look forward to the presentations and robust questions from the committee members and again, to Chair Day, thank you now and your staff for the preparation of today and tomorrow's oversight hearings. Thank you. 
>> Chair Day: Thank you for your work as well. First up on the hearing is data reporting. Ensuring that we as lawmakers and other stakeholders in the criminal justice system have reliable and comprehensive information was a central tenet of the work of 2018 CJRA. We required several agencies most under the authority of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security to work collaboratively towards establishing a new system of data reporting. I'd like to take a moment to thank the various members and agencies of our government's executive judicial and independent offices and agencies for their work in this area. While progress has been made on this front, much work remains. To discuss the implementation of the data provision its of the CJRA we invite Benjamin Forman of MassINC that focused on public policy matters in the Commonwealth to come forward. Welcome, Mr. Forman is a member of the justice group policy board, established by the legislature and CJRA to ensure progress on the data tracking system we mandated and I welcome Mr. Forman to come forward to discuss the work of this board, the administration's approach to the implementation of the data provision of the CJRA and the work remaining. Mr. Forman, welcome. 
>> (Muted) ‑‑ offer testimony. I remember being in this room five or six years ago when we heard hours and hours of emotional testimony from citizens on both sides of this issue. We heard very little data in those hearings. The data that was available came mostly through the Council of State Governments that spent months and months sorting through files trying to get answers to how our system was operating and they left us with data with lots of asterisks and understanding that our data was in relatively poor shape compared to what they had seen around the country. I think when the legislature crafted the Reform Act they thoughtfully embedded data provisions to make our data the finest in the country. We were introducing as the Chair said in setting this discussion up some of the most transformative changes any state had undertaken. We needed to know absolutely whether those things were keeping people safer and whether they're resulting in a justice system that operated more fairly. There were two key components of those data provisions in my mind, cross‑agency data, so we could follow people from the beginning of the system all the way through it, and back safely to our communities, and public use data, so that anybody could get their hands on those records and analyze them without fear of favor. The Oversight Council was established to oversee the implementation of the provisions knowing it was going to take a lot of hard work to get our systems to operate in that manner and that group has been meeting for the past five years and I've had the privilege of being part of it just for the past year, as the delegated representative by the ACLU. So I observed the group. I've been part of the group and I've been frustrated the entire time because it hasn't mapped out who needs to be done, who is going to do it, how much it's going to cost and when it's going to happen. Each year it's required to submit an annual report on the progress to the legislature and I bring with me this year's report, which is six pages long. One page is a cover letter. One page is a cover. Another page is the group's membership, and basically this is what you get in terms of where their progress is. So you know, there are longitudinal data systems that follow people through others systems in our Commonwealth. MassINC used data looking from students from high school to community colleges and the labor market to analyze returns to different programs and majors within community colleges and we could see quite clearly some programs didn't pay off at all. Some programs had enormous payoff for students. There's public use data in government. The MBTA releases the progress of its trains, so that advocates for the Orange Line could figure out that the trains weren't coming and going as we were being told and hold the agencies accountable. But nowhere in this report or any of the reports over the last five years will you find any mention of a public use file that follows people through the criminal justice system, as required by the law. I've asked for that numerous times both as a member of the public and a member of the body and I have to say, that on any board I've served on, I can't remember a time where I ever voted no to a motion. When this report was submitted and filed, it was the first time I had to stand alone and say no, that's unacceptable. So again, I think it's pretty critical in criminal justice of all areas of state government where human lives are at stake that we make data‑informed decisions. I think the law had an excellent approach to that and that comes down to the will to implement it and how and I think that is going to require stronger legislative oversight and I'm grateful that you've taken this step and hoping you'll continue to do so. Thank you. 
>> Chair Day: Just a moment, Mr. Forman. 
>> It's been a while. 
>> Chair Eldridge: So thank you so much, Mr. Forman, and really appreciate, I can remember you in the early days providing us with a lot of key data that led up to the 2018 reform, so thanks for your continued work. There has been a lot of discussion about the fact that the data systems, software systems for the Department of Correction and our justice reform system were outdated. This session, and want to thank Chair Day for leading this effort, we passed the Judiciary IT Bond Bill. There's efforts going on before that. Can you talk about where the DOC is at on data tsunamis 
>> No, I can't. That's exactly what I mean. As a member of the board, we hear the systems are outdated and this report references the systems are outdated but doesn't say what the capital plan is to address that, what the costs are going to be, whether the funds have been identified, whether there's a vendor in place, what the timeline for that IT project is. We don't have any of those specifics and so it's really hard to say whether, you know, this should have been a five‑year project, whether we're at where we should be five years in from now and when we'll get to where we want to go. 
>> Chair Eldridge: So you're saying you can't confirm that the DOC is even updated their software system for data? 
>> I don't have any of the particulars, and you know, in speaking with other folks around the state, you know, around the country on data quality issues such as these, we often hear that systems are outdated, you know, when there's a will, we can use current technology to do the job that needs to be done, so I think one of the questions is, is there not an interim approach, if that entire system needs to replace that can get us closer to what the law has envisioned? 
>> Chair Eldridge: In your work for MassINC, do you have any data that you can present or give an opinion on as far as where we're at, since the 2018 reform? 
>> No, I would say, you know, for the work we do in particular, in some ways, I feel like we've taken a step backward from where we were in 2018. A lot of the testimony that you heard then relied on the survey of sentencing practices that the trial court produced regularly, and those reports are no longer being published. So it's really difficult to understand just that component of the system, sentencing, which is very important how that has changed. 
>> Chair Eldridge: You mentioned earlier you voted no on that plan. When was that? 
>> Late June. This is dated July 1st. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Okay, and has there been any explanation from the Administration about why they haven't been able to provide the updated information? 
>> No. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Okay. Thank you very much. 
>> Chair Day: Just a couple quick questions. So we're taking questions from members of the committee as well and voicing them through the chairs. One was, we've got the smallest prison population in the country and we should be able to capture the data to track that population and to be able to dissect what that population looks like, where they end up, how they get there to begin with. Is the board that we constituted through the legislature working? Is it functional? Does there need to be further legislative changes or is it a change in leadership, in your opinion? 
>> That's a very difficult one for me to answer, Chair Day. You know, I've never been in a process like this before, where you're asking agencies to bring their data together. In the case of the trial court, you're asking an independent branch of government to integrate its data with others, so I'm not sure what the perfect solution to that is, but you know, I do believe that everybody shares a belief that the project is worthwhile, and the ultimate aim is valid and we want to see this happen, but we all need to work together to get it done and I think at some level, there needs to be more accountability. I hope that annual report and the expectation that that report is pretty thorough, would be one of the important pieces of that accountability, and so I might start there, as you know, this is a report to the legislature. I don't believe that it's acceptable to the legislature. Maybe there will be some more common understanding about what we'd like to see in this report and the level of detail that's required in order to provide oversight. 
>> Chair Day: As I asked you the question, I was saying it was unfair to ask a member to opine on a leadership of a currently constructed board. Point taken there. As a member, we've asked the question and haven't gotten a satisfactory answer how much is left to go to get into compliance and to effectuate what we had envisioned on this cross-tracker system and the data collection itself. Do you have a sense what we're looking at financially, whether the legislature needs to step in with more money to accelerate this process as Chair Eldridge referenced?
We heard loud and clear from the judiciary, who have done a stellar job on compliance here. Compliance here that they needed more ‑‑ is that a financial situation, is it a matter of will? What is the, where are we here? 
>> That I feel I'm in a slightly better position to answer. When you have data systems and putting something on top of them to draw and connect information from them, that's not a break the bank proposition, and in fact, I think the leaders responsible in the discussions with the oversight board, they've said that it's not a financial problem that we're facing here. I know that through the IT bond, money has been made available, some of that has been drawn on. I don't believe there's a record of that in this report or previous reports but again, I don't think that the primary barrier to achieving what the legislation envisioned is a financial one. 
>> Chair Day: Thank you, Mr. Forman, for your service on the board as well as your work and your willingness to appear today. Much appreciated by the legislature. 
>> Thank you all. 
>> Chair Day: As you may be able to tell, many of the questions that we had are for the office or the head of that board as well as the various agencies that were charged with working together to do so. We recognize that the bunch of moving parts here. This isn't an easy task to as Mr. Forman said to get different agencies to speak together to get more particularly different branches to speak together and be in a technological place of compliance there. That's the reason we wanted the administration to hear and why we're disappointed they refused to appear here to have this discussion about the complexity of the system to bring some lights to what we're looking at here, what the challenges are, and whether as we'd asked, whether as a financial challenge, whether it's a challenge of herding cats or whether it's a challenge of refusal to actually implement what's going on. These aren't gotcha questions. They're open‑ended questions we were trying to get answered here which will end up taking up with the new administration, but I would ask, we did ask for documents from the administration relating to this. We were directed to the presentations and the minutes of the board's meetings. While we did find a road map, that was not included in the annual report, it appears that a lot of good faith and detailed work went into this road map. I certainly think I'm not alone in thinking that some guidance from the creators of that road map would be helpful to us in interpreting it and answering a lot of questions. I'd ask Mike Musto to put up one slide, which is the end of the road map. This is what we were looking at. And so I think it's fair to say that again, a little guidance would have been very helpful to walk us through these clouds and boxes and flow charts about what timing and what we're looking at moving forward. It's frustrating to say the least, I suppose. We will look to the next administration to help us understand this better, to achieve the goals of the 2018 CJRA and provide us with the data that we need to realize further reforms what's working, what's not working. I also want to note before we move on that we asked the administration to provide somebody to answer ongoing questions we have with respect to the testing of sexual assault evidence kits commonly known as rape kits, in 2018's CJRA, we required an inventory of all untested kits with a report due annually in September, and then for those kilts to be sent to the crime lab testing. We also required all rape kits collected after the enactment of the CJRA be tested within 30 days. I applaud the administration for compliance on that end. We now have top of the country work being done on testing of sexual assault evidence kits. When they are taken, they are tested within 30 days. Kudos to the administration for putting the legislature's appropriations to work on that. Compliance with the backlog of cases and kits has been to be charitable lacking. The legislature is now three times since the enactment of 2018's CJRA to go back to the well why we can't test the outstanding and older kits. We appropriated money that's gone unused, asked for meetings which we've been given but the explanations are a continually moving target and it is a bipartisan concern of this legislature, why we seem to be unable to achieve more progress here. We moved into a phase of requiring participation and cooperation with our attorneys to determine which kits have got problems on evidentiary sides and due process concerns and outreach to survivors who submitted to these kits and again, we're frustrated, we get the annual, the quarterly reports we've now required. We were told another one is coming in January, and yet if you look at the chain of those reports, we're continually finding new reasons as to why things aren't tested, why there are delays in moving forward, so again, we look forward to work with the ongoing administration as well as the new one to finally figure out what the real problem is on this respect, with regards to sexual assault evidence kits. It is a priority for this legislature. I think it's a priority for the Commonwealth and it's one that we intend to make sure is finally rectified moving forward. 
With that, I believe that's the end of our data overview. I will turn this over and I don't know if Chair wants to take a quick break before we move into inmate welfare? I will turn it over to Chair Eldridge. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Thank you so much, Chair Day. We're going to hear from a number of advocates around inmate welfare and before we call the first person, just want to offer a few comments just this past weekend, I had the chance to go to MCA Norfolk Prison to meet with the youth offender coalition and AAAC, African American Advisory Committee to talk about conditions at MCA Norfolk, which is arguably the more positive culture‑oriented prison of all the state prisons in Massachusetts, and what I heard was just a continued frustration around visitation policies, around the inability even to watch the documentary "The 13th Amendment" to a real frustration about very underwhelming and limited programming that the MCA Norfolk for literally decades. It is a priority for this legislature. I think it is a priority for the Commonwealth. It is one we intend to make sure is finally rectified moving forward. With that, I believe that's the end of our data overview. I will turn this over ‑‑ and I don't know if the chair wants to take a quick break before we move into inmate welfare. Then I will turn it over to Chair Eldridge 
>> Chair Day:  Thank you, Chair Day. So, now we're going to go into hearing from a number of advocates around inmate welfare, and before we call the first person, I just want to offer a few comments. Is that, uhm, you know, just this past weekend I had the chance to go to MCI Norfolk prison to meet with the Youthful Offender Coalition and AACA, African Advisory Committee, to talk about conditions at MCI Norfolk. Arguably the more the program, sort of positive cultural oriented prison of all the state prisons in Massachusetts. And what I heard was just a continued frustration around visitation policies. Around the inability even to watch the documentary the 13th Amendment. To a real frustration about very underwhelming and limited programming at MCI Norfolk for literally decades. 
It was also a real sense that even when there are decisions from up top, from the Commissioner, or senior officials in EOPPS improving programming and improving conditions, that there are obstacles to that actually being implemented on a prison‑to‑prison basis. Sometimes depending on a particular superintendent. Sometimes based on some correction officers being opposed to a particular program. So, I really want to emphasize the need for structural reform from the top, as well as additional legislative action. 
This past week I had the chance to go to a very inspiring gathering in Boston. Community Work Services has just begun a clean energy workforce training program for formerly incarcerated individuals. I had the chance to go with Senator Brownsberger, one of the coauthors of the 2018 reform. What I said in my brief remarks is that the 2018 reform really open up the floodgates in a positive way, not only in terms of the reforms, but the advocacy for further improvements, whether legislative action or improving the DOC and EOPPS, how they treat and interact with incarcerated people. However, that progress has been extraordinarily slow. 
I want to highlight two areas from my staff, who I failed to introduce, David Amor, my legal counsel, Michael Carr, Chief of Staff, put together two areas of interest, where there's incredible frustration about the slow progress. They are programming, and so education, etcetera, and medical parole. I just want to highlight, on July 18th, 1972, the legislature gave the Department of Corrections a critical duty and enacted law stating the DOC shall establish and maintain education, training, employment programs for persons committed to the custody of the department. For over 50 years DOC had opportunity to create a system to ensure incarcerated people will leave prison with skills to contribute productively to our society. 
What are the results?  In September of this year a prison reform activist, Mary Volaris, made public request to the DOC for programming. The DOC responded, of the incarcerated people in its facilities, only 843 people are enrolled in educational programs. While the DOC cannot require people to attend classes, it begs the question about why more are not participating. Especially since it can contribute positively to their parole. The DOC responded there were 3,170 individuals on the wait list for academic education technology and vocational services as of September 1st, 2022. Thus, more than half of the people in DOC custody were on wait list for educational programs. 
Now I want to highlight the legislature has consistently funded the DOC line item, so I personally don't think it is about funding. Had the DOC required more funding to comply with the law requiring programs, the DOC could have reached out to the legislature for more funding. They did not. Instead, the DOC deliberately chose not to comply with the law. Essentially not to add more educational programs. Especially in the 21st Century environment. 
The second area is around medical parole. This was a critical reform passed in the 2018 reform. Many attorneys and advocates, and I think we'll hear from shortly today, reported the medical parole law is implemented unfairly in individual cases. Often only prevailed in courts ‑‑ in court challenging the Department of Corrections. Pursuant to the medical parole statute, DOC released a report in Fiscal Year 2021 medical parole decisions that included the race of applicants whether denied parole to the applicants. It states 127 white prisoners applied for medical parole. The DOC granted parole to 16 white prisoners. The DOC had 70 black prisoners who applied for medical parole. Report shows it denied medical parole to every single black prisoner who applied. This defies belief. 
Although the data in the just released Fiscal Year 2022 report does not reveal such stark racial disparities, it does not excuse DOC fiscal 2021 decisions. Just the fact very few people are provided parole, including those that we visited at MCI Norfolk. The hearing is whether the correctional facilities are following laws. The laws are a reflection of values, who we are as a society, and yet it is not being carried out by the DOC. Just two examples. 
With that, we will now ask for the first presenter to speak Liz Matos, Executive Director of Prisoners Legal Services. Miss Matos, thank you for being here. 
>> Good morning, and thank you so much, Chairman Day and your staff, and Chairman Eldridge and your staff, for the invitation to testify here today, and also for that great overview, which I very much appreciated myself. 
I also want to thank you for just recognizing the importance of having these oversight hearings today. 
My name's Elizabeth Matos. I'm the Executive Director of Prisoners Legal Services. We for sometime have been calling for establishment of independent correctional oversight body. Today we'll repeatedly hear the justifications for such a body. More importantly, why such a body must have enforcement powers. The DOC in most correctional administrators are not in the room here today. They did not comply with the request to be present and answer questions as we are. This behavior is of course illustrative of repeated unwillingness to comply with mandates. Particularly those that are the focus of today's hearing. Such behavior and violations persist precisely because there has been insufficient accountability. And today is certainly a step in the direction of looking at what the mandate is and whether or not the actions match the mandate. 
I wish I could have ‑‑ I wish it would have been possible for you to hear directly from those who have suffered as a result of the violations of the laws that govern prison conditions in the Commonwealth. Many would talk about the endless psychological damage of months of spending 21.75 or 21.25 hours per day in tiny cells with hardly any access to programming, visits, or phone calls. Despite the nationally‑recognized reforms we passed here in Massachusetts in 2018. Family members would discuss how visitation has been severely limited. And also, contained to costly video visits in contravention of state law as well. Family members of our most elderly and debilitated clients would talk about their incarcerated loved ones and how they needlessly died, despite squarely meeting the statutory requirements for medical parole. Failure to comply with the CGRA impacting incarcerated individuals has resulted in serious harm and even death. 
While it is important to recognize the efforts have certainly been made and resources have been expended to implement Criminal Justice reforms, the trend has largely been to either interpret the law to require as little change as possible, even when the language calls explicitly for maximization, or to ignore and thwart it. 
For example, Chapter 127, section 39B requires safeguards for those who find themselves in the DDU. One of the most restrictive settings in the country. Even today an individual can be sentenced up to ten consecutive years in solitary confinement. The DOC failed to promulgate regulations since 2018 establishing standards and procedures to maximize out‑of‑the‑cell activities over and above five hours per week. Which is all the individuals in the unit still receive today. In addition ‑‑ so there are about three dozen in the DDU today. It is hard to imagine why more out‑of‑the‑cell time cannot be managed by the department. 
In Chapter 127, 39B, section A, requires in‑person reviews after six months. But the reviews are largely on paper from what we can still see. This is important. It is not a minor detail. There was extensive debate and conversation about this particular provision when the CGRA was passed. The reason is important. It is because the intention was for the DOC to engage directly with the individual and discuss with them what their needs are, so they can both envision a path out of the DDU. Given how incredibly restrictive the nature of the DDU is. 
This was the clear intent of the provision. Other safeguards to mitigate against damage caused by this extreme solitary confinement was passed as CGRA recognition such environment does none of us any good. However, provisions guaranteeing access to canteen items, visitation, phone calls have not been heeded. 
For example, prisoners in the DDR are allowed only two phone calls in the first 30 days and no prison visits whatsoever. Ironically the DOC also has oversight authority over the counties, but failed to promulgate regulations in that regard, as well as required by the CGRA. A pointed example of this basically what I would call a trend towards the status quo in doing little more than that is how the DOC has created a system of pseudo‑solitary. Pseudo‑restrictive housing units called Behavioral Assessment Unit, the Secure Adjustment Unit, IT of Framingham. These are also not ‑‑ not just in violation of the spirit of the law passed in 2018, but already existing law. Subjecting individuals who are not under disciplinary sanction to conditions more restrictive than general population without good cause and due process violates the Kindness Statute, which is Chapter 127, section 32 of the law, and in violation of corrections in Hoffer V fair. People confined are not there to be disciplined, and therefore, entitled under the reasoning to equal treatment in ‑‑ as to those in general population. Instead are outrageously afforded even less than what those in restrictive housing are afforded today. 
In closing, I wanted to mention that there are numerous violations from the County. Plymouth County, Barnstable, Worcester County claim that somehow 22 hours a day, which is in direct violation of the black letter of the law, 22 hours a day restrictive housing somehow is not in violation of the Criminal Justice Reform Act, and that has been an ongoing battle we've had with them. 
I'm happy to answer any questions. Of course, I spoke a lot about restrictive housing because it has been a major area of challenge, but so has, as mentioned, visitation, medical parole, and a number of other areas I know other colleagues of mine will speak to today. 
>> Chair Day:  Thank you so very much, Miss Matos. I appreciate you coming before the committee. And obviously any questions committee members have, please direct it to the chairs. 
I do have a couple questions, and you phrased it as the DOC has created these pseudo‑solitary confinement units, including the SAU and STU. I believe as well as the behavioral unit. I'm just wondering if you could describe how those are ‑‑ are those in violation of the solitary confinement laws the legislature has passed, and if so, how?  
>> Yeah. Thank you for that question. The way I would answer that, it's certainly our contention it's in violation of the law and of the spirit of the law. Certainly the idea was to minimize the psychological damage and impact on people of restrictive confinement. And reducing that time period by 50 minutes, 30 minutes, certainly does not do anything to reduce the impact of solitary confinement on people psychologically or physically. I think it's clear it's in violation of the spirit of the Criminal Justice Reform Act. 
However, I would say in addition to that, there's a very clear argument that given the spirit and the intent of the law, in addition to the Kindness Statute that I mentioned, Chapter 127, section 32, that of course it is nonsensical for these units to be more restrictive than the general population, when they're not, presumably not statedly established for punitive reasons. And of course for folks in the BAU, to have even less protections than those afforded to people in restrictive housing under the CGRA. I think the argument is clear those units are in contravention of existing law. 
>> Chair Day:  Thank you very much. You and your staff of attorneys do incredible and obviously very difficult work advocating for incarcerated people. I'm wondering if you could talk a little bit, or share a few examples, of the psychological impacts of people in solitary confinement. 
>> Absolutely. I think the report that came out by the Department of Justice in 2020 highlights some of the most severe impacts, which are suicide, and any reversible psychological damage. Impacts clients who I would have spoken with personally on the phone and had indepth conversations about their lives, the conditions they're experiencing, and then they spend sometimes just months, which is incredibly a long time for any of us to imagine, in restrictive housing or DDU, and they cannot have linear conversation because of the impact of that setting. Of course we have to remember these are people who we know as a fact are disproportionately impacted by trauma and abuse before coming into the prison context, and who have serious mental health issues, right?  As people are struggling with substance use because of underlying mental health issues that haven't been addressed, trauma that hasn't been addressed, and so being in a cell, locked up for even 20 hours a day is incredibly unhelpful. 
We also know that access to adequate mental health care is seriously lacking across these systems, and so the harm is, even if you were to isolate just having somebody in isolated confinement that long, is problematic. But then given the layers, issues we're dealing with this population, it is particularly unconscionable. We have seen, as I said, people self‑harming a great deal. That is also documented in many reports in terms of the impact of the psychological torture caused by solitary confinement in restrictive confinement even 21 hours and 20 hours per day. People self‑harm. People hang themselves. They try and kill themselves in any number of ways. Of course there was two very unfortunate suicidal attempts in the County recently of people held on mental health watch. Which is used as the DOJ report conclusively stated as punitive housing placement and should be considered restrictive housing. I think that is unfortunately the most extreme form, but also the most common form of damage of psychological harm we see, the self‑harming and suicide attempts. On a lower level, like I said, just an inability to really function; to have conversations; to hold a thought. And people recognize that. They'll be in the middle of an interview and say "Sorry, I lost my train of thought."  Or incredibly fidgety. Uncomfortable. Can't maintain eye contact. A lot of symptoms clinicians have laid out in their studies on this issue as well. 
>> Chair Day:  Thank you very much. I'm wondering if you could explain what is the range of infractions that can lead to someone being placed in solitary confinement by the DOC?  
>> Sure. Well, it's any number of things. Refusing an order to move to another cell. Getting into a fight with someone. Blowing up at a staff member. It's really a range of things, because it's unfortunately pretty discretionary. So it can be serious things, from, you know, having contraband in your cell, or having an item you shouldn't have, or having other kinds of interactions you shouldn't be having in contravention of rules. It could also be very minor things. Like I said, interactions that are not appreciated by a staff member, or just not ‑‑ refusing housing order is another one that comes up. Especially for people with serious mental health issues. Sometimes there's a lot of paranoia involved in why someone is being moved, or fear about being physically moved into another unit, and that's oftentimes a reason for somebody to be placed in solitary confinement, restrictive housing. 
Another, unfortunately, is when someone reports staff assault to us. Oftentimes they're placed in restrictive housing immediately after the staff assault. There are many reasons for that that we could talk about separately, but that is often a consequence of reporting a staff assault. 
>> Chair Day:  Thank you. My last question is, you mentioned the regular review that is to be done by the DOC with the legislature's intent to reduce, ideally eliminate, solitary confinement, but I think you said it's somewhat of a rubber stamp. If you could talk more what the process is and how you and your fellow attorneys experience it. 
>> I'm sorry. About the grievance process?  
>> Chair Day:  Yes. The review of a person being in solitary confinement. 
>> Oh, the reviews?  Yeah. Well, at first the reviews weren't really happening. After time and the work done, the restrictive housing Oversight Committee, the reviews are happening in a number of other context. In the DDU however, there was a particular process laid out there. It's a little bit different. After the six months that there should be an in‑person review that was more of a back and forth about what exactly was happening with the individual, what programming or other rehabilitative needs they might have, and how to engage in some programming or activities that could help carve a pathway out of the DDU. We have not seen those happening. Those are largely paper reviews. Which is very similar to a process outside of the DDU. But they have not been happening as envisioned by the CGRA, and really as explicitly laid out as the process that should be happening for people in that restrictive setting. 
>> Chair Day:  Thank you very much. Chair Day?  
>> Chair Day:  Thank you for your testimony, Miss Matos and appearing today. Questions from some of the members of the committee:  
You have DOC suicide attempts and actual rates of suicide of inmates. Any knowledge ‑‑ knowledge of those, and is there a facility or set of facilities that are outliers, that are more than others, or significantly less than others?  Could you just opine on that?  
>> Sadly, I think it's ‑‑ in terms of the DOC, I'm not sure there are outliers. I think it happens across facilities. You know, there's a mental health unit at OCCC. We've certainly had ‑‑ in some ways because of the mental health unit and the resources there, you would hope there would be less of that. It hasn't really seemed to be the case. Of course, this is problematic. Especially since the north side and transitions that happened after the assaults in January of 2020 became basically a super assault. One part of that facility became a super max prison, and very problematic issues there as well. Similarly, people have less access to things than people in restrictive housing do. So, that is another area where people are really decompensating. That we've noticed that the DDU, of course, there has been a long-correlated history between segregated confinement and self‑harm and suicide attempts. 
Mental health watch, the subject of course of the DOJ, in restrictive setting, is more highly correlated with self‑harm, self‑injury, suicide attempts and suicides. So, that, because we have those units across the department, we see that, but of course the DDU is perhaps more concentrated, as our other mental health units. 
And then in the County context, I think there has been of course ample report of Bristol County as an outlier. And Barnstable County is another to look at. There's been problems there. They've had a long practice leaving the lights on 24 hours a day for people, and that has really had an impact on individuals in that facility that we heard about repeatedly and done advocacy on, but without success. So I would say in terms of counties, Bristol County, Barnstable County ‑‑ and in terms of the DOC, the most restrictive units across the system ‑‑ are the ones to be looking at. 
>> Chair Day:  A few questions on the DDU and the DOC. Do we have any numbers or statistics on how many inmates are refusing to leave the DDUs?  
>> Uhm, we don't have statistics on that. But my understanding is the issue is not that people, that there's a ‑‑ a significant number of people that are refusing to leave the DDU, as much as a lack of a pathway out. Because of what was discussed before. Because they have the disciplinary sentences they have to stay there a particular period of time. Unless there is a pathway out, which under the CGRA for the first time it was carved out in the law that there was an ability to carve a pathway out of the DDU prior to the expiration of the disciplinary sentence. But that has happened in a few cases. I want to recognize that. The administration has moved some people where they recognize this person doesn't really need to be here anymore, and we have one particular client who has spent two decades in the DDU who is no longer there thankfully, and so that did happen. But by and large our understanding is the reviews are not happening, and so that that pathway out is available on a wider scale. 
In terms of other people in restrictive housing refusing to leave, I think that does happen, and for a number of reasons. In my personal experience with clients, the level of decompensation is severe. It is a level of paranoia. Feeling incredibly unsafe to leave the unit, the cell. So, that's one. 
The other is, if someone has been a victim of assault from other staff, or other prisoners, and has felt the department's been unable to keep them safe, they often will also be unwilling to leave the cell because they are afraid to be housed with other individuals. 
Occasionally we have seen particularly vulnerable people, particularly maybe trans, or people who are, have been identified as openly gay, will also be afraid to change housing placements because their safety has not been adequately protected in other contexts. 
>> Chair Day:  Forgive my ignorance on this ‑‑ and I'll confess it ‑‑ aside from anecdotal and actual stories you get, are these numbers collected anywhere?  Is there any aggregation of data, a repository for this?  A reporting requirement for this scenario?  
>> Which piece?  Sorry. 
>> Chair Day:  Refusal to leave the DDU. 
>> I have not seen it. I looked recently at the restrictive housing report. I did not see anything in the report from the DOC documenting the refusals myself. To be honest, I 100% don't know, but I would think it would be in that report. So since it isn't, I don't think it's publicly ‑‑ I would say it's probably not publicly available. I'm not sure it is actually being documented by the DOC in a way that could be accessed. 
>> Chair Day:  Another question from a member. With respect to the DOC's interpretation of the DDU, has there been lawsuits to your knowledge filed about that change of interpretation, that change of classification of DDU?  
>> I'm not aware of any ‑‑ there is one lawsuit actually, that Boston, the Boston College clinic has that relates to the DDU, but I'm not aware of any other lawsuits on the particular, the violations of the in‑person reviews. 
>> Chair Day:  The follow‑up question was, do you have any recommended legislative fixes ‑‑ this is a softball for you ‑‑ legislative fixes recommended to prevent future changes of this sort?  
>> Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much for asking that question. And this relates to I think the points that were raised in your openings. When we survey clients ‑‑ and I hope ‑‑ I think it would be really wonderful for the legislature to survey people inside as well. The major complaint we hear from people is idleness. They do not want to be idle. They want access to program. They want to be doing things. Particularly at Sousa, this is a major problem, where there's a lack of programming and access to education. That is a huge issue, and it leads to a lot of problems. When people are spending a lot of time being idle and don't have opportunities to focus on other things, they're left with, again, the trauma and the mental health issues, the lack of treatments, separation from their families, and all of those things that make getting by day‑to‑day much more challenging. And so the busier people can be, the better. There is legislation we are working with folks on for next session that would provide baseline access to programming in out‑of‑the‑cell time and education. We think that would actually make a huge impact on the conditions and daily living for folks inside, and greatly reduce, it has been proven, in other states, incidents that require more restrictive security settings.  >> Chair Day: Thank you, and then separate topic questions from a committee member. Could you speak to the status of the free video calls that were provided to inmates during the pandemic? What is to your understanding is the plan moving forward for the provision of that, continuation of that service? 
>> Thank you so much. During the pandemic, our understanding is it was a bit all over the place in terms of what counties offered and what the DOC offered, but for a period of time, not for the entire duration of the pandemic, and certainly not now, but many facilities offered two, three phone calls per week, I think the DOC was doing that as a matter of course for some time. That was at times I thinking about subsidized partially by Securists or GTL and at times subsidized by the prison, the DOC and the jails; however, my understand is it's not being offered now. I have not heard of that and people continue to pay for phone calls. Going forward, of course, our office has been very clear, as have others, that this is a predatory practice that should never exist with. Families are charged to be connected is incredibly problematic especially when we have the State of Connecticut now, the State of California and a number of municipalities offering this to greater incarcerated populations for free, and far less costly to do so when there is an actual competition, which is right now I think as many of you know, there is a commission, a lot of the contracts are based on the commission rate which drives up the cost of the phone calls and so the sheer way the contracts are negotiated leads to a predatory practice, and basically profiting off of some of our most vulnerable families in the Commonwealth. So going forward, we would recommend that calls be made absolutely free to families and those incarcerated, and be considered as other things we've been talking about, like visitation as a cost of conducting corrections and rehabilitation in particular, since it has been very squarely correlated with positive rehabilitation. Now the visitation issue, for example, I just wanted to highlight that it was important, I think, for the Department to offer video visits during the pandemic, but there are charges, six minutes for I think ‑‑ $6 for 15 minute and $20 for a half an hour and that's incredibly costly for families and at times was the only option, but existing law, main the Sousa case we litigated many years ago, as well as the Criminal Justice Reform Act and Chapter 36c ‑‑ Section 36c of Chapter 127 says you can't charge for visitation, whether it's video visits or in‑person visits, you shouldn't be charging for visitation, so that should also be free of charge. 
Chair Eldridge: Thank you for your services. 
>> Thank you very much. 
>> Chair Eldridge: the next person we have to testify before us is Joshua Dankoff, Director of strategic initiatives for Citizens for Juvenile Justice. Mr. Dankoff, Good morning. Thanks for coming before the committee. 
>> Thank you so much. Chair Day, Chair Eldridge, members of the judiciary committee thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm with Citizens for Juvenile Justice, an organization established 28 years ago to advocate for statewide systemic reform that achieves equitable youth justice. I want to invite you to imagine that your own adolescent child has an unidentified disability, that is, they have an IEP in place, and receive special education services at school. Now if that child is 17 years and 360 days old and is accused of breaking the law, they may spend time at the Department of Youth Services and DYS, and continue to go to school five hours a day and broadly receive special education services in line with their IEP. However, a few days older that child is 18 years old, accused of wrongdoing, may spend time at the House of Corrections or Department of Corrections and as my testimony will show today their educational rights will almost certainly be denied. In August of this year, CFJC published a report "School's Out," which focuses on on older adolescents. Federal law dictates for students with an identified disability their right to receive a free and appropriate public education continues until the student reaches their 22nd birthday or they receive a high school diploma. Sadly, the primary finding in School's Out is our state systems do not fulfill the educational rights of young people aged 18 to 21 who have an identified disability and who find themselves incarcerated either at the Department of Corrections or one of the House of Corrections. Indeed, the number of these youth who receive special education services is appallingly low. At DOC, in response to a public reference request only two young people received special educational services over a two-and-a-half-year period leading up to 2021, two in two and a half years, a tiny percentage of the young people in DOC's chair, 18 to 21 and represents a failure of multiple system actors to identify and provide young people with the educational services to which they are entitled. At the House of Correction level in September 2022 an average of only 16 youth were receiving special education services across the entire state. This represents less than 10% of the youth in House of Correctional custody of that age group and half of the House of Corrections have no special education students identified. To give one example, Norfolk House of Corrections has not provided special education to any student in more than three years. Based on what we see at the Department of Youth Services, just over 50% of students have an IEP the House of Corrections are wildly underidentifying youth with disabilities. They do not receive the educational services to which they're entitled. Why is this happening and what can be done about it? First off, there is maelstrom of agencies that should be working together to identify and provide educational service to youth with disabilities. The real sit the system does not work and there's no accountability for the fact that it does not work. The Department of elementary and secondary education's delegation of the identification of youth with IEPs to both Houses of Correction and DOC and to school districts for the payment of many of these services leaves no single agency sufficiently accountable for actually delivering the services or for being accountable when it doesn't happen. For youth within House of Correction, the law is unambiguous. DESE has the obligation to provide services with those IEP; however, a major problem again that DESE delegated the responsibility to identifying an IEP with the House of Corrections and DOC. There's an MOU in place that specifically says it's DOC's job to identified youth with an IEP and for House of Corrections they have a practice manual that says broadly the same thing. But we've seen at the House of Corrections wild differences in identification practices between facilities and our estimates show that the House of Correction are failing to identify more than 107 youth with IEPs per year and as mentioned at the DOC, there's no meaningful process to identify youth with IEPs. Remember, only two youth received special education services in more than two and a half years. 
Even for those youth at House of Correction who receive special education services, what they get actually is limited to tutoring in math and English only, and most receive no credit towards the completion of their high school diploma. The Collaborative for Educational Services, CES, the service provider contracted by DESE in their SEIS, the Special Education Unit For Institutionalized Settings is more worried generally about contract compliance than meeting the needs of the youth in their care. In sum, there's a lack of accountability between DESE, DOC, the Houses of Corrections, school districts and the service provider. So what might be some solutions here in to end this testimony on a more positive note, we have an in‑state model how to do this better. For youth detained or committed to the Department of Youth Services, again, 51% of those youth are identified as having an IEP in place, and are receiving some special educational services. This is in part because DYS and DESE have a data‑sharing MOU in place that enables DYS to know within a few days of a youth's arrival whether they had an IEP in place and to contract school districts to receive proper documentation. More broadly, it, YS operates on a positive youth development framework for which education say core component and all the youth in their care, including youth aged 18 to 20 in DYS care are in school five and a half hours a day. The following solutions could help address some of the challenges. First, prioritize education for all young people incarcerated at House of Corrections and DOC aged 18 to 24, regardless of placement, regardless of classification and regardless of discipline status as just discussed. The assumption here is that young people should be in school at least five and a half hours a day. Second, you can easily identify improve the identification of incarcerated youth who have IEPs through improved data sharing between DES, and DOC and DESE and the House of Corrections. Ensure high school credit toward graduation is possible for youth at DOC and HOCs and the expansion of college in prison options as outlined in the recent Boston Foundation report can also help expand on these options. Some say that systems do not fail people, but actually the system outcomes are a direct result of what the system is really designed to do. In this view, the failures to prioritize education within DOC and HOC are simply a reflection of systems that are designed for punishment, not rehabilitation. In the case of truth with disabilities, aged 18 to 21, at DOC and most HOCs, the carceral instinct, bureaucratic allows for rights to be disregarded with no one being accountable. Thank you. 
Chair Eldridge: Thank you, Mr. Dankoff and the written testimony you provided us as well. I strongly encourage everyone to read that report by Citizens for Juvenile Justice which I had a chance to review. A few questions from me, talking about the partnership that exists between DESE and DYS. A leading question but I assume that's related to the effort by Citizens for Juvenile Justice for the Raised Age Bill? 
>> We are certainly encouraged by the work at DYS and think as a harm reduction method, including 18 to 20‑year‑olds in the juvenile court would address many of these questions. All 18 to 20‑year‑olds would be incarcerated would not have to deal with House of Corrections, would not have to deal with the Department of Correction and would, if it was decided by the judiciary that he needed to be confined would be a DYS facility. It's quite a striking difference in system orientation to provide one other example in reference to the discussion of solitary confinement. At Department of Youth Services the average time a young person may be disciplined for is 45 minutes they're going to have a chance to cool down and then going to be further engaged in programming. That's a stark contrast to the 22 hours, 21 hours that's being discussed. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Thank you. You focused earlier on the House of Corrections and how few incarcerated people in the House of Corrections received special education services. I wonder are there any sheriffs that have particular staff persons or department focused on special education for incarcerated members? 
>> Each of the House of Corrections have an education director and teacher in‑house. The special education services would be separate from that, and are supposed to be provided by the DESE contract, the contract, the service provider is the CES, so in a few of the House of Corrections there will be a special education teacher coming and providing those services, but they can't do that unless the House of Corrections identifies students. And some of the ‑‑ the whole contract is based on the number of teachers is based on the number of students that have been identified in the past, so you have in some Houses of Correction, 0.2 FTE, someone coming one day a week to provide special education services. There's no way to meaningfully provided services in line with the IEP if they're just showing up one day a week. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Can you provide us with a list with the House of Corrections that have a staff person assigned? 
>> Certainly. DESE has provided that in response to a public records request, that informationally gladly share with the committee. There are some that we looked at the past several years, as I mentioned Norfolk but others consistently low in the document I just shared, you can see in the very colorful charts, ones that have a very low or no red line, means they're really underidentifying the number of young people as opposed to what you'd expect based on the calculation there. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Thank you. And the first part of today's hearing was on around data. I wonder if Citizens for Juvenile Justice can comment on the data systems of the DOC as it relates to helping juveniles or education? Sort of a broad question, but ‑‑ 
>> Sure. Even to figure out ‑‑ the data that is available has improved slightly, publicly available has improved slightly with some Tableau dashboards but even to parse out how many 18 to 21-year-olds are at DOC or House of Correction is not possible. You can look at 18 to 24 tranches. In terms of education, there are data from the DOC that suggest that only about one‑half of those in their custody have a high school degree or a HISET so the need is there for educational services but down to a detailed level, no, we do not have great data. To talk about the 2018 legislation, the legislation did create on the juvenile side the Juvenile Justice Policy and Data Board chaired by the Office of the Child Advocate and they are collecting data and analyzing and providing publicly, their work enhanced our understanding of what's happening on the juvenile side across the system and something like that is not available on the adult side. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Office of the Child Advocates providing incredible support. I appreciate you mentioning that. My last question, you mentioned college education, and just want to highlight that the increasing number of universities that are hungering to offering more college instruction, whether to House of Corrections or to Department of Correction facilities and my observation with the DOCs, continues to be barriers in some cases by supervisors of specific prisons to allow for that to flourish or to happen. 
>> Yes, there's not a specific question there, but I would agree and I think that there are opportunities with the next administration to really expand access to college in prison for sure. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Thank you so much. 
>> Chair Day: A question from a committee member. Could you offer your experience on the physical and mental resources available for students currently held in the DOC? If you can? 
>> I'm not an expert on that side. I will say that the, there have been a large ‑‑ broadly they're insufficient. There's well‑documented medical and mental health deficiencies. If you just look at the staffing, again, to contrast what's happening at DYS with what's happening at DOC, the staffing at DYS, they have many more clinicians per person incarcerated than what's happening at DOC and the House of Corrections so the possibility to engage with professional staff and again following the positive youth development model at DYS is much stronger than at the DOC. 
Chair Day: Thank you. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Mr. Dankoff, thank you for coming to present to the committee. Appreciate the testimony. Thank you so much. 
Now we're going to focus on, excuse me, LGBTQIA rights and protections. We have Jennifer Levi, senior Director of transgender and highlights at the GLBTQ Legal Advocates and defenders. Hello, how are you? Thank you for coming before the committee. 
>> Appreciate the invitation to be here today and I appreciate the committee's focus on this important area. I'm Jennifer Levi, I direct the project at GLBTQ Legal Advocates and defenders and Professor of law at western New England university. I've litigated a number of cases against the Massachusetts Department of Corrections, one involving the transfer of a transgender woman challenging the denial of a transfer of a transgender woman to a woman's facility and involved in litigation over the years I worked at GLAD against the federal bureau of prisons as well specifically relating to the denial of access to medical care for transgender people. I also serve as a member of a commission that was created by the 2018 Criminal Justice Reform Act that is focused on evaluating the health and safety of LGBTQ incarcerated people and in that capacity had the opportunity to visit a number of the correctional facilities, including the county correctional facilities around the Commonwealth over the past three‑plus years. I want to address in my remarks today a number of issues, including the challenges that we've seen in the implementation, in particular of General laws, Chapter 127, Section 32a, the provision of the Criminal Justice Reform Act intended specifically to address the needs of incarcerated transgender people. I'd also like to address the challenges to access to medical care that transgender people have, and specifically as it relates to barriers that are created by DOC policies, relating to the gender dysphoria treatment committee and if there's time I'll reflect to the Department of Justice's mental health watch report and circle back to data reporting if I could and hope to do that in reasonably brief period of time. In terms of the provision of the CJRA that addresses the needs of transgender people incarcerated, the law as you well know south to ensure that people are referred to as who they are. We know that there are a number of transgender women who are in men's correctional facilities, and that there are transgender men in women's correctional facilities. I will say that that alone creates tremendous challenges, puts people at risk of safety, harassment, as well as really seriously deteriorating their mental health, and so one of the really key provisions of the CJRA was to ensure that people are referred to consistent with their lived experience, and I want to be really clear, that's not a matter of etiquette or politeness or honorifics. It is essential to signaling to other people in a facility that one is a woman living in a men's correctional facility. You can see the barriers that somebody faces if on top of it, they're consistently referred to as a man, or using a male name. I will say that is what we've consistently saw in visits throughout the Commonwealth, which is corrections, staff referring to women who are transgender as male or he or him. It happened in some of the most blatant ways when for example we were there for the specific purpose, everybody at the facility knew that we were meeting with openly gay people incarcerated and people who were transgender and consistently we were introduced to women who were transgender using male references, and so it wasn't surprising then to hear the reports and the accounts of the mistreatment that they faced and also both the brutality and the debasement of their lives by other people who were incarcerated as well. Another really important provision of the CJRA is equal access to commissary items. I will say one of the things that we have seen over the course of the lifetime of the commission is that people can request commissary items. We don't necessarily see people getting those requested commissary items. Sometimes that was reported to be a vendor problem, either because there wasn't sufficient size or sufficient quantity or there was an inability to provide that. I don't want to say that that was always happening because people are, certainly people getting regular access to some sear items but we continue to hear reports of the inability to actually access and then get those items. And then I can address some other issues if there are questions about that, but it definitely has remained problematic. Also I want to address the point that Chair Eldridge made about the absolute lack of programming and educational materials. As you mentioned, MCI Norfolk does actually have some programming, and we heard of a group there that was requested and has been ongoing supporting the gay men at the facility. We also heard about requests at two other facilities for LGBTQ‑specific programming that was denied, and also in the visits to county correctional facilities, we heard about the inability to provide programming because of the challenges of ensuring the safety of people who may then be known or identified in particular as being openly gay. We met actually with a number of people who were in protective custody who literally reported playing one board game all day, because there were no other opportunities and it was confirmed they couldn't be provided programming because of the inability to ensure their safety. A number of the visits we asked to see educational materials or to get, you know, names of any kind of movies or, because they are available, oftentimes on club circuit, or any other programming, we were sometimes told that existed but upon request, they never materialized. And certainly, you know, the boredom and the decompensation because of the inability to really access anything while incarcerated was manifest during those visits. One of the other really key provisions of the CJRA is the requirement that people be strip searched by someone whose gender identity is the same as their own, to make sure women who are transgender are being strip searched by women, men transgender being strip searched by men. We've heard reports of that happening but also heard of the absence of staffing to make sure that happened consistently and at all times and also heard about the problems with having consistent and thorough training of corrections officers to be sure that happens in a way that is consistent with the mental health needs of the person who is incarcerated and I won't provide extensive details, but we heard about a woman who was transgender who was asked inappropriate and inaccurate questions about her physiology and when she sought to address that with the corrections officer, she was actually disciplined. So we see the training to be continually problematic in that area. The last of the items related to the CJRA I want to address, Section 127 32a specifically requires people be housed consistent with their gender identity, that is particularly the transgender women housed in the women's correctional facilities and there are a number of women who have not been housed appropriately or whose housing requests have been transferred and I think there's a number of reasons I want to identify for that continued lack of enforcement of the provision of the CJRA. One of the things we heard at the very beginning of the Commission's work is that in particular the county, if the order from the court directs them to the care and custody of the different county correctional facility, we heard about barriers getting someone transferred from a county correctional men's facility to the limited number of placements for women in the county facilities. So there's a bit of a finger pointing I want to say between the judiciary and the county correctional facilities and a lot more work to do in both of those areas, and certainly specifically authoring and requiring that people be appropriately sentenced to a correctional facility, consistent with their gender identity, would be an important way to fix that problem. But the other thing we've regularly seen is that there's an exception, which is a security and management exception that is very often the basis for the denial of a transfer request within Department of Corrections, and I want to really explain how this works, because I think its so important to understand that this exception is basically the exception that risks swallowing the rule, and so if the Department of Corrections has the opportunity to say that somebody isn't going to be transferred to a facility consistent with who they are, either because of their past criminal history, their current disciplinary record, their size, anything that relate to the operations of DOC, think about the fact that the department conditions and the county facilities have to house any woman who is not transgender in a woman's correctional facility. And that's true regardless of what their past criminal history is. It's true regardless of what their disciplinary record is. The only way to understand that exception is to allow women who are ‑‑ because the requirement applies for every other woman incarcerated so we have seen consistent challenges in people being housed appropriately. Just want to check in on my time because I don't want to overrun it. 
Chair Eldridge: You have plenty of time, no rush, thank you. This is really important. 
>> Okay, thank you. I wanted to the turn to the challenges that transgender people get to accessing medically necessary care relating to very real and serious medical condition of gender dysphoria. It's important to recognize that the history of medical treatment with regard to gender transition at the Department of Corrections,  It is the expressed denial of medical treatment, for someone who comes into a facility without gender transition care. That is no longer true. Those policies have been struck down by courts, as being in violation of the 8th Amendment, but it set a characterization and foundational understanding of that medical care that makes it very difficult to access in an ongoing way. Even once courts found those policies, known as free frame policies, to be unconstitutional, we then saw policies that specifically denied surgical care relating to gender dysphoria. That has also been removed. But again, it creates this foundational misunderstanding about need of medical care. So, what exists currently is a DOC policy, uhm, 103 DOC 652, which creates the transgender dysphoria treatment committee. Much of that policy does authorize the medical assessment, appropriate medical assessment of the medical need for gender transition related care. But again, much like the housing provision within the CGRA, the ultimate determination of whether or not somebody will get specifically surgical care, if it is needed, is actually not made by a medical professional. It is ultimately, can be overridden by the superintendent, and we do see denials at that level. And again, I mean, many of the instances ‑‑ I shouldn't say many. The instances that I know of where surgery has been provided, there has been some history of litigation that ultimately created basis ensuring somebody got the care that they need. But many, many reports continue of the denial of ongoing care. And again, because ultimately the determination, the final treatment decision rests with the Commissioner, if the facility raises objections based on security, safety, or operational difficulties, right?  So, very different than every other medical need that somebody has. 
I want to make one comment about the report from the Justice Department about the mental health watch, and those of you, I'm sure you've read the report. I mean, it's chilling. It's horrific. What I do want to note, of the 13‑month period the Justice Department looked at instances of self‑harm, where somebody was either on mental health watch or shortly had been released from mental health watch within just days prior of the four deaths by suicide, two of the deaths by suicidal were by LGBTQ people. The experiences I think are particularly important to recognize in terms of the horrific outcomes for LGBTQ people incarcerated with regard to the impact on mental health. 
I guess the final point I'll make before I'm happy to answer any questions, is that it is my understanding that there is not a systematic way at this point to actually report the number of people in restrictive housing based on sexual orientation. It is my understanding that is still in the works, in terms of collecting that data. 
We do have data, it's reported around transgender people, if they have a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Because the medical information is collected. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. I appreciate the interest on this issue 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Thank you for your testimony. Greatly appreciated. I want to make sure to pronounce the last name correctly. What is it?  
>> Levi. Like the jeans. Or the tribe. However, you pronounce it is fine. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Thank you, Miss Levi. Thank you so much, and I have a number of questions. The one that really struck a nerve, just in my experience, among a whole host of incarcerated people based on how they identify, particular characteristics, is that ultimately the security concerns, or alleged security concerns of the prison facility are overriding gender transition surgery, gender dysphoria care, etcetera. Is that ‑‑ would you say that's accurate, or ‑‑ 
>> Uhm, the ultimate ‑‑ there is an ultimate ability to override the provision of care. I mean, certainly the number of people who have been able to access surgical care, to my knowledge, is exceedingly small. Relative to the people with ‑‑ I don't have the specific data on that point. Although that is collected by the Gender Dysphoria Treatment Committee. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Thank you. You mentioned earlier, and I think you had an interest to speak more about, I'm very curious about it, is the challenges with requesting certain items from commissaries and not getting the requests. 
>> Yeah, there's been a number of challenges we've heard about. You know, one is ‑‑ and again, this is related to commissary, and even where for example, transgender men were able to get men's shirts. They were then disciplined for not then double‑shirting because of the Corrections contention in terms of the difference of visibility, in the ways that the shirts looked differently, and so people were made to wear double shirts in the heat of the summer. 
There was also an issue over the course of the last several years, although this has been corrected, where transgender people ended up having to wear a different‑colored shirt, and that I think relates to different colors that are correlated to whether you're in, being held presentencing or post‑sentencing, and then in facilities ‑‑ that's actually one County facility that holds both men and women, and so because of the number of potential different colors, where the different facilities available the transgender people had to wear, I believe it was green shirts. Right?  So visibly looking different from the rest of the incarcerated population. I believe that problem actually has been addressed. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  You had mentioned concerns around the correction officers calling people based on their gender identity the wrong ‑‑ you know, the wrong pronoun, or treated differently from how they identify. I'm wondering if you're familiar what the training is around LGBTQ person's education for correction officers?  
>> I know ‑‑ I mean, there is ‑‑ I do understand there is, there is regular training. I'm not ‑‑ I mean, I think DOC would be well‑situated to address specifically the training that happens. I know there are challenges, in part because of the many different times that people come into work at DOC and making sure that they are fully prepared to do searches that they're required to do, but I'm not familiar with the specific substance of it. But I do know it has been reported it takes place. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Okay, thank you. And may I say, yet another reason why I wish the DOC was here to talk about that. 
I think my last question, and this is from some of my conversations I've had Michael Cox, from the Black and Pink, is the commentary that often LGBTQ people are punished for, whether how they identify of course, or just how they interact amongst one another who are also LGBTQ. I'm wondering if you could talk about that. 
>> Yeah. I mean, yeah, both Black and Pink and GLADD received reports, the fact someone is known to be gay, or known to be transgender, can draw focus of correctional officers on their behavior in ways that are different than its focus on non‑LGBTQ people. And so a gesture, touching someone, you know, in the chow line, to just let them know you're behind them, or, you know, giving someone a familiar hug, has led to disciplinary reports if somebody is known, for example, to be a gay man in a men's correctional facility. And so that, uhm, you know, has absolutely been a challenge, and is problematic, and it also interferes ultimately with the ability to also do data collection. Because people know that if they disclose their sexual orientation, they may indeed be the focus of undue attention by Corrections Officers. And, you know, it was notable, for example, that I believe ‑‑ and so ‑‑ I know this has changed as well, but the receiving center at the time, uhm, you know, was clearly an environment where I think it would be exceedingly difficult for anybody to disclose their sexual orientation. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Thank you very much for the answer. It's appreciated. 
>> Chair Day:  Thank you. I have a couple questions from members of the House. 
Could you give us just a birds‑eye overview of the recourse available for transgender, a transgender individual who believes they're incorrectly housed. 
>> I really appreciate the question, because basically somebody goes through and makes a request. There's a number of different layers of evaluation. But ultimately if there is a denial, they only ‑‑ the only recourse that I think could ultimately secure a transfer would be litigation. As I said, we were involved in one case, and that individual was eventually transferred. But there's multiple layers of requests and evaluation. It includes a security and operations review, and no particular course of action ultimately for enforcement if there is a denial. 
>> Chair Day:  Thank you. And I've got a question for your service on the Commission itself that was set up from the CGRA. 
The preliminary report mentioned multiple times the work of the Commission was frustrated because they weren't allowed to collect data. Could you put a little bit more of a color on that for us?  We attempted to inquire and were similarly frustrated in a response. I was hoping you could give us a little more. 
>> Yeah. I appreciate the chance to answer that question. There were a number of challenges that the Commission faced at the beginning of its work. In part because of a statement at the time by EOPPS counsel about limitations put on the Commission and meeting with individual incarcerated people because of the Open Meeting Laws. So we had to decide either to have the majority of the Commission members present, or if not a majority, just have two people present. There were challenges in taking notes during the period of time that we were meeting with people. 
It also took place during COVID. That created lots of barriers. I will say it was really important to me to be able to meet with people in‑person. The Zoom meetings were much more challenging. Again, in part because of the setup of those meetings. 
And so, uhm, I mean, there was a preliminary report, which you've seen, which did report some of the initial data. But it was very difficult, number one, to get sexual orientation data because it's not collected. I mean, at this point my understanding is, if somebody discloses it, that it can be maintained, but I haven't seen any of that data correlated with the restrictive housing question around which it was raised. 
I did want to say, there is a set of recommendations that I expect to be coming out at some point over the course of the next several months, but if the Commission sunsets, because it has now exceeded the three‑year period specified in the CGRA, what the Commission won't have the opportunity to do is to complete that last step with which it was charged, to evaluate the implementation of the recommendations that hopefully you'll see in the report that will be issued soon. But there were a lot of barriers certainly from the outset in getting meetings to take place in a way that complied with the Open Meeting Laws. I was pretty hopeful and optimistic at the outset when I was appointed, because I thought the point was that I would be able to, you know, quite freely meet with people to get that information, but because of the application of the Open Meeting Laws, at least over the course of the beginning of those meetings, it didn't I think happen in a particularly productive way. 
>> Chair Day:  And I think you answered my final question by, by the aside you had, which is the nine preliminary recommendations that came out of the Commission's work, and I was going to ask you to opine on the implementation, or lack of implementation of those recommendations. It sounds like that's work to be done. 
>> I want to be really clear. We did file that initial preliminary report. It was a preliminary report. We worked pretty hard to ‑‑ well, we didn't meet, actually, the deadline set within the CGRA. We did the best we could within the constraints we faced at the time. But there has been, you know, a very concerted effort to actually come up with a fuller set of recommendations. In fact, I want to be pretty clear, and this was reported in those public meetings, that, you know, we put off some of the more challenging conversations about the set of recommendations that we would come up with, and I hope you'll see those in the fuller report, but if the Commission sunsets, there won't be an implementation of their evaluation. 
CHAIR:  Thank you for those points. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Thank you so much for coming before the committee. Greatly appreciate it. 
Next person we have to come before us is Josh Pope. Mr. Pope. Thank you for coming here. Looking forward to your testimony. 
>> Good afternoon. Joseph Jabir Pope. I've just been recently released a year ago, from after serving 38 years of incarceration, to join the ranks of the wrongly convicted. During that period of time I was housed in pretty much every institution in Massachusetts. We have a saying inside that the politics hits us first. And I was among those whose politics that they didn't like, and so I spent a lot of time in a lot of different institutions. But I spent the majority of my time in Norfolk. 
I would like to take a moment to share. I've listened to a lot of folks that spoke here today. In the '70s, there was, on the heels of the Attica uprising, there was a legislative enaction that created a bill call Chapter 777. To my knowledge, it has yet to be repealed, but always ignored within the Department of Corrections. For those who may not be aware of, Chapter 777 established a mandate for rehabilitative programs. It went as far as to say that if the DOC failed to rehabilitate us, then we had the right to rehabilitate ourselves. And that's what gave birth to a lot of self‑help programs. A lot of these efforts have been hindered over the years, and gradually more and more as time passes. 
I've also been a member of the African Coalition and the Lifers group in Norfolk as well. And they do a pretty good job of gathering data of public records of so forth and so on. The last report I saw regarding salaries was that out of the DOC budget, 85% of the budget went to salaries. Leaving the remaining 15% for programs, food, and that sort of thing. So I can understand that the squeeze that people talk about when they come here. 
I basically represent the human factor of those that's incarcerated, and the lack of programming that are available. The programs that are available for the most part for all intents and purposes are hollowed out of out of the Department of Corrections. They like to maintain a mandate that we're all bad people, we all are not to be trusted, and so forth, and that presents job security for them. 
I've been in prison long enough to watch guards come in as rookies and retire, and watch their children take their place. I've also been in prison long enough to watch young men come in prison, grow old, die, and their children take their place. That's a pattern that's again going on for decades. And it's been maintained because there is a strong guards union, that people tend to tip towards when it comes to issues of humanity within the Department of Correction. 
I don't know how much time that I have before you to speak, but there are some things that I think should be shared, and I would like to share this time that I have with my comrade Mr. Robert Eldridge who accompanied me here today. If that would be permitted. He's not allowed to work inside as well. A lot of good work. And I think he needs to be heard from. 
I would like to take a moment to say that inside of those restrictive housing, they vary from institution to institution, but you can access them for little or no reason at all. Because someone does not like a look you gave them. Humanity's challenged on a regular basis. And it is disheartening for me to see guys coming in younger and younger over the period of time. And one of the things that I think needs to be known, one of the things that has broken my heart, is that a lot of these youngsters that are coming in, they're coming in with life sentences, and their attitude about it is that they've been spared their lives because of the neighborhoods they've come from and like that. There's no official programs in place to address those kind of concerns and those kind of anxieties. Those efforts have been fraught by the powers that be. The work that has been done, that tried to address those concerns, have come from programs like that AACC and the Lifers program. In spite of the DOC's position and opposition to those type of things. If it's not structured by them, then they don't recognize them as being valid. But the work that has to be done and needs to be done has to come from those who have taken their journey ‑‑ excuse me. 
And so I would advocate for the support of prisoners programs because they do the work that must be done. In fact, a lot of programs that exist now, CRA, programs like that, are programs that have been coopted from the work that prisoners used to do years ago. Those are all borne out of self‑help programs that prisoners have. Even they used to have a, what they call a Unit Manager Team. Even that work was done by prisoners in the early days. Classification boards, all the rest of that, prisoners attended those, and you could be represented by another prisoner going to those kind of boards and evaluating the progress of each other. All of that's been taken away. Now it is all DOC and mass degree this, and who you know, who you're related on. The nepotism is rampant in the DOC. And so a lot of what was valuable in years past is gone. 
As I said a moment ago, I would like to take a moment to share my time with Mr. Eldridge if you would permit. Would you join me?  Rob?  
>> Chair Eldridge:  Absolutely. Please, sir. And then after your testimony, if you want to both stay up there and we can ask questions if that's okay. 
>> Sure, certainly. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Mr. Pope, how should I refer to you?  
>> Mr. Pope is fine. 
>> Chair Elridge:  Mr. Eldridge?  
>> First of all, I did get your e‑mail, Mr. Patrick. First of all, I want to thank this committee. Maybe no one has said that. I want to thank you all. You're doing an important job. And you're dealing with issues that have outdated all of us. You know, this has been going on for a very, very long time. And my understanding of the Criminal Justice Reform bill is to do what it says, to reform. It is to correct something. It's to put some measures in place to stop the unnecessary spending or the abuse of the system. And we were incarcerated when that bill came out. And Mr. Eldridge, Senator Eldridge has been everywhere. I've met him in MCI Shirley Norfolk, and he's just the man on the scene. So, if you really want some firsthand information, I would say refer to him. I would defer to him, 'cause he's done it. I appreciate that. I just want to thank you, because I was on the inside wondering if I will ever get the chance to come out and thank you out here on behalf of the men that are incarcerated. We are trying, you know?  I don't think anyone is deciding we want to go back out and commit more crime, come back to prison. That's not the mentality. Even though some people may think that. I just want to thank you again, Senator Eldridge. 
There was just a couple things I wanted to make a real quick note of. My understanding, in general, is that the Criminal Justice Reform bill is to end mass incarceration, is that correct?  That's what it should be about. I believe that's what it is about. I've read this bill several times. 
There's another component that I don't think anyone is really, really putting a lot of emphasis on, and that's restorative justice. We're citizens. We gave back 37, 38 years. Those are real years. You know?  When we went in, most of us were children, or teenagers, you know?  There are a lot of us that are coming back out. How you want us to come back out is how you treat us while we're in. 
The educational component. You know, penologists across the country agree education is a mainstay, a baseline component to rehabilitation. Without education, it is like we're placed in a position of ‑‑ we're frozen in time. I went in in 1981. If I didn't get no education at all, when I come out, I would have still been in 1981. I went to college. I went to school. I went to BU. I went to various colleges that have now been de‑funded in prisons. I think you might want to take another look at that. Because these young kids going in now, they need the education, the further education, and that should be something that should be really considered. 
When it comes to the Department of Corrections, this is like an unsung, unspoken position. When prisoners file for medical release, parole and everything else, the Department of Corrections act like the prosecution. They oppose. Make no mistake about it, it's not the government opposing us. It's the Department of Corrections. Now the Department of Corrections has a mandate to initiate your legislation. But when it comes down to the nitty‑gritty, when the prisoner files for early parole consideration, or medical release, or anything that's mandated within the Criminal Justice Reform bill, there's only one person that's opposing it, and that is the Department of Corrections. So some kind of way they need to get on board or get out of the way, because the legislators are mandating these things to occur, and the Department of Corrections are not following through with it. They are the greatest opposition. I kid you not. 
The last part is ‑‑ well, second to the last ‑‑ solitary confinement. Please, please take this word with you:  Nomenclature. The Department of Corrections now call ten block restrictive confinement. Are you serious?  It is still ten block. It is still the most restrictive environment besides DDU in the Department of Corrections. I was just there maybe a year and a half ago. They said, oh, you're now on restrictive confinement. I said you still have the metal doors. You still got the grates. You still got the inability to breathe. This is ten block. You just changed the name and now you bamboozle people into believing they've done something in commensurate with the legislation or court rulings. It's still solitary confinement.  
And just a note on that, just to give you a personal factor on that solitary confinement, I lost my parole and scholarship to BU because of a green pepper I asked at the canteen at MCI Norfolk, over a green pepper, also to solitary confinement. You say what are the criteria going into solitary confinement it's arbitrary. It's arbitrary. When you have prison guards that can yield that kind of power it's arbitrary and an abuse. The last part is like he said, rehabilitation. I think that the Criminal Justice Reform Bill baseline is about rehabilitating people, so that they don't come back to prison. I am a recidivist, four long‑term incarcerations since I was 18 1/2, why? Because there was no correction in my behavior. There was no real rehabilitation. I'm not a moron. I'm not uneducated. I'm not stupid. I just did not get what I needed to help me each time I was released from prison. As you know right now, in conclusion, there's hardly no housing, no jobs, very little medical. I just worked with a guy who has been out six months who couldn't even get a Mass. ID. How ironic is that? He got a prison ID but couldn't get a Mass. ID. So these are some things that are baseline for us, and I appreciate the Criminal Justice Reform Bill in its spirit, but in its application, and I guess that's what the oversight committee is all about, the application is problematic. I just want to thank you for this opportunity to be able to share some of this human factor for those of us who are the subject of this criminal reform bill and again, I want to thank Senator Eldridge, and you probably thought would you never see me again, but I just wanted to thank you and all of the rest of this committee, on behalf of the men and women that are incarcerated that are struggling to obtain our freedom and our citizenship. 
>> With that, we'll take your questions. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Thank you, Mr. Pope and as a representative of the state, I apologize for you being wrongfully convicted. I read about your case. 
>> Thank you very much, sir. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Mr. Eldridge, thank you for coming before the committee and having the courage to come before the committee. A lot of different questions. I do want to just note on the State ID front, that is something that I began working on nine years ago under Governor Patrick, and it was just an MOU signed between the are, MV and the DOC to provide IDs to incarcerated people who were released, so quite a journey there. So the programming which you each focused on, just want to talk about the programming that you did take advantage of that you felt was productive, whether for jobs or for education during your incarceration, if either of could you talk about that. 
>> The programs we ‑‑ 
>> Chair Eldridge: That you did take. 
>> A lot of the programs I was involved in was unofficial. It was work we did in the yard with each other, because that was the most substantive. As I said, you know, I was involved with the Lifers program as well as the African American Coalition and the music program and other programs as well, and they did good work, because they were, it was prisoner governed for the most part. But there were always obstructions put in their path as well. So a lot of the real work we have to do, we have to do in the yard out of the sight of the Powers That Be because they would obstruct it and when they find us gathering they call it an unauthorized gathering and we'd get scattered and shipped off to parts unknown and that's how I wounded up on tour in the Department of Corrections. 
>> Chair Eldridge: If I can ask then, excuse me, if they were self‑directed, you did not get credit for that? 
>> That's correct. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Okay. 
>> But it's not something that we sought credit for, that the credit that we sought was the success of the work that we were trying to do in terms of assisting others and repairing their lives, in rebuilding their families and like that. Families has always been a big issue, in the Department of Corrections, and the Department of Corrections work hard and diligently to destroy families. There's just no other way to put it. Families bonds are obliterated because of the policies put in place and the behavior of those that are manning visitor rooms and that process. The fact that I had a situation where I hadn't seen my daughter in over a decade, and she came to me see, and they turned her away because she had glitter on her fingernails. Are you kidding me? Glitter on her fingernails? She traveled from another state and I watched it happen repeatedly to people's families and things like that and it's all about discouraging people, putting people in the position of saying I don't want to put up with this. I'm not going to do this anymore, and so as the brother pointed out, when we're released, you know, those bonds have been stretched and in some cases even broken because of the experiences they endured when their only crime is that they loved us. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Thank you. Mr. Eldridge, you want to talk about the programs? 
>> Yes, some of the best ‑‑ I got decades in prison. I even went ‑‑ I probably did every program you can think of and to be quite honest, one of the best ‑‑ I just want to say, I don't want to say programs itself, because I came to this through my own learning, is this concept called criminogenics. These are penologists, this talks about the mentality and the behavior of people involved in criminal lifestyles. I started studying the word criminogenics, how they try to effect solutions to criminogenics, I started realizing my own failings, why I was not rehabilitated and I realized that you can't rehabilitate me. I have to start to rehabilitate myself, or at least have the will to do so. Like if you go to AA and NA, what's the first thing you say? Hi, my name is Bob. I'm an alcoholic. So until you come to these type of conclusions and those type of thinking processes, you're really not going to overcome a lot of what you experience that brought you there in the first place. So when I started going to programs, cognitive programs, programs that started, you know, affecting my thinking process, why I thought the way I thought, what my value systems were, what my lack of development growing up or issues that I needed to deal with, then my life started changing. It was like a light opened up. So when I started at MCI Shirley programs, criminogenics and I started creating programs, I created probably ten programs that focused on this kind of thinking and I started realizing that that's where we need to go, at least that's one area where we need to go in criminogenics. I didn't make this up. Once I investigated it and found out how penologists defined it and used it to create behavioral modification systems, then I realized where I was on to something. When you ask that question, education I think is critical, trades are critical, and criminogenic or cognitive type programs are the most beneficial for people who are incarcerated. When people are incarcerated, they are institutionalized and the federal government says when you're institutionalized for ten years or more you are deemed legally institutionalized, whether in a military prison or any other institution. Now you have to deprogram that person so that that person will be prepared to return back to society. If not, you're going to have people coming out who are not prepared to come back into society, who are still institutionalized who have become normal in an abnormal environment, now they're trying to be normal ‑‑ taking that abnormality and society and there's the culture clash right there. So I just wanted to mention that to you, because I think that's very important, that was not mentioned in the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Thank you. You talked earlier about being in the ten block. 
>> That's right. 
>> Chair Eldridge: And that was a solitary confinement. 
>> Right. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Unit? 
>> Right. 
>> Chair Eldridge: What was its official or new name? 
>> They call it restrictive unit. 
>> Housing. 
>> Restrictive housing. It's the same ten block where prisoners were killed at, where they died, where they were burned in their cells, where there were riots, the same structure. Are you kidding me? Really? It's nomenclature. Just change the name and continue the same game. The Department of Corrections has ‑‑ 
>> Chair Eldridge: I apologize, but the question related to that is you said you were placed in solitary confinement over a green pepper? 
>> Well, that time ‑‑ 
>> Chair Eldridge: Could you explain that? 
>> The time I went to Walpole ten block was because ‑‑ this is even more ironic, they used that for COVID for COVID separation, so when you go back to Walpole, you go to ten block. You go to solitary confinement as what do you call it ‑‑ 
>> Isolation. 
>> Not isolation, when you separate the prisoners for COVID, I forgot what that's called ‑‑ 
>> Isolation? 
>> Yeah, isolation so they isolate you there first for 10 to 15 days. You didn't do anything wrong; you go right to ten block for 10 or 15 days for COVID and then you go into the population. Now, the green pepper situation was because I complained that the green pepper was the size of a golf ball, but you wanted a dollar, and the correctional officer said, well, if you don't like that, you know, take it up with the Governor, something to that effect and I said, that's the wrong attitude. She decided I needed to be reprimanded for that. I went back to the unit. As a matter of fact, we were sitting down at the table in the chow hall, five correctional officers surrounded me and said "Come with us," put the cuffs on me, took me to what they call the RB, which is solitary confinement, again, but different name, and I lost my BU certification for my scholarship, I lost it, they took it away from me. I lost my parole, because of that disciplinary report. I lost my housing unit, and most of my property, all because of that, because of that arbitrary decision from that correctional officer, and there's no penalty for them, no penalty at all. Any correctional officer can write any disciplinary report. Even if it's proven they fabricated there's no penalty. Check the records, you'll never find a correctional officer being penalized for file a false disciplinary report. There is an abuse in the system and that abuse is why we have legal services and all of these other agencies that come in to help us, because without that, we'd have no one. We'd be a slave to the system. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Thank you. You did graduate from Boston University? 
>> I did not. Three years, they took the grant from me. They took the grant from me for that disciplinary report. Norfolk has this way of saying if you receive a disciplinary report while attending the college courses, your college grant could be withdrawn, and it was. It was taken from me. 
>> Chair Eldridge: I'm very sorry about that. You mentioned the program no longer exists at Norfolk. Could you explain that more? 
>> Right, the college program as you may have known is no longer in existence. There was the legislation, legislature's changed as a result of the guard unit, the correctional officer's union, they protested that prisoners should not get a higher education when their families weren't given that benefit. I believe it was the Quinn bill. I'm not 100% sure. You're the legislators, you can find it quite easily, and they changed it by saying that they were not allowed the funding, the Pell grants for prisoners but they could be used for correctional officers and their children. How ironic is that? That is power. That is power when the correctional officer's union can affect the well‑being of the prisoners and the rehabilitation of prisoners in that way. We also lost halfway houses. There was like $5 million that was allotted every year for halfway houses for prisoners coming out and they could go to the halfway houses for a period of time up to six months and they could successfully or safely reintegrate back into society. Back in the '90s, the guards union once again protested that that money should not be used that way, and could be used better efficiently used for their salaries, like he spoke about before. So they took ‑‑ and this was I think this was when this originated, back in the '70s or '60s, and they took that money out of the budget, because it was attached to the DOC's budget. It wasn't independent. So they took that out of the budget and there's no more halfway houses for men coming out. They call it sober houses now. 
>> Chair Eldridge: If I could add the legislature has finally been refunding something Chair Day and I have been championing to bring the funding back for halfway housing. 
>> That would help. I don't have housing. I live in a room. I've been out less than a year. I can't afford housing. Are you kidding me? A single apartment in Massachusetts is like $1500 to $1800. 
>> I tell people all the time that I'm the cliche, I'm actually the ex‑con that lives in the attic, literally. I would like to take a moment to share with you, because this has been one of my pet peeves for years, and I've gotten in trouble with this for years. Each year, the Department of Corrections takes a month on each end when it comes to heating. The regulations say that the heat is supposed to go off June 15th and come on September 15th. 
>> October. 
>> No. 
>> September. 
>> Every year they turn it on October 15th and turn it off in May. So they take a month on each end and during that period of time, particularly on the back end on the fall side, during that 30‑day period, when the heat is not on, is the time when people are getting snivels, colds and rest of that, and that stuff spreads through the prisons like wildfire. I was concerned in later years it would be confused with COVID, and then we would be subjected to the conditions and restrictions that was just described a moment ago, being isolated from population and like that. I've written letters to the Health Department about that from prison and write me back stuff like file a grievance. Really? Like Starsky and Hutch, just behooves me that, you know, as oversight goes, that there's just not enough of it to enforce the regulations that are in place, but yet the mandate is put on us that we're supposed to keep our nose clean and follow the rules and regulations and the rest of that, and my concern and question has always been, at what point do we take the hypocrisy out of the game? When do we ask of them what is asked of us? When do we insist that they do what they're supposed to do, just like they insist that we do what we're supposed to do. I'm not sure we answered all your questions or if you have another. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Those are the questions I have. Thank you so much for coming before the committee and defer to Chair Day. 
>> Thank you for having us. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Thank you very much for coming to the oversight hearing. Now we have a panel from CPCS. Attorney Marlies Spanjaard, Director of Education Advocacy, the ED Law Project, attorney Mara Voukydis, Director of Parole Advocacy Private Counsel Division and Attorney Rebecca Jacobstein, Director of Strategic Litigation. Thank you for coming before the committee. 
>> Good afternoon, members and staff of the Joint Committee on Judiciary. My name is Marlies Spanjaard, Director of the Education Advocacy. In that role I oversee the ED Law Project which provides education and legal services to court‑involved children, youth and young adults. Our project specifically, is specifically set up to disrupt the school‑to‑prison pipeline. We have unique access to the hundreds of court‑appointed attorneys across the state representing children and youth charged with delinquency, youthful offend every and criminal offenses. I have been doing education advocacy for young people in the legal system for over 20 years. I would like to speak to you about prisoner welfare, specifically about educational programs for young people with disabilities. Young people with identified disabilities make up about 51.4% of the population of the youth in the Department of Youth Services. You would expect to see similar numbers in the adult DOC population. You heard from Josh Dankoff that's not the case. Recent data shows less than 1% of youth aged 18 to 21 are identified as having a disability requiring educational services, less than 1%. And in our experience, advocates for services for students in institutional settings even the students identified are not getting what they need. The complicated structure of the current system for delivering special education services to students in incarcerated settings is not functional. We know that the Department of Ed is limited in services provided by their special education in institutional services unit, and there's little to no accountability when the school district fails to provide services. The system requires that the facilities, local school districts and DESE work together to serve students. It does not happen. I will give you a number of examples. A 12th grade Boston Public Schools student when we got involved, DESE was providing some services; however, he had issues where the facility would not allow him to attend his educational sessions and the local district was not cooperative in providing any work for the student. So he was completely in isolation getting services that were meaningless for his educational future. A tenth-grade student from Norfolk was not getting any education services at all. After outreach to the facility, we were able to organize some virtual classes to him, for him through the district, and the district is now drafting a new IEP. A 12th grade student in the Boston area student had a comprehensive IEP from the district with services in every subject area yet received only 90 minutes of special education instruction per week. An 18‑year‑old student in Dartmouth had an extensive IEP, when he entered the facility, also receiving zero services. With our advocacy, he started to receive the specific services required under his IEP. 
These young prisoners have a state and federal right to receive their educational services, yet we are failing them in Massachusetts. The students getting services are often only getting services because of outside advocacy. We are failing the students who have been identified and we are failing the students that should be identified but because of systemic failure on the part of DOC, DESE and local school districts are not identified. This failure to identify students entitled to services is not only a problem for the students, but also a problem for guard well‑being, which is another area, I know this Commission is interested in. Understanding and providing services to address the learning communication, developmental and emotional disabilities of prisoners is not only a federal mandate but will help to avoid unnecessary miscommunication and power struggles. Education is also vitally important in any program of rehabilitation. Depriving prisoners of access to education not only denies a basic right but may prevent consideration for parole, release on bail and other decisions impacting return to the community and gainful employment. Thank you for your time and consideration 
>> Chair Eldridge: Thank you very much, appreciate it. 
>> Good afternoon. My name is Mara Voukydis, Director of the Parole Advocacy Unit within the Private Council Division. I worked on parole matters since 2016 and employed by CPCS since 2011. My unit assists prisoners with parole and medical parole. We also receive hundreds of calls from incarcerated people with questions and concerns about parole, medical parole and incarceration issues generally. Thank you for creating the impactful reforms and my hope is quick and meaningful action by the Department of correction can help effectuate the reforms you put into place. I'll focus my time on medical parole. My comments are rooted in opinions of professional advocates and also personal advocates, people who are incarcerated who have thoughtfully reached out to us over time to talk about their concerns about individuals and the way that medical parole has happened in the facilities in general. 
In various respects, the Department has interpreted the medical parole statute in an elastic way that uses outsized discretion, narrowing some elements and stretching others. The department has narrowed who is eligible for medical parole, for example, the regulations that the Department drafted had their own limiting definition of debilitating condition, which centers around physical disability, the effect of that is that people with serious cognitive impairments are significantly overlooked for medical patrol. The department has meanwhile stretched in its interpretation of assessment of risk, instead of looking at the present or recent time period, the department really provides outsized consideration of the original crime, which sometimes has occurred decades ago, instead of looking at recent institutional adjustment, the DOC reaches back into decades old disciplinary histories that often predate the qualifying condition all together, or staff consider an old risk assessment and old compass assessment or LSCMI conducted long ago. Isn't this important enough to merit a current risk assessment and even better one that's suited to the best practices for people with disabilities and impairments? 
The Department also appears to narrow the medical evaluation required by the statute, often the evaluation is short and almost cursory and sometimes it is incorrect. For example, a report has stated that someone shows no signs of dementia, where the person's signs of dementia are crystal clear to other people the person interacted with. The DOC is narrow in the required Ute station of a physician. It's unclear whether the physician assessed the person or signing off on the nurse's assessment with little further review. The Department has on the other hand stretched the time frame in terms of medical parole to such extent prisoners granted medical parole have died awaiting release. There seems to be a lack of urgency in creating release plans, an aspect specifically required by the legislation. Without significant push from advocates, there's little transparency about what has been taken, what measures have been taken to ensure that meaningful and time‑sensitive released planning is under way. I understand there's a new staff position that's been created within the DOC to address medical parole planning and my hope is some of the concerns will be addressed by that but it would be great to hear more from them on that. Lastly, the Department's narrow interpreting its role in effectuating equal access in terms of opportunity for medical parole. There is no education for option to petition and the DOC could do more on its own behalf for eligible individuals, something the statute allows. We see this in who petitions and who doesn't. Petitioners are disproportionately white, considering how overrepresented black and brown prisoners are among those serving long sentences, there are few petitions filed. We need to know why. Likewise, the Department's aware of people who have significant impairments but there appears to be no efforts to notify anyone that the petitioner should apply for medical parole, with the exception of the individuals who were on their death bed with COVID, who were removed from the DOC prior to their deaths. People with significant impairments will are less able to reach out and petition on their own and they need assistance. One client with cognitive impairments was identified by chance when an advocate walking in the prison hallways noticed that this person looked confused and disoriented. That's not how the statute should work, I think we can all agree. The DOC is needed here and if not to petition on the person's behalf at least to provide notice to guardians and if there's no guardian, to legal ad days. The statute was tailored to provide a humane option for people at the end of their lives or so impaired they pose no risk to society but the department has taken on the role of tailoring further and this should be rectified. Thank you. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Thank you very much, Attorney Voukydis. 
>> Hi, my name's Rebecca Jabobstein, Director of Strategic Litigation. I've worked for CPCS since 2014 and I have been a public defender for over 20 years. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss some of my concerns about the lack of meaningful training for correctional officers in the secure treatment program which houses people with severe mental illness, as well as the treatment of prisoners sent to restrictive housing. 
With respect to the training of officers in the STP, I have received reports that some of the people who work there including the Sergeants, not just the line correctional officers but the people in charge either are not aware or do not believe that the people in the STP suffer from mental illness. Earlier this year, it was reported to me that the Sergeant working in the STP testified that she had no idea that the STP housed inmates dealing with mental illness or disability. She thought it just housed violent prisoners. I was told this was not the first time she made this comment.  She stated she received no training in dealing with inmates suffering from mental illness. And does not consider an individual suffering from mental illness to have a disability. Other officers when questioned by the Disabled Person's Protection Commission also stated they had no specialized training to be on the unit. 
Another prisoner housed in the STP reported to me a different sergeant told him he should not be in the STP because, in her opinion, he was not mentally ill. It was wholly inappropriate to insinuate the prisoner was pretending to be mentally ill. 
In its response to your invitation to testify EOPPS stated training program for all staff includes a component on recognizing mental illness and suicide prevention, and DOC provides twice annual sessions regarding specialized units. If it is the case, it is appearing the training is not having the desired effect. The lack of training is having negative impact on the prisoners' well‑being. It must also be difficult for correctional officers to work in units where they do not know how to properly respond to prisoner behavior. 
I have also received troubling reports about the treatment of people in restrictive housing units. Prisoners are removed from general population for a variety of reasons that you've heard about. They're placed in these units upon either receipt of a disciplinary ticket or on awaiting action status; meaning, they've just been deemed to have done something wrong but haven't received a disciplinary ticket yet. I understand DOC may have renamed these units the behavioral adjustment units, but as Mr. Eldridge testified, the DOC changes the nomenclature but not the experience. 
By design the units are demeaning and dehumanizing. According to EOPPS, DOC strives to provide best opportunity for individuals in custody for skills to recovery accountability and achieved improved sense of self. Yet DOC undermines reported goals by disrespectful treatment of prisoners and refusal to follow its own rules. I have heard of people who work within the prisons, who try to improve the conditions within these units, and when the administration finds out, they get pushback. And any changes are not permitted and withdrawn. 
Here's just one example that is a representative of DOC's attitude towards the people it is supposed to be helping. A prisoner called me because he was sent to segregation after DOC searched his cell and found a piece of paper that DOC deemed suspicious and because they felt it was possibly laced with drugs. He did not receive any paperwork explaining why he was sent to segregation. Because prisoners do not receive disciplinary tickets usually for possession of drugs until the results come back from the laboratory. So, this is just what he understood from other people. He reported he did not have any reviews under the regulations which would have explained why he's being held in segregation. He also never received any results from the lab. After six weeks in segregation he was returned to general population having never received a disciplinary ticket, and without any explanation whatsoever. During the time he was in segregation he lost his job. Even though he was never given a disciplinary ticket, he did not get the job back. He was not given opportunities to make up for the lost good time he was unable to earn while in segregation. In fact, not only didn't he get that good time, but when he was sent back, he no longer had the prospect of earning the same amount of good time as he had before. Moreover, his property, including his legal property, was taken when sent to segregation and not returned to him upon his return to general population. Instead, he would be required to spend limited funds, which were more limited due to the fact he no longer had a job, if he wanted to replace items such as clothing, toiletry and food. 
DOC preaches accountability but does not practice it. Accountability:  If you do something wrong, make it right. If you take something from somebody, accountability makes people whole, to be put in a position they were in previously. Outside of prison, taking people's possessions and not returning them are called theft. For those in DOC custody, it is par for the course. One more way for DOC to remind prisoners how powerless they are and they have no recourse. How is a prisoner supposed to achieve improved sense of self when DOC tells him he is so unimportant they can put him in segregation based on a hunch, take his jobs, opportunity, undeserving of an explanation when determined he never should have been punished, he is unworthy getting any of these things back. Some prisoners file grievances to achieve some accountability. To assert their worthiness of being treated like human beings. I have read many, but they are almost always denied. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Thanks to each of you for your powerful testimony. We really appreciate you coming before the committee. 
I do have a few questions. First one, on medical parole to Attorney Voukydis. First of all, I want to note when I've been to MCI Norfolk, to the CSU, Critical Services Unit, obviously they would forget someone, a gentleman who would be in a wheelchair, probably in his 80s, had petitioned at least twice for medical parole, and just the fact he could move one of his arms meant that he could in theory stab someone. Even though he was in a wheelchair and a senior citizen. So, that was the level of denial by the DOC. 
I'm just wondering if, do you think that this is a matter of the legislature handing this responsibility to someone other than the DOC Commissioner, due to the sort of political pressures?  Is this something better handled by the courts?  
>> I think there's probably a lot of potential strategies to improve this. I think that because the statute allows for so much ‑‑ the Department of Corrections does have so much discretion, it does create a problem where the Department of Corrections has such broad latitude. And so then the courts have seen a number of these cases and a number of these denied medical parole petitions have either been remanded or people have been released. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Thank you. And I just want to get on the record again. So, the DOC has never petitioned for anyone to receive medical release?  Is that accurate?  
>> My understanding is that during the height of COVID the Department of Corrections encouraged advocates and family members to petition on behalf of, I believe it was two individuals who were hospitalized with COVID, who were very close to the end of life. Aside from that, I learned recently that the DOC has at least once petitioned for someone else separate from that. But very limited in their seeking petitions and aiding in medical parole petitions. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Is it accurate to say that during the pandemic that very few incarcerated people were granted medical release?  
>> I think that's accurate. I think those of us in the community have a concern there was definitely a lack of release across the board. Whether it was medical parole, parole release, which I know quite well, and certainly I would include within that the compassionate release framework. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Thank you. 
>> Thank you. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  And I had a question for Attorney Jacobstein. And thank you very much for your very powerful testimony. 
Is the challenge in the DOC there's sort of a culture that to admit you have mental health challenges is seen as a weakness, or that it somehow doesn't exist?  Is that part of what's happening in the DOC, whether a correction officer denying it exists; or actually in the consideration of correction officer welfare, that for them to advocate or to show that they have depression, etcetera, is a sign of weakness?  
>> I cannot imagine how difficult it must be for the correctional officers to come forward in the atmosphere that exists in the DOC. I think that, as you all know, the DOC's a paramilitary organization, which means that somebody needs to be the enemy, and it is the people who are incarcerated who are the enemy. And so to acknowledge that any problems that they have may be as a result of mental illness, instead of a result of them just being bad people, I think would be ‑‑ it is difficult. I find it very frustrating. 
I can tell you I do receive calls from people who have been diagnosed with mental illness who are not getting the treatment that they need. People who have been called ‑‑ I think they call it medic 5, which is just asking for mental health people to come to their cell and help them. And they are routinely ignored. The time it takes to get them there is overwhelming. And it's just, it's just very, very frustrating for them, and very demoralizing. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  And regarding ‑‑ thank you. Regarding the STP, what actually is the mental health care provided?  Or what is supposed to be provided?  
>> I don't know. I don't know what they get. I do know that they are permitted to go to groups. Sometimes. But besides that, I don't know. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Thank you very much. I have no further questions. 
>> Chair Day:  Thank you all for your testimony. To attorney Jacobstein, the point you raised about correctional officers not being trained in this area is one we've heard directly from correctional officers, saying "we're being asked to handle a population that we're not trained to handle."  So it's a frustration and concern we've heard directly from the COs, and so thank you again for raising that. 
To Attorney Voukydis, I have a question on medical release and parole release. We asked questions ‑‑ not many, four ‑‑ and was directed to the annual report in our possession, giving us a raw number of those who petitioned, ethnicity breakdown and number of grants and denials. Just flat. 
I was hoping you could help us understand a little better what we actually asked of the administration, which is insight on any policies or practices relating to DOC staff being able to or being restricted from providing assistance to those seeking this type of a filing. 
>> I wish I knew too. I don't think that we have a lot of information about what the Department of Corrections has conveyed to its staff in regards to initiating petitions and assisting people. 
I think that, I'm sure there are staff that see people struggling. I don't know what comes out of it. But I would be really interested to see how that compassion can be harnessed to result in petitions filed and being appropriately considered. 
>> Chair Day:  And one of the other pieces of data we were seeking, which we didn't get, was the number of inmates that died within a week of their release. On a medical ‑‑ 
>> I don't have that information, but I'm happy to find that and provide it to the committee. 
>> Chair Day:  That would be terrific. Thank you all. 
>> Thank you. 
>> Thank you. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Thank you so much. 
The next person to come to testify before us regarding women's prisons, Sarah Nawab, director of the Women's Incarceration and Reentry Project of Prisoners Legal Services. Good afternoon. 
>> Good afternoon. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Thank you for coming before the committee. 
>> Thank you so much for inviting me to testify. Can everyone hear me okay?  Thank you. 
My name is Sarah Nawab. I am an attorney with Prisoners Legal Services of Massachusetts, and I am the founder and director of the women's incarceration conditions and reentry project. PLS's women's project interviewed and surveyed several incarcerated women and published their anonymized experiences in a comprehensive report called The Different Way Forward, released this past July. The report details incarcerated women's stories around violence and trauma, mental health, and identity‑based discrimination. 
The overwhelming majority of women surveyed reported they had either experienced or witnessed sexual misconduct or harassment by correctional staff or other staff. 
Women also reported experiencing physical violence and threats of violence by prison staff, as well as verbal bullying from staff. 
Women throughout the Commonwealth reported pervasive retaliation for reporting staff misconduct, and several women reported they had experienced physical and sexual violence prior to incarceration as well. Indicating incarceration is creating compounded trauma. 
Women also reported experiences and conditions in Massachusetts prisons and jails that have exacerbated mental illness, and also reported mental health care is woefully inadequate, to virtually nonexistent. 
We've already heard a little bit about transgender people's experiences. I'll add to that. Transgender women incarcerated throughout Massachusetts reported lack of access to gender‑affirming healthcare and gender‑affirming resources and programming, and spending extended periods of time in solitary confinement. Transgender women reported undergoing unclothed searches conducted by male officers, despite specified preference to have female officers conduct the searches. And experiencing harassment based on their transgender status. 
Incarcerated women who are black, indigenous, people of color, BIPOC, reported issues of racism. Some women reported officers engaged in overtly racist behavior, including racial slurs. BIPOC incarcerated women face job discrimination and mental health issues. BIPOC incarcerated women with English as a second language struggled with being heard, understood, and addressed due to inadequate services. They reported the canteen does not carry hair, skin, hygiene products appropriate for their skin type, hair texture and health. 
Currently the Commonwealth appears to be pursuing plans for a new women's prison, claiming it will be trauma‑informed, but this is the wrong solution. Because there is no such thing as a trauma‑informed prison. 
Much of the harm both cisgender and transgender women face at the hands of staff is in contravention of law and occurs with impunity. The violence to incarcerated women is endemic to prisons and jails. The surveillance to incarceration exercised by men with state‑sanctioned authority over women is traumatic. Previous attempts throughout the country to incorporate trauma‑informed practices into women's prisons have failed. Demonstrating how such practices are diametrically opposed to prisons and jails, where violence and harm are inherent to operations. To adequately respond to and remedy harm women face in the systems, we must reduce reliance on punishment, decarcerate women as much as possible, and shift care to support human dignity and healing. This work begins with passing a prison and jail construction moratorium, and redirecting funds aimed at building a new women's prison to community systems of care and safety that will prevent harm. 
Thank you. I'm happy to take any questions. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. I just have a few questions. 
The survey, experiences you talked about is for the women at MCI Framingham; is that correct?  
>> I sent it to women throughout the system. MCI Framingham. Also County jails that incarcerate women. Also to transgender women in men's facilities. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Okay. The women in correctional facilities in Massachusetts, what specifically are the facilities that they're at now?  
>> Uhm, with DOC specifically, it's only MCI Framingham. For, you know, as a designated women's facility. There are again throughout DOC women incarcerated in men's prisons because they are transgender. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Right. I understand the transgender point, but then what are the County facilities where women are held?  
>> Sure, there are a few. There is Suffolk. There's also Western Mass Regional. In Chicopee. Franklin, Essex. And Bristol I believe. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  With respect to MCI Framingham ‑‑ which has been a major focus of the legislature, including the prison moratorium bill that you mentioned that the legislature did pass but Governor Baker vetoed. So, is there an awareness for the women at MCI Framingham about the potential closure of MCI Framingham and their preferences about where they would like to see themselves if you will?  
>> Of course. So, obviously the women in Framingham are not a monolith. So, opinions certainly vary. There is, of course, awareness for those women that MCI Framingham is extremely dilapidated. And it's not sustainable to stay there. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Any discussion about educational programs at MCI Framingham, or what they are?  
>> Right. For the most part they've been shut down. Women over and over again when I speak to them, uhm, I'll say what's the programming looking like, and I'll hear back "What programming?"  It's not accessible. To the extent it is, it's very hard to get into. And there are limited options for programming. 
There's also programming that existed in the past, including educational programs, and cosmetology, no longer available to women inside. And at this stage they can't get degrees in Framingham. They can only get certificates. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  I did not know that last piece. Okay. 
You mentioned about job discrimination, and I've certainly heard from male, black, Latino incarcerated men job discrimination they experienced in other facilities. Can you talk in more detail about the job discrimination against female incarcerated women of color?  
>> Sure. It generally comes down to those higher‑paying jobs that give the kind of experience that you want that they are not as considered for as their white counterparts. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Okay. Are there specific jobs ‑‑ I'm just curious ‑‑ that are the more desired jobs?  I'm not sure you would know that. 
>> I'm not sure offhand, but I can find out. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Okay. Thank you very much. Those are all the questions that I have. 
CHAIR:  Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, your work. 
We read through your July 22 paper on "A different way forward," and thank you for your work on that. There's a section there where you're discussing the case files of instances of sexual assault, sexual harassment created. And you had to go through the FOIA process to retrieve those. We asked the administration for the copies of those fights, which ultimately are public records, and received in response a reference to a different Commission from the report from the Ripple Group, which we already had access to. In your report you said you wanted to be sensitive to the identities of the individuals, which we respect. Could you give us a sense of the number of case files and what the extent is that we're looking at?  
>> Sure. I mean, it was hundreds of pages of records that I received when I went through my records request. 
What I asked for was, I referred to a very specific report. Every spring they have the PREA ‑‑ Prison Rape Elimination Act ‑‑ reports from the previous year. What I did was I looked at the ones for MCI Framingham for the 2019 report. I asked for all the PREA allegations and reports from staff, staff misconduct towards incarcerated women. I received hundreds of pages of reports. I'd have to look into the report itself to see precisely what the number was of reports that I received, but there were hundreds of pages of records I went through for that. 
>> Chair Day:  Thanks. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Great. Thank you again for your testimony and in coming before the committee. 
>> Thank you. I really appreciate it. 
>> Chair Eldridge:  Now we have Tatum Pritchard, Director of Litigation from the Disability Law Center. Good afternoon. 
>> Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much to the Chair members and the staff of the committee. 
As Senator Eldridge said, I'm Tatum Pritchard. I'm the Director of Litigation at the Disability Law Center. I'm here today to speak about the Disability Law Center's thoughts regarding the state of medical parole. 
The Disability Law Center, for those of you who may not know, is the Protection and Advocacy Agency for people with disabilities for the State of Massachusetts. We have a federal mandate to protect and advocate for persons with disabilities. No matter where they are within the Commonwealth. 
DLC's core mission includes the advocacy to protect the civil rights and access of people with disabilities to government programs, as well as safe conditions and overall maintenance of their health and human rights. 
Because individuals who are eligible for medical parole are inevitably and invariably people with disabilities, interpretation of the medical parole statute and appropriate implementation has profound impact on the ability of DLC's clients who are incarcerated to access the Commonwealth's medical parole program. 
There are two main areas of concern with respect to medical parole for DLC. First, there's the ‑‑ there's the legal aspect, which is DOC's failure to implement medical parole, in keeping with the requirements of the ADA. You've heard some of this already from previous testimony, from CPCS, and I believe from Prisoners Legal Services, but these issues relate to a couple of different things. 
First, the Commissioner in her decisions improperly denies medical parole by failing to consider whether the prisoner with disabilities conduct, giving rise to incident reports and other issues within the facility, are disability related, and determine whether those disability‑related behaviors could be managed with post‑release accommodations. This was a key component of the SJC's decision in Crowell many years ago, that in considering parole decisions, the Parole Board needed to consider what accommodations would be available in the community to make those individuals with disabilities appropriate for release. Otherwise, individuals could simply be denied release because of their disability‑related issues. 
Another issue that was raised not too long ago by CPCS is the interpretation, implementation of the statute. Particularly with respect to the definition of debilitating condition in the regulations. Which impermissibly narrows class of people entitled to medical parole to those who only have a physical inability to perform activities of daily living. Imposing this eligibility criteria for medical parole, a state program disqualifies people with significant cognitive or other mental disabilities who would otherwise qualify for medical parole. 
Finally, there have been consistent barriers for people with cognitive and other mental disabilities, including degenerative neurologic conditions, like dementia, to secure meaningful access to the medical parole process. As you heard, though DOC and its medical contractor Wellpath has access to information concerning all of the severely impaired prisoners within the system, it does not actively file petitions for medical parole. 
While there are very wonderful organizations and agencies, like PLS and CPCS, who do provide advocacy and representation on medical parole petitions, many of those prisoners with the most significant cognitive and mental impairments that prevent them from advocating for themselves, or even reaching outside the facility to advocates, are slipping through the cracks of this program. Which is of incredible concern to DLC. Part of this incredible concern is not ‑‑ is, you know, of course the legal aspect, but also the fact that DOC cannot provide appropriate care and conditions for this population. 
Even in the specialized DOC units for individuals who are of advanced age, or who have significant disabilities, known as the CSU, Critical Stabilization Units, and the NCU, the Nursing Care Units, conditions fall quite short of what you would expect in the community for a setting meant to treat that population. 
DLC conducted an investigation over the course of almost two years into the conditions of confinement and treatment and infection control measures in two facilities during the pandemic, MCI Norfolk and MCI Shirley. We initiated those investigations after receiving very concerning reports about the conditions and apparent neglect of individuals in those units who needed assistance with activities of daily living, but staffing and prisoner companion assistance had been reduced due to the spread of COVID‑19. In March 2022, DLC issued a public report regarding the findings with respect to these two investigations. In the report, TLC explained its finding of significant deficiencies in infection control practices and issued a number of recommendations for corrective action. We also made two findings of neglect. First was in DOC's failure to institute appropriate attentive and infection control measures to protect MCI Norfolk residents from COVID‑19 in late 2020 resulting in every one of the 16 elderly and/or medically vulnerable individuals living in the dormitory contracting the virus in December 2020. The second issue that warranted a finding of neglect in our report was DOC's sanctioning of the policy and practice of its contractor Wellpath that delayed and strictly limited access to vital health care services during much of the pandemic and resulted in widespread neglect of DOC prisoners with disabilities. Wellpath restricted access to medical, dental health care far beyond the community restrictions on health care in Massachusetts at the time. We spoke with over the course of the investigation over 40 prisoners at those facilities and reviewed voluminous records indicating not failures in infection control practices but individual medical issues that were serious and not being addressed. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Thank you very much, Attorney Pritchard. Appreciate the very detailed information, and one of my first questions, and as I mentioned to someone, previous testifier, having been to the CSU at MCI Norfolk and some of the men did discuss the very disappointing quarantine they were put in, which didn't even work as far as COVID, did any of those medically vulnerable men die from COVID? 
>> I believe Senator, you're speaking about an incident that actually happened after we had completed our investigation, which was another outbreak in January, 2022, and that was the occurrence when the individuals were put in the back room, not given access to toileting facilities, and the dormitory unit was separated by what I understand to be a tarp in the ceiling between those COVID positive and those who were COVID negative. To my knowledge, in that outbreak, no one passed away, fortunately; however, every one of them, if not almost every one of them had already had COVID from the previous outbreak, so I guess in that regard, perhaps they were better situated for the second round, unfortunately. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Um‑hum, thank you. You had talked about Wellpath and just want to get this correct. Did you say that Wellpath could petition for people to apply for medical parole? 
>> My understanding is that they are empowered to do so, or at least inform the DOC that someone is appropriate for a petition, but my understanding of the language is that any DOC staff member, so that would include its contracted staff members as well. They are able to petition. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Okay, and are you aware that Wellpath did petition for any incarcerated people? 
>> I am not aware; however, I would defer to the knowledgeable people at PLS and CPCS. While DLC tries to stay on top of these issues, and you know, investigate and monitor for abuse and neglect, we do not represent individuals in medical parole petitions. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Thank you. You said at the beginning of your testimony that those that had cognitive disabilities were perhaps at a disadvantage of applying for medical parole, and I know one of the discussions with the DOC Commissioner about getting more people released in general through medical parole is the medical plan, that there needs to be a medical plan for that person, will live if he or she or they is released. I'm just wondering if you can comment at all on the efforts by DOC to create a medical plan or find a place for a person to live if he or she or they don't have family. 
>> Again, I don't have individual experience representing people, and knowing firsthand what they're doing for a particular individuals, paced on their circumstances, but I am aware there are nursing facilities in the Commonwealth who have accepted people who are, who have been placed on medical parole, as well as individuals on regular parole. There are facilities available, whether or not they have beds at the time, I'm not sure, but I believe it's not an insurmountable problem. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Great, thank you very much. Those are all the questions that I have. 
>> Chair Day: Thanks, Attorney Pritchard, for coming out today. I know you're coming back tomorrow to talk with us about Bridgewater State Hospital. So appreciate the work that you and the DLC are doing. I had a question, not sure if you can answer it, but as we all know, in 2020, the DOJ issued a report finding that the DOC's practices with respect to those placed in restrictive housing for mental crises were so poor that reached deprivation of constitutional rights. We had asked the administration for information on steps taken to address those problems, understanding that they're still in what they term negotiations or discussions with the DOJ. Their response was, and this is the extent of it "We're optimistic about the outcomes of these discussions and DOC also already made many changes and improvements to the protection and care of prisoners in mental health crisis but we are unable to share further information at this time." Hoping could you shed a little light since we can't get it from anywhere else, what the changes might be, whether they are improvements or not, and what you've seen, if anything, with respect to that issue. 
>> I haven't seen a lot of changes with respect to that particular issue, which had to do a lot of, with the treatment of people who are on mental health watch. That's not something that happens at Bridgewater State Hospital or in the Bridgewater units at Old Colony. I'm aware of the treatment of some individuals on mental health watch which still is harassment by officers, goading into self‑harm, things along those lines. I'm not sure what they have planned. I'm not sure what's been written down but the effect on prisoners with mental health issues who are on mental health watch under the supervision of correctional officers, the experience seems to be the same. I would hope ‑‑ I can tell you what I would hope. I would hope that any modifications would include the fact that correctional officers should not be providing oversight of people on a mental health watch. That should be done by someone with appropriate training, preferably a clinician who is able to converse and provide any wanted counseling that that individual may require and hopefully help them deescalate, so that they can be transitioned off of the watch. That does not happen when a correctional officer is sitting on the watch. It essentially consists of a correctional officer sitting outside. Best case scenario, staring at you to make sure you're not engaging in self‑harm, worst case scenario and I say this only because I heard it repeatedly, sleeping, not performing the necessary function of the watch. 
>> Chair Eldridge: Attorney Pritchard, thank you so much for coming before the committee. Greatly appreciate it. 
>> Thank you. 
>> Chair Eldridge: We want to, the committee wants to highlight the questions that we asked the administration, and wanted to show their responses, consideration the failure of EOPPS and DOC to come before today's oversight hearing. So just ask Michael Musto, if he can put up the first slide around inmate welfare. The question we asked for data on how long inmates were being held in restrictive housing not for disciplinary infraction but they were unsafe in the general population. Next slide. The EOPPS response was, as of May 18th, 2022, DOC no longer have restrictive housing units apart from units falling within the DDU. Instead, consistent with falcon report recommendations, DOC created Behavioral Assessment Units, they then referred to us to their policy on the new units. Next slide. These highlight how this procedural action by the DOC changed the numbers. This slide which I know is a little tough to see, but in April 2022, it listed a number of individuals that were in as the DOC calls it, restrictive housing as we call it, solitary confinement, and next slide. By the next month, those were all n/a, not available because of course they just changed the names of the units. Next slide. 
On the subject of restrictive housing, the question the committee chairs asked, we asked for any policies, rules, regulations or practices they have implemented or changed in response to the 2020 Department of Justice report that their non‑restrictive health services housing involve restrictive, isolating and unnecessarily harsh conditions that result in a deprivation of inmates in mental health crises, and next slide. The EOPPS response, with respect to the DOJ's 2020 report on inmates on mental health watch, DOC and DOJ engaged in frequent and productive discussions aimed at addressing DOJ's concerns. We are optimistic about the outcomes of these discussions and DOC has already made many changes and improvements to take the care and protection of prisoners in mental health crises, but we are unable to share further information at this time. And I would just note, you've already heard from many of the advocates about that underwhelming response. Next slide. As an extension of that DOJ report after an extensive investigation, the U.S., excuse me, United States Department of Justice provided notice, pursuant to Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act there is reasonable cause to believe based on the totality of the conditions, practices and incidents discovered there that the conditions in the Massachusetts Department of Corrections prisons violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and these violations are spur student to a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment rights protected by the Eighth Amendment. Further, prisoner reported to us and documentation confirmed prisoners have access to instruments such as razors, batteries, dangerous debris such as paint shards and other items all while on mental health watch. Some prisoners reported to us that these instruments were already in their mental health watch cells when they were transferred there, and three prisoners told us that correctional officers gave them razors specifically to self‑harm. Next slide. We described the incident involving an officer delayed intervening for 45 minutes after he became aware of CC, that's the description of the incarcerated person, cutting his body so badly that blood pooled on the floor. JJ, a prisoner at old Colony Correctional Center reported to our expert while on mental health watch an officer said to him "I know that you are bleeding but when I finish my lunch, I will call in a code." KK, a Souza‑Baranowski prisoner reported that a correctional officer once told him, "When you're done cutting, let me know." Next slide under GED programs the question we asked for rules, regulations and procedures about the GED equivalency programming available including attendance and completion rates, next slide. The EOPPS response was referring the judiciary committee to DOC general policy on education and training programs. Next slide. Regarding the LGBTQ I+ Commission, the question, was there policies, regulations and rules they adopted in response to the Commission's preliminary report and why the Commission's report mentions multiple times that their work was limited because they couldn't collect data on LGBTQ I people in Massachusetts custody. Next slide. The EOPPS response, was that Commission continued to meet throughout the pandemic with the goal of completing its final report in February, as with disclosure. Next slide. Under the category of incarcerated women, we asked for copies of the case files of instances of reported staff sexual misconduct and sexual harassment at MCI Framingham which were indicated in 2019, 2020 and 2021's DOC prison rape elimination act annual reports. Next slide. The EOPPS response was no response. And next slide regarding justice‑involved women in the Baker Administration current treatment of incarcerated women. "The 22 women the project interviewed, 19 reported that they had either experienced or witnessed sexual harassment or sexual violence touring incarceration. Incarcerated women report that officers have become verbally and physically abusive during unclothed searches. Officers often engage in sexual misconduct against incarcerated women and incarcerated women often face retaliation when they report that misconduct to correctional officials." Next slide. Under the category of medical parole which you heard about today, the question, we asked for any policies, regulations and practices that outlined how DOC staff can help inmates seeking medical parole in getting a physician's diagnosis or developing a medical parole plan. We also wanted to know how many inmates had been helped by DOC staff or third-party vendors. Next slide. The EOPPS response was no response. And I just want to note that under the CMR medical parole plan, a comprehensive written medical ‑‑ excuse me, next slide ‑‑ comprehensive medical and psychosocial care plan specific to an inmate and including but not limited to one, the proposed course of treatment, two, the proposed site for treatment and post treatment care "home plan" 3, documentation that medical providers qualified to provide the medical services identified in the medical parole plan are prepared to provide such services and four, the financial program in place to cover the cost of the plan for the duration of the medical parole which shall include eligibility for enrollment in commercial insurance, Medicare or Medicaid or other government benefits or access to other adequate financial resources for the duration of the medical parole." So that is the summary of the response that we received from EOPPS and DOC in our letter that Chair Day and I sent earlier this year. We do not have any more individuals testifying, so going to hand it over to Chair Day. I thank the people who testified today. It was very powerful. 
>> Chair Day: Thank you, Chair Eldridge. This will conclude today's oversight hearing, as indicated earlier. Tomorrow we will take up correctional officer welfare and then turn to the operations at Bridgewater State Hospital with additional slates of witnesses. With that, I will conclude today's hearing and look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. 
(Hearing concluded at 1:39 p.m.)