Removal of supervision fees reduces barriers to re-entry and rehabilitation that disproportionately affect people of color. This will also streamline the parole process by reducing administrative costs, increasing efficiency. The Boston Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Reform Working Group recommended the elimination of supervision fees in their report in 2017. This report was so compelling that the late Chief Justice Ralph Gants of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said the report was “required reading for anyone considering criminal justice reform in Massachusetts” in his 2017 State of the Judiciary Address. Notably, the Parole Board has requested this recommendation to be implemented as a part of the FY2023 budget process, as there is no evidence that the fees have any positive effect towards reducing recidivism.

The Registry of Motor Vehicles charges a fee for processing a driver’s license application. This fee adds an additional obstacle for individuals as they prepare for release, as well as an additional challenge that DOC must overcome. Removing this fee will streamline the process of release and help to alleviate the effects of wealth disparities between incarcerated individuals.

Additional funding towards transitional housing and revocation diversion programming for low-income individuals will aid in reducing recidivism by providing more safe and stable housing for parolees upon release, and will help to address income-related obstacles that disproportionately affect people of color.

In addition to fees/fines, successful re-entry into the community requires parolees to follow strict conditions of parole. In addition to complying with technical conditions (the full list of most common technical violations is included later in this report) parolees are expected to have a stable and safe home plan, find and maintain approved employment or schooling/training, be able to transport themselves to meet with parole officers at any given time, and in certain cases enroll in counseling or other programming required by the parole board and/or parole officers.

These conditions are intended to promote a safe and stable environment for parolees upon release. Certain conditions however, are difficult to meet for low-income parolees that lack substantial family support, such as finding and maintaining employment and securing an approved home plan. These conditions are especially challenging for parolees of color, who on average have less wealth and face more difficulty finding employment after incarceration. Parole conditions and violations will be discussed further later in this report.

Increased funding for sober housing and re-entry navigators will help address the persistent issues of alcoholism and substance use disorder that obstruct successful re-entry. Investments in services that support and improve conditions for maintaining sobriety are necessary to reduce recidivism. Parolees of color, especially those with substance use issues, are less likely to have the financial resources and support necessary for successful transition back into society

Another condition of parole is a requirement to maintain legitimate employment. This poses a challenge for incarcerated individuals, who can have difficulty finding employment after incarceration. Job attainment and average earnings after incarceration differ substantially by race in Massachusetts; Black and Hispanic/Latino individuals on average have lower earnings and more difficulty finding employment after incarceration than White individuals in Massachusetts, according to a Harvard University study. Furthermore, according to the Boston Bar Association’s criminal justice working group “when an individual is convicted of a crime, the fact of the conviction itself can create a stigma that helps drive recidivism.” Improving financial incentives for employers to hire ex-offenders will alleviate disparities for incarcerated individuals of color who tend to have increased difficulty finding employment upon release by expanding opportunities for employment.

Currently, there is no statutory burden of proof requirement for conditions set upon parolees. Certain technical conditions have a disproportionate effect on people of color, without demonstrating significant evidence that the condition prevents recidivism. As an example, one condition of parole prohibits parolees from interacting with individuals with a criminal history. It is important to note that this condition has been amended over time to allow parolees to interact with those with a criminal history if this interaction is incidental to their approved place of work, home plan, and/or with activities of a bonafide political or social organization.

Nevertheless, this condition even as amended is more difficult for Black and Hispanic/Latino individuals who are more likely to have family members (who may not be part of their approved home plan) that have a criminal history. Furthermore, the parole board retains the power to impose special conditions to limit these interactions. This condition's current language demonstrates that standard conditions cannot always take into account specific needs or circumstances of the individuals that they regulate, and can disproportionately affect parolees of color.

By eliminating standard conditions and instead, requiring conditions to be designed to address the individual needs of the parolee and their circumstances, the Parole Board can reduce the unintended consequences of standardized conditions that disproportionately occur for people of color and create a more individualized, needs-based approach to re-entry.

As indicated above, the most frequent parole violations in 2020 were for substance use related issues. The Commission found that the Parole Board is integral in creating case management plans for parolees which often means that Parole Board members make recommendations or set conditions around mental health services and substance use. Accordingly, more expertise on the Parole Board in the fields of behavioral health and substance use can help in promoting re-entry plans that address these concerns using medical standards and best practices.

Requiring that a member of the Parole Board has themselves completed the parole process and has had successful re-entry will ensure diversity of experience and representation from an individual who understands how parole operates in practice for the person under supervision.

Cultural competency and structural racism education and training will help address implicit biases that affect treatment and management of incarcerated individuals and parolees of color. Transitional service unit (TSU) employees are responsible for creating case plans and helping to prepare individuals for their parole hearings, and for life after prison. This makes TSU employees integral to the success of incarcerated individuals being released. Cultural competency and structural racism training will help address implicit bias and promote equitable treatment. The Commission acknowledges that some parole staff currently do receive training

While Black and Hispanic/Latino individuals made up about half of those under supervision in 2020, the Parole workforce is only 18% non-White.42 Less than 10% of field parole officers are Black or Latino. Civil service also influences hiring challenges in this regard. In recent years, the Parole Board has engaged in efforts to improve equitable treatment and diversity, however given that the workforce does not reflect the diversity of the clients they serve, the Commission recommends that Parole establishes an initiative to address this. If additional resources are needed to implement strategies to diversify workforce personnel, the Parole Board should work with the legislature to secure these needs. The Parole Board should include updates to their workforce diversity initiative in their annual report.

This recommendation will standardize protocols for recording of parole hearings for all parolees.

• Parole violations broken down by race/ethnicity, gender, and type of violation

• Parole revocations and cause of revocation and demographics of the individuals

• The race/ethnicity of the individuals on parole who are returned to prison for a preliminary hearing on an alleged technical parole violation

• The race/ethnicity of the individuals who are found to have violated a technical condition of parole at a final revocation hearing and are returned to prison

• The race/ethnicity of persons found to have committed a disciplinary infraction after parole is granted

• Race/ethnicity of the workforce of DOC and HOCs, broken down by department

• Race/ethnicity for parole eligible individuals who choose to forego the parole process compared to those who choose to see parole

• The average time between the parole eligibility date, the parole release hearing, the parole decision date, and the actual release date, disaggregated by race/ethnicity and gender, and disaggregated by house of correction prisoner, non-lifer state prisoner and lifers

• The average time between a positive parole vote and the time the client is released into supervision

• The percentage of people with positive votes who are not released on parole

• The percentage of people taken into custody (after a parole violation) before they have a revocation hearing

Additionally, DOC and HOC must report on the percentage of individuals who have had parole revoked and are returned to custody for technical violations that are not associated with criminal activity.

In addition to this, Houses of Correction must collect and publish the paroling rates by race/ethnicity (to align with annual reporting on paroling rates by race/ethnicity conducted by DOC and the Parole Board).

The Commission estimates that allocating an additional $100,00046 to the Parole Board, DOC, and HOCs each will help meet these requests and bolster their data collection software, whether through existing use of the State Parole Integrated Record and Information Tracking (SPIRIT) or new software. The Commission acknowledges that the Justice Reinvestment Oversight Board is working in this area, and we suggest they take this Commission’s recommendations into consideration in their deliberations. Further data collection will allow for more clarity on disparities and a deeper understanding of parole in both the DOC and Houses of Correction.

The Commission found that because the Parole Board is independent of other agencies, conditions set for parolees at hearings are not always able to be met because of limitations or conditions at DOC or EOPSS that may change daily. For example, as a requisite for parole, an incarcerated individual may be required to complete one month in a minimum security facility, despite not being eligible due to DOC classification. To ensure that the conditions that the Parole Board sets for incarcerated individuals are able to be met by DOC, the Commission recommends having a representative from DOC present for meetings to verify that DOC can meet the requirements set for the incarcerated individual. This recommendation also applies to Houses of Correction, where the Commission also received evidence supporting the need to improve communication between the Parole Board and facilities.

Issuing a more detailed Record of Decision to non-lifer parolees will give those who are denied parole more detailed information on programs and activities that they can participate in to become a better candidate for parole in the future. The instructions provided from parole should consider DOC and HOCs programming availability.

Currently, polygraph testing is sometimes imposed as a special condition of parole. While the use of polygraph testing is minimal in Massachusetts, there is little scientific consensus around the reliability of polygraph testing. In the vast majority of cases, polygraph testing should not be used. However, some evidence suggests that polygraph testing should be permitted for sex offenders. Therefore to comply with existing research, the Commission recommends only using polygraph testing in case of sex offenders. Evidence from a polygraph test should not be the sole or main reason to revoke parole. Regular review of the research in this area is warranted.

The Commission found that currently, decisions for lifer cases take close to 9 months to be made. For expedited decision lifers typically wait 5 to 6 months for a decision. Across parole boards there has been no standard timeline to issue parole decisions. Setting standard timeframes for parole decisions ensures that decisions are carried out in a reasonable period of time. Section 7 of Chapter 27 of the General Laws demonstrates legislative intent to take reasonable steps to have parole board decisions issued within 60 days and outlines the process for ensuring that caseloads are met in a timely fashion