Criminal Justice Reform in Massachusetts: A Five-Year Progress Assessement Release

The presentation and report recommendations were discussed by a panel of experts steeped in knowledge of the system from multiple angles.

Moderator Jenifer McKim guided a conversation around what elements of the report stood out, and what concerns rose to the top for each panelist. There was much overlap: The improvements following removal of mandatory minimum sentences on low-level crimes and the expansion, if modest, of restorative justice practices were welcomed by all. The findings on racial disparities—while perhaps not surprising—were striking in their clarity. Arnie Lucinda Stewart from the Public Defender Division, who’d also been a D.C. police officer early in her career, spoke for all in saying, “We’ve got to look at root causes for the disparities and be prepared to have an action plan to deal with those causes.” That means the causes within the criminal justice system and those that foster inequities for people before they tumble into the system.

UTEC CEO Greg Croteau agreed, and pointed to the high potential for good outcomes in focusing on emerging adults. His organization tries especially “to work with the 10 percent who are involved in 90 percent of the action on the street.” Investment in reentry preparation for 18–25-year-olds, Croteau believes, offers the highest returns in terms of reducing recidivism. His UTEC colleague Paul Chaleunphong sharpened this point by sharing his recent work with a client due to be released in two weeks. The client was intensely anxious about where he would go and what he would do upon release. Not every returning citizen is able to access a UTEC-type support program, and many people are released straight from maximum security to the outside.

Probation Commissioner Pamerson Ifill shared his office’s appreciation for the organizations like UTEC that support people leaving incarceration. “The lifeblood and strength of Probation is to collaborate and leverage community resources,” he said. And he amplified Attorney Stewart’s call for a deeper look behind the data. “The kind of data we had in 2018 wasn’t enough. We ‘ve been trying to build new systems to understand more than supervision, but also outcomes data.”

Removing mandatory minimum sentencing on the front end and increasing transitional housing and employment support on the back end of the criminal justice process appear to be promising moves for improving outcomes. As comments and questions from the audience suggested, the middle of the process also needs investment and attention. Chaleunphong affirmed this in moving statements about his own experience. “When the 2018 reform bill passed,” he said, “I was just walking out of [MCI] Norfolk.” He appreciated the advocates and lawmakers in the room who had pushed for the reform. But above all, he remembered the advice of a “lifer” who urged him to take advantage of rehabilitative programming when he was transferred from a maximum security facility to Norfolk. “Being in a supermax like Souza with no way to get home is heartbreaking,” he said. “It’s dehumanizing and chaotic because of a lack of resources. But programming can build up inmates’ self-esteem and value, and they can help others.”