20161111-151752-82

o Meeting with Second Suffolk and Middlesex District of Massachusetts State Senator William Brownsberger (MA Senate) to discuss project timeline, engagement of advocacy groups, and policy framework development.
o Meeting with advocacy roundtable (various community based organizations) to discuss project timeline, decision-making process, and policy proposals.
o Meeting with 1st Middlesex and Norfolk District of Massachusetts State Senator Cynthia Creem (MA Senate) to discuss the project timeline and policy framework development.
o Meeting with Senate President Stan Rosenberg's staff (MA Senate, Hampshire 3rd district) to discuss project timeline and policy framework development.
o Meeting with MA Steering Committee Co-chairs to discuss project timeline, advocacy engagement, and policy framework development.
o Meeting with MA House Speaker Robert DeLeo's (19th Suffolk district) staff to discuss project timeline and policy proposals and policy framework development.
o Meeting with ACLU to discuss project timeline, policy proposals, and data analysis.
o Meeting with Commissioner Thomas Turco and Commissioner Carol Mici (Department of Corrections) to project timeline, community supervision, and policy framework development.
o Meeting with District Attorney Michael O'Keefe (Cape & Islands District) to discuss project timeline, community supervision, the upcoming behavioral health workshop, and policy framework development.
o Meeting with Secretary Daniel Bennett (Executive office of Public Safety) to discuss project timeline, pretrial/recidivism analysis, and initial parole analysis findings.
o Meeting with Chief Justice Ralph Gants and Chief Justice Paula Carey (MA Supreme Court) to discuss project timeline, policy framework development, pretrial/recidivism analysis, and community supervision.

• 9/2- Call with Senior Policy Manager Heather Rossi (MA Office of Medicaid, MassHealth) to discuss the upcoming Behavioral Workshop meeting.
• 9/12- Call with policy analyst Dave Ryan (Middlesex, MA Sheriff's Office) to give an update on the project and discuss policy options.
• 9/14- Call with Policy Research Manager Megan French-Marcelin (ACLU) and Director Rahsaan Hall (Racial Justice Program, ACLU of MA) to discuss racial disparity analysis within our research and policy options in Massachusetts.
• 9/21- Call with MA Sheriffs Association- Sheriff Koutoujian, Sheriff Cousins, Sheriff McDonald, Jim Walsh (executive director), Dave Ryan (Policy Analyst, Middlesex Sheriffs' Office), and John Birtwell (Director of Public Information &IT of Plymouth County)- to discuss slides from the parole/probation presentation.
• 9/22- Call with MA Co-Chairs - Chief legal counsel Lon Povich (MA office of the Governor), Second Suffolk and Middlesex District of Massachusetts Senator William Brownsberger (MA Senate), 10th Worcester District State Representative John Fernandes (MA House), and Chief Justice Paula Carey (Trial Court, MA Judicial Branch)- to discuss policy framework and options.
• 9/22- Call with MassHealth- Senior policy manager Heather Rossi, Chief Scott Taberner (Behavioral health and supportive care), and Interim Bureau Director Jennifer Barrelle (Bureau of Substance Abuse Services) - to discuss the upcoming Behavioral Health workshop on Oct. 7th.
• 9/23- Call with MassHealth {Senior Policy Manager Heather Rossi, Chief Scott Taberner (Behavioral health and supportive care), and Interim Bureau Director Jennifer Barrelle (Bureau of Substance Abuse Services)} and Commissioner ED Dolan (MA office of Probation) to discuss the Behavioral Health workshop on October 7th and policy options.
• 9/23- Call with Dr. Debra Pinals (Assistant Commissioner, MA department of Mental Health) to plan for the upcoming Behavioral Health Workshop on Oct. 7th.
• 9/28- Call with Judge Marianne Hinkle (MA District Court, Middlesex County) to discuss the progress of the project.
• 9/29- Call with Ben Forman (Research Director) from MassINC to discuss the upcoming November working group, during which CSG plans to include discuss the developing analysis of race in the criminal justice system.

Data analysis for the month of September focused on the parole/re-entry analysis during the first half of the month and community supervision during the last half of the month. Analysis on parole and re-entry involved parole hearing decision data and DOC/HOC release data, as well as programming and classification in DOC. This analysis helped to inform policy development around parole as well as the next working group presentation to be held in mid-October. Findings suggested that delays and lack of coordination between DOC and the parole board is resulting in a missed opportunity for reductions in the prison population as well as increasing the number of people released to parole supervision. Within DOC, a considerable number of people are ineligible for parole due to the structure of their sentences. Within HOCs, nearly half of the parole-eligible population waive or postpone their hearings and are never seen by the parole board. These factors are driving the overall number of people released from incarceration without supervision.

During the last half of the month, data analysis shifted to begin an examination of community supervision in Massachusetts, including probation, parole, and community corrections. This analysis will eventually help to inform further policy development and the final data-rich working group presentation. Still early on in the process, work mainly involved cleaning the data and preparing for further analysis. The goals for analyzing community supervision data include length of stay on probation and parole, revocation process and rates, and utilization of community corrections.

• (9/6) - Analysis of parole hearing decision trends over time, including parole hearings held and waived/postponed at HOC and DOC from FY2007 to FY2015. Trends indicate that the overall number of hearings declined at HOC and remained steady at DOC, a reflection in the overall trends in population in these two settings. Positive votes both in number and proportion declined at DOC, while denied votes have increased. At HOC, the number of people waiving their parole hearing has increased considerably in recent years.
• (9/9) - Analysis of parole hearings data matched to DOC and HOC release data, including a comparison of the number of people released with a positive parole vote vs. the number of people released to parole supervision. This analysis highlights and confirms what we've heard from stakeholders, that not all people receiving a positive parole vote end up on parole supervision for a variety of reasons.
• (9/13) - Analysis of DOC programming data looking at participation and completion of programs prior to release. Analysis included a breakdown of program participation by custody level, indicating that people released from higher security levels were less likely to have participated in programs.
• (9/15) - Re-ran analysis of earliest parole eligibility dates following feedback from parole board research staff, to include earliest release date (ERD) as reported by the parole board rather than by DOC. This adjustment resulted in a much higher proportion of parole eligible releases having their initial parole hearing prior to eligibility, rather than following parole eligibility.
• (9/17) - Analysis of recidivism outcomes by various release types at DOC - release to parole only, parole and probation, probation only, and no post release supervision. The definition of recidivism included re-conviction and/or re-incarceration three years out from release. Findings suggest that people on all types of supervision, but particularly on parole supervision, have higher re-incarceration rates due to technical revocations. Re-conviction rates are lower for people on supervision.
• (9/19) - Analysis of what the impact would be on the number of people released to parole if issues around sentencing and parole processes were addressed, highlighting the potential decline in the population released to no post release supervision. Sentencing issues that are noted include the window of parole eligibility (difference between min and max sentence) while parole processes include parole grants not released to parole supervision and people who waive parole hearings without a prior denial.
• (9/27) - Data cleaning and analysis of statewide probation data. Merged charge information with probation case data and analyzed trends regarding probation admissions and terminations over the last five years. Within admissions, identified trends among types of probation - administrative, pre-trial, OUI, risk/need.
• (9/28) - Cleaning of probation data by deleting out duplicate transfer records and other obsoletes. Created separate pre-trial probation file and "post-sentence" probation files by selecting probation types. Merged probation data with HOC admissions and terminations in efforts to calculate the time spent in HOC while on probation, since probation records are left open the time during incarceration. This will ultimately be a method to identify split sentences. Analysis included only people starting probation in FY2012-FY2014 and selected one individual per year, for easier matching of files.

• New Boston Post – Criminal Justice Panel Working Toward Year-End Policy Debate