Efforts to make inmates in county jails pay room-and-board and other fees continue to march forward in the state budget—but not without considerable resistance from activists and criticism from some Valley sheriffs.
In late May, the state Senate approved a budget amendment that would allow sheriffs at the state’s 14 county jails to collect a portion of an inmate’s earnings from jailhouse or work-release jobs to pay for their daily costs, medical visits and other services. State Sen. Gale Candaras, a Wilbraham Democrat, was one of four co-sponsors of that amendment.
A few weeks earlier, the House passed its own budget amendment that would allow sheriffs to charge a $5 daily fee, as well as additional fees for certain medical and other services. Both the House and Senate versions call for any outstanding debt to be forgiven two years after release, if the person stays out of jail during that time.
The Senate had defeated an amendment that called for the same fee schedule as the House amendment. Instead, senators approved an amendment that would still allow prisoner fees—including daily “custodial care” charges, and fees for medical and dental visits, eyeglasses and prescription drugs—but does not specify amounts. Certain kinds of health care would be exempt from the fees, including treatment for contagious diseases, emergency care, and prenatal care for pregnant inmates. The amendment also states that no inmate would be denied medical care because of an inability to pay, an allowance also made in the House amendment.
Under the Senate amendment, 25 percent of the total fees collected would be earmarked for a “cognitive-behavioral treatment program” for inmates to develop “moral reasoning skills.”
The House version calls for the fees to be taken from an inmate’s so-called “canteen accounts,” which are used to buy snacks, personal products and other small items. Critics of the plan note that those accounts are typically stocked by inmates’ families or significant others, who, in fact, would be the ones who end up paying the fees. The Senate version apparently tries to address that concern, calling instead for the fees to come from income earned by inmates in jail or work-release jobs, and capping the amount that they would have to pay at 10 percent of their earnings.
Both amendments now head to the joint legislative conference committee, which will reconcile differences between the House and Senate budgets. A final budget will also need the approval of Gov. Deval Patrick.
The push to charge inmate fees began with Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson, who instituted a fee program at his jail in 2002.
A group of inmates filed a lawsuit challenging the policy, and in January, the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court ruled that only the Legislature—not a sheriff—has the authority to charge inmates. So Hodgson and other sheriffs appealed to lawmakers, asking them to create a law that would allow them to charge fees.
Not all sheriffs are on board, however. Robert Garvey, Hampshire County’s sheriff, recently told the Advocate that he considers the effort “very shallow thinking” that will put undue pressure on poor inmates—and their families, who would, in fact, end up paying the fees. He also described the fees as overly punitive, and counterproductive to what he considers his primary job: helping prepare inmates for positive, productive lives after their release.
Those concerns are echoed by Hampden County Sheriff Mike Ashe. “With everything else that works against an individual as he’s trying to re-enter society successfully, if he’s got this other debt, it’s a tremendous financial challenge,” Rich McCarthy, Ashe’s spokesperson, told the Advocate. “For someone to return to their family and try to be self-sustaining and support their family, to add this on just makes it that much more difficult.”
To some criminal justice reformers, the results of the Senate budget process, while unwelcome, could have been even worse.
In a call to supporters, Lois Ahrens, director of the Northampton-based Real Costs of Prisons Project (www.realcostofprisons.org), noted that if the Senate had passed the amendment that mirrored the House amendment, the conference committee would likely have simply agreed to the fee schedule set in both amendments.
Instead, because there are enough differences in the details of the two amendments, the committee will have to craft a reconciled version—or, Ahrens and others hope, kill the proposal completely.
“The conference committee is the final and only place where the budget amendments can be defeated,” Ahrens wrote in an action alert to activists. “An effort will be made by the supporters of the Amendment passed in the House and the one passed in the [Senate] to form one Amendment combining them both so that they can be signed into law.”
The conference committee is expected to complete its work by the middle of this month—leaving opponents of the fee program without much time to bring their case to lawmakers. The Real Cost of Prisons Project is calling on people who oppose the policy to contact legislators who will play key roles in the conference committee. They include state Rep. Charles Murphy, a Burlington Democrat and chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, a Lowell Democrat and chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee. The vice chairs of those committees—who will also be part of the conference committee—are, respectively, Rep. Barbara L’Italien (D-Andover) and Sen. Stephen Brewer, a Democrat whose district includes parts of Hampden, Hampshire and Franklin counties.
Interestingly, Murphy, the House Ways and Means chair, initially voted in support of the House amendment on May 29. That amendment came to a second vote the following day, however, after some House members complained it was being rushed; while it passed again the second time, the amendment did lose a number of supporters, including Murphy, who cast a “no” vote on May 30. L’Italien, the vice chair, voted for the amendment both times.
In Hampshire County, where the local sheriff opposes the fee, two state reps, Ellen Story and Peter Kocot, voted against the budget amendment, while one, John Scibak, voted for it. Even more dramatically, while Hampden Sheriff Mike Ashe is against the fee policy, only one of the county’s 12 representatives—Springfield’s Ben Swan—voted against it.
In Franklin County, Rep. Christopher Donelan voted against the amendment, while Rep. Steven Kulik voted for it. Only one Berkshire representative—Smitty Pignatelli—voted in favor of the amendment, while Reps. Dan Bosley, Denis Guyer and Christopher Speranzo were all opposed.
The Senate voted on the inmate fee amendment by voice vote, not roll call, meaning there’s no public list of how individual senators voted.
