Among the key points addressed in the report:

• Most women in the jails are classified as pre-trial, most often spending a few days, weeks or months in the jail (occasionally longer.) Sentenced women spend, on average, several months in jail.
  • If a woman’s conviction merits a few months of jail, it likely isn’t serious enough in terms of community safety to warrant incarceration, which is disruptive and expensive to all concerned.
  • Data are not yet available regarding the make-up of the “pre-trial” population. However, we consistently were told by Sherriff’s Department staff that a major portion of the “pre-trial” population comprises women held due to probation violations, not to new charges.
• Sheriffs have a great deal of authority to release many of the people under their supervision on day reporting and GPS monitoring. However, they make little use of these options.
• Women in county jails trend younger than women in prison. Most women in county jail are in their childbearing and childrearing years.
  • Even short periods of incarceration have adverse consequences for women and their families. These include disruptions in medication and relationships with healthcare providers and shifting children into the care of others, including the foster care system, as well as loss of housing and employment.
• Massachusetts does not collect data on issues of key concern to women. For example, despite the CJRA requirement we are still waiting for data on the number of women who are pregnant.
• Nearly all women in county jails suffer from chronic mental and physical health challenges. Jails are not well-equipped to manage these problems.
  • Jails are increasingly serving as back-up solutions for unhoused and ill people.
  • There is abundant research showing that incarceration does not have rehabilitative value for women.
• At the current time three county jails have pre-release “centers” that prepare women for re-entry.
  • These centers provide intensive re-entry preparation, including opportunities for some women to obtain jobs through work-release programs.
  • None of these centers are fully occupied.
  • Women should be offered the option of serving their time in one of these three pre-release jails instead of a regular jail.
  • Although judges can’t order a person to a certain program in the jails (the jails are under the sheriff’s authority), judges could recommend it.

I welcome the Globe’s attention to the intransigence of the state Department of Correction. Let’s include the county sheriffs while we’re at it.

Sheriffs incarcerate thousands of people who have been sentenced for up to two and a half years or who are awaiting trial. Many of these people are simply too poor to post bail. Sheriffs operate with even less oversight than the DOC, have a history of ignoring mandatory reporting requirements, and some accept ethically dubious campaign donations.

Their term of office is six years and they often run unopposed, limiting public scrutiny and accountability. Sheriffs’ budgets keep getting bigger even as the number of people in their custody continues to drop.

Massachusetts is unusual because sheriffs operate at the county level but have no county government to answer to. One way to address the lingering problems with jails is for police and district attorneys to maintain the recent practice of declining to arrest and prosecute people for low-level crimes and technical violations of probation, thereby limiting the number of people exposed to the inherent harms of incarceration.

Rachel Roth

Arlington