Advocates, incarcerated people urge five‑year moratorium on new jail and prison construction in Massachusetts

Dozens of incarcerated people, formerly incarcerated residents, health professionals and community organizers told the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight on May 12 that the state should pause building new jails and prisons and redirect funds into housing, mental‑health and reentry services.

The committee heard live testimony from people housed at MCI Framingham and MCI Shirley and from community groups and experts. Speakers repeatedly cited a proposed $50,000,000 plan to build a new women’s facility and called for a five‑year moratorium on new jail and prison construction while the state studies decarceration and community alternatives.

Those calls matter because, advocates said, Massachusetts’s prison population has dropped in recent years while per‑person incarceration costs remain high and many people behind bars have unmet mental‑health, addiction and housing needs that incarceration does not address.

“MCI Framingham is not the problem,” Julia Enright, identified in the hearing as testifying from the women’s prison, told the committee. “I would say we definitely do not need prisons.” Maria Thompson, who also testified from Framingham, asked rhetorically, “Is a $50,000,000 new prison really the best option and use of taxpayer money?” and urged investments in community supports instead of new facilities. Kirsten Smith, an incarcerated person at Framingham, told the committee, “There are currently only about 225 women incarcerated here at Framingham.”

Former and current inmates described deteriorating conditions and limited programming. James Cowan, testifying from MCI Shirley, said the physical design of prisons — “an abundance of razor wire, fences, cameras, concrete, and steel” — shapes a punitive culture and argued officials should move “past outdated forms of corrections and develop a modern system of supervision and rehabilitation.” Derek Washington, who has testified on the bill before, described a “penumbra of misery” inside facilities and urged legislators to visit prisons before making construction decisions.

Public‑health experts and clinicians backed the moratorium. Dr. Christine Mitchell, a public‑health researcher, noted that incarceration is associated with worse health outcomes and said repairs that address urgent needs should be permitted while the moratorium pauses new construction so the Commonwealth can invest in community‑based health, housing and addiction services.

Community organizations — including Families for Justice as Healing and Progressive Massachusetts — and faith leaders urged redirecting construction funding into reentry programs, low‑barrier housing, workforce development and trauma‑informed care. Jonathan Cohen of Progressive Massachusetts told the committee, “Prisons and jails are good at creating cycles of trauma and are not good at creating public safety or community well‑being.”

Speakers pressed the committee on specific policy changes they said would reduce the need for new beds: increasing use of pre‑release centers, expanding medical and geriatric parole, improving classification and prerelease processes, and strengthening community treatment capacity for mental illness and substance use disorders. Multiple witnesses asked the committee to prioritize releases for people who are elderly or medically unwell.

The hearing did not include a committee vote. Committee co‑chairs and members listened and asked speakers to submit written testimony for the record. No formal action on the bills was taken on May 12.

The testimony highlighted several recurring details for the committee’s consideration: the commonly cited $50,000,000 planning figure for a new facility; the claim by multiple witnesses that Framingham currently houses “about 225” women; and divergent per‑person cost figures offered by witnesses during testimony. Advocates urged the legislature to use the moratorium window to produce transparent analyses of bed needs, alternatives to incarceration and the costs and benefits of community investment versus construction.

The committee paused public testimony and allowed a separate panel later in the hearing to discuss a different bill, but planned to resume consideration of the moratorium after finishing that panel. No vote was taken and no directive to staff was announced during the hearing.

Many witnesses asked the committee to move quickly to report the moratorium out of committee favorably and to prioritize decarceration measures that would enable people who are elderly, medically frail or eligible for parole to return to the community. The record of the hearing will be supplemented by written testimony filed with the committee.