New articles: Prisons in the Commonwealth
This week, SUMMER MAXWELL tells us about a controversy at Bridgewater State Hospital and oversight by the Department of Corrections. AMANDA WESTLAKE shares a story about activists who are determined that Massachusetts should not be building more prisons.
Thanks for reading!
Eitan Hersh
Bridgewater State Hospital in Hot Water Regarding Oversight
Advocates and families clash with pro-status quo government forces to transfer the hospital out of the hands of the Department of Corrections
Summer Maxwell
On a quiet Monday evening, parents and grandparents from across Massachusetts gather to share their stories. They all have one thing in common: they have a loved one currently being served at Bridgewater State Hospital (BSH), the state facility for those facing involuntary mental health treatment or awaiting a pretrial mental health evaluation.
One by one the family members take turns expressing their grief with strained voices, wringing their hands. “It’s just been grueling,” says a couple whose grandson is currently at the hospital. “He’s been there eight plus years, and I’ve seen his health, physical health, deteriorate.” The couple—who asked to remain anonymous to protect their grandson— are not the only critics of Bridgewater State Hospital.
This past July, the Disability Law Center (DLC), the group appointed by the state to monitor reforms at the hospital, released its second report of the year condemning the physical conditions of Bridgwater, including the presence of mold and asbestos, and claims that involuntary physical restraint and injection of chemical restraints into patients are not being administered in compliance with state law.
This wasn’t the first time the hospital ran into trouble. In 2014 the facility faced intense scrutiny following a lawsuit regarding the 2009 death of a patient named Joshua Messier. Messier’s death, caught on camera, raised serious questions about the use of force and presence of Department of Corrections (DOC) officers within the facility.
After the lawsuit, Governor Charlie Baker enacted sweeping reforms, including reducing the role of the DOC to policy oversight and external security, and bringing in a new private contractor, Wellpath. The correctional health services contractor had a murky past, including over 1,000 lawsuits involving substandard care, and has been correlated with higher rates of inmate mortality than publicly managed health services.
Advocates argue that regardless of who is operating Bridgewater State, oversight lies at the root of the hospital’s chronic issues. That’s why many mental health advocates want management to be transferred from the DOC to the Department of Mental Health (DMH).
A shift in oversight seems like a logical one for a state that devotes over $2 billion each year to behavioral healthcare. So why is the governor fighting tooth and nail against this change?
Advocacy Groups Make Their Case for Change
On paper, the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Corrections share some objectives. Both of their missions include language around avoiding punitive measures, such as patient seclusion and restraint, and keeping their wards safe. The difference in emphasis, however, highlights cultural differences between the two departments.
Mental health advocates agree that DMH’s policies align better with the needs of people with mental illness. DMH policy focuses on the establishment of a “therapeutic and healing environment” necessary to treat patients. According to the Disability Law Center’s report condemning Bridgewater earlier this year, the DMH also has superior regulations concerning staff training and a more developed de-escalation policy. “Bridgewater State Hospital should not be under the authority of a correctional agency,” says Tatum Pritchard, the interim commissioner for the Disability Law Center. Pritchard notes that moving oversight to the DMH would mean better behavioral health outcomes for patients because the department must comply with state law–especially regarding restraint and seclusion–that the report claims is currently being violated at Bridgewater.
Other advocates agree with Pritchard’s assessment. The National Alliance on Mental Illness of Massachusetts (NAMI), a group that works to support individuals with mental illness across the state, pointed out that Massachusetts is one of just a few states that puts people facing involuntary mental health treatment or awaiting a pretrial mental health evaluation under the Department of Corrections rather than the Department of Mental Health.
NAMI’s policy director Jaqueline Hubbard takes issue with the state’s categorization of Bridgewater, saying “DMH regulations and policies align more with how individuals with mental health conditions should be treated.”
Defenders of the Status Quo
The Department of Corrections and Governor Baker have pushed back hard against a change in oversight, likely to avoid embarrassment and save jobs.
In March of this year, DOC Commissioner Carol Mici released a statement defending the DOC’s oversight of Bridgewater. She stated that the Disability Law Center’s critiques stem from a “mischaracterization” of how the DOC uses restraint, and claimed that Bridgewater is operated to the same standards “applicable to a behavioral health facility.” Mici also provided data that since the Baker administration’s 2017 reforms, both the time spent in restraints and seclusion by prisoners plummeted.
Gov. Baker has attempted to roadblock efforts for change by vetoing the funding for the DLC’s oversight of Bridgewater for the past three years in a row. Baker recently backed the DOC by attempting to gut a recent law that allows some inmates under DOC care to petition to be transferred to DMH.
Baker has stood steadfastly by Bridgwater since he overhauled the system in 2017. He said in his 2022 State of the Commonwealth address that bringing in Wellpath “brought care and compassion to Bridgewater State Hospital.” Legitimizing the issues that persist at Bridgewater by supporting the transition might undermine Baker’s apparent success.
DOC unions also have fought against a change in oversight. Former state legislator Guy Glodis, who lobbied for the Massachusetts Correction Officers Federated Union, successfully argued against passing a 2017 bill to transfer the hospital from the DOC by citing safety concerns, arguing the DOC plays a critical role in maintaining the security of the hospital. “People are going to come back and hold this legislature accountable for putting some of the most dangerous and heinous criminals in the hands of non-D.O.C. and not people that are trained for security measures,” Glodis warned at the time. Keeping the oversight under the DOC would also maintain the jobs of DOC staff at the hospital.
Action at the Statehouse
The state legislature may end up deciding the fate of the hospital. Representative Ruth Balser, who sides with the patient advocates, introduced a bill in 2021 to officially transfer Bridgwater’s oversight to the Department of Mental Health. Balser agrees that the DOC isn’t qualified to care for patients at Bridgewater. “You want a cardiologist to take care of a heart patient,” she says. “You want psychiatrists and psychologists and social workers to take care of mentally ill people.”
As Governor Baker steps down, Balser is more optimistic about her proposed legislation. “We’re gonna have a new governor next year,” she said. “It’s not impossible the new administration will view these issues differently than this past administration has.”
Attorney General Maura Healey, the favorite to fill Baker’s seat, has yet to take a firm stance on the issue. Karissa Hand, a spokesperson for the Healey campaign, only confirmed that as governor, “Maura will take the necessary steps to ensure that all patients of state-run facilities, including Bridgewater State Hospital, are cared for appropriately and treated with respect.”
If Healey maintains the status quo, she may face another crisis at Bridgewater State, which could be politically beneficial since research has shown voters reward disaster relief over prevention.
Families Can’t Wait for the Next Crisis
Back with the parents and grandparents with loved ones at Bridgewater State Hospital, state inaction is excruciating.
Lubka Keltcheva, whose son is at the hospital, finds the Disability Law Center’s reports concerning because when determining the cause of her son’s mental health struggles, Keltcheva’s son’s tested positive for mold exposure. “Now he’s placed again in a moldy environment,” she said. “How do they expect somebody to get better in such an environment?”
Families of patients in Bridgewater State agree that the move to the Department of Mental Health can’t come soon enough. A couple whose grandson has been at Bridgewater for over eight years stated simply: “We need a different facility under the Department of Mental Health.”
Another mother seconded their sentiment: “The DOC is in the business of running a jail. And Bridgewater State Hospital needs to be operated and run like a hospital.”
Should Massachusetts be in the prison building business?
Proposed women’s prison faces abolitionist opposition
Amanda Westlake
At MCI-Framingham, Massachusetts’s only women’s prison, an anonymous incarcerated woman says she feels “lower than a dog,” according to a report released by the Prisoner Legal Services of Massachusetts (PLS) last July. The 77-page report details graphic firsthand accounts of violence, collected anonymously from a survey of incarcerated women. One woman says she experiences “psychological turmoil” from the “constant threat of sexual assault.” Another reports not receiving medication for her depression or bipolar disorder. Assault, harassment, and the use of slurs by correctional officers are common, especially for transgender women and women of color. Few of these incidents are officially reported. The grievance reporting system is not confidential, and women are “scared of retaliation.”
Incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women at MCI-Framingham have long spoken out about allegations of abuse, assault, harassment, and violence. But the prison, which was built in 1877 and is the only women’s prison in Massachusetts, will soon close. Because of the building’s poor condition, it is no longer suitable to house incarcerated people. The decision about what to do with the 196 incarcerated women at MCI-Framingham marks a possible turning point in Massachusetts’s approach to criminal justice.
Since December 2019, the Department of Corrections (DOC) has proceeded with a plan to build a new $40 million prison, but advocates for the incarcerated who have argued for years that building new prisons won’t address the violence inside MA’s facilities, have found strong allies in the state legislature. In August 2022, legislators passed a moratorium bill that would block the construction of new prisons and jails for five years, including MCI-Framingham.
With 5,953 people in MA incarcerated at a cost of over $70,000 per capita, could this be the first step toward the abolition of Massachusetts prisons?
Protesting the Prison
Since the DOC announced its plan to build a new women’s prison, activists have used the proposed construction to push for alternatives to incarceration. Families for Justice as Healing (FJAH) has fought against the proposed new prison for nearly three years. “Women are locked inside, separated from their community, isolated from the people that they love, and constantly exposed to degradation, humiliation, and violence of all forms,” says FJAH director Mallory Hanora. She says that Massachusetts should invest in “community-led solutions–healing, treatment, health care, and mental health care–that women need in their own communities with people that love and care about them.”
Twice, FJAH has used procedural mistakes to successfully stall construction as the state searched for architecture contractors. More recently, they were able to attach the prison moratorium to a larger budget bill which was passed unanimously in the State House. That bill was vetoed by Governor Baker on August 4, but FJAH hopes the legislature overrides the veto in a special session or reintroduces the bill next year.
When he vetoed the bill, Governor Baker hedged. In a statement, he called the moratorium too strict, and said that it would limit the DOC’s ability to renovate and replace aging prisons including MCI-Framingham. As written, he said, the law would “restrict the Department’s ability to maximize operational efficiencies, address environmental hazards in aged facilities, and meet the evolving demands of the inmate population.”
But Baker also made it clear that his administration has “no intention of constructing new correctional facilities now or in the foreseeable future,” and that they additionally do not plan to expand the capacity of prisons.
Apparently, that message has yet to reach Massachusetts’s prison-building system. In June 2021, the Division of Capital and Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM), which oversees the construction of public buildings among other things, contracted prison architecture firm HDR to design and build a new prison. HDR has not released any status updates on the prison, and did not respond to a request for comment.
Hanora, the prisoner rights advocate, questions Baker’s intentions. She described HDR, which was awarded a $550,000 contract, as “one of the largest jail and prison building companies on Earth.” Hanora said that the DOC has not been transparent about the prison building project, and that updates on their work should be public. She said, “Our families and communities are affected by this. Women inside are affected by this. And the state is not being transparent or accountable about what's going on.”
Meanwhile, Baker’s administration commissioned a $250,000 study examining healthier ways to house the state’s incarcerated women. The report, released by the Ripples Group last summer, used data from stakeholders, including incarcerated people, correctional officers, advocates, and legislators to recommend that the state build a new prison that is “trauma-informed” and “gender-responsive.” The proposed “rehabilitation center” would provide updated living conditions and a “college campus feel” for the 150 women currently incarcerated in Framingham.
Hanora described the report as a “signed permission slip” for the state to build a new prison. Sarah Nawab, PLS lawyer and Director of the Women's Incarceration Conditions and Reentry Project, agrees. She warns that if a new prison is built, then “the system will find ways to fill those beds.”
Anti-prison advocates argue that the Ripples Group’s report is narrow-minded and flawed because it did not consider prison alternatives. “There is no such thing as a trauma-informed prison,” says Hanora.
Possible Success for Anti-Prison Advocates
Senator Jamie Eldridge, says that in spite of the lack of legislation, FJAH may have already succeeded in stopping the new prison. Eldridge, who supported the bill, said that in private conversations, Governor Baker, the Executive Office of Public Safety, and the DOC decided against building a new prison to replace MCI-Framingham.
Eldridge added that DCAMM has been at odds with the Baker administration, the DOC, and EOPS about the project, indicating internal conflict within the administration. He said, “There was a good amount of frustration from EOPS and DOC that DCAMM was doing this study that sent a very mixed message to advocates and to legislators about where Governor Baker stands on a new prison.” Eldridge believes that Baker’s administration will move incarcerated women to a renovated facility at Southern Middlesex Correctional Center, a small prison on the grounds of MCI-Framingham.
A representative of EOPS said in a written statement that “no final decisions have been made regarding MCI-Framingham or women’s corrections.”
If the new prison is not built, it would be a major win for FJAH and other abolitionist organizations, but advocates will continue to fight against all forms of incarceration in the state. Instead, Nawab says, taxpayer’s money should be invested in communities. “Job training, funding job opportunities, funding housing, accessible housing, funding treatment and assistance for people suffering substance use disorders—that's what alternatives to incarceration are,” she says.
Hanora continued, “The ground is shifting in Massachusetts and more and more people see that more and better is possible for women and our families than a new prison, or an old prison, or any prison at all. We will continue to fight to free women.”